Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I recognize this bill is going to pass, and I recognize the President is going to sign it. It is bad legislation. It is an emotional reaction to a situation that, obviously, all Americans are unhappy about. The action of Castro in shooting down those planes is indefensible. I have to add, our policy toward Cuba has been the basic cause of the friction. If that policy had changed a long time ago, those planes would not have been shot down. I will take two examples--Cuba and China. Will anyone here suggest-- and I do not for a moment defend the human rights policies of Fidel Castro--but does anyone here suggest that Cuba's human rights policy is worse than China's? Yet, what do we do? We say to China, ``We are going to give you the MFN status, the favorable treatment on trade.'' When China growls, as the Presiding Officer knows, we quake. I think it is a bad policy to have one policy like this on China and another totally different policy on Castro, who is not a threat to anybody. How many nations in the world follow the policy that we do on Cuba? None. Not even our good friend, Israel, who frequently, probably sometimes in embarrassment, votes with the United States. No nation follows our policy on Cuba. It just does not make sense. Stephen Chapman had an op-ed piece in the Chicago Tribune--he is a regular columnist there--in which he quotes Senator Dole as saying: ``Firmness and pressure'' is what we have to use against Cuba. He says, ``Firmness and pressure are what the United States has used against Castro since he came to power in 1959, and if they had succeeded, we wouldn't be dealing with him today. The Cuban dictator has outlasted eight American presidents, and the odds are good that Bill Clinton will also leave office long before Castro does. By any conceivable standard, our efforts to bring down his regime or force him into democratic reforms have been a monumental failure.'' No question about it. If in the old days of the Soviet Union, the Soviets and Castro had gotten together and said, ``How can we design American policy so Fidel Castro can stay in power,'' they could not have designed a better policy than the United States followed. It is absolutely self-defeating. It is interesting how we treat two different incidents. Belorussia shot down two American balloonists--innocent balloonists. We protested. Belorussia apologized. The incident has been forgotten. Now, there are differences. One is that Cuba has not apologized, which they should. But the other difference is, those balloonists were completely innocent. They were not trying to overthrow the Government of Belorussia. It is a different situation, but the response is obviously an emotional response on our part. Foreign policy ought to represent national interests and not national passion. What our policy toward Cuba represents is national passion, rather than national interests and a desire to get those electoral votes in Florida. Now, both parties are guilty. I recognize that. That is not the way you ought to make foreign policy.

Mr. SIMON. It does not make sense. The bill that is before the Senate, among other things, codifies existing sanctions. That means, and I say to my colleague from Georgia and I say to my colleague from Wyoming, if Bob Dole is elected President of the United States and wants some flexibility in dealing with Cuba, we have taken that away. I think we ought to leave flexibility in the hands of the President of the United States. Canada's Trade Minister, quoting in the Washington Post: ``If the United States wants to get at Cuba, that's one thing. But what they are doing here is contrary to the relationship we have had with them and it is a violation of NAFTA.'' That is the Trade Minister of Canada. I read, and I regret I did not cut out an article by a woman professor who is a Cuban exile who said we are just playing into Castro's hands. What he wants is for the United States to beat up on Castro so he can say, ``I am standing up to this big bully.'' In the Washington Post, March 3, Louis F. Desloge had an article in which he says, talking about this bill, ``They may very well achieve just the opposite of what they seek by buttressing, not undermining, Castro's support at home and weakening, not strengthening, the embargo's prohibition on trade with Cuba.'' This is a Cuban-American exile. This whole thing just does not make sense. The only thing that makes sense is yielding to the national passion and yielding to electoral politics. It is not good foreign policy. I will vote against it.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I thank the minority leader. I appreciate it. On the point Senator Pryor just made, that we have had 121 witnesses, Senator Sarbanes has described this as a fishing expedition. And you have, Mr. Leader, said absolutely nothing has come up in terms of either illegal or unethical activities on the part of either the President or the First Lady. Would it be fair to characterize this fishing expedition, that has cost the taxpayers huge amounts of money, that is a fishing expedition going after a whale but so far has not even produced a minnow?

Mr. SIMON. The Senator from South Dakota, and my colleague from Maryland, for whom I have great respect, have gone further, frankly, than I would go in saying we will continue this until April 3. Frankly, if I could vote to cut it off tomorrow, I am going to vote to cut it off tomorrow, because I think it is getting nowhere. I think the American people understand that. I like my colleague from New York. He is fun to be with, and I read his book, ``Power, Pasta, and Politics.'' And it is pure Al D'Amato. It is fun to read. But I think we have to recognize the political purposes. Why are we doing this? It is hard for me to come to any conclusion other than we are doing it for pure politics. Is not it true that there is an excessive amount of cynicism out here in our society today? I think one of the reasons for that excessive amount of cynicism is that we play partisan games around here. I am not saying the Republicans are the only ones guilty of that. We are guilty of it. Paul Simon has been guilty of it occasionally. I am sure none of the rest of you have been guilty of that. But I think that is what makes the public cynical. They see us playing political games instead of dealing with the real problems. I think what you are trying to do is to say let us move on to the real problems. Then one final point that ties in with what Senator Pryor had to say: Not only are we hauling people in--121 witnesses who have to hire lawyers and their expenses--but we are terrifying people. This is not fair to people. We are calling in secretaries and people who have probably never even talked to a Senator. And all of a sudden they are on television--a nanny. We are calling people in who know nothing. The one witness ended up his statement saying, ``I do not know why I am here.'' I said to him--a lawyer by the name of Jennings--I said, ``Mr. Jennings, that is two of us. I do not know why I am here either.'' I think we have to stop playing games. I think that is the thrust of what the minority leader is trying to say.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this is the year that the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act needs to be reauthorized. This important act has vastly improved our handling of juveniles in our criminal justice system, and has provided funding for services to some of the most vulnerable young people in our society. Today, Senator Leahy and I are introducing a bill to reauthorize the runaway and homeless youth sections of the act. Although I feel strongly that the entire Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act should be reauthorized, I understand that Senators Thompson and Biden, chairman and ranking member of the Juvenile Violence Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, are holding hearings on the rest of the act. I applaud their work to examine these issues and construct a reauthorization plan, however I want to introduce this bill because the runaway and homeless youth parts of the act are particularly important to me. In 1988, I held a hearing in Chicago on the problem of homeless youth. As a result of that hearing, I sponsored the Transitional Living Program. The Transitional Living Program was designed to fill a gap in the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. The basic centers part of the act provides grants to community centers which provide temporary shelter and services to runaways while they try to reunite with their families or are placed in a foster home. Unfortunately, as I discovered during my 1988 hearing, many young people never return to their family homes, largely because of neglect and abuse, but are too old to be placed with a foster family. These young people were not being adequately served by the temporary shelters which help so many others. The Transitional Living Program awards new-start grants to community projects which provide longer-term residential services to older homeless youth ages 16 through 21. Nonprofit, community-based grantees teach these young people independent living skills to prepare them to live on their own. Young people live in host family homes, group houses, or in supervised apartments, and receive guidance from counselors to help them make the transition to independent living. The goal of this program is to help these young people live productive, self-sufficient lives, and prevent future dependency on social services. The total annual appropriations for this program has been approximately $12 million. That investment has assisted countless young people who otherwise would have found themselves on the street with no one to provide the support and resources they need to live independently. In 1988, a third component of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act was also added. This Drug Abuse Prevention Program [DAPP] for runaway and homeless youth was initiated because of the recognition that drugs play a large role in these young people's lives. Their difficult living situations make them particularly vulnerable to the dangers of drug use, and such drug use severely hinders efforts to improve their circumstances. As anyone working in this field will testify, drug prevention and treatment are an essential element of any efforts to help runaway and homeless youth. Unfortunately, this DAPP component of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, along with a companion DAPP program for youth gangs, was not reauthorized last year and did not receive any funding this year. This bill recognizes the destructive role of illicit drug use in these young people's lives, and reauthorizes both of these essential programs. Finally, this bill reauthorizes the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. This center, created in 1984, provides important services to the thousands of families who face the devastating, mysterious loss of a child. The center operates a toll-free number to gather tips about missing children, coordinates Federal, State and local efforts to locate missing children, serves as a clearinghouse of information on successful service and research efforts, provides grants to local agencies for research and service efforts and conducts a regular survey on the number of missing children. This center has helped us as a nation understand the scope of this problem and has helped families locate missing children. Unfortunately, the problem of missing children continues, as President Clinton recognized on January 19, 1996, when he signed an order instructing Federal agencies to post missing-children posters in Federal buildings. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children performs an essential function and should be reauthorized. Mr. President, this bill should not be considered a substitute for a complete reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. I support the efforts of Senators Thompson, and Biden, and look forward to working with them to reauthorize the act. However, Senator Leahy and I agree that the runaway and homeless youth part of the act provide essential support for a most vulnerable group of young people. Our bill is meant to highlight our support for these programs and our belief that they should be reauthorized.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this is the year that the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act needs to be reauthorized. This important act has vastly improved our handling of juveniles in our criminal justice system, and has provided funding for services to some of the most vulnerable young people in our society. Today, Senator Leahy and I are introducing a bill to reauthorize the runaway and homeless youth sections of the act. Although I feel strongly that the entire Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act should be reauthorized, I understand that Senators Thompson and Biden, chairman and ranking member of the Juvenile Violence Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, are holding hearings on the rest of the act. I applaud their work to examine these issues and construct a reauthorization plan, however I want to introduce this bill because the runaway and homeless youth parts of the act are particularly important to me. In 1988, I held a hearing in Chicago on the problem of homeless youth. As a result of that hearing, I sponsored the Transitional Living Program. The Transitional Living Program was designed to fill a gap in the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. The basic centers part of the act provides grants to community centers which provide temporary shelter and services to runaways while they try to reunite with their families or are placed in a foster home. Unfortunately, as I discovered during my 1988 hearing, many young people never return to their family homes, largely because of neglect and abuse, but are too old to be placed with a foster family. These young people were not being adequately served by the temporary shelters which help so many others. The Transitional Living Program awards new-start grants to community projects which provide longer-term residential services to older homeless youth ages 16 through 21. Nonprofit, community-based grantees teach these young people independent living skills to prepare them to live on their own. Young people live in host family homes, group houses, or in supervised apartments, and receive guidance from counselors to help them make the transition to independent living. The goal of this program is to help these young people live productive, self-sufficient lives, and prevent future dependency on social services. The total annual appropriations for this program has been approximately $12 million. That investment has assisted countless young people who otherwise would have found themselves on the street with no one to provide the support and resources they need to live independently. In 1988, a third component of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act was also added. This Drug Abuse Prevention Program [DAPP] for runaway and homeless youth was initiated because of the recognition that drugs play a large role in these young people's lives. Their difficult living situations make them particularly vulnerable to the dangers of drug use, and such drug use severely hinders efforts to improve their circumstances. As anyone working in this field will testify, drug prevention and treatment are an essential element of any efforts to help runaway and homeless youth. Unfortunately, this DAPP component of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, along with a companion DAPP program for youth gangs, was not reauthorized last year and did not receive any funding this year. This bill recognizes the destructive role of illicit drug use in these young people's lives, and reauthorizes both of these essential programs. Finally, this bill reauthorizes the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. This center, created in 1984, provides important services to the thousands of families who face the devastating, mysterious loss of a child. The center operates a toll-free number to gather tips about missing children, coordinates Federal, State and local efforts to locate missing children, serves as a clearinghouse of information on successful service and research efforts, provides grants to local agencies for research and service efforts and conducts a regular survey on the number of missing children. This center has helped us as a nation understand the scope of this problem and has helped families locate missing children. Unfortunately, the problem of missing children continues, as President Clinton recognized on January 19, 1996, when he signed an order instructing Federal agencies to post missing-children posters in Federal buildings. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children performs an essential function and should be reauthorized. Mr. President, this bill should not be considered a substitute for a complete reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. I support the efforts of Senators Thompson, and Biden, and look forward to working with them to reauthorize the act. However, Senator Leahy and I agree that the runaway and homeless youth part of the act provide essential support for a most vulnerable group of young people. Our bill is meant to highlight our support for these programs and our belief that they should be reauthorized.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, we have a very fundamental policy decision here. Vouchers are being tried right now in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, and perhaps elsewhere. That is the advantage of the Federal system. I happen to think we have to be very careful as we approach this. Among other things, we have very limited resources the Federal Government is putting out, and we are talking now in this budget about cutting back. In fiscal year 1949, the Federal Government spent 9 percent of its budget on education. This year, as I have said in the Chamber, it is 2 percent, but my colleague from Vermont has corrected me and said we are down to 1.4 percent. And now we are talking about dissipating these resources. I do not think that is wise. Second, while technically we do not mandate the D.C. schools to do this, what we say is here is some money and if you spend it for this, you can have it. And if you do not spend it for this, you cannot have the money, for a strapped D.C. school system. Third, as Senator Kennedy pointed out, the participating schools do not have to take all students. So there is a creaming process that hurts the public schools. There is just no question about it. That is the difference between this and the student aid program that we have. Then what we do is we fail to address the real problems of the D.C. public schools. Real candidly, I have only visited one school, the school both Senator Jeffords and I get over to as frequently as we can to read to a student, and that school I visit is, it is my guess, above average for the schools in D.C. Last year, I visited schools in Chicago, on the west side, and the south side. I visited 18 schools. I did not take any reporters with me. I just tried to see what was going on. I saw some encouraging things; I saw some awfully discouraging things. We ought to be addressing the real problems of urban schools in America. This does not move in that direction. I hope we will restrain our desire to move in and, with the minutest detail, tell the D.C. schools what they ought to do. We ought to be helping urban schools. We ought to be helping schools in our country in general much more than we are. This is not the right way to do it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, first I ask unanimous consent that Janette Benson, who is an American Psychological Association Congressional Science Fellow in my office, be permitted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on the D.C. appropriations conference report.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, our policy toward China is, in the words of our colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, one of zigzagging. I want to have a good relationship with China, but I do not want it at expense of a free Taiwan that has a free press and a multiparty system. Recently, I read an excellent column by Georgie Anne Geyer, who has had a great deal of experience in the field of international relations. Her comments on the China situation should be of interest to all of my colleagues, as well as their staffs, and I ask that they be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks. The column follows: Peacemakers Are up Against an Undeterred China Washington.--Now, let's see if I understand this: Last summer, the more-or-less communist government in Beijing (population China: 1.2 billion) set its People's Liberation Army loose to make Taiwan (population: 21 million) sit up and take notice. First, Beijing stirred things up a bit by conducting ballistic missile tests off the Taiwanese coast--not exactly a neighborly act. Then, the Chinese leaders provided Ambassador Charles Freeman, a specialist on China who was visiting Beijing this winter, with the astonishing news that they were seriously considering launching missile strikes on Taiwan this spring every day for a month. Freeman, who was for many years in our Beijing Embassy, took their warnings most seriously, and in a recent speech at The Heritage Foundation, went so far as to say: ``These exercises are not an empty show of force. They are a campaign of military intimidation that could, and may well as the coming year unfolds, extend into the actual outbreak of combat in the Taiwan Strait and even strikes against Taiwan targets.'' So what do our doughty leaders here do? Well, these warlike growls from Beijing did not seem very nice at all (wasn't China supposed to become capitalist now, anyway?). At first, our responses were just the kind the frontal-assault Chinese like to evoke in barbarians: ambiguous. The new American ambassador to Beijing, former Sen. James Sasser of Tennessee, went so far as to suggest, when asked at a press conference in Beijing what the United States would do if the Chinese did attack Taiwan, that, aster all, we had long recognized that Taiwan was a part of China . . . And how the Chinese smiled behind their missiles. Then, for once in the past three years of China-bungling, the administration actually did the right thing. On Dec. 19, it quietly sent the USS Nimitz to the Taiwan Straits, the politically treacherous waterway between Taiwan and China. This was important: It marked the first time American ships had patrolled the straits since the Nixon/Kissinger ``peace'' with China in 1976. It is hard to ignore the Nimitz, if only because the nuclear-powered U.S. carrier comes with five escort ships equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles. But the master chess- playing Chinese also understood perfectly: This was exactly the way they had always played the ``Great Game'' in Asia. Ah, but then the White House got cold feet over having done such an awful thing. ``No, no, not us,'' they said--in effect. ``We didn't send that big bad Nimitz. (Would we do such a thing? Nobody here but us peacemakers.)'' No, the decision to sail in waters that, for political reasons, we had not entered for 17 years had been made by the ship's commander alone--and that was because of bad weather in alternate waters. Now, unfortunately or fortunately, Hong Kong has an active weather bureau, and those officious fellows there immediately took on what was clearly none of their business and said the weather had been just fine in those days. And so the Chinese, who don't know much about us either, wrote the whole thing off as just ``more American lying.'' In the end, the threat was dispensed with, the Chinese remained undeterred, and American policy toward China was and is as imprecise and lacking in consensus as ever (Secretary of State Warren Christopher did not even mention the word ``China'' in a recent major foreign-policy address at Harvard). Let us try to make some sense of all this: China and, indeed, all of Asia are at a turning point whose outcome will assuredly shape the form of Asia, and our interests in it, for the next 20 years. In China, as Deng Xiao Ping comes to the end of his life. President Jiang Zemin is becoming more and more hard-line (he has even been wearing the once-hated Mao suits). Increasingly he has been placating the hard-line People's Liberation Army. Gerrit Gong, director of Asian Studies for the Center for Strategic and International Studies here, recently met with the military command in Beijing, and told me that he sees the military pressures on the government as becoming intense. ``The older military feel that the revolution is not over,'' he said, ``and that their comrades' blood must still be vindicated. They want to send a message to Taiwan and Japan that they're still strong.'' The Taiwan elections in March, plus Beijing's fear of American recognition of a potentially ``independent'' Taiwan, are what drives the Chinese. With their studied obstreperousness, blended with the constantly reinforced belief that they can bluff this administration, they are playing two games: (1) to threaten and contain the United States, and (2) to diminish the international standing or independent dreams of little, but rich Taiwan. Emboldened by no real American policy--and now assured by the White House that the Nimitz was just ``off course''-- Beijing this last week took the first steps toward setting an actual timetable for the ``reunification'' of Taiwan with the mainland--after Hong Kong in 1997 and Macao in 1999. This is serious business. Our former ambassador to Beijing, James Lilley, who understands these games, shakes his head at the seeming ``mystery'' that so many here see in how to deal with them. ``The Nimitz was exactly the right signal to China,'' he told me. ``The sea is our battleground. Actually we are in the catbird's seat--but we are letting ourselves be jerked around.''

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, George Will recently had a column about our method of punishment in the United States. We have chosen prison as a way to solve our problems of crime, and unquestionably, there are many people who commit crimes of violence who must be put into prison. But it is also true that many are in prison who are not there for crimes of violence. Obviously, we should do more to deal with the causes of crime. Show me an area of high unemployment--whether it is African-American, Hispanic-American, or white--and I will show you an area of high crime. To effectively prevent crime, we have to do more in the area of job creation for people of limited skills. The suggestion of shame as a punishment strikes me as being much less expensive and perhaps just as effective. We ought to at least experiment with it. The old stockades that the Puritans used had shame as the main punishment. The George Will column, which I ask to be printed at the end of my remarks, ought to be considered carefully by people in the penal field. The column follows: [From the Washington Post, Feb. 1, 1996] The Sting of Shame (By George F. Will) A New Hampshire state legislator says of teenage vandals, ``These little turkeys have got total contempt for us, and it's time to do something.'' His legislation would authorize public, bare-bottom spanking, a combination of corporal punishment and shaming-degradation to lower the offender's social status. In 1972 Delaware became the last state to abolish corporal punishment of criminals. Most states abandoned such punishments almost 150 years ago, for reasons explained by Prof. Dan M. Kahan of the University of Chicago Law School in an essay to be published in the spring issue of that school's Law Review. But he also explains why Americans are, and ought to be, increasingly interested in punishment by shaming. Such punishment uses the infliction of reputational harm to deter crime and to perform an expressive function. Around America various jurisdictions are punishing with stigmatizing publicity (publishing in newspapers or on billboards or broadcasting the names of drug users, drunk drivers, or men who solicit prostitutes or are delinquent in child support); with actual stigmatization (requiring persons convicted of drunk driving to display license plates or bumper stickers announcing the conviction and requiring a woman to wear a sign reading ``I am a convicted child molester''), with self-debasement (sentencing a slumlord to house arrest in one of his rat-infested tenements and permitting victims of burglars to enter the burglars' homes and remove items of their choosing); with contrition ceremonies (requiring juvenile offenders to apologize while on their hands and knees). In ``What Do Alternative Sanctions Mean?'' Kahan argues that such penalties can be efficacious enrichments of the criminal law's expressive vocabulary. He believes America relies too heavily on imprisonment, which is extraordinarily expensive and may not be more effective than shaming punishments at deterring criminal actions or preventing recidivism. There are many ways to make criminals uncomfortable besides deprivation of liberty. And punishment should do more than make offenders suffer; the criminal law's expressive function is to articulate society's moral condemnation. Actions do not always speak louder than words, but they always speak--always have meaning. And the act of punishing by shaming is a powerful means of shaping social preferences by instilling in citizens an aversion to certain kinds of prohibited behavior. For most violent offenses, incarceration may be the only proper punishment. But most of America's inmates were not convicted of violent crimes. Corporal punishment is an inadequate substitute for imprisonment because, Kahan says, of ``expressive connotations'' deriving from its association with slavery and other hierarchical relationships, as between kings and subjects. However, corporal punishment became extinct not just because democratization made American sensibilities acutely uncomfortable with those connotations. Shame, even more than the physical pain of the lash and the stocks, was the salient ingredient in corporal punishment. But as communities grew and became more impersonal, the loosening of community bonds lessened the sting of shame. Not only revulsion toward corporal punishment but faith in the ``science,'' as it was called, of rehabilitation produced America's reliance on imprisonment. And shame--for example, allowing the public to view prisoners at work--occasionally was an additive of incarceration. It is so today with the revival of chain gangs. Recent alternatives to imprisonment have included fines and sentencing to community service. However, both are inadequately expressive of condemnation. Fines condemn ambivalently because they seem to put a price on behavior rather than proscribe it. The dissonance in community-service sentences derives from the fact that they fail to say something true, that the offenders deserve severe condemnation, and that they say something false, that community service, an admirable activity that many people perform for pleasure and honor, is a suitable way to signify a criminal's disgrace. Sentences that shame not only do reputational harm and lower self-esteem, their consequences can include serious financial hardship. And Kahan argues: ``The breakdown of pervasive community ties at the onset of the Industrial Revolution may have vitiated the stake that many individuals had in social status; but the proliferation of new civic and professional communities--combined with the advent of new technologies for disseminating information--have at least partially restored it for many others.'' Today America has 519 people imprisoned for every 100,000 citizens. The figures for Mexico and Japan are 97 and 36 respectively. America needs all the prison cells it has and will need more. But policies of indiscriminate incarceration will break states' budgets: The annual cost of incarceration is upward of $20,000 per prisoner and $69,000 for prisoners over age 60. It would be a shame to neglect cheaper and effective alternatives.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, usually we insert articles in the Congressional Record because we have some specific legislative remedy that the item we insert in the Record supports. In December, I read an article in Newsweek by Margaret Crane and cut it out and put it aside. I have just re-read that article. It is the story of one child but really is the story of many children. I do not know what we should do in terms of policy, other than I know we should be more sensitive to children all over this country who have enormously serious problems. I am asking that the Crane article be printed in the Record, not with the idea that I have any immediate legislative remedy, but because we should be reflecting on this type of need. The article follows: [From Newsweek, Dec. 11, 1995] One Child at a Time (By Margaret Crane) The 10-year-old came toward me. She looked like a typical preteen: small-boned with a face like a flower, dark eyes and a tiny turned-up nose covered by freckles resembling sprinkles of nutmeg. Her shoulder-length blond hair was pulled back with a black velvet headband. She started talking animatedly about her friends, her favorite subjects in school and how much she loved to ride a 10-speed bike. This was my first meeting with Mary (not her real name) a year ago. The more she talked, the less she resembled the child I'd read about who had lived through torment that most of us never experience in our worst nightmares. She entered the juvenile system five years ago. She had been sexually abused by an uncle, her father and her father's friend. Her divorced mother, an attractive woman who is borderline retarded, is now seeing a man whose children may be be taken from him by the state. The boyfriend has a history of child abuse documented in a report that is longer than a Russian novel. The child's paternal grandfather molested another of his daughters and served time in prison. Since Mary was removed from her home, she has been caught in that purgatory known as protective care and passed around like a stack of papers--three foster homes, two residential treatment centers and eight schools. Her appearance is deceptive. When I first met her, she was very troubled. She wet her pants and was on medication to control the problem. She behaved sexually toward boys and could get verbally and physically aggressive. She threatened suicide a couple of times and mutilated herself, pulling out her hair or banging her head against a wall during tantrums. With intensive therapy she has learned to better manage her anger. I am Mary's Court Appointed Special Advocate--a voice speaking up for her in court. I'm neither a social worker nor a lawyer, but a trained volunteer assigned by a family-court judge to look out for Mary's ``best interests'' so she doesn't languish in protective custody. I became a CASA after a friend asked me to get involved. She felt that I could empathize with these kids because of the complexities of my own childhood. I agreed to do it and went through 30 hours of training, because as a mother of three healthy kids, I felt I could not ignore other children who are in greater need. My only hesitation was the time commitment. I'm a freelance writer, and I was concerned about juggling two jobs. There are some 37,000 advocates like me across the country. We telephone and visit families, gathering facts to track kids and their parents who get lost in the labyrinth of foster care. CASAs report their findings to judges who often have just minutes to decide where a child will live and for how long. The importance of our work is underscored by the highly publicized death of Elisa Izquierdo, 6, in New York last month. Elisa, living with her father, was returned to her mother after his death last year. Her mother allegedly smashed the child's head against a wall. How do these youngsters fall through the cracks? In my district, social workers may be assigned more than 50 cases, supervisors twice as many. CASA volunteers are assigned only one. We serve, at no cost to taxpayers, as an additional safety net, working alongside a multitude of professionals to try and ensure that children like Elisa do not return to unsafe homes. Elisa's tragedy has spurred me to fight harder to help Mary. Since I took on her case, I've had unique access to a family file filled with incidents of abuse that would sicken the hardest heart. In a summer hearing, the court brushed aside the mother's poor choice of companion and her lack of parenting skills, and moved toward reunifying mother and daughter. The mother's psychological evaluation suggested that she should have her child back as long as they both continue therapy and Mom attended parenting and life-skills classes. Mary was then staying with her mother every other weekend. The judge decided to increase visits by one day a week and assess the case in two months. In September the judge ruled that Mary should return home full time under the legal, watchful eye of the Division of Family Services. Early next year the case will be reviewed for the mother to regain permanent custody. I worry that this decision will be based not only on what's best for the child but on the need to clear an overcrowded docket of a case that has gone on too long and is costing too much. I'm not convinced living with her mother is the safest place for Mary. Mom is a good person who loves her daughter, Mary loves her mother and wants to remain home. But Mom has displayed poor parental judgment in the past. Once she failed to get medical attention for Mary when she injured herself seriously on a visit. From the beginning, I knew reunification was the goal. But I really hoped it might not happen. Those handling the case, including the social worker, therapists, lawyers and I, charted Mary's future: where she'd be safest, have friends and someone to help with her homework. In my opinion, she should be with a paternal aunt who clearly loves her niece and wants to help. In my area, there are some 800 kids who've been removed from their homes and placed in care. Before I became an advocate, I had no idea what happened to these youngsters and never considered how I could help. As more of us fight for these abused and neglected children, perhaps the level of public awareness will be raised and we'll be able to protect more before they're lost forever. I'm still aghast at the judge's recent decision to send the child home full time with Mom pending the final court ruling next year. The county's family services will continue to insist Mary and her mom attend therapy and have intervention services until that time, and I'll continue to monitor the whole family. For the next few months I have a fighting chance to keep my one CASA child safe, if they let me. At least I can comfort myself with the knowledge that as long as I'm on this case, I will do the best that I can with the worst that I have to deal with.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues a recent column in the Washington Post. Cowritten by our former colleague from Maryland, Joseph Tydings, the column cogently describes the importance of a national study on the social and economic impacts of gambling. The impacts of gambling are regional, national, and international in scope. Local and State governments simply do not have access to the information they need to make wise decisions. Although local and State task forces and commissions continue to produce reports, these entities are not equipped to deal with the regional and national ramifications of local and State policies and tend to focus only on the short term. As the authors suggest, a national commission would help States a great deal. Although the column is focused on Maryland, States and municipalities across the country are facing the same choices. Strapped for cash, many turn to casinos, riverboats, and lotteries. Gambling should not be the only choice. Identifying alternative sources of revenue will be prominent among the issues considered by a national commission. I urge my colleagues to read the column and to work with me and the bipartisan group supporting S. 704, the Gambling Impact Study Commission Act. I ask that the Washington Post column be printed in the Record. The column follows: [From the Washington Post, Feb. 6, 1996] Casino Gambling: Bring in the Feds (By Joseph Tydings and Peter Reuter) The recent opening of slot machines at two Delaware race tracks is a small event in itself but is yet another step along the path to coast-to-coast casinos that many states are reluctantly and uncertainly following. Notwithstanding the pressure from the Delaware move, Maryland's Joint Executive Legislative Task Force to Study Commercial Gambling, on which we served as chair and executive director, recommended against casinos last November. One of the task force's major conclusions has been largely ignored by the media--namely, that the problem of legal casino gambling is a national one; Maryland cannot deal with this on its own. The problem cries out for attention from the president and Congress. Unfortunately, the casino industry has mobilized cash and lobbyists to prevent federal action on the issue. The Maryland Task Force, in its full report, unhappily noted that, lacking a significant federally funded study, it has a very limited basis for making projections of what would happen if Maryland opened its doors to casinos, which nowadays get 70 percent of their revenues from slot machines. Given the limited statistical and economic analysis available, its opposition to casinos reflected a sensible caution. Casinos do provide a credible promise of substantial financial gains to those states that are the first in their region to introduce them. Foxwoods casino in Connecticut (owned by the Mashantucket Pequot tribe under 1988 federal legislation that allows Indian tribes to operate casinos on certain tribal lands) now yields that state $115 million in tax revenues. Most of it comes from residents of Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New York who come to play in the world's largest casino. It employs more than 10,000 workers, offering good wages and benefits to many who would otherwise have more menial and unreliable jobs. Not surprisingly, the state of Massachusetts feels it must also allow slots to compete and is now negotiating with the Wampanoag Indians to let the tribe operate a casino. The state of New York, which created a long legislative and referendum process to prevent a rash decision on casinos, has also responded to Connecticut by starting down a path that could lead to their introduction in 1998. But the economic gains that entice states to open their doors to casinos are only substantial if neighboring states aren't competing for the same customers. If Maryland were the only state in its region to allow casinos, it might be able to justify building casinos that relied heavily on spending by Virginians, Pennsylvanians, Washingtonians and West Virginians. However, just as the Foxwoods' success had caused Connecticut's neighbors to move toward casinos, so would Maryland's advantage, if any, be short-lived. The case for casinos has an element of vodoo economics-- namely, the claim that providing a new form of entertainment will increase the economic base of the community or state by increasing local spending. Casino expenditures by Maryland citizens would come entirely through reductions in other leisure spending or even in spending on food, shelter and education. Casinos can provide economic development only by attracting spending from other states. Moreover, if casinos lead to greater consumer spending nationally, then clearly it has to come from reductions in people's savings--scarcely a desirable change for a country that chronically undersaves. There are also important social costs to having casinos readily accessible. Many people have difficulty controlling their gambling, particularly in the artificial environment of a casino where liquor is freely offered and the game is available at all hours. Big gambling losses and the obsessive pursuit of gambling opportunities may lead to family breakdown and loss of productivity and community involvement. Embezzlement would probably rise. Casino patrons might also make attractive victims for criminal offenses. But whether this is a major problem or just a modest incidental to the simple pleasures of millions is still a matter of debate and in need of serious research. The opponents of casinos often weaken their case by making exaggerated claims about the social consequences of gambling. Typical is the claim that ``40 percent of all white-collar crimes come from pathological gambling,'' a hardy perennial that appears in all anti-casino writings. It is supposedly the product of the American Insurance Institute. In fact, no such organization exists, and no one has ever been able to locate a copy of a report documenting the claim. Nor is there much more basis for the frequent claim that each problem gambler costs society $30,000 annually. An authoritative and independent assessment of the economic and social consequences of casinos would help states a great deal. A federal commission needs to do systematic analysis of the kind that state task forces, with their short time horizons and minuscule budgets (ours had six months and a total of $50,000 for its work), cannot muster. There seems to be strong congressional support for such a commission, notwithstanding aggressive lobbying against it by the casino industry. The national commission would also have to focus on the very troubling issue of Indian tribal gambling. Providing Indian tribes with better economic opportunities is clearly an important and legitimate goal, but when those opportunities result in large costs being borne by the entire nation, then the issue needs to be revisited. In the meantime, states like Maryland will feel a constant pressure from their neighbors to avoid having good Maryland money turn into Delaware gambling revenues. The growing burden of social services on state finances as the federal government cuts back its support will increase that pressure, so that in the next downturn many states may reluctantly, but irreversibly, become casino states as well. A federal commission and some sensible national policy are needed, as soon.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished minority leader for his hard work in crafting a bill that meets the needs of production agriculture, national wide. It's close to an impossible task. I support this compromise farm bill. While I do not agree with everything in the bill, I think it has a chance of passing the House and being signed into law. In many ways, it is a good bill for Illinois. It offers farmers limited certainty in the area of income protection, provides a safety net for farmers in future years, and protects our conservation programs, as well as important nutrition programs. Illinois is second to Iowa in soybean production, with 9.7 million acres planted to soybeans. Exports for soybeans and soybean products totaled $7.9 billion in 1995 making soybeans the largest exporter, in terms of value, in U.S. agriculture. With the good work of my colleague Senator Moseley-Braun, this bill raises the marketing loan rate for soybeans to 85 percent of an Olympic five-year average, with a cap of $5.26 per bushel. Despite a 3 percent annual growth in world demand for vegetable oil and protein meal, U.S. oilseed acreage has declined by 17 percent since 1979. This slight increase in the marketing loan rate creates some incentive for soybean production in the U.S., which helps our trade balance and is very good for Illinois farmers. The bill also retains permanent law for farm programs. Good agriculture policy protects family farms as well as consumers. The original freedom-to-farm proposal eliminated permanent law for farm programs, allowing no safety net past the year 2002. With the leadership of Senator Daschle, the Democrats were able to push for a compromise that guaranteed a safety net for farmers in year 7.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, China is making bellicose statements about Taiwan. This morning's Washington Post begins an editorial with these words: If it came to that, the United States would have no choice but to help Taiwan--a flourishing free-market democracy-- defend itself against attack by Communist China. No treaty or law compels this response, but decency and strategic interest demand it. An American Government that allowed the issue of Taiwan's future be settled by China's force would be in disgrace as well as in error. Mr. President, the best way to avoid force or to avoid giving a dictator and a dictatorship the appetite that will not be satisfied with conquering one area is to make clear that that will be resisted by the community of nations. I am not talking about the use of American troops, but I think American air power clearly ought to be brought to bear if such an eventuality should take place. If China is permitted to grab Taiwan, I think it will be only a matter of time before China takes Mongolia and other areas. I think the best way of maintaining stability in that area of the world is to be firm. I heard my colleague, Senator Feinstein, refer to our policy toward China as one of zigzagging. I think that is a correct analysis of what we are doing. I think we ought to be firm; we ought to be positive. I want to have good relations with China, but China should not think for a moment that she can invade Taiwan without having serious problems. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, to have printed in the Record the Washington Post editorial and also an A.M. Rosenthal op-ed piece in the New York Times, ``Washington Confronts China.''

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I see the majority leader is on the floor, and I yield the floor to him.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, several weeks ago I attended a memorial service for Dr. Ernie Boyer, a man who had dedicated most of his life to improving education and educational opportunities for all Americans. The memorial service was more of a celebration of who Ernie was and how many lives he touched than a farewell. Speakers included his son Ernest Boyer, Jr., Secretary of Education Riley, Senator Edward Kennedy and the principal of a San Antonio elementary school Ernie nurtured along. None of us said it better than a fifth grader who had gotten to know Ernie Boyer, ``You say you don't know who Dr. Boyer was? You never got to know him? Too Bad! You would have loved him.'' I am submitting the remarks made by several of us at the service and hope my colleagues will take the time to read what Ernie Boyer meant to a lot of very different people.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the New York Times carried an article titled ``As China Threatens Taiwan, It Makes Sure U.S. Listens,'' written by Patrick E. Tyler, about irresponsible talk from Chinese leaders against Taiwan. I ask that the article be printed at the end of my remarks. It is the kind of talk that inevitably sours relations between China and the United States but, also, causes apprehension among the entire community of nations. The United States made a mistake in the Shanghai Communique of not recognizing that Taiwan and China, in fact, today are two separate countries. If they eventually want to merge as East Germany and West Germany did, that is up to them. But China should not think that when we read accounts like that in the New York Times, we sit idly by and think that it makes no difference. The New York Times editorial response to it, which I ask to be printed at the end of my remarks, is appropriate. I want a good relationship with China. All of my colleagues want a good relationship with China. But China is impeding the possibility of that good relationship with its threats to Taiwan. The New York Times article and editorial response follow: As China Threatens Taiwan, It Makes Sure United States Listens (By Patrick E. Tyler) Beijing, Jan. 23.--The Chinese leadership has sent unusually explicit warnings to the Clinton Administration that China has completed plans for a limited attack on Taiwan that could be mounted in the weeks after Taiwan's President, Lee Tenghui, wins the first democratic balloting for the presidency in March. The purpose of this saber-rattling is apparently to prod the United States to rein in Taiwan and President Lee, whose push for greater international recognition for the island of 21 million people, has been condemned here as a drive for independence. While no one familiar with the threats thinks China is on the verge of risking a catastrophic war against Taiwan, some China experts fear that the Taiwan issue has become such a test of national pride for Chinese leaders that the danger of war should be taken seriously. A senior American official said the Administration has ``no independent confirmation or even credible evidence'' that the Chinese are contemplating an attack, and spoke almost dismissively of the prospect. ``They can fire missiles, but Taiwan has some teeth of its own,'' the official said. ``And does China want to risk that and the international effects?'' The most pointed of the Chinese warnings was conveyed recently through a former Assistant Secretary of Defense, Chas. W. Freeman Jr., who traveled to China this winter for discussions with senior Chinese officials. On Jan. 4, after returning to Washington, Mr. Freeman informed President Clinton's national security adviser, Anthony Lake, that the People's Liberation Army had prepared plans for a missile attack against Taiwan consisting of one conventional missile strike a day for 30 days. This warning followed similar statements relayed to Administration officials by John W. Lewis, a Stanford University political scientist who meets frequently with senior Chinese military figures here. These warnings do not mean that an attack on Taiwan is certain or imminent. Instead, a number of China specialists say that China, through ``credible preparations'' for an attack, hopes to intimidate the Taiwanese and to influence American policy toward Taiwan. The goal, these experts say, is to force Taiwan to abandon the campaign initiated by President Lee, including his effort to have Taiwan seated at the United Nations, and to end high-profile visits by President Lee to the United States and to other countries. If the threats fail to rein in Mr. Lee, however, a number of experts now express the view that China could resort to force, despite the enormous consequences for its economy and for political stability in Asia. Since last summer, when the White House allowed Mr. Lee to visit the United States, the Chinese leadership has escalated its attacks on the Taiwan leader, accusing him of seeking to ``split the motherland'' and undermine the ``one China'' policy that had been the bedrock of relations between Beijing and its estranged province since 1949. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, asked to comment on reports that the Chinese military has prepared plans for military action against Taiwan, said he was awaiting a response from his superiors. Last month, a senior ministry official said privately that China's obvious preparations for military action have been intended to head off an unwanted conflict. ``We have been trying to do all we can to avoid a scenario in which we are confronted in the end with no other option but a military one,'' the official said. He said that if China does not succeed in changing Taiwan's course, ``then I am afraid there is going to be a war.'' Mr. Freeman described the most recent warning during a meeting Mr. Lake had called with nongovernmental China specialists. Participants said that Mr. Freeman's presentation was arresting as he described being told by a Chinese official of the advanced state of military planning. Preparations for a missile attack on Taiwan, he said, and the target selection to carry it out, have been completed and await a final decision by the Politburo in Beijing. One of the most dramatic moments came when Mr. Freeman quoted a Chinese official as asserting that China could act militarily against Taiwan without fear of intervention by the United States because American leaders ``care more about Los Angeles than they do about Taiwan,'' a statement that Mr. Freeman characterized as an indirect threat by China to use nuclear weapons against the United States. An account of the White House meeting was provided by some of the participants. Mr. Freeman, reached by telephone, confirmed the gist of his remarks, reiterating that he believes that while ``Beijing clearly prefers negotiation to combat,'' there is a new sense of urgency in Beijing to end Taiwan's quest for ``independent international status.'' Mr. Freeman said that President Lee's behavior ``in the weeks following his re-election will determine'' whether Beijing's Communist Party leaders feel they must act ``by direct military means'' to change his behavior. In recent months, Mr. Freeman said he has relayed a number of warnings to United States Government officials. ``I have quoted senior Chinese who told me'' that China ``would sacrifice `millions of men' and `entire cities' to assure the unity of China and who opined that the United States would not make comparable sacrifices.'' He also asserted that ``some in Beijing may be prepared to engage in nuclear blackmail against the U.S. to insure that Americans do not obstruct'' efforts by the People's Liberation Army ``to defend the principles of Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan and Chinese national unity.'' Some specialists at the meeting wondered if Mr. Freeman's presentation was too alarmist and suggested that parliamentary elections on Taiwan in December had resulted in losses for the ruling Nationalist Party and that President Lee appeared to be moderating his behavior to avoid a crisis. ``I am not alarmist at this point,'' said one specialist, who would not comment on the substance of the White House meeting. ``I don't think the evidence is developing in that direction.'' Other participants in the White House meeting, who said they would not violate the confidentiality pledge of the private session, separately expressed their concern that a potential military crisis is building in the Taiwan Strait. ``I think there is evidence to suggest that the Chinese are creating at least the option to apply military pressure to Taiwan if they feel that Taiwan is effectively moving out of China's orbit politically,'' said Kenneth Lieberthal, a China scholar at the University of Michigan and an informal adviser to the Administration. Mr. Lieberthal, who also has traveled to China in recent months, said Beijing has redeployed forces from other parts of the country to the coastal areas facing Taiwan and set up new command structures ``for various kinds of military action against Taiwan.'' ``They have done all this in a fashion they know Taiwan can monitor,'' he said, ``so as to become credible on the use of force.'' ``I believe there has been no decision to use military force,'' he continued, ``and they recognize that it would be a policy failure for them to have to resort to force; but they have set up the option, they have communicated that in the most credible fashion and, I believe, the danger is that they would exercise it in certain circumstances.'' Several experts cited their concern that actions by Congress in the aftermath of President Lee's expected election could be a critical factor contributing to a military confrontation. If President Lee perceives that he has a strong base of support in the United States Congress and presses forward with his campaign to raise Taiwan's status, the risk of a military crisis is greater, they said. A chief concern is that Congress would seek to invite the Taiwan leader back to the United States as a gesture of American support. A Chinese military leader warned in November that such a step could have ``explosive'' results. In recent months, American statements on whether United States forces would come to the defense of Taiwan if it came under attack have been deliberately vague so as to deter Beijing through a posture of what the Pentagon calls ``strategic ambiguity.'' Some members of Congress assert that the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 includes an implicit pledge to defend Taiwan if attacked, but Administration officials say that, in the end, the decision would depend on the timing, pretext and nature of Chinese aggression. China Threatens Taiwan China has made no secret of its concern that Taiwan is drifting toward independence with the tacit support of the United States. Beijing pounced on an unofficial visit to America last year by Taiwan's President, Lee Teng-hui, to register its strong objection to any potential change in Taiwan's status. But China has now escalated tensions by recklessly raising the prospect that it might use military force to intimidate Taiwan. The United States and other countries must make clear that such a step would unravel Beijing's relations with the international community and undermine China's prized economic boom. Patrick Tyler of The Times reports that Chinese officials have let the Clinton Administration know that Beijing has completed plans for a limited military attack on Taiwan as soon as this spring unless the island bows to demands for a lower-profile foreign policy. These warnings may well be nine-tenths diplomatic bluff. But even so they suggest that Beijing has lost sight of one of the basic understandings underlying improved Chinese- American relations since the Nixon Administration--that Taiwan's future status must be settled by peaceable means. Beijing is plainly infuriated by the recent efforts of President Lee to win increased recognition for his country in foreign capitals and international bodies like the United Nations. The mainland Government sees Taiwan as an integral part of the historical Chinese empire, torn away by foreign imperialists and Chiang Kai-shek at a time when China was weak. Taiwanese see it differently, pointing to their centuries of separate cultural development and, more importantly, their hard-won political democracy and thriving capitalist economy as good reasons for standing somewhat apart. China apparently hopes its warnings will lead Washington to lean on Mr. Lee to accommodate Beijing. While Washington should urge caution on both sides, the United States must vigorously reject military bullying from Beijing in cases like this. Taiwan is too big to be treated as a mere pawn in relations between Washington and Beijing. It is America's seventh- largest trading partner, with 21 million people, a vibrant democracy and one of Asia's highest living standards. More than anything else, it is the fear that today's freedoms and prosperity would be lost under Beijing's harsh authoritarian rule that fuels Taiwan's quest for a separate identity. Beijing would do better to address this fear with political and economic reforms at home rather than threatening the use of force across the Taiwan Straits.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would like to bring attention to the outstanding work of Msgr. Ignatius McDermott and Haymarket House. It is my pleasure to inform you that in December, Haymarket celebrated its 20th anniversary. One of largest treatment and detoxification centers in Chicago and the Midwest, Haymarket is the culmination of one man's lifetime of education and devotion to helping the addicted. Haymarket was founded in December 1975, when ``Father Mac'' was in his early sixties. For the last 20 years they have made history, establishing programs for those no one else wishes to serve. The programs include Illinois' first non-medical detox center and Illinois' first sanctuary program for skid row alcoholics. These programs, along with the tireless efforts of Monsignor McDermott, have helped change attitudes about alcoholism and have helped establish it as a disease to be treated, rather than as a social problem. Through Haymarket, Father McDermott reached out to serve those ostracized by today's society. His goal--to serve the homeless, the chemically dependent, the substance abuser, the disadvantaged, and the unfortunate--is reached through the providing of shelter and care for these people and their families. When drug addicted infants enraged the public, Haymarket provided the first residential treatment program for drug-addicted pregnant women. This was at a time when those providing treatment were more concerned with liability issues than with the treatment of these women. Since it began, the Maternal Addiction Center [MAC] has delivered 350 drug-free babies. Haymarket, along with Maryville Academy, has also established Illinois' first residential treatment program for postpartum women who have delivered drug-addicted babies. Haymarket currently runs 28 programs and has served over 13,000 clients. Their unique program is centered around the idea that to achieve long-term recovery the whole person must be addressed. They believe that without a continuum of care, people are more likely to relapse. This continuum brings together drug abuse prevention and treatment, health services, day care, parent training, vocational education, and job placement. These services help the center improve the prevention and treatment services and increase the savings to taxpayers associated with these services. I encourage my colleagues to join me in commending Father Mac and Haymarket for their continued commitment to the services they provide. I extend to my colleagues an invitation to visit Haymarket when they visit the Chicago area.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the Federal Government has played an important role in promoting equal opportunity in employment by Federal contractors for the past 55 years. Current Federal policy requires contractors to review their own hiring practices for any intentional or unintentional discrimination. Academic studies show that enforcement of these policies has led to increases in hiring of ethnic minority and female workers and that these programs continue to have a positive and significant impact on remedying discrimination in the workplace. The Federal affirmative action guidelines not only benefit workers. Employers have found that affirmative action programs help them to ensure that they locate and select the best qualified candidates from an expanded talent pool. Companies also report that a diverse work force leads to enhanced performance and productivity. There is always room for improvement, however. A Labor and Human Resources Committee hearing last June 15 suggested that some contractors are not aware that their progress in achieving recruitment goals is lagging behind industry or regional norms unless or until they are selected for a compliance review. Witnesses also raised several concerns about the burdens some regulations may impose on the businesses--particularly paperwork. Shortly after the hearing, my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Abraham, and I wrote to Shirley J. Wilcher, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor who oversees the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). We suggested that OFCCP develop a way of providing employers with earlier indications that their progress toward compliance with affirmative action guidelines should be reviewed for possible problems. We also requested that they meet with representatives from contracting, consulting, and other constituent groups to review OFCCP regulations and to suggest how they may be improved upon or eliminated. I am pleased to report that OFCCP has made significant progress toward resolution of many of the complaints raised at the hearings. They have developed strategies to ensure that compliance officers are consistent and uniform when administering and enforcing laws and regulations. They are creating a technical assistance manual that will allow contractors to develop affirmative action plans without retaining expensive law firms or consultants. They have clarified the relationship between OFCCP and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to ensure that employers are not subject to duplicative, inconsistent, or unnecessary regulatory burdens. OFCCP officials have had substantive discussions with a variety of constituent groups. These meetings will likely lead to regulatory reforms that will reduce paperwork, reduce the time involved in developing written affirmative action programs, and establish practical reporting requirements without undermining OFCCP's mission. They are also considering the development of an early alert system that would provide contractors with feedback on progress before the need arises for a full compliance review. I commend Deputy Assistant Secretary Wilcher for the progress she has made. I encourage her and her colleagues to continue to work toward these important changes. I ask that Ms. Wilcher's written response be printed in the Record. The material follows: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Washington, DC, December 15, 1995. Hon. Paul Simon, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Simon: On June 27, 1995, following the Labor and Human Resources Committee's hearing on the Office of Federal Contract Programs (OFCCP), you wrote to suggest some actions that I might take to respond to the concerns of the agency that were highlighted in the hearing testimony. This letter responds to your request that we report by December 15th on the progress we have made toward reducing the contractors' compliance burdens and improving OFCCP's performance. I appreciate the opportunity to report on our efforts. Since coming to OFCCP in February 1994, I have been committed to pursuing a fair enforcement strategy. Over the past several months, I have heard the concerns about the internal program management and administration of the contract compliance program. As noted in your letter, several of the witnesses at the June hearing voiced concerns about the time involved in preparing affirmative action programs; the use of goals as rigid quotas; inconsistency in interpretation and application of the regulations; and duplication of efforts with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Because these issues seriously affect our ability to administer and enforce the equal employment opportunity requirements in a manner consistent with our fair enforcement approach, we have taken actions to address each of these concerns. Several measures have been taken to ensure that compliance officers are consistent and uniform when administering and enforcing our laws and regulations. First, in order to clear up any confusion about how affirmative action works under Executive Order 11246, on August 2, 1995, the agency issued a policy directive on ``Numerical Goals under Executive Order 11246.'' The directive reaffirms OFCCP's longstanding policy that affirmative action program goals are not to be used as quotas which must be achieved through race-based and gender- based preferences. Rather, as the policy directive explains, goals under Executive Order 11246 are to be used as a tool to aid in breaking down barriers to equal employment opportunity for women and minorities without impinging upon the rights and expectations of other members of the workforce. Additionally, we provided enhanced training to the staff; conducted several accountability reviews of regional and district office operations; and implemented a customer service improvement plan. Further, we are establishing the position of ombudsperson to handle contractor and constituent complaints about the program and actions of compliance officers. The person assigned to the position will be responsible for outreach, public education and alternative dispute resolution. In response to complaints about the time and expense associated with developing an affirmative action program, in FY 1995 OFCCP began work on developing a comprehensive compliance assistance program, which will include a technical assistance or ``how to'' manual. The agency has not had an effective public educational component or a ``user friendly'' technical assistance manual. As a result, small and newly covered contractors feel obligated to retain law firms and consultants to assist them in developing a written affirmative action program. Our goal is to increase technical support to Federal contractors by establishing programs that expand training about our regulatory requirements and enhance voluntary compliance. In light of the concerns that OFCCP and EEOC are duplicating work, OFCCP and EEOC have examined the interagency coordinating mechanisms that were established to ensure that employers are not subject to duplicative, inconsistent, or unnecessary regulatory burdens. OFCCP and EEOC staff routinely communicate on issues of mutual interest and concern. This coordination is prescribed in Executive Order 12067, the 1981 Memorandum of Understanding between DOL and EEOC, and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). EEOC and OFCCP have issued joint regulations which delineate the respective responsibilities for processing complaints that are within the jurisdiction of both the ADA and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Further, employers generally are not subject to simultaneous or dual enforcement proceedings by OFCCP and EEOC. In the rare instance where both agencies may investigate or seek enforcement against the same employer, one of the agencies defers to the other, or the matter is handled on a joint basis by OFCCP and EEOC. As you suggested, between August and October, we held meetings with representatives of the employer and constituency groups to discuss proposals to revise the regulations under the Executive Order program. We met separately with representatives of the following employer groups: the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), the Equal Employment Advisory Council (EEAC) and the Organization Resources Counselors, Inc. (ORC). We also met with representatives of civil rights and women's rights organizations. These recent meetings with OFCCP stakeholders were the latest in a series of consultations on regulatory reforms that began in April 1994 in connection with an earlier proposal to revise certain of the provisions in the Executive Order regulations. OFCCP also convened four partnership meetings outside of Washington with several hundred representatives from the contractor and constituent communities in the Spring of 1995. The purpose of the meetings, which were held in Dallas, Pittsburgh, San Diego, and Chicago, was to elicit recommendations for changing the regulatory requirements for written affirmative action programs and the procedures for evaluating a contractor's compliance with the regulatory requirements. The participants at the partnership meetings were also asked to suggest data requirements for a proposed affirmative action program summary format. We have identified a number of issues we would like to change through regulatory reforms. OFCCP staff is in the process of drafting rulemaking proposals to effect the contemplated revisions to the regulations. These consultative meetings not only are required by Executive Order 12866, which requires agencies to involve the public in proposed rulemaking, but also have been an integral part of OFCCP's established rulemaking practices. The discussions with our stockholders have been worthwhile and productive. In addition, we are examining whether some of the issues raised during the consultations can be addressed through policy guidance or other kinds of programmatic changes. Our overall objectives are to reduce paperwork, reduce the time involved in preparing a written affirmative action program, and establish practical reporting requirements without undermining the ability of OFCCP to be an effective enforcement agency. Further, revising the compliance review procedures would enable OFCCP to better focus its limited resources while reaching a greater percentage of the contractor universe than it currently reaches. Finally, the agency also intends to prepare annual monitoring reports by geographic area and industry to track how different industries are performing. You also recommended that we develop a way of providing contractors early indications of compliance problems. We are considering the concept of an ``early alert system'' to give a contractor advance notice of potential deficiencies so that the contractor would have the opportunity to ``self-correct'' and thereby lessen (if not obviate) the need for a full compliance review. Such an alert system could assist the agency in targeting its limited resources. Accordingly, we are trying to determine the feasibility and administrative costs involved. Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on our efforts to develop and implement changes to the Executive Order program. Sincerely, Shirley J. Wilcher, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Federal Contract Compliance.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. SIMON. If you could on your time, I would appreciate it.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, first of all, in response to what Senator Specter had to say, we are not asking that these funds be taken out of the Ryan White Program or NIH. Everyone knows the budget figures are not written in stone yet. Ask the American people, instead of a $245 billion tax cut, should we have a $240 billion tax cut or $5 billion more for education, and 90 percent of the American people would say, ``Let's do that.'' Every economic study that has been made--conservative, liberal, whatever--says we have to do more in education in this country, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Yet, you look at those figures on the graph back there that Senator Kennedy has, and they are even warped to this extent: They do not count inflation. When you eliminate inflation, for example, on that $900 million, that brings it down to about zero for 1995. When you add inflation to the $3.1 billion cut, that brings it up to a $4 billion cut. What does this mean in practical terms? The Chicago School District really is a struggling school district, and they see us cutting back. They get 15 percent of their funds from the Federal Government. They are making the assumption, on the basis of these 25 percent cuts, that they will get 18 percent less Federal funding. That may be optimistic. On the basis of that, they are planning to discharge 600 teachers. Does anyone believe we can build a better Chicago or Illinois or America by discharging 600 teachers in a desperate school district in urban America? What about our colleges and universities? Students going to colleges and universities right now say, ``What kind of help can I get when I go to the University of Idaho,'' or whatever school it is. Colleges and universities are saying, ``We cannot tell you.'' Now, I recognize that the continuing resolution in theory raises the Pell grant to $2,440. But that is public relations. Am I for that? Sure. I want to raise it to $10,000. I am for it. These are not entitlements. I would love to make an entitlement out of that program. Those have to be appropriated. So while we raise the Pell grant to $2,440, we say we are cutting back on the appropriations to make that possible. That is just nonsense. What we are doing here is sending a signal to the House, to the American public, as you work out a budget agreement, education has to be a priority. That ought to be a simple reality that every American, every Senator, every House Member can recognize.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, there are really three alternatives. If my colleague is correct about not having a quorum, they can accept it by voice vote. That is not unprecedented. No. 2, it could come back here and we could decide in desperation we can take this off. And No. 3, we can decide we are going to have a continuing resolution by voice vote for another 5 days while we get this worked out. We do not need to supinely say, whatever the House decides we are going to have to do. I have never known the Senate to do that on any consistent basis.