Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

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

Mr. SIMON. I have an amendment offered by Senator Moseley-Braun and myself that I send to the desk for immediate consideration.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the Washington Post had an editorial titled, ``Why Not Atom Tests in France?'' The policy of France is unwise, just as our earlier policy of continuing tests was unwise. France is not doing a favor to stability in the world with these tests. I hope that the French Government will reconsider this unwise course. At this point, I ask unanimous consent that this op-ed piece be printed in the Record. The material follows: Why Not Atom Tests in France? France's unwise decision to resume nuclear testing was an invitation to the kind of protests and denunciations being generated by Greenpeace's skillful demonstration of political theater. But even before Greenpeace set sail for the test site, several Pacific countries had vehemently objected to France's intention of carrying out the explosions at a Pacific atoll. The most cutting comment came from Japan's prime minister, Tomiichi Murayama. At a recent meeting in Cannes the newly installed president of France, Jacques Chirac, confidently explained to him that the tests will be entirely safe. If they are so safe, Mr. Murayama replied, why doesn't Mr. Chirac hold them in France? The dangers of these tests to France are, in fact, substantial. The chances of physical damage and the release of radioactivity to the atmosphere are very low. But the symbolism of a European country holding its tests on the other side of the earth, in a vestige of its former colonial empire, is proving immensely damaging to France's standing among its friends in Asia. France says that it needs to carry out the tests to ensure the reliability of its nuclear weapons. Those weapons, like most of the American nuclear armory, were developed to counter a threat from a power that has collapsed. The great threat now, to France and the rest of the world, is the possibility of nuclear bombs in the hands of reckless and aggressive governments elsewhere. North Korea, Iraq and Iran head the list of possibilities. The tests will strengthen France's international prestige, in the view of many French politicians, by reminding others that it possesses these weapons. But in less stable and non-democratic countries, there are many dictators, juntas and nationalist fanatics who similarly aspire to improve their countries' standing in the world. The international effort to discourage the spread of nuclear weapons is a fragile enterprise, depending mainly on trust and goodwill. But over the past half-century, the effort has been remarkably and unexpectedly successful. It depends on a bargain in which the nuclear powers agree to move toward nuclear disarmament at some indefinite point in the future, and in the meantime to avoid flaunting these portentous weapons or to use them merely for displays of one- upmanship. That's the understanding that France is now undermining. The harassment by Greenpeace is the least of the costs that these misguided tests will exact.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President and my colleagues, I thank my colleague from Washington for yielding. I rise in strong support of her amendment and in opposition to the amendment of the senior Senator from Texas. Let me give you a very practical example. When I was in the State legislature, a young African-American contractor just starting off wanted to do a little bit of curbing work at Scott Air Force Base. He could not get a bond. I went to bat for him. I could not believe the barriers that were there for this person to get a surety bond so he could get a construction job. We finally, after screaming and hollering, broke through, and he built up a business and eventually moved to Atlanta and became one of the 10 wealthiest African-Americans in our country. The barriers are there for a great many people, and surety bonds are a good illustration. I introduced a bill last session--I believe I have introduced it again this session--to say you cannot discriminate in the issuance of surety bonds. Why, you would think a little bill like that would have no trouble at all. What a storm of opposition it got. We have to make opportunity for people. Has anyone here ever heard of a country club that is all white and all male? Well, they are all over the place. We know it. And that is where a lot of business gets done. Can affirmative action be abused? Of course, it can be abused, like education and religion and a lot of other things, but it is sound. We are talking about opportunity. I heard my friend, Rev. Joseph Lowery, from Atlanta, on NPR yesterday. He heads the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. On affirmative action, he said those who resist, they push somebody outside; you have to stay out in the rain all night. Then in the daytime you invite them in, and they are standing on the oriental rug and we say, ``Sorry, we cannot give you any business because you are wet.'' We have to recognize that there have been some abuses in our society. Let me just give you one example. Today, the average woman who works makes 72 cents as much as the average male. That is not good. But it used to be 59 cents. That is progress. I have seen a lot of progress in our society, and if this is adopted, this is just one step down the road to knocking out other affirmative action. We all practice some affirmative action. It is very interesting that in Senator Gramm's amendment, he accepts that we are going to have affirmative action for historically black colleges and universities. I applaud him for taking that step, but what is true for historically black colleges and universities ought to be true for women and minorities who are in business also. What we have to do in our society is make opportunity for people. The amendment offered by our colleague from Washington moves on some of the abuses without saying let us stop doing this. And make no mistake, if this is adopted, there will be other amendments in the future. When my friend from Texas says, well, people can go to court and get this resolved, let us say you are a small contractor and you cannot get a surety bond. No. 1, you probably cannot afford to go to court. No. 2, going to court sounds like an easy remedy --and I see I am getting the look from the Presiding Officer here now--but the reality is that it is just not a realistic option. The Gramm amendment should be defeated.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the need for comprehensive health care is apparent in the numbers. We have 41 million Americans without health care coverage. But these are not just numbers. We are talking about real people and real problems. When you look at the individual cases, you see the tragedy of our present policy. At the end of my remarks, I am inserting into the Record a letter from Mrs. Mary Davis that is largely self-explanatory. It tells what is happening in one family. Why we cannot respond, I do not know. As some of my colleagues know, I have introduced a bill calling for health care coverage for pregnant women and children six and under. I am pleased that Senator Chafee of Rhode Island has expressed an interest in the legislation. I hope we can emerge with a bipartisan consensus to at least cover pregnant women and children six and under. That would take care of the needs of this one family, at least for a short time, and protect a great many others. It is not a substitute for universal coverage, but it is a step in the right direction. I ask that Mrs. Davis' letter be printed in the Record. The letter follows: June 19, 1995. Hon. Paul Simon, U.S. Senator, United States Congress, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Simon: I am writing to you with a very distressing problem. Our granddaughter was born May 2, 1994 16 weeks premature. At the time of her birth, her mother had been unemployed because of medical problems; her father was laid off in April of that year from his job. They applied for assistance and received care for mother and baby. Bethany was in the hospital for 4 months, and although doing well, she has lost her eye sight. She is in therapy for work on her hip joints and she had allergies and has a history of respiratory problems. They moved in with us shortly after Jennifer was dismissed from the hospital, because they had no income. We are in the ministry and live in a parsonage. In November of last year, Andy went back to work and they were able to secure a house for $150.00 per month. Andy brings home about $150 after taxes. As it should be, Jennifer was picked up by Andy's insurance, however, Bethany remained on a medical card because her dad's insurance, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, refused to cover her. Bethany is in therapy for her legs, regular doctor visits, and she has had two surgeries on her eyes last October in Detroit. She is scheduled to have more surgeries. However, it is understood that she will probably only have light vision. Cost of living became so that Jennifer was forced to return to work just to keep rent and utilities paid. This past week, Jennifer and Andy were notified that Bethany would be losing her medical card and all coverage as of July 1, just because her mother had gone back to work. Jennifer works for Kentucky Fried Chicken and brings home about $150 per week. Beth does receive SSI of about $401 per month. By losing these medical benefits, she will not be able to keep regular office visits, because the clinic requires payment each and every time, she can no longer go to Detroit for eye surgery because the doctor won't take her without coverage, and she probably will have to give up the therapy on her legs, because they cannot afford the costs. Tell me what they are suppose to do. Both insurance coverage that their jobs provide, refuse to insure Bethany and now she is losing her assistance. These two young kids and Bethany have been through a lot this last year. Now they have a blind child who cannot get assistance. Can something be done? I wouldn't have your job for nothing. Being in the ministry, we realize just how difficult it is to please everyone, but I don't care if you are Democrat or Republican, I am neither, but someone has to do something about medical coverage. I believe you are trying. But tell me where do you go to get help for the innocent children. She cannot go on medicaid or medicare, because she has not worked and not put anything into the system. She will never be able to read, drive or get around on her own. I realize that technology may be available in years to come that will be beneficial to her, but what is going to happen to her now. I hope that you will be able to read this. I know that we are just a small amount of the millions you must hear from daily, but I just couldn't sit and do nothing with my distress and care for this beautiful little girl who is struggling to live. God bless you and your family. May you gain the wisdom and the ability to lead us to a better way of life for everyone. Respectfully yours, Mary F. Davis.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I do not believe I have ever met Prof. Robert C. Fellmeth of the University of San Diego, but I read what he had to say in the Los Angeles Times about cutting back on assistance to the poor while, at the same time, we hand largess to the wealthy. Statistics differ somewhat, but the California situation mirrors the national situation. If we are doing what is politically popular, I do not know, but what we are doing is certainly wrong. What we need is not Senators and House Members who follow the latest public opinion poll on tax cuts or anything else, but people who try to lead, and sometimes do the unpopular, in order to reduce poverty in our country, to improve education and to do the things that are needed for a better future. The incredible increase in prison construction and incarceration has done nothing to decrease the crime rate in our country. If putting people in prison reduced the crime rate, we would have the lowest crime rate in the world, with the possible exception of Russia. While Professor Fellmeth zeroes in on the California situation, it is worthwhile for my House and Senate colleagues to read what he has to say because they will find a striking similiarity between the California action and the Federal action. I ask that his statement be printed in the Record. The material follows: [From the Los Angeles Times, July 5, 1995] California: A Society That Cuts Child Welfare but Boosts Jails (By Robert C. Fellmeth) Despite what we often hear from the governor and the Legislature, spending for the welfare of our children has been in steady decline. An example: The governor claims to have given politically popular K-12 public education ``high priority'' and ``saved it from cuts'' for the last several years. But figures from the second annual Children's Budget, completed by the Children's Advocacy Institute, show a steady decline each year, including proposed spending for 1995-96. At the federal level, Congress proposes to change child spending from ``entitlements'' based on how many children qualify for assistance to ``block grants,'' set at a static figure for five years. The Republican leadership contends that such a policy will curb what it calls ``runaway spending.'' In contrast, the Children's Budget reveals that such a freeze means substantial reductions year to year, imposed without consideration of need or consequences. Budgets based on raw numbers, or numbers with only inflation or only population changes considered--but not adjusted by both--slowly but inexorably squeeze out infrastructure investment. In California this failure has allowed a largely undiscussed disinvestment in children to accumulate over the past six years. From 1989-90 to the current year, Aid to Families With Dependent Children has been cut 20%, the three child-related Medi-Cal accounts an average of 23% and public education 7.5% The consequences in terms of flesh and blood are momentous: The Children's Budget reveals that AFDC for 1.8 million children in California has been cut from close to the federal poverty line to only 75% of that wholly inadequate amount. The governor now proposes to reduce AFDC to just 64% of the poverty-line figure, posing a clear danger of malnutrition and permanent health damage. Wilson also proposes further cuts in AFDC assistance after six months of help; the Republican House would cut children off altogether after two years if Mom does not have a job. Ironically, the same gradual suffocation has been applied to GAIN, the major program providing child care and job training for AFDC mothers. Here there is a 9% decline from 1989 and a proposed further cut of 12%. The typical AFDC recipient--contrary to public perception-- is 29, white, recently divorced, with two children and no child support. Her problem is not a desire for welfare dependency but the far more prevalent dilemma of paternal abandonment. Is it relevant that childcare help and job training, without which she does not have a chance, have been cut? Less than 10% of AFDC parents get child-care help. The minimum wage is another example. If it had been adjusted to match inflation over the past 20 years, it would be just above $12,000, the federal poverty line for a family of three. But if our typical divorced mother of two obtains full-time employment at minimum wage (as many must do), she will earn $8,840 before deductions--about what full-time child care for her children will cost. Would we take such a population and cut their wages every year by 3% to 5%? That is what the current numbers accomplish. We are spending more in one area: jailing of criminals. California now has the highest juvenile incarceration rate of any state, in a nation with the highest juvenile incarceration rate among all developed countries. California's adult prison population has increased from 19,000 in 1977 to 132,000 this year, at an operating cost of $20,000 per prisoner per year. The state is now preparing for 341,000 prisoners and 41 new prisons over the next eight years. Is there a relationship between unlimited prison spending and years of decreases in basic investment in children's programs? To be sure, many of our problems can be traced to private irresponsibility--a dependency mentality by some and, for more, a frightening abandonment of children by biological fathers. But public spending makes a difference. Children Now indexes show that a record 28.6% of California children live in poverty and 20% have no access to private or public health care. We also have high infant disability, record low test scores and increasingly violent juvenile crime. Each of these aspects has a relationship to public spending. It is no accident that California's falling test scores, for example, correlate with the worst student-teacher ratio in the nation and a per-pupil spending level now nearing the bottom five states, just ahead of Alabama and at half the level of New Jersey. California is one of the richest jurisdictions in the world--we can boast of having more vehicles than licensed drivers--and our wealth increases each year. The governor predicts that personal income will increase 6% in each of the next two years. And our tax burden has decreased. In 1989-90, we spend $6.88 from the general fund for every $100 in personal income; in the current year, we are spending $5.86 per $100, and the governor proposes a further reduction to $5.50. At the same time, he is calling for a $7-billion tax cut for the wealthy over the next three years. Could the governor make his cutback proposals if the right numbers were used and understood? The fact is that for six years we have been giving to the wealthy and taking from the children. We just haven't been talking about it.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Dole-Lieberman legislation. It is an unhappy situation, and there are no good answers. Whatever course we take is going to be criticized. What we can do is learn from our mistakes. In 1991, when the aggression first took place, President Bush and the administration should have responded. When Bill Clinton took office, he, after criticizing George Bush during the campaign, should have responded. That is easy for us to say. But what we know is that the situation is deteriorating. If some action is not taken now, it is going to be worse in a month. And if some action is not taken in a month, it is going to be worse in 3 months. The great threat to the world today is not nuclear annihilation, as it was a decade ago; it is instability, and it is that tyrants somewhere in the world will get the message out of Bosnia that they can move against their neighbors and the community of nations will do nothing. The danger in Bosnia, if appropriate action is not taken, is that it is going to spread. It will spread to Macedonia, Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey, and we will have a major problem on our hands. And here what the United States has to do is to show some backbone, some muscle. The community of nations do not question our technical competence. You know, we are increasing defense appropriations as a way to send a message to the world. That is not going to send a message to the world. What the world questions right now is our will, our muscle, our backbone. And when I say ``our,'' I am not talking about the members of the Armed Forces; I am talking about the administration, I am talking about the Senate, I am talking about the House. Let me just give an illustration. Suppose in the Chicago Police Department, or the Los Angeles Police Department, or the New Haven Police Department, people would enlist. But, tragically, as happens in every major city police department, there is a casualty. Would the city of Chicago, or Los Angeles, or New Haven announce: Sorry, we have some drug dealers here who killed a Chicago policeman, we are going to abandon that portion of Chicago, or Los Angeles, or New Haven because of a casualty. We would recognize that to do that invites more trouble, tragic as the casualty is. Yet, that is what we did in Somalia. I read in editorials about the disaster of Somalia. Real candidly, George Bush's finest hour was when he had the courage to send our troops there, and we saved hundreds of thousands of lives. And then a decision was made by a retired American admiral to go after General Aideed--frankly, a decision that should have been made--after consultation with Ambassador Oakley and others. But a mistake was made. Nineteen Americans lost their lives, including one who we saw on television being dragged around the streets, and that shocked and stunned all of us. Immediately, there were calls for the United States to get out of Somalia. And we understand that. We do not like casualties. But we have to recognize that if we are going to have stability in the world, those who enlist in armed forces, like those who enlist in the Chicago Police Department, are taking additional risks. And the risk we cannot take is having a world of instability. After the uproar here in Congress on Somalia, there was a meeting at the White House, about a 2-hour meeting, with about 20 of us, as I recall. A decision was made that by the following March 31, we would pull out all American troops. It was not an agreement I liked, but it was better than pulling out American troops immediately. And that was the sense of this body at that point. Shortly after that decision was made and announced, President Mubarak of Egypt visited the United States. He was in the Blair House. I, at that point, chaired the Subcommittee on Africa. I went down to visit President Mubarak, who was chairman of the Organization for African Unity at that point. Just before I went down, I received a call from someone in the White House-- not the President--saying, ``Could you ask President Mubarak to keep his troops there longer than March 31?'' I made the request--without disclosing a private conversation--and it would not surprise any of you to learn that President Mubarak was not impressed that the most powerful nation in the world and the richest nation in the world said we were getting out of Somalia, but we would like their troops to stay. We did not show determination or fortitude. Senator Nunn is going to have an amendment which will make clear, if it is adopted, that the U.S. Senate backs, if this amendment is adopted and troops are withdrawn, we have pledged we will use up to 25,000 troops to pull the U.N. forces out. Frankly, I think if that happens and arms are supplied, there will have to be air cover for the Bosnian Government. This is not going to be a risk-free operation. There will be calls on this floor, once there are casualties, to pull out, to stop. I think here we have to show the determination and the muscle and the will that recognizes the great threat to the world through today's instability. Bosnia can be a spreading disease. We have to get a hold of this thing. I think the Dole-Lieberman proposal is a sensible proposal. It is not risk-free. There are no good answers. There are only two answers right here: One is to go in with substantial military muscle; or follow the Dole-Lieberman proposal and let the people of Bosnia defend themselves. I do not believe there is the will--not just on the part of the United States, but on the part of other governments--to take the first alternative. I do not know whether that would be a realistic alternative also. No one can guarantee that this is going to work, that this will preserve the Bosnian Government. We have to send a message to tyrants in Asia, Latin America, Europe, everywhere in the world, you cannot move against your neighbors and bring about world instability. The community of nations will respond. We have to respond. I think this is a well-crafted proposal. I intend to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, Tom Roeser of the Chicago Sun-Times is someone I disagree with frequently, even though I respect him. On the whole question of assistance for minority businesses, he had a column in the Chicago Sun-Times recently that spoke candidly about something that provides real insight. As we discuss affirmative action and what should be done to assist in providing opportunities for minorities, I recommend required reading of the Tom Roeser column, and I ask that it be printed in the Record at this point. The column follows: [From the Chicago Sun-Times, July 7, 1995] Governmental Subsidy Feeds ``Free Market'' (By Thomas F. Roeser) Not long after I became an assistant secretary of commerce under President Richard Nixon, I stumbled upon an amazing discovery. The big business community (mostly white-owned), which had long extolled ``free'' enterprise since the founding of this republic, was hooked far more than I realized on government subsidies. The Cato Institute has just cataloged 125 programs in the federal budget designed to assist ``business''--meaning, of course, mostly white-owned businesses. When I was sworn in, in 1969, I counted roughly $13 billion worth of subsidies. Cato's figure today is $53.7 billion. The gist of Cato's recommendation is that these subsidies be cut. Very well. But recall that it is mostly white-owned industries that have thus profited since the founding of the republic. It was clear that I was picked as assistant secretary for minority enterprise because, as a white conservative, I could be fired by a mostly white administration without prompting a racial furor. One recommendation I made lasted: Take a percentage of federal contracts--I called them ``set- asides''-- [[Page S 10256]] and give them to minority-owned businesses. I recommended a 10-year program, after which it would be terminated. It has just now been challenged by the Supreme Court 25 years later. It was the second proposal, however, that got me fired: Take a tiny percentage of the federal subsidies given to white industry and apportion them to qualifying minority enterprises. The strategy paper containing this recommendation, when sent to the president, resulted in my termination. No problem. I went back to private industry, happier and wiser than when I had left it. All my life I have been judged a conservative. But I must tell you that whenever big business pays tribute to its growth by mistily referring to itself as ``private enterprise,'' I am impelled to raise the window sash for fresh air. As a government official, I learned too much. Let's remember, when we wonder what happened to minority enterprise, that white-owned business has leaned heavily on government as on a crutch while its leaders pretend, in speeches to chambers of commerce, that they do not. This has meant that, for the most part excluding my set- asides, only minority-owned businesses have been expected to practice what white pro-business executives so eagerly trumpet as ``free market capitalism.''

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, today, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to two recent articles from Current magazine about public television. One story details the positive contributions of public television in the important area of children's programming. Many have long argued that in addition to its entertainment value, television can be used as a powerful educational resource, particularly for children. Public television has consistently set the standard for putting television to use for this purpose. ``Sesame Street,'' one of public television's most successful shows, is a favorite for many American children, and indeed for children around the world. Its goals, however, are much loftier than merely entertaining, or marketing to, children. ``Sesame Street'' works to teach children and prepare them for school. And it is succeeding. In fact, a 4-year study of more than 250 low-income households conducted by the Center for Research on the Influence of Television on Children at the University of Kansas concluded that preschoolers who watch ``Sesame Street'' regularly score higher on school readiness tests as long as 3 years later. I am also pleased to report that the American people recognize the value of public television as a public resource. The second Current article examines the high level of public support that public broadcasting enjoys across the country. According to the article, a Roper poll taken in March revealed that Americans ranked public television and radio among the services that provide the best value for the tax dollars. In fact, over 50 percent of those polled rated public television and radio as either excellent or good value. In this age of television's appeal to the lowest common denominator, public broadcasting generally succeeds in broadening, edifying, and challenging its viewers, and influencing the television medium for the good. Most importantly, public television reaches 99 percent of American households--for free. I ask that these two articles be printed in the Record. The articles follow: [From Current, June 19, 1995] Public Ranks Pubcasting High in Value Per Dollar In a Roper Poll taken in March, Americans ranked public TV and public radio among the services that provide the best value for the tax dollar. Only military defense of the country and the police had higher percentages of the sample calling them an ``excellent value'' or a ``good value.'' Highways, public schools, environmental protection and the court system ranked lower. ``Quite frankly, I was really surprised,'' said CPB researcher Janice Jones. ``I know that people value public television, but there are a lot of core services on that list.'' CPB received the poll results as a regular subscriber to the Roper Poll last month, but the survey firm had added pubcasting to the annual question without CPB asking it to do so, Jones said. Other tax-supported services had been rated in the poll for many years. The biggest changes between 1986 and 1995 showed environmental protection up 14 points, public transportation up 12, roads and bridges up 11, the police up 9 and military defense up 8 points. Even social welfare programs rose 4 points during that period. In the poll, public TV was scored an ``excellent value'' by 13 percent, ``good'' by 44 percent, ``fair'' by 24 percent and ``poor'' by just 10 percent. Eight percent said ``don't know.'' Public radio got similar scores: ``excellent value,'' 10 percent; ``good,'' 43 percent; ``fair,'' 28 percent; ``poor,'' 10 percent, and ``don't know,'' 10 percent. Public TV's ``excellent value'' rating (13 percent) was exceeded only by military defense (17 percent) and the space program (14 percent). The percentage of respondents who rated public TV and radio as a ``poor value'' for the tax dollar, 10 percent, was lower than all other services except defense and international intelligence gathering. value for the tax dollar Here is a list of some different services that the government provides using tax dollars it collects from the public. Thinking of what you get for what you pay in taxes, would you read down that list and for each one tell me whether you feel you get excellent value for the dollar, or good value, or only fair value for the dollar, or poor value for the dollar? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percent excellent Rank and services provided with tax dollars or good value ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Military defense of the country........................... 60 2. Police and law enforcement agencies....................... 59 3. Public TV broadcasting.................................... 57 4. Public radio broadcasting................................. 53 5. Medical, technological and other research................. 52 6. Overseeing the safety of food products.................... 50 7. The space program......................................... 49 8. Overseeing the safety of prescription drugs............... 49 9. Highways, roads and bridges............................... 45 10. Public schools........................................... 41 11. Environmental protection................................. 41 12. Public transportation.................................... 40 13. Sponsorship of the arts.................................. 39 14. Overseeing soundness of financial institutions........... 35 15. The courts............................................... 33 16. International intelligence gathering..................... 31 17. Contributions to the United Nations...................... 30 18. Social welfare programs.................................. 28 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: Roper Poll, March 18-25, 1995, courtesy of CPB.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the Chicago Tribune carried a remarkable story from Timbuktu, Mali by Liz Sly on what is happening in Africa. Really, it is two stories that are intertwined. I wish it were possible to put into the Record the maps and color shadings to provide a more accurate picture of some of the things that are illustrated in this article. But those who read the article will note that Africa is a place of hope and promise and despair. The little-known story of the spread of democracy in Africa is the story of progress that could be reversed easily. Africa needs our helping hand. I ask that the Liz Sly article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Chicago Tribune, July 9, 1995] Metamorphosis of a Continent--Democracy Seeks Hold Amid Poverty, Violence (By Liz Sly) Timbuktu, Mali.--Not all of the news out of Africa is bad. For the first time in its long history, this remote town on the edge of the Sahara has a mayor elected by the people, Harber Sabane, 51, who has high hopes that democracy will help Timbuktu reclaim its status as one of the world's great cities. First, he acknowledged, there are a number of problems to be ironed out. ``We have problems of development,'' Sabane said. ``We don't have roads. We have a problem of water. We don't have infrastructure. Our ecological system is destroyed because of a lot of droughts and we have a problem of deforestation. ``Another problem is unemployment. We have no industry. We are very, very, very poor. Most people are illiterate and 60 percent of our children don't go to school.'' Unfortunately, Sabane could have been describing just about anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa. Once synonymous with everything that was exotic and alluring about the continent, Timbuktu today is typical of everything that is wrong with it--even down to the ethnic fighting last year that killed an estimated 600 people and scared away the tourists, the town's only source of outside income. By 1990, it had long been clear that sub-Saharan Africa was torn by crises. Poverty, conflict and underdevelopment were compounded by corrupt dictators who enjoyed the backing of rival superpowers concerned more with their own strategic agendas than with human rights or economic progress. This, however, was supposed to be Africa's ``democracy decade'' in which the dictators, bereft of their Cold War relevance, would be replaced by elected, accountable governments heralding a new era of freedom and prosperity. Halfway through the 1990s, those goals are elusive as ever for most parts of the continent. Instead, Africa's democracy decade risks becoming yet another decade of disappointment. Millions of Africans are still waiting for life to improve after more than three decades of freedom from colonialism. A woeful array of collapsed states, hijacked elections and ethnic conflicts litter the landscape south of the Sahara. And even where democracy is taking root, Africa's hopes of a brighter future are in danger of being buried under the weight of its multiple problems, as Sabane is discovering in Timbuktu. ``The world around Africa is fast coming together and this continent risks being the odd man out,'' warned U.S. National Security Adviser Anthony Lake on a recent visit to the continent, summing up the world's growing impatience with Africa's failure to find its way in the post-Cold war world. Chaotic Liberia, Somalia and Rwanda stand out as worst case examples of that failure. The 1990s saw Cold War-inspired conflicts in Ethiopia and Mozambique come to and end. But 2 million Africans have died since the collapse of the Berlin Wall as a result of new wars unleashed directly or indirectly by pressures from the democratic reforms that were supposed to bring them new hope--10 times the number who have died in the war in Bosnia. A recent report from the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies found some form of conflict in 26 of sub-Saharan Africa's 48 countries, offering a gloomy assessment for the future. ``The potential for sudden outbursts of violence exists in most [African] countries as rising populations meet falling living standards and weak governments confront regional or ethnic movements,'' it said. But is Africa's outlook really that bleak? It is just 50 years since the world ended a war that killed 60 million people, and many Africans plead that it is unfair to write off Africa now just because it is going through a period of upheaval. ``From the outside, the universal view is one of despair, and it must be tempting to repudiate the whole continent,'' said political scientist Mahmood Mamdani, director of the Center for Basic Research in Uganda's capital, Jampala. ``But when one lives here, one recognizes the extent of the problems but also the small improvements that are taking place.'' For better or worse, the 1990s already have proved revolutionary for Africa. Until 1990, Africa had only three governments that could be considered authentically democratic. Since then, multiparty elections have been held in 35 of sub-Saharan Africa's 48 nations. From the sandswept streets of Timbuktu to the stately monuments of Cape Town, South Africa, new leaders are experimenting with new ways to address Africa's problems, and new freedoms are flourishing in places that once knew only repression and dictatorship. Some have proved unexpected success stories, such as South Africa, where the leadership of President Nelson Mandela and the spirit of reconciliation that he represents shine like a beacon of hope for the rest of the continent. Benin, Malawi, Zambia and Namibia are among other countries that have peacefully managed the transition to democracy. Africa's seeming tendency toward violence should be seen in the context of these seismic changes, argues Gen. Amadou Toumani Toure. He helped bring democracy to Mali, [[Page S 10255]] the modern state of which Timbuktu is a part, by overthrowing its hated dictator in a military coup and then handing over power to an elected civilian government. ``Africa is in the throes of a radical transformation,'' Toure said. ``After 30 years of military dictatorship or one- party rule, we are moving to democracy. Sometimes that process is violent, and it gives the impression Africa is in crisis. ``Rwanda, Somalia, Liberia, these are all struggles for power in the new order. Some leaders are resisting change. But take Senegal, Mali, Zambia, where people have chosen the ballot over the bullet. ``Africa does have a future. But each country in history has gone through crisis in arriving at its future. America had a revolution. Europe had many wars. Africa also is in the process of finding its future.'' But where does Africa's future lie? With South Africa, which also underwent violence before peacefully embracing change? Or with Somalia and Liberia, which have disintegrated into chaos? The prognosis for most African countries seems to be hovering precariously between these extremes. Just 17 of the continent's 35 elections have heralded genuinely democratic forms of government, according to a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In countries such as Burkina Faso, Ghana and Kenya, dictators were voted back into power in questionable elections, and they continue to rule with little regard for democratic principles. In others, such as Nigeria and Zaire, corrupt regimes continue to resist change, making these nations candidates for possible future upheaval. Mali is typical of those new democracies that are genuinely trying to improve the lives of their people. But they are doing so against a backdrop of poverty, ethnic rivalry and falling Western aid budgets, all of which threaten to confound even the best-intentioned efforts. Do-or-die economic reforms, ordered by the World Bank as a prerequisite for continued international aid, have produced economic growth in some countries that previously had known only stagnation or decline. But the reforms are causing considerable hardship among ordinary people, threatening these fragile new systems with popular discontent. Poverty is already a key dynamic fueling conflict in Africa, something overlooked by Toure's interpretation of Africa's crises as the inevitable byproduct of political transformation. In Mali, which the United Nations ranked the world's seventh poorest country, 1992's peaceful democratic elections coincided with an eruption of hostilities between Tuareg nomads and local Malians in the desert region around Timbuktu. Although these two groups have fought one another in the past, both sides blame the recent fighting not on ethnic differences but on the country's desperate economic situation. Along the fringes of the Sahara, poverty has been deepened by harsh droughts in the 1970s and 1980s that turned former arable land into desert. ``It's poverty and bad economic conditions that cause this antisocial behavior,'' said Timbuktu's Mayor Sabane of the fighting, which has subsided. ``The causes of the fighting are economic,'' agreed Mohamed Ag Ahmed, a leader of one of the Tuareg factions, the Movement and United Fronts of Azawad, which is demanding development aid for Tuaregs in peace talks with the government. ``We could all live on the same land without conflict. But the useful space has shrunk over time. The population of Mali increases 3.5 percent a year, and now there is less land available for an increasing number of people year after year.'' The simple logic applies to many parts of the continent. Falling living standards, environmental degradation and high population growth rates risk pushing already impoverished communities to the brink of their capacity to survive, and into competition for scarce resources. It is perhaps no accident that Africa's worst crises of the 1990s all have occurred in nations ranked among the continent's poorest half. Yet there is no reason why Africa should be as poor as it is. A recent International Monetary Fund survey notes that Africa's ``overall low level of economic growth is anything but foreordained.'' Sub-Saharan Africa's 540 million people account for 10 percent of the world's population, living on about 15 percent of the Earth. Their land is potentially some of the world's richest, blessed with half the world's gold, most of its diamonds, 40 percent of its platinum and rich reserves of other minerals, oil and natural gas. But Africans share only 1.3 percent of the world's actual wealth, and a disproportionate burden of the world's suffering. According to the CIA, two-thirds of those in the world risking starvation this year live in Africa. Africa contains 62 percent of the world's AIDS cases and one-third of its refugees. Africa's entire gross domestic product is smaller than that of the Netherlands, with a population of just 15 million. Also, Africa is the only part of the developing world where living standards have fallen over the past decade. Despite receiving nearly half the world's total annual aid--$20 billion a year in the 1990s--the average African is no better off today than he or she was at independence from colonialism more than three decades ago. What brought Africa to this sorry point in its history? Colonialism undoubtedly played a part in setting independent Africa off on the wrong foot, said professor George Ayittey, a Ghanaian national and professor of economics at the American University in Washington. Independence also proved a hollow word for Africans, for no sooner had they cast off their colonial rulers than Cold War politics intervened to create a new form of foreign interference. Western powers and the Soviet bloc poured billions of dollars into propping up unsavory dictators--$100 billion in the 1980s alone--long after it was apparent that they had no popular support. But increasingly, Africans are starting to realize that their own leaders are to blame for their plight, Ayittey said. ``The basic reason why we're having all this chaos in Africa is because we had bad leadership,'' Ayittey said. ``The colonial state was very authoritarian but those who took over made things worse.'' Uncounted billions of those aid dollars, which could have gone toward building roads or educating children, were squirreled away into Swiss bank accounts for Africa's leaders or spent on weaponry to keep them in power, while ordinary Africans grew steadily poorer. With the lifting of outside support for Africa's dictators, many of their nations have been exposed as hollow shams, as personal piggy-banks for narrow elites who had failed to unite their multiethnic populations behind them. In finding its future, Africa therefore has not only to battle harsh new economic realities, but also cope with the burdensome legacy of its past mistakes. And it can no longer count on the largesse of the outside world to help it through. The West already has given notice that African leaders who fail to heed the new rules of fair play and accountability will have their aid suspended. Yet even those who do can expect no democracy bonanza; in the U.S., a Republican congress is threatening to slash overall aid levels to Africa, and Europe is also cutting aid. In Timbuktu, a city that lured countless European explorers to their deaths in their quests for its wealth, Mayor Sabane pleads with the world not to forsake Africa now. ``In Africa, we are apprentices in democracy. We need help,'' he said. ``The current generation is very worried about our situation and wants to lift us out of this malaise and improve our lives. But we must have friendship so that Africa can renew itself and find itself in the modern world.'' But could it be too late for a continent that, time and again, has failed to seize opportunities? Will the legacy of mistakes prove insurmountable? Are ordinary Africans, betrayed so many times by past leaders, in the process of being betrayed again? Or is the continent merely witnessing the death throes of the old order and the birth pangs of a new era, as most Africans would like to believe? ``There is a saying in Africa, `never lose hope,''' Sabane said. ``We don't lose hope.''

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I learned in reading a newspaper about Canada's [[Page S 10252]] leadership in providing a study on methods of improvement of the U.N. rapid reaction capability. As many of my colleagues in the Senate know, I have had concerns in this area for some time. I wrote to Minister of Foreign Affairs Andre Ouellet, and he sent me a letter, which I ask unanimous consent to insert at the end of this statement. Among other things, he enclosed a background paper, that I also request be inserted at the end of my statement, because it provides practical insights into our situation. It is interesting that the background paper mentions Rwanda. Senator Jeffords and I had the experience of calling a Canadian general, General Daullaire, who was in charge of the small U.N. force in Rwanda when things first started getting difficult. This was in May 1994. General Daullaire told us that if he could get 5,000-8,000 troops there quickly, the situation in Rwanda could be stabilized. Senator Jeffords and I immediately dispatched a message to the State Department and to the White House. Nothing of significance happened until October, when the United Nations Security Council authorized action; then the French, to their great credit, immediately sent 2,000 troops to provide a little stability, but the United Nations was slow to act. We went through a similar situation in Somalia. Bosnia presents another example of action that is much too slow. My colleagues know that I have introduced legislation that would authorize up to 3,000 American volunteers among our armed forces to be available on short notice, if the Security Council acts, and the President of the United States approves. I assume other nations would be willing to volunteer a similar, relatively small force. If the Secretary General of the United Nations had such power at his disposal when authorized by the Security Council, we would not have had some of the difficulties that now threaten our world. And the great threat to the world today is instability. After the Security Council acted in Somalia, it took 6 weeks to get 500 Pakistani troops to Mogadishu, and when I visited Somalia and found the desperate situation and called the Secretary General about it, he told me that the additional 3,000 troops then authorized would be sent by ship. When I urged that they be sent by plane and that an additional 10,000 troops be sent, he said that our government--the U.S. government--charges so much to send troops by plane that they could not afford it. I will not go into the rest of the background, but it illustrates the wisdom of the Canadian leadership. I commend Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Minister of Foreign Affairs Andre Ouellet for their leadership. And I hope the United States will be an enthusiastic partner and not be a nation that is dragging its feet on this issue. I urge my colleagues to read the background paper from the Canadian Government. I ask that it be printed in the Record. The material follows: Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ottawa, Canada, June 8, 1995. Hon. Paul Simon, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Simon: Thank you for your letter of February 6, 1995, regarding the Canadian study to improve the United Nations (UN) rapid reaction capability. Your words of support for our efforts are appreciated. As you are aware, Canada has made UN reform a foreign policy priority. A key element of our position is to ensure that the UN operates with greater efficiency and effectiveness. The Government is committed to the active, continued and effective engagement of the Canadian Forces in international peacekeeping operations. The aim of the Canadian study is to make practical proposals to enhance the UN's rapid reaction capability in the field of peace operations. My officials are consulting extensively with other interested states to ensure the widest possible support for our initiative. The findings of the study are scheduled to be tabled at the 50th anniversary of the UN General Assembly in the fall of 1995. For further details of the Canadian study, you may wish to consult the enclosed copies of recent press releases and of my address to the International Conference on Improving the UN's Rapid Reaction Capability. Once again, thank you for bringing your views to my attention. Yours sincerely, Andre Ouellet.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. We are talking about regulations that we have passed that do not make much sense. We passed a law that among other things prohibited Members of Congress from writing recommendations. If you have a member of your staff who wants to get a civil service job, it is against the law for you to write a letter of recommendation. If we see a page here doing a great job, we cannot write a letter of recommendation. This simply permits us to do that, and I hope it could be disposed of without great debate.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, with all due respect, I do not think the Governmental Affairs Committee, which created this law, is likely to repeal it. But I have talked to a number of my colleagues, and I think the sentiment in this body is overwhelming that we made a mistake. Let me tell you how I happened to get into this. This is a letter I wrote to Donna Shalala about a person who lives in an apartment building where we live: Dear Donna: I am enclosing a resume for Dennis Gowie who was a hospital administrator in Washington, DC until the new administration here took over. I do not know him well, but he lives in the same apartment building that Jeanne and I live in, and he makes an excellent impression and has a superior background. I don't know where or if you are able to use someone with his background in your administration, but I think his background is so rich in the health care administration field that he is worthy of consideration. Cordially. I got the letter back with a letter saying I violated the law. A lobbyist, any lobbyist, can send a letter of recommendation for anyone, but if you have somebody working on your staff who is doing a good job and you want to send a letter of recommendation for a civil service job for that person, that is a violation of the law. We are in the process of talking about regulations that are ridiculous. This is a law that is ridiculous that is a regulation on us. I think we ought to get rid of it. I think this is a good time to do it. I am not trying to impose myself in the middle of this particular amendment, and I might say to my colleague from Ohio, I strongly support his amendment. But if I may ask my colleague from Delaware, if I were to ask unanimous consent to have this up on the floor of the Senate after the Glenn-Chafee amendment is disposed of, would that be satisfactory?

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside temporarily the Glenn-Chafee amendment to offer an amendment by myself, Senator Hatfield, and Senator Reid.

Mr. SIMON. I will be pleased to yield to my colleague.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, because I am interested in adopting this, and I am not trying to cause problems on the floor, I will withhold my request at this point. But I want to assure my colleagues on the floor, I am going to bring this amendment up one way or another on this bill before it passes. If I may add one other point, Mr. President, and I say to my colleague from Delaware, as well as Senator Glenn from Ohio, if there is some wording here that needs improvement, I am not wedded to this wording. We think we have drawn it very carefully. But if there is something that is not prudent here, what we say is that where there is on the basis of personal knowledge or records of the person furnishing we can make an evaluation of the work performance, ability, aptitude, general qualifications, valuation of character, loyalty, or suitability of such individual. I think those are the kind of things that should not present a problem. I hope we will do this. Let me just add, I am leaving this body. This is going to have a lot more to do with the future of Senator Roth and Senator Thompson and the distinguished junior Senator from Minnesota than it will for Paul Simon. But I want to be free if I have a good staff person or I know someone would be good for a job, to write a letter of recommendation. My experience is those letters do not mean that much, but at least I can get it off my chest. I want to have the right to write that letter and not just leave that right to lobbyists and others. Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, frankly, it is not satisfactory to me to have the committee take a hard look at it. I want to get a vote on it. We have crafted this very carefully, I want to assure my colleagues. In terms of it not being germane, the Senator from Delaware and I have voted for a thousand amendments that are not germane to legislation that is up. It is in a peripheral way germane. I will change my unanimous consent request, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that when the Chafee amendment is disposed of, the Simon-Hatfield-Reid amendment be up for consideration at that point.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate Floyd Cecel Cougil, a distinguished Illinoisan who passed away recently. Mr. Cougil's strong sense of community service, especially his involvement with local union activities was a great asset to labor relations in Illinois. At age 13, Floyd Cougil started work at the Metropolis Box Factory in southern Illinois. In 1951, he became a charter member of local 1301 of the Laborers Union of North America and he later founded the Construction and General Laborers Local 1320 of the AFL. Floyd served as trustee for the construction area conference in Cairo, IL. He served with distinction on a panel created by the Southern Illinois University to improve labor-management relations. Floyd was awarded his 50-year gold pin and membership card in 1989 for his continued service with local 1320. Floyd maintained a farm in Massac County, IL, and was a member of the Massac County Farm Bureau. His strong sense of community pride and involvement was demonstrated by the integral role he played in bringing both the EEI and the Allied Chemical plants to Massac County. He is also credited with helping solidify the Government contract with F.H. McGraw and Co. for the construction of the Atomic Energy Commission project in McCracken County, KY. Floyd Cougil had unquestionable personal integrity with a genuine concern for the well-being of his fellow man. His passing leaves a great void that will be felt not only by his family and his many friends and colleagues, but by the whole State of Illinois as well.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I offer an amendment in behalf of Senator Wellstone and myself.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I strongly support the Kennedy amendment. This bill, as it stands, is a bureaucracy builder, not a bureaucracy buster. I would just point out that Business Week has an article in the July 15 issue which suggests this is adversely going to affect business as well as working men and women. But very specifically, the Kennedy amendment protects MSHA and OSHA, and protects working men and women. The Presiding Officer is from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where there is a lot of coal mining. I am down in southern Illinois. From our home, a little community of 402 population, Makanda, the biggest big city, if I can call it that, is Carbondale, IL, which, as its name suggests, used to be a coal mining city. There are a lot of coal mines around there. I talked to too many people who have lost husbands, fathers, grandfathers in coal mine disasters. I have been at too many entrances to coal mines while people wait. I have been to eastern Kentucky. Congressman Carl Perkins asked me to go there with him after a coal mine disaster in eastern Kentucky. We are not just talking about statistics, those statistics that Senator Kennedy--if I could ask Senator Kennedy's staff to put those coal mine statistics up there again?

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, in response to my friend from Kansas, the reality is what we are doing is we are putting in effect a procedure that will lengthen the time in which MSHA and OSHA can respond to problems. She mentioned indoor air quality. I do not know very much about it. I know I have been in some factories and it has been great. I have been in others where there clearly is a problem. We want balance, but why lengthen this procedure that is already one that takes years? It just looks like a blip on the chart when you see the coal mine fatalities go up in 1984. I remember when we cut back on the number of coal mine inspectors and that went up, and then we put more back in and you see the line go down. What we are doing is making it harder to get standards that make sense. I want balance. The Senator from Kansas wants balance. We will have that with the Kennedy amendment.

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

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SIMON. You do an excellent job at that.