Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I understand that two of my colleagues spoke in opposition to direct lending this morning on the floor of the Senate. I will respond to what I had been told by my staff was said on the floor. First, just by way of background, let me just say there are 1,350 colleges and universities that now have direct lending. I do not have the list in front of me, and I cannot tell you, Mr. President, what schools in Wyoming are using direct lending. I know that in every State outside of Alaska there are schools using direct lending. It is interesting that not a single college or university that has direct lending wants to go back to the old system. We just received a report from the Colorado State auditor saying that the University of Colorado is saving $192,000 a year under direct lending in bookkeeping and other personnel costs. Let me respond to the specific charges or statements. It said under the plan that the President vetoed, all students could get flexible repayment. Under direct lending if you want to, you can have income- contingent repayment, that a percentage of your income can be set aside for repaying a loan. That was not the case under the old program. The actual language of the bill is, Mr. President, that a lender ``may,'' at the discretion of the lender, offer the borrower the option of repaying the loan in accordance with an income-contingent repayment schedule. That is very different from saying they ``shall.'' In other words, banks ``may'' do it. But, of course, banks could do it before. The reality is very few banks are going to do it except if they are under competition from direct lending and they think they have to. Also, added in conference on the income contingent, on income contingent, you repay for 25 years. At the end of 25 years if you become a nun or if you enter some work where you do not receive income, at the end of 25 years it is forgiven. In conference, it kept that forgiveness, but said the interest would be paid to the banks no matter what. The claim was that the plan the President has vetoed would double the direct loan program from 5 percent to 10 percent. The reality is 10 percent of the schools had it the first year. We are in the second year now and almost 40 percent of the schools in the Nation now have direct lending. It is just universally popular. We have, in Illinois, 67 schools using direct lending now. I have yet to hear anyone say that it does not work. One of our colleagues cited an op-ed piece in the Washington Post saying there is no cost difference to the Federal Government between direct lending and the old system. Now, if there is no cost difference, then give colleges and universities the choice. The reality is the op- ed piece in the Washington Post did miss several points that Secretary Riley mentioned in the letter to the editor. One of the very fundamental points is that under direct lending, when the Federal Government issues bonds, we collect income tax on those bonds, on the interest on those bonds. When guaranty agencies issue bonds, those are nontaxable bonds. The difference, over a period of 7 years, is about $1.3 billion. The Congressional Budget Office says if you apply the present law--not the cooked books of the budget that was passed--to both programs, direct lending saves $4.6 billion. The claim is that the direct lending transfers the loan program from the private sector to the Government. Now, it is true that some of the banks clearly are private sector, though as our former colleague, Senator David Durenberger--and the Presiding Officer did not have the chance to serve with him here in the Senate, but he was a very thoughtful Member of this body,--Senator Durenberger, in comments to a group of bankers when they said, ``Let's use the free enterprise system,'' said, ``This is not free enterprise; this is a free lunch.'' When you build into the law what the profit is and you say we will give you 98 percent to 100 percent of the profit, that is a pretty good deal. The average bank makes more money percentagewise on a student loan than on a house mortgage or a car loan--more than any other transaction other than a credit card transaction. Then the guaranty agencies operate with our money. The Inspector General of the Department of Education says there is $11 billion worth of Federal money at risk with the guaranty agencies. There is one in Indiana, for example, where the chief executive officer of that guaranty agency set up with Federal funds--and I fault myself for not being more careful, along with others, in setting this up--his pay is $627,000 a year. Not bad when we pay the President of the United States $200,000 a year. That guaranty agency spent $750,000 to lobby against direct lending. This is, indirectly, Federal money. The claim was made that the Education Department has to hire 400 new people to run the direct loan program. The reality is that a fraction of the number of people are required because you are not dealing with 7,000 different credit agencies--banks and guaranty agencies. It is a much more efficient system. I mentioned the University of Colorado. They testified before us, and they said they have been able to use two less personnel to advise students, and they have canceled four computers that they had leased, and they saved substantial amounts of money. The statement, ``We should balance the budget without cooking the books''--I could not agree more. And the budget, unfortunately, as the Chicago Tribune mentioned, does ``cook the books.'' The simple reality is sometimes Government does something that is right. Sometimes Government does something that is wrong. The old GI bill, that the Presiding Officer may be too young to remember, the old GI bill was a Government-run program that was a great program. Direct lending is a Government-run program. It simplifies things. It cuts out the middleman. If we want to have an ``assistance to banking act,'' let us call it that. Do not label it assistance to students and then have an assistance to banking act. It was noted in the newspapers the day before yesterday that the banks of America had their best quarter ever this last quarter. I am pleased with that. Maybe like the Presiding Officer, I have a mortgage on my home. I want those banks to stay in good health. I want these pages, in the years to come, to be able to get mortgages. I want banks to be healthy. But I do not want to subsidize banks and call it student assistance. I want to give colleges and universities the choice. If there is no cost to the Federal Government, as the Congressional Research Service says, by having the choice, or if, as the Congressional Budget Office says, we save money, by all means we ought to give colleges and universities the choice. I think it will mean the difference between hundreds of thousands of people going to college or not going to college. One of the other great advantages of direct lending that I did not mention earlier is it is open to everyone. Under the old open loan program, you have to fall below a certain income level and you have to meet other criteria. This is open to all American citizens and all people who are legally in our country. It is much more simple, reduces paperwork--it is a great program. Sometimes Government does things that, frankly, embarrass us who serve in Government. Here is an instance when Government does something we can be proud of. I hope, when the dust settles on all this, we will keep the option of direct lending for the colleges and universities of the country. Mr. President, I note no one came rushing to the floor to hear my remarks. I do not see anyone here requesting the floor, so 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, I would like to commend one of my constituents, Ms. Eleanor L. Carter, on the occasion of her retirement from the Federal Government. Ms. Carter, a native of Chicago, IL, will retire as a claims representative with the Social Security Administration after 35 years of service. She started work on August 11, 1960 as a ``balancing clerk'' for the U.S. Department of Treasury. After a year of service, Ms. Clark transferred to the Social Security Administration, and after several promotions, she continues to be an asset in her capacity as a claims representative. Mr. President, I join Ms. Carter's family and many friends in congratulating her on an exemplary career, and wishing her all the best for the future. Illinois has benefitted greatly from her superb service.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to an editorial in the November 17, 1995, issue of USA Today, called Hate Speech on the Net. As many of my colleagues are aware, college campuses have been at the center of the debate over hate speech. Several universities have established restrictive rules on speech and have punished students with probation or even dismissal. These rules, while certainly established with the best intentions, do raise serious issues of free speech. As Americans, we are allowed to say what we want, as long as it does not threaten public safety, no matter how much it may offend others. Voltaire is credited with saying, ``I disagree with what you say but I am ready to fight to the death to preserve your right to say it.'' I would like to add: and then I will speak out against what you have said. As this editorial points out, a recent episode at Cornell University illustrates that a better response to hate speech is often an eloquent reply. I ask that the full text of the editorial be printed in the Record. The editorial follows: [From USA Today, Nov. 17, 1995] Hate Speech on the Net A tasteless but not harmless college prank got the national attention it deserved this week when four Cornell freshmen made the mistake of sharing their raunchy degradation of women via the Internet. The four sent an e-mail message listing ``75 reasons why women (bitches) should not have freedom of speech.'' After the message was spread--and attacked--they expressed ``deep remorse.'' In an apology published in the campus newspaper, they insisted they didn't mean any of the things they wrote. Please. If they didn't mean to trash women, why was their list so demeaning, degrading and threatening? If they meant to share this list with just a few of their buddies, why did they send it on the Internet, where so many other students pulled up the list that at least one school's computer system crashed? Their juvenile attempts at humor included such sexist slaps as: ``Big breasts speak for themselves.'' ``Female drunks are annoying unless they put out.'' ``If she can't speak, she can't cry rape.'' Other suggestions were simply too vulgar to repeat. Freshmen with the brains to get into a prestigious Ivy League college should have known this list was not harmless fun. Cornell acknowledged this episode ``offended, angered and distressed.'' But its judicial administrator concluded Thursday that the students did not violate the college's code of conduct. That judgment will further infuriate those outraged by this sexist attack. But this sorry tale takes a turn for the better. As the students' bad taste became public, the e-mail response was so loud and large that it brought a prompt response from the university The students now have ``offered'' to attend gender- sensitivity training, perform community service and apologize in person to senior Cornell administrators. Had the students been denied the right to make their sexist views public, those views might have gone unchallenged and unchanged. All of which shows again that the best remedy for offensive speech is not a restrictive rule but an eloquent reply.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, Richard Roeper, who is a regular columnist with the Chicago Sun-Times, recently had a column headed, ``Computer Bettors Can Be Virtually Sure of Losing,'' which I ask to be printed in the Record in full after my remarks. It is not simply an editorial column with that conclusion. Mr. Roeper goes into the specifics of what happened to him when he placed bets. Some people wonder why we should have a commission to look at the whole phenomenon of legalized gambling in the United States. It is spreading rapidly, and I don't know what we do about the phenomenon of computers and gambling, just as one example. The column follows: [From the Chicago Sun-Times, Dec. 10, 1995] Computer Bettors Can Be Virtually Sure of Losing (By Richard Roeper) ``The technology will allow people to bet on anything they choose to, and if it's legal, someone is sure to set up a service.''--Bill Gates, discussing the potential for gambling on the Internet in The Road Ahead. Sooner rather than later, you're probably going to be able to sit at a computer in your home office and lose everything you own, including the computer you're sitting at in your home office. Such are the perils of gambling and the wonders of technology. Lately there's been a lot of talk about setting up ``virtual casinos'' on the information highway--onscreen gambling emporiums that will be constructed on computer networks so that you won't have to fly to Las Vegas or even drive out to Aurora to play craps or roulette or poker. All you'll have to do is log on, enter an access code, provide a credit card number and bingo! Bingo. They'll probably have that, too. If you win, you'll receive electronic credits. If you lose, you'll be charged on your next Visa or American Express statement. This is a frightening concept. As it is, real casinos are designed to provide a cushion between you and reality. The absence of clocks, the lack of windows, the waitresses providing you with complementary drinks, the conversion of hundred-dollar bills into toyish black chips that you flick around like bottle caps--all are tools to make it easier to separate you from your money. And it works. Those huge, tacky, gleaming, zillion-dollar palaces in Las Vegas are owned by the folks who are taking the bets, not the folks who are making the bets. They build the 5,000-room hotels and the cages for the white tigers and the pirate ships and the fake pyramids with your money. Still, at least when you bet with chips, you're vaguely aware that they represent real money. Watching a stack of those chips shrink can be a painful experience; you can see and feel some proof of the fact that you're losing. Others around you, including the employees of the casino and your fellow gamblers, also provide some stimuli. But if you're alone at a keyboard, there's no human element, nobody to cluck in sympathy when you lose, or slide some chips your way when you win. There's no sense that you're truly risking your money. So it will be ridiculously, tragically easy for the gambler to log on and lose a huge chunk of money in a single session online. I put this theory to the test by playing a three-day round of blackjack on my personal computer and keeping a record of my ``wins'' and ``losses.'' The game on my Windows '95 program is called ``Dr. Blackjack.'' Little boxes at the top of the screen keep track of wins and losses for each session, as well as a running tally for a player. Monday, 8:43 a.m. I set the computer for $50 wagers and tell the electronic dealer to deal--and our respective cards appear on the screen almost instantly. With a click of the mouse, I can then decide to stay, hit, split, double down, even buy insurance against a dealer blackjack. As soon as I make my decision, the computer plays out the dealer's hand in literally the blink of an eye, much faster than the slickest human dealer. By 9 a.m. I'm up $450, each winning hand accompanied by an electronic deedle-deedle-dee! of joy, each losing hand stomped on by a sharp buzzer. After two hours I'm at the $500 mark in winnings. A nice round number, so I sign off. Don't have a stack of chips to pocket, don't have a dealer to tip. Monday, 4:47 p.m. My plus-$500 total is waiting for me when I sign on. I'm playing with the casino's money, so I up my wager amount to $100 per hand. Monday, 5:03 p.m. Down $2,300. That is not a misprint. During one stretch I lost nine hands in a row. A note appears on my screen, telling me I've lost too much in one sitting and should take a break. Somehow I think the virtual casinos of the future won't have that feature. Monday, 11 p.m. I know I should stay away from the table, but what the heck, I'm here to gamble, right? I'm down $2,300, so it seems unwise to play for only $100 a hand; I'll never get my money back. So I increase my wager to $200. Boom Boom Boom Boom, four winning hands in a row, including a blackjack, and I'm down only $1,400 now, We're rolling. Tuesday, 12:35 a.m. It's been a long, hard struggle, but I'm exactly even for the day. Of course, so is everyone else who hasn't played a single hand of blackjack, and they didn't spend four hours sitting at a computer terminal. Tuesday, 12:39 a.m. Down $800. Should have quit while I was even. Tuesday, 6:30 a.m. Now betting $300 per hand. Occasionally, when I make the incorrect decision, an electronic ``cheat sheet'' appears on the screen and I'm asked if I'm sure this is the move I want to make. What they're really saying is, ``Split those 8's, bonehead.'' Again I doubt this feature will exist when you're playing for real money. And though I know it's for my benefit, it gets annoying, and sometimes I stubbornly refuse to follow the suggested strategy. I always lose those hands. Tuesday, 8 a.m. Had a good run. I'm up $1,600. Time for a break. Tuesday, 6:05 p.m. What the heck, I won money this afternoon and I'm winning money now and I'm ``going home'' after tomorrow's session, so why not increase the bets to my limit, $500? Tuesday 6:30 p.m. Doubled down with an 11 and drew a 10. The dealer had a 17. That's a $1,000 win on a single hand. I'm now up $4,850. Tuesday, 8:15 p.m. The computer is saying I've won too much and a graphic appears that accuses me of counting cards! I'm forced to sign off for the night. Up six grand and change. Wednesday, 7 a.m. In just a few minutes I've raised my winnings to $11,350. If I could press a button that would turn those numbers into real money, would I do it? Doubtful. Why stop when you're hot? Wednesday, 8:50 p.m. Hovering at the $11,000 mark. Had a great daytime session and I'm ready for more. Wednesday, 10:30 p.m. I'm looking at the figures on the screen but I don't believe it. How can I be down $11,000? If I hear that loser-buzzer one more time I'm going to smash this keyboard. I want to increase my limit, but I can't. Five hundred is the maximum. Wednesday, 11 p.m. All right, a comeback. I'm down only $7,750. One hour left before my self-imposed midnight deadline. Midnight. That's it, time is up. For the three days, I ``lost'' $1,750--and I'm happy with that. I consider that a real triumph. Which is pretty sick when you think about it. Sure, this was only a simulation. I'm sure I'd have better self-control with real money, even at a virtual casino. But it was scary enough watching those numbers change so quickly, even though I knew they didn't mean anything. If virtual casinos ever became a reality, it'll be the people on the other side of the computers who will be smiling.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, Somalia saved lives. The mistake was in pulling out precipitously. I fear we may make the same mistake in Bosnia. Finally, we have made a commitment to NATO. We have to live up--or we should live up--to that commitment. Then I would add one other point. That is a word of gratitude to Senator Bob Dole for being a statesman on this issue. He is not gaining any votes in Republican primaries in terms of the Republican nomination, but he is doing what a U.S. Senator ought to do, and that is look toward what is best for our country. What is best for our country right now is to back President Clinton.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank you and I thank my colleague from Texas for her courtesy. There are some basic questions. Why have an Armed Forces for the United States? Why have a Chicago Police Department? Or a Louisville Police Department? One reason is to have stability, in a community and in the world community. And here, let me add that the great threat to the world today, unlike 10 years ago, is instability. Ten years ago it was nuclear annihilation. The second reason for having an armed force and for having a police department is to save lives. Are there risks? Yes. If there is a problem in one part of the city of Chicago you may send in the police department. And, if there are problems around the world, the United States, along with the community of nations, may have to use the armed force that we had. There are, however, for the Chicago Police Department and the U.S. Armed Forces, greater risks in not maintaining stability here. Let me add, while I support the President in this endeavor, the one thing that does concern me is the talk about getting out in 1 year. I hope that can happen. I hope we can be out in 6 months. I think the probability is, if our mission is to succeed--and it is important that it succeed--that we are likely to have to be there 2 or 3 years; maybe not with 20,000 soldiers, but with a substantial armed force. I was critical of George Bush for not moving early, when problems erupted. And I cheered, in August 1992, when Bill Clinton made a campaign speech criticizing George Bush for not acting. Then when Bill Clinton came in, I was critical of him for not acting. But I think what he is doing now is right. It is right for stability because of the danger of the spread of war. If we do not follow through on this peace--and it is a peace, tenuous as it is--if we do not follow through, this is inevitably going to spread to Macedonia and Albania. Macedonia has more ethnic Turks than any other country, and Turkey has made clear, if there are problems in Macedonia, Turkey is going to move in. Our friends in Greece have made clear, if Turkey moves in, they are going to move if--and this thing will escalate very, very quickly. You will have hundreds of thousands of Americans--Armed Forces people--involved in a war, not 20,000 maintaining a peace. The second thing we should remember, there are not too many clear lessons in history, but one of the clear lessons of history is religious wars spread very easily. What we have in Bosnia--nothing is completely clean there--but you have primarily a Moslem force, a Roman Catholic force, and an Orthodox Christian force. If anyone thinks that when Moslem forces in Bosnia are under attack that Moslems in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia, and elsewhere are going to pay no attention to that, you are dreaming. Religious wars spread very, very easily. In terms of saving lives, it is very clear we should act. We have the agreement reached in Dayton, to the credit of this administration, the State Department, and others who were participants. Bosnia is half the size of Ohio. Bosnia has seen 250,000 people killed, 2 million people displaced. We went into Desert Storm, invaded a country after a short time, and I do not know whether history is going to judge my vote against acting that quickly, though I said I was for using economic sanctions first and then acting. But I feared, if we acted, we would simply perpetuate Saddam Hussein in power. But make no mistake about it: One of the reasons we acted was oil. Are we willing to act to save oil but not save lives? I do not think that is what America stands for. I have heard on this floor reference to Somalia as a great disaster. Let me tell you. Somalia was George Bush's finest hour. Hundreds of thousands of lives were saved. The mistake was made, and I was at the White House when we worked out the compromise that we would have to leave before too long. And I see I am being signaled for time. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, recently The Washington Post had an op-ed piece by one of the finest people I have met in my four decades of public service: Abner J. Mikva. He served in the House, served in the federal judiciary and served as counsel to President Clinton. In all three areas he served with great distinction. I believe we should reflect on his recent op-ed piece ``From Politics to Paranoia,'' which I ask to be printed in full in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Along with Senator John Glenn and Senator Jeff Bingaman, I voted against the authorization of another million dollars for further Whitewater investigations by the Senate committee. I believe it will turn out to be a waste of money. I have been appointed to that committee, perhaps because of that vote. But much worse than the conduct of congressional committees have been the excesses of the independent counsels that have been appointed. If I were to vote again today on that creation, I would vote against it. I read recently that the Whitewater independent counsel is now investigating two contributions to Bill Clinton's 1990 gubernatorial race. And the independent counsel has now spent almost $25 million in pursuing every little remote lead. Our laws should be enforced and we need independence. My own feeling is that we should establish certain standards for the Office of Attorney General and then not have an independent counsel. Janet Reno is independent. President Gerald Ford's appointment of Ed Levi as Attorney General was not an appointment of a close friend but rather someone genuinely independent. Unfortunately, we have had examples of Attorneys General being appointed who are too close to the President. But to have independent counsels that run amuck is not in our national interest. The article follows: [From the Washington Post, Nov. 26, 1995] From Politics to Paranoia--Misguided Ethics Laws Have Given Us More Mistrust, Not Less (By Abner J. Mikva) It probably was inevitable that after a year as White House counsel some in the media and politics would speculate that I left my job because I ``know something'' I don't want to defend. That suspicion is dead wrong. I left because I am physically tired--but in good health and humor, and I intend to stay that way. The long hours were draining, though worth it. But far more demoralizing was what I came to see as a profound loss of faith by the American people in the government they've created. I leave public life at a time when America has grown unusually distrustful of its government and its leaders. Too many of us expect and believe the worst about government, even when no evidence exists to justify our doubts. And I've come to think that some of our intended solutions to this over the years have become the cause of the problem. We need changes in the independent counsel law and others we've created with perhaps the best of intentions. Healthy skepticism is necessary to the continuation of our democracy. When it turns to paranoia, it becomes destructive. American history has alternated between the two--from the Watergate reformers and the anti-Federalists who opposed the new Constitution of the 1780s to the paranoia of the ``Know Nothings'' of the mid-1800s to the ``I hate Washington'' crowd of today. What seems paradoxical about today's lack of trust is that never have people in government been obliged to disclose more about themselves. Ethics laws, freedom of information laws, conflict of interest laws and others have made public officials live in the clearest goldfish bowl ever. Federal agencies have inspectors general and designated ethics officials whose job it is to ferret out any unethical behavior, whether it is by a Cabinet secretary or a mail clerk. The independent counsel laws provides a mechanism whereby the attorney general must refer out any evidence of criminal wrongdoing by high government officials. Yet public confidence in government--the ostensible goal of ethics legislation--is at an all-time low. Indeed the accounting often seems to further the problem by allowing critics to magnify minor blemishes into major defects. For instance, there has been a regrettable willingness by politicians and activists in both of our major political parties to use even a hint of ethical misconduct as a political weapon against the other side. Negative political advertising has become an art form for almost every political campaign. Add to this a tendency in the public arena to exaggerate claims of impropriety, and it sometimes becomes difficult for the public to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate charges. The media has added to the excesses. The desire of the electronic media to use sound bites rather than reportage lends itself to the name-calling and the sensationalism that exists. The desperate nature of competition for the print media had caused many newspapers to reach for scandals and follow the lead of the most yellow-journalism rivals. Most of the investigations that I dealt with during my time as White House counsel--Whitewater, Waco, the Travel Office, the Mexican peso crisis--were a dismaying waste to time for Congress, for the administration and for the media who kept looking for a nonexistent smoking gun. The investigations showed that some people in government made mistakes, used bad judgment, passed the buck and displayed other human fragilities that may be worthy of comment but hardly of an inquisition. In the Waco tragedy, for example, the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department each issued candid reports on the events, including an assessment of blame for the mistakes. The congressional investigations added nothing to the public awareness except to beat up on the agencies. The same is true of the congressional Whitewater investigations where an independent counsel operation has been spending a lot of time and resources to determine whether any governmental officials engaged in wrongdoing. I am not an apologist for human shortcomings. Once a government official steps over the ethical line, he or she should be dealt with firmly. The public must know that we will not tolerate ethical lapses, whatever the personal consequences to the violator. But government cannot daily prove its rectitude to the cynic convinced of government's corruption. A nation where cynicism toward government prevails cannot function effectively. Of course, a government that merely implores voters to ``trust me'' will not gain that trust, nor should it. But if our eternal rounds of inquisition and calumny tear down the public trust, and make government out to be a cesspool, if our remedies make public service so unattractive and distasteful as to lose the capacity to recruit new and good people to government--we lose the whole ballgame. We have spent so much time accusing, finger-pointing and exposing, that we have forgotten why we formed a government in the first place. We make it impossible to be governed. And yet we are proposing additional ethics reforms, based not on what they can achieve, but rather on the political perception that something must be done. In an attempt to ``out-ethic'' the political opposition, we only make matters worse. For example, we already require the filing of too many forms. Every year all of our senior officials spend countless hours preparing financial disclosure forms. Candidates file extensive reports on how they raise and spend their campaign money. The reports are so complicated that most reviewers can't understand what they are reviewing, but they do serve as wonderful traps to snare the unwary official. We have lobbying laws on the books that do precious little to expose the difference between legitimate lobbying and improper use of money and favors to gain desired results. There are proposals to add further forms--ones that will do nothing to break the link between lobbying and money. We ought to concentrate our efforts on gift banning and campaign finance reform. We ought to evoke the principle that applies to federal judges, who cannot accept anything of value from any party who has an interest in a case before that judge. The judge either refuses the gift or recuses himself from the case. It's a simple principle. Judges understand it; lawyers and their clients understand it; everyone obeys it. In the rare cases where judges violate the rule, they go to jail. What the principle does is break the link between the giving and the ruling. You can give but you cannot buy. Applied to Congress, which recently has banned gifts such as meals and trips, the principle would end the seamy business of members asking for contributions (and getting them) from person most likely to be affected by the member's actions. Obviously, such a plan would necessitate a whole new campaign finance structure, but that is long overdue anyway. We ought to reconsider the independent counsel statute. Some may smirk that I of all people would suggest changing it, since I voted for it while in Congress and have had to live with its consequences during this past year. But fewer and fewer people in either political party now believe that it really works. The original purpose of preventing Richard Nixon and his friend and close adviser Attorney General John Mitchell from investigating themselves in the Watergate scandal has been achieved. Since then, 17 independent counsels have been appointed. Their mandates have ranged all the way from investigating whether a White House aide sniffed cocaine in a New York nightclub to whether a cabinet official understated how much money he paid to a woman with whom he had an affair. One investigation--the five-year-old probe of Department of Housing and Urban Development officials--has gone on for so long that the independent counsel announced that the main target had grown too old to pursue. One can question whether even the Iran-contra case or the Whitewater affair wouldn't have best been handled the normal way by Justice Department prosecutors. We can do better. We need to amend the statute to provide for qualifications for the independent counsel that guarantee political independence. The counsel ought to be appointed on a full-time basis for a limited period of time. Extensions of the original period of appointment should be allowed only under very limited circumstances. The threshold for seeking an independent counsel should be raised further--to limit the appointment only to cases where it is clear that normal authority is insufficient. The selection process for the special court which appoints and supervises independent counsels should be changed to ensure both the reality and the perception of nonpolitical appointments. From the outset, our founders recognized the tension between governing effectively and the elimination of all potential for abuse. George Washington wrote: ``No man is a warmer advocate for proper restraints and wholesome checks in every department than I am; but I have never yet been able to discover the propriety of placing it absolutely out of the power of men to render essential services, because a possibility remains of their doing ill.'' If we have all these codes of ethics and all of these disclosure laws and all of these investigating institutions and less trust with each addition to the pile, we must be doing something wrong. We need some remedies that will restore the faith.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the Post and Courier, a Charleston South Carolina newspaper, recently had an op-ed piece by our colleague from South Carolina that is typical in its Fritz Hollings' bluntness, but also typical in its Fritz Hollings' wisdom. Two points in his op-ed piece need to be stressed over and over again. One is that you cannot lead by taking polls. You lead by studying the issues and having some conviction and doing something. Leadership that simply follows the polls is leadership in name only. At all levels of government, we need much more leadership of conviction. If we believe we are going to satisfy the public and turn away their cynicism by some of the gimmicks that we use, we are only fooling ourselves. I agree with the limitations on lobbying and I favor a much improved system of financing political campaigns, but if these things happen but we continue to govern by polls rather than by looking at the national needs, we will get nowhere. The second part of this statement is a recognition that we need to get additional revenue for the federal government. He says accurately, ``We have fiscal cancer and nobody wants to talk about it.'' He goes on and says bluntly, ``To put a tourniquet on this deficit-debt hemorrhage, we need spending cuts, spending freezes, a closing of tax loopholes, denying new programs and tax increases.'' Our highways are deteriorating compared to those in Western Europe when not too many years ago it was the other way around. We have a much higher percentage of our children living in poverty than any of the Western Europeans countries. We are the only western industrialized country that doesn't protect all of our citizens with health care insurance. These things take revenue, and people in this body and in the Administration ought to be talking much more candidly to the American public. I commend our colleague, Senator Hollings, for being blunt and telling us the truth in this article which I ask to be printed in full in the Record. The article follows: [From the Post and Courier, Nov. 15, 1995] Polls Get in the Way of Washington's Work (By Senator Ernest F. Hollings) The silent scandal that permeates Washington is the pollster charade. As in Newsweek's Conventional Wisdom Watch, today's Washington is based on who's up and who's down in the polls. Everyone--the president, Congress and the media-- participates. The result? Nothing gets done and no one really expects anything to get done. Meanwhile, the nation's real needs are ignored. There is no genuine plan to guide us. And plans to put us on a pay-as-you-go basis are simply pollster- driven budget schemes fashioned to get politicians past the next election. John F. Kennedy started it all 35 years ago in West Virginia. Lou Harris' polls identified hot-button issues of concern and Jack Kennedy played them like a Stradivarius. Political polling immediately became the order of the day. Now even the media wittingly are the engines behind the oppressive reliance on polls. No longer do reporters bow to the who, what, where, when, how and why of fact and accuracy. Instead, they kowtow to pollsters to elicit pithy partisan responses that stem from polls. The pollster begins each day with ``divide and conquer.'' Voters immediately are divided into age, sex, race, education, working or retired, married or single, veteran or military, city, suburb or rural. No one is considered an American. They have to be Asian-American, African-American, Irish-American. Division is the pollster mentality, but dissembling is the pollster's art. No pollster has served a day in office. But they'll tell you in a minute that you can't break the Sacred Code of the Pollster. If you want to get--and stay--in office: Never take a firm position. If you do, you'll divide voters. Favoring a proposition will put you at odds with those who oppose. Opposing will separate you and those who favor. To influence the most voters possible, firmly say that you're ``concerned'' about any issue so you appear understanding and appease both sides. Aha! Now any way you slice it, you've identified with the voter. With this kind of soundbite mentality permeating the airwaves, it's easy to understand why there is no leadership in Washington. Lee Atwater taught that negative politics is the positive path to political victory. As a result, one of the first ``musts'' for a candidate today is to order negative research on opponents--and himself. Why? To have a prepared answer for any past mistakes or inconsistencies and to be able to unload on an opponent at the end of the campaign when voters finally are interested and there's no time to respond. Pollsters also teach both incumbents and challengers to preach change. That's why all candidates sound the same. Republicans and Democrats are all for cutting spending and against taxes; for prisons and against crime; for jobs and against welfare; for education and the environment. And, of course, everyone is for the family. With this emphasis on change and negative politics, the logic of the pollster paradigm is that government is the enemy and problem, not the solution. As such, everyone serving in government must be ousted. Thus, there's the cry for term limits. The media's job is to expose this nonsense. But instead of living up to this responsibility, the media have joined the scam. They feast on polls and partisanship. Rather than reporting the news of the day, they make the news with their own polls. Questions by reporters don't delve into an issue but focus on the poll or partisan aspects of the issue. What they want is conflict. These days, the pollster charade in the media continues with the ludicrous notion that spending cuts alone can eliminate the deficit. Or worse--that cutting taxes can eliminate the deficit. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since Ronald Reagan's ``voodoo'' that tax cuts could bring in more revenue and eliminate the deficit, the national debt quintupled from less that $1 trillion to almost $5 trillion. And instead of eliminating waste in government, we created the biggest waste of all--$348 billion a year in interest costs. Since we can't avoid paying interest costs, we borrow a billion dollars daily, which automatically increases spending a billion, increases the debt a billion and increases interest costs. Every day the cycle starts again. Both President Clinton's and Speaker Gingrich's budget plans to get rid of this waste are mere ruses to get past next year's election. But Washington politicians figure--who cares? Who will be around seven years from now? And the media lets them get by with it. Our 1995 budget was $1.52 trillion. The 1996 Clinton budget is $1.63 trillion. The 1996 Gingrich congressional budget is $1.60 trillion. Both budgets increase spending. Neither keeps up with the $1 billion daily increase in the national debt. Over the seven years, spending exceeds revenues by more than $1 trillion. The media know this yet continue to report ``a balanced budget by the year 2002.'' Now comes the bogus proposal to balance the budget by reducing cost-of-living increases for Social Security and by raiding Medicare. By law, Social Security funds are in trust and are not to be used to offset the deficit. Similarly, the Medicare trust fund for hospital costs is in the black, but may go into the red by 2002. In other words, both Social Security and Medicare are paid for and in surplus. What is not paid for this minute is defense, education, farm subsidies, environmental protection, veterans' benefits, law enforcement--general government. We readily increase billions for defense and other programs but are unwilling to pay for it. Thus continues the borrowing, spending and downward spiral that increases the deficit. We have fiscal cancer and nobody wants to talk about it. To put a tourniquet on this deficit-debt hemorrhage, we need spending cuts, spending freezes, a closing of tax loopholes, denying new programs and tax increases. But proposals to do this go unreported. As such, the public believes spending cuts alone will do the job. And the media validate bogus plans to cut taxes as serious moves to balance the budget. That we really are broke is ignored. Rather than being pollster pawns, the media should serve as an institutional memory to give up perspective. With the Cold War over, it's time to rebuild our economy. More than ever, a strong government is needed--for education, job training, research, housing, transportation, technical development and inner-city needs. But the media treat government as the enemy. In a silent conspiracy with pollsters and Washington politicians, the media masquerade opinion polls as fact and validate the politics that any tax increase is poison. All the time, the rebuilding of America goes wanting and neither the Clinton nor the Dole/Gingrich forces can talk sense. The train wreck is a media production.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I am proud of the flag. I remember one of the times when I was in the Armed Forces before I went overseas. When you were at a football game and they played the ``Star Spangled Banner'' and you could salute that flag in that uniform, you had to be cold hearted if you did not get a thrill out of it. At my home in rural southern Illinois, you will see a flag flying. We are proud of that flag. But I strongly oppose a constitutional amendment. What is the big problem? The Congressional Reference Bureau says, in 1994, three flags around the Nation were burned. In 1993, how many flags were burned around the Nation? Zero. If we adopt an amendment to the Constitution, there will be more flags burned in protest, not fewer. There will always be somebody who is so extreme that he or she is going to do it. And, if we ban the burning of the flag, what about the Constitution? You know, prior to the Civil War, in Massachusetts, because the Constitution permitted slavery, you had over 3,000 people gathered in the home State of my colleague from Massachusetts who gathered and burned the Constitution. Are we going to have another amendment to ban burning the Constitution? What about the Bible? That is certainly sacred to millions of Americans. Are we going to make a constitutional amendment on that? Take a look at the New York Times, June 22, 1989. ``Supreme Court, 5 to 4.'' I happened to disagree with that decision. Incidentally, Justice Hugo Black earlier disagreed with that idea. But by a 5 to 4 majority, including Justice Scalia in the majority, the Supreme Court said you can, as part of freedom of expression, burn the flag. Right next to it on the front page of the New York Times it says, ``Chinese Execute Three in Public Display for Protest Role.'' That is what America is all about, that we can protest in freedom. I do not happen to like protests with burning the flag. But we can stand up and do that. Mr. President, prior to your coming here, one of the most conservative men I ever served with in the U.S. Congress was Senator Gordon Humphrey of New Hampshire. He was more conservative than Senator Thurmond who just spoke and usually was listed as more conservative than Senator Helms. He got up in opposition to this amendment on the floor. Listen to what Gordon Humphrey had to say. I understand the revulsion and the disgust and the popular cry for remedy that arose out of the Johnson decision. I understand that very well. But it seems to me there are times when this body at least ought to be able to rise above popular passion and Gallup polls and political leverage for the next elections and do what is right for posterity. Lord knows, we do not do it with respect to the budget process or any fiscal matters. Let us at least do it with respect to our precious natural rights and the preservation of the Constitution. Gordon Humphrey, one of the most conservative Members that Senator Hatch or Senator Kennedy or Senator Heflin or Senator Hollings or I served with. You do not get patriotism by passing laws. We get patriotism by having the kind of government our Americans can be proud of. And, for all its flaws, I am proud of this Government and I am proud of the flag that represents that Government. But, to start, because three people last year burned a flag, and say we are going to rush in to having a constitutional amendment, that is ridiculous. That is not honoring the Constitution as we should. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank my colleague from Utah for his courtesy.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if the Senator from Utah desires the floor, I will yield to him.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, Colbert King, a member of the editorial page staff of the Washington Post, recently wrote an op-ed piece about a group of young people who are meeting to establish greater understanding. It may seem like a small thing to many people, but it is precisely what needs to happen in our country. I remember many years ago speaking to the Hillel Foundation at the University of Illinois. This is the Jewish student organization there. It was an anniversary of some sort, and I suggested, among other things, that since at the University of Illinois there were people of both Jewish and Arab backgrounds that a few students getting together regularly might really contribute something. One of the students present said that would be meaningless but, interestingly, a few of the students got together and, for at least a short period of time, held some regular meetings between American Jews, Israeli Jews, and students from Arab countries. These were simply informal discussions long before President Sadat made his dramatic visit to the Knesset in Israel. I wish I could report to you that something dramatic came out of these student meetings. I do not know that anything came out of them, other than one extremely important thing--greater understanding. We are in a world that needs that, and I would like more people to read the op-ed by Colbert King, which I ask to be printed in the Record. The op-ed follows: [From the Washington Post, Dec. 2, 1995] Past Politeness and Into Honesty (By Colbert I. King) While countless adults have been living out the year clenching their teeth by day and hyperventilating at home by night over one racially tinged issue or another, a small group of youngsters have been quietly making sure they don't end up leading the same kind of lives. Seventeen area high school students--nine African American and eight Jewish--have been meeting since January to build a future in which their generation will live without alienation and bitterness. What they have achieved in 12 months should put us to shame. In a town that worships influence and power, these young people have neither. But when it comes to tolerance, trust, and having friendships that cut across racial and religious lines, they're up there with the best of their elders. Not that they started out that way. When they joined the first class of Operation Understanding, D.C.--a fledgling nonprofit organization out to revive the historical relationship between Jews and African Americans through young peopel--many carried the same heavy baggage that adults well into their autumn years still lug around. To be sure, they were bright, curious, committed to their community, and loaded with leadership potential--all the things Operation Understanding, D.C., was seeking. But they also tracked in a fair amount of ignorance, suspicion and prejudice--some of which they acted out through words and song during an Operation Understanding reception for parents and guests a few weeks ago. A small sample: Jamie: ``I know what it means to be black. How come it seems that the Jews don't know what it means to be Jewish in America?'' Andrew S.: ``How come blacks are so lazy? And how come so many are on welfare? Johnathan: ``Isn't there a Jewish Yellow Pages where they can use their own lawyers and doctors and accountants and only go to stores owned by Jews?'' Emily: ``Why are black men so scary?'' Atiba: ``How come Jews have all that money? They live the good life. How'd they get all that money anyway?'' Mimi: ``How come blacks are such great dancers?'' You get the picture: mistrust, misconceptions, misunderstanding. These youngsters stand out, however, because they chose not to remain smug and comfortable with their hangups. They began meeting several times a month to get to know one another, to talk about each other's culture and history, to learn more about their own. They didn't do it through touchy-feely gab sessions. They got into each other's lives. They went to Daniela's sister's bat mitzvah; it was Tiba's first time in a synagogue, Mimi went to Tiba's church on Palm Sunday--her first time in a black church. Everyone went to Muhammad's mosque in March. They called on Capitol Hill and heard D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton and other black and Jewish members of Congress discuss how they coalesced on legislation. They met with a range of local speakers--as a sign they were long-suffering and up for just about anything, they even endured part of an evening with me. But they also got out of Washington and into communities that would give them a deeper understanding of African American and Jewish cultures and collaborative history. Before their trip, however, they made a Shabbat dinner together. As youngsters of the '90s, they did it their way: a soul food Shabbat--fully equipped with fried chicken, biscuits, greens, sweet potatoes, and challah, backed by lit candles, recitation of the Motzi and prayer over the wine. What can I say? And off they went to Crown Heights in Brooklyn--both the Lubavitcher and African American sides--Ellis Island and the Jewish Museum, and places that resonate with civil rights history such as Selma, Montgomery, Birmingham and Charleston. They had hoped to go to Sengal and Israel, but despite the plate-passing at black churches and donations from foundations, corporations, congregations and individuals, they couldn't raise enough money. Maybe next year in Jerusalem and Dakar. But a lot was learned at home. Jamie could hardly believe what he heard from Holocaust survivors in Atlanta and New Orleans. The visit to the Charleston plantation made Simone cry uncontrollably. ``It was as if all the slaves who lived there came to me all at once,'' she said. They walked across the Edmund Pettus Bridge and spontaneously began singing ``We Shall Overcome.'' The Class of 1995 ends in April; a new group of high school juniors begins next month. Class No. 1 still meets monthly, but unlike most of us older folks, they're long past being polite with each other; now they're just honest. That's because after all they've gone through, they know respect and trust each other. Black nationalists and Jewish chauvinists out there, have no fear: Operation Understanding is a life-changing experience, but racial and religious identities don't get lost. If anything, these young people now have a stronger sense of themselves and their own history. They cherish both their similarities and differences. It's America's cultural and racial divides they will abide no longer. And no one's going to tell them who can be their friend. These are strong kids. They even think they can change the world. This is what Operation Understanding's kinetic (no other word for it) president, Karen Kalish, hoped to achieve when she started the D.C. program. The idea came from United Negro College Fund president and former U.S. representative William Gray III; who started Operation Understanding in Philadelphia with George Ross of the American Jewish Committee 10 years ago. The Class of 1995 is the new generation of bridge builders they had in mind. As the program ended, Jessica, who is Jewish, began singing ``Lift Every Voice and Sing.'' She was joined by the group-- as the eyes of many African American parents and guests began to glisten. Then Bridgette, an African American, began ``Oseh Shalom''--and Jewish eyes were full. Those tears tell us a lot about our times. Schmaltzy? Perhaps. But maybe if a few more Operation Understandings had been at work around the globe long ago, President Clinton wouldn't have had to visit Belfast this week, and 20,000 American troops wouldn't be gearing up for Bosnia. We're leaving our youth a pretty scratchy world. But rest assured, as far as Operation Understanding's graduates are concerned. America is going to be okay in their hands.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss one of the remaining barriers to equal justice in our State and Federal judicial proceedings--bias by judges and court personnel, and in particular, gender bias. I, and my colleagues from Massachusetts and Delaware, Senators Kennedy and Biden, strongly believe that funds appropriated for the Federal judiciary, as set out in title III of the fiscal year 1996 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations conference report, should be used to study bias in the courts, if any, and to educate judges and court personnel about this barrier to equal justice in the courts. As enacted, the Violence Against Women Act includes a provision--the Equal Justice for Women in the Courts Act--that authorizes and encourages each of the Federal judicial circuits to conduct studies of the instances, if any, of gender bias in the courts and to implement appropriate reforms. These studies were intended to examine the effects of any differential gender-based treatment in areas such as the treatment of litigants, witnesses, attorneys, jurors, and judges, the services and facilities available to victims of violent crime and the selection, retention, promotion, and treatment of employees. In addition to authorizing the circuit studies, the act also requires the Administrative Office of the United States to act as a clearinghouse to disseminate any reports and materials issued by these gender fairness task forces. The act also requests the Federal Judicial Center to include in its educational programs, such as training programs for new judges, information related to gender bias in the courts. These circuit-by-circuit studies were included in the act after the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously accepted an amendment that I had offered. In passing the Violence Against Women Act, Congress recognized the need for research of this kind and the importance of disseminating the results of such research throughout the judicial system. The importance of these studies extends well beyond their actual results. For example, the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, which I authored and which President Bush signed into law in 1990, requires the Justice Department to collect data on crimes based on race, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Oversight hearings on the implementation of that act demonstrated that one of its many benefits was to dramatically increase the awareness and sensitivity of the police about hate crimes. In this case, requiring circuit courts to study gender bias would have the same beneficial effect of increasing the awareness and sensitivity of judges and court personnel about gender bias. While some of my colleagues may disagree, I strongly hope that, as authorized by Congress, the Federal judiciary will issue the reasonable funds appropriated under this act to fulfill [[Page S 18174]] the purposes of the Equal Justice for Women in the Courts Act and achieve the ultimate goal of our Federal judicial system--equal justice for all.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I send a resolution on behalf of Senator Moseley-Braun and myself congratulating Northwestern University's football team. It has been cleared on both sides. Let me just say, after 24 losing seasons, they are going to go to the Rose Bowl. They now rank No. 3 in the Nation. Even more interesting, of all the division 1A schools in the Nation, they are No. 2 in scholastic aptitude tests. I offer this resolution, and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration. It has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I ask my colleague from Utah if he would permit me to speak for 2 minutes.

Mr. SIMON. I have the consent of my colleague from South Carolina to speak for 2 minutes, if there is no objection, and I ask unanimous consent to speak.

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, I rise in opposition to this legislation that I know is well intended. But I think it is wrong. Our colleague from California mentioned one witness. Let me read just a part of the testimony of another witness, Mrs. Viki Wilson. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that her full statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, here is what she said. My name is Viki Wilson. I am a registered nurse with eighteen years experience, ten in pediatrics. My husband Bill is an emergency room physician. We have three beautiful children. Jon is 10. Katie is 8, and Abigail is in heaven with God. At 36 weeks of pregnancy all of our dreams and happy expectations came crashing down around us. . . . . Approximately 2/3 of my daughter's brain had formed on the outside of her skull. I literally fell to my knees from shock [when told about this by the doctor]. I immediately knew that she would not be able to survive outside my womb. . . . My husband and I were praying that there would be some new surgical technique to fix her brain. But all the experts concurred. Abigail would NOT survive outside my womb. And she could not survive the birthing process. Because of the size of her anomaly her head would be crushed and she would suffocate. Because of the size of her anomaly, the doctors also feared that my uterus would rupture in the birthing process most likely rendering me sterile. It was also discovered that what I thought were big, healthy, strong baby movements were in fact seizures. . . . My daughter died with dignity inside my womb. She was not stabbed in the back of the head with scissors. No one dragged her out half alive and then killed her. We would never have allowed that to happen. Losing Abigail was the hardest thing that's ever happened to us in our life. After we [[Page S 17890]] went home, I went into the nursery and sat there holding her baby clothes crying and thinking she'll never get to hear me tell her that I love her. I've often wondered why this had happened to us, what we had done to deserve such pain. I am a practicing Catholic. I couldn't help believing that God had to have some reason for giving us such a burden. Then I found out about this legislation, and I knew then and there that Abigail's life had a special meaning. God knew I would be strong enough to come here and tell you our story, to try to stop this legislation from passing and causing incredible devastation for other families like ours. . . . My kids attend a Catholic school where a playground was built and named in Abigail's honor. I believe that God gave me the intelligence to make my own decisions knowing I'm the one that has to live with the consequences. My husband said to me as I was getting on the plane to come to Washington, ``Viki, make sure this Congress realizes this is truly a Cruelty to Families Act.'' What we are asked to do in this legislation is to say to the physicians that helped Viki Wilson and Coreen Costello and their families, if you assist these families, you will go to prison for 2 years. That is a decision we should not make. In the hearing, I said to the one physician who testified against this bill, who incidentally served 11 years as a missionary in Korea, who now is on the faculty at Johns Hopkins, I have been thinking about it, done exactly 30 minutes of research, and maybe we should--because a brain tumor is a life and death matter, just as this is a life and death matter--maybe we should introduce legislation that says what kind of brain tumor surgery physicians can perform. And I said to him, what do you think about that? He said, of course, it would be a terrible idea. And he followed through because he recognized the analogy that I was making. For the first time in the history of the United States, if this is adopted, we will be saying to physicians, this is what you have to do; these are the procedures you have to follow. I frankly have no ability to make that decision. I wrote to the departments of obstetrics and gynecology of the medical schools in Illinois and asked the people who were in charge what they thought of this legislation. I enclosed a copy of the legislation, and I asked three questions. I ask unanimous consent that all of these letters be printed in the Record, Mr. President.

Mr. SIMON. Let me read just a few paragraphs from some of the letters. Dr. Arthur Herbst, who is the chairman of the department at the University of Chicago: I am strongly opposed and extremely concerned about the Federal Government deciding the acceptability of medical procedures in practice. These should be decided based on medical information and not by a legislative process. It appears ironic to me that the current emphasis in Washington is to reduce the Federal Government's involvement in our lives. The proposed legislation goes alarmingly in the opposite direction. The chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University in St. Louis, just across the border from Illinois, Dr. James R. Schreiber: In answer to your second question, I have great worries about the federal government having a say on what medical procedures can and cannot be performed. This procedure is an excellent example of why I think the federal government would have problems directing the care of individual patients. There are so many possibilities concerning threats to the woman's life . . . My greatest problem with this legislation is that we could so frighten physicians that the best procedure for the pregnant woman would be precluded by the legislation. The vice president for medical affairs of the Rockford Health System, which is affiliated with the University of Illinois Medical School, writes: You did raise the question about how I feel about the federal government having a say in what medical procedures can and cannot be performed. I, as my colleagues do, feel quite strongly that the role of the government should not stray into the medical arena regarding what is appropriate or nonappropriate therapy. As you know, all of the ramifications from legislating at this level simply cannot be understood or realized prior to the event and the results may be completely different from those intended. . . . I feel that Congress imposing criminal and civil penalties upon physicians performing medical procedures borders on the ridiculous. If Congress begins to legislate at this level, where can it possibly end? Dr. David Cromer, of Evanston Hospital, which is affiliated with Northwestern University's Medical School, writes: The basic question is, does the federal government have a place in deciding what medical procedures should or should not be performed. I feel strongly not. This is a medical decision. Similarly, Congress has no business imposing penalties on physicians for performing a certain procedure. The head of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Michael Reese Hospital, which is affiliated with the University of Illinois College of Medicine, writes: You have asked if I ``share the sense of those who support the bill that this procedure should not be allowed under any circumstance?'' I read the bill and found the definition of a ``Partial Birth Abortion'' contained within it extremely vague. Since this is not a medical term with which I am familiar and the description in the legislation lacks exactness, I cannot give you an answer. . . . I feel very strongly that the federal government should not have a say in the [[Page S 17893]] type of medical procedures performed by a physician. . . . I feel equally as strong about Congress imposing criminal and additional civil penalties upon doctors because of a certain procedure that he or she performs. Dr. Antonio Scommegna heads the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Illinois at Chicago: As to the issues raised in your letter regarding Partial Birth Abortion, yes I am familiar with the procedure. Such procedures are used very rarely and its proposed prohibition is a thinly disguised assault on the women's reproductive freedom and the physician's freedom in his or her profession. Such a proposed legislation would be injurious to women's health. And a very similar letter from Dr. Donald M. Sherline, who heads that department at Cook County Hospital, which is a huge hospital in Chicago. I think, Mr. President, that what we have here is something that is well-intended. I do not question the motivation of my colleague from New Hampshire. I would ask every Member of this body to read the testimony of these two women who testified before the Judiciary Committee. Anyone who reads that testimony and believes we should deny these women their right to safe health and put the physicians who give them their health and save their lives, put them in prison for 2 years, I think you have a hard heart indeed. At least I do not have the courage to say to those families, ``We're not going to let you protect yourselves.'' I think this is an example of the Federal Government running amok. If this passes--and I know politically maybe it is going to pass tomorrow--I trust that the President of the United States has the courage to veto this legislation and that we will protect the families of America from this political interference.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, there is no one with whom I have served in my years in Congress for whom I have greater respect than Senator Howard Metzenbaum, our former colleague from Ohio. One of the few issues where we differed was on the antitrust exemption for professional baseball. The recent moves of professional football teams, particularly the movement of the Cleveland Browns to Baltimore, suggests that the antitrust exemption for baseball may be a very good thing for professional sports, as well as the communities involved. Recently, a veteran sports writer for the Chicago Tribune, Jerome Holtzman, had a column about movement of the Browns and its relationship to antitrust baseball. I ask that this be printed in the Record. In fairness, I should add that the Chicago Tribune owns the Chicago Cubs, but I have no reason to believe that Jerome Holtzman is not writing from conviction. The column follows: [From the Chicago Tribune, Nov. 21, 1995] Irony Abounds as Retired Ohio Senator Bemoans Browns' Fate (By Jerome Holtzman) Put in a call Howard Metzenbaum, the recently retired Democratic senator from Ohio, and had only one simple question. After years of attempting to rid baseball of its antitrust exemption, what were his thoughts about his beloved Cleveland Browns moving to Baltimore? ``It's horrible,'' Mentzenbaum said from his office in Pompano Beach, Fla. ``It's a travesty. No community was more supportive of its team than the fans in Cleveland. I was back in Cleveland for one day and the feeling of outrage is unbelievable. And I've lived in Cleveland all my life--78 years.'' Certainly, he understood the Browns are able to pick up and hotfoot it to Baltimore because the National Football League does not have an antitrust exemption. ``That argument can be made,'' he conceded. Yet, as the chairman of the Antitrust Committee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he helped introduce legislation that sought to repeal baseball's exemption. Doesn't he see the irony? He is losing his hometown football team and if baseball didn't have antitrust protection, Cleveland also would have lost its baseball team. The Indians would have flown the coop years ago. ``I can't argue that,'' he replied. ``They could have been moved.'' He launched into a meaningless panegyric about the difference in ownership today compared with years ago: ``There are not the same kind of owners that were in the field yesteryear. Now, you're talking about multimillionaires who have a plaything. Before, it wasn't a question of making money. It was the pride of having a team in your community. Much of that doesn't exist anymore.'' It certainly seems that way. But the senator is naive. If he had read up on baseball history he would discover most owners have been motivated by money, beginning with the 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings, baseball's first professional team. To increase attendance, the owner encouraged the players to open with a song: ``We are a band of baseball players From Cincinnati City; We come to toss the ball around And sing to you our ditty; And if you listen to the song We are about to sing, We'll tell you all about baseball And make the welkin ring. The ladies want to know Who are those gallant men in Stocking red, they'd like to know.'' The only owner in my time who appeared mostly to be a gentleman sportsman was the late Philip K. Wrigley, the longtime caretaker of the Cubs. He didn't need the money because the gum business kept him and his family in vittles. Metzenbaum was asked if, in his opinion, anything could be done to prevent the Browns from moving to Baltimore? ``The league won't do much,'' he acknowledged. ``If push comes to shove they'll probably be able to move the team.'' But if professional football had the exemption, the carpetbaggers couldn't move their franchises at will. They couldn't transplant without the approval of a majority of their fellow owners. And so the owners jump around like flies, forever devouring the sweetest fruit, a movable feast. In the last 13 years, the Oakland Raiders have navigated a round trip--to Los Angeles and back to Oakland. The Los Angeles Rams are now in St. Louis. The Baltimore Colts are in Indianapolis. The Phoenix Cardinals were previously based in St. Louis. The Houston Oilers are enroute to Nashville. And the shameless Mike McCaskey, president of our Bears, is threatening to relocate to Gary. I can't resist mentioning all the baseball bashing since the players' 1994 strike that forced cancellation of the World Series. But which is preferable? A temporary baseball shutdown, with replacements on the field, or no team at all? Because of its exemption, the baseball map is unchanged since 1972 when the Washington Senators were allowed to move to Texas. In the 23 years since, the San Francisco Giants were denied a ticket to St. Petersburg, Fla. Minnesota's jump to Tampa was aborted, as was the White Sox to Denver, Oakland to Denver and Seattle to St. Petersburg. The Pittsburgh Pirates and Cleveland Indians, when both were in poverty--the Pirates have yet to escape from the poor-house--repeatedly have sought greener fields. But they were ordered to stay put and could be sold only to local ownership groups. The Houston Astros now are threatening to move to somewhere in Virginia. Will they get permission? I doubt it. ``Fortunately, because of the events of the last four months everyone seems to better appreciate our position,'' said acting commissioner Bud Selig. ``In all the times I have testified in Washington, and especially before Sen. Metzenbaum, I emphasized the exemption has been good for our fans. It has enabled us to stabilize our franchises.'' I mentioned that I was planning to speak to Metzenbaum, formerly baseball's No. 1 congressional nemesis. ``Oh,'' said Selig, ``send him my best regards. And be sure to tell him that in the 26 years I've been in baseball the Indians tried to move out of Cleveland at least four times.''

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with Senator Moseley-Braun, a bill to designate the post office of Lincoln, IL, as the Edward Madigan Post Office Building. I served with Ed Madigan in the Illinois Legislature, where we worked on a variety of things together, and then I served with him in the House here in Washington. He was one of those people who had common sense and a graciousness about him that was infectious. He knew how to disagree without creating hostility. He was a remarkable person. When we had a vacancy in the office of Secretary of Agriculture, I called him and said I wanted to call President Bush's chief of staff in Ed Madigan's behalf unless he had an objection. He had none, and I was pleased to call John Sununu and tell him that if they wanted someone who could get along with Democrats and Republicans and still do a very good job, they could not do better than Ed Madigan. I am sure a great many people with much more influence than Paul Simon conveyed the same message. It was typical of Ed Madigan that I called him, rather than the other way around. He was a great public servant, but even more important than that, he was just a genuinely fine human being. I am pleased to introduce this legislation. My only regret is that Ed Madigan is not around to see this building designated for him. He was proud of his hometown of Lincoln, and I know the people in Lincoln are proud of him.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, three of our colleagues have just recently announced they are not running again for reelection. The most recent is Senator Simpson. I got to know Al Simpson when I was a State legislator and he was a State legislator. We were at a meeting that a foundation pulled together of what they, accurately or inaccurately, called the outstanding legislators from various States, and I got to know Alan Simpson there. I have worked with him over the years. He and I differ on some things, but he is a legislator's legislator. He really legislates. He sits down and works things out. He is a man of reason. He is not frightened by a new idea. I think he has made a tremendous contribution to the Senate, to his State of Wyoming, and to the Nation, and I am very proud to have served with him. I will add, one of the things that characterizes Senator Simpson, Senator Hatfield, and Senator Kassebaum is something the Presiding Officer has heard me talk about before, and that is there is not excessive partisanship. One of the things that has changed in my 21 years, soon to be 22 years here in Congress, is that we have become gradually more partisan. Both parties share the blame on this, and it is not a good thing. It is like the budget process. We issue statements, we have press conferences, we denounce each other instead of sitting around a table, working things out. Alan Simpson, Mark Hatfield, and Nancy Kassebaum were the kind of people who worked things out. I have, up until the last election, served as chairman of three subcommittees. I do not think we ever had a party-line vote in any of my subcommittees. That meant sometimes I had to give a little more than I wanted. Sometimes others did. But I think the net effect was a good one for the Nation and, strangely, I think, good for the two parties. I think the public senses that we are excessively partisan and there is a negative attitude toward both the Democratic and Republican Parties out there. I hope we can move away from that. The second person who recently announced that he is retiring is Senator Mark Hatfield. Most people think about Mark Hatfield in connection with chairing the Appropriations Committee, or a hundred and one other things that he does. I think of Mark Hatfield particularly for his leadership in the area of arms control. Long before others raised the flag that maybe we should not be spending so much money on arms, Mark Hatfield was telling us that. Even today we spend more on our defense budget than the next eight countries combined. It does not make sense. If we take the 1973 budget on defense and add the inflation factor, we are spending more today than we were in 1973. In 1973 we were involved in Vietnam, we faced the cold war with what was then the Soviet Union and a nuclear threat there. We ought to be paring it down. Mark Hatfield has been a [[Page S 17878]] voice of reason. Again, like Alan Simpson, he has been one who has been willing to work with people on the other side. Senator Nancy Kassebaum is the same. I read the stories about her, as I did about all of my colleagues and their contributions. One of the contributions Nancy Kassebaum has made has been on the Subcommittee on Africa, in the Foreign Relations Committee. She chaired that for a while. Nancy Kassebaum did not get any votes back home in Kansas by chairing the Subcommittee on African Affairs, but made an immense contribution in the very same way that Alan Simpson gets no votes in Wyoming by chairing the Subcommittee on Immigration. One of the things that we have in this body are people of real ability who have a sense of public service. And we need more of that, and a little less, as I indicated, partisanship and power grabbing. But Senator Kassebaum is primarily thought of by her work on the Labor and Human Resources Committee in which the Presiding Officer serves. And she has done a superb job there over the years, part of it in these years as chairman where she has had to make some very difficult decisions as we passed a budget resolution that cuts back on some of the things that she favors. But the contributions that she has made over the years have been very significant. I have been proud to serve with all three. The people of Wyoming, Oregon, and Kansas can be very proud of these three Senators--Senator Simpson, Senator Hatfield, and Senator Kassebaum. Mr. President, I do not see anyone seeking the floor, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with Senator Moseley-Braun, a bill to designate the post office of Lincoln, IL, as the Edward Madigan Post Office Building. I served with Ed Madigan in the Illinois Legislature, where we worked on a variety of things together, and then I served with him in the House here in Washington. He was one of those people who had common sense and a graciousness about him that was infectious. He knew how to disagree without creating hostility. He was a remarkable person. When we had a vacancy in the office of Secretary of Agriculture, I called him and said I wanted to call President Bush's chief of staff in Ed Madigan's behalf unless he had an objection. He had none, and I was pleased to call John Sununu and tell him that if they wanted someone who could get along with Democrats and Republicans and still do a very good job, they could not do better than Ed Madigan. I am sure a great many people with much more influence than Paul Simon conveyed the same message. It was typical of Ed Madigan that I called him, rather than the other way around. He was a great public servant, but even more important than that, he was just a genuinely fine human being. I am pleased to introduce this legislation. My only regret is that Ed Madigan is not around to see this building designated for him. He was proud of his hometown of Lincoln, and I know the people in Lincoln are proud of him.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, during the November elections, voters in 19 communities from seven States were asked to voice their opinion on the expansion of gambling. Many of these initiatives pitted grassroots efforts and coalitions against well-financed gambling interests. Election results supported more gambling in only 4 of the 19 communities. It is difficult to determine whether this represents a shift in public opinion. However, it is clear that in order to make informed decisions at the ballot box, voters need objective and authoritative information. Conflicting claims remain unresolved. Nagging questions linger. A recent editorial from the Boston Globe, ``The Odds Aren't Worth It,'' clearly describes the need for a national study. I as that it be printed in the Record. The editorial follows: [From the Boston Globe, Saturday, City Edition, Nov. 25, 1995] The Odds Aren't Worth It Gambling tempts high-rolling risk-takers, it tempts the luckless with little to lose, and it tempts politicians. Since Atlantic City mortgaged Boardwalk to the chance industry 18 years ago, legalized gambling has expanded with amazing speed. Where once there were only two states that allowed or sponsored gambling, now there are only two--Utah and Hawaii--that don't. In the past few weeks, however, what had seemed an inexorable acceleration has suddenly slowed to a trickle as voters and public officials across the country have fastened on gambling's dubious benefits and hidden costs. Last week the Connecticut Senate rejected Gov. June Rowland's plans for a mammoth casino in Bridgeport. What had seemed a done deal was undone. In Maryland, a study commission recommended against increased gambling there, and most politicians agreed. On election day this month, voters in Washington state and Jefferson City, Mo., killed proposals to expand gambling, and voters in three Massachusetts communities rejected casinos; only New Bedford voted yes. Now Congress is considering proposals to set up a national study commission that would examine the history of legalized gambling, explore the tradeoffs and provide credible data on which states and municipalities could make their own choices. The chief sponsors are Sen. Paul Simon of Illinois, a Democrat, and Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia, a Republican. President Clinton and Sen. Dick Lugar of Indiana, a Republican seeking to challenge Clinton, both support it. Wolf believes that the commission will be approved, possibly before Christmas. It should be. What is needed most urgently is a sober study that will sort out the conflicting claims--not only the moral arguments but also the actual economic and social effects. Clearly, many people like to gamble. In Mississippi, which has had a no-limits attitude since 1992, a gaming publication estimated that $29.7 billion was wagered in 1994--an amazing $2.1 billion more than the state's total taxable retail sales. The phenomenal growth of the Foxwoods casino in Connecticut hints at the demand that might be tapped. Yet what are the economics of gambling? It is an industry that creates no wealth but only redistributes it--mostly from the poor to the rich, and often the rich are not even local people. A good study would provide the details. But the signs are obvious. In the subway, and advertisement for the lottery portrays a pastel rainbow with a pot of gold at the end. Right next to it is a public service announcement describing how to apply for food stamps. The striking thing is that the two messages are addressed to the same audience: People who can't even afford to buy their own food without government help are encouraged by the government to throw what little they do have at a mirage. Lotteries may turn out to be the most regressive form of state gambling. One of the few arguments for them other than the revenue they raise is that they closely mimic the illegal numbers games that have thrived in many communities, therefore drawing money away from organized crime. Casinos raise additional concerns. Successful ones do provide jobs, and some older cities have looked to casinos as potential saviors. New Bedford is as good an example as any. With textiles and other industries gone and fishing on the wane, people in New Bedford are desperate for help. They voted nearly 3-1 for a casino this month. And they argue that half the cars in the Foxwoods lot are from Massachusetts anyway, so the state is exporting the gambling dollar needlessly. Yet other casino towns have found not only that crime and vice rise rapidly with gambling but that the net effect on the economy is not salutary. Local restaurants and other retail businesses suffer; the problem of addiction to gambling, including among young people, grows; and in many places population drops. Also, the casino sometimes drives out better options. In Bridgeport, for instance, city officials said last week they would dust off a waterfront development plan--one that might provide stronger economic stimulation in the long run than gambling. The plan had been sidetracked by the casino proposal. A solid study would give substance to all these questions. Those selling New Bedford on a casino may be no different from the hucksters touting the pot of gold at the end of the pastel rainbow. What provides the spice, as with all gambling, is the fact that someone, sometime, actually wins the gold. But many cities and states have found the odds are no better for them than for the gamblers whose pockets they empty.