Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague. Though I obviously would feel more comfortable if funds were appropriated specifically for this purpose, I appreciate my colleague's efforts to accommodate my concerns regarding this important program. medicare-medicaid databank

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, last Thursday I offered an amendment to the omnibus appropriations bill to restore funding for three Federal literacy programs. The Senate will vote on this amendment tomorrow. Adult education and literacy programs are essential to reducing welfare dependency, crime, and unemployment. Yet all Federal, State, and local public and private nonprofit literacy programs combined serve only 10 percent of those in need. Last year, I had the pleasure of meeting with a group of new readers who had recently completed basic literacy programs. These individuals shared with me the difficulties they had faced and how learning how to read and write had changed their lives for the better. I was so struck by their stories that I contacted their Senators encouraging them to meet with their States' new readers. I do not know how many of my colleagues took me up on this offer, but I trust that those who did found this experience as informative and as inspiring as I did. I also asked one of the women who visited me, Elaine Randall, to write out her story, as I thought it was particularly moving. She was kind enough to send it along to me. I ask that her account be printed in the Record. The letter follows: Dear Senator Simon: Thank you for meeting with me and the other adult learners who were in Washington for the National Institute of Literacy (NIFL) work group meeting on July 23-24. These 20 adult learners from around the country met with NIFL staff to open a dialogue on the students' views of literacy policy and practices, and to explore ways to take a more active role in shaping them. We were chosen as participants in this NIFL student work group for our local, state, and national literacy involvement. Besides receiving adult basic education or English as a Second Language instruction, we are student leaders ``giving back''--working towards solutions. We are not the only ones out there doing this. We are only a handful of adult learners who start and lead student support groups; speak to encourage others to join a literacy program; encourage businesses to fund literacy organizations; and advise our programs on ways to improve recruitment, retention, and learning gains. These are only a few examples of the kinds of contributions students all over the country are making to ``give back'' as much as they ``get'' from the literacy field. Each of us has worked long and hard to become contributors in the literacy field. We have been improving our basic reading and writing skills and developing our leadership abilities. This is where we are now, but it's not where we started. As non- or low-level readers, each of us has had different experiences throughout our lives. However, those experiences and the feelings and the emotions they caused were very similar. Being able to read is expected daily in American life. Before an adult literacy program started in my area, it seemed like there was no chance for me to learn how to read. My choices in life were severely limited--I constantly guarded against being put into situations where I would have to read and write. I discovered how society mistreats those who cannot read. While other children were learning to read and write in school, I learned early on what it meant to be illiterate in our society, and why it was important to cover it up and how to do it. By second grade all my classmates knew I was behind, which made me a target of their taunting. Kids who were friends in my neighborhood did not care to talk with me in class for fear of being called stupid--``If you talk with a dummy, you must be a dummy too.'' My best friend was older than me and didn't know I was having trouble with reading. When my third grade teacher began keeping me after school every day, to give me more time to do classwork, my best friend didn't understand why I had to stay instead of walking home with her. I couldn't tell her, because I had learned the year before what happens when people find out you can't read. I always wanted to learn and know what other people knew, but no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't catch up. School seemed like a prison where I was being punished for not being smart enough. I wanted to drop out when I became old enough. By the time I was in high school, I had become a master in ``school survival.'' School survival was going to school everyday, knowing no matter how hard I tried, I was still going to fail. So, I learned to balance between trying hard enough to please my teachers without excessively tormenting myself in the process. Another part of my school survival was to figure out what I would need to graduate: how many credits, which courses were the easiest, and the minimum number of academic classes I would have to take. I realized I'd need a high school diploma in order to help cover up my illiteracy in the future--especially when it came to finding a job. I knew an employer would be less likely to suspect I couldn't read very well if I had a high school diploma. The day I graduated, I tried to read my diploma, but I could only read a few words. Nonetheless, I felt I had earned it through hard work and a lot of tears. It was not easy to find a job that didn't require reading. My employment options were limited since I did not have a trade. I had tried taking some trade classes in high school. I could understand the theory of what the teachers were saying, but didn't learn what I needed to know--that was in a book. I've always been a hard worker and knew if I could get my foot in the door somewhere, I would do a good job. After identifying a job in manufacturing, I still had to fill out the job application as well as read and sign forms. To this day, I don't know what I signed. I could only hope I would not do something that violated what was in those forms. I went as far as I could in jobs with the minimum amount of reading or writing involved. My supervisors considered me a valuable employee and never suspected I had trouble reading. I felt I had the potential to do more. When a literacy program for adults started at my local library, I finally had an opportunity to get the help I needed so I could do more. It wasn't until a few years ago that I discovered the reason why I had so much trouble learning to read and write. I have a language-based learning difference--clinically diagnosed dyslexia and attention deficit disorder. At least now I know what I'm dealing with. It was not my fault--I was smart enough. What I needed was a teaching and learning method that worked for me. There is a difference between learning to read and reading to learn. I first needed to learn how to read and that has taken time. I've been working on my education for almost nine years and I am still taking classes two nights a week. During the same time, I have had to work to support myself. Like most adults, I do not have the luxury of going back to school full-time because I must fulfill other obligations and responsibilities. There is no ``quick fix'' solution--two years and you're finished. It is a long process. It is one we all must agree to commit to. There are many more adults like me who, with the right help, can get better jobs and lead more productive lives. They, too, can begin to ``give back'' to the system. Thank you for your commitment to help improve the adult literacy system. Around the country, there are many adult learners equally committed to improving the system in addition to their own education. It's great to know we have people like you working with us to make it possible for adults who cannot read, write, or speak English to get the help they need. Sincerely, Elaine W. Randall.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I rise today to join Senator Hatch in the introduction of a bill to reauthorize and provide a permanent mandate for the Hate Crimes Statistics Act. I would also like to thank Chairman Hatch for his leadership on this important issue, and for scheduling today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on this bill. This bill's 28 original cosponsors show the strong bipartisan support for this measure. It also has the strong support of Attorney General Reno, as well as the endorsement of major law enforcement and advocacy groups. The Hate Crimes Statistics Act, which passed the Senate in 1990 by a vote of 92-4 and was signed into law by then President Bush, requires the Justice Department to collect data on crimes that show evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. Until this act was passed, no Federal records of such crimes were maintained. This lack of information made it difficult to determine whether a particular crime was an isolated incident, or part of a continuing series against a particular group. The act has proven successful in its initial purpose--the creation of data collection--and has also served as a catalyst for an FBI effort to train State and local law enforcement officials about hate crimes. Hearings held before the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution in 1992 and 1994 showed that one of the prime benefits of the act is that it has helped dramatically increase the awareness and sensitivity of the police about hate crimes. Not only do victims of hate crimes benefit from a more informed police force, but greater police awareness encourages others to report hate crimes. Since all data submission under the act is voluntary, we did not anticipate 100 percent participation by State and local law enforcement agencies from the start. Nonetheless, over the course of 4 years, there has been great progress in participation levels. In 1991, 2,771 law enforcement agencies participated in the voluntary reporting program. In 1994, more than 7,200 agencies participated. Local police, advocacy groups, mayors, and others have joined the effort to encourage every law enforcement agency to comply, and as more and more local agencies participate, the statistics will be more and more useful to identify trends and formulate responses. In addition, the FBI is in the process of working with States to upgrade their computer systems. When this transition is complete, the data should be even more useful. Unfortunately, there are still law enforcement agencies in some States and many large cities which are not yet participating in the data collection. We need active oversight of this act to ensure that these agencies join in this important effort, making the statistics more accurate and useful. FBI Director Louis Freeh has stated that he is committed to the continued tracking of hate crimes statistics. However, we believe that this effort has proven its usefulness and deserves a permanent mandate. Collecting such data will not erase bigotry. It will, however, be a valuable tool in the fight against prejudice. The information is essential in identifying how law enforcement should best focus its resources in dealing with hate crimes. The data will also be useful to policymakers and local communities in their efforts to fight these crimes. Obviously, the FBI statistics do not yet accurately reflect the level of violence motivated by prejudice in our society. More and more agencies participate each year, however, we need only read the headlines and reports by advocacy groups to see how widespread the problem of hate crimes remains in our Nation. The Justice Department recently launched a civil rights probe into a rash of arson which has destroyed at least 23 black churches in the South since 1993. The Justice Department is trying to determine whether the crimes are racially motivated, and whether they are connected. Several of the incidents have been solved, however, and clearly racism motivated the offenders. The teenagers found guilty of burning a church in Mississippi in 1993 shouted racial epithets during commission of their crime. Racist graffiti was spray-painted on the walls of a Knoxville, TN, Baptist church set afire on January 8, 1996. Sumter County Circuit Court Judge Eddie Hardaway, a black judge who sent two white men to jail for vandalizing black churches, was recently the victim of a shotgun attack which shattered bedroom windows in his home. During the 1960's civil rights movement, many black churches were set ablaze, however in the late 1980's and early 1990's only one or two such crimes were reported each year. This recent string of arson reminds us that prejudice and hate crimes remain a problem in our Nation. Recent reports by private groups, such as the Anti-Defamation League, the National Coalition on Anti-Violence Projects, and the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, confirm that unfortunately the problem of crimes based on prejudice continues. The ADL's 1995 Annual Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents actually had some good news: the 1,843 anti-Semitic incidents reported to the Anti-Defamation League in 1995 represented a decrease of 223 incidents, or 11 percent, from the 1994 total of 2,066. This is the largest decline in 10 years. However, this good news is tempered by the seriousness of many of the incidents reported. For the fifth straight year in a row, acts of anti-Semitic harassment against individuals outnumber incidents of vandalism against institutions and other property. The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Projects and New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project report similar findings for 1995. There were fewer incidents of violence against homosexuals in 1995, but the incidents were more violent. There was an 8 percent drop in the number of incidents, but a 10 percent increase in the number of assaults and rapes. We need to realize that the name-calling, the graffiti, the discrimination, and the threats and violence are all signs of a pervasive problem. The more informed we are about the scope and nature of our communities' problems with hate crimes, the better able we will be to develop effective prevention and prosecution strategies, as well as support structures for victims of these crimes. I am pleased to join with Senator Hatch today, with support from 28 of our colleagues, the Attorney General and law enforcement and advocacy groups across the Nation, to introduce the reauthorization of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act. I encourage all of my colleagues to join us in working to pass this important legislation.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I received a note in the mail from Marion Plancon of Staten Island, NY, and she enclosed an op-ed piece written by our colleague, Senator William Cohen, for the Los Angeles Times. Somehow I missed seeing the original publication of it. But I have found through the years on the Senate floor and with my service with him in the House, that our colleague, Bill Cohen usually makes sense. And his call for greater civility, less hostility, more reason, and less shouting is a call that should be heeded in this body, and also by the American public. I wish that the extremes of partisanship and hostility were only in the House and Senate or only between the administration and Congress. Unfortunately, we do reflect the American public sometimes more than we should. We should be a reconciling force, and I fear that we are not. I ask that the William Cohen op-ed piece be printed in the Record. The column follows: [From the Los Angeles Times] Why I Am Leaving (By William S. Cohen) Last week, I announced that I would not seek reelection to the Senate for a fourth term. I have been moved by the reaction of my constituents and colleagues. Many expressed sadness over my decision, and nearly all were perplexed. Why are so many leaving the Senate? How can the center hold? Won't the system fall apart? It is not a case, to continue with Yeats's words, ``that the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity.'' Such a poetic construct presumes too much and maligns the character and capabilities of those who have most recently arrived in Congress and those who have chosen to remain. Those of us leaving the Senate do so for unique and deeply personal reasons. I suspect, however, that we share a common level of frustration over the absence of political accord and the increase in personal hostilities that now permeate our system and our society. Increasingly, public officials face: Too little time to reason and reflect; the hair-trigger presumption of guilt pulled at the slightest whisper of impropriety; the schizophrenia of a public that wants less government spending, more government services and lower taxes, and the unyielding demands of proliferating single-issue constituencies. Too many hours are devoted to endless motion without movement, interminable debate without decision and rhetorical finger-pointing without practical problem-solving. Our republic, we know, was designed to be slow-moving and deliberative. Our Founding Fathers were convinced that power had to be entrusted to someone, but that no one could be entirely trusted with power. They devised a brilliant system of checks and balances to prevent the tyranny of the many by the few. They constructed a perfect triangle of allocated and checked power, Euclidean in symmetry and balance. There could be no rash action, no rush to judgment, no legislative mob rule, no unrestrained chief executive. The difficulty with this diffusion of power in today's cyberspace age is that everyone is in check, but no one is in charge. But more than the constitutional separation of powers is leading to the unprecedented stalemate that exists today. There has been a breakdown in civil debate and discourse. Enmity at times has become so intense that members of Congress have resorted to shoving matches outside the legislative chambers. The Russian Duma, it seems, is slouching its way toward the Potomac as debate gives way to diatribe. We are witnessing a gravitational pull away from center- based politics to the extremes on both the right and left. Those who seek compromise and consensus are depicted with scorn as a ``mushy middle'' that is weak and unprincipled. By contrast, those who plant their feet in the concrete of ideological absolutism are heralded as heroic defenders of truth, justice and the American way. The departure of centrists from party ranks may be cheered by ideologues in the short term. But unless the American people are willing to embrace one party dominance and governance for extended periods (or turn to the British parliamentary model, which I don't recommend), then elements within the liberal and conservative factions will necessarily move back to the center, toward compromise and, yes, consensus. The American people are experiencing a great deal of anger and anxiety at this time. The stern virtues of self- discipline and fiscal prudence have given way to the soft vices of mindless consumption and selfish gratification. We are now paying for the wages of our sins, and ironically, our citizens are angry with political leaders who have indulged their appetites, purchased their votes and passed the bills to the next generation. The road to fiscal solvency and sanity will not be easy, and it surely will not be paved with the bloated promises of blandishments of political extremists. I have devoted nearly a quarter of a century to public service and a search for common ground in a society that is growing in complexity and diversity. Although I have decided to enter the private world to pursue new challenges and opportunities, I remain convinced that the American political system will pass through this transitional phase in our history and return to the center, the place where most people live and a democracy functions best.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague. Amendment No. 3501

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I wonder if my colleague will yield so I may offer two amendments and ask unanimous consent that they be set aside.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I offer these two amendments, and I send them to the desk.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be set aside.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, two items I have read on Burundi recently suggest that continued interest and support for peacemaking endeavors and positive solutions really can be of help. The one is an article in the New York Times by two distinguished Americans, former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and David Hamburg, who heads the Carnegie Foundation. They co-chair the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict. The other article, written by Jonathan Frerichs, appeared in the Christian Century. Both articles, which I ask be printed in the Record, suggest that anarchy and needless death can be avoided if we pay attention to this troubled land. I urge my colleagues and their staffs to read these two articles. The articles follow: Avoiding Anarchy in Burundi (By Cyrus R. Vance and David A. Hamburg) Washington.--A world grown accustomed to human disaster in the face of diplomatic failure has more to hope for in the coming days. Next Saturday, a meeting of African leaders in Tunis, brokered by former President Jimmy Carter, will test the proposition that breaking the cycle of mass violence in Central Africa may at last be possible. They need the international community's help. Burundi is pivotal. The right mix of political pressures can sustain the balance of power in a country on the brink of repeating the slaughter that tore apart Rwanda. Maintaining that balance could spare thousands of lives. It would also reduce the risk of the United Nations being forced into another crisis without the mandate, materials and money needed to be effective. Burundi's government, a coalition of moderate Tutsi and Hutu leaders, is fragile. Tutsi extremists have recently attempted to close down the capital, Bujumbura, with labor strikes and blockades. Attacks by Hutu guerrillas in the countryside raise fears of genocide among the Tutsi minority. But there is some reason for hope. Moderate Tutsi and Hutu leaders are committed to a national debate, open to all political factions. The goal is to settle the terms of power- sharing and guarantees for minority rights before any further elections. To reinforce this process we must be clear not only about the differences between Burundi and Rwanda but also about who must take primary responsibility for a peace plan. Rwanda and Burundi are both poor, isolated countries. Their colonizers' divide-and-rule policies left seemingly insoluble conflict between the agrarian Hutu, who make up about 85 percent of each country, and the Tutsi, who predominate in business, government and the military. The Belgians left the Tutsi elite in control of Burundi, but gave way to the Hutu majority in Rwanda. Since then demagogues in both countries have exploited ethnic fear and pride. This spiral of hate climaxed in 1994, when Hutu and Rwanda shot or hacked to death at least 500,000 people, primarily Tutsi. When Tutsi exiles from Uganda overthrew the Hutu government, more than two million Hutu fled to nearby countries, where 1.7 million remain. In Burundi, the core question is whether the country's citizens can avoid Rwanda's tragedy by devising a power- sharing formula that offers enough security for the Tutsi to open the way for majority democratic rule. Outsiders can help in several ways. First, there must be diplomatic efforts to persuade extremists in both ethnic groups of the futility and dreadful consequences of violence. Killings in Bujumbura rose to more than 100 a week, and anarchy threatens. The United States and European governments should impose an arms embargo, block international financial transactions by Burundi's extremist leaders and threaten to halt trade other than humanitarian relief. Second, African leaders should be given help in securing a power-sharing agreement in Bujumbura and the return of refugees to both Burundi and Rwanda. In November, Mr. Carter arranged a meeting of the Presidents of Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and Zaire. It is these talks that resume next week. Third, donor governments and the World Bank should draw up a ``road map'' linking political progress in Burundi and the other countries of Central Africa to the restoration of development assistance. For the moment, however, everything depends on reaching an agreement to contain the cancer of ethnic conflict. What is learned from this experience can help prevent mass violence elsewhere.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, there are times when diplomacy should leave messages unclear. But today the message to China ought to be crystal clear: If they invade or have missile attacks on Taiwan, the United States will intervene militarily. We do not need to spell out how we intervene. My own feeling is that it can include weapons to Taiwan, the use of air power, and other options that can be effective but do not involve United States troops. I welcome the steps that have been taken, but I don't want any Chinese leader, during this period of leadership uncertainty, to gamble on what will take place. An article that I call to the attention of my colleagues appeared recently and merits careful reflection. It appeared in the New York Times, written by David Shambaugh, titled ``How Far to Support Taiwan?'' I ask that it be printed in the Record. The article follow: [From the New York Times, Mar. 10, 1996] How Far To Support Taiwan? (By David Shambaugh) By firing ballistic missiles within Taiwan's territorial waters, China is sending political and military messages to both the United States and Taiwan. Unless the Clinton Administration delivers a demonstrably tough response--both diplomatically and militarily--the exercises could escalate dangerously and Beijing will be convinced it can act with impunity. The military exercises are but the latest in a long list of irritants, including Beijing's human rights violations and its sale of international arms. The Clinton Administration has bent over backwards to engage China constructively and help it integrate into the world order. But Beijing's crude tactics are provocative and irresponsible for a country seeking international recognition as a great power. They also potentially force the United States into choosing between its relationship with China and its longstanding ties with Taiwan. America understandably does not want war with the largest nation on earth, but it is time to lay down markers and protect American national interests. Washington should begin by sending clear and unambiguous warnings to Beijing about its coercive behavior toward Taiwan. The Administration's condemnation of the missile tests does not go far enough. President Clinton should publicly restate America's commitment under the Taiwan Relations Act to assist the island in defending itself. He should reiterate that America's entire relationship with China--since President Richard Nixon's visit in 1972--has been premised on the peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue. President Clinton must clearly state that China's recent actions call the entire relationship into question. Words are important, but China respects power and action. The United States Navy should dispatch the carrier Independence (which has been cruising north of Taiwan) through the Taiwan Strait--an international passage through which Navy ships pass regularly to insure freedom of navigation. China's decision to fire missiles into the two ``impact zones'' within 20 miles of Taiwan's two largest ports, Keelung and Kaohsiung, constitutes a de facto blockade. Seventy percent of the island's trade and all of its oil imports pass through these ports. Such a partial blockade may be an act of war under international law and thus a matter for the United Nations Security Council. China must not be allowed to close Taiwan's harbors, as it will bring the island's economy to its knees. The missiles are just the beginning. Leading up to Taiwan's first-ever free presidential election, on March 23, China will conduct the largest military maneuvers in its history. More than 150,000 troops have been mobilized. The exercises will involve mock bombing runs, simulated naval blockades and amphibious assaults on islands north of Taiwan. The exercises may be an attempt to provoke a military response from Taiwan, which Beijing could then use as a pretext for ``retaliation.'' Clearly the exercises are intended to intimidate the Taiwanese electorate and to quell the rising sentiment for autonomy and independence. Most China analysts are confident that the exercises will cease soon after the elections. Taiwanese diplomats are already putting out the word that Taiwan's President, Lee Teng-hui, who is almost certain to be re-elected, will call for a truce and seek to establish direct trade, shipping and air services. But for China the essence of the problem is Taiwan's quest for international recognition. It is likely to continue its military harassment until Taipei officially abandons its aspirations for statehood. But Mr. Lee is unlikely to do so, giving the United States a stark choice between supporting the forces of freedom and self-determination on the island or those of suppression and belligerence on the mainland. This is a choice America needs to avoid. By standing firm against Beijing and counseling Taipei to be cautious, America may be able to bring both sides to the negotiating table. Given China's current hypernationalistic atmosphere and the struggle to succeed Deng Xiaoping, it is doubtful that it will show restraint on Taiwan if left unchecked. It is up to the United States, with the support of its Asian and European partners, to deter China's aggression. The alternative is escalating tension and possibly war over Taiwan.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, A.M. Rosenthal has a thoughtful column on the situation regarding China in the New York Times, and I ask that it be printed in the Record. I am not as certain as he is that the case should be brought to the United Nations because I'm not sure what the other countries would do. But at the very least, that possibility should be explored. A firmness is needed in this present situation. The Rosenthal column, among other things, cites a sentence from the recent State Department human rights report: ``The experience of China in the past few years demonstrates that while economic growth, trade and social mobility create an improved standard of living they cannot by themselves bring about greater respect for human rights in the absence of a willingness by political authorities to abide by the fundamental international norms.'' There are times when the international situation demands clear-cut policies. This is one of them. The column follows: [From the New York Times, Mar. 12, 1996] Indicting China's Terrorism--Bring the Case to the United Nations (By A.M. Rosenthal] By firing missiles into the waters off Taiwan, Communist China is committing open, deliberate international terrorism of enormous danger. Americans count on Beijing's survival instincts to stop the terrorism short of the disaster of war with the U.S. That may happen--this time. But every day that Washington fails to bring the missile blackmail and blockade of Taiwan before the U.N. increases the chances it will happen again, or something worse, until the disaster does take place. The Communists' rage and fear at the example of Taiwan's democracy off their shores will not let them rest unless the Taiwanese give it up. That is not likely. If any pro-democracy majority is elected in the March 20 voting, before long there will be another round of terrorism. That may include some Chinese military landings on Taiwan. U.S. vessels will have to move in to live up to American word and legislation that the Taiwan-China relationship will not be changed by force. So far, the U.S. has had to act alone. The Japanese do not have the political courage to make any strong public protest against the terrorism. I have not heard our European allies warn the Chinese that if it comes to it, they will immediately line up with the U.S. U.S. failure to bring the Chinese before the U.N. will destroy a basic purpose of the U.N. The U.N. was not created simply to end wars but to stop them before they begin. Article 34 of its charter authorizes the Security Council to take up any matter that might lead to ``international friction or dispute.'' Any member of the U.N.--or the Secretary General--can bring a threat to the peace before the Council. China's veto power cannot be used to prevent putting a threat to peace on the Council agenda. Separately, the U.S. and any country that considers itself a friend both of peace and America can condemn Chinese terrorism. Together they can present a resolution speaking for the U.N. China will veto that. But if Beijing is so out of control as to threaten more terrorism in the face of a U.N. condemnation prevented only by a veto, we should know it as soon as possible. Meantime, President Clinton should consider one sentence that tells how his Administration got to this point. ``The experience of China in the past few years demonstrates that while economic growth, trade and social mobility create an improved standard of living they cannot by themselves bring about greater respect for human rights in the absence of a willingness by political authorities to abide by the fundamental international norms.'' The sentence in itself is not remarkable. It sums up the message of human rights victims around the world: strengthening our oppressors empowers them to torture us further. But it comes from the latest report on human rights of the State Department. It took courage by those officials who wrote or agreed to it. Since 1993, the Administration has based its China policy on a contrary vision of morality and history. It insisted that economic growth in China would create a willingness by the dictatorship to live up to those ``fundamental international norms.'' Beijing would give Chinese more human rights. It would stick to agreements against selling nuclear weapon technology. It would allow the people of territories it claims as its own, such as Tibet and Taiwan, to live in peace and dignity. China's economy certainly has grown, stimulated nicely by $40 billion more that it sells to America than it buys from America. So: Torture and political repression have increased. And so have oppression of religion, and forced abortion. The choke- leash around Tibet tightens. The chief economic beneficiary of the trade that led to economic growth has been the Communist army, which owns vast parts of the economy, including the forced-labor camps. The new, richer China has sold nuclear technology to Pakistan and has become the missile salesman to the world's dictatorships. President Clinton promised to struggle for human rights in China. He did not. Now his China policy lies adrift in the Strait of Taiwan. He owes us a new one. Its moral principle and historic reality were written for him by the meaning of that sentence in the State Department report: enrichment of dictators enchains their victims.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, a few years ago I read a book by Alex Kotlowitz, then a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, titled ``There are no Children Here: The Story of Two Boys Growing Up in the Other America.'' It is one of the best books I have read in the last few years. It tells with gnawing detail how the lives of people deteriorate in our central cities. Recently, he had an excellent op-ed piece in the New York Times titled ``It Takes a Village to Destroy a Child,'' which I ask to be printed in the Record. His title is obviously a take-off on the title of the book by Mrs. Clinton, but what he has to say ought to disturb the consciences of all of us. The article follows: [From the New York Times, Feb. 8, 1996] It Takes a Village to Destroy a Child (By Alex Kotlowitz) Oak Park, Ill.--The crime is so heinous it makes me shake with anger. In the early evening hours of Oct. 13, 1994, two boys, 10 and 11 years old, dangled and then dropped 5-year- old Eric Morse from the 14th floor of a Chicago public housing complex, because Eric wouldn't steal candy for them. His killers displayed no remorse. In court, the younger of the two, who could barely see the judge above the partition, mouthed obscenities at reporters covering the trial. Last week, they became the youngest offenders ever sent to prison in Illinois. And they have come to symbolize the so-called super-predators, children accused of maiming or killing without a second thought. Unsurprisingly, both boys had fathers who were in prison. One had a mother who, according to school records, repeatedly missed counseling sessions. The other mother, according to court records, battled a drug addiction. I don't mention the parents of these children to excuse the crime. Nor do I mention this to state the obvious: In the absence of loving, nurturing, discipline-minded adults, children become lost. Rather, I want to point out that while we can talk about strengthening families, there will be little success until we also find a way to strengthen our communities. We profess homage to the well-worn aphorism that it takes a village to raise a child. But where in the case of these boys--and ultimately in the case of Eric Morse--was the village? Let's take a look at the older of the two boys, whom I will call James. He attended the primary and intermediate J.R. Doolittle Schools, two buildings which butt up against the drab-looking Ida B. Wells public housing complex. According to school documents, James earned mediocre grades, mostly C's, and then in the third grade, when his father was arrested, his grades plunged. He couldn't sit still in class. He fought other students. In fourth grade, the school ordered a psychological evaluation, which recommended only tutoring. That same year, he flunked every subject, including gym and music. Nonetheless, the school promoted him. The next year at his new school, he missed 23 days. Because of low marks, he repeated the fifth grade. Why didn't the school administrators sense that something was amiss in this child's life? Part of the problem may be that the primary school of 700 students could afford only once-a-week visits by a psychologist and social worker. And truant officers were axed three years ago by the financially strapped Chicago Public Schools. One afternoon when James was on his way to pick up his cousin, he witnessed a gang member shoot and kill a rival. James was 9 at the time. His lawyer, Michelle Kaplan, said he was standing 10 feet from the victim. No adult offered him counseling. No one stepped in to make sure that such an incident didn't happen again. In most communities, such an event would have brought quick attention, I'm reminded of the day in 1988, when Laurie Dann, a deranged woman, walked into an elementary School in Winnetka, Ill., and shot six children, killing an 8-year-old boy. Psychologists were brought in to counsel the students, their parents and teachers. The governor called for tighter school security. Some politicians demanded tougher gun control laws. James received no such attention. In the six months before Eric's murder, the police arrested James eight times on relatively minor charges from shoplifting to possession of ammunition, presumably bullets. Each time the police released him. After three arrests in one year, the police are supposed to--by their own guidelines--refer a child to juvenile court in the hope that he or she might receive help. That was never done in James's case. ``This was a child in crisis,'' Ms. Kaplan said. ``Here's an 11-year-old child who was expressing in the only way a child can that something's wrong.'' Now the village vigorously debates not how we failed James but what we should do with him: Send him to a youth prison or to a residential center, where the emphasis is on rehabilitation? The judge who presided over this case, Carol Kelly, has a reputation for siding with the prosecution. Indeed, she chose to send the two boys to prison, stipulating that they receive therapy. But when asked what could be learned from this case, Judge Kelly says: ``Let's focus on what brought them to this point. What happened to them? What didn't happen to them? What can we do so we don't have other Eric Morses?'' I'm haunted by one image in particular. When the two boys dropped Eric from the window, Eric's 8-year-old brother ran down the 14 flights as fast as he could. He later testified that he was hoping to catch Eric. Eric's brother did more than any one else to try to save his little brother. He and Eric are victims of James and his cohort--and of the village guardians who failed them. James and his 10-year-old partner were not headed for trouble, they were well into it. Yet, no adult intervened. These boys come from a neighborhood poor in spirit and resources. It we can't help rebuild their community, using schools as a foundation, we'll all end up running furiously down those stairs hoping, praying, that we can catch yet one more child dropped by their families and by the institutions that presumably serve them. It will almost always be too late.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, one of the most impressive executives in America today is Hugh Price, executive director of the National Urban League. His commonsense approach to our needs is appreciated. One of the things he has been stressing over and over is the need to have jobs for people. As I have said so frequently on the floor of the Senate, welfare reform without jobs is public relations and not welfare reform. Recently he had a commentary in the Chicago Defender on this question of jobs which I ask to be printed in full in the Record. The article follows: [From the Chicago Defender, Feb. 26, 1996] America Needs To Revitalize Work Philosophy (By Hugh B. Price) The widening gap between rich and poor in America is threatening our democracy. Workers are being laid off by the thousands, companies are downsizing, families are falling apart and the ranks of the poor and homeless seem to be growing. Yet experts tell us the economy is on the upswing. Certainly, good things are happening. Many cities are upgrading their ``quality of life industries'' by revitalizing their business districts and neighborhoods, building new sports stadiums, museums and sparkling restaurant districts. But in those and in so many urban centers, the poor, the unemployed and the homeless can't afford to use those facilities. When you see them there, they're often begging or sleeping in doorways. That's not supposed to happen in America. From what I've seen in traveling through dozens of cities, the plight of the poor is in stark contrast to economists' claims that inflation is leveling, that interest rates have fallen and that unemployment is declining. Americans are justifiably worried and skeptical about their future. Cities define civilizations. Vibrant cities boost our morale; decaying and dangerous cities depress us and scare off tourists. If the poor, the homeless and the have-nots have no role in the rebirth of our cities, their welcome revival efforts won't reach their fullest potential. Government policymakers, business leaders and economists must devise a work-based system of self-reliance that lifts the urban poor out of poverty and allows them to support their families with dignity. Of course, such planning must include education and training in current and new skills. Job creation programs must be established for employable but unemployed people in communities where there simply are not enough jobs to go around. The approach must be holistic, because while it's one thing to instill potential workers with proper work skills, it's another thing to inculcate workers with the job know-how that employers require, such as punctuality, politeness and reliability. Here are a few examples of new initiatives some of our urban league affiliates have undertaken: In Detroit, plans are underway to establish an Employment Training and Education Center that will provide GED certification and computer training courses. Instruction in occupational, employability, entrepreneurship and customer service skills will be offered, along with an automated job search system and a day-care facility. In Los Angeles, the Urban League and Toyota are partners in operating a modern training facility that will enable residents from the South Central community to learn all facets of automobile servicing and repair. If our cities and our society are to prosper, if we are to continue to be the leader of the industrialized world, we must reverse socially corrosive economic trends that undermine public confidence. America urgently needs to reorganize its employment and income policies so that the 21st century will be the century when, once and for all, we make America work for all Americans.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I am concerned about the deterioration in Liberia, Burundi, and a few other nations. The pattern in Bosnia is for the United States and other nations to wait until the situation deteriorates very, very badly--until hundreds of thousands of people are killed--and then the United States and the community of nations move in. I applaud what we are finally doing in Bosnia. In no country in Africa do we have greater responsibility than in Liberia, where it was sometimes viewed as an American colony because it was founded by former American slaves. Their ties to the United States have been long. And when there was a dictatorship in Liberia, we did not hesitate to cooperate with that dictatorship. An article by Howard W. French recently appeared in the New York Times which I ask to be printed in the Record. Now that the dictatorship is gone and chaos has followed, our concerns appear to be minimal. The article follows. [From the New York Times, Jan. 23, 1996] Is West Slighting Africa's Hot Spots Like Liberia? (By Howard W. French) Monrovia, Liberia, January 22.--When the American delegate to the United Nations, Madeleine K. Albright, stopped here briefly on Wednesday during a tour of several African countries, there were the predictable pledges of assistance from Washington to war-torn Liberia. But along with the promise of helicopters and trucks to help in the disarming of combatants in a devastating six-year civil war, there was also a stern warning that the international community had little patience for crisis-ridden African countries that failed to settle their own problems. ``We have no intention of our logistical support being squandered by anyone's failure of political will,'' Mrs. Albright said at an airport news conference, straining at times to be heard over a Nigerian transport plane ferrying in new peacekeepers. ``Delay,'' she said, can ``no longer be in the vocabulary'' of Liberia's political actors. But for many African leaders and diplomats, the trip of Mrs. Albright--the highest-ranking American to visit Liberia since Secretary of State George Shultz came here before the war that killed more than 150,000 people--inadvertently underscored another point: by the time African crises receive this level of outside attention, the moment for averting catastrophe or sealing the peace has all too often passed. The most critical obstacle to fulfilling the Liberian peace agreement reached last August, these African officials say, has been the delay in getting the kind of international response needed to carry out a disarmament program and remark this country's shattered economy. In this regard, African officials argue, the handling of the Liberian crisis by the outside world strongly resembles the ambivalent or tardy international response to past crises in other stops on Mrs. Albright's itinerary: Angola, Rwanda and Burundi. In Liberia, despite widespread skepticism about its prospects, a cease-fire has largely held for months. But recent days have seen the first serious signs of an unraveling of the country's settlement, as unruly fighters of one of the country's several armed factions have killed as many as 50 West African peacekeepers. Diplomats say the fighting began because of the economic desperation of the militia members, who are often unschooled boys, and add that the conflict nearly flared out of control because of the limited means available to a short-handed and poorly equipped peacekeeping force. ``Last fall, the American Government pledged $75 million to help us,'' said Wilton S. Sankawulo, the former schoolteacher who is chairman of Liberia's governing Council of State. ``But they said go home first and prove that you are serious.'' Liberia has been the first instance in which a regional organization, namely the Economic Community of West African States, or Ecowas, has acted with the official sanction of the United Nations to end a civil war. Nigeria has led this effort from the start, spending an estimated $4 billion. But with major political and economic crises at home, diplomats say Nigeria cannot now carry out Liberia's peace agreement without substantially more outside help. Foreign diplomats say the most critical immediate element is giving the 7,500-man Nigerian-led peacekeeping force-- known as Ecomog, for the Ecowas monitoring group--the means to deploy throughout the country; the trucks and helicopters pledged but not yet delivered by the Americans, and more troops from poor West African countries, which would require financing from the outside world. Unlike other crises in which the United Nations send its own peacekeepers and directly assess contributions from members, international fund-raiding for Liberia has been conducted through voluntary donor conferences that have garnered sparse contributions. On top of the outside world's reluctance to contribute to an African-led peacekeeping effort, which has embittered many of this region's leaders, there is the additional complication of deeply strained relations between the United States and Nigeria over the latter's human rights situation. Rather than being turned over to the Nigerian-led peacekeepers, as is the practice in most international efforts of this sort, the troop trucks promised by the United States are leased vehicles that, at Washington's insistence, will be operated only by private contractors to keep them out of Nigerian hands. ``The resources of Ecomog have been stretched to the limit, and it would be wrong and unfair for the international community to expect it to proceed further without getting it more help,'' said Anthony Nyaki, the United Nations special representative to Liberia. ``Because of the unique mandate given by the U.N. to the West Africans whatever happens here will be precedent-setting. ``In five days as much is spent in Bosnia as was spent in a whole year on Liberia,'' he said. ``If this is allowed to fail, the question will become more pertinent than ever why the outside world cares so little for Africa.'' The comparison with Bosnia is one that comes up again and again in conversations with African officials throughout this region, and it is one that inspires cynicism among many. The international community was slow to act and committed far too few resources to managing crises like the transition to democracy in war-torn Angola or the prevention of a genocidal civil war in Rwanda, African diplomats say. And in Burundi today, where the signs of a possible Rwanda-style civil war are multiplying, the same reluctance to act seems apparent to many. ``Since Somalia ended, I have attended three major conferences on the lessons of that crisis, but these lessons never seem to be learned,'' said Victor Gbeho, a Ghanaian diplomat who represents the West African economic community here and was the United Nations special envoy to Somalia at the height of that country's crisis. ``For some reason it still takes far too long to get the international community to react to African crises, to realize their pledges of support and work through their bureaucratic mazes,'' Mr. Gbeho said. ``It took the Americans one week to raise $1.8 billion for Bosnia. If I were paranoid, I would say the delays we always face here are due to the fact that we are dealing with Africa.''

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, in response to the irresponsible statements by China recently about Taiwan and their relationship with the United States, the Chicago Tribune had an excellent editorial which I ask to be printed in full in the Record. While I differ some with my friend Senator Dianne Feinstein, the other day she told me that the United States should stop zigzaging all over the place in terms of China policy. I could not agree with her more. Our policy should be consistent so that both China and Taiwan understand where we are. We are not hostile to China. We are not hostile to Taiwan. We want to be friends with both. China must also understand that if there is a tilt from time to time between a democracy and a dictatorship, the tilt of the United States of America will be to democracy. The article follows: [From the Chicago Tribune, Jan. 25, 1996] Read the Riot Act to China China has gone too far. According to press reports from Beijing, China has drawn up plans for possible attacks on Taiwan after that island-state completes it first democratic presidential elections in March. But it doesn't stop there: China also has issued veiled threats to hit America with nuclear missiles if the U.S. military intervenes. The U.S. has shown extraordinary patience with China, hoping by sweet reason and constructive engagement to coax it into behaving reasonably, constructively--and peacefully. But threats of war are intolerable. America must put an end to Beijing's strutting and bullying. President Clinton must immediately let the Chinese know in no uncertain terms that the U.S. military will guarantee Taiwan's territorial integrity from missile attack or invasion. And he must back that warning with action: dispatching an aircraft carrier task force off the Taiwanese coast, perhaps, or sending a contingent of American soldiers to the island as a tripwire. But Clinton must do more: He must tell the gerontocrats in Beijing that even so much as a hint of an attack on the United States will bring consequences for China more horrible than they can imagine. The U.S. dollar had a roller-coaster ride Wednesday on rumors and denials of war-mongering from China. It started when The New York Times quoted Chas. W. Freeman, a former assistant defense secretary, as saying China has plans for launching a missile a day against Taiwan should Beijing perceive the island striding too quickly toward independence. Even more chilling were comments that the Chinese feel they can act with impunity because American leaders ``care more about Los Angeles than they do about Taiwan''--interpreted as a threat to launch nuclear missiles against the U.S. to deter involvement. No response can be too muscular in warning China that even such fortune-cookie-style threats are intolerable. After all, this is the same China that violates nonproliferation treaties by shipping ballistic missiles to Pakistan and by selling equipment for manufacturing chemical weapons to Iran. This is the same China that stands accused of operating an island-like chain of slave-labor camps and of dealing with unwanted orphans by allowing them to starve to death. Beijing needs to understand that the American eagle offers a choice. The first, an olive branch, promises peaceful intercourse and free trade. But the other claw holds the mightiest quiver of arrows the world has ever known, and America is ready to use them.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, one of the things I have stressed repeatedly on the floor of the Senate is that without having a jobs component for people of limited skills, welfare reform is a sham. It is public relations for those of us who hold public office, not help for people on welfare and not help for the taxpayers. Recently, Prof. Sheldon Danziger and Peter Gottschalk had an item on the New York Times op-ed page, titled ``Wanted: Jobs of Last Resort.'' I ask that it be printed in the Record. I highly recommend it to my colleagues. The article follows: Wanted: Jobs of Last Resort (By Sheldon Danziger and Peter Gottschalk) Members of the National Governors' Association were on Capitol Hill yesterday, once again pressing their case for welfare reform. The group has captured glowing reviews from both President Clinton and Congressional Republicans for a package of proposals that would favor block grants to the states over a guarantee of Federal aid. Liberal Democrats in the House have criticized the plan, saying its cuts in Federal spending are simply too hard on the poor. But they have not given enough attention to what is perhaps the plan's most problematic feature: It would end welfare recipients' entitlement to cash assistance--after as little as 21 months in Connecticut--even for those who, though diligently searching for work, cannot find anyone to hire them. These provisions assume that anyone who really wants to work can find a job. And no one would dispute that any welfare reform proposal should require recipients to make a serious effort to find employment. But the proposal must be more realistic about the current demand for low-skilled workers, which has dropped steadily over the last two decades. To take just one small but alarming example, the number of high school dropouts who are employed has steadily dropped since 1970--while the number of employed college graduates has risen by more than 40 percent. Economists of all political persuasions have documented the increased extent of insecurity among American workers. Moderate economic growth since the early 1980's has on average raised our living standards, but low-skilled workers have seen the least benefit. The lack of jobs that pay adequately obviously bodes even worse for people trying desperately to get off welfare. Today, 45 percent of women who leave welfare find themselves back on it within a year. The decline in demand for less-skilled workers is not so much the fault of Republicans or Democrats as it is of the changing economy. Real wages for low-skilled workers steadily diminished under Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George Bush, just as they continue to erode today. But these Administrations do share responsibility for the extent of the hardship. Government simply has not adapted its policies to deal with an economy in which the number of industrial jobs is shrinking. The consensus among most Democrats and Republicans that welfare should be transformed from a cash-based to a work- based safety net is a promising development. But it will not be fulfilled by the governors' compromise unless their plan provides emergency help for people who have tried to find work and can't. Low-wage public service jobs of last resort would be the best way to provide such help. The governors can improve their plan, which they hope will form the basis of Federal legislation, by requiring that states offer unsuccessful job seekers the kind of work-based safety net that Gov. John Engler has proposed for Michigan. His proposal allows recipients who cannot find employment to perform community service in return for continued cash assistance. This provision is important in an economy in which the trend toward downsizing shows no sign of slowing, and it will be critical during any future recession. The National Governors' Association would be wise to include Mr. Engler's work-for-your welfare community service idea in its proposals.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I confess, I am not a regular reader of Legal Times, though my staff is, and they call articles to my attention. But a longtime friend, Gene Callahan, sent me the first of a series of monthly columns that will be written by our former House colleague, Abner Mikva, who has also served on the Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, DC and served as Counsel to the President. His perspective should be of interest. Judging by his first column, which I ask to be printed in the Record, it should be viewed by many more people than those who read the Legal Times, with all due respect to that readership. His first column speaks with pride about the Federal judiciary but also has some suggestions for improvement there, suggestions that, in part, involve the legislative branch of Government. I urge my colleagues to read Abner Mikva's first column. The text of the column follows: [From the Legal Times, Feb. 5, 1996] Why the ``Least Dangerous'' Branch Is Also the Best (By Abner J. Mikva) Early last month, while the two political branches of government yielded to the elements and closed down for the blizzard, the Supreme Court of the United States was doing business as usual. It may have looked like a hot-dog trick to some, but Chief Justice William Rehnquist was making a point worth making: While the rest of government is perceived as sick and wanting, the judiciary, like the Energizer bunny, keeps on going. Now that I am a disinterested observer (except for my pension, which as far as I know has no contingencies based on behavior), I find that the federal judiciary works amazingly well. It always has been the least dangerous branch, but for a good period of its history that was because the federal judiciary did not have many demands upon it. This is no longer true. In almost every session of Congress, some new tasks are put to the federal courts. Everything from voting rights to car-jacking is now considered appropriate for federal court jurisdiction. At the same time, while the total judicial appropriation is still a small blip in the federal budget, it has been increasing exponentially. As with other rapaid growth, inevitably some money is not spent wisely. The biggest single extravagance is Congress-driven: Should we have a federal courthouse at every crossroads in America? If the federal courts have selective and limited jurisdiction, should not the parties and their lawyers be required to come to the population centers of the country to litigate? But I remember from my days in Congress that it was a feather in the cap of a member if he or she could deliver a new courthouse (and a new judge) to some small town in the state. Meanshile, the U.S. Courts of Appeals allow their judges to live wherever they want to within the circuit, providing chambers, equipment, and staff just to service those judges who would rather live in a bucolic place than in the big city to which the appellate court should limit its activities. (When I raised both these matters as a member of the U.S. Judicial Conference, I was met with the icy resistance of incumbent judges who like things the way they are.) Even accounting for these blemishes (and others that I don't recount here), the federal courts are the most efficient institutions in our government. They perform their designated functions admirably. The appellate process provides a self-corrective device that fixes most of the mistakes and excesses of the lower courts. The judges really do preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. And the reasons are pretty obvious. First and foremost, there is the careful selection method employed to choose federal judges. There was a saying when I went to law school that the A students became law professors, the B and C students made a lot of money as practitioners, and the D students became judges. But that was never applicable to federal judges, and certainly is not true today. The large number of academicians who become federal judges indicates that legal ability is an important perrequisite for appointment. (On the Supreme Court alone, there are three former full-time law professors: Justices Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.) The whole process is the closet thing that we have to a meritocracy in government. While U.S. senators have a large voice in deciding who become district judges, the candidate is subject to merit review in the first instance by the local bar associations, the local press, and all the other gauntlets that a judicial aspirant has to traverse. After finishing that section of the obstacle course, the would-be judge has to pass a full field investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a thorough vetting by the American Bar Association. Then, and only then, is the name sent to the president with the recommendation that he nominate. If the president agrees, then, and only then, is the name sent up to the Senate for confirmation. Appointments to the Courts of Appeals are even more difficult. While the senators may not have as much say in choosing the nominee, they weigh in heavier in the confirmation process. (I still have bumps on my head from my own confirmation battle, which took more than six months and aged me many times that period. I had the National Rifle Association--a formidable opponent--on my case.) Many are the casualties who could describe how tortuous is the path. Some bad press, a few disgruntled colleagues or clients, an over-exuberant writing--any of these can derail someone who would like to be a judge. Not all such derailments are fair or pretty, but they do provide a thorough preview of who is being appointed to the federal bench. The result is a bench both competent and clean. There are exceptions, of course, but they are rare, compared to those of the other two branches of government. Indeed, one of the exceptions, Judge Alcee Hastings, was removed from the bench by Congress after his colleagues deemed his conduct inappropriate to judicial service. A jury had previously found him not guilty of criminal conduct in the matter, and the people of the sovereign state of Florida have since elected him to Congress. There are other reasons why the judicial branch performs so well. The Judicial Conference, the governing body for the federal judiciary, is right for the task. Contrary to what Judge William Schwarzer wrote recently in Legal Times (``Governing the Federal Judiciary,'' Dec. 11, 1995, Page 24), the very fact that the judges in the conference do rotate, are not expert bureaucrats, and are not all from Washington, D.C., is a plus. I have had a close-up view of the workings of the other two branches, and neither has any systems as efficient as the 25 circuit and district judges who, along with the chief justice, make policy for the federal judiciary. Another ingredient in the judicial success formula is the law clerks. The clerks, who come in for a year or two, are very bright, respectfully irreverent, and full of enthusiasm. Again, the rotation of clerks is a plus, and I worry that more and more judges are using career law clerks. Senior status is another idea that works. The notion that a judge can semi-retire, still perform useful service, and open up a slot for a younger and more vigorous person is almost too good to be true. That judges are as independent as they say they are is one of the most important reasons for the success of the judicial branch. This makes it all the more disturbing that some of my former colleagues, both on the bench and in Congress, think that Congress should exercise more vigorous oversight of the performance of judges. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) wants judges to fill out time sheets so that he can decide whether they are working hard enough. Judge Laurence Silberman thinks that there are too many judges authorized on the D.C. Circuit, and testified to urge Congress not to fill an empty slot. Given all the serious problems that other institutions of government have, both in their performance and in the way they are perceived, it is distressing that some would rather tinker with the judiciary. But then, there have always been those who would rather fix something that is not broken than do the serious lifting involved in real government reform.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Yes. Mr. President, in behalf of Senator Daschle, for reasons he has outlined earlier, I will object.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, as the Senator from Missouri knows, I happen to be on the floor. I do not know the details of all this. I object on behalf of Senator Daschle to what appears to be a reasonable request. I think he should take it up with Senator Daschle.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the late Sam and Rose Odelson of Chicago had 13 children, 8 of whom served in the United States Armed Forces during World War II. Their contributions should be recognized. Four sons served in Europe, three in the Pacific, and one in the States. Two were injured in combat, and altogether, they earned 20 battle stars. Oscar served in the United States Army in Italy. Sidney, an Army veteran who landed at Omaha Beach served in France and Germany. Joe was also in the Army, serving near the tail end of the war in southern France. Julius was 89th Airborne, Roy was in the Army Air Corps, Ben served with the 13th Air Force in the South Pacific for over 2 years, and Mike was an MP in the Philippines. All the eight Odelson boys returned home after the war. A few stayed in Chicago, the others moved out to sunny California to work in the insurance, furniture, or restaurant business. With the recent commemoration of the 50th anniversary of World War II, it is fitting to recognize the achievements of this family. I salute these brothers and their family for their selfless commitment to our country.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, shortly after I announced that I would be retiring from the Senate, President Clinton called and suggested that from time to time, I should give a report on some issue facing the Nation, and today I am again doing that--this time with a few observations about the relationship between China, Taiwan, and the United States. My interest in this subject is more than a sudden thrust caused by recent developments. My parents were Lutheran missionaries in China and had returned to the United States 1 month when I was born. I tell Chinese-American audiences that I was ``made in China.'' I grew up in a home that had Chinese art, guests, and influence. That gives me no more expertise than others, but I mention it because my interest has been longstanding. Before the Shanghai communique that recognized the People's Republic of China, I favored recognizing the mainland Chinese Government, as well as the Government on Taiwan. It would have been somewhat similar to our recognizing both West Germany and East Germany as two separate governments. Neither Germany was particularly happy with that, but it acknowledged reality, and it did not prevent the two governments from eventually merging into one Germany. Following that course with China and Taiwan would have been a wiser policy, and it would have acknowledged what is a reality: There are two separate governments. But that did not happen, and hindsight is an easy luxury. The situation now is confusing and could turn dangerous. Our colleague Senator Dianne Feinstein has described United States policy toward China as one of zig-zagging, and that, unfortunately, is an apt description. Let me outline where we are and why I believe a firm and consistent U.S. policy is desirable for all parties. China has moved generally in a constructive direction since the emergence of Deng Ziaoping's leadership following the death of Mao. All of us who have been visitors there are impressed by the economic gains, and with those gains has come some greater openness--within tight constraints--even on political expression, particularly in the southern part of China near Hong Kong. But the violent suppression of those who demonstrated peacefully for human rights at Tiananmen Square shocked Americans and all democratic nations, as well as the thousands of Chinese students in the United States. I remember speaking to a large gathering of Chinese students at Grant Park in Chicago. All of us were stunned by the Chinese Government's action. I also joined those peacefully protesting outside the Chinese Embassy here in Washington. The benign face of the Government of China many had come to expect, suddenly turned malevolent. After none-too-swiftly denouncing the Government violence at Tiananmen Square, President Bush sent two of our top officials to Beijing to meet with their leaders, and whatever the content of the talks, the pictures that came back to us on the wire services were of two highly placed Americans, toasting the Chinese leadership that had just squelched, in a bloody fashion, the yearning for freedom of many of their people. In the meantime, the nearby island of Taiwan has moved more and more toward the human rights we profess to support. Taiwan now has a multiparty system, a free press, and freedoms that are comparable to those we enjoy. Its Parliament is at least as confrontational as is our Congress, and on March 23, there will be an election for President with the incumbent President, Lee Teng-hui, ahead in the polls. It is significant that he is a native Taiwanese. Taiwan has been our seventh- leading trading partner and is No. 2 in the world in holding foreign currency reserves. Here is where our zip-zagging comes in. At least on paper, we applaud democracies and say we will support them, and we frown upon dictatorships. But the Shanghai communique states that the United States will recognize only one China. And so we have turned a diplomatic cold shoulder to Taiwan, showing greater sensitivity to a dictatorship than to a democracy. In terms of power, it is not a choice of two equals. For the same reasons that many in the State Department and Defense Department did not want to recognize Israel, which had significantly more-numerous Arabs as neighbors, and have had a tilt toward Turkey in her difficulties with less-numerous and less-powerful neighbors in Greece and Armenia, so there are many in key positions who say--once again-- that the choices should not be made on the merits but on the numbers and the potential power of the two governments. China has 1.2 billion people, and Taiwan has 21 million. However, there is something that makes many of us uncomfortable when the cold calculations of population and power are used as the overriding criteria in deciding whom we befriend. When we said, as we did for a period, that President Lee, the chief executive of a democracy, could not come to Cornell University for a reunion of his class because it might offend China, it showed weakness and lack of support for our ideals. Eventually, President Clinton reversed that decision, and I applaud him for it. With an election in Taiwan coming soon, the Chinese Government, which certainly must be a top contestant in the bad public relations field, has been making military noises that cause apprehension in Asia and concern everywhere--apparently in a heavy-handed attempt to influence the Taiwanese elections. Complicating the Chinese situation is that they face a transition in leadership, and no potential leader wants to look weak on the issue of absorbing Taiwan into the mainland. So leaders and potential leaders try to one-up each other in sounding tough on Taiwan. The irony is that tough talk makes an eventual peaceful reunion of the two governments less likely. While it is probable that China will not invade Taiwan in the near future, or launch a missile attack, people struggling for leadership power sometimes do irrational things. And public officials are risk- takers. No one becomes a United States Senator without taking risks, and no one moves into leadership in China without taking risks. What has to be demonstrated to China is that their belligerent talk and actions are creating hostility around the world and that an invasion or missile strike would be a disaster for the Chinese leadership and the Chinese people. The position of the United States should be one of firmness and patience as China goes through this leadership change, evidencing our strong desire for friendship, but also our determined opposition to the use of force to achieve change. The lesson of history is that dictators who seize territory and receive praise for it from their own controlled media are not likely to have their appetite satisfied with one bite of land. If China should turn militaristic and seize Taiwan, that would be only the first acquisition. Mongolia to the north is a likely next target, and as we should have learned from Hitler, dictators can always find some historic justification for further actions. Editorial voices from the New York Times to the Washington Post to the Chicago Tribune to the Los Angeles Times--all newspapers that have been friendly to China--have denounced that nation's belligerent noises. And the sentiment in the Senate and House is equally clear. What should we be doing? Our policy should be clear and firm, friendly but not patronizing, toward both governments. The United States should enunciate a defense policy--joined in, ideally, by other governments--that military actions such as an invasion or missile strike would evoke a military response from us. I personally would favor a strong response with air power by the United States and other nations, if an attempt were made to invade Taiwan or an appropriate military response if they launch a missile attack, but the means of responding militarily do not need to be spelled out. I do not believe an invasion or an air or missile attack are likely in 1996, but any future leaders who may emerge in China should be put on notice. Secretary of Defense William Perry has hinted at that possibility, and the presence of a United States aircraft carrier in the international waters between China and Taiwan is a good signal. But hints are not enough. The Los Angeles Times editorially praised Perry for his statement as ``the strongest indication that the United States might intervene if China attacked Taiwan.'' The best way of preventing military action is to move beyond ``might.'' We should state our posture unequivocally. No military leader should even consider gambling on our hesitancy. Our able Ambassador to China, James Sasser--who I once encourage to run for President--should quietly meet with their leaders and tell them we are serious about that message and that the belligerent noises are hurting the Chinese image around the world. Another reason for doing this is that other Asian nations have serious questions about our military resolve, not our military capability. They see a few terrorists chasing us out of Somalia; they note that until recently, we were long on talk and short on action in Bosnia; and they see us quake when the Chinese Government growls. If our policy in this situation is not more clear and more firm, inevitably, Japan and other nations will invest significantly more in weapons and defense personnel, and an arms race in Asia will be accelerated. That is in no one's interests, other than the arms manufacturers. The United States has assured Japan and other Asian nations that we would come to their defense if attacked--but we also once gave that assurance to Taiwan. The nations of Asia are asking a fundamental question: Can they count on the United States? Defense Secretary Perry has suggested that the top security officials of Asia should get together regularly in order to reduce tensions and increase understanding, an idea somewhat similar to Senator Sam Nunn's suggestions some years ago about Soviet and United States military leaders exchanging visits. The Nunn initiative produced some lessening of tensions. If China declines such a suggestion, nothing will have been lost. But anxieties among the nations of that area will diminish if China accepts such an invitation. If China continues a policy of sending missiles to Pakistan and conducting military exercises near Taiwan, the United States should reexamine our trade policies, which now are heavily weighted in China's direction. China has a huge $34 billion trade surplus with the United States. We can ask organizations like the World Bank, which in 1994 made a $925 million, interest-free loan to China through the International Development Association, to act with greater prudence toward China. IDA loans generally go to poor nations; the average recipient country's per capita income is $382 a year. China's average of $530 is well above that, and China has foreign reserves of approximately $70 billion. When China's bellicosity toward Taiwan is combined with human rights abuses, the picture painted is not good. Our relationship should be correct but not condescending or cowering. When China sells nuclear weapons technology to Pakistan our response should be clear, not quavering. Tough nonmilitary means of sending a message to China's leadership may need to be used. If China's leaders will lighten up a bit, and see their present foreign policy orientation as self-defeating, there is no reason China and the United States cannot have a good, healthy, and fruitful relationship that will help the people of both of our countries. If China reaches out with a friendly hand toward Taiwan, rather than with a fist, China will make gains economically and politically. In the meantime, we should welcome visits by Taiwan's leaders to the United States and by our leaders to that Government. We should stop playing games, and stop treating Taiwan as if it is a relative with a social disease. Because of past policy errors on our part, formal recognition in the immediate future is not advisable, at least until the Chinese leadership situation is sealed. But we should encourage Taiwanese participation in international organizations, and do whatever else we might do to encourage a friendly Government that is both a healthy trading partner and democracy. And when areas of uncertainty arise, as they inevitably will, the United States should remember our ideals, and do what we can to further the cause of human rights and democracy, not as a nation that has achieved perfection--we obviously have not--but as a country that wants to give opportunity to people everywhere to select their governments. When we stray from our ideals, everyone loses. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, last week the major leaders of the television and movie industries in the United States met with President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and in separate meetings with several of us in Congress to address the issues of glamorized violence and sexual exploitation. President Clinton and the industry leaders are to be congratulated for coming together, an indication that both the leaders of Government and the industry take this issue seriously. Second, while I opposed the Federal Government mandating the V-chip and the ratings system that goes with it, the fact that the industry has decided to address the pressure in the telecommunications bill for them to voluntarily set up a system rather than oppose the proposal in the courts will do some good. It is a signal to the American people that the industry is willing to show self-restraint and that good citizenship can prevail over the profits-at-any-cost philosophy. My experience with this issue suggests that progress can continue to be made without Government entering the constitutionally dangerous field of regulating content and without the industry impairing either its profits or its effectiveness. But because this field that is entered is new in the United States for the industry, there will be some stumbling along the way. The path of real progress is rarely easy in any type of endeavor. The television-movie leaders deserve our congratulations not only for the step just announced but for a series of positive actions that have been taken over the past few years. The industry initially moved in a more conservative direction somewhat reluctantly, but as more and more leaders started self-examination and found pride and satisfaction in the good they were doing, the progress has become more measurable. In 1986, when I began talking about violence on television, I was a lonely voice. The entertainment industry responded to my calls for a reduction in gratuitous and glamorized violence on television with almost universal denials of any link between violence on television and violence in our society. For even suggesting such a link, I was loudly and enthusiastically denounced by some. When I asked that they work together to establish joint standards on violence, the networks told me that antitrust laws precluded them from doing so. When I introduced and Congress passed an antitrust exemption in 1990, signed into law by President Bush, to allow them to discuss this issue, they spent the first year and a half of the exemption doing nothing. Finally, halfway through the exemption, I took to the Senate floor to call the Nation's attention to this issue and the industry's inaction. Public hearings were held in the House and the Senate. In response to this public pressure, the networks announced joint standards on violence in 1992. The broadcast networks led the way on this, followed by cable and the independents. The standards they developed were not as strong as I would have liked, not as strong as the British standards, for example, but a positive step forward. In the summer of 1993, the networks established a parental advisory system. They took significant nonpublic actions to change the shape of things. The President of one of the broadcast networks told me that he viewed a film they had paid $1.5 million for, and after viewing it he decided the network should take a loss and not show it because of its violence. When the officials of one network met, initially, one or two sharply criticized what I was doing. Then one of the officers asked the question, ``Do you let your children watch what we are producing?'' He reported that question changed the whole tone of the meeting and what they would produce in the future. Jack Valenti, head of the Motion Picture Association, and others, arranged for me to meet with the Writers Guild and the Directors Guild, the creative people who help to shape what we view. A few of them were hostile, some reluctant, and others clearly welcomed a slightly different thrust. In August 1993, the first-ever industrywide conference on the issue of gratuitous television violence was held. At that conference, I urged the industry to select independent monitors, not censors, to make any reports to the public about television programming. In early 1994, both the broadcast and cable networks announced they would do it and announced their selection for independent monitors. These monitors, the UCLA Center for Communication Policy and Mediascope, have now each issued their first annual reports. Many critics dismissed these monitors as pawns of the industry because the industry is paying for their work. These first reports clearly belie that suspicion. They are solid, critical examinations of television programming. They make concrete suggestions for ways to improve. The reports exceeded my greatest hopes. These studies show that television violence is still a problem, but the very existence of the reports should encourage everyone concerned about this issue. The networks invested significant sums to fund this, and they have respected the independence of the monitors' work. The industry has proposed a voluntary rating system to provide the public with more information about their programming. I applaud this voluntary effort. The question is where we go from here. Laudable as the most recent step by the industry is--though I voted against that V-chip in the version that passed the Senate as an unwise and probably unconstitutional intrusion of the Federal Government in the field of content--I have concerns that some in industry and Government are looking to this as the answer to the question of gratuitous violence. It will help concerned parents. Perhaps of greater influence, it will affect advertising for those who accept that form of sustenance. I have these concerns: First, it will take years before the V-chip is in most American homes. Second, the recent report on television by Mediascope suggests that while ratings help parents and are helpful with young children, boys between the ages of 11 and 14 are attracted by an R rating, not repelled by it. If the study had included young people between the ages of 15 and 19, my instinct is that the R rating would prove to be even more of a magnet. Third, teenagers are mechanically very adept. Many will find their way around the V-chip, if by no other means, by going to a friend's home. Fourth, and most important, the homes that most need to use the V- chip will not use it. Children in high- crime areas watch half again as much television as in areas where crime is less prevalent. Too often, the children of those parents are desperately just trying to get by, and if watching more violence on television keeps the children off the streets, it will strike many parents as a reasonable tradeoff. So I welcome the industry's considerable effort to assist the American public with ratings and the V-chip, but I view it as a mixed blessing. Let me close by issuing a challenge to the industry and to my colleagues. To the leaders of television, I applaud the progress you are making. Broadcast entertainment TV is measurably less violent than 5 years ago and cable TV is slightly less violent. If this progress continues, 10 years from now people will look back on today's television as we now look back on old movies that have the heroes and heroines smoking and drinking heavily. Moving away from that stereotype did not hurt the movies and television, and it helped the American public. I urge all industry leaders to read the two fine monitoring reports that the broadcast and cable industries authorized. I particularly call your attention to the statistic in the more recent report that 73 percent of violence in entertainment television has no immediate adverse consequences for the perpetrators of the violence. The message to children and adults from that: Violence pays. The same report notes that only 4 percent of violent programs emphasize an antiviolence theme. It should not be difficult for television executives to tell your writers and directors and other creative people to shift this emphasis. We do not need to wait for a V-chip for that. To my colleagues in Government, I urge patience. As one of the harshest critics of the industry, let us acknowledge that progress has been made even before this latest announcement and congratulate the industry for it. It is no accident that the top five in the network ratings on television today are not violent shows. Let us applaud the progress that has been made, and let the dust settle a little, viewing carefully and not emotionally where we are, and not pass more legislation at this time. President Clinton and Senator Bob Dole deserve some of the credit for the progress that has been made, as do many other of my colleagues of both parties in the House and the Senate. Periodic hearings should be held to determine what is happening, but let us not derail a train that is now headed in a better direction. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I simply want to underscore what Senator Kennedy has had to say. The Presiding Officer, as a new Member of this body, may not be aware of this, but in addition to everything that Senator Kennedy had to say, one of the things that is happening in our world that is really dramatic is the spread of democracy. It is in Russia, it is in Poland, it is in many countries of Africa now. It is interesting, Mr. President, that in all of the democracies of the world, there is only one democracy where we deny the people in the capital city the right to be represented in a democracy, in their parliament. That democracy, I regret to say, is the United States of America. The District of Columbia has their own elected school board, and we make all these speeches about local control, but we say to only one school board--and it is not insignificant, it is a school board that does not have a vote in terms of having a U.S. Senator--we say to one school board, ``You have to do this or you don't get this money.'' That just does not make sense. I add one other point, Mr. President. I have been around here now 22 years and, generally, we try and work out compromises between the House and the Senate. These are provisions that were not favored by a single Member of the Senate side. Democrats and Republicans capitulated to the House. I understand capitulating because you have to do that sometimes. But the body does not need to do that. The precedent is simply wrong. So I hope that our vote on cloture will be the same. There is no reason for anyone to change his or her mind. This is not good policy, and I hope we will continue to resist the cloture motion. I yield the remainder of my time back to Senator Kennedy.