Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall object on behalf of the ranking member, Senator Kennedy and myself. I do object. There are a lot of good things in this. There are a lot of things we have been working on a long time. I regret that it is necessary, but I do object.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I am reserving the right to object. I have always opposed mandatory minimums. They are great politics. They are bad justice. The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, has admonished Congress not to put these mandatory minimums on. There are some particularly harsh ones here. There is much in this bill to be commended. But if we can take the mandatory minimums off, I will remove any objection right away. Clearly we want to do everything we can to stop child pornography. But to say, for example, to an 18-year-old who is guilty of pornography with a 16- year-old, for two offenses you get life in prison, which is what this bill mandates--I am not sure that serves the cause of justice. I think we ought to leave that up to the judges, as Chief Justice Rehnquist has suggested. So I do object.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. What we should not do is tack on a major labor-management provision on this thing--without hearings on what is a very controversial provision, I might add.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I shall object. There was what is not a technical correction put on in conference, a provision that affects one corporation, benefits one corporation, and a provision that was defeated in the Appropriations Committee just 2 weeks ago when there was an attempt to put it on. I do not think this is the way we ought to be legislating. If that provision is taken off, I will be happy to support it. But I do object.

Mr. SIMON. If the majority leader will yield for 1 minute?

Mr. SIMON. I am all for the FAA bill. What was put on was neither in the House nor in the Senate on this bill. That can be put on--if you drop this provision, it can be put on the continuing resolution. There are a variety of ways of handling this. I hope we can get it worked out.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, before I get into what I came on the floor to remark about, if I could just comment on the last part of what the distinguished Senator from Texas had to say. While I would differ with her characterization of President Clinton's posture, her praise for Senator Lott as majority leader is right on target. I had the privilege of serving with Trent Lott in the House and now here in the Senate. When a new leader comes in, there is a big question mark. Frankly, I did not know what kind of a majority leader he would be. My impression is he is serving his party and the Senate and the Nation very well. I, as one who was uncertain, now have the impression that Senator Lott and his leadership is going to be very good for the Nation.

Mr. SIMON. I will be pleased to yield to my colleague.

Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague from Texas. Let me add, it is typically gracious of her to have made those remarks.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I see my distinguished colleague from Alaska on the floor. Let me just add, I inserted something in the Record not too long ago. Senator Murkowski has been one of the leaders in trying to fashion responsible policies toward North Korea. The one area in the world where you have more troops facing each other, with virtually no contact between the two sides in terms of communication, is North Korea and South Korea. Senator Murkowski, who does not get any votes in Alaska by providing leadership in this area, has rendered a service to this Nation by trying to guide us in a sensible direction. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Thank you.

Mr. SIMON. I thank you very much.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, my reason for coming to the floor is to say that I have a hold, and will continue to have a hold, on a bill that deals with pornography for minors until the mandatory sentence provisions are removed. I have always opposed mandatory sentences, for reasons that I will spell out in a moment. I do believe that we have to be tougher in this area of pornography and making it a Federal offense, when frequently interstate commerce is involved and cannot be proved, I think is a wise thing. I differ with the idea of mandatory sentences. I have always opposed the mandatory minimums. Mandatory minimums are good politics but bad justice. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, with whom I do not always agree, has said, Congress is making a great mistake in passing mandatory minimums. I think he is correct. Part of the mandatory minimums on this pornography bill--and all of us are saddened when we see the kind of pornography that occasionally is in our society--but, for example, it has a two-strikes-and-you're- out provision. Let us just say an 18-year-old is involved in pornography with a 16- year-old. I do not for a moment defend that reprehensible conduct. But if we pass this bill as it is, that 18-year-old would be sentenced to prison for the rest of his life. I do not think we are in a position to judge the situation. A long, long time ago, a man by the name of Plato wrote a book called Republic, in which he said, ``Elect good judges''--maybe he said ``select good judges;'' I am not sure which it was--but then leave the sentences up to the judges. I think that is sound. That is what Chief Justice Rehnquist says we should do, and I believe that is what we should do. So, as long as the mandatory minimums are in the bill, I will object. The idea of strengthening our laws against pornography I strongly favor. But I think the sentences should be up to the judges, guided by the sentencing commission.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, today marks the 35th anniversary of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Established in 1961, ACDA remains the only Government agency devoted entirely to arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation. In this Congress, ACDA was on the chopping block and threatened with elimination as an obsolete agency. Fortunately, ACDA survived. The historic signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty this week shows the worth of ACDA, and offers an example of the importance of maintaining an independent and robust ACDA. ACDA was founded on a bipartisan basis to serve as the lead agency for U.S. disarmament and arms control activities, with its director as the principal advisor to the President on these matters. It was created not only to provide increased focus on arms control, but also to elevate these issues so that they wouldn't get lost in the bureaucracies of the State and Defense Departments. The list of arms control agreements during the three and a half decades of ACDA is staggering: the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty, the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, as well as many others. These successes have immeasurably improved the security of the United States. During the cold war, we faced the persistent and ominous threat of nuclear warfare, and today we see the dangers of nuclear, chemical and biological terrorism. Would we be safer today without these treaties? Of course we wouldn't. Will we be safer tomorrow with continued pursuit of arms control? Yes, and this compels the continued existence of a strong and independent ACDA. Considering the billions that have been saved through reductions in nuclear arsenals, the ending of the testing program and other arms control measures, ACDA's annual budget of around $40 million and its staff of 250 proves to be a real bargain. In the coming years ACDA responsibilities will include monitoring the START II nuclear arms reductions, verifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention, provided these last two treaties are ratified in the next Congress, and I strongly believe that they should be. I cannot comment on the importance of ACDA without mentioning my colleague, Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island, who has throughout his career been a tireless champion of ACDA, from its creation in 1961 to the revitalization legislation passed in 1994. His leadership on arms control and as an advocate for multilateral solutions to security problems will be sorely missed by the Senate and the Nation. Arms control is not obsolete, and we need ACDA to make it happen. I commend Director John Holum and the rest of the staff of ACDA on the agency's 35th anniversary, and wish them the best of success in the future.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. One of the things I think all of us who are here ought to consider is the Members of the U.S. Senate who could face this problem are the female Members of this body. If the women in the U.S. Senate were to cast the decisive votes, this bill would never pass. I think that is just one thing to keep in mind. But these are very practical problems. I would like to read to you, Mr. President, a letter from a woman in Naperville, IL. She and her family have their picture right in back of me. My name is Vikki Stella. I am writing to thank you for opposing this bill, and courageously standing by families like ours. My husband Archer and I have two daughters, Lindsay and Natalie, as well as a beautiful baby boy named Nicholas Archer. Two years ago I had the procedure that H.R. 1833 would ban when I found out my unborn son Anthony was dying. I was in the third trimester of a pregnancy my doctor called ``disgustingly normal'' when, at 32 weeks, our world turned upside-down. After amniocentesis and five ultrasounds, the sixth ultrasound found grave problems which had not been detected before. Ultimately, my son was diagnosed with at least nine major anomalies, including a fluid-filled cranium with no brain tissue at all; compacted, flattened vertebrae; congenital hip dysplasia; and skeletal dysplasia; and hypertoloric eyes. He would never have survived outside my womb. My options were extremely limited because I am diabetic and don't heal as well as other people. Waiting for normal labor to occur, inducing labor early, or having a C-section would have put my life at risk. The only option that would ensure that my daughters would not grow up without their mother was a highly specialized, surgical abortion procedure developed for women with similar difficult conditions. Though we were distraught over losing our son, we knew the procedure was the right option (the very procedure that would be outlawed by

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the Chicago Tribune had an editorial calling for a Marshall plan for Eastern Europe. That really makes sense. I know that between now and election day we're not going to hear calls from our leaders for this, but after election day, I hope that will happen. It would take courage, just as the original Marshall plan took courage. After President Truman and General Marshall announced the plan, the first Gallup Poll showed only 14 percent of the American public supporting it. But what a great thing that was for the United States and the world; and let me add we need a Marshall plan for our domestic scene, particularly urban America. President Clinton was not correct when he said that this is the end of the era of big Government. The question is not whether the Government is big or small but whether it is good, whether it is doing the things that need to be done. There are needs today in Eastern Europe and in the cities of our country. My hope is that the next President of the United States--and my hope is that it will be Bill Clinton--and the next Congress will show greater leadership than we have shown in foreign affairs and domestic affairs these last 2 years. Mr. President, I ask that this editorial from the Chicago Tribune be printed in the Record. The editorial follows: A New Marshall Plan for the East Sometimes the martial mind can discern more accurately than others how this nation should pursue its interests short of war. Think of Gen. George C. Marshall, who traded in his olive-drab for pinstripes after World War II and, as secretary of state, drafted the inspired plan (that now bears his name) to inject billions of dollars into the charred economies of Western Europe to create stable conditions in which democracy thrived and communism was held at bay. Now that the Western democracies have won the Cold War, along comes another general with a compelling vision for America's role in Europe. U.S. Gen. George Joulwan, the NATO supreme commander, argues that the Cold War's conclusion is not a time for America to disengage from Europe but to ``consolidate the gains of democracy.'' In military terms, he says, ``When you take an objective, the first thing you think about is not pulling back from the objective but of securing it.'' And the Western democracies, he says, have not yet consolidated their gains among the fragile, emerging democracies to the east. True enough. But it is the method by which Joulwan proposes to achieve that consolidation--expansion of NATO--that gives us pause. Pentagon troop strength in Europe, which forms the backbone of the Western alliance, has dropped to 100,000 from a Cold War high of 350,000. Joulwan argues for expanding NATO eastward. That is the determination of both the North Atlantic Council that governs NATO and of his own commander in chief, President Clinton. (Republican challenger Bob Dole also favors allowing former Warsaw Pact states into NATO.) But no military threat requires expanding NATO, particularly at a time when the wounded Russian bear would feel caged, provoked. True, partnership training exercises between NATO and the armies of the East can teach discipline, order and the powerful concept of control over the military by a democratically elected civilian government. But even Joulwan avers that America ``stands for much more than ships, tanks and planes. It stands for shared values that are sought in the rest of Europe.'' Military alliances are no substitute for political and economic integration, and that is the best way to share western values with Central and Eastern Europe. Proof of that rests in the dusty archives of American diplomacy, in a proposal mostly forgotten as a casualty of the Moscow- Washington competition. It's not widely remembered, but the Marshall Plan envisioned America's investing billions of dollars in Eastern Europe--yes, even in Russia--as well as in the West. Moscow vetoed that aid, so Marshall's visionary proposal benefited Western Europe alone. Time to dust that plan off. The successor administration of the Marshall Plan, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, is alive and healthy today. Along with European Union membership and American guidance, it represents the best strategy for integrating the new Europe.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, one of the most shameful episodes in our Nation's history was the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. In response, although belatedly, Congress enacted in 1988 the law providing reparations to those who were uprooted and sent to internment camps. There is another group of people who suffered the same injustice, but are ineligible for redress under the law. As detailed in a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, more than 2,200 Japanese Latin Americans were taken from their homes in 13 countries, mostly from Peru, and brought to the United States to be detained. Most spent the war in a camp in rural Texas, and some were even held until 1948. The U.S. Government never officially acknowledged a reason for this policy. Since the Japanese Latin Americans were not legal residents of the United States at the time of their internment, they are not eligible for an apology or reparations. Clearly, this injustice demands a remedy. Of those who were forcibly brought to the United States, only 200 were allowed to return to Latin America. Others returned to Japan, while many stayed in the United States and eventually became citizens. Some 300 applications by Latin American Japanese for redress under the 1988 law have been denied because they were not legal residents before the law's June 1946 cutoff date. The article gives an account of a journey of a detention ship that in 1944 was steaming from South America to the United States escorted by destroyers and submarines. In the year of the invasion of Normandy, not to mention the war in the Pacific, it is astounding that our Nation saw fit to devote military resources to this shameful and questionably legal undertaking. I have written Senator Inouye, who authored the 1988 reparations bill, to see if something can be done. While I will not be in the Senate next year, I hope that my colleagues will consider legislation in the next Congress to provide payments to family members of the Japanese Latin American who were detained. After so many years, that would be the right thing to do.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, one of the Members of Congress who has contributed significantly more than most of us is Congressman Tony Hall. His emphasis on helping people in need has sharpened the conscience of many policymakers, though it has not sharpened it enough. He has provided leadership in areas that most Members of Congress ignore, such as Eritrea. Recently he went to North Korea, and he testified before the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It is a remarkable insight into the leadership that is needed in regard to the tense situation in Korea. Nowhere do we have as many troops facing each other as we do between North Korea and South Korea and that problem is compounded by the fact that there is no communication between the two countries. Mr President, I ask that Congressman Hall's remarks be printed in the Record. The remarks follow: Testimony of U.S. Representative Tony P. Hall Good morning. I want to thank you for inviting me to testify today, Mr. Chairman, and to thank both you and Senator Robb for the focus you are bringing to the United States' relationship with North Korea. I am convinced that our increasing contacts with North Korea can only benefit America's interests--and make the job of the 37,000 American troops stationed along the border with South Korea easier. And I am hopeful that our contacts also will help the people of North Korea who have suffered in their decades-long isolation, and are hurting badly today. Our humanitarian work, our progress in dismantling North Korea's nuclear reactor and on missile technology controls, and the unprecedented joint investigation by U.S. and North Korean soldiers into the fate of missing servicemen--all of these mark a dramatic turn-around in a relationship that is in its fifth decade of military tension. I believe our nation owes special thanks for these changes to former President Jimmy Carter, whose personal diplomacy laid the groundwork for peace two years ago. Senator Paul Simon, who with Senator Frank Murkowski travelled to North Korea at a crucial moment, and who has championed ideas that hold great promise for the future of both countries, also deserves recognition for his work. We ought to build on their success in seizing this historic opportunity. north korea's food shortage The hunger and malnutrition that I saw in North Korea is different than famines I've seen in my visits to other countries. This is the only country I can remember where grown children are shorter than their parents. The stunting is severe, especially when you compare North Koreans to their siblings and cousins in South Korea. And North Korea is the only place I've seen where parents and grandparents are giving their rations to their children in a desperate effort to protect them. Today in North Korea, people are somehow surviving on rations of little more than 600 calories a day--just seven ounces of grain. That's not two bowls of rice, too much to die on, but not enough to live on and function. They are scrambling to supplement that starvation diet, but clearly having little success. Nutritional standards say sedentary workers need about 2,000 calories a day to maintain their body weight--but people in North Korea cannot be sedentary. In two weeks, the harvest will be brought in with the aid of few animals and fewer machines. And if there is to be any hope for next year's harvest, the back-breaking work of rebuilding broken irrigation systems, roads, and other infrastructure must be completed. Adults have lost an average of 30 pounds since January, according to Western aid workers I talked to there. According to our Ambassador to South Korea, James Laney, a North Korean soldier who defected to South Korea in mid-August weighed just 92 pounds. And there are many more measures of the extent of the suffering in North Korea in both the intelligence and in the unclassified reports of U.N. agencies, the International Red Cross, and charities that have visited North Korea. For me, two things stand out in all of these measurements: First, the bodies of most of the North Koreans that I saw are exhausted. Simply surviving this winter will be a tremendous physical challenge that many of them will not be able to meet. Second, North Korea's land appears equally worn out. Food grows on any patch of land available--atop the rice paddy walls, along the shoulders of roads, in rivers' floodplains, on the slopes of steep hills. Land is not permitted to lie fallow, there is no investment in fertilizer and pesticides, deforestation leads to soil erosion that ruins once- productive land--and sorry yields are the result of it all. North Korea's granaries were last full in 1992--but however self-inflicted the long-term problems may be, the country was overwhelmed by the worst natural disaster in its history last year. And this year, another severe flood struck the breadbasket provinces that produce 60 percent of North Korea's grain. what is missing What struck me most was not what I saw--but what was missing. There is an eerie silence in the capital, and in the villages that we visited in more than 20 hours on the road. You don't hear roosters crowing, and the air seems empty of birds--even of gulls in the seaside city of Haeju. You don't see cats, or rats, or cows or goats--or much sign of other animal life. Occasionally, in people's homes I saw dogs, but not a single puppy. According to some aid workers, the sight of a pregnant woman is increasingly rare, and a new maternity hospital never has more than 25 of its 250 beds filled. Certainly we saw no fat people--or anybody that bore much resemblance to their healthier siblings and cousins in South Korea. Soldiers--and we saw a lot of individual soldiers throughout the capital and countryside--have the same hollow- cheeked look as civilians, and their uniforms hang very loosely on them. That may be the best evidence that most of North Korea's military isn't getting much more to eat than the rest of the people. All of this added up to a nagging sense that we simply cannot know what is happening in North Korea. Aid workers speak in hushed tones when talk turns to what is happening in the mountains that make up 80 percent of North Korea. They can barely help the 1.5 million children and flood victims covered by the U.N.'s appeal for humanitarian aid; the remaining 20 million people are on their own. Two American demographers, Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute and Judith Banister, of the U.S. Census Bureau, have done statistical analysis of North Korea's population--and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a letter for the record that Mr. Eberstadt is preparing. The gist of their finding is that half a million people are ``missing.'' That is either (1) a statistical blip; or (2) a sign of severe changes in the birth and death rates. We cannot know which is true, but I believe the possibility of something that would affect 500,000 people deserves our concern. north korea's own efforts I also want to comment briefly on the efforts that North Korea is making to ease suffering in its country. Its rations system now feeds the majority of the population, and by all accounts, it is meticulously fair. Ration cards measure out to three decimal points. A U.N. report issued Sept. 9 notes that sometimes there is not enough food to distribute the second of two monthly rations, but people do seem to share equally in the food available. The system also appears to be exceptionally efficient. The first U.S. flag ship to visit North Korea since the war arrived on Wednesday, Aug. 21--and the rice and cornmeal it carried already was being distributed when I visited two rural provinces on Thursday, Aug. 22. Other North Korean efforts are more troubling, however. According to Monday's report, some 30 to 90 percent of the nation's livestock have been turned over to individuals for tending or slaughtering; and local provinces have gotten a green-light to barter their timber and other resources for food (primarily with China)--increasing deforestation and reducing the fuel available this winter. the july 1996 flood So far, North Korea's suffering is largely caused by the 1995 disaster--a massive, 100-year flood that bore striking similarities to our own Midwest flood of just three years ago. People already bombarded with admonitions to ``work harder, eat less'' have high hopes that the 1996 harvest will be good. It won't be. United Nations experts who travelled to the region I saw just after I left reported this week that much of the country's breadbasket region--which produces 60 percent of its grain, and which I visited last month--was under water for five days in July. Rainfall was 3-5 times normal, overwhelming irrigation canals and bursting dams. To put the torrential rains into some perspective, it was twice what North Carolina and Virginia endured in Hurricane Fran's aftermath--and it lasted five times longer. And the rains came at a crucial time in crop development--stunting the growth of corn, and robbing rice stalks of their nutritional kernels. Along just one 500-mile irrigation network, there were 369 breaks. A report issued by the International Red Cross, UNICEF, and several U.N. agencies puts the likely crop losses in the half-million acres irrigated by this system at $300 million. And broken sea dykes added to this misery, washing salt water over land and poisoning it for this year and probably several more. international aid The international community is lending a hand--but only barely. China, Japan and the U.S. each have donated some $6 million to the current appeal. South Korea has given $3 million, and promises far more if North Korea agrees to peace talks that President Clinton and President Kim proposed in April. With the notable exception of Sweden, though, the response of most European nations has been nothing less than a ``let 'em starve'' pittance that shames the reputation of European people. I spoke with the director of U.S. AID, Brian Atwood, about this--and he plans to raise the matter with his European Community counterpart in October. In all, just over half of the United Nations' current emergency appeal has been filled. It last until March 1997, but the food-for-work projects to rebuild irrigation systems and other infrastructure must begin immediately after the harvest in order to stave off another disaster in 1997. NGOs are doing their best to respond, but they are hampered by restrictions on South Korean individuals--many who have family ties to the North--and by North Korea's petulant insistence that NGOs bring food, and not just people. Without eyewitness accounts, without reporting by independent journalists, NGOs simply cannot raise the money they need to fund their operations. U.S. organizations like World Vision and Mercy Corps are doing their best to help, and the U.S. government should lend its weight to their efforts. In every disaster, NGOs are the first to respond--the people who work with the most vulnerable groups, and who stick around long enough to do the long-term work needed. Governments--including the U.S. Government--need to do more. But it will be the work of private citizens, and the organizations they support, that will make or break North Korea's recovery. This is my strong conviction, and I raised it with both North and South Korean leaders. conclusion Despite the seemingly endless stream of bad news about North Korea, I remain hopeful. My talks with North Korea's leaders were productive, and I am convinced that good-faith efforts by the U.S. and other nations will produce more good- faith efforts by North Korea. It is not a quick process, but it is one whose pace is increasing, and it is our best hope for lending momentum to the progressive factions inside North Korea. I am hopeful for one other reason: a UNICEF project that represents an historic joint effort by North and South Korea. Like all UNICEF projects, the Oral Rehydration Salts plant will be a Godsend to children. The packets of gluocse and salt that this plant will manufacture are used around the world as a circuit-breaker in the spiral of disease and death. If you care about suffering children, and had just three wishes, Oral Rehydration Salts would be one of those wishes. North Korea was self-sufficient in producing this life- saving product--until the flood swept away its building and equipment in 1995. It has since donated a building for the plant to UNICEF and brought it up to World Health Organization standards--but UNICEF still lacked the money needed to equip the plant. Until this week. When I met South Korea's Foreign Minister, Gong Ro Myung en route home, I raised this urgent need with him. At the time, my hopes that South Korea would help were pretty low. But despite the loss of seats in Parliament that ensued after South Korea's donation of humanitarian aid ended in insults by North Korea; and despite public outrage recently reinvigorated by violent clashes between students and police, Minister Gong carried my request to President Kim Young Sam. And despite President Kim's difficult position as the country's first democratically elected leader--he pledged the money needed to finish this project. His is an example that should inspire political leaders here, and in other capitals. I hope it will mark a determination by charities and private individuals to overcome the challenges of helping people in North Koreaa as well. missing servicemen Finally, I cannot close without expressing my serious concern about the persistent trickle of rumors that missing American servicemen have been sighted in North Korea. I personally raised questions about a pilot shot down during the Korean War, and conveyed the resolve of Americans to help the families of missing servicemen learn the answers to their question. I know that this Committee's Chairman, along with Senators John Kerry, Nancy Kassebaum, Hank Brown, and Chuck Robb have devoted considerable attention to these questions, as has Senator John McCain. Several of my House colleagues also have worked hard on these issues--especially Congressmen Bill Richardson, Pete Peterson and Lane Evans. I am convinced that this persistent attention, and the ability of Americans in military service today to work on the ground in North Korea, offer the best hope possible. Four decades of isolation have not produced answers about servicemen missing since the Korean War. I believe it is time to try a new strategy; and I hope that North Korea's new openness is the silver lining in the black cloud of the terrible suffering the North Korean people are enduring. Again, thank you for holding this hearing, and for inviting me to testify.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I hope that in the process of being absorbed in the crises around the world, we do not forget the North Korean situation. It is the one place on the face of the Earth where more troops are facing each other than any other, and it is a place where there is virtually no communication between the two Governments, North Korea and South Korea. Let me add that I appreciate the responsible role that my colleague, Senator Frank Murkowski, took on the recent amendment offered by Senator Lieberman. It is easy to do things that are popular, and Frank Murkowski won no votes in Alaska with his stand. But he did the responsible and right thing for the people of Alaska and this Nation and of the world, and I applaud him for it. It is no accident that he has been to North Korea and has greater understanding of that situation than many Members of the Senate. Not too long ago, Ambassador James Laney, the U.S. Ambassador to South Korea, made a speech in which he said that the leaders of North Korea ``are driven not by arrogance, but by insecurity.'' I tend to believe that is accurate. And we have to fashion a face-saving way of maneuvering them to become more responsible members of the world community. Ambassador Laney also said in commenting on the situation: ``For our part we do not need to act strong because we are strong.'' I believe in the soundness in what he has said. I urge members of the State Department and of the administration not to put the North Korea matter on the back burner, but to continue to focus on it, and try to bring about greater communication. If the four- power talks that have been suggested do not become reality, then at the very least, we ought to be inviting parliamentarians from both North Korea and South Korea to meet informally in the United States with each other and with others in our country.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, one of the finest editorials I have read in recent months appeared in the Chicago Tribune, titled ``Shut Down the U.S. Arms Bazaar.'' It is contrary to the security of the interest of the United States that we are the No. 1 arms merchant in the world. Not only are we the No. 1 arms merchant, but we subsidize what ultimately can prove harmful to our security. And it is not only a threat to our security. When I visit a place like Angola and see so many children going about with one leg missing or two legs missing and know that this has been caused, in part, by land mines built in the United States, or financed by the United States, I am troubled. Again and again, we are in a situation where we find American weapons used against our troops. That should teach us something, but it doesn't seem to. This is one editorial that every Member of the Senate and every staff member should read. I ask that the editorial be printed in the Congressional Record. The editorial follows: [From the Chicago Tribune] Shut Down the U.S. Arms Bazaar President Clinton spoke eloquently and probably expressed the view of most citizens when, accepting the Democratic Party's nomination in Chicago last month, he pledged that U.S. foreign policy would be one that ``advances the values of our American community in the community of nations.'' Here's a place to start, Mr. President: End the outdated and outrageously dangerous policy of encouraging sales of American weapons abroad, particularly to countries in the developing world, unless there is a compelling U.S. security interest to be defended. What American value is represented by the fact that the U.S. remains the largest exporter of weapons in a post-Cold War world in which there is no monolithic enemy to be contained? Although Russia made the news in recent days by outstripping the U.S. in sales of arms to Third World governments in 1995, a careful reading of the report showed that this was an artifact of one transaction: a $6 billion sale of fighter jets to China. Otherwise, however, Uncle Sam is boss of the arms bazaar, with contracts for about half of all arms sales worldwide. Year in and year out, America sells more weapons to the Third World than any other country. Certainly these developing lands could put their scarce financial resources to better use, namely to build or improve schools, hospitals, sanitation and transportation systems. Aha, you say! If the U.S. stops selling these arms abroad, someone else--Russia, France, Italy, Germany, Britain, the Czech Republic, even--will rush in and snatch up the lucrative contracts. So what? Of the 50 armed conflicts in this decade--mostly vile ethnic, religious or tribal rivalries, guerrilla uprisings and petty territorial disputes--45 were fought with weapons stamped ``Made in the USA.'' Should weapons sales be our ambassador of democracy? Is increasing the efficiency of armed combatants, without regard to vital U.S. interests, a value we choose to represent America abroad? Even espousing a traditional sense of national security, the U.S. can dominate the international arms market, according to Sarah Walkling, a senior analyst with the Arms Control Association. That's because NATO, the western military alliance that is the backbone of American national security and includes this nation's dearest allies, is the largest market for U.S. arms, consuming 43 percent of American weapons sales abroad at a cost of $3.9 billion. NATO will continue to be the biggest client for American weapons, which is a fine thing for all concerned. But now Chile wants U.S. F-16 jet-fighters. With no international threat to the region, to what purpose would those top-of-the-line attack craft be put? Only to act upon territorial ambitions and border disputes and to spark a wasteful hemispheric arms race. And then there's Indonesia. Indonesia is in the midst of a crude crackdown on political dissent that is the antithesis of values America wants to promote. Should Indonesia get the F-16s it wants? Certainly not. Although Clinton pledged a values-driven foreign policy, a Presidential Decision Directive he signed last year pushes arms sales abroad to ``enhance the ability of the U.S. defense industrial base, to meet U.S. defense requirements and to maintain long-term military technological superiority at lower costs.'' That, in the words of William Hartung, a senior fellow of the World Policy Institute at the New School for Social Research, is nothing but welfare for big arms manufacturers and weapons dealers. In order to help American firms get to a bigger share of the world arms market, the U.S. government spent $7.6 billion--in 1995 alone--in subsidies, grants, guaranteed loans and cash payments, and in the use of government personnel to promote products and overseas air shows, Hartung says. The argument that these arms sales abroad protect jobs at home is no longer necessarily true, since many new purchasers now demand, as part of the contract, the right to produce these expensive weapons on their turf. Thus, Hartung says, the biggest production line for the F-16 is no longer in the U.S. but in Turkey. Even more sinister is the concept of ``blowback.'' During the Cold War, a powerful argument for arms sales abroad was to allow the United States leverage over foreign powers and to give us inside knowledge about another power's arsenal--to ``know what we're up against.'' Today, all bets are off, and what American troops have come up against is the finest American weapons wielded by opposition troops--in Panama, in Iran, in Iraq, in Haiti, in Somalia and, to a smaller extent, in Bosnia. America cannot control its weapons once sold. Allies whose national security interests coincide with ours deserve our trust and have earned the right to purchase American-made weapons. But weapons sales motivated solely by a market opportunity merely fuel conflict--conflict that may require America to step in later with its diplomatic and military muscle. There is no profit in that.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, my involvement in the issue of student aid over the past few years has given me a greater understanding of so-called government-sponsored enterprises. I have been critical of Sallie Mae, the Student Loan Marketing Association, for its lobbying activities and its high salaries. Five years ago I began calling for the elimination of Sallie Mae's ties to the Government. But I would like to go further in addressing this question of corporations that are connected in some way with the Federal government. How do they know when their purpose has been achieved, and their ties to the government should be cut? How do we make sure that they do not become so strong politically that the ties can never be cut? Should they be exempt from federal, state, and local taxes? Should the securities laws apply them? Today, along with my colleague, Senator Pryor, I am introducing a bill that would address these and other questions. The bill would establish standards for the creation of new Government-sponsored enterprises, those corporations that are created by Congress but are owned by private investors. The bill also would set guidelines for a very different type of corporation: those that are actually owned by taxpayers as a part of the Federal Government structure. This legislation is the result of concerns raised by the National Academy of Public Administration. Harold Seidman, in House testimony on behalf of the Academy last year, pointed out that the Congress has not used any consistent criteria for determining when a government corporation is appropriate and when it is not. He also raised questions about some of the privileges that have been granted to Government- sponsored enterprises. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that, as Congress considers the creation of new government corporations and government- sponsored enterprises, it does so with its eyes wide open. It would also require some of these entities to plan for eventual privatization, and would force Congress to review their status on a regular basis. I know that it is not possible for Congress to act on this legislation in these final weeks. But I hope some of my colleagues will take up where I have left off, and work to establish much-needed standards where Government intersects with business.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, my involvement in the issue of student aid over the past few years has given me a greater understanding of so-called government-sponsored enterprises. I have been critical of Sallie Mae, the Student Loan Marketing Association, for its lobbying activities and its high salaries. Five years ago I began calling for the elimination of Sallie Mae's ties to the Government. But I would like to go further in addressing this question of corporations that are connected in some way with the Federal government. How do they know when their purpose has been achieved, and their ties to the government should be cut? How do we make sure that they do not become so strong politically that the ties can never be cut? Should they be exempt from federal, state, and local taxes? Should the securities laws apply them? Today, along with my colleague, Senator Pryor, I am introducing a bill that would address these and other questions. The bill would establish standards for the creation of new Government-sponsored enterprises, those corporations that are created by Congress but are owned by private investors. The bill also would set guidelines for a very different type of corporation: those that are actually owned by taxpayers as a part of the Federal Government structure. This legislation is the result of concerns raised by the National Academy of Public Administration. Harold Seidman, in House testimony on behalf of the Academy last year, pointed out that the Congress has not used any consistent criteria for determining when a government corporation is appropriate and when it is not. He also raised questions about some of the privileges that have been granted to Government- sponsored enterprises. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that, as Congress considers the creation of new government corporations and government- sponsored enterprises, it does so with its eyes wide open. It would also require some of these entities to plan for eventual privatization, and would force Congress to review their status on a regular basis. I know that it is not possible for Congress to act on this legislation in these final weeks. But I hope some of my colleagues will take up where I have left off, and work to establish much-needed standards where Government intersects with business.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there was language included in the manager's amendment to the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1996 that would allow a gambling operation off the coast of California. I am the chief sponsor of legislation establishing a gambling commission to study the impact of gaming on municipalities, states and tribal governments. It is my feeling that we are making a mistake by sanctioning this new operation before we have a chance to study the Commission's findings. The Federal Aviation Authorization legislation is an important bill, which is why I offered my support despite the language amending the Johnston Act.

Mr. SIMON. I would be delighted to enter into such a colloquy.

Mr. SIMON. Yes.