Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I offer an amendment on behalf of Senator Jeffords and myself.

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

Mr. SIMON. It will be a great disappointment but I will only speak about 5 minutes on this amendment. I offer this amendment on behalf of Senator Jeffords and myself, an amendment that does not have anything to do with aviation, but we need a vehicle on a bill that is eminently sound and is really needed. Mr. President, we have right now $3 trillion worth of pension funds that are backed by ERISA. Of those $3 trillion, better than $2 billion, almost $2.1 billion, are adequately audited. The GAO and the inspector general of the Department of Labor say that we should do away with what is called the limited scope audit. Now, what is a limited scope audit? A limited scope audit permits a bank or an insurance company simply to sign a statement to a pension fund, saying we have $300 million in assets, period. This bill does away with that because we have $950 billion worth of taxpayer funds at risk if we do not modify this. That is what GAO tells us and this bill is what GAO has recommended. Let me just add, this does not require the pension fund to go in an audit. I assume a bank or an insurance company will have their own auditor. This simply says we need an audit report, not simply a one- line statement saying that they have so many million dollars in assets. Let me just read one section here: ``If an accountant is offering his opinion under this section in the case of an employee pension benefit plan, the accountant shall, to the extent consistent with generally accepted auditing standards, rely on the work of any independent public accountant of any bank or similar institution or insurance carrier regulated and supervised and subject to periodic''--and so forth. So we permit those institutions to use their own audits. I was stunned, frankly, when I heard that we do not have adequate auditing on $950 billion worth of employee pension funds. That is what this takes care of. The accounting profession is for it. People who have examined this are astounded that we have not done it before. I understand the reluctance on the part of the Senator from Arizona to take an amendment that has nothing to do with aviation. But if we are going to protect the taxpayers on this--and I know my friend from South Dakota, the Presiding Officer, wants to protect the taxpayers, the Senator from Kentucky does, and all of us do--this is a chance to do it. I hope that this will be accepted when we vote tomorrow. Mr. President, unless anyone has any questions or anyone seeks the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SIMON. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, just so I understand the procedure, does that mean we will not go through the amendments this evening necessarily?

Mr. SIMON. I would like to accommodate the Senator from Arizona. So your preference would be that I go ahead with this amendment this evening?

Mr. SIMON. I have no objection.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico for yielding. I rise to express concern as to what is not in this bill. Thanks to the cooperation of Senator Domenici--on a piece of legislation that is cosponsored by Senator Brown, the Presiding Officer--we did pass legislation authorizing research in the area of converting salt water to fresh water. Now, that may seem not very important, but long term, 20 years from now--if I am around 20 years from now; the Presiding Officer will be around--the headlines in the newspapers are not likely to be about oil. They are likely to be about water. Let me give a capsule of where we are in the world and what we need to do to start moving ahead in the same way that Senator Domenici has been moving ahead on mental health. Sometimes you have to lose a few battles before you win the battles. We are in a situation where, depending on whose estimate you believe, in the next 45 to 60 years we will double the world's population. Our water supply, however, is constant. Now, you do not need to be an Einstein to understand we are headed for major problems. Yet 97 percent of the world's water we cannot use. It is salt water. We live on less than 3 percent of the water. I say less than 3 percent because a lot of the fresh water is tied up in snow and icebergs and other things. We are headed toward major problems. The World Bank says in 20 years 35 nations will have severe water problems. You can find substitutes for oil. There is no substitute for water. That is why people like President Sadat, the late Prime Minister Rabin and others have said if there is another war in the Middle East, it will not be over land, it will be over water. There have been people in the past who have recognized this need. It is interesting, Mr. President, that Dwight Eisenhower, President of the United States, did on several occasions mention that this is an area we have to move ahead on. In his final message to Congress, his final State of the Union Message, Dwight Eisenhower said one of the things we have to work on is finding less expensive ways of converting salt water to fresh water. The reality is the cost of fresh water is gradually going up, the cost of desalinating water is gradually coming down, but there is a great gap there. That great gap is going to hurt us unless we move in the area of research. What I was trying to do and what we had on the floor here is we put $5 million out of the $14 million that are authorized. Dwight Eisenhower was not alone. In 1962, John F. Kennedy was asked at a press conference, What is the most important scientific breakthrough you would like to see during your term as President? He said, ``You heard me talking about getting a man to the Moon, but let me tell you if you really want to do something for humanity, we should find a less expensive way of converting salt water to fresh water.'' Almost 70 percent of the world's population lives within 50 miles of the ocean. If we could get a breakthrough on converting salt water to fresh water, California would not have the problems it is heading toward and California could share water with New Mexico and other States. I was looking through reports on rural water districts and was looking at New Mexico the other day, and in New Mexico, unlike Illinois and many other States, there is an inadequate water supply for a lot of rural communities. Desalination, in some cases converting brackish water to fresh water--primarily we have to be looking toward converting seawater to fresh water. And it is interesting--I was in Israel about 3 weeks ago. I met with the new Prime Minister and with former Prime Minister Shimon Peres. Let me tell you, every Israeli public official can speak very knowledgeably about water because it is so crucial to their future. We have not had a significant breakthrough since 1978 in this research. At one point, in current dollars, we were up to about $121 million a year that we were spending in research. It has gone down. Incidentally, sometimes you accidentally get breakthroughs. Through the breakthrough in reverse osmosis, we developed a breakthrough in renal dialysis for people who have kidney disease. It used to be, if you had kidney disease and you wanted to have renal assistance, you had to go to a hospital. It was a very complicated process. It is still not good, but there was a significant breakthrough. But we need to get additional breakthroughs at this time. It is just vital to the future of humanity. In areas that do not grow any crops, like much of New Mexico, if you get enough water there, all of a sudden, it is going to be very productive land. There is nothing that could do as much to lift the standard of living of humanity, as a whole, than to find less expensive ways of converting salt water to fresh water. When you double the world's population--and I stress that every estimate is that we are going to double the world's population either in 45 years or 60 years. I have seen, in my lifetime--and I was born in 1928--a tripling of the world population. Fortunately, we have been able to produce enough food so that the quality of life for most people on the face of the Earth has gone up. That will not continue, unless we find another supply of water. Converting salt water to fresh water is inexpensive enough for drinking purposes. But the difficulty is that almost 90 percent of the water we use is for industrial and agricultural purposes. That, today, is far too expensive. One of our problems in Government--and I say this to the Presiding Officer, who is retiring along with me and, I think, maybe looks at these things from a little perspective--one of our problems in Government, as is the problem in American business today, is that we are much too short term in our outlooks. In politics, we are looking at the next election and what is going to happen. In business, it is the next quarterly report or the next stockholders meeting. One of the things, long term, that is vital to humanity, is seeing to it that we have water--water to grow crops, water for industry, water to drink. This water that we take for granted is not something that can be taken for granted in the future. I mention this now not to raise opposition to this bill, but I will be trying to put this small--and it is small, relative to where we should be--my colleague, Senator Harry Reid said to me, ``It is almost embarrassing that we are just asking for $5 million when you have such a pressing need.'' I am going to do my best to see that on the continuing resolution we have some money for this purpose. It really is vital to the future of our country. It is vital to the future of civilization. I hope we can move in a constructive direction. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I yield the balance of my time.

Mr. SIMON. If my colleague will yield, let me say that the conversion of brackish water is less expensive than the conversion of sea water. It is one of these areas where the two work together. If we can find the answer for one, we are going to find the answer for the other. The Senator is correct that other nations are doing more. It is very interesting that the metropolitan water district of Los Angeles, which is the biggest water district in the United States--maybe in the world, I don't know--is doing some research on desalinization. They are getting $3 million in aid from Israel for their experiment, for their research. You know, we really should not have to depend on foreign aid to get this research done. We ought to be working with other countries. I am not going to be here next year. I hope we can get a small start for the $5 million yet this year in the continuing resolution. And then I hope in the future, when Senator Domenici, Senator Specter, and others are here, that Senator Domenici can push this area that is so important. Let me just add one final word. Shimon Peres wrote a book in which he says that the real key to stabilizing the Middle East is finding less expensive ways of converting saltwater to freshwater. That was one of the points that Dwight Eisenhower made a long time ago. I thank my colleague for yielding. budget impact of h.r. 3816

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, during much of my time in the Senate I was fortunate to serve on the Foreign Relations Committee. With our responsibility to approve the nominations of ambassadors and others, I had the opportunity to meet so many of the fine men and women who serve our Nation overseas. One of those outstanding public servants is Peter Galbraith. I got to know Peter when I came to the Foreign Relations Committee in 1985 and he was a staff member. I was grateful for the diligent, thoughtful, and excellent staff work he provided. In 1993, I was pleased to vote to approve his nomination as the first-ever U.S. Ambassador to Croatia, a position he currently holds. There has been a certain amount of controversy surrounding Ambassador Galbraith in the last year. This summer he was called to testify before Congress on his involvement relating to third-party transfers of arms to the Muslims in Bosnia. While Ambassador Galbraith has faced criticism from several corners, it seems to me that he was doing the job that ambassadors are supposed to do, and that is carry out the policies set forth by the President and his administration. Peter has at times been disparaged as an activist. If this label is applied to someone who wants to change things for the better, then Peter should be proud of that characterization. As a staffer on the Foreign Relations Committee, he was known as a tireless campaigner for human rights. The story of his trip to Iraqi Kurdistan after the gulf war is well known. He helped bring attention to the plight of the Kurds and rescued key documents before they could fall into the hands of Saddam Hussein's regime. Benazir Bhutto, now Prime Minister of Pakistan, credited Peter with helping attain her release from prison. And in another famous incident, he achieved in helping Senator Pat Moynihan--a strong advocate for the Bosnian Muslims--get into Sarajevo in 1992 to survey the besieged city. This event may have aggravated some United States military officials at the time, but it helped increase the Senate's understanding of what was going on in Bosnia. Now, as the first envoy to Croatia, a nation only 5 years old, Ambassador Galbraith has had the responsibility to develop the new relationship between our two countries. His service has occurred during an extremely trying and tragic period in the Balkans. Such a job is not easy, and it is understandable to see how one could get stuck between a rock and a hard place. These circumstances call for strong and able, even aggressive, diplomats, and Ambassador Galbraith has been just that.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield? If my colleague will yield, I just got the amendment. I have been trying to get the amendment. Does this apply to Federal workers only or does this apply to the entire work force?

Mr. SIMON. I do not know whether I am for or against his amendment now. If we can avoid voting for a little while, while we consult with some people on this, I would appreciate it.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, in line with what the distinguished Senator from Missouri just said, I ask unanimous consent this temporarily be set aside.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I say to Senator Lautenberg, I would like to raise an issue of great importance. The current version of this appropriations bill would not fund the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' [ATF] disability relief program. Under current Federal law, someone who has been convicted of a crime punishable by more than 1 year is ineligible, or disabled, from possessing a firearm--a sensible idea. However, Congress created a loophole in 1965 whereby convicted felons could apply to ATF to have their firearm privileges restored, at an estimated taxpayer cost of $10,000 per waiver granted. We have fought to end this program and have succeeded in stripping the program's funding in annual appropriations bills since 1992. This year, we face an additional challenge in our efforts to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons. A recent court case in Pennsylvania has misinterpreted our intentions and opened the door for these convicted felons to apply for judicial review of their disability relief applications. In this case, Rice versus United States, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that the current funding prohibition does not make clear congressional intent to bar all avenues of relief for convicted felons. By their reasoning, since ATF is unable to consider applications for relief, felons are entitled to ask the courts to review their applications. This misguided decision could flood the courts with felons seeking the restoration of their gun rights, effectively shifting from ATF to the courts the burden of considering these applications. Instead of wasting taxpayer money and the time of ATF agents--which could be much better spent on important law enforcement efforts, such as the investigation of church arsons--we would now be wasting court resources and distracting the courts from consideration of serious criminal cases. Fortunately, another decision by the fifth circuit in U.S. versus McGill found that congressional intent to prohibit any Federal relief-- either through ATF or the courts--is clear. The fifth circuit concluded that convicted felons are therefore not eligible for judicial review of their relief applications. Given this conflict in the circuit courts, we should clarify our original and sustaining intention. The goal of this provision has always been to prohibit convicted felons from getting their guns back-- whether through ATF or the courts. It was never our intention to shift the burden to the courts. Congressman Durbin and his colleagues succeeded in their efforts to include language in the House appropriations bill to make clear that convicted felons may not use the courts in their efforts to get their guns back. I applaud the House committee for its wise vote on this issue. During the same markup, Congressman Durbin's efforts were undermined by a related exemption offered by Congressman Obey. This exemption would allow those individuals convicted of nonviolent felonies the ability to appeal for judicial review of their relief application. According to Congressman Obey's amendment, the opportunity to appeal to the courts would be closed to those ``felons convicted of violent crimes, firearms violations, or drug-related crimes.'' All other felons would be allowed to apply to the courts for review of their relief applications. Mr. Obey's exemption is clearly inconsistent with the original intent of this provision for three simple reasons: First, one need only consider people like Al Capone and countless other violent criminals who were convicted of lesser, nonviolent felonies, to understand how dangerous this ``Capone amendment'' will be to public safety. Our intent when we first passed this provision--and every year thereafter--has been to prohibit anyone who was convicted of a crime punishable by more than 1 year from restoring their gun privileges via the ATF procedure or a judicial review. Second, as Dewey Stokes, the former President of the Fraternal Order of Police noted, most criminals do not commit murder as their first crime. Rather, most criminals start by committing non-violent crimes which escalate into violent crimes. An ATF analysis shows that between 1985 and 1992, 69 non-violent felons were granted firearms relief and subsequently re-arrested for violent crimes such as attempted murder, first degree sexual assault, child molestation, kidnaping/abduction, and drug trafficking. Third, there is no reason in the world for the taxpayers' money and court resources to be wasted by allowing the review of any convicted felons' application to get their guns back. It made no sense for ATF to take agents away from their important law enforcement work, and it makes even less sense for the courts, which have no experience or expertise in this area, to be burdened with this unnecessary job. Let me make this point perfectly clear: It was never our intent, nor is it now, for the courts to review a convicted felon's application for firearm privilege restoration.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, one of the ablest aldermen in the city of Chicago, Burton F. Natarus, recently had a commentary in the Chicago Tribune in which he calls for a public works program along the lines of the WPA. It makes eminent good sense. We can learn from history, but we're apparently unwilling to do it. The welfare bill that passed is going to cause huge problems in our society if we don't come up with something better and do it quickly. A WPA type of welfare reform would cost a little more initially, but saves huge amounts of money in the long run and be of great assistance to impoverished areas, whether rural or urban. Right now we are trying to have welfare reform but do it without creating jobs for the unskilled and without having day care for their children. Anything labeled ``welfare reform'' that doesn't provide the jobs and doesn't provide day care is not really welfare reform. Mr. President, I ask that Alderman Natarus' article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Chicago Tribute, Aug. 22, 1996] Should We Trot Out the New Deal Again? (By Burton F. Natarus) On July 24, the Senate approved a comprehensive welfare bill, the most sweeping change since the creation of the New Deal 60 years ago. Federal guarantees of cash assistance for the nation's poorest children have evaporated and states will be given new powers to run welfare on their own. The measure also imposes a five-year lifetime limit on cash assistance payments to any family and requires the head of every family on welfare to work within two years or lose benefits. While we laud the new thrust toward the self-sufficiency of our population, and the end of the obsolete aspects of the 60-year-old welfare system, we have serious concerns about jobs. Where are they to come from? Where is the new workforce to go? To Bainbridge Island, Wash., to work for Microsoft? To the high-tech Naperville corridor for that chemical engineering position? The welfare reform bill, which President Clinton is expected to sign, presumes there will be jobs available for the workforce. These jobs may or may not exist and we have to face the brutal fact that generations of welfare families have no saleable working skills. Recall the controversial ``workfare'' Comprehensive Employment and Training Act program from the Nixon administration in the flush, moneyed '70s, when Congress tried to create jobs accompanied by teaching and skills training. Limited in scope and a short-term solution to unemployment, it finally ended with the Reagan era and here we are 10 years later with no significant federal jobs program as we throw the poor out on their own. With the CETA program, the private sector created low-level and semi-skilled jobs, which concentrated in the food service, truck driving and clerical fields. There were considerable financial incentives for the private sector to participate in CETA. These incentives do not exist today and the private sector may not be willing nor is it able to create entry-level jobs in sufficient numbers. In 1929, the Depression commenced its sad and ugly course and by 1933 12 million able-bodied Americans were out of work. No work. No money. The country was, however, fortunate enough to have Franklin Roosevelt as its 32nd president. We know of his long roster of massive relief measures and social programs to cope with the Depression and a country in crisis: farm relief, unemployment insurance, Social Security, fair bankruptcy and foreclosure procedures and numerous federal jobs measures. At the 1932 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Roosevelt declared, ``I pledge myself to a new deal. . . . This is more than a political campaign; it is a call to arms.'' What we need is a ``new'' New Deal and a call to arms. Let us recall some of those job-creating public works bills of the Roosevelt administration. In March 1933, his recovery plan included the Civilian Conservation Corps, which gave 250,000 young men meals, housing, wages and the necessities of life for their work in the national forests and other government properties. There was the Works Progress Administration and in the words of Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.) 10 years ago, it was ``refreshingly sensible.'' The WPA put 8.5 million people to work building bridges, airports, highways and developing programs to foster cultural awareness. The Federal Art Project's works are still seen today in murals at such places as Lane Tech and the Lakeview Post Office. Hundreds of thousands of Chicagoans worked for the WPA during these years, including thousands of laborers, artists and writers who worked for $95 a month. In Illinois, from 1935-38, these new hires built 28 million square feet of sidewalks, 1,895 rural bridges, 300,000 public artworks. A recent New York Times Magazine article entitled, ``When Work Disappears'' recounts the staggering national accomplishments of the administration, from playgrounds, athletic fields, viaducts and culverts, to LaGuardia Airport and FDR Drive. This week it has been nationally reported that the cities with the most decrepit crumbling and unsafe bridges in the country are New York and Washington, D.C. In Chicago, we could also use the help of our citizens in repairing old infrastructure. The Public Works Administration created jobs and stimulated business between 1933 and 1939. The federal government spent $6 billion on construction of the Washington, D.C. Mall, Hoover Dam, the Lincoln Tunnel and Ft. Knox. This bureau also created jobs geared toward the preservation of public works. The creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority put the government in the electric power business, selling electricity in competition with private firms, and giving the government ownership of hydroelectric plants in large rivers. Under the program, Norris Dam was built on the Tennessee River and the Bonneville and Grand Coulee on the Columbia River. These dams employed hundreds of thousands of people who ended up not only supporting themselves and their families but constructing enduring legacies for the country. How many flood plains could use dams right here in Illinois? World War II eventually solved the unemployment problem but you can imagine how bereft the country would have been for those 10 years without the PWA, the WPA, the CCC and the TVA. One powerful reason why it makes good economic sense to place people on the federal payroll is that the jobs are taxable and the tax monies revert to the federal government as wages are disbursed. Programs such as the WPA pay for themselves in the long run, which is so much more financially efficient than a dole or handout. Furthermore, when the federal worker leaves his public sector job he will be ready, or at least more ready, for private sector employment, having received on-the-job training in a specific field. Incidentally, the jobs would not be ad aeternitum nor for the lifetime of an individual. They would be for a finite period after which time others would be hired and given a chance to learn replicable skills. By creating these government jobs an economic rippling effect inevitably occurs in which private industry is stimulated. A federal public jobs program would not carry the stigma of welfare so public jobs must be made available for those who will no longer be on the dole. We owe our citizens this much. This is indeed a call to arms and in this matter we have no choice. `The WPA was the most beneficial project in the history of the United States. Bringing it back is long overdue . . . There are plenty of projects now without having to make work. Everything is deteriorating--bridges, buildings, roads, schools, everything.'

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the Los Angeles Times recently carried an op-ed piece by James P. Muldoon, Jr., and Rafael Moreno under the title, ``Why Do We Keep Stiffing the U.N.?'' My colleagues know of my unhappiness with our failure to pay the debt we owe. Our provincialism is astounding. The article refers to our debt as being $1.5 billion. That may be a slight exaggeration, but it is at least $1.2 billion and probably somewhat higher than that. What is also of interest is their paragraph on relative cost paid by different countries. They write: It's difficult for Europeans to accept that the U.N. is a budget-buster for the U.S. The costs to Americans for the U.N. in general and U.N. peacekeeping in particular are significantly lower than they are for Europeans. The U.S. costs for the 1996 U.N. regular budget come to only $1.24 per American, while the people of San Marino owe $4.75 each. Luxembourg $2.06 each and for the Swedes $1.57 each. The U.S. per capita cost for 16 U.N. peacekeeping operations in 1994 was less than $4. I ask my colleagues to read what Mr. Muldoon and Mr. Moreno have to say. I ask that the op-ed piece be printed in the Record. The op-ed piece follows: Why Do We Keep Stiffing the U.N.? (By James P. Muldoon Jr. and Rafael Moreno) Italian President Oscar Scalfaro, in an address to the U.N. General Assembly earlier this year, diplomatically yet firmly took the United States to task about its mountain of debt to the United Nations. Sadly, Scalfaro's message is hardly new. Over the past few months, nearly all our European partners have expressed similar discontent with U.S. leadership at the

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, recently, Lawrence Gladieux and Robert Reischauer had an op-ed piece in the Washington Post that is a thoughtful and careful analysis of what we ought to be doing in the field of education. President Clinton deserves praise for being a genuine education President. He was a genuine education Governor, as Governor of Arkansas, also. President Clinton's support of direct lending in the face of strong opposition from the banks and the guaranty agencies marks him as no flash-in-the-pan gladiator who gives up easily. But the wisdom of having any kind of tax cuts at this point in our Nation's fiscal history is extremely doubtful. If we want to put more money into education, as I do, we can do it much more wisely and prudently than through the proposals that have been announced by the President, popular as they are. I ask that the Gladieux and Reischauer item be printed in the Record. The material follows: [From the Washington Post] Higher Tuition, More Grade Inflation (By Lawrence E. Gladieux and Robert D. Reischauer) More than any president since Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton has linked his presidency to strengthening and broadening American education. He has argued persuasively that the nation needs to increase its investment in education to spur economic growth, expand opportunity and reduce growing income disparities. He has certainly earned the right to try to make education work for him as an issue in his reelection campaign, and that's clearly what he plans to do. Unfortunately, one way the president has chosen to pursue his goals for education is by competing with the GOP on tax cuts. The centerpiece of his education agenda--tax breaks for families paying college tuition--would be bad tax policy and worse education policy. While tuition tax relief may be wildly popular with voters and leave Republicans speechless, it won't achieve the president's worthy objectives for education, won't help those most in need and will create more problems than it solves. Under the president's plan, families could choose to deduct up to $10,000 in tuition from their taxable income or take a tax credit (a direct offset against federal income tax) of $1,500 for the first year of undergraduate education or training. The credit would be available for a second year if the student maintains a B average. The vast majority of taxpayers who incur tuition expenses-- joint filers with incomes up to $100,000 and single filers up to $70,000--would be eligible for these tax breaks. But before the nation invests the $43 billion that the administration says this plan will cost over the next six years, the public should demand that policy makers answer these questions: Will tuition tax credit and deductions boost postsecondary enrollment? Not significantly. Most of the benefits would go to families of students who would have attended college anyway. For them, it will be a windfall. That won't lift the country's net investment in education or widen opportunities for higher education. For families who don't have quite enough to send their child to college, the tax relief may come too late to make a difference. While those families could adjust their payroll withholding, most won't. Thus any relief would be realized in year-end tax refunds, long after families needed the money to pay the tuition. Will they help moderate- and low-income students who have the most difficulty meeting tuition costs? A tax deduction would be of no use to those without taxable income. On the other hand, the proposed $1,500 tax credit--because it would be ``refundable''--would benefit even students and families that owe no taxes. But nearly 4 million low-income students would largely be excluded from the tax credit because they receive Pell Grants which, under the Clinton plan, would be subtracted from their tax-credit eligibility. Will the plan lead to greater federal intrusion into higher education? The Internal Revenue Service would have to certify the amount of tuition students actually paid, the size of their Pell Grants and whether they maintained B averages. This could impose complex regulatory burdens on universities and further complicate the tax code. It's no wonder the Treasury Department has long resisted proposals for tuition tax breaks. Will the program encourage still higher tuition levels and more grade inflation? While the tuition spiral may be moderating slightly, college price increases have averaged more than twice the rate of inflation during the 1990s. With the vast majority of students receiving tax relief, colleges might have less incentive to hold down their tuition increases. Grades, which have been rising almost as rapidly as tuition, might get an extra boost too if professors hesitate to deny their students the B needed to renew the tax credit. If more than $40 billion in new resources really can be found to expand access to higher education, is this the best way to invest it? A far better alternative to tuition tax schemes is need-based student financial aid. The existing aid program, imperfect as they may be, are a much more effective way to equalize educational opportunity and increase enrollment rates. More than $40 billion could go a long way toward restoring the purchasing power of Pell Grants and other proven programs, whose benefits inflation has eroded by as much as 50 percent during the past 15 years. Unlike tuition tax cuts, expanded need-based aid would not drag the IRS into the process of delivering educational benefits. Need-based aid also is less likely to increase inflationary pressure on college prices, because such aid goes to only a portion of the college-going population. Economists have long argued that the tax code shouldn't be used if the same objective can be met through a direct- expenditure program. Tax incentives for college savings might make sense; parents seem to need more encouragement to put money away for their children's education. But tax relief for current tuition expenditures fails the test. Maybe Clinton's tuition tax-relief plan, like the Republican across-the-board tax-cut proposals, can be chalked up to election-year pandering that will be forgotten after November. But oft-repeated campaign themes sometimes make it into the policy stream. That was the case in 1992, when candidate Clinton promised student-loan reform and community service that, as president, he turned into constructive initiatives. If reelected, Clinton again may stick with his campaign mantra. This time, it's tuition tax breaks. This time, he shouldn't.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I have already mentioned to my colleagues that I think we are mishandling the matter of the election of the U.N. Secretary General. Our inattention to the needs beyond our boarder--as well as to poverty here at home is not something Americans can be proud of. And our failure to pay U.N. dues, our failure to join other nations in peacekeeping operations too frequently, our reluctance to lead when leadership is essential, and our negative tone toward U.N. Secretary- General Boutros Boutros-Ghali have all been mistakes. Recently Georgie Anne Geyer had a column in the Chicago Tribune commenting about our handling of the Boutros-Ghali matter. Georgie Anne Geyer is an experienced observer of the international scene; and when she comments on something like this, we should listen carefully to what she says. Mr. President, I ask that the article from the Chicago Tribune be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Chicago Tribune] Curious Case of White House versus the U.N. (By Georgie Anne Geyer) New York.--The international storm brewing here began May 13, when U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher received UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and told the controversial Egyptian diplomat flatly, ``President Clinton does not want to give you a second mandate.'' According to internal reports at the United Nations here, Boutros-Ghali said, only partly in jest, ``Look, you are a good lawyer: Defend my case,'' To which, Christopher responded, not in jest at all, ``I am the lawyer of the president of the United States and not yours.'' Not only was this curious case of the White House versus the UN Plaza not ``rested,'' but all hell then broke loose on a number of continents and in the corridors of myriad foreign ministries, from Beijing to Budapest. Christopher followed up the initial shock announcement by putting forward the idea of a ``compromise'' by which Boutros-Ghali would stay one year and then leave. (To which the Egyptian diplomat responded tartly: ``is this some sort of ``tip''? If so, it's not very generous.'') Next, in Bonn for meeting, Boutros-Ghali received a private phone call from New York warning him that an announcement would come from the State Department in Washington the next day that the United States no longer supported him. (And so, at that point, Boutros-Ghali, who is no slouch when it comes to tactics, peremptorily moved on this unique geopolitical chessboard, announcing his intention to seek re-election for another five-year term.) On July 8, the drama moved to Africa--to the Organization of African Unity meeting in Yaounde, Cameroon--where Washington sent an unusually large delegation of nine senior diplomats to try to sidetrack any support for the secretary- general. Instead, Only three of the 54 African member states voted against the Egyptian UN leader, one of those being war-torn Rwanda, which opposed him because of his criticism of the massacres there. If all of that were not enough, threats began to come out of the American administration that it would use its veto in the Security Council if Boutros-Ghali were backed this fall by a majority in the United Nations. But this presents a still further conundrum, for after the Cold War ended, Security Council members agreed not to use the veto, in order to free the UN from the constricting manner in which the Soviet Union had used it for so many years. All of this is now at a classic diplomatic impasse. From a day and more of interviewing in the UN, I can say that many, many foreign diplomats are mad as hell at what they perceive as a repetition of historical American arrogance. Floating around the United Nations now is the idea of a new ``compromise'' by which the secretary-general would accept a face-saving extension of his term. But that would not affect the main problem of this UN very much at all. The real problem is that this administration tries to assert its power on matters like the choice of a secretary- general but consistently refused to show any leadership on the big issues facing the post-Cold War UN. If the UN has been less than what it could have been in these pivotal years, the primary responsibility for that failure has not been Boutros-Ghali's.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, we are hearing a great deal of talk about whether a family should save a child or whether a village should save a child. Obviously, we all should be doing what we can to save children. The morning after the Democratic convention, I picked up the Chicago Tribune and read one person's moving story. Her name is Bunnie Reidel. I have never met her, but sometime I hope to have the honor of meeting her. She tells a story that is important for all Americans to hear. I ask that her story be printed in the Congressional Record. The article follows: Had It Not Been for the Village . . . (By Bunnie Riedel) These days the word ``village'' makes Republicans hiss and sneer and makes Democrats cheer wildly. Maybe it's because village has become the rallying cry for Republican-backed ``parental rights'' laws. Or maybe because the word is Afrocentric, as is the context from which ``It takes a village to raise a child'' is lifted. I don't know. I am sure, however, that parental rights proposals send chills down my spine and if it hadn't been for that much-maligned village, I would not be who I am today. In fact, I'd most likely be dead. My youth was a living hell at best. I have the distinction of having had not one, but two mothers who were total failures. My first mother was my biological mother. She became an itinerant farm worker, alcoholic, and finally, murder victim. I was her 12th child and there were three more to follow me. She left the Ozarks of Missouri while she was pregnant with me, with my older sister at her side, stopping just long enough in Tulsa to have me and then move on to California. There she worked the fields, lived off the kindness of loser men and drank her once attractive self into complete ruin. When I was two, she became pregnant again and decided to give me (not my sister or the new baby) up for adoption to her two landlords. I didn't see my older sister, Debra, for another 20 years and I met the original 10 children (left behind in Missouri) 10 years after that. My second mother, Naomi, thought of herself as being completely antithetical to the first and in many ways she was. She provided a home, clothes, great cooking and regular church attendance. I can count the number of times she hugged me on one hand and count even fewer times she told me she loved me. Our home looked fine from without but was a nightmare within. My father died when I was 8 and Naomi conveniently forgot his admonition that she was not to hit me. So hit me she did. With belts, coat hangers, kicks, hair and ear-pulling, Naomi was determined to beat the hell out of me. But more than the beatings. I'll never forget the things she said: ``You'll never amount to anything.'' ``You're so stupid.'' ``Sometimes I would like to kill you.'' These verbal tirades were almost worse than the physical beatings because they would last for hours. I'll never forget the time I had a girlfriend spending the night and my mother woke me up at 4 a.m. and railed on me until 7. My friend will never forget it either. Even now, after 25 years, my old friend mentions that episode every time we see each other. For me, and for so many children like me, the village became our lifesaver. I would leave the house in the morning with swollen, red eyes (from crying myself to sleep the night before) and find haven for a few hours a day with adults who were actually kind, helpful and praised my accomplishments. School was my salvation. It was the teachers I encountered at public school who gave me a glimpse of what life could actually be like. In that glimpse, I saw a world beyond my mother's house, full of wonder and unafraid of inquiry. It was a world where discipline was administered with dignity and self-esteem was valued. Mrs. Nyberg, Mr. Woody, Mrs. Papadakis, Mr. Pessano, Mr. McDonald and Mrs. Edwards were people who broadened my horizons with ideas and information that were unattainable at home. They were people who gave me something to hold onto throughout those dark, ugly days and none of them knew that. In my neighborhood, there were other examples of caring adults. My Girl Scout leader thought I had a keen, interesting mind and she told me so. The German woman down the street (with the six kids) taught me how to do the twist and offered me graham crackers and hot chocolate. My friend's aunt spent hours with me as I entered my teen years, talking to me like I was really a human being. I used every excuse I could to go out into the village. I was active in after-school activities and clubs. I began working at 13. I went away to church camp. I excelled in drama, journalism and forensics. These are the things that kept me from drowning myself in drugs or alcohol. These people and activities kept me from killing myself that one awful night when I was 16 and I had reached the end of my rope. These people and activities gave me the courage to pack a bag and leave home at 17, two weeks before I was ready to start my first semester at the university my mother insisted I could not go to, even though I had a scholarship and grants that completely paid my way. If it hadn't been for that village . . . Now, many years since Naomi's death and many miles from that home that was not a home, I count on the village as a parent. When my children were little, the village taught me simple things that I had not learned at home; how to breast feed, how to change diapers, how to teach my children to read, how to discipline without violence. As my children have become teenagers and I have become a single parent, the village has become even more critical to my family's health and well-being. There are those loving adults at our church who adore my children, give them new experiences and constant encouragement. There are those caring adults at their school who challenge them to stretch their imaginations and use their intellect. There are those adults in our neighborhood who wave and smile and provide a watchful eye of protection. As a single, custodial parent of children whose father is 3,000 miles away and rarely sees them, I count on the men in the village to provide examples to my son and daughter of what dedicated, responsible men look like. I know firsthand that not every parent is wise, all-knowing and caretaking. Sometimes it is because they did not receive those things themselves as children; sometimes it is because they are hopelessly lost in their own egos. Making fun of a promising and true statement, that it does indeed ``take a village to raise a child,'' does not change bad parents into good ones, it only furthers political games at the expense of children. Writing into law that a parent's ``rights'' are absolute and inalienable (and thereby overturning almost 2,000 state child abuse statutes), will not strengthen families but lead to despair for the most vulnerable members of those families. The village saved my life.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, during our recess Joan Beck, an editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune who also does a column for the Tribune, had a column in which she calls on TV and movie executives to reduce the violence. It is a subject that I have spent a fair amount of time on, and it is important to creating a more stable society and a brighter future for our children. This is an area where bi-partisanship should mark our actions. I applaud both Bob Dole and Bill Clinton for being concerned here. Mr. President, I ask that the article from The Chicago Tribune be printed in the Record. The article follows: A Call To Tone Down the Violence (By Joan Beck) Bob Dole's latest efforts to persuade Hollywood to tone down the amount of violence in the movies got two thumbs down from most of his critics. They ridiculed his taste in films. They fretted about censorship. And they give him only pro forma applause before ignoring what he was saying. Bill Clinton last week got TV broadcasters to agree to air a minimum of three hours of educational television for children every week. But his critics carped about government over-regulation. They argued about how to define ``educational.'' And they bristled about TV executives being used to further Clinton's re-election campaign. But both the president and his Republican challenger are right about the dangers of exposing impressionable children to so much violence on TV and in the movies. The points they are making shouldn't be ignored. Crime statistics may be down slightly in a few urban areas. But bombings, bomb threats and bomb scares are increasing. Drive-by shootings are being committed by kids on bicycles to young to have cars. One in every three black men in their 20s are either in prison or on probation or parole--up from one in four five year ago. Many urban parks and streets are abandoned at night because people fear for their lives. Violent behavior has multiple--and interlocking--causes, of course. They include poverty, hopelessness, abuse, poor parenting, illegal drugs, mental illness, alcohol, racism, distorted values, gangs, the absence of violence in movies and TV. Of these, the easiest and quickest to change may be television and movies. Adults who enjoy violence as entertainment and the media executives who profit from it argue there is no convincing evidence to link violence in mass media to violence in real life. Like tobacco company honchos, they dismiss stacks of studies showing they are wrong. But at the same time they claim TV does not promote violent behavior, media executives assure advertisers that commercials will influence millions of viewers. Their marketing departments have piles of research to back them up. It is tricky to pinpoint how big an effect violence on TV and in the movies has on children and young people. Excessive exposure to filmed violence in childhood may not erupt into homicide and crime until adolescence. Other factors certainly make some children more vulnerable than others to media influences. But the June issue of the Harvard Mental Health Letter sums up persuasive evidence that does link watching violence in mass media and aggressive behavior. The report is written by L. Rowell Huesmann, professor of psychology and communication, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, and Jessica Moise, a doctoral student at the University of Michigan. More than 100 laboratory studies done over the last 40 years show that at least some children exposed to films of dramatic violence act more aggressively afterward toward inanimate objects and other youngsters, the newsletter says. It adds, ``These results have been found in many countries among boys and girls of all social classes, races, ages and levels of intelligence.'' In addition, more than 50 field studies made over the last 20 years find that ``children who habitually watch more media violence behave more aggressively and accept aggression more readily as a way to solve problems.'' The connection shows up regardless of age, sex, social class and previous level of aggression, the author say. Watching violence in the media leads to aggressive behavior in five ways, the Harvard newsletter says. First, children may imitate characters they see in the media, especially if they are admirable and their actions are rewarded. Then they tend to internalize the behavior and use it automatically in their everyday lives. Second, violence in the media desensitizes children to the effects of violence. ``The more televised violence a child watches, the more acceptable aggressive behavior becomes,'' says the newsletter. It also makes children expect others to act violently and therefore feel they should, too. Third, seeing violence in the media helps a child justify to himself his own acts of aggression and relieves any guilt he might feel, freeing him to continue to behave aggressively. Fourth, watching violent acts on TV and in movies may activate aggressive thoughts and feelings a child already has or serve as a cognitive cue for later violent behavior. And fifth, children who watch a lot of violence can become desentized to it and the emotional and physiological responses that might turn them away from it become dulled. ``The studies are conclusive,'' says the Harvard newsletter. ``The evidence leaves no room for doubt that exposure to media violence stimulates aggression.'' The new V chip that lets parents cut off their children's access to violent programs should help. More high quality, ``educational'' shows for children on TV is a positive move. And all of us who fear violence and regret the changes we are making to protect ourselves--airline security checks, gated communities, more police, more prisons, more restrictions on ourselves about walking in the parks and on certain streets-- can stop supporting violence as entertainment. We can cut violence on TV and in movies out of our lives and help make it unprofitable for those who sell it. If enough of us refuse to pay to see violent films, studios will make fewer of them. If enough of us change the channel when a violent TV show comes on, broadcasters will get the message. Cutting back on violence as entertainment won't solve the problem of violence in the real world. But it should help. It's something we can do now, while we try to figure out how to end poverty and keep fathers in the home and create more effective schools and end drug abuse and deal with all the other factors that contribute to violent crime.

Mr. SIMON

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

Mr. SIMON. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, although it is unusual for me to speak from a prepared text, I want to spend a little time providing my colleagues with some of the history and facts regarding an item that appeared in the Republican Party's platform last month. The issue is a successful Direct Student Loan Program which has saved students and taxpayers billions of dollars by streamlining a complicated system and enhancing competition. It is a great disappointment to me that an issue with such strong bipartisan roots has been turned into a one-line rhetorical attack on the President. That is unfair to the program, unfair to the President, and it is unfair to the Republicans who spent years promoting these reforms. Five years ago, I teamed up with David Durenberger, then a Republican Senator from Minnesota, in proposing to shift to a direct loan program with income-based repayments for all students who desire it. We proposed using the billions saved with that proposal to restore the buying power of the Pell Grant Program, which has suffered from years of underfunding. The loan reforms we put in our bill were not original. They were borrowed, with a few minor changes, from Representative Tom Petri, a Republican from Wisconsin with conservative credentials, with whom you and I served, Mr. President, in the House. My colleague, Senator Al D'Amato, now the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, cosponsored the Petri plan in the Senate. Republican support for direct lending was broad. Original cosponsors of the Petri legislation included my House colleague from Illinois, John Porter, now the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that handles education, and three Members who have now joined us in this body: Senator Rick Santorum, Senator James Inhofe, and Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Cosponsors also included the current Speaker of the House and spanned the Republican spectrum from Susan Molinari to Dana Rohrabacher. Their support did not stop at cosponsorship. Thirty-three Republican House Members wrote to President Bush urging him to make direct lending part of his domestic agenda. They argued that Republicans--and I am quoting: ``should be advancing our own innovative, cost-effective solutions'' to help the middle class pay for college. But after President Clinton proposed their innovative, cost-effective solution, many of those Republicans became silent, or worse, opposed their own proposal. The basic policy did not change. It was pure partisan politics. The Republican party platform ratified last month included the following two sentences: Congressional Republicans budgeted a 50 percent increase in student loans while fighting Bill Clinton's intrusion of Big Government into their financing. Heeding the outcry from the nation's campuses, we will end the Clinton Administration's perverse direct lending program. That is the end of the quote from the Republican platform. Mr. President, the program that was innovative and cost-effective when it was a Republican idea somehow became perverse and an intrusion of Big Government--with a capital ``B'' and a capital ``G''--when President Clinton decided to promote it. Mr. President, I want to respond to these statements. And I speak not only for myself. Members should know that every national higher education association and student group that has taken a stand supports direct lending. If there is any outcry on college campuses, it is for the reforms that President Clinton has championed, not against them. I have a chart here that compares the old Government guarantee program with the direct lending. I ask my colleagues to look closely and tell me which program is the so-called perverse, big Government system that the Republican platform would eliminate. Is it the program on the left, with fewer than 500 Government employees, or the one on the right with more than 2,500 Government employees? Which is big Government? Is it the one that uses competition to determine how much to pay private-sector participants or the one in which Congress sets the prices? Is it the one where a low default rate is rewarded or where more defaults can bring more money to middlemen? Mr. President, which is ``perverse''? Is it the program that uses taxpaying private-sector companies and investors or the one that gives away tax subsidies? And again, you have these comparisons here. Is it the one that chooses contractors based on performance or the one in which Congress gives entitlements to middlemen regardless of performance? Is it the program that can be audited or the one that requires taxpayers to give away money in the dark? Is it the one with or without costly conflicts of interest that threaten billions in lost taxpayer dollars? If we change the chart here, you will see at the bottom obviously this is the one that Congressman Petri and Senator Durenberger and others of us have proposed and is now in effect on about 1,700 campuses that really makes sense. Mr. President, strange as it may seem, the program that the Republican platform has labeled ``perverse, big Government,'' is the one that has fewer Government employees, no entitlements to middlemen, uses competition to set prices, and rewards only the good performers. Congressman Tom Petri warned his Republican colleagues last September that they were going down the wrong road. Let me repeat what he had to say. This is Congressman Petri talking. If at the end of this whole process we do kill off direct lending, President Clinton and others will tell the American people that the Congress, under Republican control, shut down a conservative reform effort that was good for students and schools in order to keep the gravy flowing to powerful special interests. And that argument will resonate with the American people because it was right. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to describe to my colleagues how the Government guarantee program really works. The banks and Sallie Mae like to brag they now share the risk of defaults of the student loan program because they are reimbursed 98 percent rather than the 100 percent they insisted was necessary before direct lending came along as an alternative. That 2 percent is a nice contribution, but it is also deceptive. A bank that makes a loan of $1,000 is guaranteed, by the Government, not just $980, but also full interest on the $1,000 at a rate 3.1 percentage points above the Government's cost to borrow. That is set by us in Congress. Some of these bankers who denounce welfare for poor people will end supporting this welfare for bankers. If it cost us 5 percent to borrow, we pay them 8.1 percent every year. Then they offer to absorb 2 percent of any loan that defaults. So if interest is included, what is the real guarantee? After 4 years of college, the Government, which will have paid about $324 in interest on $1,000, then will reimburse $980 of the default, for a total payment to the bank of $1,304. The real Government guarantee is more than 130 percent, not the 98 percent that they advertise. What about all those guarantee agencies, the middlemen in the Government guarantee system? They claim that they are the Federal Government's partner, sharing the risk of loan defaults. Mr. President, that has not been true since 1976. These guarantee agencies have no private contributors, no private investors, no State funds that contribute to the cost of the Federal loan program. Instead, the funds that they ``share'' with us are the funds that we give them; entitlements such as a percentage of the student's loan, 27 percent of any defaults they collect, and administrative payment, and on and on. It is like your child saving up his allowance to pay a small part of the cost for a new bicycle. It is a nice exercise, but the money really all comes from your pocket. It is true that the amount we pay to the banks and middlemen is lower than it was before 1983. But it is lower only because direct lending forced the lobbyists to admit that they were fleecing taxpayers and students. For 25 years the banks and student loan middlemen kept asking Congress for more subsidies, more entitlements, and less risk. Congress had little choice but to comply. No elected official wants to risk students not getting loans. The banks and middlemen told us that to cut the subsidies would risk loan access. As recently as 1991, the banks warned that some borrowers could lose access to loans if Congress did not increase the return to lenders. Until President Clinton proposed a viable alternative to the Government guarantee program, there was no safe way to call the bluff. The Republican platform's plan to eliminate direct lending would return us to that time when we had no choice but to follow orders from the banking industry, the guaranty agencies, and their lobbyists. This leads me to some questions about the Government guarantee program: Why do we pay banks 3.1 percentage points over the Treasury rate? Not because of any market competition that led to the price, not because of any study by economists, but because that is what the lobbyists said the industry could live with. Why do we pay guaranty agencies 27 percent of any defaulted loan they collect? Incidentally, that is an encouragement to default. We subsidize that, not because of competition, not because of careful study, but because the lobbyists told us that was the right number. Why did last year's appropriations bill require the Education Department to pay $176 million to guaranty agencies on top of the more than $1.8 billion in Federal funds they already hold? Because that is what the lobbyists said they wanted. I could go on and on. Mr. President, is this any way to run a program? Instead of lobbyist- set rates, why not use auctions to determine how much we should pay to get capital for student loans? That is direct lending. Rather than Congress setting the rates, why not use competition to determine how much to pay the loan collectors? That is direct lending. Why not give all borrowers a wide variety of repayment options instead of leaving their options up to the whim of whatever secondary market happened to purchase their loan from the bank? That is direct lending. I might add, direct lending is open to every student while in the old system you have to be below a certain level of income. Why not provide the funds through the same system that delivers Pell grants, work-study and other student aid rather than confusing schools, parents, and students with a plethora of agencies, offices, and forms? That is the simplicity that direct lending provides. What about savings for taxpayers? A few direct loan opponents have implied that direct lending never was cheaper than the Government guarantee program. That is just plain nonsense, and it is easy to see why. Everyone agrees that the 1993 reforms forced several billions of dollars of reduced subsidies in the Government guarantee system. Now, according to the Senate Budget Committee, the cost of the two programs are virtually identical. By definition, if the cost of the Government guarantee system has come down and now matches direct lending, then direct lending must have been cheaper. In fact, the cost of the direct loan program has been overstated for a variety of reasons that I have explained in detail previously in the Record, including the choice of discount rates, the cost of tax-exempt bonds used by secondary markets but not in direct lending, and the handling of conflicts of interest and other costs of the Government guarantee system. Not only was direct lending cheaper 3 years ago when the loan industry was forced to ante up, but it is still cheaper today. Whether you agree with the Republican staff of the Budget Committee or with Congressman Tom Petri or Paul Simon, there is no question that the 1993 student loan reforms have saved billions of dollars for taxpayers because of the efficiency of direct lending. Mr. President, millions of dollars have been spent in lobbying to sully direct lending, and there are two other charters to which I have not yet responded. First, there was the cost-shifting scare. Before direct lending had a track record, Sallie Mae provided colleges with sophisticated-looking analyses showing that direct lending would cost the average college an additional $219,000 to administer each year. Banks and middlemen also got into the fray, hiring a CBO Director to say that costs were being shifted to schools. Of course, colleges were concerned. But time has erased all those claims. Direct lending turned out to be exactly the opposite of the Sallie Mae scare tactic. Colleges saved money through a welcome relief from excess paperwork and redtape. In your State of Colorado, Mr. President, the State auditor found that direct lending in the first year reduced costs by $325,245, at two of the State's universities. That is why 1,700 schools have now joined the direct loan program. Schools now have the option. That is what we want to keep. Next, there came the haven for defaults claim. Long-time opponents of direct lending held a press conference to announce a rush of high- default schools into the direct loan program. They pointed to several shady trade schools but failed to point out that the schools, under the law, had to already be participating in the Government guarantee program. Still, they persisted in their claims for as long as no data were available to refute them. In March, the data arrived. That lie was put 6 feet under. The truth is that schools in the direct loan program last year had a lower average default rate than those in the guarantee program. More data on the performance of the two programs at similar schools is still to come. Mr. President, over time, every allegation made by the industry has turned out to be misleading or just plain groundless. I have said very little about students. They, after all, are the reasons that these programs exist. How have they been helped by the Student Loan Reform Act proposed by President Clinton and enacted by the Congress in 1993? I touched briefly on the repayment options. Direct lending makes a wide variety of repayment options available to any borrower. Borrowers can even choose to make payments that vary according to their post- college income. That is critical, as students are increasingly relying on loans to finance their continuing education. USA Today reported that the direct loan program's ``simplicity has proved hugely popular at colleges across the country.'' In the Government guarantee program, the maze of agencies, lenders, and purchasers often cause confusion, delays, and errors. They are not only frustrating but costly to colleges and students. As millions of college students begin this academic year, one of the things that is foremost on their minds is money. Whether they participate in the direct loan program or the guarantee system, the changes that were enacted in 1993 will send students this week back to their dorm rooms with $650 million more than any would have had otherwise. In other words, $650 million savings this school year to students because of the direct loan program and because the old guarantee program has been forced to come down in its expenditures because of direct lending. That savings would never have happened without the leadership that President Clinton and Congressman Petri, Senator David Durenberger, and Senator Ted Kennedy showed in standing up to the special interests and promoting the direct lending. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, Bob Estill, an experienced and distinguished columnist in the Washington Bureau of the Copley News Service, recently wrote a column paying tribute to my departing press secretary, David Carle. Since the 1960's Mr. Estill has covered Illinois politics and worked closely with the Illinois congressional delegation. Press secretaries, especially the very good ones like David, rarely are mentioned in the media. But David's outstanding work, his honesty, and his loyalty and commitment to family and friends truly merits special mention, so I submit this column for the Record. The column follows: Longtime Simon Aide Exits to Kudos (By Bob Estill) Washington.--Retiring Sen. Paul Simon's highly regarded press secretary, David Carle, is leaving the cornfields and gently rolling hills of the ``Prairie State'' for the Green Mountains of verdant Vermont. The longtime spokesman for the Illinois Democrat will begin work after Labor Day as press secretary for Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., a four-term veteran from a state so sparsely populated it has only one congressional district. Spending most of his adult life as Simon's spokesman, the 44-year-old Carle has worked with reporters from small weekly newspapers to metropolitan dailies, from rural radio stations to the major television networks. ``It was an exhilarating ride that included two Senate campaigns and a presidential campaign,'' noted Carle, who had planned to return to graduate school in his native Utah if he hadn't landed the job with Simon in January, 1981. Usually, the comings and goings of congressional press secretaries are frequent, routine, and scarcely noteworthy. But the soft-spoken, unassuming Carle is exceptional in longevity, dedication and performance, creating a model congressional press operation that mirrors Simon's reputation for integrity. Simon extols Carle as a ``fine human being'' and an ``incredibly hard worker'' who is on the job before Simon shows up at 8 a.m. and, even on weekends, keeps Simon posted on any news breaking anywhere. The Senator, a onetime newspaper owner and longtime columnist, said Carle's philosophy on dealing with reporters meshes with his own. ``Sometimes you have to say `no comment' or sometimes you duck a question by giving an evasive answer,'' Simon noted. ``But you never lie to anyone.'' Carle also has earned the respect of Republican and Democratic staffers and lawmakers, as well as reporters covering the Illinois congressional delegation. As Major League Baseball's lobbyist, Springfield native Gene Callahan knows a ``most valuable player'' when he sees one. ``There's none better than David Carle,'' said Callahan, a former newspaper political columnist, longtime aide to former Sen. Alan Dixon, and Simon's press secretary when he was lieutenant governor. ``He's completely honest and effective in his role as press secretary,'' continued Callahan, who's dealt with myriad press aides over the last four decades. ``He's timely in returning telephone calls and would never think of misleading a reporter.'' Doug Booth, press secretary for Rep. Dennis Hastert, R- Yorkville, has known Carle since 1984 when Booth was a newsman for a radio station in Marion and Simon represented the state's southernmost House district. ``Dave always has been extremely effective in the job he has done for Paul Simon,'' Booth said. ``Pat Leahy is lucky to get him on board.'' Similar kudos come from Terri Moreland, who heads Republican Gov. Jim Edgar's office here. Moreland said Carle has been ``great to work with'' on Illinois matters. ``He's absolutely professional, and he is so highly regarded on `the Hill,' '' Moreland said of Carle. Indeed, Carle's ability, credibility and workaholic habits resulted in his being drafted for the thankless-but-sensitive job of spokesman for Democrats on Senate panels probing the financial dealings of President Clinton and the First Lady when Clinton was governor of Arkansas. Although seemingly shy, Carle is the master of the soft sell. A believer in preparation, he always has been ready, responsive and reliable when reporters hit him with questions on almost any subject. If a reporter showed even the faintest interest in a Simon issue, Carle would bombard him before day's end with a raft of material which not only supported Simon's viewpoint but also provided opposing arguments and sources. Simon and Carle fit like hand-and-glove. Simon has kept his press secretary well posted on his activities and is comfortable talking with reporters. Carle said he considers himself very fortunate to have worked for ``one of the finest politicians of this era or, I think, any era.'' He tends to speak of Simon as if the senator could walk on water. But Carle also would be honest enough to disclose the water-walking only happens when the pond behind Simon's rural Makanda home is frozen.