Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Madam President, the goal of balancing the budget is noble. I applaud that. I joined the Republicans when that vote was established in the Budget Committee. I went over and voted with the Republicans for that. The priorities that we have in this budget, however, are wrong. I think we will have to reexamine this as we move into reconciliation, as we move ahead. I will be here a year and a half. Within a year after I get out of this body, we will be shifting away from this goal unless we change the priorities. I think the goal is one we ought to be fighting for, and I hope we will shift the priorities. (Mr. GRAMS assumed the chair.)

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I have how much time remaining on this side?

Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. SIMON. Madam President, there is credit to be spread around. And there is blame to be spread around, for the deficit and where we are. I thought Senator Dorgan's remarks earlier were right on target. It is why I am proud to have him as a Member of the U.S. Senate. The Republicans, and I specifically commend Senator Domenici, deserve credit for having the target of balancing the budget. The Democrats, on the other hand, I think, have the right priorities, and the priorities that we are offered in this budget are not the priorities that the Nation needs. I add that I would feel much better about this if we had a balanced budget amendment. I would feel better because we would have interest at least 1 percent lower and that means, over a 7-year period, $170 billion to spend on things that are needed in this country. And the irony is that some of the groups that fought the balanced budget amendment are now having their programs hurt because we do not have a balanced budget amendment. We need it also because our history is that when we adopt a program like this we keep it for about 2 years, as in Gramm-Rudman--which I voted for--and then it becomes too politically awkward, and we lose it. What is wrong in terms of the priorities that we have? For national defense, we increase spending. We already are spending more than the next eight countries in the world combined. If you go back to the 1973 defense budget and add the inflation factor, we end up spending more money in fiscal year 1996 than we did in fiscal year 1973, and the Berlin Wall has fallen. You would never guess it, looking at the budget. In 1973, we had troops in Vietnam. In 1973, we had almost twice as many troops in Europe. In 1973, we were building up our nuclear arsenal. Now we are buying, including buying weapons the Defense Department says we do not need--B-2 bombers. They tell us it is a white elephant, yet we are going to go ahead, I assume. We will have a vote on it, not with my vote, but we will go ahead and have B-2 bombers. We are going to spend $59.8 billion in an increase over where we are right now on national defense. International affairs, foreign aid. I recognize it is not popular. But among the industrial nations of the world, do you know where we are in terms of percentage of our budget that we spend on foreign aid? We are dead last. And the great threat today is not a military threat. I want a strong military, but the great threat is instability. And we are saying in our budget we want to keep that military option as the greater option to the economic option. It does not make sense. What other nations today worry about is, frankly, not whether we have the equipment technology and the manpower to respond. The question is whether we have the backbone in the administration, in Congress, in the American people, not in our Armed Forces. Cutting back foreign aid, though it is politically popular, it is extremely shortsighted. Education? I commend the Presiding Officer, the junior Senator from Maine, for her amendment which added money back in for education. Yet, this budget cuts back education a total of $67 billion. Every study-- conservative, liberal, you name it--says what we ought to be doing for the future of our country is we ought to be investing more in education. Yet this budget does the opposite. Medicaid? We hear a lot of Medicare. I agree with my colleagues who make the speeches on Medicare. But frankly, I am more concerned about Medicaid because Medicaid is poor people. When we reduce the spending on Medicaid $182 billion, let us keep in mind, half the people on Medicaid are children, poor children. Would the people of the United States want us to cut back on that? I do not think so. Tax cuts? I disagree with the Republicans. I disagree with the Democrats on tax cuts. I do not think we ought to be having tax cuts when we have deficits. Would I like a tax cut? Of course. We all like tax cuts. But if I give myself a tax cut, I know I am hurting the future of my three grandchildren. Faced with that option, the American people do not want a tax cut. Yet, both political parties are pandering--that is what we are doing, pandering--on the tax cut. The Senate, assuming that you had interest reduction, would have given a $170 billion tax cut; the House, $345 billion; the conference is $245 billion. Are we better off applying that to the deficit or applying it to education? I think, very clearly, the Nation would be much ahead if we applied it to the deficit or to education. I ask unanimous consent, Madam President, to have printed in the Record a column by Robert Samuelson that appeared in the Washington Post called ``Macho Tax Cuts,'' and a New York Times editorial, ``The Rich Get Richer Faster.''

Mr. SIMON. The Senator from Washington indicates she would like to wait and take it a little later then.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I wish to recognize a group of students from Maine South High School in Park Ridge, Illinois, who won the Unit 1 award for their expertise in the ``History of Rights,'' in the national finals of the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' program. As the ranking member of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights, I have a keen interest in constitutional issues. It is exciting to recognize achievement in an area which is important both to me personally and to the entire Nation. Pat Feicher taught the winning class which competed against 49 other classes from across the Nation. The following students participated in the program: Raymond Albin, Julie Asmar, Marla Burton, Kevin Byrne, William Dicks, Nicholas Doukas, Neil Gregie, Conrad Jakubow, Brian Kilmer, Kristin Klaczek, Joe Liss, Robert McVey, Daniel Maigler, Agnes Milewski, Manoj Mishra, Vicky Pappas, Devanshu Patel, Anne Marie Pontarelli, Caroline Prucnal, Todd Pytel, Seema Sabnani, Jennifer Sass, Scott Schwemin, Peter Sedivy, Richard Stasica, Angela Wallace, Andrea Wells, and Stephen Zibrat. This fine group of students has demonstrated a remarkable understanding of the fundamental element of the American system of government.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to a recent report released by the southern California field office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms [BATF]. This report details a firearms trace study conducted on firearms found in crime scenes in southern California. The BATF's objective in conducting this study was to help determine the source of crime guns and suggest practices to counter the threat posed by illicit traffic in firearms. The results of the study provide evidence that many firearms used in crimes come from licensed firearms dealers. The results also reveal the problems of interstate trafficking in firearms, and the need for uniform, national firearms regulations. The report, titled ``Sources of Crime guns in Southern California'' describes the results of a firearms trace study in which special agents and intelligence analysts reviewed police reports and submitted trace requests for 1,764 guns recovered by selected law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties between January 1, 1994 and November 10, 1994. The results of the study raise serious questions about some of the rhetoric used to oppose firearms regulations. Last year, as I worked to tighten licensing requirements for Federal firearms dealers, many who opposed my proposals claimed that licensed gun dealers are not the source of guns used in crimes. This report shows that, at least in southern California, that is just not true. The ATF report outlined six sources of the guns recovered from crime scenes. By far the largest source was licensed gun dealers: Commercial gun dealers accounted for 80 percent of the guns recovered. According to the study, many significant gun trafficking cases involved at-home dealers who purchased large quantities of firearms from distributors, then resold them without paperwork. Recent legislation, from the Brady law to my gun dealer licensing reforms in last year's crime bill, has begun to address the serious lack of oversight on licensed gun dealers. As a result of my reforms, Federal firearms licenses now require a photograph and fingerprints, dealers are required to comply with State and local laws, and the ATF now has 60 days, instead of 45, to investigate before granting a license. Additional reforms raised the licensing fee from a mere $30 to $200. In fact, several recent cases have led to prosecution and conviction on felony licensing and recordkeeping violations. The report also shows the problems with interstate trafficking of firearms, and provides yet another argument in favor of national firearms regulations. Many of the guns recovered from crime scenes in southern California were traced to dealers in neighboring States with less stringent regulations: 30 percent of the guns included in the study were traced to dealers in 40 States other than California. Arizona and Nevada comprised 25 percent of the out-of-State purchases. California is a State with strong gun trafficking laws. All gun transfers, including those involving private parties, must go through a dealer and be approved by the California Department of Justice. Prospective purchasers of handguns and long guns are screened during a 15-day waiting period and approved buyers are perpetually recorded in a computer database. California forbids the possession of certain assault weapons and forbids felons from possessing any type of firearm whatsoever. By comparison, the laws of surrounding States, such as Nevada and Arizona, are highly permissive. Neither State imposes any restrictions other than the minimum Brady Bill requirements. Long gun sales and private transactions are not regulated and there is no central registry of handgun sales. I would like to commend the ATF for conducting this important firearms trace study. The results of their report should help to inform the debate on gun control legislation.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, today I remind my colleagues that June 12, 1995, was the second anniversary of the annulled election of Mashood Abiola as President of Nigeria. The people of Nigeria commemorated this anniversary with a general strike that brought business in Lagos and other cities to a standstill. The military regime of Gen. Sani Abacha marked the anniversary by rounding up and arresting dozens of Nigeria's prodemocratic leaders. As I speak today, General Abacha continues to hold in prison the legitimately elected leader of Nigeria; the general also continues to deny President Abiola badly needed medical attention. Nigeria is a nation rich in natural and human resources. Besides producing 2 million barrels of oil a day, Nigeria mines significant amounts of coal, lead, zinc, and other minerals. Nigeria is also the most populous nation in Africa. In the 1960's and 1970's, the people of Nigeria set the standard for improving educational standards and promoting economic development in Africa. By the early 1980's, 100,000 men and women were graduating each year from Nigerian postsecondary institutions and one-third of the population belonged to the middle class. Observers of postcolonial Africa predicted that Nigeria would lead the way in building democracy and prosperity in sub-Saharan Africa. Since that time, however, this optimistic outlook has been shattered. The military leaders of Nigeria have systematically looted their country's wealth and brought Nigeria to the edge of economic and political ruin. Today the Nigerian Government cannot even make interest payments on its foreign debt and is losing control over many of its territories. Fifteen years ago, Nigeria had a per capita income of $1,000, while today per capita income in Nigeria has dropped to $200 and the middle class has almost completely disappeared into poverty. This economic turmoil has undermined Nigeria's efforts to fight the spread of diseases like polio, riverblindness, and AIDS. Under the regime of General Abacha and his predecessors, Nigeria has become one of the busiest heroin trafficking points in the world. In the past year General Abacha convened a constitutional conference to decide the future of the Nigerian Government. It is now clear that this conference was stacked with pro-military delegates. The conference ignored the views of the National Democratic Coalition and other groups both in Nigeria and in exile which advocate the restoration of democratic institutions in Nigeria. Quite predictably, the conference voted to indefinitely extend General Abacha's term. The international community needs to intensify its efforts to restore democratic rule to Nigeria and end the flagrant human rights violations this military regime inflicts daily on the people of Nigeria. President Clinton has taken a good first step by suspending commercial flights to Nigeria and denying entrance to the United States to those people who are suppressing democracy in Nigeria. Up to now, however, these sanctions seem to have had no effect on the behavior of the military regime. I encourage the administration to make further efforts to push Nigeria toward democracy. The United States, along with the rest of the international community must support the prodemocracy movement in Nigeria with the same resolve we showed for the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. Support for democracy in South Africa required a unified response that increasingly isolated the South African Government from the rest of the global community. If General Abacha refuses to take any steps toward relinquishing his power, the United States should look at ways to increase diplomatic pressure on Nigeria. The administration should consider the recommendations of groups such as TransAfrica and the Parliamentary Human Rights Group to strengthen sanctions, including, perhaps, a temporary oil embargo on Nigeria. The future of Africa hinges on the development of democracy in countries like Nigeria. It is in our national interest to force Nigeria's military leaders to stop their human rights abuses and begin the transition to a legitimate democratic government.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, recently, the magazine America, published by the Society of Jesus, ran an article by its associate editor, Father James Martin, titled ``Who Cares About Africa?'' Because it contains so much common sense about a continent that we are not paying enough attention to, I ask to have it reprinted in the end of my brief remarks. The reality is every continent on the face of the Earth is making gradual improvement in its quality of life and standard of living, with one exception: Africa. The irony is as democracies have spread in Africa recently--an almost totally unrecognized phenomenon--instead of helping those fledgling democracies, we are cutting back on aid in general and aid to Africa more specifically. It is a flawed policy both in humanitarian terms and in political terms. I urge my colleagues to read Father Martin's article. At this point, I ask that the article be printed in the Record. The article follows: Who Cares About Africa? ``Kwanza begins today,'' the radio announcer said, launching into an explanation of the cycle of January African-American feast days. ``The word Kwanza,'' he said brightly, ``means `first' in African.'' I groaned. He meant Swahili, of course. Can you imagine any reasonably educated person saying that primo means ``first'' in European? But not knowing beans about Africa is taken for granted among many Americans. Before I went to Kenya for a two-year stay, a (well-educated) friend asked me if Kenya was in Nairobi. This is, to continue the analogy, like asking if Italy is in Rome. After I returned to the States, someone mentioned how exciting it must have been to be in Kenya when they elected Nelson Mandela. But on this count, I had been just as guilty. When I began working with refugees in Nairobi, I had to ask them where their home countries were. ``Sudan is, uh, north of here, right?'' I finally bought a map. the dark continent American interest in Africa, it would seem, is piqued only during times of crisis: Ethiopia, Somalia, Rwanda. Some of this is laudable. Only the most cynical would say that Americans were not moved to compassion after seeing pictures of the Rwandan refugees or starving Somalis. The problem is that once the United States ceases to be involved, we no longer hear anything about it. It's the flavor-of-the-month syndrome. For example, as soon as the United States pulled out of Somalia in March 1994, Somalia dropped out of the news, giving the false impression that things were just fine there. And, just as predictably, when U.S. troops returned to Somalia in March of this year to escort the remaining U.N. troops out, it was back in the news. As a result, the American public's understanding of Africa is based primarily on these short-term involvements. And while U.S. policy mavens may be more well informed, the public's misunderstanding often drives policy makers into responding inappropriately. Even the level of involvement and awareness among African Americans has been a disappointment to Africans. Some Kwanza celebrations, important as they are for fostering a sense of values and cultural continuity, can end up as grab bags of various traditions--Kente cloth from Ghana, Swahili from East Africa, history from Egypt--and may sometimes run the risk of cultural tourism. Many agree. Makau Mutua is a Kenyan who runs Harvard Law School's Center for Human Rights and also serves as chairman of the Kenyan Human Rights Committee. ``I think the knowledge of African Americans about Africa has to be based on fact, not fiction,'' he told me in a recent conversation. But what can we expect? For even the most diligent Africaphiles, it is difficult to find news about Africa in the mainstream media--unless, of course, the United States is involved. They don't call it the Dark Continent for nothing. With the exception of a few major newspapers, and magazines like The Economist, the print media all but ignore the tremendous richness of African cultures, to say nothing of the continent's variegated politics. There are 52 African countries, comprised of thousands of ethnic groups with their own languages, spiritualities, traditions, and arts. Even speaking of things ``African'' is misleading, since that adjective is forced to encompass the long-literate Christian traditions of Ethiopia in addition to those of the semi- primitive, nomadic East African Maasai tribe in addition to . . . well, you get the picture. By any measure it is a fascinating mix of cultures that is, for the most part, ignored. As for television, its coverage runs heavily to the following: famine, poverty, war and especially animals-- National Geographic-style. (One example: How many stories did you read about Rwanda before last year that didn't have to do with Diane Fossey's gorillas?) During my first week in Kenya I met a Somali refugee named Amin. I assumed from my prior CNN education that, like any ``typical'' refugee, he was poor and uneducated, probably illiterate. He certainly looked the part: an unkempt, older man wearing a faded blue suit, shiny with age. I had already started a language course, so I asked him if he would be more comfortable speaking Swahili. ``Actually,'' he said in the King's English, ``I would be equally comfortable in English, French or Italian.'' As it turned out, he had received his doctorate in philosophy at the University of Florence. He was, in short, far more educated than I was. Meeting him made me realize how poorly I understood Africa. My point is not that we should all dash out and buy armfuls of books about Africa (although it's not such a bad idea). The point is [[Page S 8832]] rather that this ignorance inevitably affects U.S. responses to the various crises that we say concern us so. received wisdom Let's take two recent examples: Somalia and Rwanda. As with much of the reporting about Africa, both countries have been viewed through certain lenses, or ``angles,'' replicated over and over by much of the media. Somalia, we were told, is a violent tribal society whose warfare exacerbated a natural shortage of food, causing widespread famine. The United Nations, led by the United States, went in, distributed food and restored some order--that is, until the ungrateful Somalis starting fighting us. Then we had to get out. Similarly, Rwanda was presented as a society divided into violent tribes--Hutu and Tutsi--that degenerated into lawlessness when, after the President's assassination, the people rose up and massacred one another. Fortunately, the West came to help out the Rwandan refugees who had fled to Zaire and Tanzania. This is not the place for a full explication of the complicated politics of Somalia and Rwanda. But it is instructive to review how accurate the received wisdom was-- by asking a few experts. First, what about the ``violent'' Somali culture? ``This invocation of `mysterious primordial violence' is repellent,'' said Gregory White, professor of political science at Smith College in Massachusetts and a specialist in African politics. ``Somali culture is certainly not bereft of violence, but the intensity of the violence you see today is a decidedly modern phenomenon. It must be seen within the context of the arms infusions--the modern weaponry--provided by the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.'' How about another bit of received wisdom--the West's generous and timely response to Rwanda? I asked Timothy Longman, who teaches at Drake College in Iowa. Professor Longman spent 1992 and 1993 in Rwanda finishing his doctoral thesis on church-state relations in Rwanda. He is one of this country's leading experts on Rwanda. What did he think of the West's response? ``It was shameful,'' he said bluntly. ``We could have prevented the disaster and we chose not to.'' Clearly this is not the familiar media angle. And his explanation of this particular point demonstrates how far the media stories sometimes stray from a more complex truth. According to Professor Longman, the killings were initially carried out by a very small group of Rwandans and could have been stopped. There were, he noted, U.N. troops already in Rwanda at the time, and they could have expanded rather than shrunk their presence. ``The people I know who were killed were killed some three weeks after the violence started in Kigali,'' he explained. ``The later massacres happened because they got away with it in Kigali. The West's only concern was to protect their nationals and pull them out of the country--though they were never really threatened. So the message given to the Rwandans was that they could literally get away with murder. And because it was so systematic, because it was not random violence, and because it was not spontaneous violence coming from the people, it could have been stopped. That's something the world community had fully within its capabilities. But they chose not to.'' Why not? The first reason, he said, derived from our experience in Somalia: not to get involved in a hopeless ``tribal conflict'' with ungrateful people. Smith Hempstone, U.S. Ambassador to Kenya from 1989 to 1993, said in a recent conversation, ``To some degree, I think that's why there wasn't the reaction to Rwanda that there was to Somalia.'' Which brings us back to a conflict that, according to some, we may have never understood in the first place. ``I think the lessons we learned from Somalia were the wrong ones,'' said Makau Mutua. In other words, misunderstanding bred misunderstanding. These admittedly isolated examples point out the difficulty of making judgments about the complex environment of Africa based on the simplistic presentations provided by the mainstream press. Once the media-driven ``angles'' take root in the public mind they become difficult to dislodge and force policy to go where it perhaps should not. Our perceptions of Somalia influenced our response to Rwanda, and will undoubtedly influence the U.S. response to other crises on the continent. other wisdoms One touchstone for all of this, I think, is the identification of African conflicts as ``tribal'' and European ones as ``ethnic.'' Have you ever heard of ``tribal'' violence in Northern Ireland? Well, that's religious, you might say. So how does one define a ``tribe''? And do such groups exist only in Africa? Professor Longman summed up this idea: ``It is viewed as a `tribal conflict' because Africans are basically a `tribalistic' people, because they're seen as `savages'; they're black. Therefore, they're just going to fight one another and there's nothing we can do. And I think it's a mistaken notion.'' Why? ``It is a view driven by racism,'' said Makau Mutua. His conclusion was echoed by Professor Longman: ``The more I get into this, the more I interpret it in racial terms, and the more it seems that black people are considered to be expendable. This was what was used to justify colonialism in the first place, and I think the attitudes are still there.'' The hard facts show that U.S. support for Africa is shockingly low and may fall even lower. According to Terence Miller, director of the Maryknoll Society's Justice and Peace Office in Washington, D.C., U.S. aid to sub-Saharan Africa (all but five African countries) was $802 million in 1994. At first blush that may sound high, but consider the amount that goes to just two countries--Israel and Egypt--$5.2 billion. In other words, 45 countries in Africa receive about one fifth the amount of aid given to those two countries. Overall, total U.S. aid to Africa represents a paltry one- twentieth of the foreign aid budget, which itself is only 1.3 percent of the Federal budget. And the push in Congress, especially among people like Senator Mitch McConnell (Rep., Ky.), incoming chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, is to reduce even this meager amount, while maintaining aid to the Middle East at current levels. ``The world around Africa is fast coming together, and this continent risks becoming the odd man out,'' said Anthony Lake, President Clinton's national security adviser, in The New York Times on March 17. Is Africa, then, to be consigned to the dustbin? A recent article by William Finnegan in the March 20 issue of The New Yorker focused on the depressing post-U.N. Somalia legacy of no infrastructure, no government, intense poverty and, as his wrenching article points out, no education for an entire generation of Somali youth. He paints the now familiar African scene of crumbling school buildings surrounded by hundreds of idle children, their formative years slipping away like the sand that blows through the empty classrooms. I asked Tim Longman if he planned to return to Rwanda. ``Someday,'' he said. ``But most of the dynamic and inspiring people I worked with are dead.'' horror fatigue At this point, the concerned but skeptical reader might say either ``Well, it really is their own fault'' or ``There's nothing we can do.'' To respond to the first reaction, it is helpful to remember not only the West's role in propping up various dictatorships throughout the cold war and providing arms, but also its earlier imposition of colonial boundaries, which threw traditionally separate ethnic groups together. Here is a thought exercise: Imagine a foreign power conquering Mexico and Texas, and calling this resulting amalgam of two separate cultures, say, Mexas. After 100 years, Mexas gains independence. Do you think the former Mexicans and Texans would get along very well? Probably not. Indeed, when Queen Victoria and Kaiser Wilhelm were drawing the borders of their East African colonies in 1884, both decided they wanted a big mountain. To provide for this, their ministers simply took out a ruler and drew a line between Mt. Kenya and Mt. Kilimanjaro. The line divided various tribal lands; thus were British East Africa and Tanganyika created. These artificial boundaries endure today as Kenya and Tanzania. Tribes that traditionally lived apart were thrown together against their will. So saying the ethnic tension is the Africans' own fault is more than a little simplistic. The second reaction--``There's nothing we can do''-- reflects a familiar sentiment. Ambassador Hempstone put his finger on this feeling: ``I think that we may have reached the sort of `horror fatigue' situation in which, when you've seen one starving baby, you've seen them all. And that bothers me.'' Certainly the apparent ingratitude on the part of the Somalis engendered indignant reactions from the American public and the press. Some of this represented righteous indignation, as when Somalis dragged the body of an American soldier through the streets. This is barbaric. But much may be a result of the media's incessant focus on Mogadishu, rather than on other areas where the famine-relief strategy helped to save an estimated 300,000 lives. Into africa What can be done in the future? This is a broad question but one that warrants consideration, given that the African continent is, as the director of the Jesuit Refugee Service, Mark Raper, said recently, ``in a state of chronic collapse'' (Am., 3/25). Many feel that some sort of limited engagement must be part of our future involvement with Africa, and gone is the hubris of ``nation-buidling'' that went awry in Somalia. Ambassador Hempstone, for example, thinks we must confine ourselves largely to humanitarian efforts. ``I think one of the lessons I've learned is that you don't want to try to re-create a society--nation-building and all that. I'm not sure we're competent to do that.'' Tim Longman points to another mode of engagement,``I was at a conference a year and half ago with Cardinal Christian Tumi of Cameroon, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and other Protestant and Catholic leaders from Africa. Their unanimous agreement was that if the West wants to help Africa, the best thing they could do right now is stop the international arms trade.'' Most agree that the mental isolationism that allows Americans to think of Africa as alien has to end. ``I think it's difficult for Americans to be interested in other countries unless they feel that their own futures are interconnected with the futures of others,'' said Makau Mutua. He looks to the various constituencies that have traditionally been concerned with African affairs--church groups, the Africanist community in academia and especially African Americans--to [[Page S 8833]] inform people better about Africa. ``The critical point is that the lack of information in this society about Africa has to be laid at the door of those groups who have the ability to inform people better.'' One hopeful sign is that the African-American community is increasingly finding its voice on African politics beyond South Africa. Randall Robinson's TransAfrica lobby, created in 1977, has intensified the influence of African Americans in foreign policy. In March Mr. Robinson created a coalition of prominent African Americans who pledged to put pressure on Nigeria's military dictatorship to restore democracy. TransAfrica also might do well to pressure the media to cover the continent more thoughtfully. A few newspapers already do. The New York Time's Donatella Lorch has provided consistently good coverage of Rwanda, including insightful reporting on the massacre in late April of 2,000 people in the Kilbeho camp. An excellent series of articles in March in The Philadelphia Inquirer, ``Remnants of a Nation,'' focused on Rwanda one year after the genocide of 1994. The reporter, Glenn Burkins, included the standard angles--refugees, ethnic strife--but also discussed lesser-known aspects of the situation in Rwanda, such as the prison system and the urgent need for international aid to the Rwandan Government. The media can help keep Rwanda from sliding back into oblivion. Similarly, the media can help by more fully explicating the problems of current African trouble spots. Thousands are fleeing from ethnic unrest in Burundi; Christians are being massacred (and, recently, crucified) by Government troops in southern Sudan, and 2,000 people have already lost their lives in the past two years in ethnic land clashes in Kenya. Though the Western powers are not yet involved in these crises, learning more from the media could help prevent the sort of spasmodic, misinformed responses to crises that will continue to dog Africa in the future. In the end, the problems of Africa remain our problems. The people are, as Jesus would undoubtedly point out, our brothers and sisters, and many of them suffer tremendously. Fully 54 percent of the people of Africa live in absolute poverty. Furthermore, the West has been, to some degree, complicit in Africa's troubles today, not only because of the colonial past but also because of our recent actions there-- the arms trade and our activities in the cold war. Finally, as Professor White pointed out, ``Even if you just want to be self-interested, the concomitant ignorance of Africa is shortsighted, because in the long run, as more problems continue to emerge, our ignorance will come back to haunt us.''

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would like to tell my colleagues about four banks in Illinois that have joined with nonprofit firms in a partnership that creates community service projects to serve underdeveloped communities. I am pleased to recognize South Shore Bank, Uptown National Bank of Chicago, AMCORE, N.A., Rockford, and Magna Bank of Illinois for their investment in vulnerable neighborhoods. These four banks have recently been recognized by the Social Compact, an organization that promotes private sector firms working with nonprofit organizations to relieve impoverished neighborhoods. South Shore Bank has worked in conjunction with The Neighborhood Institute [TNI]. This partnership has allowed South Shore Bank to contribute to the 71st Street Commercial Revitalization Project, an economic development strategy that targets a distressed, one mile commercial strip. The project includes restoring to use three abandoned properties, and assisting 34 small businesses with start up and development expenses. This project funded by South Shore has also created 70 jobs for local residents. Uptown National Bank of Chicago has worked in conjunction with the Voice of the People in Uptown, Inc. This partnership has made the dream of home owning a reality for 28 lower income immigrant and minority families in the urban Chicago land area. This $2.7 million project has allowed new construction as well as rehabilitation of existing sites. AMCORE, N.A., Rockford, has worked very closely with Zion Development Corp. [ZDC]. Through their partnership, AMCORE has construction and permanent financial loans with flexible terms available, enabling construction of 21 affordable housing units and added commercial space. Magna Bank of Illinois has worked in conjunction with Winstantley/ Industry Park Neighborhood Organization [WIPNO] to provide the capacity to meet the needs of the local residents. These four banks have provided something to these communities that was once a dream, but now is reality. They have provided their industry with an example that I hope the rest of the banking industry will follow.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, today, I would like to share an important Chicago Tribune article with my colleagues. It highlights an interesting new program offering healthy alternatives to gang members. Irving Spergel, a University of Chicago professor and national expert on gangs, has founded a program in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago designed to reduce gang violence. The program, which is federally funded, is entitled the Gang Violence Reduction Project. Professor Spergel is building on the many failures and few successes of past gang intervention programs. Based on his experience in this field, he is careful not to set his sights too high. He is not trying to eliminate gangs, nor is he trying to turn them into peaceful entities. Such efforts have been tried, and they have almost always failed. Instead, his program focuses on individual gang members who have violent histories, uses simple tools such as jobs, education, and personal attention, and emphasizes community involvement and cooperation in the effort. Gang intervention is an inexact science and any success is usually accompanied by heartbreaking failures. However, there is some indication that this approach is working where others have failed. In the 2 years prior to the start of the project, there were 15 gang- related homicides in Little Village, compared to 8 such homicides in the 2 years that followed. Aggravated assaults in Little Village rose 19.4 percent, but skyrocketed 291 percent in a nearby neighborhood with the same profile during the same time period. While these are not the kind of statistics that make headlines, in the complicated effort to reduce violence, they are indeed promising. But these statistics don't tell the story of this program's success as well as the individual examples of the young people it has helped. By the age of 19, Guillermo Gutierrez had already survived two stabbings and a shooting, and was a suspect in a drive-by shooting. Before he met Marilu Gonzalez, who runs a new community group called Neighbors against Gang Violence formed by the Gang Violence Reduction Project, Guillermo believed there was nothing anyone could do for him. One year later, he has earned his high school equivalency certificate. Even more importantly, he has discovered his community. Guillermo volunteers as a tutor for elementary school children and at an AIDS prevention project. Although Guillermo's story is an example of one of the successes of this program, it is a qualified success. Guillermo recently began a 6- year prison sentence for attempted murder from a nonfatal drive-by shooting he committed before he began participating in Professor Spergel's project. Many would consider Guillermo a lost cause. Yet, the day after his sentence, Guillermo spent 8 hours volunteering at community service projects. The story of Little Village is an important lesson for everyone concerned about violence. The causes of violence are complex, and no single approach will solve the problem. We should not expect violence reduction programs to produce miraculous changes in troubled communities. We should, however, continue to provide the seed money for innovative programs such as the Gang Violence Reduction Project. I ask that the full text of the article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Chicago Tribune, June 5, 1995] Giving Gang Members Options, Not Threats (By George Papajohn) ``There's nothing you can do for me.'' Meeting the cold glare of the young gangbanger issuing this challenge, Marilu Gonzalez had little reason to doubt him. For his part, Guillermo Gutierrez, a dropout, a heavy drinker, a survivor of two [[Page S 8836]] stabbings and one shooting and the suspect in a drive-by shooting, had plenty of reasons to believe no adult could help him--or would want to. A year later, with Gonzalez's help, Gutierrez can smile at his insolence. He has earned his high-school equivalent certificate, given up drinking and immersed himself in a series of community service projects. When he talks to Gonzalez, he exudes sincerity, not hostility. ``I want to study till my brains fall out,'' says the 20- year-old, who quit high school his sophomore year and still has a bullet in his ankle from a gang shooting. And those days of gangbanging still haunt Gutierrez. On Monday, he's set to begin a six-year prison term for attempted murder from a non-fatal drive-by shooting last summer, committed before he put his trust in Gonzalez. It took an unusual program focusing on the seemingly intractable problem of gangs--and making some demonstrable inroads--to bring Gutierrez and Gonzalez together. For three years, University of Chicago researchers, Chicago police, youth counselors and community activists like Gonzalez have been trying to reduce gang violence in the Little Village neighborhood by refusing to believe that hard- core gang members like Gutierrez are beyond help. Although the changes in Gutierrez seem stunning, they can be traced to a careful plan laid out by one of the nation's foremost experts on gangs, U. of C. professor Irving Spergel, who is trying to build on the many failures and the too few successes of past gang intervention programs. Spergel has no illusions of eliminating gangs in Little Village, a working-class enclave of Mexican-Americans on the Southwest Side. That would be unrealistic, and Spergel, 71, has studied gangs for too long to be naive. His project is not trying to turn the two targeted gangs-- the Latin Kings and the Two-Six, both with decadeslong histories of violence--into peaceful entities. That has been a proven recipe for disaster, often serving only to strengthen a gang's organizational structure. Instead, the youth workers try to change individual gang members who seem the most prone to violence. And the project is not aimed at forging gang truces or holding peace summits. That's far too showy and superficial. Instead, it relies on solutions that are startlingly simple: jobs, education and personal attention. But while the name of the federally funded program--The Gang Violence Reduction Project--is mundane, its goals are lofty. Few gang programs across the country can claim to make a difference. Fewer still can prove it through rigorous evaluation. ``You can't wipe out gang violence,'' Spergel said. ``But it looks like something we're doing is working.'' He thinks he now has the statistics to back him up. In the two years prior to the start of the project in August 1992, labeled Time I, there were 15 gang-related homicides. In the two years that followed, Time II, there were eight. Gang-related aggravated batteries and aggravated assaults are up, but at nowhere near the pace of similar areas such as Pilsen, another Latino neighborhood with a long-standing gang problem. For instance, aggravated assaults in Little Village rose 19.4 percent but skyrocketed 291 percent in Pilsen. Researchers also surveyed 86 gang members to estimate the number of violent incidents they were involved in during Time I and Time II. The average dropped from 26 to 11. What's clear is that progress in Little Village has to be measured in small increments. Gangs still have a strong grip on the community and its youths, and gang involvement in drug dealing is rising. Little Village still has a very big gang problem. Some local observers, however, say the neighborhood now has something it didn't have two years ago; a blueprint for change, sense of purpose and a glimmer of hope. ``From the outside it might seem like it's status quo, but you don't realize how many lives have been touched,'' said Romero Brown, director of the Boys and Girls Club in Little Village. One of Spergel's tenets is the need for a community to marshal all its resources in an effort to redirect gang members. That has meant that the youth counselors supervised by the university come from the neighborhood and probably still have friends in the gang; it has meant the formation of a new community group run by Gonzalez, Neighbors Against Gang Violence; and it has meant developing a better relationship with police and probation of officers. The youth workers often are the catalysts. One of their responsibilities is to alert police of impending gang attacks. ``We'll let the cops know if there's a planned retaliation,'' Spergel said. ``The police will be out there to prevent it.'' A more important and subtle duty, though, is for youth workers to gain the trust of gang members and refer them to Gonzalez. These workers hook gang members up with jobs, get them back into school and even refer them for psychological counseling. Two tactical officers assigned to the area also have gone out of their way to get to know the gang members. They advise the youth workers on who are the best candidates for change. They're still looking to bust the bad guys, but they also are more willing than in the past to identify the good kid gone astray--and they'll encourage a gang member to call Gonzalez or one of the youth workers if he or she needs help. From the youth worker's perspective, the idea is to give the gang member options, not lectures or ultimatums to leave the gang. ``We don't talk about that,'' said Javier Avila, 26, field supervisor for the three youth workers and a longtime neighborhood resident. ``That will happen in time if we do what we're supposed to do.'' Said Brown of the Boys Club: ``You can't go in and say, `I'm going to save you.' You have to help them be able to see things for themselves.'' In the last year, as new worlds have opened up to him, Gutierrez has learned there's more to life than the street corner. He traveled to Boston for training in the national youth service program and has worked on City Year, the national youth service program, on various community projects throughout Chicago. But his life still is in transition. When pressed, he said he still considers himself a gang member, but not a gangbanger--somebody out wreaking havoc in the community. There's no single way to measure whether a gang member has turned his or her life around. But here's one piece of evidence in Gutierrez's case: The day after he appeared in court to plead guilty and receive his sentence, he showed up at 8 a.m. for his City Year project. The next eight hours would be split between an AIDS prevention project and tutoring grammar-school children. Gutierrez resisted the temptation to stay home and nurture his anger about the prison sentence. ``I'd rather come here,'' he said. ``It's important to me. if I stop doing this, I'm going to get the mentality that I used to have--screw the world, nobody cares, I ain't going to make a difference.'' In prison, he said, he hopes he can begin earning college credits. But he also knows that, depending on the prison he is assigned to, gangs may continue to have a heavy influence on his life. All involved in the program have learned, if they didn't suspect it already, that gang intervention is an inexact science. ``You've got to assume that no one approach will work,'' Spergel said. ``Sometimes a guy get a job and has extra money and uses it to buy more weapons.'' Avila told the story of another youth who was enrolled in the same service program that helped Guiterrez adopt his new outlook. That youth is no longer in the program or in Little Village, having been arrested in Texas in December on charges of smuggling drugs from Mexico. Avila and Gonzalez took that youth's fall from grace personally. They had believed he was making progress and had invested long hours to help him, sometimes searching the streets late at night to find out where he was. Now, they believe he probably was using them, and they hope they've gained some wisdom from the experience. ``That's the most important thing you learn--who's conning you and who isn't,'' Avila said. Even though the program targeted about 200 gang members three years ago for intervention, some were unreachable and never were referred for jobs or training. Within the past several months, two of those gang members have been charged with murder. Spergel still is compiling an important piece of the project's evaluation: a before-and-after comparison of 140 gang members based on court and police records. Even without knowing the results of the Little Village project, the U.S. Justice Department has been impressed enough by Spergel to finance similar programs in five cities, including Bloomington, Ill., as a test of his theories. The programs, set in cities with emerging gang problems, will be launched later this summer. Like the Little Village program--which also is getting federal funding, funneled through the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority and the Chicago police--the price tag is about $500,000 a year. Gonzalez slowly has been acquiring government grants so that once Spergel finishes his work in Little Village several months from now, the gang program can continue. There's still plenty she thinks can be done for the gang youths. ``They are in many ways lost individuals,'' said Gonzalez, a mother of three. ``They are individuals very desperately seeking something.''

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, there is a great deal of discussion about the loan guarantee for Mexico, most of it negative because that is where public opinion is today. Any careful study of the merits of the issue suggest that the safer gamble between doing nothing or having a $40 billion loan guarantee is the $40 billion loan guarantee. I do not like the option, but that is the reality we face. We are being asked to cosign a note, but there is some security with a note, and if we do not go ahead, the consequences in terms of illegal immigration, loss of export markets and, simply, the suffering that will take place south of our border are much too clear. Tom Friedman of the New York Times has a column which puts another perspective on this matter that I think also makes sense. He is not interested in bailing out the bankers who hold some of the Mexican bonds, but he is interested in preserving our pension systems, which also hold many of these bonds. What he says makes sense, and I ask that the Tom Friedman column be printed in the Record. The column follows: A Consumer's Guide (By Thomas L. Friedman) Zurich.--One of the hottest topics in finance these days is how to prevent another Mexico from destabilizing the global financial system. Finance ministers will tell you that the subject has been dominating all their international meetings, and you are going to hear a lot of their proposed solutions at this week's G-7 summit in Halifax. This is a Warning: There is more nonsense than common sense among these proposals. Since some of them could cost you money, I offer this survival guide to the I-can-prevent-the-next-Mexico schemes. I. Bad Ideas That Sound Good. The worst of these bad ideas is the proposal to establish a $50 billion standby rescue fund--administered by the I.M.F.-- that would be ready as a life preserver to be tossed to any country dragged under the waves by global markets running amok. I call this idea ``The George Soros Memorial Gift Fund.'' In 1992 Mr. Soros, the billionaire currency speculator, mounted a fierce attack on the overvalued British pound, and Prime Minister John Major of Britain spent billions trying to defend his inflated currency against a devaluation. Eventually the pound was broken. But you can bet that if there had been a $50 billion rescue fund available in 1993, Mr. Major would have tapped it. And just as surely, that $50 billion would be in Mr. Soros' pocket today. The more money that government leaders have to defend faulty economics and their own egos, the richer Mr. Soros becomes by exposing their foolishness. Don't get me wrong. I'm for the Mexico bailout. But I want it to be hard. Dangling a $50 billion fund out there only invites buccaneering governments to be reckless. Professors should never begin the semester by announcing when the makeup exam will be. Governments should have to operate on the assumption that there will never be a makeup exam--and if there is one, it will be an extraordinary event. II. Good Ideas That Are Not as Good as They Sound. The best of this lot is the decision by the I.M.F. to intensify its surveillance of financially shaky nations. The I.M.F. used to do only a once-a-year checkup on its client countries. But it was precisely in the months between annual checkups that Mexico went on the wild spending binge that caused its financial heart attack. The I.M.F. has now promised to keep closer tabs on its clients. But this is no cure-all. Remember one thing: Many of Mexico's financial problems, on the eve of its crash, were hiding in plain sight. Public data showed it was running unsustainable deficits and was too dependent on hot money from abroad. These data were ignored because investing in Mexico had become a fad. Too many foreign investors had been to cocktail parties where people were whispering: ``Mexico-- you gotta be in Mexico.'' Fads will always trump logic. When the Hula Hoop was hot, no one wanted to hear that it was bad for your hips. III. Small Ideas That Could Make a Big Difference. 1. Copy Chile. Chile demands that foreigners who want to buy Chilean stocks hold them for at least a year. That way if your country is practicing sound economics it won't be punished when the next Mexico crashes and jittery investors scream to their brokers: ``Get me out of all emerging markets.'' In Chile's case, investors could not get out, and so Chile, unlike Brazil and Argentina, was not punished for Mexico's sins. 2. Save, save and save. If your country has a low savings rate, it will have to rely on another country's savings for growth. That will make your country vulnerable to the whims of global markets and global markets vulnerable to the crazy behavior of your country. (See encyclopedia entry for Mexico.) 3. America's next global economic crusade should be to get more developing countries to adopt U.S.-style securities laws--the toughest in the world for financial disclosure, conflict of interest and insider trading. Many of the new stock markets in Asia and Latin America are still rigged casinos, where investors are just begging for trouble. (See encyclopedia entry for Barings Bank, Singapore.) 4. Fasten your seat belts, put your tray tables and seat backs in a fixed and upright position and enjoy the ride. Because there is simply too much money, moving around the world too quickly, with too few controls, and too many governments ready to do anything to get slice of it, to prevent another Mexico somewhere over the horizon.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, recently, Barbara Crossette had an article in the New York Times titled, ``UNICEF Asks Broader Aid For Children.'' The article quotes the new head of UNICEF, appointed by the President of the United States, Carol Bellamy, as saying the United States should do better in our response to the needs abroad. I could not agree with her more. I hope we do not diminish the United States contribution to world stability by cutting back on foreign aid, as we seem destined to do right now. I ask that the Barbara Crossette piece be entered into the Record at this point. The article follows: [From the New York Times, June 12, 1995] Unicef Asks Broader Aid For Children (By Barbara Crossette) United Nations, June 9--The United States now ranks lowest among 21 industrial countries in the amount of foreign aid it gives in relation to its gross national product, according to a new study by Unicef, the United Nations Children's Fund. Although American aid is second only to Japan's in dollars--$9.7 billion as calculated by international organizations using 1993 figures--it represents 15 hundredths of 1 percent of G.N.P. The Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands lead the list, with levels above 80 hundredths of 1 percent, and in those countries, as in the United States, aid budgets are facing new cuts. The general reduction in foreign aid comes at a time when Unicef is urging all countries to look at the situation of children in the broadest terms, including the environments in which their mothers live. ``The child can't really be seen as separate and on an island,'' said Carol Bellamy, Unicef's executive director. ``You can adopt some concrete objectives and go out and seek to achieve them, but the child has to be seen in the broader context of the community.'' In an interview here last week before leaving for Berlin, where she released the report [[Page S 8835]] today, Ms. Bellamy said the Unicef board had recently approved clean water and education programs that would benefit whole villages and people of all ages. Taking a broader look, she said, means that programs can be tailored to national needs and levels of development: basic survival in a country like Chad or children's rights in Argentina or Chile. Among its recommendations, the report calls for campaigns to attack vitamin deficiencies and malnutrition, the precursors to disease in many countries, and to ameliorate or end deprivations and social abuses of children that weaken them and ultimately threaten their lives. ``In all regions of the world,'' the report said, ``children continue to be malnourished, to be plagued by preventable disease, to be denied even a basic education.'' Unicef says that about 200 million children worldwide suffer from vitamin A deficiency, which impairs the immune system and can lead to blindness and death. One million to two million children's lives could be saved each year by vitamin supplements, the report says. About half of the 13 million children who die each year are victims of three major illnesses: pneumonia, diarrheal disease and measles. While measles is in retreat, the report says, pneumonia, the single largest killer of children, is not. And AIDS is now a threat. About one million children now have the virus that causes AIDS, many in Africa and Asia. With the world population growing fastest in the poorest countries, where children are likely to live in the worst conditions, Ms. Bellamy said the reduction in aid was especially unfortunate. ``None of us benefit if our partners in development are being hurt, because we are actually all in the same development boat,'' she said. Ms. Bellamy, a former Peace Corps volunteer in Guatemala and director of the Peace Corps before she joined Unicef in May, said she had the point of interrelationships driven home when she became City Council President in New York in 1978. ``Here in New York City--the industrialized world--we had not had a full-scale immunization program for a number of years,'' she said. ``A third of all youngsters in New York City schools and close to a half of poor youngsters were not immunized. So we started a program to get all kids immunized. ``There is a direct connection between that investment in aid and health care back here in the United States. If polio breaks out one place in the world it can just come back and spread again. The walls between nations are now very thin curtains.''

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I picked up the spring 1995 issue of the Congressional Institute for the Future and noted the following Barbara Bush quotation in it: ``There is really no question that literacy is related to all our social concerns--crime, drugs, and teenage pregnancy as well as America's stature in the world, our competitiveness on the international scene, and our national security. Low literacy goes hand-in-hand with unemployment, low productivity, and problems with job retraining in our rapidly changing communities--this is a now and future issue. The literacy of parents affects the educational chances of children. We are only just beginning to treat this complex, many-sided issue with the care and concerted action it requires.'' Barbara Bush provided significant leadership on this issue of literacy, and if we're to have a truly productive country, we're going to have to pay more attention to this issue. One complaint I hear about more from heads of major corporations is how poorly prepared American workers too often are. The basics have to be there in the field of education to have a well prepared work force. The basics are the old ``reading, writing, and arithmetic.'' People in this country are not more stupid than people in other Western industrialized countries, but the other countries have had the good sense to put a greater stress on basic literacy. We have to do the same. Yes, we ought to improve the schools that we have, but we also have to reach out to those who have not been helped by schools, adult Americans. I urge my colleagues to keep in mind Barbara Bush's words of wisdom.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, one of the most impressive leaders I have met during my years in public service is Helmut Schmidt, who served as chancellor of Germany. Recently, he had an article about trade, which is interesting both because of what he says about trade, and also, because of what he says about our deficit. Listen to these words: Every economist knows that the U.S. trade deficit can be eliminated only through a sizable reduction of the budgetary deficit. This fact is also well-known by the White House and Congress. And yet, American politicians continue to pretend to themselves and their people that the Japanese are responsible for their misery. I am not saying that the Japanese are perfect in terms of opening their market to other countries, but there is no question that the principal reason for our trade deficit is our budget deficit. We have shot ourselves in the foot. We have a self-inflicted wound. I ask that the full statement by Helmut Schmidt, which appears in the Los Angeles Times, be printed in the Record. The material follows: [From the Los Angeles Times/Washington edition, June 14, 1995] The United States Is Dead Wrong (By Helmut Schmidt) Listening to the U.S. trade representative these days evokes sounds of battle, of the adversary's conning and one's own self-righteousness. The recurring topic is automobiles, and everything is directed against Japan. If the overall trade between the two countries is in deficit for the United States, then--obviously--must not it be Japan's fault? In reality, the United States shows a trade deficit not only with Japan but also with the rest of the world. Even if Japan were to buckle under the pressure from Washington to agree to import quotas for American automobiles--which would be in violation of the treaty establishing the World Trade Organization and of the painfully achieved results of the GATT Uruguay Round--the structural illnesses of the American economy would still remain untreated. Every economist knows that the U.S. trade deficit can be eliminated only through a sizable reduction on the budgetary deficit. This fact is also well-known by the White House and Congress. And yet, American politicians continue to pretend to themselves and their people that the Japanese are responsible for their misery. Washington's attempt to impose larger sales of American automobiles on the Japanese constitutes a serious violation of the principle of freedom of trade. Those who believe that punitive import duties of 100% on automobiles imported from Japan would give European cars a better chance are shortsighted indeed. This trade war can spread very rapidly. It can fast affect other areas, such as the aircraft industry and modern information technologies, as well as the television and movie industries. In short, Washington is dead wrong. Its actions can endanger the world economy as a whole. Those Americans who, in spite of paying lip service to the contrary, really quite like the fall of the dollar on the currency markets because they hope to increase exports, should remember this: Whoever weakens the dollar as a leading world currency will undermine America's role as a world power in the long run. Japan's position, however, is also unhealthy in the long run. Over the past 15 years, its production has largely exceeded its domestic consumption and investments. The extraordinary savings of the Japanese have turned their nation into the world's largest creditor. And no overpowering creditor will remain popular for long. The leading officials in the ministries of finance and industry and trade who, in reality, control the Japanese economy have succeeded in structuring an economy oriented exclusively toward consumer self-restraint within and toward expansion in trade abroad. Neither the Japanese people at large, nor even most of the politicians, seem fully aware of this. True, Japan has become a potential world power because of the foreign-policy leverage of its overwhelming financial strength. True, the annual interest and dividends from abroad have reached nearly one-third of the annual surplus of its trade balance. True, the Japanese foreign currency reserves have levels twice as high was those of the United States. Yet, Japanese citizens pay for this nominal wealth with sacrifices in consumption, especially by giving up adequate housing standards. The Japanese markets are a difficult terrain for many foreign sellers. But even if President Clinton's offensive in the automobile trade war were successful, this would change little in the structure of the Japanese economy, which would continue to be oriented unilaterally toward exports. A structural reform to promote domestic expansion would in all likelihood take about one decade, about as much time as it would take to orient American structures toward a balanced budget. Until now, neither country seems to wish such drastic reforms. [[Page S 8831]] Tokyo's political leadership has not yet realized that Japan's increasing economic strength has lead to an increasingly vulnerable foreign-policy position, not only vis-a-vis its only ally, the United States, but also vis-a- vis its many neighbors in East and South East Asia. An Asian- Pacific economic entity under Japanese leadership is even less popular with its neighbors than a European Union under a theoretically conceivable German leadership. In the long run, Japan will remain dependent on a tolerable relationship with the United States. This conflict will benefit no one in the world. America is wrong in today's trade war, which is not to say Japan is right. Restraint is desirable from both sides. Both nations must realize that a structural reform of their economies is a must. Helmut Schmidt, the former German chancellor, co-founded (with former French President Valery Giscard D'Estaing) the annual economic summits of the seven leading industrial countries. This year's opens Thursday in Halifax, Nova Scotia. This article is from Global Viewpoint, adapted from one originally published in the Hamburg-based Die Zeit.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, through the years I have found Brent Scowcroft to be one of the more rational and thoughtful people, when it comes to foreign policy. Recently, he had an op-ed piece in the New York Times titled, ``Foreign Aid Has Its Uses,'' and it makes eminent good sense. I ask that it be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. What concerns me is that while U.S. leadership abroad is slipping-- and that should concern all of us--we are accelerating the slippage by cutting back on foreign aid. In addition, when we cut foreign aid and increase military spending, we increase the likelihood of the use of the military option rather than other options that could save lives and bring stability. The great threat to the world today is instability. We should heed the words of Brent Scowcroft. The material follows: [From the New York Times, June 12, 1995] Foreign Aid Has Its Uses (By Brent Scowcroft) Foreign assistance is again undergoing the ``perils of Pauline'' as it wends through the Congressional gauntlet. This happens yearly, but the dangers today seem especially ominous. With the search for budget economies so desperate, using up funds for what detractors call foreign giveaways when programs to assist needy Americans are being slashed seems unconscionable to many. Foreign assistance, with us since the Marshall Plan, has been perhaps the most unpopular legislation to come before Congress for some years. The increased peril it faces arises mainly from the loss of the justification the cold war provided. The case for foreign assistance is simple, basic--and misunderstood. The core argument is that foreign assistance is a fundamental instrument of foreign policy. There are three main ways through which, separately or in combination, we can exert influence abroad. One is traditional diplomacy. Another is economic or military coercion. When diplomacy alone is inadequate and coercion too extreme or inappropriate, we have to turn to foreign assistance--the use of economic incentives. Why the difficulty in persuading Congress and the nation of its merits? One reason is that some foreign assistance programs, however meritorious, have become so encrusted with activities and outlays that have so little to do with our direct national interests that the main purpose of the programs has become obscured. In the cold war, our aid programs could carry this burden, but now the entire economic assistance edifice is endangered. We must refocus the programs to make them directly relevant to our national interests. For example, we need to emphasize the security requirements of countries of particular concern--Israel and Turkey, for example. We have to strengthen stability in areas of strategic interest: Gaza, Jericho, Poland and Czechoslovakia. We should see the Central American peace process through to its conclusion. We need to suitably compensate countries that provide military installations as well as cooperation and support on issues of particular importance to us. For example, we recently offered incentives to Caribbean countries to accept Haitian and Cuban refugees. We need to be able to respond quickly to unforeseen circumstances and unusual opportunities. For example, right after the ouster of Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega, we helped Panama pay off its debts to international financial institutions, thus making other economic aid possible. When Fidel Castro leaves the scene, economic assistance to Cuba may be needed immediately to ease the transition. A contingency fund for that purpose would be useful. Support for democracy and for sustainable economic development serve our interests, but they are not top priorities. For example, help for the Development Fund for Africa would flow from the American tradition of compassion and altruism. And while our contributions to such international financial institutions clearly benefit us in the long term, we should base such aid on our wish to promote global prosperity rather than to promote specific American interests. Like it or not, America has inherited the mantle of world leadership. In searching for budget cuts, we must not destroy foreign aid, a crucial means of exercising that leadership.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Kennedy, for the time and also for his leadership here. Strangely, the issue of abortion is dominating our consideration. Here is an obstetrician/gynecologist who has delivered over 10,000 babies and was involved in 39 abortions, some of which he was just the supervising physician, where his name is on record. If he is confirmed, there will not be one additional abortion in this country because he is a Surgeon General of the United States--maybe less, but not more. I say ``maybe less'' because I concur completely with what Senator Dodd had to say about the I Have a Future Foundation. Here is a distinguished physician who took an interest in teenagers in a public housing project, and the statistics are squishy because they move in and out. But there is one statistic no one questions, which is that the dropout rate for these young people changed dramatically. And that has a great deal to do with abortion. There are a lot of things we do not know, but we do know that girls, as well as boys, who complete high school are much less likely to become pregnant and become teenage parents. There are 1 million teenage pregnancies in this country, 400,000 of which end up in abortions. He could have ducked that. He could have been home watching television. He could have gone to the country club and played golf instead of working with teenagers. And he cared. We have an opportunity to nominate someone and to approve someone who cares. Dr. Foster, if you are listening and viewing this somewhere, let me tell you that this is not a judgment on you that is being made in the U.S. Senate. You can be proud of your record; your family can be proud of your record; your profession can be proud of your record; your country can be proud of your record. What we are doing is making a judgment about the U.S. Senate, about whether we have the courage to do what is right. I am sure the chairwoman would agree with me on this. There was not a single member of the committee who listened to his testimony that did not come away very much impressed by Dr. Foster. If people had not taken positions prior to his testimony, he would be overwhelmingly approved here. We are judging ourselves. Senator Specter mentioned Justice Thomas when he was up. Senator Kennedy and I were on the Judiciary Committee and strongly opposed him. Ted Kennedy did not get up here and try to have a filibuster. Paul Simon did not try to have a filibuster. We let the process work. That is what we ought to do. That is what we ought to do in fairness to Dr. Foster, but it is also what we ought to do in fairness to the process, in fairness to the U.S. Senate. I hope we do the right thing, and the right thing is to let us make a judgment whether or not he should serve as Surgeon General of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, today, I would like to pay tribute to the Rainbow House/Arco Iris, a shelter for battered women located in the Chicago area. Since 1982, Rainbow House has provided shelter, counseling, and support services for over 5,000 battered women and their children. Recognizing that shelters are not the sole answer to domestic violence, the Rainbow House has been actively committed to developing an energetic community education and prevention initiative. This important organization has presented hundreds of community education workshops for thousands of teachers and students. The goal--to stop the problem before it starts by teaching young children how to express their strong feelings without violence. Domestic abuse is a serious and pervasive problem in our culture. In fact, abuse is the single largest cause of injury to women. The FBI estimates that a woman is beaten in the United States every 15 seconds. Family abuse, including child abuse is found on every level of society, regardless of race, education, age, or income. The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence estimates that in 50 percent of the families where a woman is being beaten, children are being abused as well. Ten years ago there were fewer than a dozen shelters for battered women nationwide. Now, Rainbow House is 1 of more than 600. It is with great pleasure and admiration that I recognize the work of this fine organization.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to provide for the Illinois & Michigan Canal Heritage Corridor. The purpose of this legislation is to preserve and enhance a corridor known for its nationally significant cultural and natural resources. My intention is to provide for long-term preservation, betterment, and utilization of the opportunities in the Illinois & Michigan Canal. The Illinois & Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor extends itself over 120 miles from Chicago to LaSalle/Peru. The Illinois & Michigan Canal was the first to be designated as a National Heritage Corridor in 1984. For years Illinoisans have been able to appreciate not only the natural beauty of the canal but also its historical interest. On both banks of the river, forests, prairies, and bird sanctuaries have been preserved. The unique architecture of this area includes buildings constructed between 1836 and 1848, architecture which no longer existed farther east, destroyed by the Chicago Fire of 1871. The Illinois & Michigan Corridor is an innovative concept. It is the first partnership park of its kind and it is now a model for such parks throughout the Nation. Mr. President, as with other national heritage corridors there is a high degree of coordination and cooperation required by the various governmental entities along the canal if the project is to be successful. The high historical, recreational, educational value of the canal is evident. It is my duty to seek to help preserving and protecting one of our national treasuries. I believe that extending the Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor Commission would be the most appropriate way to reach those goals.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to provide for the establishment of the Ohio River Corridor Study Commission. The purpose of this legislation is to focus attention on the distinctive and nationally important resources of the Ohio River corridor. My intention is to provide for long-term preservation, betterment, enjoyment, and utilization of the opportunities in the Ohio River corridor. The Ohio River is a unique riverine system and is recognized as one of the great rivers of the world. In our Nation's early years, the Ohio was the way west; later the transportation opportunities provided by the river brought resources and people together to help build our country into a great industrial power. The Ohio River starts in Pittsburgh, PA, and flows to the west and to the south toward its confluence in my home State of Illinois at the Mississippi River at Cairo, IL. The Ohio River covers 981 miles and flows through or borders on the States of Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois. Our great American rivers even after years of neglect and abuse, remain [[Page S 8685]] among the most scenic areas of the country. After a preliminary investigation, the ad hoc Ohio River Group believes that an indepth study of the waterway would result in a favorable recommendation for a joint local, State, and national endeavor resulting in the designation of the river valley as a national heritage corridor. Mr. President, as with other national heritage corridors there is a high degree of coordination and cooperation required by the various governmental entities along the river if the project is to be successful. I believe that establishing the Ohio River Corridor Study Commission--whose membership would include the Director, or designee, of the National Park Service--would be the most appropriate mechanism to begin implementation of the conceptual study.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, no politician likes to admit that he made a mistake in voting for any bill. But, in life and politics, it is usually better to be right than to be consistent. [[Page S 8629]] I voted for the Independent Counsel Act when it was enacted in 1978. And I voted for it again--although with increasing trepediation--when it was reauthorized in subsequent years. But, as many have said, experience is the best instructor. And experience has demonstrated to my eyes that the Independent Counsel Act is worse than the disease it was meant to cure. I have come to the conclusion that it is time for the Senate to reconsider--and perhaps even eliminate--the office of the independent counsel. To be sure, the act was born of good intentions. It was designed to counter the conflict of interest--or at least the appearance of a conflict--that existed whenever a Federal prosecutor pursued one of the President's own officials. It was meant, in short, to ensure that such investigations would be carried out solely with the public's interest in mind. Nonetheless, as Prof. Gerald Lynch of Columbia University argued in the Washington Post, the act has not put to rest the charges of bias in politically tinged cases. Instead, what has become painfully clear is that virtually any suit against a major political player will involve charges of favoritism and partisanship, whether or not an independent counsels is appointed. Even worse, says Professor Lynch, the act has encouraged overzealous prosecutions: ``Ordinarily, a prosecutor must ask whether it is fair to treat this case as a felony compared to others where the defendant was not politically prominent. The special prosecutor has no such concerns.'' Three distinguished Attorneys General--Edward Levi, Griffin Bell, and William French Smith--have made similar criticism, noting how the act ``exacerbates all of the occupational hazards of a dedicated prosecutor: the danger of too narrow a focus, the loss of perspective of preoccupation with the pursuit of one alleged suspect.'' In short, 20 years of experience have demonstrated that the cost of maintaining the Independent Counsel Act far outweighs its benefits. It has aggravated, rather then calmed, the prevailing anti-Government mood that prevails in this Nation. As Gerald Lynch concludes, ``instead of purifying our governing institutions, special prosecutors play into a pathology that thrives on an appetite for scandal and a distrust of our system of government.'' And that is perhaps the strongest reason of all to reconsider the wisdom and efficacy of the act in its current form. I ask that the article by Prof. Gerald Lynch be printed in the Record. The article follows: Special Prosecutors: What's the Point? (By Gerard E. Lynch and Philip K. Howard) Just about everybody in the country was focused on terrorism in Oklahoma, but the president of the United States had other pressing business: He was being questioned by independent counsel Kenneth Starr about Whitewater. Nothing unusual there. In fact, there has hardly been a time, since passage of the Ethics in Government Act in 1978, when a special prosecutor and his target have not been in the news. Justifying the smallest details of a past transaction or decision has become part of the job description for high executive office, always with the suggestion of public scandal and personal ruin. The progress of the manhunt is chronicled in the daily headlines (``Investigation Moves One Step Closer to the President''), but the titillating prospect of bringing down important leaders is not a healthly sign. Instead of purifying our governing institutions, special prosecutors play into a pathology that thrives on an appetite for scandal and a distrust of our system of government. The stakes were small in early independent counsel investigations. Who cared whether Hamilton Jordan used cocaine at Studio 54? But the Reagan-Bush administration provided an investigative feast: Did Michael Deaver, Lyn Nofziger or Ed Meese violate conflict-of-interest rules? Did Samuel Pierce preside over a corrupt housing department? Did Iran-contra extend past North, Poindexter and McFarlane to the secretary of defense, perhaps even to Reagan and Bush? Cries for new independent investigations have dogged the Clinton administration practically every month. This month it's the secretary of commerce who gets his own special prosecutor. And why not Ira Magaziner--who knows whether he told the whole truth? Future occupants of the White House can expect the same. As for actual law enforcement, however, it has been slim pickings. Does anyone remember Thomas Clines, the only Iran- contra figure who went to jail? Deaver pleaded to minor charges, and Nofziger's conviction was reversed. Meanwhile, a lot of apparently innocent people have been investigated intensively for a long time. The anemic results are obscured by all the noise and speculation around new investigations, which consume staggering amounts of taxpayer funds (about $10 million so far with Whitewater) and whose primary effect is to divert our leaders from the task of governing. What, we might reasonably ask, is the point? Good government orthodoxy has it that ``special'' prosecutors are needed because the regular Justice Department prosecutors, reporting to a politically appointed attorney general, can't be relied on to prosecute the president's cronies. Special prosecutors supposedly ensure impartiality. These premises, plausible enough on the surface, happen to be backward. Deciding to prosecute is not a simple matter of finding that a law has been violated. It is a far more subtle decision, made against the reliable backdrop of hundreds of other cases. Judgment and discretion are at the heart of a prosecutor's job. In a world in which regulations are piled so high that many well-meaning people trip over them, prosecutors must decide every day whether a particular violation is merely technical or is one that requires the awesome step of criminal prosecution. Decisions to prosecute are inextricably bound up in priorities--prosecutors regularly allocate scarce resources to violent and drug crimes at the expense of nonviolent white-collar cases--and necessarily draw on society's norms and values. The premise that professional prosecutors will tend to favor the politically powerful is also wrong. Ordinary assistant U.S. attorneys in Maryland brought down Spiro Agnew. Regular Justice Department employees in New York indicated John Mitchell and Maurice Stans. It was one of Rudy Giuliani's assistants, not an ``independent'' prosecutor, who called sitting Attorney General Ed Meese, his own boss, a ``sleaze'' in a prosecution of one of Meese's closest friends. The real pressures distorting prosecutors' judgment are the opposite of what reporters and good government editorialists perceive. High officials are the most tempting targets for young prosecutors. Fame and glory (and ultimately a lucrative private law practice) come from handling cases in the headlines. But what of the ``appearance'' of partiality? Surely a nonpartisan figure of great repute ensures, if nothing else, that the investigation will be ``above politics.'' Two words refute this claim: Lawrence Walsh. The Iran-contra investigation proved the impossibility of taking a politically sensitive case ``above politics.'' Here we had a special prosecutor of the president's own party, with a long history of moderation and professionalism, a respected and independent figure with a lifetime of achievement in law practice and public service. Surely, his conclusions would be respected by all. Hardly. When Judge Walsh began to conclude the president's men were crooks, he was vilified by the president's allies (spearheaded by the Wall Street Journal) as politically motivated and biased. Judge Walsh was predictably defended as impartial by Democrats, but he was no more able to escape imputations of bias than regular prosecutors would have been. Indeed, Judge Walsh became a political symbol. The Whitewater case provides an even more extreme example of the elusive search for nonpartisan appearances. The original special prosecutor, Bob Fiske, another establishment lawyer with Republican credentials and a reputation for unimpeachable integrity, drew criticism from Republicans when he did not seem impressed with the case against Clinton. Fiske was then replaced on the impeccable logic of taint-by- association: He was not quite ``special'' enough because he had been appointed by Clinton's attorney general. The New York Times, formerly a vigorous proponent of that pristine logic, promptly noted the right-wing Republican connections of the judge heading the panel that dumped Fiske, and attacked his replacement, Ken Starr--another lawyer of high standing and great integrity--as a Republican hack. The lesson is clear: Partisan arguments intrude into all decisions involving the political arena. The intense spotlight of the special prosecutor does not illuminate so much as blind. In the ordinary case, the U.S. attorney has to ask himself: Is it fair to treat this case as a felony, as compared to how we treated other, similar cases where the defendant was not politically prominent? The special prosecutor has no such concerns. He has only one investigation to pursue, and the unnatural intensity inevitably skews the decision. The smallest infraction can take on a life of its own. In the words of three distinguished former attorneys general--Edward H. Levi, Griffin B. Bell and William French Smith--the independent counsel only exacerbates ``all the occupational hazards of a dedicated prosecutor: the danger of too narrow a focus, of the loss of perspective, of preoccupation with the pursuit of one alleged suspect.'' There may be disputes of constitutional dimesion-- Watergate, perhaps--where the benefits of special counsel are worth the accompanying diversion and disequilibrium. But in practically all other cases, the discretion and balance found in our ordinary law enforcement system is far superior. And if the people believe that a president or an attorney general has distorted that system to favor his friends, retribution at the hands of political enemies and media interests is never far off.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I think one of the reasons people resent taxes so much is they do not see the results. Two nations spend a disproportionately high percentage of their taxation on two things. There is only one nation that spends more among the modern nations, and that nation is Israel, on interest and on defense. No other nation come close to us in this. These are things that do not directly benefit the average person in Michigan, or the average person in Minnesota, or the average person in Illinois or Rhode Island. I think one of the reasons people are so disheartened about government is they say: Next year we are going to spend $370 billion on interest, 12 times as much on interest as on education, 22 times as much on interest as on foreign aid, twice as much on interest as on our poverty programs. On defense we are going to spend $270 billion, more than the next eight countries together. We have to get ahold of our fiscal problems. We have to get ahold of our defense spending. Then I think people, if they see they are going to get out of their tax money education and health care and jobs and things like that, I think they are going to be more willing to spend it. I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield for just 30 seconds?