Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

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

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, let me just add one other point. We talked a lot on the floor in the Senate about the crime problem. My instinct is, if we guarantee jobs to people and require work--not just guarantee but require work--we will see a change in the crime rate. You show me an area of high unemployment--black, Hispanic, white, whatever the area--and I will show you an area of high crime. I think this makes sense. I hope it could be accepted by the body. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, again, I would hope that this would be acceptable. I understand that it will require a vote now. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this is an amendment offered by Senator Brown, Senator Reid, and myself. This is an amendment which would authorize, but not have a set-aside, four demonstration WPA-type projects where people would be on welfare only 5 weeks. After 5 weeks, like the WPA, the local people would pick the projects. They would have to work 4 days a week at the minimum wage. The fifth day they would have to be out trying to find a job in the private sector. Why this is important is there is a tendency that is not going to change for the demand for unskilled labor to go down, and an awful lot of people on welfare are these people who are unskilled. We are going to pay people ultimately either for being productive or nonproductive. I think it makes much more sense to pay them for being productive. And this is an amendment, I might add, that was passed last year. And I say to the Presiding Officer that the chief sponsor was Senator Boren. I was a cosponsor, as was Senator Reid, and I think a few others on the other side also. The idea is, let us have a demonstration. Let us see what we can do if we try this. What is going to happen--and this would be a voluntary thing--to the numbers if everyone after 5 weeks is required to work but is paid at minimum wage. I would hope this would be accepted. It was accepted by voice vote a year ago. But if it is not accepted, I would require a vote on it. Let me just add one other point while we are talking, Mr. President. We have heard a lot about teenage pregnancy. I took some counties in Illinois, and you see a direct correlation between teenage pregnancy and the number of people working. The counties in California with a population over 250,000 get the same statistics. The same pattern is here. If we really want to do something about teenage pregnancy, if we can put people to work--and I think it is not simply that they are occupied; I think it is that they have the spark of hope. Teenage pregnancy frequently comes with hopelessness. Anyway, I think it is a worthwhile experiment. I would hope we could move in this direction, and I am pleased to have some supporters on that side of the aisle as well as this side of the aisle. I hope that we can accept this. I would be happy to answer any questions. Otherwise, I would yield the floor at this point.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment 2468.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask for the attention of my colleagues here. Every change we have made in immigration in the past has been prospective, not retroactive. That is the way it should be. To say that if, for example, Senator DeWine was the chief sponsor for an immigrant named Senator Ford, and he agrees to be responsible for 3 years, that is the way it should be. When we change that to 5 years, we should do it prospectively, not retroactively. That is No. 1. The second point is that we should not go back to Senator DeWine and say, sorry, you agreed to 3 years, now we are going to make it 5. This is the point the Senator from Florida has made which is very important. There are thousands of students who are legal immigrants in this country, who are going to become citizens, and without this amendment, they cannot get any benefits in this country, and they are going to have to leave school. Without this amendment, they lose all education assistance. I do not think that makes sense for this country. So I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment with Senator Graham. I think it is important, and I hope it will be adopted.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of the floor manager on this, Senator Graham of Florida has become a chief sponsor of this amendment and is trying to work out an amendment. I do not know whether he is successful in that or not. I yield to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I do not know if we have an agreed-upon order, but I have an amendment I will be happy to discuss briefly. I offer this amendment in behalf of Senator Brown, Senator Reid and myself.

Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague. Let me tell you what it does. John McCain sponsors an immigrant named Alan Simpson. And John McCain agrees he is going to be responsible for 3 years. All of a sudden we have an amendment here that says, ``Sorry, John McCain. We have changed the law. You signed up for 3 years. We are going to make you responsible for 5 years.'' Second, it is true, as Senator Simpson says, that if you take these young people out of college--some maybe are not young--that temporarily we are going to save money. But we know from all the statistics that, if you let them stay in college, they are going to be more productive, pay taxes, and do more for our country and make ours a more productive country. I think the amendment is a good amendment, and I hope we will have the good sense to adopt it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMON. This is a modification. Let me offer it as a modification of amendment No. 2468. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify amendment No. 2468. If I may say to my colleague from Mississippi, what I am doing is instead of having this a setaside--this is the community WPA Program--I am making it an authorization so that I think it may be acceptable. We have passed this as an authorization by voice vote. Senator Boren was the sponsor about a year ago.

Mr. SIMON. I have not had a chance. Senator Brown indicated to me--I mentioned to him and to Senator Reid that I was going to change it to an authorization because, frankly, the word was, as a setaside, it could be opposed on your side, but as an authorization, it might be approved. So that is the reason. I, frankly, have not had a chance to discuss it with the managers of the bill.

Mr. SIMON. I discussed this with the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Colorado, both of whom strongly support it. I might add that we had cosponsors of this, as independent legislation, from your side as well, and it was adopted by voice vote here earlier--not this session, but an earlier session--as part of a larger bill which was vetoed but had nothing to do with this.

Mr. SIMON. I have it at the desk. It just simply changes it from being a setaside to an authorization. Otherwise, there is no change.

Mr. SIMON. That is perfectly satisfactory to me.

Mr. SIMON. The Senator's request is to withhold the request to modify?

Mr. SIMON. OK. I will do that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I shall use less than 2 minutes. I would like to have the attention of my fellow colleagues who are here. What this amendment does is simply says let us make this prospective. Let us apply it in the future. Let us not take people who have agreed to sponsor people for 3 years and all of a sudden we are going to say sorry, this contract is for 5 years. And to take people who are in a college situation, who are going to become citizens, and say sorry, you are going to have to leave school, I do not think that makes sense. I hope that the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island and the distinguished Senator from Kansas might consider accepting this amendment. I think it does make sense to do this prospectively, not retroactively. I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside so that I may offer this amendment.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I have an amendment that simply contains some technical corrections to an earlier amendment that I had tossed in. I would like to offer this amendment at this point. There is a pending amendment, however, is that correct, or is that not correct?

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the recent news that we now have over a million people in our State and Federal prisons, and over half a million in our local and county jails, is unprecedented in this country and perhaps unprecedented in any country. We have to be looking for other answers than more and more prisons. And there are much better answers, both from the viewpoint of the dollar and from the viewpoint of humanity. States are compounding the problem with passage of various legislation, such as ``three strikes and you are out'' in California. A Chicago Tribune editorial commented recently on the State picture in Illinois. What it is really commenting on is about an attitude that exists, not only in Illinois, but in the Nation. And what the editorial says makes a good deal of sense. I ask that it be printed in the Record at this point. The editorial follows: [From the Chicago Tribune, Aug. 28, 1995] Time To Face the Truth on Prisons Now that Gov. Jim Edgar has signed the state's new truth- in-sentencing legislation, someone is going to have to figure out how to make it work before there is a disaster in the prison system. The governor is willing, but the responsibility belongs squarely with the General Assembly that created this time bomb. When the legislature passed the law, it is a pity that it wasn't accompanied by truth-in-legislation legislation to give the public an honest portrayal of the costs. Instead, it pandered to the popular appeal of getting tougher on serious crime without regard to the consequences and without providing the resources to handle the added burden on the prisons. Among other things, the law requires that convicted murderers must serve their entire sentences and those convicted of other serious crimes--attempted murder, rape, kidnapping, armed robbery--must serve at least 85 percent. That certainly resonates strongly with a public continually outraged by stories of violent offenders who serve half their time and commit other heinous acts when released. And certainly prison space and stern punishment ought to be reserved primarily for the worst offenders. Truth in sentencing, however, focuses on getting felons into prison and keeping them there longer; it ignores the impact and fosters a myth that there will be no effect on the general prison population. There will be a dramatic effect. According to the state Department of Corrections, it will add the equivalent of some 3,800 inmates at a cost of $320 million over the next 10 years--an impact that will escalate in succeeding years. And these will be the hardest cases, stuffed into a prison system that already is seriously overcrowded and may be out of space next year. Anticipating this, Edgar proposed adding some 4,800 cells to the system, but the legislature--primarily because of Democratic opposition--cynically rebuffed his request for bonding authority. In short, the legislature was eager to flood the prisons with new inmates but not to pay the bill. Now Edgar is proposing a different strategy; contracting with private firms to build a new prison and two work camps and add cells to eight existing prisons. The state would lease the facilities and run them. There is merit to the idea in that it could get the job done, and the governor deserves credit for trying. But the answer is not some gambit to bypass the legislature; it is for the legislature to face its obligation. First it must concede what it is not telling the public; that for every prisoner pushed into the system, someone must be pushed out the other end--perhaps sooner than the public will tolerate. Or the overcrowding will get worse, raising the risk of inmate violence and riots, and ultimately inviting federal court intervention to force Illinois to clean up its act. If more prison space is the solution, the General Assembly must provide the money. If not, it must expand the concept of innovative alternative sentencing for non-violent offenders and revisit the state criminal code--reducing the penalties for lesser offenses and giving judges more discretion. Truth in sentencing is an easy answer to serious concerns. There is no easy way out of the problems that it will create, and it's time to stop the pretense.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, there is continued discussion, and will be until November 1996 at least, on the whole subject of affirmative action. My strong belief is that affirmative action has been a good thing but, like any good thing, can be abused occasionally. Religion can be abused. Education can be abused. But that does not make religion and education a bad thing. While we were in recess, the New York Times published an op-ed piece by Claude M. Steele, a professor of psychology at Stanford University and president-elect of the Western Psychological Association. It gives a solid analysis of affirmative action at the collegiate level. It is important enough to call to the attention of my colleagues, who may not have seen it, and to others who may read the Congressional Record. I ask that it be printed in the Record at this point. The material follows: [New York Times; Thursday, Aug. 31, 1995] Black Students Live Down to Expectations (By Claude M. Steele) Stanford, CA.--The debate over affirmative action on college campuses has become dangerously distanced from facts. The issue has taken on such an ideological fervor that votes, Presidential and otherwise, are hanging in the balance. In the fray, the image of African-American college students has taken a beating. Opponents of affirmative action claim that it pushes African-American students into schools where they can't compete and where, with the stigma they bear as ``special admits,'' they get lower grades and drop out more than other students. It is true that these students have their troubles, suffering a college dropout rate hovering near 70 percent (against 40 percent for other students), with lower grades to match. Given such statistics, even supporters of affirmative action have faltered, too unsure themselves about the students' abilities to rise quickly or publicly to their defense. In fact, most black college students are in school on the same terms as anyone else, not as a result of any racial preference. Still, as their fate goes, so goes our faith in affirmative action and in the ability of public policy to address racial and social problems. So a few facts and some new evidence can help in addressing some central questions. Do the academic troubles of black students stem from their being underprepared for the competition? This is a common complaint that has turned into conventional wisdom. But in fact [[Page S 13551]] there isn't much evidence of it. Very few minority students are admitted to any college beneath that school's cut-off for other students. It is true that blacks have lower S.A.T. scores than other entering students. But the deficit in test scores--which are certainly flawed as predictors anyway--doesn't begin to explain why black students are more likely to drop out and get bad grades once they begin college. Besides, this ``underperformance'' is just as common among black students entering with very high test scores and grades as it is among those with weaker credentials. One thing is clear: If affirmative action is failing by not producing more successful black college students, it is not because they have been placed where they can't compete. If it isn't a lack of preparation, then what is depressing their performance? Recent research by my colleagues and me points to a disruptive pressure tied to racial stereotypes that affects these students. The pressure begins simply enough, with a student's knowledge that negative stereotypes about his group could apply to him--that he could be judged by this perception, treated in terms of it, even that he could fulfill it. Black students know that the stereotypes about them raise questions about their intellectual ability. Quite beside any actual discriminatory treatment, they can feel that their intelligence is constantly and everywhere on trial--and all this at a tender age and on difficult proving ground. They may not believe the stereotype. But it becomes a threating hypothesis that they can grow weary of fending off--much as a white student, for example, can grow weary of fending off the stereotype that his group is racist. Everyone is subject to some form of what I call ``stereotype vulnerability.'' The form that black students suffer from can hurt them where it matters, in academic performance. My research with Joshua Aronson shows that ``stereotype vulnerability'' can cost these students many points on exams like the S.A.T. Over time, the pressure can push the students to stop identifying with achievement in school. They may even band together in doing this, making ``disidentification'' the pattern. For my money, the syndrome is at the root of black students' troubles in college. If affirmative action contributes to this problem, it is less from the policy itself than from its implementation, often through a phalanx of ``minority support'' programs that, however well intended, reinforce negative stereotypes. Almost certainly, there would be persistent, troubling underperformance by minority students even if affirmative action programs were dismantled, just as there was before they existed. Is there only reason to believe that affirmative action programs can alleviate this problem? In the diagnosis may lie the seeds of a cure: Schools need to reduce the burden of suspicion these students are under. Challenging students works better than dumbing down their education. Framing intelligence as expandable rather than as a set, limiting trait makes frustration a signal to try harder, not to give up. Finally, it is crucial that the college convey, especially through relationships with authoritative adults, that it values them for their intellectual promise and not just because of its own openness to minorities. My colleagues (Steven Spencer, Mary Hummel, David Schoem, Kent Harber and Richard Nisbett) and I incorporated these and other principles into a program at the University of Michigan for the last four years. The students, both white and minority, were selected randomly for the project and as freshmen were housed in the same dorm. Through workshops and group study, all placing emphasis on the students' intellectual potential, the program eliminated the differential between black and white students' grades in freshman year for the top two-thirds of the black students. It helped others as well; 92 percent of all the students in the group, white and black, were still in school after four years. The successes of comparable programs--Urie Treisman's math workshops at the University of Texas, Georgia State's pre- engineering program, John Johnide's faculty mentoring project, also at Michigan--show that this approach can work. But what about reverse discrimination? How much does this policy of inclusion cost in exclusion of others? To know if affirmative action is displacing whites in admissions, you have to know if, among comparably qualified applicants, more minorities get in than whites. Thomas Kane of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government found that this seems to happen only in elite colleges, where the average S.A.T. score is above 1,100. These schools make up only 15 percent of our four-year colleges. There was no evidence of preference in admissions among the rest. Moreover, in the elite schools, blacks don't often use the preference they get, choosing schools closer to home, perhaps, for various reasons. They rarely exceed 7 percent of the student body at the top schools. Overall, affirmative action causes little displacement of other students--less by far than other forms of preferences, like the one for children of alumni. In our society, individual initiative is an indisputable source of mobility. But a stream of resources including money, education and contacts is also important. After all this time, even the black middle class has only tentative access to this stream. Affirmative action in college represents a commitment to fixing this, allowing those with initiative a wider aperture of opportunity. If its opponents prevail and affirmative action is dumped, will the same people, so ostensibly outraged by the racial injustice of it, then step forward to address the more profound racial injustices? I wouldn't bet on it and, in the meantime, let's talk about this policy frankly and pragmatically: how to improve it, when it should be more inclusive, and how it should be made fairer. To dump it now would be to hold some people, just beginning to experience a broader fairness in society, to a tougher standard than the rest of us have had to meet.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I recently joined Mayor Daley, Fannie Mae President Larry Small, and others, in announcing Fannie Mae's ``HouseChicago'' plan. ``HouseChicago'' is a $10 billion, 7-year investment plan developed by Fannie Mae's Chicago Partnership Office, the City of Chicago and numerous local partners. Fannie Mae was created by Congress as a federally-chartered, shareholder-owned corporation, whose mission is to make sure mortgage funds are readily available in every State of the Nation. I am proud to say Fannie Mae has done a tremendous job at fulfilling that mission, and I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues the following editorial by the Chicago Tribune regarding Fannie Mae's investment in the city of Chicago. [From the Chicago Tribune, August 26, 1995] Fannie Mae's Home Cookin' It's hard to overstate the importance of home ownership to the success of a neighborhood. Besides being a ticket to the middle-class, ownership gives people a larger stake in their communities. It makes them less tolerant of vandalism or drug-dealing and more likely to get involved in a block club or the PTA. But as nearly every homeowner is reminded once a month, it's the mortgage-holder that really owns the house. It's the lender or, more often, the financial house that buys the mortgage from the lender whose investment is most at risk. That's why the note-holder gets first claim on the property should the purchaser fail to make payments. And that's why lenders have strict standards about whom they will lend to and under what circumstances. But as lenders increasingly sell their mortgages on the so-called ``secondary'' market, it's the standards of the huge mortgage purchasing corporation that become key. In that regard, recent initiatives by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the nation's largest repurchaser of home mortgages, deserve to be recognized and applauded. Not to be confused with the local confectioner, Fannie Mae is a federally chartered, publicly traded corporation whose mission is to encourage private investment in residential mortgages. It recently struck a deal with the city to modify its underwriting standards in certain disadvantaged neighborhoods. Participating lenders can now offer extra-low (3 percent) down payment terms to families earning up to 20 percent above the area median income of $51,300--if the house they are buying is located within the city's empowerment zone or certain other areas targeted by City Hall for redevelopment. Some might call this an attempt at gentrification, but it means that middle-income families--and the stability they bring--will be lured into neighborhoods they might otherwise spurn as too risky. Other Fannie Mae changes will make it easier for buyers of small apartment buildings to get conventional mortgages, as well as buyers participating in the city's New Homes For Chicago Program and the purchase-rehabilitation program run by a group called Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago (NHS). The bottom-line in Fannie Mae's ``House Chicago'' program will be $10 billion in private loans pumped into neighborhoods that might otherwise have to rely on federal mortgage insurance . . . with all the abuses those programs often bring. It's not the candy company, but Fannie Mae is giving new meaning to ``Sweet Home Chicago.''