Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I am pleased with the negotiations that have taken place with Senator Hollings, Senator Hatfield, Senator Biden, Senator Gramm, and others. They have improved this bill. Let me add one concern I do have. This bill authorizes $250 million for U.N. peacekeeping. The request from the President was $445 million. The House figure--in most areas the House is, frankly, worse than the Senate--the House figure is $425 million. Again, our figure is $250 million. The authorization figure from the Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Senator Helms, is $445 million--and we have $250 million here. This is on top of what we have been doing to not pay our dues in the United Nations. We are the No. 1 deadbeat in the world. Yesterday morning's New York Times has a story ``To Pay Some Debts, U.N. Will Try Borrowing From World Bank.'' We owe $1.2 billion to the United Nations. They would not have to be going to the World Bank if we paid our bills. I ask unanimous consent to have that article printed in the Record at this point, Mr. President.

Mr. SIMON. And then the next is a letter, a policy statement by the United Nations Association of the United States of America, sent to me--I am sure to all Members of the Senate--by the former Deputy Secretary of State John Whitehead, who many of us had a chance to know and respect a great deal. He was the Deputy Secretary of State under Jim Baker. I ask unanimous consent that his fine statement be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. SIMON. Then I would like to insert two other things into the Record. One is a statement by the Council for a Livable World, whose good work I think many of us acknowledge. This is a statement in support of U.N. peace operations, signed by a great many people. I ask unanimous consent that that be printed in the Record. [[Page S 14520]]

Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield for a moment?

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I simply want to acknowledge that the person who educated me on gross interest over against net interest was the Senator from South Carolina. Administrations like to put net interest into their budgets. We do not do that with any other function of Government. We do not say the Justice Department took in so many dollars in fines and everything, therefore, their budget is that much less. It is the gross expenditure of the Justice Department. But because administrations like to fuzz things up a little bit, they were using net interest. The real figure is gross interest. I want to acknowledge Senator Fritz Hollings for having educated me on this. And I hope he is educating a lot of other people, too.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I am not offering an amendment on this because, real candidly, I know what the results would be. But I hope that in conference my colleagues will keep in mind that even the House, conservative as they are, put in $425 million for U.N. peacekeeping compared to our $250 million. I hope we will go to the House figure on this. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, let me comment on two aspects. One is the intrusion of the striker replacement into this, and then on the dollars themselves. What we know from studies, and particularly the Harvard study, is that union workers by and large are more satisfied, and more satisfied workers produce quality work, and that union workers stay at a job longer. This moves us in the opposite direction. What we need in our society is balance. I see the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. He has seen more of our history and certainly studied it more than I have. But over the years, since the 1930's, we have tried to have a reasonably good balance. Frankly, when there is a Republican President, the National Labor Relations Board tilts a little bit in the direction of management, and when there is a Democratic President, it tilts a little bit in the direction of labor. But when President Reagan came in--and he did many good things--the balance was lost. And while, for example, at one point Canada and the United States both had about 33 percent of our work force belonging to labor unions, Canada has gone up to 36 percent, and in the United States, we are down to 16 percent. And if you exclude the governmental unions, it is down to 11.8 percent. It was very interesting for me to pick up the New York Times and read an article by George Shultz, who most recently was Secretary of State under a Republican administration but at one point was Secretary of Labor, and George Shultz said things are getting out of balance; we have an unhealthy small percentage of our work force belonging to labor unions. Now, part of this balance was self-restraint. Through most of our history, no industry just permanently replaced strikers. And then we have had a few instances of it. Greyhound did it, and we had Bridgestone/Firestone, and that came up on the floor of this body. It is very interesting because Bridgestone/Firestone is a Japanese-owned corporation today. Permanently replacing workers in Japan is illegal, but they did it with their United States entity. The only places where it is legal in industrialized democracies are Great Britain, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the United States of America. In all the other Western European nations and Japan, it is illegal. I believe the President's Executive order has brought just a trifle amount of balance here. We need more. We need to be doing a lot of things to provide some balance. And what we also have to do as we provide balance is to try to get labor and management working together. I am pleased to say that in the State of Illinois it looks as if Caterpillar is moving toward resolving that problem. Let me second, Mr. President, talk about the appropriation and where we are. We have under this proposal said--this is compared to the 1995 appropriations, and this is assuming that the Senate bill passes; the House bill is even worse--in the State of Illinois, 42,395 fewer people will be helped. Let us take West Virginia because West Virginia is like my home territory of southern Illinois--good, fine people but below average education and below average earnings. In West Virginia, 11,413 people. Let us take another example, Mr. President, we forget about here frequently. The citizens of Puerto Rico are all American citizens. They contribute in terms of Armed Forces and bloodshed more than almost all of our States. In Puerto Rico, 39,924 fewer people are being helped. The average income in Puerto Rico is less than half the average income in Mississippi, the bottom of our 50 States. Puerto Rico gets the short shrift in legislation after legislation because there is no one in the Senate to defend them. We have what we call Commonwealth States. Old fashioned colonialism is what it is. One of these days inevitably Puerto Rico will either become independent or become a State, and that choice I think should be up to the people of Puerto Rico, whatever their decision. Let us take dollars now. In the State of Illinois, $84,747,000 less than the 1995 appropriation under this bill; West Virginia, $21 million less. This is money for education, for people who need help, for summer jobs for youth. Puerto Rico --I mentioned $84 million for the State of Illinois. Puerto Rico, roughly one-fourth of our population, $70 million less. These programs, Mr. President, do good for people. Let me just mention one--title I. It used to be called Chapter 1. This is for the more impoverished areas. People say money alone is not going to solve our problems. There is no question, money alone is not going to solve our problems. But without the resources we are not going to do it. What has happened to 9-year-old black males since title I has been in effect? An 18-percent increase in math scores, a 25-percent increase in verbal scores. Those are good kinds of things. Head Start. I do not know anyone who believes Head Start does not help these young people. I will never forget visiting the Head Start Program in an impoverished area in Rock Island, IL. Almost every Head Start Program, every one I know of, has a waiting list. We are not providing enough help. One group of young people comes in Monday morning; Tuesday morning another group; Wednesday morning a third group, and so forth. I asked the woman in charge, what would it mean in the lives of these young people if they could be in here every day instead of 1 day a week? She smiled and she said, ``You could not believe the difference it would make in their future.'' Oh, we save money when we do not provide help to them, like you save money when you build a house and you do not put a roof on it. But you do not save money in the long run. We have to invest in our people. When I was in the fourth or fifth grade, something like that, I read in my geography book that the United States was wealthy because of its natural resources, our oil and coal and all these other things. And then all of a sudden about 15 years ago, I got to thinking about it. The countries that were moving ahead relative to how the United States was moving ahead, much more rapidly than we were--Sweden, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea--why were they moving ahead? They were moving [[Page S 14453]] ahead because they were investing in their people. We need to invest in the people of West Virginia. We need to invest in the people of the central city of Chicago. We need to invest in the people of southern Illinois--good, hard, coal mining people, farmers, and others who are struggling on topsoil much of which, as in West Virginia, is not great. We need to invest in our people. When we do, it pays off. The GI bill after World War II--Senator Byrd and I are old enough to remember that--we thought of it as a gift to veterans. It was an investment in our own prosperity. It was a huge, huge plus for this Nation. We have to do that again. I hope one of these days we will have the vision and the courage. What we are going through now, because of what we have done--and I am for the constitutional amendment; the Senator from West Virginia and I differ strongly on that--what we are trying to do legislatively is like a New Year's resolution. We are having a New Year's resolution where we are going to balance the budget. But you know what we want to do with this? It is like a diet, a New Year's resolution and a diet. We are going to start off with a great big dessert, a $255 billion tax cut. That is what we are doing. It is ridiculous. We ought to be using that money to invest in our people. I hope this appropriation is rejected, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMON. If there is no demand for time on the Republican side, I yield myself 8 minutes.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, as we move toward consideration of the Senate Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill, which increases funding for State prison construction by $250 million and allocates not one penny for crime prevention programs, it is important to take time to examine our current policies and consider our direction. The Justice Department recently released a survey of our Nation's prisons, jails, parole, and probation services. According to the report, a record 5.1 million Americans--2.7 percent of all adults--were behind bars, on probation or on parole in 1994. Last year the Justice Department reported that we passed the mark of having 1 million people in prison. That puts the United States in the dubious position of having the second highest incarceration rate in the industrialized world. As our prison population has soared, our crime rate has been unaffected. Before we allocate scarce resources on more prisons, it makes sense to consider our alternatives and consult with experts. Last December, I sponsored a survey of wardens and inmates in eight States in an effort to inform this debate. Rather than an all-or- nothing distribution of funds, when asked how they would spend an extra $10 million to fight crime in their communities, wardens split the money evenly: 43 percent on prevention and 57 percent on punishment. Even the 1994 crime bill fell far short of this equation, spending 75 percent of its funding on punishment and a mere 25 percent for prevention programs. This appropriations bill would further the imbalance by denying any funds for the crime bill's prevention programs. Mr. President, I ask that a Chicago Sun-Times article on the Justice Department survey be included in the Record at this point. The article follows: [From the Chicago Sun-Times, Aug. 28, 1995] Prison, Probation Rolls Soaring: Total Hits 5.1 Million, 2.7 Percent of All Adults (By Alan C. Miller) Washington.--A record 5.1 million Americans--2.7 percent of the nation's adult population--were behind bars, on probation or on parole last year, the Justice Department reported Sunday. Since 1980, state and federal prison populations have increased by 213 percent, and probation rolls have jumped by 165 percent. The average annual rate of growth has been 7.6 percent; the figure for 1994 was 3.9 percent. Nearly 3 million people were on probation as of last Dec. 31, a Bureau of Justice Statistics study found. Half of those on probation were found guilty of committing a felony; one in seven had been convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. Another 690,000 people were on parole, or conditionally released under supervision, after serving a prison term. Parolees can be returned to prison for violating a set of rules or committing another offense. All but 5 percent had served time for felonies. The Justice Department survey found that 82 percent of those on probation and parole had maintained regular contact with a supervising agency as required. Another 9 percent had failed to report or could not be located. The rest were not required to maintain regular contact. Texas had the most people on probation and parole, 503,000--more than 3.8 percent of the state's adults. California followed with 370,000. Illinois had about 103,000 people on probation and parole. Twelve states and the federal probation system showed a decrease in the number of people on probation. The biggest decrease was in South Dakota, down 6.2 percent, followed by California, down 5.8 percent. The figures show that a higher percentage of men and white people are on probation than are in the prison system. Women make up 21 percent of all probationers and only 6 percent of all prisoners. Blacks make up 32 percent of those on probation and 50 percent of the prison population. Half of those in prison have committed a violent crime; 80 percent have previous convictions. Prisons are running at 20 percent over capacity, and thus more than 4 percent of those sentenced to prison terms are being held in local jails despite considerable prison construction, forcing the early release of some inmates, said Lawrence A. Greenfeld, a deputy director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Criminal justice experts said the sharp increases reflect tougher sentencing on a range of crimes as well as a greater proportion of drug arrests involving longer prison terms. At the same time, they said the consequent pressure to ease congestion in packed prisons and jails has led to expanded use of alternatives to incarceration or early release. [[Page S 14428]] Alfred A. Blumstein, a criminologist at the Heinz School of Public Policy and Management at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pa., said he believes the criminal justice system ``may be overextending itself'' and that increased emphasis on such programs as drug treatment and prevention may be more effective in the long run than meting out harsher sentences. ``Just by locking away more people, we do avert crimes, but at a cost,'' Blumstein said. ``We have no good estimates of how much benefit we get for . . . the cost of $25,000 per person per year in prison or jail.''

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, recently, Bob Samuelson had a column in the Washington Post on the scarcity of various Government statistics in printed form. Mr. Samuelson wrote that some of the reports published by the Census Bureau are going out of print. He cited the fact that the Census Bureau issued only 635 printed reports in 1994 as opposed to over 1,000 the Bureau printed in 1992. His concern over the scarcity of printed statistics led him to contact the Census Bureau. Mr. Samuelson learned that the Census Bureau is still researching and compiling all of the same data and information it has in the past. Only now, rather than publishing its reports in printed form, the Census is circulating statistics on the Internet. Lately there has been a great deal of attention surrounding the Internet and the information superhighway. I have to confess that my knowledge of the Internet is limited. Although, I do understand that a large and varied amount of information may be accessed by using the system. I join Mr. Samuelson in his concern that those who do not have access to the Internet, or choose not to use the information superhighway, will not have the same access to the vital statistics published by the Census Bureau that they have had in the past. While I do not dispute the benefits that accompany the Internet and other similar technological advances--especially in the field of education--I am concerned that we might overlook the usefulness and practicality of printed materials in the name of progress. Having access to a wide range of information at our fingertips is definitely an advantage of the Internet. We must be mindful, however, that there is no substitute for the printed word. Mr. President, I ask that Robert Samuelson's column entitled ``Out of Print'' be printed in the Record at this point. The column follows: [From the Washington Post] Out of Print (By Robert J. Samuelson) My name is Robert, and I am a numbers junkie. I compulsively scour the Statistical Abstract for intriguing indicators of our national condition--the fact, for example, that state lotteries collect $25 billion annually. Naturally, I am also a big fan of the Census Bureau, which publishes the abstract and conducts surveys on everything from our incomes to our housing patterns. So it pains me to report that Census is now committing a colossal blunder. It is slowly going out of print. Literally. The Statistical Abstract momentarily seems safe, but scores of other printed reports are simply being eliminated. In 1992 Census issued 1,035 reports; last year the number was 635, and the retreat from print has only begun. Gone are, among others: ``Earnings by Occupation and Education,'' ``Poverty Areas in the United States'' and ``Language Use in the United States.'' This is absurd. We go to great trouble to collect this information, and now Census is suppressing it. The losers are not just statistics addicts. Our public conversations depend heavily on these dry numbers. The shape our concept of who we are, of how society is performing and of what government should or shouldn't do. Political speeches routinely spit out statistics that can be made to tell stories: some true, some not so true. Keeping the conversations honest requires that the basic data be easily accessible to anyone who wants them. When I say Census is ``suppressing,'' I don't mean that it's deliberately hiding its surveys. As a reporter, I've asked Census for information hundreds of times; I can't recall an instance when answers, when available, weren't provided quickly. The culture of the place is to release information. By its lights, [[Page S 14430]] Census isn't abandoning print so much as it's shifting its data to the Information Superhighway. Statistics are being distributed by CD-ROMs and the Internet. Already, Census brags that its World Wide Web site is receiving 50,000 hits a day. Sounds amazing. It isn't. Those 50,000 daily hits are a lot less breathtaking than they seem, even if the figure is accurate (and I have my doubts). In May, Interactive Age, a trade publication, surveyed Internet sites. It reported that Pathfinder (the site for Time Warner publications, such as Time and People) had about 686,000 daily hits, Playboy had about 675,000, and HotWired (the site for Wired magazine) had about 429,000. I mention these popular sites because they belong to magazines. As yet, none is forsaking the printed page for the glories of the Internet. There are good reasons for this. One is that the number of daily hits on a Web site exaggerates how many people use it; the same person may hit the same site repeatedly. Another reason is that the Internet hasn't yet evolved into an effective platform for advertising. But the main reason is that, for many purposes, the printed page is still superior to the computer screen. You can flip pages faster than you can search computer files. You can read a magazine standing in a subway or lying in a hammock. Census's shift from print clearly discriminates against people (including me) who don't surf the Internet or use CD- ROMs. We remain the vast majority. American Demographics magazine recently reported a number of surveys that tried to measure U.S. Internet use in 1994. The surveys put usage of the World Wide Web between 2 million and 13.5 million people, which is at most about 5 percent. The average income of Internet households was $67,000, which is the richest fifth of Americans. But it's not just computer clods or the unaffluent who will suffer. Carl Haub is a demographer at the Population Reference Bureau in Washington. He's a big user of Census statistics and is comfortable cruising in cyberspace. ``It's going to be a disaster for the average analyst,'' he says. Downloading and printing data from the Internet can take hours. Getting a number from a CD-ROM is often a lot harder than getting it from a book. To Haub, Census is transferring a lot of the cost--in time and money--of making statistical information useful to people like him. Martha Farnsworth Riche, director of the Census Bureau, admits as much. ``If someone else can do it, let's shift it to the outside,'' she says. ``We've had a hiring freeze since at least 1992, and those [printed] reports take an enormous amount of time from professionals.'' They need to concentrate on doing surveys of ``an economy and population that are changing dramatically. Our statistics have fallen behind.'' Only Census can collect much of this data, she says. Let academics and analysts prepare reports. Up to a point, Riche has my sympathies. The Constitution created the census (Article 1, Section 2), and social and economic surveys are a basic function of modern government. Some congressional proposals to cut the agency's budget sharply are stupid beyond words. But that said, the new approach is misguided. The danger of over-relying on outsiders to organize and analyze basic data is that statistics may fall hostage to special pleaders or incompetents. Printed Census reports provide an easy way to check self-interested or faulty claims. Print's other great virtue is that it guarantees a historic record. Computer technology is changing so rapidly that data committed to one technology may no longer be easily accessible if that technology vanishes. ``The CD-ROMs that we're so excited about today--20 years from now, no one will use them,'' says Richard Rockwell, director of the Inter- University Consortium for Political and Social Research. ``The book is a highly advanced technology for preserving some kinds of information.'' Exactly. Let's not become too infatuated too soon with the Information Superhighway. Census should be issuing its data in computer-friendly ways, but not as a substitute for printed reports. A jaunt on the Internet--piloted by my friend Steve--only affirmed my skepticism. Steve typed the Census Web address (http://www.census.gov), and up popped the ``home page'' designating me as the 567,352nd visitor. Unless the count began 10 days earlier (and it didn't), that was a lot fewer than 50,000 daily hits. I informed a Census official. He was mystified. After checking, he said there were other ways of accessing the Web site that didn't raise the count. Hmm. Could be. But it also shows how, on the Information Superhighway, we're still navigating in the dark.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, as I mentioned yesterday, I took a little time on Sunday to reread Will Durant's book, ``The Lessons of History.'' He said, through the centuries nations have this struggle between those who are more fortunate and those who are less fortunate. That is what this is all about. The less fortunate, those who are homeless, we have them on the streets like we did not have when I was a young man and when the Presiding Officer was young. It is going to get worse if we do not deal with it. This is a cutback of 32 percent and is imprudent and unwise. I support the Sarbanes amendment.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Feingold amendment. It is very interesting that the Senator from Missouri, the senior Senator from Missouri, mentioned the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The Association of Attorneys General of the States unanimously wants that repealed. I can remember when Attorney General Ed Meese, not a flaming radical, testified before the Judiciary Committee that McCarran-Ferguson ought to be repealed. When Senator Bond says, ``We do not support redlining,'' that is like saying we do not support going through this red light, but we are not going to arrest you if you do go through this red light. That just does not make any sense. I am old enough, Mr. President, to remember the 1954 school desegregation decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, and we thought we were going to move into an integrated society. But our housing pattern has prevented the kind of progress that we should have. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners recognizes that this is a serious problem. The pattern of housing discrimination is clear. It is probably one of the most blatant areas of discrimination that remains in our society. When I was a young, green State legislator, I was a sponsor of fair housing legislation to prohibit discrimination, and I remember it was a very emotional issue at that point. I can remember talking to groups and sometimes someone would ask the question: Will this not lead to mixed marriages? And I said that I thought all marriages were mixed marriages. The questioner would respond: Well, that is not exactly what I meant. And of course they would spell out their worry about interracial marriages, and I would say: How many of you in here married the boy or girl next door? I [[Page S 14362]] never, ever had anyone raise their hand. Then I said: If you really are concerned about racially mixed marriages, then have people move next door; then you will solve what you see as a problem. The fact is, Mr. President, if we pass this without the Feingold amendment, we are going to make it easier to discriminate. That is the reality. Part of the American dream ought to be to have a home that you like and to be able to pay for that home. We should not be denying that dream. That is what this bill does without this amendment. I hope that we can appeal to some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stand up for civil rights on this issue. We should not take a step backward.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President. I strongly object to a provision in the fiscal year 1996 Veterans Administration/Housing and Urban Development, VA-HUD, appropriations bill. The provision repeals the Department of Housing and Urban Development's, HUD, Fair Housing Act enforcement authority and transfers it to the Department of Justice, DOJ. While I appreciate the efforts of Senator Bond to work with me to improve the language of the provision and to give some time before the transfer of authority is to take place, I still believe that the approach in this bill is wrong. The VA-HUD Subcommittee report states that ``[t]he intent of this provision is not to minimize the importance of addressing housing discrimination in this Nation.'' Unfortunately, this provision does just that. The subcommittee report also states that ``the Justice Department with its own significant responsibilities to address all forms of discrimination represents a good place to consolidate and to provide consistency for the Federal Government to combat discrimination * * *'' The Justice Department itself has said that it would not be such an appropriate place. Make no mistake about it--the repeal of HUD's authority would severely harm fair housing enforcement. HUD receives 10,000 complaints each year filed by those alleging housing discrimination. HUD's 10 regional enforcement centers take action on every bona fide complaint, by investigating, conciliating, and otherwise overseeing the disposition of each complaint. HUD resolves most of its cases through the conciliation process. DOJ simply cannot devote such resources to enforcement of the Fair Housing Act given its current responsibilities and structure. DOJ's Civil Rights Office is not an investigative agency with a field office structure to investigate individual complaints. DOJ's investigative arm is the FBI, which would have tremendous difficulties handling the volume of housing discrimination cases, and would be deterred from its own crucial responsibilities. Moreover, under current law, HUD is responsible for providing administrative hearings, writing regulations, and overseeing fair housing policies. If the transfer of authority occurred, DOJ would need to develop its own national infrastructure to implement the administrative enforcement program already in place at HUD. Not only does DOJ lack experience in running administrative enforcement programs, but this transfer of authority would be extremely costly. Enforcement of this important legislation would create unnecessary transition costs to the taxpayer. Unfortunately, the decision to transfer HUD's authority to DOJ is being done without the benefit of public deliberation and debate. It is my understanding that this proposal has not been the subject of hearings in either committee of jurisdiction--the Judiciary Committee or Banking Committee. In addition, neither HUD nor DOJ was consulted prior to the provision's inclusion in this appropriations bill. Even more importantly, both HUD and DOJ are strenuously opposed to the transfer of authority. A host of organizations, representing a broad spectrum of interests, also opposes the provision. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, an umbrella group over 100 civil right groups, as well as the National Association of Realtors, Institute of Real Estate Management, National Apartment Association, National Assisted Housing Management Association, National Leased Housing Authorities, and the National Multi-Housing Council, all oppose the transfer. In 1988, the Fair Housing Act was carefully crafted to ensure that there was an effective and efficient mechanism for addressing fair housing concerns. The Department of Housing and urban Development, the source of policymaking and expertise in the area of housing, was determined to be the most appropriate agency to address these concerns. While it may be true [[Page S 14383]] that there have been problems with enforcement, certainly the solution does not lie in dismantling this carefully crafted enforcement mechanism with one stroke of the pen. In closing, I urge my colleagues to reject the inclusion of this provision in the final version of this bill, and I will be working toward that end. Also, I concur in the views expressed by Senator Kennedy concerning the effect of the postponement of the transfer proposal and the conditions under which that transfer would take place.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for the community development financial institutions [CDFI] fund. Created by legislation enacted in 1993, the CDFI fund, in a new partnership with the private sector, would revitalize economically distressed communities. The fund would create a permanent network of financial institutions that are dedicated to serving these communities. Today many low- and moderate-income Americans across the country are unable to cash a check, borrow money to buy a home, or secure a small loan to start or invest in a business. Rural communities, because they are remote, have unique problems in this regard. Designed to encourage community development through lending to underserved low- and moderate-income people and communities, CDFI's are especially important to the people in these communities who do not have affordable credit, capital, and basic banking services. The CDFI's would go a long way toward stimulating the economy in those communities by helping to create new jobs and promote the development of small business. And at a small cost. CDFI's are required to provide a minimum of $1 of matching funds for each Federal dollar received. When enacted in 1993, the CDFI fund had the overwhelming support of both Houses of Congress. The President is a strong advocate of the fund. It is not a large program; but it can be an extremely effective one. It should not be terminated before having a chance to succeed. Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to reinstate funding for this vital program. EPA Provisions

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. If I may have 30 additional seconds.

Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague. I remember--and I am sure Senator Mikulski will remember--that during the 1992 campaign when Bill Clinton was going around making speeches, the one line in his speech that got enthusiastic applause was when he said, ``We are going to establish a volunteer service corps.'' I do not imagine the Presiding Officer was at any of those rallies and did not hear that line, but it was a response from the American people. They like the idea of appealing to people to volunteer for things. Now, if there are improvements that should be made in the program-- and there probably are--let us make the improvements. I think the Mikulski amendment makes some of those improvements. But let us not kill the program. That is what we do without an amendment. So I hope my colleagues will vote for the Mikulski amendment.

Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague from Maryland, Mr. President and Members of the Senate. First, I wish to say Senator Grassley has contributed in the area of waste in the area of defense, no question about it. And when he talks about waste, I think we have to take it seriously. I should point out that the figure he uses of $27,000 is the total amount, including tools and equipment. For example, Judy Wagner of my staff just gave me a report where in one community they built a farmers' market. That includes all the aid equipment. In terms of Federal expenditures, it amounts to $17,600 per volunteer. That is a very different thing. Second, I point out to both Senator Grassley and my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, that some of the abuses they have cited are of people who have worked for the Federal Government. The Mikulski amendment knocks out service for Federal agencies, and I think properly so. So that moves us in the right direction. Back when I was a Member of the House, I held hearings on this whole idea of service, and one of the people who testified was Harris Wofford, our former colleague, who then was President of Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania. I would, frankly, today vote for a 1-year requirement for everyone to serve this Nation in some capacity, and if you wanted to serve in the military, you got a little extra incentive of some kind or another, but you had to work for a mental hospital or park district or something. Frankly, it was good for me when I served in the Army for 2 years to come and be in a mix with a great many people, and I think it is good for others. In terms of return on investment, I quote Stan Litow, an IBM executive, who reviewed the cost-benefit study and came to the conclusion that this program is sound. ``This program works,'' he said. Senator Bond made a reference to CETA. The CETA Program, frankly, was for unemployed people. This is a very different thing, and it brings in people to work together in areas where they have not often worked. This is different from the VISTA Program. There is obviously much cooperation. I remember being in an impoverished area of Cincinnati. I walked into a little, one-person store, and there was a man explaining to this person who was running the store how to keep books. I walked out, and I thanked him for volunteering to do this. He told me at that point he was the treasurer of Procter & Gamble, and he said, ``I should thank you.'' He said, ``I didn't really understand our country until I volunteered.'' I think we have to learn about one another more than we are. We are going to have to learn what it is like in another neighborhood. I think this is part of that. I read in--this may surprise the Presiding Officer--one of Rush Limbaugh's books--and I confess to having purchased two of his books and giving him a little bit of royalty--he said, ``We are not being asked to sacrifice as Americans today.'' I think he is correct, and this is a way of bringing out the noble in people. Government leaders can appeal to either the noble or the greed in all of us, and too often I think we pander to the greed. It is easy. But we should be appealing to the noble. And that is what this program does. I think it is a good program.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague from Maryland for offering this amendment. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment. These subcommittees and committees have tough choices to make, but the reference has already been made to the op-ed piece by the widow of our former House colleague, Stewart McKinney. Senator Sarbanes referred to two studies. Let me just read from that one study. The first study found that formerly homeless people with severe mental illnesses achieved stability at a rate of 83.4 percent in supportive housing. Tenants also cut their hospital in patient use by 50 percent. The 4-year evaluation concluded that this unique housing ``not only will alleviate human suffering, but also will reduce costs for institutionalization and hospitalization.'' I ask unanimous consent that the entire op-ed piece be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the Chicago Sun Times entitled ``Rush To Trim Budget Cuts Off Homeless'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, on Sunday--I happened to spend a weekend in Washington--I was reading a little bit from a small book that I had not read for years. It was Will Durant's ``The Lessons of History.'' What he says in this book--my colleague from Maryland who is a history buff will appreciate this also--is that there is, among other things, one consistent action in nations; that is, the struggle between those who are fortunate and those who are less fortunate. And those who are fortunate usually put the squeeze on those who are less fortunate, and ultimately it hurts those who are more fortunate. I think we are going through that struggle in a variety of ways right here [[Page S 14275]] in this very Senate. I can remember--I see some of my colleagues on the floor who will remember this, also. Maybe the Presiding Officer is young enough not to remember this. But I can remember when we did not have anywhere near the number of homeless people on the streets of our Nation that we have today. In Chicago, on Madison Avenue, there was a place where we had what we used to call winos. I am afraid it was not a respectful term. But it was used commonly where the winos were. But we did not have homeless people as generally as we have today. Then I look at this allocation within the subcommittee. I find that the largest percentage cut in any of HUD's formula-driven programs is 32 percent which is taken off of the programs for the homeless. We are not going to have any homeless here lobbying us on this one. There are not any big campaign contributions from any homeless. But it sure says something about our priorities and where we are. Let me just add, my friends, that I know it is tough for the chairman of this subcommittee and the members of the subcommittee to make these choices. It can get worse. I heard my colleague from Illinois, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, the other day refer to an article in a history magazine that I happened to read also which talked about homelessness in New York City back at the turn of the century when young people were dropped off at churches. And that is where we got the name ``foundlings.'' People found them in churches, and they would take train loads of these young people from New York City and take them out to the West, to Wyoming, to California, to Oregon. People would show up at the train station and look around and find a child that they might want to adopt and take care of. Can things get worse? You bet they can get worse. This is a program that works. Yes. We have tough decisions to make. But before we take money and say we have to have a tax cut, we have tough decisions to make. But here is one. If you are to say who are the people who desperately need help in terms of public housing and in terms of health, it is these homeless people. I am sure none of them are registered to vote, or very few of them are. But some of them have mental illness. Some of them have alcohol and drug problems, a variety of problems. We ought to help them. That is what the amendment offered by my colleague from Maryland is doing. I am proud to stand up and urge adoption of this amendment. This is one that ought to be an easy vote for Members of the Senate.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I will vote against the Brown amendment, though I agree with much of what my colleague from Iowa has to say. I will vote against any weapons in any amendment that go to Pakistan or India or China until we get this nuclear thing worked out. Many of the things that Senator Harkin says are correct; for example, Pakistan and India, Pakistan suggesting that they have mutual inspection of nuclear facilities and so forth. The difficulty is India also fears China. There has to be a tripartite agreement. I think that necessarily means United States leadership working together with Russia to bring that about. There is no question Pakistan has some legitimate grievances. We ought to get those worked out. I think the Feinstein amendment that is going to be coming along shortly will help to move in that direction. We want to maintain friendship with Pakistan. Pakistan has moved from a dictatorship to a functioning democracy. Like all functioning democracies, it has problems. We ought to be working with Pakistan more closely. However, I do not think we ought to be sending weapons to any one of the three parties, who now have the greatest nuclear threat, I think, anywhere in the world. I think it would be a mistake to approve the Brown amendment.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation. As Senator Dole pointed out, this does not apply specifically in the language to any one country. Now, it does apply immediately to our relationship with Turkey because Armenia faces a very, very grim situation. And I have [[Page S 14028]] to say I was a little appalled when, I guess about 2 years ago, I flew to Armenia with colleagues in the Senate and we could not fly over Turkey, after all the aid we have given Turkey. We had to go around to get to Armenia. But when you get there, you see the countryside in many areas with trees taken down, what once were beautiful trees on great avenues, because they are desperate for fuel. It is a tough situation. Ironically, Turkey would benefit economically by entering into normal diplomatic and trade relations with Armenia. Azerbaijan wants to have an oil line going from Azerbaijan, through Armenia, through Turkey to supply the world with oil. Turkey benefits. Armenia benefits. Azerbaijan benefits. This is not an anti-Turkish resolution, but it does say in simple words, if you get American aid, you cannot stop humanitarian assistance to another country. That has been what Turkey has been doing. I regret that. Turkey has been a valuable ally. I am old enough, perhaps unlike the Presiding Officer; I can remember the Korean war very well when Turkey was one of the few countries that really provided assistance. In many ways I feel grateful to Turkey, but I believe the message beyond this is that Turkey ought to be getting along better with her neighbors. That means Greece, that means Armenia. But the principle that is in this legislation is sound: You do not get American foreign aid if you block humanitarian assistance to a nation that needs it. I am pleased to be a cosponsor. And I hope the Senate will overwhelmingly accept the amendment.

Mr. SIMON. Madam President, let me respond just briefly to my friend from West Virginia, and he is my friend. I have tremendous respect for him, and he gives us a historical perspective not only in the Senate but from the centuries. If you visit the Simon household you will see in our dining room a print of a painting by a young Robert Byrd done some years ago. I forget the year. I am sure Robert Byrd could tell us the year of that painting.

Mr. SIMON. That is where my friend and I differ. I think this is a way to send a message, and as the Senator from West Virginia has pointed out, we have flexibility in here. The President can negate this. The President can say it is in our national interest to go ahead despite this violation. So I think it is wise. One other point Senator Byrd makes that I think is a point which we should keep in mind--not only in this but in other things. Turkey is predominantly a Moslem country. We are going to have to be more sensitive to the Moslem world than we have been. We have in the United States more Moslems than we have Presbyterians today, one of the amazing statistics, at least as it applies to me when I learned it. That is why I think what we did in Somalia by helping the people of Somalia was very important, and I think it was one of George Bush's finest hours despite the criticism that sometimes is made of our small reaction. But the principle that is established here in the Dole amendment I think is sound. Does it apply to Turkey right now? Yes. Will it apply in other situations in the future? Yes. Do we have flexibility with it? Yes. Because we permit the President of the United States to have a waiver. [[Page S 14033]] So I think the resolution should be adopted. I hope we will accept it, and move ahead. Again, I make clear that neither on the part of Senator Dole nor on my part is this designed as an anti-Turkey amendment. It is a message, however, to the Turkish Government. Madam President, I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON. But let me, Madam President, respond to what Senator Byrd had to say. When he called this a poorly disguised anti-Turkey amendment, both Senator Dole and I mentioned in discussing the amendment initially that it would immediately affect Turkey. There has been no attempt to hide that. Though the principle, we think, is sound, a nation that denies humanitarian assistance to another nation should not get American foreign aid. On the situation in Karabakh, I have not visited that region. I have visited Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, and Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. Karabakh is a region where the large majority of people are Armenian by heritage. Again, I say this as someone who has not visited the area, but there is a division of opinion within Karabakh. Some of them want that as an independent country. Some of them want Karabakh to be part of Armenia. But the Government of Armenia, while clearly the sympathy and public opinion in Armenia is powerful just as it is in Turkey--Senator Byrd mentioned public opinion in Turkey--the Government of Armenia has assisted by providing electricity to Karabakh, and there is at least the strong possibility, maybe a probability, that they have provided some weapons to assist the government there. Whether that has been done by the government or whether it has been done surreptitiously just by volunteers I frankly do not know. But there is in that region now a cease-fire, and there is movement toward negotiation. There have been small steps forward. And one of the small steps forward was mentioned by Senator Byrd. When the Prime Minister of Turkey--and right now the Prime Minister of Turkey is trying to reorganize the Government of Turkey, as I am sure Senator Byrd is aware. But she has shown some small steps toward reconciliation with Armenia. We ought to be encouraging those small steps, and other steps to be taken. That is the aim of this resolution.