Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the Bosnian policy of the United States is lacking in backbone and commitment. I confess, it discourages me. I am not the only one who is discouraged. A column by Tom Friedman appeared in the Sunday July 30, 1995, New York Times that is, unfortunately, on target. And I ask that it be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the New York Times, July 30, 1995] Fire, Ready, Aim (By Thomas L. Friedman) Washington: Lost in the commotion about the Senate vote to lift the arms embargo on Bosnia, and President Clinton's threat to veto such a move, is a small fact of some importance: Both the President's policy and the Congress's policy duck the real issue in Bosnia and are formulas for continued war. What are our real interests in Bosnia? They are four: halt the killing, prevent the conflict from spreading, prevent the conflict from turning into a Christian-Muslim holy war and insure that it does not end in a way that permanently damages America's ties with its European allies, NATO and Russia. The only way to realize those objectives is for the U.S. and its allies to draw up a map that divides Bosnia roughly along the lines of the NATO-Russia Contact Group proposal--50 percent Serb, 50 percent Muslim-Croat--and then use all necessary force, including bombing Belgrade it necessary, to impose those cease-fire lines on all the parties. But, you might say, that would drag the U.S. into the war. Hey, we're already in the war. The U.S. and NATO last week committed to using their air power to defend a Muslim safe haven from further murderous Serbian attacks. Well, if we are ready to use what Defense Secretary William Perry called ``massive'' air bombardments to defend an isolated Muslim safe haven, why not use them to defend a cease-fire and a settlement map that could stop the killing altogether? Why not use them to defend a peace plan that would establish a Bosnian Muslim state centered around Sarajevo, next to a Bosnian Serb entity that would be federated with Serbia and a Bosnia Croat entity that would be federated with Croatia? Moreover, since we want the British, French and U.N. to keep their peacekeeping troops in Bosnia, and they are willing, why not have them use their power to oversee a partition plan and cease-fire lines, instead of to just oversee further carnage? Usually countries decide their war aims first and commit their military power second. The Clinton Administration has done just the reverse. It has decided to get involved militarily in Bosnia, but with no clearly defined plan for achieving America's basic interests. If we are going to enter this war, it should only be to end this war--and the only way to do that is through some form of partition. Of course it would be preferable to have a pluralistic, multi-ethnic Bosnian society and state, where everyone lives together. But the parties had that once. It was called Yugoslavia, and the Serbs, Muslims and Croats all helped to rip that state apart. That is why the only way to stabilize things now is to divide Bosnia among them. But instead, the Administration and Congress are posturing. The Administration doesn't want to lift the arms embargo, but it also doesn't want to impose any settlement, because it fears that would involve America too deeply and because it knows it would mean accepting the very partition plans it advised the Muslims for years to reject. The Clinton Administration wants more of the status quo because its only clear goal is to get through November 1996 without U.S. troops in Bosnia. The Congress, by contrast, just wants to get through the evening news. It wants to feel good about lifting the embargo, but does not want to recognize that this will only trigger a heavier Serbian onslaught against the Muslims, which they will only be able to resist in the short term with the help of direct Western military intervention, which is precisely the sort of deep involvement Congress is actually trying to avoid. With the Administration plan the Muslims lose slowly. With the Congress plan the Muslims lose quickly. Neither the Administration nor the Congress wants to recognize what the Europeans already have--that the ideal multi-ethnic, democratic Bosnia, if it were ever possible, cannot be achieved now. The only way to achieve it would be to force the Serbs, Muslims and Croats to live together under one roof, which they demonstrably do not want to do. None of the parties right now are fighting to live together. They are each fighting for ethnic survival or independence. We can lament the idea of a multiethnic, pluralistic Bosnia but we cannot build it from the raw material at hand. The only sane thing left is to stop the killing and build the least bad peace around the Bosnia we have, which is one in which Serbs, Croats and Muslims live apart until they can learn again to live together.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Madam President, it was just a few days ago when Senator Byrd, in the middle of a series of votes, was acknowledged for his 14,000th vote in a row. He got up and, among other things, he said there is a growing and excessive partisanship in this body. I was on the subway this morning with Senator Lugar, and some young eager student asked me what was different from when I came here. I said, ``The body, the Congress as a whole, is more partisan than it used to be.'' I mention that because if we end up with a straight party vote on something as vital to the future of our Nation as this is, we have not done our two parties a favor. I think the Levin amendment is extremely important to the security of our country. If we just decide we are going to abrogate the ABM Treaty on our own, we are going to interpret it the way we want to, and that is what this amendment calls for, we are going to raise fears all over the world. We are going to be playing into the hands of the Russian hardliners. No one should misunderstand that for a moment. If we pass this bill without the Levin amendment, the Russian hardliners are going to say, ``We're going to have to stop this elimination of nuclear warheads. We're going to have to move in the other direction.'' Unilaterally to say this is what the ABM Treaty is going to be--and among other things in this bill it says, no U.S. official, presumably the Department of Defense, can discuss with any other country what the ABM Treaty means. That is a restriction on freedom of speech, among other things, that is unwise. What we have is the present course where we are gradually reducing the nuclear threat, the arms threat in the world where we have moved from the great threat being nuclear annihilation, to the great threat being instability around the world, and we are going to move to a world where the threat is both instability and a nuclear threat. Our present course reduces the nuclear danger. I happen to think we are spending way too much on arms. We are spending more than the next eight countries combined. If you take a look at the 1973 defense appropriations and add the inflation factor to it, we are spending more today than we were in 1973. That is when the Berlin wall was up, that is when we were in Vietnam, that is when we had almost twice as many troops in Europe. I think some sensible reduction in arms expenditure is desirable and, frankly, I think even the high number requested by the administration would not be there but for the sensitivity of the President, because he was not part of the military, he does not want to look like he is antimilitary. But this $7 billion increase is just unwarranted. On top of that, to say we are going to just unilaterally decide what the ABM Treaty means, on top of that to escalate the nuclear threat, I think, just does not make any sense at all, and it is going to waste billions and billions and billions of dollars in addition to increasing the threat to our country. If this bill passes in substantially the present condition, then I think the President of the United States has no option but to veto it, and I will strongly urge the President to veto it. We have to move away from an arms race. This bill, without the Levin amendment, increases the probability of an arms race. Madam President, I yield whatever time I may have left to Senator Levin. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I want to join my colleague from Illinois in her request. The McCook Reservoir project is the linchpin to the successful flood protection and water pollution control efforts we have developed in the Chicago area. Unless this project is allowed to proceed with the funding Congress has provided, the Chicago metropolitan area will remain vulnerable to floods and significant threats to health and safety. I urgently request the assistance of the chairman in including the conference report language referred to by Senator Moseley-Braun to complete negotiations for land for the project immediately, and to direct the corps to proceed with the authorized project notwithstanding the committee report language. Her assistance in including this and the reprogramming language is critical to the protection of the Chicago area, and I thank her for her efforts.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if I may follow immediately on what Senator Kennedy just talked about, this Friday we are going to be taking up welfare reform. Ninety-five percent of what we hear about as welfare reform is not welfare reform. It is just moving the boxes around, shifting responsibility to States and doing some things like that. Real welfare reform has to deal with the problem of jobs and the problem of poverty, and this is an issue that deals with the problem of poverty. Why do we have this distribution problem in our society today? I think there are three basic reasons. One is people are not as well prepared as they should be. As Secretary of Labor Bob Reich says over and over--and he is right on this--if you are well prepared, technology is your friend; if you are not well prepared, technology is your enemy. A second reason we do not have the distribution factor that we should have in our society today is that labor union membership is dramatically lower in our country than any other Western industrialized democracy. George Shultz, former Secretary of State and former Secretary of Labor under Republican administrations, made a speech in which he said all of us, management and labor and everybody, ought to be concerned about the low percentage of workers belonging to labor unions. It is not a healthy thing for our society. If you exclude the governmental unions, it is down to 11.8 percent. That is a factor. But a third factor in the distribution matter is the minimum wage. We simply have not kept up with the inflation factor, and it is a problem. In addition to the factors that Senator Kennedy mentioned, where we save money in terms of AFDC and that sort of thing, the earned income tax credit, we have 11 million Americans who will benefit from increasing the minimum wage 45 cents a year for 2 years, a total of 90 cents, and many of them will not get as much money on the earned income tax credit. So there will be a dollar savings, in very real terms, for the Federal Government.

Mr. SIMON. I am pleased to yield to my colleague.

Mr. SIMON. Well, in response to that question, which is an extremely important question for the American people, obviously it does not make sense. It is a response that grows out of something--and I know the Senator from Massachusetts feels very strong about this--it grows out of something that we ought to deal with, but we duck in Congress--that is, our system of financing campaigns. I join the Senator from Minnesota, and I applaud him for his leadership on what we did on gifts and limiting on the lobbyists. But, frankly, that is 1 percent of the reform we need. Ninety-nine percent of the reform is on our system of financing campaigns. If you have 20 individuals who are very wealthy in this country, who wanted some modest change in the law, who sent a $1,000 campaign contribution to every Member of the U.S. Senate, I have an idea--unless it was an egregious request--that request would receive very sympathetic attention. We have 11 million people who will benefit by an increase in the minimum wage, who, because of their situation, cannot give a campaign contribution to anyone, and we are reluctant to respond. I hope we will. Let me just add for the benefit of the Presiding Officer--and I see my friend from Kansas on the floor here, too--the last time we increased the minimum wage, it passed 89-8 in the Senate, with 36 Republicans voting for it. This should not be a partisan thing. We ought to improve the lot of people who are really struggling. Are we going to be sensitive to that? I think that is the fundamental question. Are we going to be sensitive to people who really are struggling in our society? I hope we come up with the right answer. I am pleased to have the Senator from Massachusetts offering this amendment, and what he is really calling on us to do is prod our consciences a little bit, do what we ought to do for the people in Pennsylvania, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, and Minnesota, who are just eking out an existence, who do not know how they are going to make the next rental payment, or how they are going to feed their family, until they get paid on Friday. These are people we have to be concerned about. They do not make big campaign contributions to us. But that is what we ought to be here for. Those are the people we ought to be here for. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President if my colleague will yield for an observation. I thank him. As usual, Senator Dorgan is right on target on this issue. Today, I regret to say, we have topped $500 billion now in total gross income. It is a fast-growing industry in the United States.

Mr. SIMON. That does not count what happens illegally. The second thing, the Senator mentioned in passing--as you saw them take these balls for the lottery--that you do not spend any money on it. Most people of our income level do not. It is the poor that they try to appeal to. And it is very clear, both from studies and from the advertising, that this is an attempt to extract money from the poor. We ought to be able to get revenue in a better way for our Government.

Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, in November of last year, when I announced I would retire from the Senate after 1996, President Clinton suggested that with the freedom from political restraint I now have, and with slightly more credibility because political opportunism would not be the immediate cry of critics, I should, from time to time, make observations about our Nation, where we are going, and where we should go. One of the marks of our civilization, virtually unnoticed as we discuss the Nation's problems, is our fastest-growing industry: gambling. Local governments, Indian tribes, and States--all desperate for revenue--increasingly are turning to what appears to be a quick and easy solution: legalized gambling. And, temporarily, it often works. Poverty-stricken Indian tribes suddenly have revenue. Cities like East St. Louis, IL, with every possible urban malady, find themselves with enough revenue to at least take care of minimal services. There are four basic questions: First, how rapidly is this phenomenon growing? Second, what are its advantages? Third, what are its disadvantages? Fourth, is there a role for the Federal Government to play, and should it play a role? Gambling is not a new phenomenon. The Bible and early historical records tell of its existence. Gambling surfaced early in U.S. history, then largely disappeared as a legal form of revenue for State and local governments. It remained very much alive, however, even though illegal, in the back rooms of taverns and in not-so-hidden halls, often with payoffs to public officials to ``look the other way'' while it continued. I particularly remember traveling overseas and back while in the U.S. Army. The troop ship became one huge gambling operation with dice or cards, activity slowed only by the occasional walking tour of a conscientious officer whose coming would be foretold by someone taking the voluntary watch for his fellow enlisted men--and they were then all men--who gambled. After the watchman's signal, suddenly that portion of the ship's deck or hold could meet the highest puritanical standards. Within seconds of the disappearance of the dreaded officer, the games would begin again. Participation had no appeal to me, not primarily for moral reasons, but I have always been too conservative with my money to enjoy risking it that way. What I remember about those shipboard activities was the enormity of the stakes that could be built up-- enormous for enlisted men on meager salaries in 1951-1953--and the ability of some of my friends to continue their activity with almost no sleep. Gambling's appeal, particularly for the idle--and a troop ship is loaded with them--is clear. Early in our Nation's history, almost all States had some form of lottery, my State of Illinois being no exception. When Abraham Lincoln served in our State legislature from 1834 to 1842, lotteries were authorized, and there apparently was no moral question raised about having them. In 1839, for example, the Illinois House of Representatives voted unanimously to authorize a lottery to raise funds ``for the purpose of draining the ponds of the American bottom'' in the vicinity of what is now East St. Louis, an area that to this day has a severe drainage problem, and a city that today has a significant gambling presence. In Illinois and other States the loose money quickly led to corruption, and the States banned all forms of gambling. Illinois leaders felt so strongly about it, they put the ban into the State constitution. For many years, Louisiana had the only lottery, and [[Page S 10913]] then in 1893--after a major scandal there--the Federal Government prohibited all lottery sales. Even the results of tolerated but illegal lotteries could not be sent through the mail. But the lottery crept back in, first in New Hampshire in 1963, and then in 36 other States. Last year States sold $34 billion in lottery tickets. Forty-two States now have some form of legalized gambling. Even States that technically outlaw gambling frequently manage to have some form of it. In one of the more peculiar decisions by Illinois Supreme Court justices--dependent for reelection at that time on campaign contributions--they ruled that betting money on horses was not gambling, because the ability of the horse and the skill of the rider were involved. Gambling is when everything is left to chance, they argued. What we know as casino gambling was legal only in Nevada, then in New Jersey and now in 23 states. From a small enterprise in a few States, gambling has matured. In 1974, $17 billion was legally wagered in the Nation. By 1992, it reached $329 billion, and it is now over $500 billion. Three-fourths of the Nation's citizens now live within 300 miles of a casino. One article reports, ``Airlines are exploring the installation of back-of-seat slot machines on some flights.'' [``A Full House,'' by Rob Day, Hemisphere, October, 1994.] Other nations-- particularly poorer ones--are expanding gambling operations. Within our country, the magazine Gaming and Wagering Business reports, ``Old attitudes have been shattered. Barriers are crumbling, and doors have been flung open.'' [Dec. 15, 1991-Jan. 15, 1992.] At this point, let me digress to express my gratitude to scholars who have studied legalized gambling in the United States, with little attention and little gratitude from the community at large. Particularly helpful, as I prepared these remarks, was a book manuscript I had the opportunity to read by Robert Goodman, a professor at Hampshire College in Massachusetts. In October, the Free Press will publish his thoughtful and well-crafted manuscript under the title, ``The Luck Business.'' The subtitle is ``The Devastating Consequences and False Promises of America's Gambling Explosion.'' John Warren Kindt, a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana, wrote an excellent article for the Drake Law Review last year, ``The Economic Impacts of Legalized Gambling Activities,'' and Henry Lesieur, who heads the criminal justice division at Illinois State University, edits a magazine in this field, Journal of Gambling Studies. I am grateful to them and to others who have pioneered research. What are the advantages of legalized gambling? It brings in new revenue, at least temporarily and, in some cases, over a longer period of time. One of the great weaknesses of American politics today--and one of the reasons for public cynicism toward those of us in politics--is our eagerness to tell people only what they want to hear. Polling is a huge business, and if a poll suggests some stand is unpopular, too many find a convenient way of changing course, even if the public good is served by the unpopular action. An area of high sensitivity is taxation. That problem is compounded by the fact that at the national level no other industrial nation--with the exception of Israel--spends as much of its taxation on defense and interest as does the United States. These bring no direct benefit to people. Citizens of Germany, France, Great Britain and other nations pay much higher taxes, but they see health care and other benefits that we do not have. In addition, their parliamentary systems make it easier to make tough decisions than our system does. So when someone comes along and says, ``I have a simple way to get more revenue for you, and you do not have to raise anyone's taxes,'' that has great appeal to policymakers who must seek reelection. Those same people say to the policy makers, ``Not only will I provide revenue for you without taxation, I will be very generous to you when campaign time comes.'' And they are. While the promises of what legalized gambling will do for a community or State almost always are greatly exaggerated, it is also true that many communities who are desperate for revenue and feel they have no alternative are helped. I have already mentioned East St. Louis, IL. Bridgeport, CT, is another example. Small communities like Metropolis, IL, population 6,734, find that a riverboat casino brings in significant additional municipal revenue. And while other businesses in these communities often do not benefit--and some, like restaurants, are hurt--a poll by the Better Government Association, a highly respected Illinois civic group, shows that in some communities, the initial reaction to the riverboat casinos is more positive than negative: Rock Island/Moline, 83 percent positive, though this has changed; Metropolis, 76 percent positive; East St. Louis, 47 percent positive; and Peoria, 64 percent positive. Some officials in Chicago, desperate for revenue, wish to bring in a large casino operation with a $2 billion price tag. They say it will bring 10,000 construction jobs. That alone is significant. The initial press release said 37,000 construction jobs. And officials in Chicago, aware there are long-term dangers to the city from such an operation, also know that unless they solve short-term problems--and that takes revenue--the long-term picture for the city is not good. The State government has shown itself largely insensitive to the needs of the city, dominated as it is by suburban and rural leaders. Faced with a choice of lectures from the State about long-term problems and what appears to be easy, significant, immediate revenue, it is not difficult to understand Chicago's choice. On top of that, they face editorial prodding. Under a heading, ``Casino A Great Bet For City,'' the Chicago Sun-Times called a casino ``a cash cow'' and noted: ``The sooner state law changes to allow land-based casino gambling, the better. And the sooner Chicago finally gets in on the action, the better.'' [April 17, 1995.] Almost unnoticed has been the report of the Chicago Crime Commission in response to a request by the Mayor: ``Organized crime will infiltrate casino operations and unions, and will be involved in related loan-sharking, prostitution, drug activities * * * and public corruption.'' [Chicago Crime Commission, 1990.] State governments are no more loaded with courageous leaders than is the Federal Government. They need revenue to solve their problems. In Illinois, for example, state support for public higher education has dropped from 70 percent of the costs in 1980, to 37 percent today, almost a 50-percent cut. [Here, I digress to observe that States have been partially bailed out by Federal aid to students. We hear a great deal from States about unfunded mandates. We hear much less from States about sizable grants from the Federal Government.] Faced with needs in education at all levels, with growing health care costs that afflict both Federal and State governments, and with decaying cities and decaying infrastructure, the States have two options: Tell people the truth and ask for the taxes to pay for these needs, or combine the growing practice of issuing bonds, states don't call them deficits and find some ``easy'' source of revenue, like legalized gambling. The courageous path is too infrequently taken. Revenue from lotteries, race horse gambling, and riverboat casinos brings Illinois government approximately $820 million a year. That is State government revenue alone. I have made no attempt to calculate what revenue is lost because of money not being spent in other enterprises in the State. Most of those who wager in Illinois are from Illinois. When they spend on gambling, that is money that would otherwise go to clothing stores, groceries, and other businesses. That means less revenue to the State from those businesses. Also not calculated in the $820 million State revenue is the loss caused by the increased problem of gambling addiction. Early promises to use Illinois lottery money for education have been technically complied with, but State support for education has declined substantially as a percentage of income for local schools since the lottery became a reality. Wisconsin, not a big gambling State, has 17 native American casinos. A study completed in April concluded: ``Overall, the state gains $326 million in net revenue from the presence of the casinos.'' They added this caution: ``However, this figure is reduced substantially--to $166.25 million--when [[Page S 10914]] even the lowest estimated social costs of compulsive gambling are included in the calculations. With mid-range estimated social costs, the overall impact becomes negligible, while with higher social-cost estimates, the impact becomes clearly negative.'' [The Economic Impact of Native American Gaming in Wisconsin, by William Thompson, Ricardo Gazel and Dan Rickman, published by the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.] Indian reservations have misery as their constant companion. Unemployment rates, alcoholism rates, suicide rates, and poverty indexes all combine to paint a grim picture that should be a matter of shame for our Nation. Not only has the Federal Government been weak in its response to these needs, but State governments, sometimes dominated by prejudice against native Americans, often have been even worse. Listen to this Department of Health and Human Services report, given to a Senate committee this year: ``In 15 of the 24 states with the largest native American populations, eligible Tribes received nothing in 1993 from the more than $3 billion in Federal funds [Title XX and Title IV-E child welfare services and protection programs] the States received. In the other nine States, Indians received less than three percent.'' [George Grob, Deputy Inspector General, HHS, April 5, 1995, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.] It should not surprise anyone that tribal leaders who want to produce for their people seize what some view as a legal loophole that our courts and laws have created to get revenue for their citizens; 115 tribes now have some form of casino gambling. The gross revenue for the 17 tribes in Wisconsin is $655 million. And about one-fifth of that revenue comes from people who live outside of Wisconsin, higher than in most States, much lower than Nevada or Atlantic City. Connecticut is the prime example of a small tribe gaining big money. A casino operated by the Manshantucket Pequot Tribe in Ledyard, CT, brings in approximately $800 million in gross revenue annually. Native American leaders who see long-term harm to their tribes from the gambling enterprises are hard-pressed by those who see immediate benefits, and not too much hope for sizable revenue outside of gambling. What are the disadvantages of legalized gambling? The distinguished Nobel Prize-winning economist, Paul Samuelson, has warned us: ``There is a substantial economic case to be made against gambling. It involves simply sterile transfers of money or goods between individuals, creating no new money or goods. Although it creates no output, gambling does nevertheless absorb time and resources. When pursued beyond the limits of recreation * * * gambling subtracts from the national income.'' [Economics, McGraw-Hill, 1970.] A high official in Nevada told me, ``If we could get rid of gambling in our State, it would be the best thing that could happen to us. I cannot say that publicly for political reasons. But major corporations that might locate their principle offices here or build plants here don't do it. They know that gambling brings with it serious personnel problems.'' Personnel problems are but one disadvantage, but they are real. People can become addicted to gambling, as they can to drugs or alcohol or smoking. My mother belongs to a church in Collinsville, IL, that had a fine substitute teacher at its Lutheran school. Unknown to the teacher's family, she had been visiting a gambling boat. Money the family thought had gone to pay the rent and family bills had, instead, gone into wagers. One day, she left a message for her family, drove her car to a shopping center and killed herself. In a relatively affluent Chicago suburb, a 41-year-old man committed suicide after using more than $11,000 in credit card advances for gambling. He shot himself after leaving a gambling boat. Police found $13 in his pocket. More typical is the experience of a friend, a professional man, who attended a statewide meeting of an association with which he is affiliated. While he went to the meetings, his wife went to a riverboat casino and ``got hooked.'' She spent all the money she had and used all the available money from her credit cards, close to $20,000. Her husband knew nothing about it until he checked out of the hotel and found his credit cards could not be used because they had already reached their maximum. In this family, the situation has worked out, but that is not true for many. A retired Air Force colonel has written me about the problem of casino gambling near Keesler Air Force Base that offers part-time work to personnel stationed there, but also 24-hour-a-day gambling availability and has brought serious problems of addiction and the social and criminal problems that go with it for the men and women stationed there. Gambling addiction is a serious problem. We know that men are more likely to become addicted than women, that the appeal of gambling is greater for low-income people than those of above average income, that there are approximately 9 million adults and 1.3 million teenagers with some form of gambling behavior problem and that the availability of gambling enterprises--their closeness to where a person lives--causes a significant increase in the addiction problem. Nationally, less than 1 percent 0.77 percent of the population are compulsive gamblers, but when enterprises are located near a population, that number increases two to seven times. The greatest growth is among teenagers. University of Maryland football fans were stunned recently to read that their all-American quarterback had been suspended by the NCAA for four games because of betting on college games. The spread of gambling among teenagers has spilled over onto college campuses, and Maryland's football problem is evidencing itself on many campuses, a highly publicized tip of a much more serious iceberg. Costs to society of the problem gambler vary from the most conservative estimate of $13,200 to $30,000 per year. I have no idea which figure may be correct, but we know there are costs. Arnold Wexler and his wife, Sheila Wexler, did a study for Rutgers University and noted: Compulsive gamblers will bet until nothing is left: savings, family assets, personal belongings--anything of value that may be pawned, sold or borrowed against. They will borrow from co-workers, credit union, family and friends, but will rarely admit it is for gambling. They may take personal loans, write bad checks and ultimately reach and pass the point of bankruptcy. . . . In desperation, compulsive gamblers may panic and often will turn to illegal activities to support their addiction. (1992) Prosecuting attorney Jeffrey Bloomberg of Lawrence County, SD, testified before a U.S. House committee on his experiences dealing with Deadwood, SD, a small community that became the first place outside of Atlantic City and Nevada to legalize casino gambling. He said they were promised ``economic development, new jobs and lower taxes.'' Instead, casinos flourished, but other businesses did not. Businesses that provide ``the necessities of life such as clothing are no longer available * * * and customers of the town's only remaining grocery store walk a gauntlet of slot-machines as they exit with their purchases. For the most part, the jobs which were created earn minimum wage or slightly better and are without benefits. As for the claim that gambling brings tax relief, this simply has not proven true. Real property taxes for both residential and commercial properties have risen each and every year since gambling was legalized. Crimes of theft, embezzlement, bad checks and other forms of larceny have increased. Our office has also seen an increase in the number of child abuse and neglect cases as a result of gambling. These run the spectrum from the children left in their cars all night while their parents gamble, to the children left at home alone while their parents gamble, to the children left at home alone while single mothers work the casino late shift, to the household without utilities or groceries because one or both parents have blown their paycheck gambling. Government is hooked on the money generated by gambling and in the long term the ramifications of this governmental addiction will be just as dire as for the individual who becomes addicted to gambling.'' (Sept. 21, 1994--House Committee on Small Business.) One study conducted for insurance companies suggests that 40 percent of white collar crime can be traced to [[Page S 10915]] gambling. Usually those involved have no prior criminal record. The suicide rates for problem gamblers is significantly higher than it is for the general population. One out of five attempt suicide, a higher rate than for alcoholism or drug addiction. Pathological gamblers are much more likely to be violent with their spouses and abuse their children. Children of these gamblers generally do worse in school and have a suicide rate twice that of their classmates. A survey of compulsive gamblers found 22 percent divorced because of gambling, 40 percent had lost or quit a job due to gambling, 49 percent stole from work to pay gambling debts, 23 percent alcoholic, 26 percent compulsive overeaters, 63 percent had contemplated suicide and 79 percent said they wanted to die. (Henry Lesieur and Christopher Anderson.) Treatment for gambling compulsion is rarely covered by health insurance policies, though physicians often will simply list depression as the cause for needed therapy, and that may be covered. A national conference will be held in Puerto Rico in September to discuss the growing problem of gambling addiction. State lotteries disproportionately receive money from--and target-- the poor. While it is true that the purchases are voluntary and provide some entertainment, as a society we should be providing more substantial exits from poverty than the rare lottery victory. A bill before the Illinois legislature sponsored by Representative Jack Kubik to prohibit cashing welfare checks at race tracks, off-track betting parlors, and riverboat casinos died a quiet death. Compounding all of this, State and local governments who receive revenue from legalized gambling often are its promoters, both to bring gambling in and to sustain it. Governments get hooked. While States receive revenue from alcohol and tobacco sales, no governmental unit-- to my knowledge--promotes alcohol and tobacco. Generally governments appeal to our strengths, not our weaknesses. But gambling is different. Billboards are erected in poor areas to promote the Illinois Lottery. ``This could be your ticket out,'' one proclaimed. If the State of Illinois had billboards promoting whiskey, beer or cigarettes, there would be a public outcry. The Pennsylvania lottery unashamedly advertises: ``Don't forget to play every day.'' And of course the poor are the ones who succumb to that lure. Industries that want to bring in casinos are generous with their promises. The poverty of Atlantic City would be virtually eliminated, the scenario read, but it did not happen. Poverty has not diminished, and problems with gambling addiction are up. Since the advent of the casinos, 40 percent of the restaurants not associated with the gambling enterprises have closed, and one-third of the city's retail business has closed. Unemployment in Atlantic City is now the State's highest. Crime is up significantly--almost tripled--and the population has dropped by one-fourth. Industrial consultant Nelson Rose told U.S. News and World Report: ``Atlantic City used to be a slum by the sea. Now it's a slum by the sea with casinos.'' (March 14, 1994.) But not only Atlantic City has been affected. A study of crime patterns along non-toll roads between Atlantic City and New York City and Atlantic City and Philadelphia found a significant increase in crime rates (Simon Hakim and Joseph Friedman.) The Better Government Association of Illinois survey of 324 businesses in towns with riverboat casinos found that 51 percent of the firms said riverboats had either no effect or a negative effect on their business. Of the 44 percent who gave a positive response, half said the lift their businesses got was minimal. Three percent said their business has been ``helped a lot.'' (1994 survey.) A Chicago Tribune survey found a similar result. An Aurora, IL riverboat casino gets all but 1 to 2 percent of its business from within the State, and the Tribune reported: ``The casino is killing the small businesses in this area, and they claimed it would help us,'' said Mario Marrero, former owner of the Porto Coeli Cafe and Bakery, a block from the casino. As soon as the casino opened a year ago, Marrero saw his business drop by half, from about $4,000 a month to $2,000 a month, he said. In May, he was forced to close after nearly five years in business. (June 28, 1994.) Gambling's effect on government is more than income from gamblers and expenditures for dealing with problem gamblers and increased crime. Gambling operators are major contributors to campaigns--in the millions--and employ expensive lobbyists at both the State and Federal level. A few gambling enterprises have formed the American Gaming Association and employed a former chairman of the Republican National Committee as its chief executive. Gaming is an influence to be reckoned with in dozens of State capitals, and its influence will grow markedly in Washington. In Illinois, the lobbyists for gambling include a former Governor, a former attorney general, two former U.S. attorneys, a former director of the State police, a prominent former judge, a former mayor of Chicago and at least seven former State legislators. All of this is legal. But gambling in Illinois has also been associated with the illegal. Back in 1964, as a State legislator, I co-authored an article for Harper's magazine titled, ``The Illinois Legislature: A Study in Corruption.'' It did not enhance my popularity in that body, but it did some good, and I am pleased to report that today the Illinois Legislature--in ethics, and in quality--is a much improved body over that period. But whenever there is easy money floating around, the temptation for corruption is present. We have had two Governors in our State's history go to prison, one because of payoffs from legalized gambling. I recall particularly the deal worked out in which--on the same day--the sales tax in our State was increased from 2 cents to 3 cents, which then included food and medicine, and the tax on two politically well-connected racetracks was reduced by one-third. Every State legislator knew what was going on. Organized crime has frequently been a problem with gambling, whether legal or illegal. Big money attracts them. And it is big money. Last year, one riverboat casino in Illinois netted--not grossed--$203 million. The Chicago Tribune (March 28, 1995) reported that two politically well-connected Illinois men were offered $20 million if they landed a casino in our State for a Nevada firm. When contacted by the Tribune, they said they had other offers that were higher. The gambling elite are not only generous employers of lobbyists, they are multimillion dollar donors to political campaigns, and the combination makes them politically potent. The unsavory and unhealthy influence of lobbyists and legislators as a protector of this rapidly growing industry means sensible restraint will not be easily achieved. But there is another side to that story. Public opinion is not with the gambling gentry. Even after well-financed campaigns, when there are referenda on whether legalized gambling should be expanded in a State or community, rarely do those initiatives win. Every referendum on a gambling casino held last year lost, and in the big one, Florida, it lost decisively. Donald Trump may have helped when he told the Miami Herald a few weeks before the referendum: ``As someone who lives in Palm Beach, I'd prefer not to see casinos in Florida. But as someone in the gambling business, I'm going to be the first one to open if Floridians vote for them.'' Florida Commerce Secretary Charles Dusseau did an economic analysis of gambling possibilities in Florida and came to the conclusion it would hurt the State. Opposition to legalized gambling also brings together an unlikely coalition. For example, Ralph Reed, executive of the Christian Coalition, and the liberal State Senator Tom Hayden of California, agree on this issue. To those who wish to go back to an earlier era in our nation's history when legalized gambling was abolished, my political assessment is that is not possible. But restraint is possible. I have introduced legislation, cosponsored by Senator Lugar, to have a commission, of limited duration and a small budget, look at this problem. Congressmen Frank Wolf and John LaFalce have introduced somewhat similar legislation in the House. My reason for suggesting the limited time--18 months--and the small budget, $250,000, is that commissions like [[Page S 10916]] that often are the most productive. One of the finest commissions the Nation has had, the Commission on Foreign Languages and International Studies, produced its report in a little more than 1 year on a small budget and had significant influence. Let a commission look at where we are and where we should go. My instinct is that sensible limits can be established. For example, what if any new gambling enterprise established after a specific date had to pay a tax of 5 percent on its gross revenue. Those who are already in the field who are not too greedy should support it because it prevents the saturation of the market. Financial wizard Bernard Baruch said of those who invest in the stock market, ``The bears win and the bulls win, but the hogs lose.'' Gambling enterprises that are willing to limit their expansion are more likely to be long- term winners. And those who know the problems that gambling causes should support this idea because of the limitations. Or suppose we were to move to some form of supplement to local and State revenue again. States, Indian tribes, and local governments that do not have any form of legalized gambling would be eligible for per capita revenue-sharing assistance. It would require creating a source of revenue for such funding, but would bring some relief to non-Federal governments who do not want gambling but are desperate for additional revenue. There is no way--let me underscore this--of reducing the gambling problem without facing the local revenue problem. Congressman Jim McCrery, a Republican from Louisiana, has proposed that lotteries--now exempt from Federal Trade Commission truth-in- advertising standards--should be covered. Why should the New York lottery be able to advertise: ``We won't stop until everyone's a millionaire.'' These are just three possible ideas. The commission could explore others. The commission can look at how we deal with gambling opportunities that will surface later this year on an experimental basis on cable television and the Internet. How significant could this become? None of us knows. We do know that two-thirds of problem gamblers come from a home where at least one parent had a problem with alcoholism. Should we be dealing more seriously with alcoholism, in part to deal with the gambling phenomenon? These and other questions could be studied by a commission. What should not be ignored by Congress and the American people is that we have a problem on our hands. We need to find sensible and sensitive answers. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, there is a great deal of nonsense in the political oratory on affirmative action. Like policies on education, religion or any other good thing, it can be abused. But fundamentally, it will make America a better place. It has made America a better place and is making America a better place. We still have a long way to go before we are a nation without prejudices and without the discrimination that comes from prejudices. Chancellor Chang-Lin Tien of the University of California-Berkeley had an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times that I think provides a needed balance. I urge my colleagues to read it. At this point, I ask that the op-ed piece be printed in the Record. The material follows: [From the Lost Angeles Times, July 18, 1995] A Tool for a Colorblind America (By Chang-Lin Tien) As an Asian American, I have endured my share of affirmative action ``jokes.'' Even when I became chancellor of UC Berkeley, I was not spared teasing about how affirmative action was the reason I landed this coveted post at one of America's great universities. Opponents of affirmative action use examples like this to argue that affirmative action tars all minorities with the same brush of inferiority--whether or not we benefit directly. Affirmative action is not the source of the problem. As much as America would like to believe otherwise, racial discrimination remains a fact of life. Whether we preside over major universities or wash dishes, people of color confront discrimination. In my first months as chancellor, I was encouraged by friends to get coaching to eliminate my accent. While a European inflection conjures up images of Oxford or the belles-lettres, Asian and Latino accents apparently denote ignorance to the American ear. Our nation is far from fulfilling the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream of a country where people are judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin. King's immortal words challenged America to live up to its founding principle--that all men are created equal. It is an ideal all Americans embrace. Yet it has needed redefining as America has struggled to broaden its concept of democracy to include women and races other than Caucasian. King's challenge is especially relevant today as this country undergoes a phenomenal demographic transformation. His challenge will resonate on Thursday when the UC Board of Regents considers eliminating race and ethnicity in admissions and hiring. As an educator, I know that America's demographic shift poses tremendous challenges. American universities must educate more leaders from all racial and ethnic groups so they can succeed in a diverse environment. How can America's educators accomplish this? Affirmative action has been an effective tool for diversifying our student body while preserving academic excellence. Yet its opponents argue that affirmative action runs counter to the principle of individual rights on which this country was founded. Affirmative action, they believe, is based on the ``group rights'' of racial and ethnic groups. [[Page S 10843]] I agree that affirmative action is not a panacea. It is a temporary measure that can be eliminated when we have forged a colorblind society. That time has not yet come. It's painfully clear that equal opportunity is still a dream for many Americans. Although colleges and universities cannot correct the nation's inequities, we can be a beacon of hope by offering an education to help minority youth realize the American dream. It is here where a fair, carefully crafted affirmative action process comes into play. At Berkeley and many other universities, in addition to strict academic criteria, student admissions policies take into account special circumstances that minority students have confronted. Critics accuse us of bestowing special ``group rights'' to these minorities. They argue that the process should be devoid of such group considerations and that students should be judged solely as individuals. This argument, however, does not take into account what I call ``group privileges''--advantages that certain groups of students accrue by virtue of birth, not by hard work. After all, the contest between white suburban students and minority inner-city youths is inherently unfair. Inner-city students struggle to learn in dilapidated schools where illegal drugs are easier to find then computers, while suburban students benefit from honors classes and Internet access. Ultimately, we must rebuild America's public schools. Yet until America reverses the precipitous decline of its schools, we have to give special consideration to young people who have overcome countless obstacles to achieve academically. Diversity benefits all students. It is critical to academic excellence. Only by giving students opportunities to interact and learn about one another will we prepare America's leaders for success in today's global village. How else can universities prepare tomorrow's teachers for working with youngsters whose families come from nations around the world? How else can universities prepare business leaders to succeed in the international market? Berkeley's experience discredits the persistent myth that affirmative action lowers academic standards. Our fall 1994 freshman class, in which no racial group constitutes a majority, is stronger academically than the freshman class of 10 years ago. Our graduation rates have climbed steadily. Today, 74% of our students graduate within five years. In the mid-1950's, when the student body was overwhelmingly white, 48% graduated within five years. We have diversified while strengthening our role as a premier university. If America ends affirmative action before addressing the underlying causes of inequality of opportunity, racial divisions will deepen. Opportunities to dispel ingrained beliefs about different races through interaction and discussion will be lost. Many promising minorities will never have the opportunity to excel as academic, cultural, business and political leaders. Most important for me as an educator, excellence in academic institutions that must prepare leaders for a diverse world will be jeopardized. Instead of threatening the progress we have made, let us address the problems that foster unequal opportunity and racial strife. Only then can we look forward to the day when affirmative action can be eliminated and the vision of our founders will be fulfilled--that all Americans are created equal.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, Dr. Paul Jersild is a professor of theology and ethics at Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary in Columbia, SC. Recently, I had a chance to read a column he wrote for the Columbia newspaper, the State, on the issue of prayer in the schools. At a time when there is much political malarkey being spread about this issue and a lot of concerned people on both sides, I think it is worthwhile to listen to a voice of reason. I have known Paul Jersild for many years and trust his instinct and good judgment. I ask that his column be printed in the Record. The column follows: [From the Columbia (SC) State, June 2, 1995] Legislating Prayer in Schools Trivializes What Prayer is About [By Paul Jersild) South Carolinians--and the South in general--tend to be ``more religious'' than the rest of the nation. What that means can be debated, but one thing is clear enough: Residents of this state are more likely to support a constitutional amendment which would legalize prayer in the public schools. What is it, exactly, that we would accomplish by such an amendment? The recent debate on NBC's ``Meet the Press'' between Ralph Reed, executive director of the Christian Coalition, and White House adviser George Stephanopoulos brought out an important point in answering this question. Stephanopoulous noted that under present law, students can pray before meals in school, express their religious views in classroom discussions or even gather at the flagpole before school begins to start off the day with a prayer. It is the advocacy of religion on the part of government that is at issue here. No one denies that students can pray, and, in that sense, prayer is not the real issue. What Mr. Reed argued is that an amendment is needed in order to reverse what he sees as a climate of hostility toward expressions of religious faith in public life. The question in my mind--and it is shared by many Christians--is whether an amendment is the appropriate solution to the kind of problem posed by Mr. Reed. Here I see a disturbing aspect to religion in the South. Baptists make up the vast majority of church members in this region, and they represent one of the most revered and important traditions in American religious and political history. From their beginnings, Baptists have been known for their vigorous advocacy of separation of church and state in order to assure their own freedom and that of others to practice the religion of their choice. But now, with their majority status in the South, Baptists seem to have forgotten this honored tradition. Many of them have become more concerned with politically enforcing a religious practice which they regard as essential to maintaining their version of civic religion. Concern for minority religious groups and non-believers has disappeared as they insist on the ``rights'' of the majority. The irony of this situation is obvious, for it is largely their own notable history that has taught us to beware of majoritarian attempts to enforce religious views and practices on the rest of the population. [[Page S 10842]] This whole development carries an important lesson concerning the vagaries and pitfalls of trying to politically shape the practice of religion. There is, indeed, a proper role for religious ceremony in the public realm, and separation of church and state should not be understood as the elimination of all religious expression in public life. But when prayer is used as a political weapon to counteract what is perceived as a hostile environment, it is being grossly misused. Passing a law does not create a community of faith where, alone, prayer is both vital and necessary. Enforcing prayer in the classroom (or a silent moment for prayer) turns it into a symbolic act for the sake of a political purpose, which destroys or, at least, trivializes what prayer is about. Since Christians disagree among themselves about the wisdom of a prayer amendment, it should be clear that this is not an issue of the church against the state or the rest of society. It is an ideological battle being waged by certain Christians who want to implement their particular vision of a ``Christian'' society. If we can actually legislate that goal, it is not worth achieving.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Thank you, Mr. President. I suppose I am like a great many Americans on this whole subject, and what we are dealing with in the problem of recognizing homosexuality, and this problem in our society. I grew up in a home where we had strong opinions against prejudice, against people because they were African Americans or Jewish Americans. But frankly, I did not understand this problem. I was not hostile to people who were gay, but I did not understand that they faced some special problems. The reality is, they do. I think we have to recognize that factor. I also would add, because it is not only this bill, but we face it in the military and other places. When I was in the military, I was in part of something that no longer exists, the Counter Intelligence Corps. Among other things, we screened people for security clearances. If there were people who were gay, they did not get security clearances. This goes back to 1951 to 1953. I happen to think that was, at that point, a very legitimate reason for not having security clearances, because people could be blackmailed. If we decide we are not going to have people that are gay in the military, say we have an emergency, and then we have to have selective service, we conscript people, are we going to say that anyone who is gay is not going to be drafted? We are going to end up with an awful lot of gays in this country if we determine that. I think there are practical problems. I think we should recognize this. Now, does that mean that everyone approves of this lifestyle? That is not the question. The question is discrimination. For those--and I run into this at town meetings, and I am sure the Presiding Officer has--people who say, what about the Bible. The ten commandments include adultery. Some of the other things did not get mentioned. I recall my army days. If we had decided we would kick everyone out who was involved in adultery, our branches would have been thinned appreciably. I think we have to recognize that there are weaknesses in society, but that discrimination is not the route that we ought to be going. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for 2 minutes, then I will renew the quorum call and Senator Helms will be recognized immediately following the rescinding of the quorum call.

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

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, today, I would like to share with my colleagues a Chicago Tribune editorial which makes a compelling argument against the Senate's V-chip proposal. I urge all of my colleagues to review it. I ask that the full text of the article be printed at this point in the Record. The article follows: [From the Chicago Tribune, July 14, 1995] Power to the Parents on TV Violence The good news on the TV violence front is that a national consensus seems to have developed that something must be done to control the messages and images reaching American children. The bad news is that some of the methods Congress is considering to achieve that control would do violence to the constitutional right to free expression--and that is intolerable. There is, however, a way that promises effective control and respects the Constitution. But it will require restraint by Congress, cooperation by the TV industry and-- [[Page S 10662]] indispensably--determination by parents to actively monitor their children's viewing. The Senate this week held hearings on a proposal by Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.) to regulate the hours at which programs deemed unacceptable for children could be broadcast. This plan, though well-intentioned, is objectionable on two accounts. Not only does it involve the government in evaluating the acceptability of ideas--the very thing the 1st Amendment was created to prevent--but it also lets the government decide when those ideas may be expressed. Good intentions cannot dispel the odor of censorship emitted by this proposal. Another idea, already incorporated in the Senate's comprehensive telecommunications legislation, is for the so- called V-chip. This is an electronic device that would be built into TV sets and would react to a broadcast signal or tag, blocking reception of programs identified as too violent or otherwise objectionable. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), sponsor of the V-chip proposal, would require manufacturers to begin installing such chips in new TV sets and would order the broadcasting industry to ``voluntarily'' develop a system for rating their programs for excessive violence and other objectionable content. If the industry didn't comply within a year, then a government panel would be empowered to create the ratings, which broadcasters would be required to use in tagging their programs to work with the interactive chip. The 1st Amendment hazard in Conrad's measure ought to be obvious. There can be no truly voluntary rating system under the sort of duress that this legislation implies. What's more, for the government to require broadcasters to label their programs as too violent or too salacious is intolerable interference with the right to free expression. New television sets ought to come with blocking devices; Congress ought to require them if manufacturers do not voluntarily include them. But decisions as to what to block ought to remain in the hands of parents, finding their guidance wherever they choose. There is no shortage of groups--religious, artistic, others--offering views on what is worthy children's TV fare. Let them provide the information and give power to the parents.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I was proud to be the chief Senate sponsor of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, signed into law by President Clinton in April 1994. The act provides venture capital for the coordination, integration, merger, streamlining, and performance- based accountability of education and vocational programs. The Department of Labor estimates that 116,351 students, 41,772 employers, and 2,730 schools are involved in state and local school-to-work ventures. Recently, I came across an insightful article by Hedrick Smith on why school to work is so important to the education of our young people and the economic competitiveness of our Nation. I ask that the article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the St. Louis Post Dispatch, July 14, 1995] Dual Education Teaches Students To Work (By Hedrick Smith) With corporate profits and stock prices soaring, Wall Street has a lot to cheer about. The World Economic Forum of Switzerland now rates the United States as the world's most competitive economy. But the Forum mixed praise with the warning that America would lose its No. 1 status unless it develops better education for its high school students. Thoughtful business leaders echo the concern about the high cost of America's educational shortfall. Lou Gerstner, chief executive of IBM, says corporate America spends $30 billion a year on remedial education for new workers. Gerstner says American businesses lose another $30 billion each year, unable to upgrade their operations and products ``because their employees can't learn the necessary skills.'' ``We can't squander $60 billion and remain competitive,'' Gerstner declares. America is justifiably proud of its college-level education and its college-prep track. But high economic performance also requires a world-class education for our average teen- agers. Seventy percent of the jobs in the American economy do not require a bachelor's degree, and 70 percent of America's young people do not complete four years of college. They are the backbone of our future work force. Industry and the service sector needs hundreds of thousands of paralegals, radiologists, engineering technicians, graphic illustrators, medical technicians and research workers, plus a more flexible, computer-literate generation for banking, insurance and other service industries. But America lacks a nationwide educational strategy to meet the mushrooming needs of modern industry. The most innovative businesses, educators and communities have discovered that one solution lies in rethinking education and forging a close partnership between business and high schools. Some innovators have found a model in Germany. Two-thirds of Germany's teen-agers take ``dual education,'' which combines classroom learning with half-time training on the job. This is not mere vocational training in a school shop class with outmoded technology. German teenagers are trained right in the modern workplace--the factory, bank, hospital, newspaper, insurance company and electronics giant. Business involvement drives classroom educational standards higher. In 400 career fields, German businesses and public schools deliver a world-class education: physics classes that help future auto workers understand electronics and computer-run automation; economics and finance classes that match the needs of modern banking; chemistry classes that prepare young printers to design and print complex illustrations on many surfaces. Several American states and cities have adapted the German model. In 1991, Wisconsin began a dual-education, apprenticeship- style program for high school students in its high-tech printing industry. So successful was the program that it moved into banking, insurance, health care, electronics, engineering, tourism, auto technology and manufacturing. From two communities in 1991, Wisconsin's youth apprenticeship program has spread to 200 businesses training 450 students from 85 high schools across the state. Pennsylvania, Maine, Arkansas, Maryland and upstate New York have begun similar programs. In Boston, hospitals and the financial industry are working with inner-city high schools. In Tulsa, Okla., the lead has been taken by the Chamber of Commerce and the machine-tool industry. [[Page S 10663]] These programs are generating great enthusiasm among businesses, parents, teachers and students. The results are dramatic: Student motivation and performance have soared. So a business-education partnership is taking root, but it is slow going. The gulf between business and education is still vast. They speak different languages and go their separate ways. Rethinking America's educational strategy requires overcoming suspicions, accepting joint responsibility and sitting down together to find the common ground. Business and education have to rewrite school courses, train industry mentors, retrain teachers and devise industrial and educational standards that meet the test of global competition. German industry spends about $15 billion a year on dual education. To match that commitment, American industry would have to spend $60 billion a year. Impossible, you say? But remember, Gerstner says that American industry is already spending or losing $60 billion because of our educational shortfall. So why not spend the money upfront on a world-class, dual-education system? In 1993, Congress passed the School-to-Work Act, authorizing $250 million a year in seed money for seven years to develop this new strategy for high school education. States had to compete for federal ``venture capital'' to help them gear up for this new approach. In 1994, grants went to eight leading-edge states and 36 local areas. More are lined up this year--that is, unless Congress kills this wise investment in America's future. That would shortchange both our economy and the next generation.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I do not know if anything can be done. But I think we ought to do everything we can to save these children, if possible, in this horrible, horrible situation in which they find themselves. Obviously, these would only be volunteers. Let me say for those who have fears of the religious implications, because these are mostly Moslem children, though not entirely. There are a number of Bosnian families in the United States as well as in Western Europe who, I am sure, would be willing to take these children--not all of them obviously, but many of them would--so that they could be raised in homes where there is a Bosnian culture and a Moslem background. So the religious factor should not be a barrier to going ahead. Again, Mr. President, I do not have any good answer. But I do think this idea of somehow saving these children, or as many of them as we can, is just a sound, simple, humanitarian thing to do. I hope that somehow we can do something.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I think it is fairly clear that we are heading toward some kind of a military climax in the Bosnian situation. Precisely what is going to happen I do not know. None of us knows. But there is likely to be more bloodshed in the immediate future, and I hope not a continuation of the constant agony and bloodshed that we have seen these past few years since 1991. I have a citizen from Illinois by the name of Al Booth who says we took children out of Germany, Austria, and England in the very difficult years prior to and during World War II, saved a great many people, and that we ought to be doing something to save the children of Bosnia today. It is not simple. I have talked to Bosnian officials. My office has talked to the International Red Cross people. The Red Cross people said if you had taken them out by bus or by any kind of vehicle or by plane, and the plane is shot, there would be substantial criticism. There are at least some in the Bosnian Government who feel that to take the children out almost means you are sending a signal that the Government cannot continue, that it is going to collapse. It is a difficult situation. At this point I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Al Booth that was printed in the Chicago Tribune about this situation.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, in response to that letter, he received a letter from the consul general of France. Let me just read two paragraphs from this letter. The consul general read Al Booth's letter in the Chicago Tribune: In addition to its participation in the organization of an air shuttle in Sarajevo and the creation of a central pharmacy in Bihac, the French Government evacuated more than 200 Bosnian children between 1993 and 1994. Furthermore, a private association called ``Equilibre,'' with the support of our Regional Councils, organized in November 92 the temporary evacuation of 1045 mothers and children. This operation was repeated in 1994 for 1000 children and their mothers. For a total of 2,045. This time the operation concentrated on the children whose health was failing and who could not have spent the winter in Bosnia. He says these operations would not have been possible without the support of the French Government in particular regarding the retention of temporary permits for the accompanying adults. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter of the French Consul General.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, Senator Jeffords and I are introducing today a bill entitled ``The International Peace Operations Support Act of 1995.'' The bill would enhance the U.S. military's ability to contribute to international peace operations, and is similar to legislation we introduced in the last Congress. The Simon-Jeffords bill requires the President to report to Congress on a plan to earmark within the Armed Forces a contingency force that could be used for peace and humanitarian operations, and could be deployed on 24-hour notice. The force would include up to 3,000 active- duty personnel from any of the services, who would volunteer to serve in international peace operations. The soldiers would receive extra compensation for their participation, and would get special training for such operations. Additionally, the bill augments the mission statements of the Army, Navy, and Air Force by affirming that their responsibilities include participation in ``international peacekeeping operations, humanitarian activities, and refugee assistance activities, when determined by the President to be in the national interest.'' Senator Jeffords and I designed this legislation to help the U.S. military meet some of the emerging threats in the post-cold-war era: ethnic conflicts and civil wars that cause regional instability, humanitarian disasters, and aggressors that threaten our interests overseas. Just as the military was used to confront the threat of the cold war, it will be called upon to address the threats of today and tomorrow. This has been evident in recent years in Bangladesh, Somalia, Macedonia, Rwanda, and Haiti, where the United States military has been asked to perform missions beyond the scope of traditional war-fighting, generally called peace operations. Some reject categorically these kinds of roles for our military. I believe that is a mistake, and a denial of reality. That point of view implies that our military planners should prepare only for the big ones like World War II on the gulf war. That notion is not realistic, and would not serve our national security interests. Regional conflicts and instability are inevitable, and humanitarian disasters are inescapable. Peace operations will be needed, and the U.S. military--the most capable in the world--will be called upon to respond, so long as our Nation rejects isolationism. Simon-Jeffords bill would help us respond to emergencies and crises by consolidating up to 3,000 soldiers with both the will and the training to undertake peace operations, who could react on short, perhaps 24-hour, notice. Let me give an example of why this is important: In May 1994, when the situation in Rwanda was going from worse to horrific, Senator Jeffords and I called the Canadian general in charge of the small U.N. force there. General Daullaire made it clear that the quick infusion of 5,000-8,000 troops could stabilize the situation. Unfortunately, the United Nations did not have the troops, nor were nations willing to provide them, and we subsequently witnessed the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Rapid deployment of a contingency force as envisioned in this bill, in conjunction with similar forces in other countries, may have been able to help General Daullaire prevent some of the tragedy in Rwanda. The concept of rapid reaction capability is neither new nor is it revolutionary. The first U.N. Secretary General, Trygve Lie, raised the idea in 1948, and there is a growing interest among the international community in enhanced military responsiveness. In fact, the United States is far behind our allies on new thinking in these areas. Canada is studying proposals to have nations designate contingency forces for peace operations, which would be coordinated by a central headquarters in some location. Our bill would fit into that plan very well. Denmark and the Netherlands are also formulating plans on quick reaction forces. The U.S. military realizes that we will have to deal with regional crises, and I give credit to the services for incorporating peace and humanitarian operations into their mission statements, strategy and planning. The National Military Strategy prepared by the Joint Chiefs finds that peacetime engagement activities are a primary military task--activities such as peacekeeping, humanitarian operations and democratic assistance. Senator Jeffords and I believe our bill complements these efforts already underway. I noted before that the contingency force would be made of volunteers, who would be given added compensation. This is all volunteers, who would be given added compensation. This is an important component. We must recall that despite the difficulties with our operations in Somalia and Haiti, our soldiers expressed a sense of pride and accomplishment in their missions to help the people in these troubled lands. I imagine that it would not be difficult to find soldiers who would like to join this force. The burden of world leadership is on the United States--we are the richest, the most influential, and the most militarily capable nation. Our soldiers will inevitably be called on to respond to world crises. The Simon-Jeffords bill can improve our response capability by providing for a contingency force of specially trained troops for quick deployment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, today I introduce the Stop Arming Felons Act [SAFe], a bill to correct dangerous Federal and State legislative loopholes which allow convicted felons to possess firearms. Until Senator Lautenberg and I shut down funding for the Federal loophole in 1992, millions of taxpayers' dollars had been spent rearming felons. This money was spent because a 1965 gun control statute has required the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms [BATF] to process gun ownership applications submitted by convicted felons. While in general the 1968 Gun Control Act prohibits persons convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year from possessing a firearm, this 1965 loophole allowed convicted felons to apply to BATF and petition for a waiver on the ground that the felon ``will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.'' Certainly, this wasn't the intention of Congress when it passed the exemption in 1965. In fact, it was passed as a favor to the Winchester Firearms Co., whose parent organization had been found guilty of a kickback scheme. Without the amendment, the company would have gone bankrupt. In 1968, however, the language was expanded to allow individuals to apply. According to the Washington Post, some 22,000 such applications for exemption by individuals were processed by BATF from 1986-91--at a taxpayer cost of approximately $4 million a year. This means that from fiscal years 1985 to 1991, BATF spent well over $20 million to investigate gun possession applications submitted by felons. Not only is the process costly, it's also very laborious. Because the applicants' eligibility is dependent upon the laws of the State where they were convicted, BATF agents must be familiar with 50 different statutes. Furthermore, many of the numerous applications for relief require a background check and an extensive investigation of the former felon. These time consuming, often tedious investigations are performed by agents who would otherwise be investigating violent crimes. Senator Lautenberg and I have successfully shut down funding for the BATF Program since 1992 through the appropriations process. This year, however, a House subcommittee voted to lift the funding prohibition on a partyline vote. Fortunately, Congressman Durbin and his Democratic colleagues successfully reinstated the prohibition at the full committee markup. It is time to put a permanent end to this program, or we risk getting into annual appropriations struggles over whether or not to spend money rearming felons. Indeed, when the House committee first agreed to revise the action of the subcommittee, they offered language which stated that there should be no assurance that the funding prohibition would be maintained in fiscal year 1997. Again, Congressman Durbin successfully offered an amendment to strike that language. When the House subcommittee voted to restore funding this year, Chairman Lightfoot stated: ``I don't see this as dangerous. Violent people won't apply in the first place.'' Similarly, an NRA spokesman claimed: ``We're talking about individuals who may have run afoul of Federal law but paid their debt to society.'' These statements are simply untrue. Running ``afoul'' of Federal law would be a huge understatement to describe many of the crimes committed by the felons who not only apply for relief, but who are actually granted waivers by the BATF under this program. For example, according to a 1992 Violence Policy Center study, out of a random sample of 100 applicants who were granted relief by the BATF, 11 originally were convicted of burglary, 17 were convicted of drug-related offenses, 8 were convicted of firearm violations, 5 were convicted of robbery, including 1 who committed armed robbery with a handgun, and 5 were convicted of sexual assault, including aggravated rape, sodomy, and child molestation. Here are some of the stories behind the numbers: Jerome Sanford Brower was granted relief after pleading guilty to charges of conspiracy to transport explosives. He transported explosives to Libya and instructed Libyans in defusing explosive devices. An applicant was granted relief in 1989 after serving 24 months for voluntary manslaughter after killing his cousin with a 16-gauge shotgun. An applicant, granted relief in 1989, pleaded guilty to sexual abuse after assaulting his 14-year-old stepdaughter. An applicant, granted relief in 1989, was convicted of armed robbery and served 18 months for robbing a K-Mart with a loaded .38 caliber revolver. In addition to these examples, the numbers of applicants rejected also gives us insight into the types of felons who are applying to regain their right to carry a weapon. After conducting extensive investigations, the BATF may deny the applications of felons who will ``be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.'' Under this standard, the BATF found it necessary to deny 3,498, or approximately one-third of all applications, between 1981-91. In other words, BATF determined that almost 3,500 applicants might pose a threat to public safety. Not only do violent felons apply to have their rights restored, but many commit crimes after their applications are approved by the BATF. Almost 5 percent of those felons granted relief in 1986 were rearrested by 1990. According to the Violence Policy Center's report, none of these recidivist crimes were white collar, but rather were violent crimes ranging from attempted murder, sexual assault, abduction- kidnapping, child molestation, drug trafficking, and illegal firearms possession. Amazingly, an application for relief isn't always necessary: several States automatically restore gun privileges to felons upon the completion of their sentence. In other words, some States restore the civil rights, including their firearms rights, of convicted felons the minute they walk out of prison, or within several months of their release. Felons in these States need not even apply to BATF to get their firearms rights restored. This State loophole, in the words of a Justice Department official, is ``the biggest problem'' facing U.S. attorney's today. Perhaps the most disturbing case of this type has been that of Idaho felon Baldemar Gomez. He had been convicted of second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter and battery on a correctional officer. However, because Idaho was one of the States that automatically restored convicts' civil rights upon their release from prison, in the words of Assistant U.S. Attorney Kim Lindquist, ``when Baldemar walked out of the penitentiary, someone could have been standing there and handed him a shotgun and it would have been entirely legal * * *''. In 1987, Gomez was rearrested during a drug raid and was convicted of violating the Gun Control Act by knowingly possessing a firearm after having been previously convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a period of more than 1 year. However, this conviction was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals because of Idaho's automatic relief provision. In response to the Gomez case, the Idaho legislature changed its law so that felons must wait 5 years after their sentence and then get State approval in order to own a firearm. Some States, however, still have laws which restore firearms rights to convicted felons without such review. Fortunately, we can eliminate these dangerous loopholes by passing the Stop Arming Felons Act [SAFe]. Our act can put a permanent end to the unnecessary expense of the BATF Program and put the agents at BATF back to work on the investigation of violent crimes--not convicted felons. Specifically, the bill would prohibit individuals, including felons and fugitives from Justice, from applying to BATF for firearms disability relief. Furthermore, the SAFe Act would address the State loophole by prohibiting States from restoring firearm privileges to violent felons. Nonviolent felons may be granted a waiver, but only after the State has made an individualized determination that the person would not pose a threat to public safety. How would this bill affect Illinois? Illinois law currently allows the State police to grant firearms privileges to nonviolent felons. Forcible--or violent--felons may not apply for relief. Because our proposed bill and the current Illinois firearm privilege restoration procedures are so similar, Illinois would benefit from this bill, because the residents of Illinois would no longer have to fund the BATF relief procedure through their taxes. I feel confident that most of my colleagues will support this measure. While many of us have differed in the past over issues such as controlling assault weapons and passing a handgun waiting period, I think we can all agree that convicted felons should not be applying to the Federal Government for firearms relief at the taxpayers' expense-- nor should violent felons be getting relief from the States. This is simply common sense. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. SIMON

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

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. With that assurance, I will withdraw my amendment.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this is an amendment I discussed with Senator Burns. It solves a problem that has been festering in regard to an abandoned military base. Everyone--Congressman Porter from the House side--everyone has agreed to it. I understand there may be some problems. I yield to Senator Burns.