Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, immigration has been in the news a great deal over the past few months. The debate usually fails completely to account for the vast difference between legal and illegal immigration. Amidst calls for increased enforcement of our laws against illegal immigration to the United States--enforcement which I strongly support--we see proposals aimed at cutting back admissions of legal immigrants: those immigrants who play by the rules and enter our Nation the correct way. In general, I oppose the idea of further restricting legal immigration to the United States, and particularly oppose drastic cuts in family-based immigration. Those foreigners who demonstrate the initiative to move to the United States are among the most industrious and motivated members of their own nations. Like the immigrants who arrived in America before them, they come to this country to join their families and to carve out opportunities for themselves. In doing so, they enrich our country economically, culturally, and socially. Those who support cuts in legal immigration often do so without identifying any concrete [[Page S 15168]] reason for these cuts, repeating only that the ``national interest'' justifies restricting both legal and illegal immigration. I cannot see how preventing worthy immigrants from reuniting with their families is in our national interest. Today, I would like to focus on one particular category of legal immigrants who face the threat of a locked door to the United States: the brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens, who are currently eligible for immigrant visas under the fourth family preference category in our immigration laws. Currently, 65,000 immigrants enter the United States annually under this category, and hundreds of thousands of others face a backlog. Both Barbara Jordan's Commission on Immigration Reform and various Members of Congress have proposed eliminating this family preference category outright. I have great concerns about these proposals on two levels. First, proponents of elimination of the fourth family preference justify their proposals by emphasizing that our family-based immigration system should focus on the nuclear family, and that the sibling relationships protected by the fourth preference category are too attenuated to qualify as a priority in our immigration policy. I think that if we were to survey the American public, we would find that people of every ethnic and racial background value sibling relationships so much that they would--and do--fully support an immigration system that reunifies siblings as well as nuclear family members. While the public is undoubtedly and justifiably concerned about illegal immigration, I have seen no evidence that it devalues legal immigration generally, or sibling relationships in particular, in the manner suggested by those who propose eliminating the fourth family preference. In fact, quite the contrary. Second, I am especially concerned about the effect of elimination of the fourth preference on those individuals who are currently in the backlog. These prospective immigrants and their sponsors--who are citizens of the United States--have expended substantial resources and funds in attaining eligibility for an immigrant visa. They have played by the rules, and waited patiently for their numbers to come up. As much as these individuals want to reunite with their siblings, they have decided against taking the rash but convenient step of entering or staying in the United States illegally. It would be fundamentally unfair for the United States to take the money and run without fulfilling its commitment to these individuals. I submit for the Record a New York Times article from September 24, 1995, which tells the story of Sonya Canton, a naturalized American citizen. She has two sisters, one of whom has illegally overstayed her visa to the United States, is living here today legally under the 1986 amnesty, and will soon become eligible for citizenship; and the other of whom waits patiently in the fourth preference backlog, having paid both her fees and her dues. Mrs. Canton states: ``It is some kind of injustice when those who played by the rules can't get in, but those who broke the rules are now going to become citizens.'' I could not say it any better. At the very least, proposals to reform the fourth preference should, as a matter of fairness, provide for those in the current backlog. I bring to this issue a personal perspective. The director of my Chicago office, Nancy Chen, has sponsored two of her brothers into the United States under the fourth preference. Both of them live near her in Illinois, and both are productive members of society with good jobs. The closeness and industry demonstrated by this family is the very behavior we should applaud and encourage. I fear that by eliminating the fourth preference category we do just the opposite, and call on my colleagues in Congress and on the administration to find a more suitable solution in this area--one that, at the very least, treats those backlogged visa applicants with the fairness they deserve. The article follows: [From the New York Times, September 24, 1995] Narrowing the U.S. Immigration Gate (By Seth Mydans) Seventeen years ago, Sonya Canton, an American citizen born in the Philippines, petitioned for her sister, a banker, to join her here under the family-reunification policy that has been the basic principle of United States immigration law for 30 years. While she was waiting, a second sister, who sold exotic seashells for a living, visited the United States as a tourist, liked the place and decided to stay on illegally with her three children. To this sister's surprise and good fortune, in 1986 Congress offered amnesty to illegal immigrants, and she and her children became legal residents, eligible for citizenship. Today she works as a saleswoman in a department store, and her children have all graduated from high school with honors. Meanwhile, as a banker sister continues to wait, the mood of the country, and of Congress, has changed. Struggling to stem a flood of legal and illegal immigrants, Congress is preparing to cut deeply into family-reunification quotes this fall and drop people like her from eligibility. If the changes are enacted, the United States would shut the door on about 2.4 million people--the brothers, sisters and adult children of citizens and legal residents--who have waited for years or decades to enter the country as legal immigrants. That number nearly matches the three million illegal immigrants granted amnesty in 1986. ``It is some kind of injustice when those who played by the rules can't get in, but those who broke the rules are now going to become citizens,'' said Ms. Canton, an import specialist for the United States Customs Service. But even immigration advocates concede that the current law has become unwieldy, with a total of 3.5 million people waiting--some in lines that stretch for 40 years or more--to join relatives in the United States. In some countries, like the Philippines, the projected wait for American visas is so long that the categories for siblings and adult children effectively no longer exist. Nonetheless, the applications keep coming in, and the lines grow longer. The solution most favored by Congress is to focus on the nuclear family and to eliminate from eligibility those with less immediate ties. ``I don't think there is any risk that family unity will be eliminated as a basis for immigration to the United States,'' said Arthur C. Helton, an immigration expert with the Open Society Institute, a lobbying group in New York that studies international issues. ``But what that means in a number of specific contexts will be redefined, and a focus on the immediate nuclear family will emerge.'' That approach became evident when a Presidential commission led by Barbara Jordan, a Democrat and former Representative from Texas, recently began drafting proposed changes in the immigration law. In an interim report issued in June, the commission recommended, among other things, allowing citizens and legal residents to bring in only spouses and minor, unmarried children--not their siblings or adult children. Congress is now considering a number of immigration bills. The most far-reaching was submitted in June by Representative Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who heads the House subcommittee on immigration. His bill is in the hands of the House Judiciary Committee. In the Senate, Alan K. Simpson, Republican of Wyoming, is preparing to introduce a similar bill. The Smith and Simpson measures largely attack illegal immigration; they propose stronger border controls, workplace enforcement and deportation procedures. In addressing legal immigration, the bills drastically cut family-reunification admissions by making the siblings and grown children of legal residents and citizens no longer eligible for immigration. The Smith bill would reduce the number of legal immigrants to 535,000 a year, compared with about 800,000 last year. The changes would reduce the waiting lists and speed the entry of the spouses and minor children of legal residents. Currently, the spouses and minor children of United States citizens can enter immediately, without a numerical quota. But about 1.1 million spouses and minor children of legal residents are caught in the backlog, along with siblings and children over 21. Apart from family reunification, the primary avenue for immigration into the United States is employment. The 1986 amnesty is partly responsible for the flood of applicants that has created pressure for the changes. About 80 percent of the spouses and minor children on the immigration waiting lists are relatives of those who won legal residence under that law, Government figures show. The total family-preference waiting list of 3.5 million is twice as long as when the amnesty law took effect. Under current quotas, only 253,721 of those waiting will receive visas this year, even as the list of applicants grows longer. The backlog includes one million applicants from Mexico and about 500,000 from the Philippines. Before the 1986 amnesty, the Philippines was the largest source of legal immigrants into the United States. Those countries are followed by India, China, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Taiwan, South Korea, El Salvador and Haiti. Short of raising the ceiling for immigration, there seems to be little way to accommodate the lengthening waiting list of siblings and adult children. ``Clearly the public mood and the practical realities of today's America require that we cut down on immigration,'' said Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, an independent lobbying group. [[Page S 15169]] Calling the Jordan, Smith and Simpson proposals ``an effort to strike a balance,'' he said, ``We have to make these decisions based on what is in our national interest.'' He added, ``We have no duty or obligation to people who have been waiting in line because the system is impractical in the first place.'' But opponents say the cuts are politically motivated and unnecessary. ``Since when did the United States become too small for the parents and children and brothers and sisters of United States citizens?'' asked Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigration lobbying group. ``The idea of bringing in energetic newcomers who are helped by family members to get a leg up in this society is something that has worked for 300 years.'' He added, ``For a Congress that prides itself in being pro- family, it seem hypocritical to cut family immigration by 30 percent.'' One potential victim of the expected changes is Leticia Chong, a Filipino nurse who has played by the rules and prospered. She entered the country legally in 1981, became a legal resident, obtained both business and nursing degrees here and brought up five Philippines-born children to become American doctors, nurses and engineers. Today they are all either citizens or legal residents. Her problem is her sixth and last child, an engineering student who will turn 21 this month, having waited in vain for his name to come up in the backlog of petitions for minor children of legal residents. He now enters the category of adult children, and--like Ms. Canton's banker sister--he would simply be dropped from eligibility under the proposed changes. ``He has been here since he was 11 years old,'' Mrs. Chong said. ``He has friends here. His family is here. This is his home. What will he do if he has to go back to the Philippines?''

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I just walked on to the floor, I confess, and heard Senator Dodd speaking. When he asked the question, what are we doing to ourselves --that is really the fundamental question. What is our self-interest? It so happens earlier today a woman asked me why have we not been in Vietnam getting business? She says the French--she is in an agriculture implement business--the French and Japanese and others are in there getting the business that we should have been getting. Well, the answer is we should have been there but we have been responding to the national passion rather than the national interest. We have to ask, what is in our own best interest. Passing this kind of legislation may bring cheers from certain quarters. It does not help the United States of America, and it does not help people in Cuba who want freedom. I commend my colleagues for standing up on this. We have to send a message to the rest of the world that we are going to work with the rest of the world, including governments we do not like. I do not like Castro's government. In the area of human rights their record is miserable. But I have to say, so is the record of China. We are working with China. We are cuddling up to China a little more than I like, frankly. But I do think if China wants to buy a Ford tractor from the United States, we should sell them a Ford tractor. I think of our relations with Cuba back when there was a Soviet Union. If Moscow and Castro got together and said how can we design U.S. policy to keep Castro in power, they could not have designed a better policy than the one we follow. We have isolated Castro and we have made him a hero among his people for standing up to the big bully, the United States. This legislation is not in our national interests. I commend my colleague.

Mr. SIMON. Would my colleague yield?

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Is it not your understanding that nonresidential programs for at-risk youth described under section 161(b) (2) and (3) of the bill, could be provided by local, community-based organizations?

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I think the evidence is just overwhelming that we should not put the Job Corps on the chopping block. This is a program that has some difficulties because you are [[Page S 14965]] dealing with marginal young people, but it works. And when we have a program that works we ought to be expanding it and not cutting back on it. I urge my colleagues to accept the amendment that Senator Specter and I have introduced. I think it is in the national interest. I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMON. I will take 1 minute.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, there is no question that without the Specter amendment, we severely wound Job Corps. It is the only program we have working with at-risk young people which is really working, and working effectively. When the legislation says they have to use a portion of the money that we give to them to maintain Job Corps centers, they can use this for parole agents. It is revenue sharing with the States. It really is important. If you believe in helping at- risk young people in our Nation, pass this, the Specter-Simon amendment.

Mr. SIMON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2893

Mr. SIMON. If my colleague can give me 5 minutes, that will be great.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, someone said this does not kill the Job Corps. It sure severely wounds it. I have not had a letter from a single Governor saying we want to do this. Yet, the Job Corps in Denison, IA, and Golconda, IL, across State lines, takes care of people. That will not happen anymore. Look at the language of the bill: The State shall use a portion of the funds made available through the allotment to maintain the center . . . A portion. That means 5 percent, 50 percent. Mostly, these are residential right now. You can be sure if the State can save that money and use it for some other purpose, they are going to knock out those residential centers. Make no mistake about it, if you vote against the Specter-Simon amendment, you are voting to severely wound the Job Corps.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania and I thank him for sponsoring this amendment and I appreciate the comments of Senator Hatch.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, first of all, we are not talking about the Sunday school class of Our Savior's Lutheran Church at Carbondale, IL. We are talking about a marginal group of young people: 79 percent high school dropouts, 73 percent have never been employed before. While they have problems, they have been improving. This is the placement rate for the Job Corps. For those who criticize it and say only 36 percent graduate, those figures are also gradually going up. I point out, U.S. News & World Report just came out with the best colleges and universities in the Nation and I notice that Wichita State University, a great school in my colleague's State, had a 30- percent graduation rate. That is not an abysmal rate, when you take a look at what is happening. With the placement rate, it is not only that you get over 70 percent placed in jobs, it is also that 79 percent-- interestingly the same percentage; these are high school dropouts--79 percent of the employers speak very highly of these young people who are marginal, who have really been struggling. In 1991 the National Commission on Children, a bipartisan body of 34 members wrote, ``We recommend that the Job Corps component of JTPA be expanded over the next decade''--not cut back, as this will do, without this amendment--``be expanded over the next decade to increase participation from its present level of approximately 62,000 a year to approximately 93,000 a year.'' In 1993, the Milton Eisenhower Foundation, commemorating the 25th anniversary of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders-- listen to what they have to say, the Milton Eisenhower foundation. Next to Head Start, the Job Corps appears to be the second most successful across-the-board American prevention program ever created for high-risk kids. What we are being asked to do is automatically cut back on 25 Job Corps centers and then block grant. There are areas where block grants make sense, but this is sure not one of them. Most States have no experience whatsoever in this field. Here we know we have a program that is working, is being commended by a great many people. I will have printed in the Record a letter signed by Peter Brennan, Secretary of Labor under the Nixon administration, Dick Schubert, Deputy Secretary of Labor under both the Nixon and Ford administration, Bill Usery, Secretary of Labor under the Ford administration, Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor under the Carter administration, Frank C. Casillas, Assistant Secretary of Labor under the Reagan administration, Malcolm Lovell Jr., Assistant Secretary for Manpower under the Nixon administration, and Under Secretary of Labor under the Reagan administration, Roger Semarad, Assistant Secretary of Labor under the Reagan administration--all them saying we ought to keep the Job Corps. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I just came from the ceremony held in the House Chamber. It was a marvelous ceremony, and I want to thank Senator Thurmond and Congressman Spence for putting it together. Our colleague from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, said something that I think is significant for this body and for the other. He said, ``You do not need to look to Los Angeles to see needless divisions in our country.'' He said, ``You can look right here at the House and the Senate.'' I think that is true. Each of us is partisan. I am proud to be a Democrat. Other colleagues are proud to be Republicans. But when we come here, sure, let us have differing opinions, but the excessive partisanship that is here, I think, discourages this country about our process. I think it harms both parties, and I think there is nothing finer that we could do at this point than to listen to our colleague, Senator Inouye--in both political parties; I am not suggesting either one is better on this. We can work together more. As I leave this body at the end of next year, my greatest regret is that I have seen this body deteriorate gradually over the years and become more and more partisan. That has not helped the American public. That has not helped the two-party system. I see my colleague from Wyoming. He is going to seek the floor. I yield the floor. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON

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

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. That is correct. I understand the Presiding Officer may wish to speak on this. He was here before I was. I will be pleased to yield to him.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas and thank the Chair for his courtesy. I commend the Senator from Kansas, as well as the ranking member, Senator Kennedy, for their work in this field. I confess, I have mixed feelings about this bill. There are good things in it. One-stop shopping makes a great deal of sense. Labor market information makes a great deal of sense. My staff, who know more about the Adult Vocational Rehabilitation Act than I do, tell me that provision is very, very sound. And I like the idea of consolidation of programs. We have multiplied too many programs. There is just no question about that. I have to say, I am less than completely enthusiastic about just having block grants to the States. Some years ago we consolidated some education programs and one of those was the school library program. During the whole Depression, not a single library in this Nation closed. But, after we consolidated the school library program into the block grants to the States on education, over half of the school libraries in the State of California, for example, have closed. This idea of simply giving block grants to the States is not one that I am wildly enthusiastic about. I do believe we have to give States flexibility. If I can use an example the Presiding Officer is very familiar with, when we passed the bill--I was in the House then and worked on this--when we passed the bill requiring all States to give help to young people with disabilities, we did not do that because the Federal Government wanted power. We did it because States were not doing the job. We had a lot of schools that said if you are deaf, if you are blind, if you are in a wheelchair, sorry, we are not going to serve you. A majority of the mentally retarded were not being given any help in our public schools. So we put into law a Federal mandate. Would I be willing to say let us just give this money back to the States, and the States will decide whether they are going to help these young people or not? No. I am not willing to do it. So, when I look at consolidation and I see school-to-work opportunities just getting started, and by all reports really doing some good--but I do not know what is going to happen in Tennessee or Illinois. (Mrs. KASSEBAUM assumed the chair.)

Mr. SIMON. The National Literacy Act--by the most conservative estimates, we have 23 million adult Americans who cannot read a newspaper or who cannot fill out a job application form. This is a massive drag on our economy. We have to make our people more productive. Among other things, those adult Americans who have literacy deficiencies are not able to help their kids in school. So, when I see that we are going to consolidate some of these things, I get concerned. Then the Job Corps has been--are there problems? You bet. We are dealing with marginal young people. Almost 80 percent have dropped out of school. To just say to States, ``You go ahead and run Job Corps, if you want to,'' I do not think makes sense. Senator Specter and I will have an amendment this afternoon to keep the Job Corps and to make some improvements in terms of requirements on use of drugs or alcohol and some other things that I think are important. But 73 percent of the Job Corps alumni--these, again, are kids who are marginal--73 percent end up either getting a job or going on to college or to a vocational school. So I view this legislation, Madam President, with mixed feelings. I commend you and the ranking member for all of the work you have done in this field. You have been a real legislator, Madam President, not only in this field, but with the problems we faced in Africa and in other areas. I like the idea of consolidation, one-stop shopping, and labor market information. I am not an enthusiastic supporter of just saying to the States, ``You have this money and you make all the decisions.'' I want to give some flexibility to the States, but I also want to make sure people get served who need to be served. Madam President, I yield the floor. I see we are going to get some words of wisdom from my colleague from Tennessee.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Order of Procedure

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I thank the Chair. I thank my distinguished colleague from Kansas. I see the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island here at this time. I am wondering if he would like for me to withdraw my consent request and allow him to offer his amendment.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Madam President, it is a good amendment. We are pleased to accept it on this side.

Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I respect the sincerity of our new colleague from Missouri. He is dealing with a problem that is unquestionably a major problem in our society. I believe his approach is wrong. I want to tell him why I believe his approach is wrong. First of all, if you take the logic of what he has to say, then why do we not take all of the citizens of this Nation and just randomly test them for drugs? We do not do that because there is an invasion of privacy that takes place if we do that. We do that for people who are in public safety positions--pilots, people on the railroads, in positions like that. I can recall some years ago when one of our colleagues who is no longer here announced he was going to have everyone in his Senate office tested for drugs. I guess I was around here and happened to be present and I was the next person the reporters could grab hold of and they asked me what I thought. I said I was not going to do that. I related that we did have at one point one employee whose conduct was a little erratic and I had told my chief of staff that I wanted to talk to him and insist that he take a drug test or we were going to discharge him, and he quit before we got to that point. I would not favor an amendment like this for Senate employees even though this is a hugely important role here. There is a basic privacy. When you talk about people who are unemployed, you are talking about people who face disaster. What about other disaster programs? What about farmers in Missouri and Illinois or [[Page S 14880]] Maine or Kansas who are getting disaster relief? Are we going to test farmers before they get disaster relief? Or, what about people who, in Missouri and Illinois, receive flood relief? We had a major problem in our two States. That is disaster assistance. Are we going to send a signal to the Nation: Sorry, if you cannot pass a drug test, we are not going to give you flood relief? I do not think we want to go down that road. I am sure any study will show that people who have house mortgages under FHA and have a drug problem are much greater risks. Should we test everyone who wants to get a house mortgage in this country? Again, I think we should not go down that road. And I have a few other points, and then I am going to have to leave before my colleague even has a chance to rebut my arguments here. I have heard a lot of speeches about unfunded mandates on this floor. I made a few myself and my guess is maybe the new Senator from Missouri has made a few speeches on unfunded mandates. This is an unfunded mandate. It costs about $35 apiece for these tests. And, incidentally-- maybe not so incidentally--about 4 percent of the tests are inaccurate. So if we test 500,000 people, 20,000 of those tests--no small number-- are inaccurate. Do we have a problem? Should we deal with it? You bet. But the House of Representatives has just cut 23 percent from drug treatment and prevention. That is what we ought to be working on. I visited Cook County jail--9,000 prisoners. I visited with a group of prisoners in the minimum security area, about 40 of them, in what is like an old army barracks that I remember. I was going around talking to them, and I said to one fellow, ``What can we do to be of help to you?'' He said, ``I want to get into drug treatment.'' I turned to the warden and I said, ``How come he cannot get into drug treatment?'' The warden said, ``We have 9,000 prisoners and places for 200 in drug treatment.'' I turned to this room with 40 people and said, ``How many of you would like to get into drug treatment?'' Probably three-quarters of them raised their hands. If the Senator from Missouri wants to increase funding for drug treatment in our country, I will cosponsor the amendment. That is what we ought to do. We ought to do much more along that line. Then, finally, let me just add one other point. Why do people go on drugs? I think there is a variety of reasons, but one factor for a great many is a lack of hope. What job training does is to give that spark of hope to a lot of people who have just given up in our society. I do not question for a moment the motivation of the junior Senator from Missouri. He is dealing with a problem that is very real, and he wants to do something to solve it. I want to do something to solve it. I do not think this does anything to solve it, and it creates some real problems. So I will, tomorrow when we vote on this, vote against it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2893 to Amendment No. 2885 (Purpose: To establish a requirement that individuals submit to drug tests, to ensure that applicants and participants make full use of benefits extended through work force employment activities)

Mr. SIMON. I understand.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, when the House adjourns toady for the Columbus Day recess, it will also mark the end of the congressional career of Representative Norman Mineta of San Jose, CA. Norm Mineta and I came to Congress together in January 1975 and over the past two decades he has been a remarkable public servant. There was Cynicism about Washington when we arrived in the Watergate class of 1974 and, sadly, there is loss of faith in our political system today. But there has never been a question about the contributions Norm Mineta has made to make this country a better place. While ably representing the people of his district, Norm Mineta has also developed a natural, national constituency among Asian-Pacific- Americans. [[Page S 14767]] Many people do not realize that the State of Illinois has the fifth largest Asian-American population of any State. Over the years, Norm Mineta and I have worked closely on many issues, particularly those affecting our Asian-Pacific-Americans constituents. In the 1970s', we worked together on the inclusion of Asian-Americans in the decennial census. In the 1980's, we worked to ensure that Asian Americans were included in the Higher Education Act. In this decade, we have worked on passing hate crimes legislation and saving the immigration preference for brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens, which sadly is being threatened again today. In 1992, he was particularly helpful to me and my staff on extending the important bilingual provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Perhaps most of all, Norm Mineta will be remembered for his work to do what should have been done long previously by Congress--enactment of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 providing redress for Japanese- Americans interned during World War II. I was a teenager living on the west cost when that episode occurred in our Nation's history. My family was not uprooted like Norm Mineta's and those of 120,000 Japanese- Americans. But my father, who was a Lutheran minister, spoke out publicly against what was happening to Japanese-Americans. He was criticized for that, but, as I look back, it was one of the things I am most proud of him--standing up for what was right in the face of what was the popular mood. Norm Mineta has always stood for what is best in public service and I wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I agree with everything the Senator from Georgia had to say. I reach a different conclusion. And I may be the only one voting against this. Tom Friedman of the New York Times had a column recently in which he said, ``France acts like a great power but does not have the resources. The United States has the resources but does not act like a great power.'' We cannot have effective foreign policy if Congress micromanages it. The Senator from Georgia asks a series of questions. I think there is one other question. Does it help peace in Bosnia to adopt this resolution? I think it unnecessarily raises questions, and I am going to vote against the amendment.