Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, recently, the New York Times had an editorial titled, ``Bullying Taiwan,'' which appeared while Congress was not in session. It comments on what is taking place in China and that country's irresponsible conduct toward Taiwan. For years before the United States recognized the People's Republic of China, I had favored dual recognition, as we did with East Germany and West Germany. But for reasons I understand, in part to keep China on an anti-Soviet course, the United States continued to follow a one China policy. It was wrong before, and it is wrong now. As the editorial points out, Taiwan has been under Beijing's rule only 4 years in the last century. I ask that the New York Times editorial be printed in the Record at this point, and I urge my colleagues to read it, if they have not already. The editorial follows: Bullying Taiwan China has embarked on an escalating campaign of military maneuvers meant to intimidate Taiwan and undermine its President, Lee Teng-hui. Washington, as much as it wants to calm troubled relations with Beijing, must firmly signal its opposition to this campaign. Ties with China cannot be built on tolerance for provocative displays of military force and efforts to destabilize Taiwan. Last week China began its second missile exercise this summer in the waters surrounding Taiwan. More are planned in the weeks ahead, timed to coincide with the campaign to choose Taiwan's first democratically elected President next March. Mr. Lee, who led Taiwan from dictatorship to democracy after coming to power as the handpicked successor of Chiang Kai-shek and his son, is now the front-runner in that election. But Beijing hopes its military muscle can frighten Taiwan into choosing someone more malleable. Mr. Lee has drawn China's ire by a series by personal visits abroad, most prominently a May trip to attend his college reunion in the United States. Beijing is upset because these actions challenge its contention that Taiwan is an integral part of China and that any separate political identity for Taiwan diminishes China's sovereignty. This ``one-China policy'' had its origins in 1949, when Chiang moved the seat of his defeated Government to Taiwan. From then on, Chiang in Taipei and Mao Zedong in Beijing each insisted his own regime was the legitimate government of China, with authority over both the mainland and Taiwan. When it recognized Chiang, the United States found the one- China formula convenient. When America switched recognition to the Communists in 1979, Beijing insisted that Washington continue to honor the point. The United States therefore has no formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan. For Beijing, the one-China concept has been the cornerstone of normalized relations with Washington. Tampering with it would throw the entire relationship into turnoil. Yet continued Chinese military provocations could force the United States to re-evaluate its position. While diplomatically convenient, the formula has never corresponded very closely to realty. While most of Taiwan's people are descended from Chinese who migrated there several centuries ago, the island, 100 miles off the Chinese coast, has been under Beijing's direct rule for only four years in the last century. Today Taiwan, with 21 million people, is a prosperous democracy and America's seventh-largest trading partner. Though its businessmen have strong economic ties with the mainland, few of its citizens want to come under the rule of the harsh Communist regime in Beijing. But most Taiwanese also believe it would be a fatal mistake for Taiwan to provoke China by pushing too hard for the diplomatic trappings of independence. China is trying to intimidate Taiwan into reining in its diplomacy. It is also trying to warn outside powers against [[Page S 12622]] granting visas to Taiwanese political leaders. That China should be pressing these positions is not surprising. That it should do so by military means, and in the process undermine political stability in Taiwan, is disturbing and cannot be ignored.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of talk about affirmative action, much of it designed to attract votes rather than to contribute any light or rational discussion. Recently, I was on a radio discussion program with our former college, Pete Wilson, now the Governor of California. His position is one that I am sure is supported by a majority of Republicans and may be temporarily politically wise. But I do not believe it serves the Nation well. In an appearance on the David Brinkley program, he quoted Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. It was of interest to me then to pick up the Los Angeles Times and read Arthur Schlesinger's response. Like most things Arthur Schlesinger writes, it is loaded with good sense, and I ask that his response be printed in the Record. The response follows: [From the Los Angeles Times, Aug. 3, 1995] It's Not for White Men To Decide (By Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.) On Sunday, July 23, while I was befogged in Dark Harbor, Me., Gov. Pete Wilson of California seemed even more befogged on ``This Week With David Brinkley.'' On this program, he cited me and my small book ``The Disuniting of America'' in support of his crusade against affirmative action. ``[Schlesinger] uses a phrase,'' Wilson said, ``that various policies are, in fact, tribalizing America, and, in fact, that is unhappily the case, and we need to end it.'' Wilson is quite correct in noting my concern about the campaign by ``multicultural'' ideologues to promote and perpetuate separate ethnic and racial communities. But he is quite wrong in suggesting that I am, for that reason, opposed to affirmative action. On the contrary, affirmative action has been, in my view, a valuable and potent means of moving the republic away from ethnic and racial separatism and toward a more integrated and unified society. Before affirmative action, the labor market and the educational system were encrusted with barriers, antipathies and conditioned reflexes that systematically excluded women and non-white minorities. Affirmative action has played an indispensable role in breaking these terribly well-entrenched patterns in employment, college admission and other arenas of recruitment and upward mobility. The goal of affirmative action is precisely to destroy racial and gender barriers; and it is the free intermingling of peoples that provides that basis for a common culture and an embracing national identity. Unquestionably, some reforms are in order. Rigid application of ``diversity'' standards often leads to bad results, especially in government employment. Programs carried out in the name of affirmative action, especially preferences for what purport to be minority business enterprises, have been sorely abused. Still, affirmative action in the main has served as an agency for the uniting, not the disuniting, of America. I regard affirmative action as a transitional program. I do not expect it to become a permanent feature of the labor market. When should the transition end? It should end when our white male ruling class no longer automatically discriminates against women and against nonwhite minorities. And the decision as to when the point is reached surely belongs to those whose needs affirmative action is intended to meet. Already some beneficiaries are growing increasingly uneasy. Affirmative action seems to cast doubt on their own credentials, competence and worth. They have become partners in the firm or professors in the university, others might think, not on their merits but because of racial or gender preference. Affirmative action can thus become a means of undermining self-esteem and dignity. It can imply that, without affirmative action, women and minorities could not survive and compete in the world of affairs. It may carry with it a flavor of condescension and patronage. And it inevitably and understandably arouses the resentment of those who feel that affirmative action discriminates against them. When enough beneficiaries regard affirmative action with embarrassment and discomfort, the time will have come to roll up the policy. And the more white male America practices policies of inclusion rather than exclusion, the sooner that time will come. But until women and nonwhite minorities see affirmative action as more a handicap than a help, the case for its continuation in some form seems strong. And surely the decision about continuation is not one to be made for hapless minorities by politically ambitious white governors. Such overweening presumption by powerful white men is the true road to the disuniting of America.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I will just take 2 minutes. I want to assure the Senator from Alaska that in terms of making a point of order, that precedent has been set and this is in order. There is no question about that. The question is, Is this significant enough that we ought to put this on this piece of legislation? And I think the answer is yes. It will add to stability in Central Europe. I think the answer is clearly yes. The language is so couched that I hope we can accept it very quickly. I want to get out of here as much as the Senator from Alaska wants to get out of here. A simple way of getting out of here is to accept this amendment and move forward. I think this is in everyone's best interest. Let me add one other point. There are those who say somehow this will offend Russia. The reality is that the time may come when Russia can become a part of NATO. Ultimately, the threat to Russia does not come from the West, it comes from China, in the long term. So I think this does make sense, and I am pleased to support the amendment of Senator Brown.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arkansas, and I thank him for this amendment. There is only one flaw with this amendment, and that is it still has $5 billion in it. It should not have anything. Do you know what the total amount owed by all countries through the years, the accumulated amount right now is? The total amount owed by other countries right now is $16 billion. This will, for all practical purposes, double. We do from time to time forgive loans to other countries, and I have voted for them. I am not critical of this. But when we make these loans for weapons--Egypt, for example, we forgave $7 billion. I voted for it. Poland, I forget what the amount was we forgave. That did not happen to have any weapons in it. Jordan we forgave. I note the presence on the floor of Senator Lieberman from Connecticut who was mentioned, that this came as a suggestion from Senator Lieberman and Senator Dodd. They are two of the finest Members of this body. But even a fine Member can be wrong, and the State of Connecticut which has a lot of defense industry happens to have the highest per capita income of any State in the Nation. We should not shed too many tears for people in Connecticut, and certainly should not burden the taxpayers of the United States of America with $15 billion worth of debt. We are already far in excess of where we ought to be in this defense appropriation. We are spending more than the next eight countries combined. If you look back to 1973, I say to my colleague from Arkansas, put the inflation factor on and we are spending more today than we were in 1973 on defense. Then we were in Vietnam, we had twice as many troops in Europe, we had a cold war, we had a totally different situation. And here, through the back door--and that is really what is going to happen--through the back door, the Defense Department and the U.S. taxpayers are going to guarantee $15 billion worth of weapons to any country that defaults. Guess who automatically, not through a vote here--at least in the case of Egypt, the case of Poland, the case of Jordan, we had to have a vote on the floor of the United States Senate. Now it will just be automatic for any country that defaults. I think it is not sound policy. We talk about deficits, and we let something like this get out and we will pick up a huge, huge burden. Let me ask my colleague from Arkansas a question. If Ford wants to sell some Fords to some other country, do the U.S. taxpayers guarantee those sales?

Mr. SIMON. The Export-Import Bank would finance it only to the extent that there may be a risk to that government.

Mr. SIMON. It is not this kind of a guarantee.

Mr. SIMON. Right. In fact, we will say to the defense industry, ``You are going to get preferential treatment over Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors. You are going to get preferential treatment over farmers who want to sell grain.'' Any nonmilitary exporter, you are in the second tier. The preferential treatment goes to the defense industry. That does not make sense. As I said in my opening remarks, there is only one thing wrong with this amendment. He leaves $5 billion in there. I wish we did not have the $5 billion in, but I know the Senator from Arkansas is trying to be practical. What we are doing, if we approve this--there is no question for those who say this will be great for the defense industry, they are right. This will not be great for the taxpayers of America. I commend my colleague from Arkansas.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of Senator McCain, Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator Pell, and myself. It is an amendment that has passed the Senate on a previous occasion and would have passed the tail end of the last session, but it was stopped as some 50 or 60 bills all of a sudden were frozen as they moved ahead. This amendment says that we--it authorizes, does not appropriate any money. We do not appropriate a dollar in this, but authorizes that the Smithsonian can have a national African-American museum. There are two distinct groups of Americans whose history is, frankly, very different from those of us who are German-American or British-American or Danish- American or whatever our background is, and that is Native Americans, American Indians, and African-Americans who came over here as slaves. I think it is important for us to understand our heritage, for all of us, no matter what our background, and also particularly for those who are of African-American heritage to take special pride in this. As I said, this does not appropriate one dollar at this point. That would have to be done at some time in the future when Congress feels it is wise to do so. But it would permit the Smithsonian to collect money from a foundation or from some private entity for this purpose. It also authorizes the Smithsonian to work with local museums around the Nation. We have a museum in Chicago that is a very fine local African-American museum. That is the kind of museum that they can work with. It is not that complicated. I know I have the opposition of my friend and colleague from North Carolina, Senator Helms. But I hope this body will accept this amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time, Mr. President. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON. I will probably not use all that. Let me point out that there is not 1 penny of appropriations in this. This is a request that has been made by Smithsonian in past years. This complies with that request. The only expenditure possible without the approval of the Appropriations Committee would be if foundations provided assistance. Again, the Appropriations Committee, or the Rules Committee, would have oversight on this. I agree with Senator Byrd in terms of the cannibalization of domestic funds and that we ought to be pulling back on the military, the $7 billion we are spending on the military. I voted to take away that firewall, which I do not think makes any sense whatsoever. But I think the reality is that this is something that Smithsonian has requested in the past. It makes sense. Again, I simply remind everyone that there are two American groups with very distinctive histories, different from the histories of English-Americans or German- Americans, or Norwegian-Americans, and every other group, and that is the Native Americans, the American Indians, and African-Americans, those who were brought over here as slaves. The need to recognize that this distinctive history should be part of the Smithsonian, I think, is a wise decision. I hope the motion to table that I assume my friend from Washington is going to be making in a moment or two will be defeated. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SIMON. It moved from ``wonderful'' to ``gracious.''

Mr. SIMON. After taking 30 seconds, I will do that. I simply again say that we do not appropriate a thing here. I think the remarks of the Senator from Arizona were right on target. I think this is the time to pull people together. This is a way of doing it. I hope the motion to table will be defeated. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. SIMON. I will take 1 minute of my time. Again, I simply stress that we are not asking for a penny here. We are simply authorizing it subject to the action of the Appropriations Committee. I point out again that this has passed the U.S. Senate before. It is not novel action here. I see my cosponsor walking onto the floor. I do not know if he wishes to have a minute or two before I yield back, but if the Senator from Arizona wishes the floor, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the Senator from Arizona.

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

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I have an amendment I would like to offer.

Mr. SIMON. How much time do I have left?

Mr. SIMON. If I may have the attention of the managers of the bill-- if I may have the attention of the Senator from Washington and the Senator from West Virginia. I would be willing to enter into an agreement for 30 minutes, 15 minutes on each side, or whatever time agreement you would like.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Would my colleague yield for a question?

Mr. SIMON. First of all, I concur completely. This idea of privatizing everything sounds good. What it does, it gives an administration or a Congress an ability to say, ``Oh, we have reduced the number of Federal employees.'' We do not save one dollar for the Federal Government. And we invite abuse. I would mention second--I would be interested in the reaction of the Senator from Arkansas--I have learned, in the Office of Personnel Management, we are moving toward privatizing the investigators there, the people who will investigate people for trust positions with the U.S. Government. Now, you privatize that and someone maybe is slipped a few dollars or--all kinds of abuse is possible there. Does the Senator from Arkansas think that privatizing investigators in the Office of Personnel Management is a direction in which we ought to go?

Mr. SIMON. I thank the Senator from Arkansas. I agree with him completely.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Go ahead.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I thank both of my colleagues for their leadership on this issue. I appreciate their willingness to ensure that my concerns are addressed, and look forward the results of further study. breckenridge post office

Mr. SIMON. In December 1994, as part of the National Performance Review, the administration announced that the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] would privatize its investigative branch, the Office of Federal Investigations [OFI]. OPM intends to complete the transition by January 1996. For over 40 years, the OFI has been responsible for conducting background investigations for potential employees of various agencies within the Federal Government, including the Department of Energy, the Department of Justice, and the Treasury Department. Overall, OFI conducts about 40 percent of all Federal background investigations for positions ranging from bureaucratic jobs to high ranking positions requiring substantial security clearances. In my view, shifting this responsibility to the private sector raises a host of extremely important questions which need to be addressed before we proceed. First, we must ensure that our national security is not in any way jeopardized by a move to privatization. Currently, OFI does background checks on individuals that will ultimately have access to top secret information, such as nuclear weapons systems. We need to ask ourselves if this is the type of matter that we want a private sector employee to have access to. If the answer is yes, certainly we need to carefully review the safeguards needed to ensure that our national interests remain secure. The ability of private firms to maintain the privacy of sensitive records is another area that needs to be closely addressed. A private contractor would potentially have the ability to amass large quantities of personal information on Government employees. Although OPM has suggested that they would have the ability to keep records private, I have not heard specific measures that could be taken to guarantee this. Serious study must be given to what measures can and should be taken to protect privacy. We must also ensure that quality investigations will continue to be conducted. The Federal Government currently uses private investigators for a very small fraction of background checks. The only experience with private investigators on a large scale produced numerous investigations that were not up to standard, or, even in a fraction of cases, were falsified. This must not happen again. What safeguards can and should OPM put in place to ensure that quality is maintained? It is also important to ask ourselves if private investigators will be able to provide the best available information to Government agencies. Will they have difficulty obtaining vital information from law enforcement agencies? In a preliminary study, the General Accounting Office [GAO] has determined that law enforcement officials may be reluctant to give out sensitive information to private investigators. This issue deserves further study. My comments are not meant to imply that private contractors cannot perform top quality investigations while also ensuring privacy and protecting out national security. It is certainly conceivable that they could. However, before a decision of this magnitude is made, it is crucial that we all have the best possible information. If further study shows that private investigators can successfully take over this important function, then I might support the transition. However, until these questions are answered, I believe the best course of action is a cautious one. I understand that the Senate Treasury and Postal Appropriations report requires that a cost-benefit analysis be conducted to determine the feasibility of moving to privatization, and that the House report mandates a similar study. In addition, Congressman Mica has requested that the GAO conduct an ongoing study into potential problems with the privatization effort. I would ask that my questions and concerns be raised as part of these studies.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I am in strong support of the Exon-Hatfield amendment to strike the $50 million authorization for hydronuclear testing. This provision is a waste of money and is not necessary, and could potentially damage our ability to achieve a truly Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Many of my colleagues have cited the report released yesterday by the JASONs--the country's top nuclear experts--who find that ``a persuasive case has not been made for the utility of hydronuclear tests for detecting small changes in the performance margins for current U.S. weapons.'' After one thousand nuclear tests over 50 years, we have sufficient experience from which to assess the safety and reliability of our nuclear stockpile. As I read the study, the conclusion is clear--we do not need hydronuclear testing. Any benefits that could be derived from further testing are resoundingly dwarfed by the benefits to our security achieved through a comprehensive test ban. The arguments for hydronuclear testing relate to technical measurements and scientific curiosity. The arguments against it relate to nonproliferation and the long-term security of the United States and the world. There simply is no reason for this program. Mr. President, I urge support for the Exon-Hatfield amendment, and for a true comprehensive test ban. military exchange stores

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I lend my strong support to Senator Leahy's amendment to push for the eventual elimination of antipersonnel landmines. Senator Leahy has been a long-time champion of this cause, and I admire his perseverance and hard work. Landmines, which have been used in warfare for more than 200 years, are cheap, insidious, silent predators that continue to kill long after the cessation of conflict. Worldwide, 26,000 people are killed annually by landmines. Landmines hold hostage the people, the land, and the economies of those countries in which they are used. At the end of conflicts, often the most immediate need is to return and reintegrate refugee populations. Landmines inhibit the travel of refugee populations. They inhibit the travel of relief and assistance organizations. They reduce the amount of land available to be inhabited by returning refugees. They kill and maim that population upon their return. Upon resettlement, landmines will inhibit the population from earning a living for many years to come. As Americans, we believe that the cost of transitioning from conflict to peace is greater than the cost of continued conflict. Landmines multiply the cost of the transition from conflict to peace, straining the limited resources of both the country in question and the international donor communities. Moreover, uncleared landmines jeopardize new, always fragile, peace agreements by extending the causes of conflict--poverty, hunger, and despair. The proliferation of landmines are an obstacle to economic development and political stability. Landmines prevent farmers from tilling the land--they undermine food security and create famine. They destroy the agricultural industry of a country. Landmines undermine the national infrastructure and impede national development. They isolate transportation networks, powerlines, bridges, and waterways from reconstruction, repair, and maintenance. The quality of national infrastructure either supports or impedes economic activity and development. When railways and roadways are disrupted, the end result is heavy inflationary pressure on the currency because the costs of transporting goods and services always rises. It only takes a few landmines to render a roadway impassable. People will not choose to travel a road that is known to be mined. Landmines create health care and other costs that strain the national budgets of developing countries. The maimed victims of landmines require medical treatment, physical rehabilitation, artificial limbs and prosthetics, and vocational training. Reduced worker productivity, additional expenditures for mine awareness training and demining activities are all financial burdens on countries attempting to recover from the ravages of war. The sheer cost of removing landmines can be an insurmountable obstacle to economic growth. In Cambodia, the United Nations estimates that the aggregate cost of landmine clearance is from $200 to $1,000 per mine. Cambodia's annual per capita GDP is $200. To demine Cambodia would consume every penny produced in that economy for 1 to 5 years. As you know, the continent of Africa presents some of the greatest challenges for sustainable development on the globe. Africa, a continent that has seen far too much of its share of disasters, must contend with the disasters of landmines every day: Angola: With a population of 13 million, Angola has between 9 and 15 million landmines--about one for every man, woman and child in the country. There are between 150 and 200 landmine victims every week. Angola has more amputees per capita than any other country in the world. Mozambique: The United Nations reports that all 28 major road systems in the country are blocked by uncleared landmines. Mozambique has about 1 million uncleared landmines. Ethiopia: Has about 500,000 landmines and even more pieces of unexploded ordnance. Liberia: After 5 years of civil war, Liberia is estimated to have 1,000 mines. Rwanda: Has about 50,000 landmines that were implanted during their civil war. Sudan: Has about 1 million landmines as of 1993. That number is expected to have grown and to continue to grow as the conflict continues. Zimbabwe: Though the civil war in Zimbabwe ended over a decade ago, there remain areas that are not authorized for settlement due to the presence of uncleared landmines. In addition to the social and developmental consequences of landmines I have mentioned, the basic fact about landmines is that they kill-- easily and indiscriminately. I urge support for the Leahy landmine amendment.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, many States have been directly involved in the explosive growth of gambling across the Nation in the last two decades. The staggering surge in State-sponsored and State-licensed gaming has largely been the result of impulsive decisions by cash-strapped State and local governments whose leaders are looking for painless new sources of revenue. There has been scant attention, at any level of government, to the larger and often troubling public policy implications that accompany the gambling boom. I have introduced S. 704, a bill that would charter a Gambling Impact Study Commission which, after an 18-month inquiry, would release its findings in a report that would provide some guidance to the President, to the Congress, to State and local governments and to the American people as these decisions are made in the future. Senator Lugar has joined in this effort as the chief Republican cosponsor of this legislation. In the current issue of the Washington Monthly, Joshua Wolf Shenk offers an illuminating analysis of the ways that State lotteries often entice individuals into gambling with sales pitches that, he notes, are ``the only form of advertising unburdened by State and federal truth- in-advertising standards.'' I call his article, ``Everyone's A Loser,'' to the attention of my colleagues, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Washington Monthly, July/Aug. 1995] Everyone's a Loser: How Lottery Ads Entice the Wrong People to Gamble (By Joshua Wolf Shenk) Tom had been playing the lottery for two years when God started whispering in his ear. At first, Tom (who asked that his last name be withheld) would spend just a few dollars a week. He had his regular numbers, and he'd play them when he thought of it. But then, he says, on the days that he hadn't planned on playing, the word would come from Heaven: Your number is coming tonight. Fear would strike him like ice water on the neck: ``I'd think, `I'm not going to win it. I don't have the [money] on that number.' '' So he'd rush out to play his regular number, and many more. Before long, he was spending $300 a week on tickets. ``It was `A Dollar and a Dream'; `Hey, You Never Know,' '' he says, repeating the advertising slogans of the New York lottery. Tom pauses. ``Those were good come-ons.'' It's no accident that the voices inside Tom's head echoed lottery ads. They're extremely effective. And they're everywhere: on the radio and TV, in bus shelters and on billboards, even in mailings sent straight to homes. The message is simple: Play the lottery and get rich. Get rich, and all your problems will be solved. The New York lottery takes in more than $2 billion in sales each year, and it spends $30 million each year on advertising to keep the cash rolling in. State lotteries target anyone who might cough up a dollar (or $10 or $20) for the chance to strike it rich. Conveniently silent on the odds, these ads send the message that hard work and patience is for suckers. In the process, the ads help wring billions of dollars from the most vulnerable ``customers'' possible--the poor and the addicted. Criticism of state lotteries runs a wide gamut. Some say the state shouldn't even allow gambling, much less conduct it. Others argue that gambling should be left in private hands. Still others believe that the state should run lotteries for roughly the same reason many states run liquor stores: to keep the business controlled and clean, and to make money for the state. Regardless of where you stand on these important questions, though, one thing should be clear: The advertising that entices Americans to spend tens of billions of dollars on lottery tickets each year is deceitful and corrosive. It is the only form of advertising unburdened by state and federal truth-in-advertising standards. The fact that it comes from the state--which ought to encourage people's strengths, not prey on their weaknesses--makes it all the more foul. Today, 37 states and the District of Columbia have instituted lotteries, and that number is likely to grow.``Quite simply, states need the revenue,'' explains David Gale, executive director of the North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries. ``Every dollar raised by the lottery is a dollar you don't need to get from taxes.'' Across the country, $34 billion in lottery tickets were sold in 1994. In Texas, the lottery contributed $935 million to the state's budget. In New York, the figure was $1.01 billion. As states have become dependent on lottery revenue, the pressure to keep people playing has become relentless. ``Marketing is absolutely essential,'' Gale says. ``Lottery tickets are no different than any other product. Your market will lose interest after a while. You have to keep after them.'' Like any sophisticated business, lotteries target the specific groups of people most susceptible to suggestion. The Iowa lottery's media plan, for example, contains the following statement of objective: ``To target our message demographically against those that we know to be heavy users.'' One such target is the poor. The charge that lotteries are regressive--that is, hitting lower-income residents the hardest--makes intuitive sense, since the pitch of wealthy fantasies clearly resonates most strongly among those who are least affluent. ``There's absolutely no question about it,'' says Charles Clotfelter, a Duke University economist and a leading authority on lotteries. According to a study by the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank, the poor spend more money than the non-poor on lotteries--not only as a percentage of their income, but also in absolute terms. Blacks and Hispanics also tend to play more often than whites. I worked two summers at an Ohio convenience store that sold lottery tickets, and my experience there confirms these findings. The store drew customers from all socioeconomic backgrounds, but lottery players [[Page S 11473]] fell into distinct categories. On a normal day, the lottery patrons were mostly working-class blacks. When the jackpot for Super Lotto got sky-high, some wealthier folks joined the lines. But the staple customers--those who spent five, 20, or 40 dollars a day on daily numbers and scratch-off games--were the same people every day; not executives or store managers playing for kicks, but postal workers and retirees on Social Security. You'll see the same trend at almost any lottery outlet. You'll also notice that the same stores almost invariably sell liquor and cigarettes. Choose your poison. The image of miserable working people magically transported to lives to wealth and ease is a staple of lottery ads. A billboard once placed in a slum of Chicago read simply: ``Your Ticket Out of Here.'' An ad for the D.C. lottery shows a man ``before'' the lottery--with matted hair, stubble on his face, and glasses--and ``after''--freshly washed and clean-shaven, wearing a tuxedo, and holding the program for a theater performance. The copy reads: Just One Ticket . . . And it Could Happen to You.'' And ad for the Michigan lottery shows a college kid piloting a Lear jet. Then it cuts to him day-dreaming on the job at a fast food restaurant. ``Thirty new Lotto millionaires were created last year,'' the announcer states. ``Play the Lotto, and you could win the stuff dreams are made of.'' Lottery ads also go after gambling addicts, using a message tuned to their weaknesses. About 5 percent of the population is susceptible to compulsive gambling, according to Dr. Valerie Lorenz, executive director of the Compulsive Gambling Center in Baltimore. In many cases, she says, lottery ads help tip these people over the edge. Remember Tom's greatest fear, that his number would fall on a day he hadn't bet? This is one of the defining characteristic of compulsive gamblers, and it's a button that lotteries push incessantly. ``Don't forget to play every day,'' the Pennsylvania lottery ad says. Many ads picture disheartened would-be winners whose numbers came up on a day they declined or forgot to play. One ad for Tri-State Megabucks (in New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont), for example, shows a pathetic man grilling hamburgers on a fire escape, while scenes of wealth and granduer flash by. The theme is set to the tune of ``It Had to Be You,'' It could have been you. It could have been you. Countin' the dough. Ready to go, on that three-month cruise. Walkin' in style, down easy street, Wearin' a smile, it could have been sweet. But what can I say? You just didn't play. It could have been you! The theme of magical, instant transformation also lures problem gamblers. ``They live in a very painful world,'' says Dr. Lorenz. ``They want to escape into fantasy, and they want it instantly.'' And, of course, the sheer regularity of the ads is a curse to addicts trying to stay on the straight-and- narrow. ``I hear this all the time from lottery addicts who are in recovery,'' Lorenz says. ``They'll cover their ears or their heads. They'll say, `I wish I could leave the state.' But that wouldn't help. It's all over the country.'' The ads never mention the losers. Tom Cummings, executive director of the Massachusetts Council on Compulsive Gambling, told me about two women he has been counseling. ``One lost her house after going $40,000 in debt playing the lottery,'' he said. ``The other gambled away money that was supposed to pay for her daughter's education. All on the lottery.'' Lotteries aren't alone in suggesting that their product has magical qualities--that's the art of advertising. But lottery ads take a prize when it comes to their systematic distortion. Because the lotteries are chartered by state legislatures, they're untouchable by federal regulators and they consider state regulators their colleagues in public service. This allows lotteries to conceal the astronomical odds against winning and inflate the size of jackpots. Consider a 1993 California radio spot profiling a lottery winner: ``John Padgett went to bed on Saturday night a regular guy,'' the announcer says. ``When he woke up, he was worth $11 million. That's because he's Super Lotto winner number 610.'' Well, not quite. Padgett did win an $11.5 million jackpot. But that's not worth $11.5 million. Any prize over a million dollars is paid out over 20 years. Padgett's annual payment came to $575,000. After taxes, the actual yearly award is worth around $400,000. And the lost value--due to both inflation ($400,000 will be worth far less in 2013 than it is today) and lost interest--is significant. It may be hard to sympathize with someone receiving a $400,000 check every year. But this ad--and nearly every state uses a similar pitch--is clearly misleading. The government would never allow similar distortions from private sector advertisers. Finance companies, for example, are explicitly forbidden to air commercials that feature investors who have earned vast sums of money with the message, ``It could be you.'' But lotteries do just that. ``I was probably going to have to go back to work to make ends meet,'' Kentucky lottery winner Denise Golden says in one ad. ``And now I won't have to. . . . It's a dream come true.'' Lotteries are also exempt from Federal Trade Commission truth-in-advertising standards and rules that, to give just one example, require contests and sweepstakes to clearly state the odds against winning in every advertisement. Omitting the odds is a crucial element of lotteries' media strategy, since they're trying to convince people that if they play long enough, they are certain to hit the jackpot. ``Sooner than later,'' says an ad for the West Virginia lottery, ``you're gonna win!'' ``We won't stop until everyone's a millionaire,'' the New York lottery promises. A clue as to how far lotteries exceed the bounds that constrain other advertisers is indicated by a report from the National Association of Broadcasters issued in 1975. Three tactics seemed clearly out of bounds, the NAB concluded: 1. [Indicating] what fictitious winners may do, hope to do or have done with their winnings. 2. [Using] unqualified or inaccurate language regarding potential winners' winnings. (e.g. ``There's a pot of gold for those who buy lottery tickets''; ``Buy a ticket and be a winner.'') 3. [Utilizing] approaches which praise people who buy lottery tickets or denigrate people who do not buy tickets. Today's lotteries hold themselves to no such standards. The only rule is to produce maximum profit. Even in Virginia and Texas, two states that forbid their lotteries to ``induce'' people to play, ads make gambling seem fun and glamorous. Missouri originally required all its lottery ads to include a disclaimer: ``This message . . . is not intended to induce any person to participate in the lottery or purchase a lottery ticket.'' The disclaimer was dropped in 1988. It was thought to be hurting sales. Lotteries defend themselves against criticism by citing the revenue they raise. They also advertise to publicize their role in funding state projects. (Not only does this approach bolster political support, it's also a shrewd ploy to hook more players. Gambling is fun--and it's also a public service!) Each state has its own slogan: ``When Colorado plays, everybody wins.'' ``The Missouri lottery: It makes life a little richer for all of us.'' The premise of these ads--and a crucial element of lotteries' popularity--is that money goes to improving favorite areas of state spending, like schools or parks. But this is a mere accounting trick. Ohio claims that its lottery revenue goes toward education, for example. ``But that doesn't mean that the budget for education grows by that much,'' David Gale explains. ``What happens is, the legislature budgets this much for education. They see the lottery will contribute this much. So they take the money they would have spent on education and put it to other uses.'' Most states avoid the fiction altogether and say outright that the money goes to the general fund. But that doesn't stop lotteries from claiming credit for the very best of state government. On its 20th anniversary, the Maryland lottery ran a series of ``public service'' ads. One pictured a nurse holding an infant, saying the baby would get better care because of the Maryland lottery. Another ad in the series gave credit to the lottery for the high school graduation of an inner-city black teenager. It is true that lottery profits go to state treasuries. But so do taxes. Taxes are also honestly raised and reflect community decisions about how to fairly distribute burdens and responsibilities. In the current political climate, raising lottery revenue is a political virtue; raising taxes is political death. Naturally, politicians choose the easy route. New York Governor George Pataki recently announced plans for an enormous tax cut. He intends to make up the loss in revenue through the introduction of ``five minute keno'' in liquor stores and bars, which is expected to net the state $115 million per year. Lotteries defend themselves by pointing out the obvious: No one is forced to buy a lottery ticket. ``I get so angry when people say they should decide how [others] should spend their money,'' says Teresa La Fleur, who publishes books and a magazine for the lottery industry. ``Unless we decide it's wrong to gamble, it's just a fact of life that people are going to make choices with their money.'' But states don't merely allow, or provide, gambling. They stimulate it. In addition to running ads, some states even conduct direct-mail campaigns, sending coupons for free tickets via mail. In a typical campaign, cited in ``Selling Hope: State Lotteries in America,'' by Clotfelter and co-author Phillip Cook, 35 to 40 percent of the coupons were redeemed for lottery tickets. One-third of those who redeemed the coupons were new players; one-third of these new players began to play regularly. Considering the addictiveness of lotteries, these types of promotions are inexcusable. Of the nearly 40,000 calls to the Council on Compulsive Gambling in New Jersey last year, for example, 52 percent complained of addiction to lottery games. Imagine the outcry if Phillip Morris sent free packs of cigarettes through the mail. In fact, the parallel between cigarettes and lottery tickets is uncanny. That's why both have been the subject of strict limits on advertising. Until 1974, when Congress repealed a ban on the promotion of gambling in the mass media, TV stations couldn't so much as mention winning numbers. Now, of course, TV is the most popular medium of advertising. Besides the many commercials, lottery drawings are televised and a number of states have half-hour game shows centered around the lottery. [[Page S 11474]] Congressman Jim McCrery, a Republican from Louisiana, has introduced legislation requiring the Federal Trade Commission to impose truth-in-advertising standards on lotteries. That would be a start. But a more dramatic step--banning ads altogether--is in order. Lottery ads don't just sell a product. They sell a way of life. One ad for the Washington state lottery shows a line of workers punching their time clock. ``The true joys in life,'' the announcer says, ``are not found in the empty pursuit of pleasure, but in the accomplishments realized through one's own hard labor. For nothing satisfies the soul so much as honest toil, and seeing through a job well done.'' Then the man at the end of the line takes his timesheet and throws it out the window. ``Of course, having a whole bunch of money's not bad either.'' When will public officials stop for a moment, and listen to what they're saying--that hard work and patience are for suckers, that civic virtue is a function of how much you spend on the lottery? ``Even in these cynical times,'' says Clotfelter, ``government has some moral capital. So when the government says, `Children, stay in school'; `Husbands, don't beat your wives'--these have some value to them. If you take that capital and use it [the way lotteries do], one has to ask, does this serve the intention of the state?''