Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Down to 1.4 percent, Senator Harkin says. It just does not make sense. I visited a Head Start group in Rock Island, IL, an impoverished part of that city. Like every Head Start group, they have a waiting list. Monday morning, one set of kids comes in, Tuesday morning a different one, Wednesday morning a different one, and so forth. I asked the woman in charge what would it mean in the lives of these young people if they could come here 5 days a week. She smiled and she said, ``You could not believe the difference it would make in their lives.'' We are denying them that chance. Oh, we are saving money, like you save money when you put up a house and you do not put a roof on it. You do not save money in the long run. We have to face up to the reality that we are going to have to change in this field of education. We are going to have to fund it more adequately. I think of the testimony before our committee by the Secretary of Labor talking about a manufacturing company from Connecticut, I believe it was, making a decision, do they build in Mexico, the United States, or Germany? Mexico offered cheap labor, poor education; the United States better education, higher wages; and they reluctantly made the decision to build their plant in Germany where they have to pay $6.50 more per hour but where people are well prepared. We are cutting back on our future if we do not adopt this amendment. I hope we do. I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I will try to make it fast. Of course, we need a balanced budget. But, of course, we have to have the right priorities. Every study that has been made by any group--conservative, liberal, you name it--says we have to invest more in education. I have never seen a study that suggests to the contrary. And yet what we are asked to do is to cut back--cut back on Head Start, cut back on title I that helps poor kids that is really showing results, cut back in higher education. Senator Jeffords is absolutely correct. In the narrative on the budget, you will see we are going to get that $14.7 billion in savings by cutting out assistance to graduate students. That is bad enough. But you put the numbers together and you only get $2 billion of that. Where do we get the other $12.7 billion? Well, we get it out of the hides of students. And it means a lot of students are not going to go on to higher education. That is not the way we ought to go. In fiscal year 1949, I say to Senator Harkin, we devoted 9 percent of the Federal budget to education. We are now devoting less than 2 percent. And if this budget is adopted as is, it will go down even further----

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, today, I would like to share an important Chicago Sun-Times article with my colleagues. It examines yet another example of the sometimes deadly link between federally licensed firearms dealer and the sale of weapons to criminals. James L. Bush, of Bolingbrook, IL, a federally licensed gun dealer, has pleaded guilty to selling 350 guns to criminals. To make extra money, he and a friend used a grinding stone attached to an electric drill to erase the guns' serial numbers, and then sold those guns to gang members and drug dealers in the market for guns. Those guns were then added to the explosion of weapons on the streets of our communities. Mr. Bush's case reminds me of the 1992 arrest of James Board of Highland, IN, who police say sold more than 1,000 guns to Chicago street gangs. At least 50 of those guns have been recovered from crime scenes, according to an ATF spokesman. Certainly, Mr. Bush is responsible for his criminal actions, but we should not disregard the fact that since receiving his license in January 1990, he heard from an ATF agent only once. In Illinois, 15 ATF inspectors must monitor 6,529 federally licensed firearms dealers. These inspectors are overburdened and underfunded. Given the evident connection between unmonitored licensees and the presence of illegal weapons on our streets, we must ensure that licensees undergo sufficient scrutiny to detect such criminal activity. That is why I sponsored Federal firearms dealer license reforms last year. 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. As a result of these common-sense reforms, there is some good news. Since [[Page S6942]] licensing reform was enacted in December 1993, the number of dealers in the United States has dropped from 283,000 to 239,000 in December 1994. For the first time in years, according to the Violence Policy Center, there are now more gas stations than gun dealers in this country. Opponents of gun control legislation say that measures such as these make no difference in crime and the flow of illegal weapons. Even supporters of gun control legislation often dismiss these type of reforms as too small, too narrow, and insufficient to address such overwhelming problems. Clearly, these reforms do not solve our problems with violence and crime. But there should no longer be any doubt that small steps make a big difference. The struggle to free our communities from rampant gun violence will only be won with commitment, determination and measures just like these. I ask that the article be printed in the Record. The article follows: Confessions of a Gun Runner; How Suburbanite Supplied Chicago Gang (By Alex Rodriguez) Easy money, James L. Bush thought to himself. Buy a gun for $100, sell it for $250 on the streets. And in the bullet- scarred neighborhoods of the West Side, customers weren't hard to find. So several times last winter Bush--suburbanite, homeowner and father of two--drove to the city and sold boxes of guns to the Vice Lords street gang. He drove away with a wallet stuffed with cash. Getting the guns wasn't a problem. Bush owned a federal firearms dealer license, about as easy to get as a library card. ``It was very easy to abuse the system,'' Bush, 39, said during a recent interview at his home in Bolingbrook. A federal judge will sentence him this summer on a conviction of illegal delivery of firearms. ``There are probably people out there doing it right now,'' he continued, ``but they just haven't gotten caught.'' Just how significant a role crooked federal firearms dealers play in the availability of guns to criminals is hard to measure, federal officials say. Most federal firearms dealers don't break the law, and law enforcement agencies don't keep statistics on those who do. Still, the access to volume that comes with the license means that just one crooked firearms dealer can become a street gang's conduit for hundreds, even thousands of guns, federal law enforcement officials say. Bush supplied gang members and drug dealers with more than 350 guns before federal agents arrested him in February. In 1992, federal agents arrested James Board of Highland, Ind., who police say sold more than 1,000 guns to Chicago street gangs. At least 50 of those guns have been recovered from crime scenes, said Jerry Singer, spokesman for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Board pleaded guilty to one count of illegal firearms delivery and was sentenced to 21 months in jail. The federal government has responded by tightening regulations governing the issuance of federal firearms licenses. Before the changes, anyone could obtain a federal firearms license by paying $30 and filling out a one-page application. With that license, they could buy and sell large numbers of guns across state lines--from home if they wanted. They could buy in volume because they bought wholesale. License holders can still do all that, but now applicants must pay $200 for a license, submit fingerprints and live in a town without laws prohibiting gun dealerships. Gun proponents have decried the new regulations as unnecessary and misguided. ``We see (ATF) as committed to driving down the number of federal firearms license holders as a ploy to drive down lawful gun ownership,'' said Mary Sue Faulkner, spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association. ``It's like gun control. There are already plenty of laws on the books to enforce.'' ATF officials, however, say the new regulations are needed to pare down the universe of license holders. One reason the agency struggles to ferret out crooked firearms dealers is that it isn't armed with enough inspectors to monitor them. In Illinois, 15 inspectors must cover 6,529 federally licensed firearms dealers along with countless other duties, including making sure distilleries, breweries and wineries pay federal liquor taxes. ``It's a very difficult job, when you have that few inspectors for that many federal firearms licenses,'' Singer said. ``There's only so much resources to go around.'' If the goal is fewer dealers, the new regulations are working. Before December, 1993, when the federal government raised the application fee from $30 to $200, ATF had to oversee some 284,000 license holders nationwide. Nine months later, the number of licensed dealers dropped to around 255,000. Then in September, Congress enacted new rules that required applicants to submit fingerprints, notify their local police chief of their application and certify that their dealership isn't prohibited by local law. Since then, the number of licensed dealers has dropped to 223,476. By 1997, ATF officials predict the number of licensed dealers will dwindle to 80,000. ``Maybe by 1997 we'll have a more manageable universe,'' said ATF spokesman Michael Fitzgerald. Bush only heard once from the ATF after getting his federal firearms license in January, 1990. An agent visited him February, 1993, to review his records. Later that month, the agency renewed his license. At the time, Bush was a Chicago Transit Authority purchasing clerk living with his family in a $180,000 house in Bolingbrook, but struggling to erase a $40,000 debt from a failed laundromat business, according to Bush and court documents. In September, 1994, an acquaintance of Bush--not named in court documents--offered to find Bush gang members and drug dealers in the market for guns, court records showed. The two agreed to split the profits. According to court records, Bush sold 350 guns to criminals, at first with the help of his friend--a driver with United Parcel Service--and later on his own. The two used a grinding stone attached to a cordless drill to erase the guns' serial numbers. Bush was arrested Feb. 2 after selling 47 guns to an undercover ATF agent. He pleaded guilty April 4 and faces sentencing in July. Bush, who is black, says he wrestles daily with the knowledge that he sold guns in mostly black neighborhoods under siege from gangs for decades. ``I know it wasn't right,'' Bush said. ``They were going in the hands of gang-bangers, and it was mostly black-on-black crime. Maybe by me getting busted, that was God's way to tell me to stop.'' As a federally licensed firearms dealer, James L. Bush supplied West Side gang members with more than 350 guns before U.S. agents arrested him in February, seizing dozens of weapons. The Bolingbrook resident was convicted in April of illegal firearms delivery.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding and I thank him for his leadership. It is not easy leading a group of Democrats who wander all over the place on these issues. Senator Exon has done an admirable job. I also commend Senator Domenici for moving toward a balanced budget here. I think he has shown courage and the kind of leadership that is needed. I heard Senator Grassley say, ``What can one person do?'' I think Senator Domenici has contributed. I am concerned. I wish this were backed up with a balanced budget amendment for two reasons. One is that the reality from all of the econometric studies is that interest rates would really come down if we had this backed up with a balanced budget amendment. The financial markets do not know whether this is going to stick even if it stopped it. And I think there is good reason to believe it may not stick. Our history--and I see the Senator from Washington on the floor, who was here when we voted for Gramm-Rudman--is that we keep legislative solutions for a balanced budget about 2 years, and then they become too politically awkward and we give them up. If we had a constitutional amendment, we would have, at a minimum, another $170 billion that could be available for education and Medicare and other things. One of the ironies is that the AARP, which understandably is concerned with what is happening in Medicare, was opposed to the balanced budget amendment which could, today, make more money available for Medicare. I am also concerned, and I mentioned this in the Budget Committee, that our atmosphere has become more partisan than it should be. We really ought to be working together on these things. I am not blaming either party. This thing has just kind of grown over the years. I do not think it is helpful to either party or to the Nation. I voted for Senator Domenici's resolution to have a balanced budget by the year 2002. I voted against the final package because I believe the priorities are wrong. I think they are wrong for the reasons I will spell out here. First of all, they assume that there will be a tax cut if we have some interest savings. This is not the time we should have a tax cut. I face a choice of giving myself a little bit of a bonus--I do not like paying taxes any more than the Senator from Michigan or the Senator from Nebraska or anyplace else--giving myself a little bit of a bonus, or giving my three grandchildren a bonus and making life better for them. I do not think Americans have any hesitancy in saying, ``Let's get that deficit down. Let's not give ourselves a tax cut.'' The tax-cut premise is wrong. I know Senator Domenici had to fashion a compromise here. Our colleague from Texas is going to offer an amendment to specify more clearly a tax cut. I hope his amendment is resoundingly defeated. Second, I am concerned what is happening to education. My friend, Senator Grassley, mentioned this is a choice between their budget and the status quo. Well, in the field of education, status quo would be appreciably better than cuts in the field of education. Every study--I do not care whether it is by a conservative think tank or a liberal think tank--every study that questions how we build a better America says we will have to invest more in education. Yet this budget goes in the opposite direction. Title I, which helps poor kids, and has done some real solid things, the reality is that if this is adopted, young people in Chicago, East St. Louis, Detroit, Omaha, Seattle, and other places represented in this body, will see some cuts. Head Start is going to be cut back. The student loan--part of this bill is that there will be rescissions that the Labor and Human Resources Committee has to make. The Presiding Officer sits on that committee. That committee will have to make $14.7 billion worth of savings on student loans. [[Page S6867]] Now, the document talks about cutting back on graduate education. If we totally eliminate assistance for graduate education, we save $2 billion. That in itself, I think, is wrong. But that leaves $12.7 billion that we still have to get. That means, clearly, we will have to charge interest while students are in college. That will make it tougher for them when they get out of school, and I also think will discourage some from going to school. I think it moves the country in the wrong direction. This is the kind of issue where, frankly, instead of devising a partisan document, I have enough confidence in the Senator from New Mexico, the Senator from Washington, and the Senator from Michigan, that if we could have been able to sit down in a bull session and say what really are the national priorities and forget whether the Democratic or the Republican Party can benefit from it, I do not think we would have been cutting back on education. I heard Senator Boxer talk about cutting back on NIH, the National Institutes of Health, in the research area. I remember Senator Harkin speaking on this floor, mentioning that we have spent as much in the last 7 years on military research as we have spent on health care research since the beginning of the century. I have never checked out that figure, but it was a startling figure. It is probably close to accurate, if it is not completely accurate. I saw my father die of leukemia. So I have been interested in what has happened in leukemia research. I have seen great progress. My father died in 1969. Today he would have a real chance of living. I see the progress that is being made, and I want to continue that progress so that humanity can benefit. I think that is what people want. Just today in the town meeting every Thursday that Senator Carol Moseley-Braun and I have for our Illinois constituents, the multiple sclerosis Father of the Year was there with three fine young boys and his wife. Just a marvelous family. He is a lawyer by background, struggling just to walk. How I would love to see some kind of a breakthrough that could help him and his family. But it will take dollars to do it. When we cut back on dollars for research, we are preventing breakthroughs that we need. Now Medicare and Medicaid. I do not suggest that they do not have to take some hit. The growth is clearly excessive. But the kind of hit we are talking about is going to hurt a lot of people. While we have talked primarily about Medicare, I am concerned on Medicaid, too. Half the people on Medicaid are children--poor children. I do not think the American people want to cut back on health care for poor children. Yet that is what happens. Then I heard Senator Grassley say in the Budget Committee, accurately, he said there is only one sacred cow in this--I am not talking about agriculture here, Senator Exon--there is only one sacred cow in this budget. That is defense. I do not think there is any question that that is accurate. Yes, we have cut back defense spending some. But relative to what other nations have done, we have not done it much. We are spending more than the next eight nations combined are spending on defense. We are continuing to spend money on B-2 bombers. What is the purpose of a B-2 bomber? To penetrate Soviet radar. There are only two problems. There is not any Soviet Union and there is not any Soviet radar. They are useless. We could not use them in Desert Storm. We do not use them in Haiti. We do not use them in the practical problems that we face. We are spending money for yesterday's war. We can cut back and do better. There are a number of other things that I think are wrong in this budget, including one small one. I was pleased to have Senator Bond from your side of the Budget Committee vote with me to restore this. This is the antifraud compliance group that will save $5 for every $1 we put into it. The estimate is if we have this antifraud compliance group in, the IRS, we will save $9.2 billion over a 5-year-period, I believe the estimate was. And we are talking about a 7-year budget. So it would be significantly more than that. I understand when people say we should not have any tax increases, though frankly I think we should be more candid with the American public that, of the 224 industrial nations, we are 224th in the percentage of our income that goes for taxation. We have the lowest taxes on gasoline, for example, of any country outside of Saudi Arabia. You go through a whole series of things like that. But for people who say we do not want any tax increases, I understand. I do not understand why, when so many of us pay taxes and comply with the law, we do not want to go after those who are cheating. That is what that amendment does. Senator Glenn and I will have an amendment on the floor to deal with that. Finally, I would like to deal with Senator Grassley's question, What are we for? First of all, you will see in a series of amendments that we will be proposing what we are for in terms of shifts. Senator Exon will have at least one amendment. Senator Kennedy will have an amendment. Others will have amendments. But there will also be an amendment that some of us will offer, a more comprehensive amendment. I do not know how many votes we are going to get. I hope there will be people on the other side of the aisle who will look at this carefully. I think the priorities are wrong here. That we should move toward a balanced budget, absolutely. Pete Domenici is to be commended for moving us in that direction. But that we should have priorities that hurt the most vulnerable in our society, I do not think that makes sense. I do not think that is what the American people are for. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time back to Senator Exon.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today which is being cosponsored by Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Moynihan of New York, Senator Bryan of Nevada, Senator Brown of Colorado, Senator Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, Senator Mack of Florida, Senator Graham of Florida, Senator Boxer of California, Senator Feinstein of California, and Senator Robb of Virginia. It is legislation that has, frankly, passed this body twice but has gotten mired down not because of controversy but because of jurisdictional problems over in the other body. It is a bill that says we have to do more in the area of research on finding less expensive ways of converting salt water to fresh water. I do not have a chart here of the world population and water supply, I regret to say. I will get that later when we are on the floor for discussion. But it would be dramatic. We have in the world today somewhere between 5.5 billion and 5.8 billion people. By the middle of the next century, when these pages will be around, in the middle of the next century, we will have around 10 billion people. The world population is going up like this. Our water supply is not going up. It is constant. You do not need to be an Einstein to recognize that we are headed for problems. This is not new. On April 12, 1961, President John F. Kennedy was asked at a press conference what would be the great breakthrough he would like to see in his administration. He responded: We have made some exceptional scientific advances in the last decade. They are not as spectacular as the man in space or the first Sputnik, but they are important. I have said that I thought that if we could ever competitively, at a cheap rate, get fresh water from salt water, that it would be in the long-range interests of humanity which would really dwarf any other scientific accomplishments. I am hopeful that we will intensify our efforts in that area. And for a short time after his Presidency, we were doing some things in this area, and then because there is not an immediate problem, interest diminished and research has diminished. Yet, we face some very serious problems. We know already about what is happening in California. The interesting thing is that the areas where we have severe water shortages frequently are right at the water's edge. California has problems. I was just reading about Tampa, FL, the other day. Virginia Beach, VA, has problems. These are areas right at the water's edge. Our problems, frankly, Mr. President, are very minor compared to the problems in the rest of the world. If we can look at my next chart here, this is what is happening in terms of water shortages versus water scarcity. The nations in blue face water scarcity, and water shortage are the nations in red. You will see what is happening very clearly. When you talk about water scarcity, you are talking about nations where the average water consumption is dramatically less--less than half of what we consume in the United States per person in terms of water. They face very severe problems. So those are the figures in blue, going from 7 nations in 1955 to 20 nations in 1990, and 34 nations are anticipated to have serious problems by the year 2025. In the Middle East, it is very interesting that you had President Sadat, who was a giant in this century, saying, ``Egypt will never go to war again for land. If we go to war, it will be for water.'' In the Middle East, also, both Prime Minister Rabin and King Hussein have said, ``The potential for conflict in our area is because of water.'' The agreement that has been worked out between Jordan and Israel includes an agreement on water. It is just vital. Mauritania on the northern coast of Africa, when I was there a few years ago, was growing 8 percent of their own food. It is a desperately poor country right on the ocean. We do have a process of converting salt water to fresh water, inexpensive enough that we can use it for drinking water. But 85 percent of the water that we use is used for industrial and agricultural purposes. And it is not inexpensive enough to use for those purposes. Spain is experiencing a drought right now. Spain has a number of desalination plants, but they face major long-term problems. Greece and Cyprus have a very similar situation. You can go through a whole series of countries. The Cape Verde islands are totally dependent on desalination, except for very, very minimal rain fall that they get. Egypt, right on the Mediterranean, has a mushrooming population. If the Presiding Officer has not had a chance to visit Egypt, I hope he will one of these years. You see that population in the capital city and you know people have to eat and they have to drink. Egypt is dependent on 2 percent of its land. Yet, it is right on the Mediterranean. It potentially can be a garden spot. We have to turn that around. Senator Reid joined me, I guess about 3 years ago, on a trip where we looked at some water spots, including the Aral Sea. We looked in Uzekistan. The Aral Sea was the fourth largest body of water in the world, and the Aral Sea, Mr. Khrushchev was told, ``You can divert some of the water for cotton growing and it will eventually get back into the Aral Sea.'' And, in the old Soviet Union, when the boss said, ``Do this,'' it was done. And the water began to recede. Senator Reid and I stood at the banks of the Aral Sea and looked down 50 or 75 feet to dry land. The dramatic scene there was because shipowners--of course, not shipowners, but the people who ran them; everything was owned by the Soviet Union--the people who ran the ships were told, ``Just keep your ships there, the water will come back.'' The water did not come back. And you had this dramatic scene of ships sitting on dry land, 50 miles from where the water is. It is a powerful thing. We have had headlines about oil shortages and gasoline shortages. Let me tell my colleagues, they are minor compared to the headlines we are going to have in another decade or two if we do not get ahold of this question of converting salt water to fresh water more inexpensively. What we are asking in this legislation that has now twice passed this body unanimously is that we devote some of our resources to this cause. It is extremely important. Water is absolutely essential for the survival of humanity. UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund, tells us that 35,000 children worldwide die each day, the majority on the African Continent, either from hunger or disease caused either by lack of water or by contaminated water. I wrote to Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali some time ago about what I am doing, and he wrote back: I am particularly pleased to hear of your interest in water issues and the legislation you are sponsoring on research on less costly desalinization methods. As you rightly point out, such concerns are uppermost in the minds of people in regions where fresh water is scarce, not least in my own part of the world. During my tenure as a Secretary General, I will do my utmost to promote international cooperation regarding this most crucial resource. This may seem like something someone from Illinois or Oklahoma should not be that much interested in. It affects all of us. It affects the future stability of the world, and it affects us even very directly in terms of prices. When California does not get enough water, fruits, and vegetables from California are going to cost more in Oklahoma and in Illinois. But it is much more significant than that. If we do not find a less expensive way of converting salt water to fresh water, and more than 90 percent of the world's water is salt water, the world is headed for some very, very difficult times. I hope we will pass this legislation and do the responsible thing. I have one more chart here showing what is happening in the United States alone. The United States, again, does not face problems anywhere near as severe as the rest of the world. But you [[Page S6804]] see the water availability is the blue line and you see it going down like this. You see our population going up. It is clearly a problem that the United States has to face and the world has to face. I am pleased to have bipartisan cosponsorship. I am pleased this body has passed this legislation before. I hope we will do it again, and I hope our friends in the House can get the jurisdictional problems solved and we can pass it over there. I believe it is genuinely noncontroversial and is clearly needed by this country and by the world. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMON

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

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, Abigail Trafford of the Washington Post wrote a commentary recently that I ask be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks. She writes that we as a Nation care immensely when tragedies involving individual children come to our attention, but we fail to care enough for children who are hurt by our national policies. A recent example of this is our national sense of outrage and compassion regarding the children killed in the that innocent children were killed in this senseless act of violence. But we cannot and should not accept the fact that millions of innocent children do not have adequate health care, which results in the premature death and disability of many, many children. Perhaps if we were able to put a face on every single child who suffers from lack of access to health care, we would have a national policy that ensures all children would have their health care needs met. There are important reasons why we need to act soon. A report released a few months ago by the Employee Benefit Research Institute shows that between 1992 and 1993, the number of uninsured people increased 17.8 percent to 40.9 million. The most alarming finding, however, is that children account for the largest proportion of the increase in the number of the uninsured. In 1993, 11.1 million children did not have health care coverage. In addition, if the enormous cuts in the Medicaid Program that have been proposed by some of my colleagues are enacted, there will be a tremendous increase in the number of uninsured children. That is because Medicaid currently provides health care coverage to approximately 13.5 million children whose families could not otherwise afford to take their children to a doctor. To address this problem, I will introduce legislation next month to ensure that all children, beginning with children under 7, and pregnant women have affordable coverage for comprehensive, high-quality health care. My proposed maximizes State flexibility while ensuring full accountability for results, and relies on the private sector to deliver the highest quality care at the lowest price. If you agree that we need to protect our children, I welcome your interest and urge you to help me develop a proposal that all of us can support. Dr. Birt Harvey of the Stanford University Medical School states in Ms. Trafford's article, ``We care about children as individuals. We don't care about them as a nation.'' I hope we can work together to change that. The article follows: [Washington Post, May 9, 1995] We Love the Child, But What About the Children? (By Abigail Trafford) It was the baby in the firefighter's arms--little Baylee Almon covered with dust and blood--who became the symbol of the nation's agony in the Oklahoma City bombing. Long after rubble from the bombing is cleared, we remember Baylee and the others in the doomed day-care center. Suffer the children. We are a nation that loves children. Obsesses about children. The child in pain, the child in triumph--we hang on every detail. We open our hearts--and our pocketbooks--to help a high-profile child in need. Children are our conscience. Or are they? You would certainly think so from the way we respond to children in the news. We have a track record for turning the child in the public spotlight into a metaphor of what kind of people we are and who we care about most. We held our breath when Jessica, the 18-month-old toddler of Midland, Tex., was buried for 2\1/2\ days in an abandoned well in 1987. And cheered when she was hauled out by a crane into the glare of television lights and cameras. We agonized over David, the boy in the bubble. Born with a rare immune disease, he died in 1984 after spending most of his 12 years of life inside a sterile plastic cage that kept him away from common germs--and away from human touch. And last year, we grieved for Michael, 3, and Alexander, 14 months, the two boys of Susan Smith, the young South Carolina mother who confessed to sending her sons to a water grave. Suffer the children. Every child who makes the news taps into the public's huge reservoir of concern for children in trouble, for children who are victims. But this outpouring of anguish and generosity usually stops with the high-profile case. The fact is that as a nation we neglect our children, particularly the ones who are sick and poor. That was the conclusion of a 1991 bipartisan national commission on children. ``. . . at every age, among all races and income groups, and in communities nationwide, many children are in jeopardy,'' stated the commission in its executive summary. ``If we measure success not just by how well most children do, but by how poorly some fare, America falls far short.'' Advocates for children like to point out that the United States is the only industrialized country that doesn't have a national policy to support children. While a patchwork of government and private programs help certain groups of children, there is no comprehensive commitment to the young the way there is to the elderly. As Sara Rosenbaum, co- director of the George Washington University Center for Health Policy Research, explains: ``Children are the most vulnerable segment of society. They don't have the clout that other population groups have. If children are falling apart, it has tremendous consequences for the nation.'' To be sure, the prime responsibility for the health and safety of children rests with the family. But some families cannot provide the basic supports. The needs, according to the bipartisan report, involve many aspects of children's lives including housing, education and protection from abuse. One of the biggest needs is health insurance. An increasing number of children do not have health coverage from private or public sources. There is no national health plan for children that automatically covers them as the Medicare program does for the elderly. ``We care about children as individuals. We don't care about them as a nation,'' says Birt Harvey, professor emeritus at the Stanford University Medical School and past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. ``It's a crisis of conscience and it's a crisis of consciousness,'' adds Susan S. Aronson, clinical professor of pediatrics at the Medical College of Pennsylvania and Hahnemann University. ``We've lost our perspective as a society that we are responsible for children.'' Statistics tell the dismal story. Since 1991, the number of uninsured children has risen from 9.5 million to 11.1 million in 1993, according to an analysis by the Employee Benefit Research Institute. The percentage of uninsured children has also increased and of the additional 1.1 million Americans who have recently lost health coverage, more than 920,000 are children. This increase occurred despite expanded coverage of children under Medicaid. What's more, private coverage of children has declined. The largest jump in uninsured children took place in families where the father was working for a small firm with fewer than 10 employees, researchers found. Three basic options to cover all children and pregnant women have been circulating in the backwaters of the nation's capital for some years: provide subsidies for the uninsured to purchase health coverage, create a Medicare type program for children, and open up Medicaid to more families. While there is a general consensus that all children ought to have access to basic medical services, there is not a lot of agreement on how to get there. And right now there's very little apparent interest in Congress or the Clinton administration to do much of anything. As Harvey observes: ``It doesn't seem like a high priority--it doesn't seem like a priority at all.'' Suffer the children.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I am extremely concerned that in the rush to shrink the size of the Federal Government, Congress may eliminate or severely limit the services provided by many important programs. One such program, which gives low-income individuals a fighting chance, is the Legal Services Corporation [LSC]. Established by an act of Congress in 1974, the LSC provides grants to local agencies that in turn offer legal services to the poor. In its 20 plus years in existence, the LSC has provided funding for legal services to tens of thousands of low-income Americans in areas ranging from inner- cities to native American reservations. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently issued a resolution supporting the continued funding of the LSC. This resolution is significant because it comes from those who administer justice in our courts, and who have first-hand knowledge of the benefits of legal services. The resolution asserts that the LSC is essential to providing equal opportunities for justice for all Americans. I applaud the action taken by the justices in the Northern District of Illinois, and ask that the text of the resolution be printed in the Record. The resolution follows: Resolution This court, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, understands that there are proposals before Congress to restrict or eliminate funding for the Legal Services Corporation and to transfer to the states the responsibility for providing legal assistance to low-income persons and families. In Illinois, at least, the likelihood that such assistance would be provided by the state, given its present and prospective fiscal difficulties, is remote, and the restriction or elimination of federal funding would, in all probability, lead to a corresponding restriction or to the elimination of legal assistance. We believe such a decision would have a major adverse impact upon the administration of equal justice. This court is aware that many low-income persons and families in Illinois have no means to obtain redress except through the five federally-supported legal services programs in this state. The Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago alone represented over 38,000 low-income persons and families in 1994, primarily by counseling or by working the matter out with other parties without resort to governmental agencies or to the courts. These matters included resolution of landlord- tenant disputes, the provision of public benefits, providing representation in marriage dissolution matters including assisting in obtaining adequate child support, obtaining orders of protection for victims of domestic violence, enforcing consumer protection laws, assisting in employment and housing discrimination matters, assisting working low- income people in obtaining unemployment insurance benefits, and assisting migrant workers, the disabled and crime victims. In many instances LAFC enlists the aid of private attorneys, who provide services at minimal compensation. Many of these matters involve enforcement of federal law, either constitutional rights or, more commonly, statutes duly enacted by Congress. Their enforcement requires adequate representation, and that representation will not be available without federally supported legal assistance. Also of particular concern to this court is the Federal Court Prison Litigation Project, through which LAFC provides necessary training and support. Private counsel, through the district's trial bar, accept appointment as counsel in prisoner cases without expectation of compensation. Having counsel is of great benefit not only to the plaintiffs but also to the defendants and the court, as that representation is helpful in separating meritorious claims from non- meritorious claims at an earlier stage and in facilitating orderly progression of the litigation. LAFC provides training, consultation, research assistance and a data and materials bank. We believe that few private counsel would be willing to participate in that program if those services were not available. Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois supports the continuation of the federally funded legal services program as essential to the administration of equal justice.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, there is a lot of emotion and not much rationality to the question of whether we use fetal tissue to assist people who have problems, particularly with Parkinson's disease. It is interesting that in the U.S. Senate, many of those who support the use of fetal tissue comprise those who are totally opposed to abortions. I believe their stand makes sense, much more sense than those who emotionally oppose use of fetal tissue. If for a reason of taste, or culture, or religion, people are opposed to any transplant, I understand it. When I die, if my eyes or any part of me can be used to be of assistance to someone else, I want that done. I would think most people who have had an abortion would want the same. The requirements are very strict. You cannot make any money on it. You cannot designate to whom the tissue would go. You cannot even know to whom it is going. Joan Beck has written a column in the Chicago Tribune that outlines the situation clearly, and I ask that it be printed in the Record. The column follows: [From the Chicago Tribune, April 30, 1995] An Ethical Dilemma--In Defense of Fetal Tissue Transplants to Treat Neurological Disorders (By Joan Beck) He was 59 years old and he had had Parkinson's disease for eight years. His body was becoming increasingly rigid and immobile. He had trouble moving and talking clearly. He had tremors he couldn't stop and he had to give up his job. The medication that had helped early in the onset of the illness could no longer give him much relief, despite increasing doses. As the disease inexorably progressed, he decided to try a new, experimental treatment, despite the intense political and medical controversy that has marked its development. Surgeons inserted several grafts of fetal tissue into one side of his brain. A month later, they repeated the procedure on the other side. The transplants came from seven donors, aborted babies from 6\1/2\ to 9 weeks old. Within a few weeks after the surgery, the man's condition improved markedly, according to a report in the current issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. He could once again handle daily activities, even take part in an active exercise program. He needed less medication, but now it was much more effective. A year and a half after the first transplant, the patient had surgery on his ankle to repair damage from a fracture years earlier. As he was recovering from the operation, he suffered a massive pulmonary embolism and died. Studying his brain after death, doctors found conclusive evidence that the transplants had worked as hoped. The fetal neurons had survived, grown and were functioning, replacing the patient's damaged brain cells, just as the improvement in his symptoms had indicated. An estimated 200 transplants of fetal tissue into human brains have been done over the past several years. Some have been performed in other countries, some under scientifically questionable circumstances. Results have been uneven and often discouraging. The case reported this week is important because it is the first to prove that fetal tissue transplants can survive and function and that they can be linked to a patient's improvement. The long-range implications are medical, political and ethical. The success story offers eventual hope for hundreds of thousands of patients, not only with Parkinson's disease but also with Huntington's disease, Alzheimer's disease and other disorders caused by brain cell impairment and destruction for which no good treatment or cure is now available. Much research is still necessary, however. More data are needed about optimal size of the grafts, whether the tissue can be frozen in advance, which patients are likely to benefit, how long improvement will last, whether the underlying disease will eventually destroy the new brain cells. Fetal tissue is considered necessary for transplants because it can survive and grow where grafts of more mature cells do not. It can take on new biological functions, unlike other cells. And the recipient's body is not so likely to reject it. But the research has been slowed in the past for political and ethical reasons. The problem is that such transplants almost always must come from abortions--and that has raised fierce and intractable opposition from pro-life forces. They see the possibility that women will deliberately get pregnant and have an abortion to provide a graft for a loved one--or even worse, sell the tissue on some sort of medical black market. Even with tight controls, abortion opponents argue, using tissue from aborted fetuses will make it easier for women to decide to have an abortion because they can rationalize that some desperately ill person could benefit and that might ease any guilt feelings they may have. Should fetal transplants eventually prove to be of great medical benefit and become widely used, it will be even harder to rally the nation to oppose abortion--the source of such grafts--pro-life leaders fear. In response to anti-abortion fervor, the Reagan administration prohibited the use of federal funds for research using fetal tissue for humans, a major setback because most research grants are based on federal approval. Some experiments did continue, however, using private money, and in other countries. Under mounting pressure from Congress, President Bush attempted a compromise. He authorized a grant of more than $2 million to study whether fetal tissue obtained as a result of miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies--not deliberate abortions--could be used for transplants. The answer turned out to be no. Out of 1,500 such fetuses tested, all but seven were unsuitable because of chromosome errors (a major cause of miscarriage) or problems with bacteria and virus contamination. In 1993, President Clinton finally lifted the ban on federal funding for fetal tissue research. The use of such transplants is carefully governed by state and federal laws and government and medical guidelines similar to those that cover other transplants, including the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act which has been adopted in all states. The stark facts remain. Abortion is legal in the United States. About 1.5 million abortions occur every year. Aborted tissue is now discarded, even though it holds the potential for successfully treating several terrible, intractable diseases. Abortion is a tragedy, as is death from gunshot wounds and traffic accidents. But the success of fetal tissue grafts isn't going to encourage abortion any more than organ transplants increase car crashes and murders. Research is under way to find other means to treat neurological disorders, some of it building on findings from fetal tissue studies. But until these experiments are successful, surely it is more ethical and merciful to try to use fetal tissue than simply destroy it.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will promote a more even playing field for workers and employers. Conditions have worsened for workers and their families in recent years. It is time to reexamine our labor laws and see if we can't make them fairer for the average working man and woman. To improve working conditions and enhance workplace productivity, we must reject both the adversarial approach to worker-management relations and the oppressive, let's hold them down, attitude held by some in management and government. Both of these extreme approaches reduce productivity by destroying workplace comity. What we need to enhance our productivity is a strong spirit of cooperation in the workplace. And in order to bring this about, we need strong, vital labor unions. While unions have remained strong in other industrialized nations over the past two decades, they have been steadily declining here in the United States. Union membership has now fallen to about 15 percent of the American workforce, and to 10.9 percent of private non- agricultural workers. In Canada, by contrast, about 37 percent of the workers belong to a union; in Germany, about 39 percent, in Great Britain, 41 percent; and in Japan, about 24 percent. Of all the industrialized democracies, only South Korea ranks below the United States in union membership. Not coincidentally, as union membership has declined, so had the average manufacturing wage. As late as 1986, the average hourly manufacturing wage in the United States was higher than that of any other nation. Today, 10 nations have average manufacturing wages higher than ours. This decline in American workers' wages relative to those of workers in other industrialized countries has been accompanied by increased income disparities within our country. A recent study of worldwide wealth and income trends by Prof. Edward Wolff of New York University concludes that the United States now has the widest wealth and income disparities of any advanced industrialized nation. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans now own 40 percent of all the Nation's wealth. By contrast, in England, a nation which we tend to think of as much more class-based than our own, the top; 1 percent own only 18 percent of the wealth, less than half the share of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. The distribution of income in the United States is similarly skewed. While the top 20 percent of households--those making $55,000 per year or more--take home 55 percent of all after-tax income paid to individuals, the lowest-earning 20 percent of Americans receive only 5.7 percent of all after-tax individual income. Since 1979, the 20 percent of families in the lowest income brackets have seen their average real wages decline by 15 percent. Those in the second 20 percent have suffered a 7 percent decrease. In contrast, those in the top 20 percent income bracket have enjoyed an 18 percent increase. To reverse these unfortunate trends, we need to take steps to facilitate the revival of organized American labor. In addition to their importance in fighting for a fair wage for American workers, American labor unions have played a vital role in enhancing workplace safety and in supporting progressive social legislation such as child labor laws, minimum wage laws, and Social Security. And there is no question in my mind but that we would have a much better health care delivery system in the United States if we had as high a percentage of our workers organized as do Canada, Germany and many other nations. The causes of the decline of unions in America are numerous and complex. Our large and persistent trade deficits have certainly played a role in this decline, as have our Federal budget deficits. Part of the decline has also been caused by past failures on the part of a few unions to include women and minorities in their membership. But the principal cause of this decline, in my view, has been a public policy that has permitted and even encouraged some employers to actively resist union organizing activities. The legislation I am introducing today seeks to reverse this trend by facilitating workers' efforts to organize and bargain collectively for better wages and working conditions, to receive prompt adjudication of their grievances when problems arise, and to enjoy better working conditions. I am well aware that we face firm opposition to these reforms. Steps taken in recent months by the majority party would drive down the wages of working families, threaten workplace health and safety, and further weaken labor unions. Among the changes that have been proposed in recent months are: repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, which would lower the wages of workers in the construction industry; the weakening of workplace safety and health laws; and a watering down of the time-and- a-half provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Even proposals to help those at the lowest rung of the income ladder by raising the minimum wage, after fifteen years of decline in its real purchasing power, have been greeted with scorn or indifference by many of those in power. Still, I believe that once we take a serious look at the conditions of the hardest working and most vulnerable members of our society, the conclusion will be unavoidable that we must do more to ensure that their interests are represented fairly and equitably. Following are brief descriptions of the eight bills I am introducing today; and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of each bill be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation dealing with the permanent residents to travel to foreign countries. Last October 5, I held a hearing in my capacity as chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee on the Constitutional Right to International Travel. The hearing focused on the derivation of this well-established constitutional right, on the circumstances under which the right can be restricted, and on the wisdom as a policy matter of restricting the ability of Americans to visit nations with whom we may have political differences. In the course of this hearing, it became clear to me that there are limited instances in which the right of Americans to travel abroad should be restricted--namely, instances where international travel endangers the safety of the traveler or implicates national security concerns. Otherwise, as a matter of both constitutional law, the first and fifth amendments as well as other constitutional provisions, and policy, the right to a free trade in ideas and to investigations into other nations and cultures should be not only left untrammelled, but encouraged. When such restrictions on foreign travel are in place, they do great damage to a number of interests that we hold dear. When Americans are denied the right to travel to a foreign country: Businessmen are prevented from exploring opportunities in that country that might confer economic benefits on this country; American scholars are denied the opportunity to engage in a dialog with their foreign colleagues; Americans with families abroad are prevented from visiting their loved ones; Human rights organizations concerned about abuses abroad are prevented from seeing those abuses first-hand, and from giving corrupt foreign governments the kind of close scrutiny that forces reform of repressive systems; Average Americans with an interest in world affairs are denied the opportunity to become better informed citizens by virtue of their direct exposure to nations that play an important role in our own foreign policy; Finally, our own Government loses the ability to influence foreign governments through the transmission of American ideals of democracy and justice. It is no coincidence that in those nations to which American travel was not restricted--such as the nations of the former Soviet bloc--the infusion of American ideas contributed mightily to the downfall of repressive regimes. The fact that travel abroad should in most cases be encouraged, and not restricted, however, has not prevented administrations both past and present from limiting the right of Americans to travel abroad. In response to these efforts, Congress has often stepped in to limit the President's right to restrict foreign travel. Most recently, last year's Foreign Relations Authorization Act limited the President's authority to impose travel related restrictions on Americans seeking to visit foreign countries that are not currently the subject of such restrictions. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, however, permitted the President to continue to impose travel, restrictions to those countries now subject to such restrictions--even though none of these countries pose any threat to the health or safety of prospective visitors, or to America's national security. These countries include Libya, Iraq, North Korea, and, most controversially, Cuba. The bill I now introduce--the Freedom to Travel Act of 1995--would extend the Foreign Relations Authorizations Act's limitations on the President's power to restrict travel to those countries that are currently the subject of travel restrictions. The bill would also make clear that the President may only restrict travel to countries with which the United States is at war, where armed hostilities are in progress, or where there is imminent danger to the public health or the physical safety of U.S. travelers. This is the standard that currently governs the Government's right to deny a passport to a U.S. citizen. I believe that this standard should apply to any Government effort to restrict foreign travel. I believe this legislation to be necessary both as a matter of policy and as a matter of international and constitutional law. Protecting the right of Americans to travel abroad is constitutionally required, is internationally recognized as part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and is an important way of safeguarding and furthering our intellectual, economic, and political interests. I hope my colleagues will join our efforts to work for this protection. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I will take only 1 minute. I think this is a sound resolution. I want to get along with the People's Republic of China, but they cannot dictate what we do. Taiwan has a freely elected government and a free press, all the things we say that we allow. The President of Taiwan wants to come over here on a private visit and go to his alumni meeting at Cornell University. I think for us to knuckle under to the People's Republic of China under those circumstances just goes contrary to everything we say we profess. I strongly support the resolution. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, Senator Max Baucus and I were elected to the House of Representatives the same year, 1974, and through the years, I have been impressed by Max Baucus' consistent and thoughtful leadership. His stand and statement in behalf of the balanced budget amendment this year, in my opinion, was one of the high points of our debate. But no action he has taken has shown more courage and more common sense than his op-ed piece in the New York Times titled, ``Montana Mean Time.'' It is a candid discussion of what is happening in his State. It is easy for those of us in public life to duck these things. To Max Baucus credit, he has not ducked. I am proud to have him as a colleague, and I ask that his statement be printed in the Record. The statement follows: [From the New York Times, May 1, 1995] Montana Mean Time (By Max Baucus) Since the Oklahoma City bombing, public attention has focused on private militias. I claim no great expertise on the movement as a whole, but I have watched it grow in my state. And as an example of the national phenomenon, the Montana militias deserve a close look. We Montanans take pride in our low crime rate, and believe honest people can disagree without being disagreeable. Maybe extremist groups believe they can find a home in Montana because of our easygoing ways. The so-called Militia of Montana is one such group. At least one of its founders is associated with the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations. It says it exists so that ``if the Government uses its [[Page S6224]] force against the citizens, the people can respond with a superior amount of arms.'' The Militia of Montana frequently uses anti-Semitic code words like ``shadow government'' and ``banking elites.'' Its director, Bob Fletcher, defends this rhetoric this way: ``If the bulk of the banking elite are Jewish, is that anti- Semitic? The people who are doing this are the international banking elite, and if they are all Jews, so be it, but that's not the case. I don't care if they're Arabs or monkeys.'' Associated with the Militia of Montana is the more extreme Freemen movement. The Militia warns of tyranny to come; the Freemen say it exists today. A Freeman leader offers the following ``proof'': ``A Social Security card/number, marriage licenses, driver's licenses, insurance, vehicle registration, welfare from the corporations, electrical inspections, permits to build your private home, income taxes, property taxes.'' Look at the Freemen's racial theories. The same fellow who says marriage licenses are tyranny believes people who are not white are ``beasts.'' Only whites go to heaven; Jews are children of Satan. The rhetoric of these groups embraces a range of enemies, from the Federal Government to ``the New World Order.'' Their real target, however, is local law enforcement. Nick Murnion, the Garfield County Attorney, recalls threats the Freemen made against him last year. ``They told me they weren't going to bother building a gallows. They were just going to let me swing from the bridge,'' he says. A month ago, armed members of yet a third group, the North American Volunteer Militia, threatened the marshal in the town of Darby. He had pulled over a car whose license plates expired in 1992, and later describes what followed: ``They had weapons and they were shaking them at us and yelling that they were going to kill us. We backed off a little bit and then left because we could see that it could turn into a blood-bath.'' The good news is that ringleaders of the hate groups are few. Nick Murnion believes there are no more than 30 around Montana. Most refuse to pay taxes and obey the laws. They should be arrested, tried and jailed. Otherwise, the situation may worsen. As one prosecutor, County Attorney John Bohlman, says: ``The more the Federal and local law enforcement agencies behave with a hands-off attitude, the more bold and daring these groups become.'' But law enforcement is only part of it. Casual adherents of militias statewide are not criminals. And a united community can deal with them by taking a stand against hate. Americans have the right to say what they believe. But with that right comes the responsibility to respect our neighbors, respect law enforcement and obey the laws. In November 1993, a group of skinheads threw a bottle through the glass door of a Jewish family's in Billings. A few days later, they put a brick through a window of another Jewish household; a 5-year-old boy was in the room at the time. In response, Billings rallied behind the Jewish community. The Billings Gazette printed a full-page drawing of a menorah, and people all over town pasted them in their windows. We held our biggest Martin Luther King Day march ever in February. And the skinheads fled. The same treatment will work this time. Americans everywhere must speak out. We all must make hatemongers unwelcome in our towns and communities. And we must stand by the heroes in this struggle, the police and county prosecutors who stand up to the extremists. It is that simple. And after Oklahoma City, it is about time.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I speak to you today about an African country that could, this year, take another major step on the path toward democracy. The Republic of Tanzania was formed in 1964 through the merger of two independent States: the East African State, Tanganyika, and the independent island, Zanzibar. From 1965 until his retirement in 1985, President Julius Nyere, one of the greatest of African statesman, headed the Tanzanian Government. For most of its history, the Republic of Tanzania has had a single party political system. In 1985, President Nyere was succeeded by their current leader, President Ali Hassan Mwinyi in a single party election. President Mwinyi won that election with no opposition and 96 percent of the vote. In 1990, President Mwinyi was again the sole candidate in the Presidential elections. Again, he won with 95.5 percent of the votes. In 1992, Tanzania formally adopted constitutional amendments providing for a multiparty system. This constitutional change was not forced on the Government by a popular uprising. Instead, it was recommended by a Presidential commission and adopted by the ruling party, the Chama Cha Mapinduzi [CCM] party. I commend President Mwinyi for his leadership in moving Tanzania a step forward on the road to greater democracy and freedom. Since mid-1992, numerous opposition parties have been registered in Tanzania and multiparty elections have been held at local and the parliamentary by end of 1994, new political parties won only 7 percent of the seats in contested elections. Half of the elections were uncontested. While the Constitution recognizes a multi-party system, the electoral policies and practices of Tanzania continue to support a single-party government. Clearly, a decision to hold multi-party elections does not mean that democracy, political rights and civil liberties have been fully embraced. Freedom House, a highly respected non-profit organization that monitors political rights and civil liberties worldwide, rates Tanzania as not free. Likewise the Carter Center describes Tanzania as being moderately democratic, reflecting that while the Government of Tanzania makes formal commitments to a democratic transition, their deeds are not yet commensurate with their pledges. In October 1995, Tanzania will hold its first national multiparty election. This could be, given transparent and unbiased election practices, a major achievement in the political life of Tanzania. But now is the time for the Government of Tanzania to match the rhetoric of democracy with the tangible actions needed for real democracy to blossom and flourish. Constitutional adoption of multi-party elections has provided an opportunity for greater democracy. Freedom of the press, equal access to the public media--particularly the national radio--for all political parties, and a politically independent election commission will move democracy closer to a reality. Tanzania has made some progress in recent months. It can make significantly more in the months ahead. I encourage Tanzania's leaders to move forward to provide a level playing field for all political parties for their upcoming national elections.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the Ohio Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has released a report documenting hate activity in that State. The Ohio Advisory Committee compiled hate crime statistics from the five largest cities in the State, and found continuing reports of prejudice and hate ranging from racism, anti- Semitism, and homophobia. Unfortunately, Ohio's continued problem with hate crimes mirrors the national struggle against crimes based on prejudice. The Ohio report serves as a reminder that there is still much work to be done to reduce the incidence of hate crimes. The Hate Crimes Statistics Act, which I authored in 1990, has been an important first step in this process. The reporting system established by this law sends a message to both the victims and the perpetrators of hate crimes that law enforcement officials are committed to solving the problem of hate crimes. Unfortunately, since States are not required to provide statistics on hate crimes to the FBI, many States have not yet fully complied with this important effort. In this, Ohio again mirrors the problems in many States. The Ohio Advisory Committee found that the reporting of hate crime by local law enforcement agencies is still insufficient to gauge with confidence the extent of hate crime activity in Ohio. Ohio has seen significant progress since 1991 when only 30 of 401--7 percent-- law enforcement agencies who participate in the program submitted hate crime reports to the FBI. That number increased to 125 of 401--31 percent--law enforcement agencies reporting in 1993. This progress is encouraging, but a greater commitment is needed. In addition to the problems with insufficient reporting, the report found that Ohio's reporting was plagued by wide discrepancies in interpretation of the hate crime statute. This has been a problem in many States, and highlights the importance of the FBI hate crime training programs. The FBI offers outreach and training programs for local law enforcement officials to ensure that hate crime reporting is consistent and in keeping with the statute. I encourage Ohio law enforcement officials to take advantage of this useful training. The Ohio report made several recommendations to improve Ohio's hate crime reporting, from encouraging local law enforcement officials to avail themselves of the hate crime training offered by the FBI to the creation of a central depository of hate crime information in Ohio. These changes would not only boost efforts to monitor hate crimes, but facilitate more effective remedies and prosecutions of hate crimes in the State. I encourage Ohio officials to review these recommendations. The foundation laid by the 1990 Hate Crimes Statistics Act is an important step in solving the problem of hate crimes. But clearly this problem is not going away. The problems in Ohio are not unique. Government officials, from local to Federal, need to look for ways to assist States and cities interested in training their law enforcement officials to report hate crimes, and to encourage all States to participate.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Immigration Enforcement Improvements Act of 1995. The approach to immigration policy reflected in the administration's proposal is thoughtful and comprehensive, and I applaud it. The Clinton administration's bill recognizes, as do the people of this Nation, the need to formulate an effective response to the problem of illegal immigration, and proposes increased resources not only for border enforcement, but also increased resources to eliminate the job magnet that will continue to draw undocumented aliens into the Nation regardless of the success of our border policy. The proposal also strives to improve our ability to deport those aliens that have been identified as deportable. To achieve each of these objectives the administration has proposed stern measures, and, in its fiscal year 1996 budget request, the commitment of substantial resources; yet, at the same time, the administration's proposal contains little that feeds the rampant anti- immigrant sentiment that has pervaded the immigration policy debate in recent years. Rather, the administration's proposal takes a measured yet aggressive approach to the problems we must face. In short, while it has taken an undeniably firm stance against illegal immigration, the administration has not succumbed to the belief that immigration in all its shapes and forms is a bad thing. Quite the contrary: this legislation reflects the fact that, as the President has said, an effective immigration policy must combine deterrence of illegal immigration with an encouragement and celebration of legal immigration. I look forward to working with the administration and my colleagues in the Senate to effect this delicate balance, and to implement an immigration policy that is both tough and fair. The administration's proposal is a great step in this direction.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to correct an error that was made in the 1988 Harmonized Tariff Schedule [HTSUS]. Uni-Pac Equipment, Inc., of Bridgeview, IL, has served as the U.S. distributor of a Swiss company, Peter Born, since 1983. Born manufactures a sophisticated machine for tying the top layers of products stacked pallets. The Born palletyer requires a highly specialized twine with a high tensile strength in order to operate effectively. Since 1984, Uni-Pac has been importing the twine used in these machines at a duty rate of 8 percent under tariff 316.5500 [TSUSA]. When the 1988 Harmonized Tariff Schedule came into effect an error was discovered. Due to an oversight by someone at the International Trade Commission when writing the language of the HTSUS, the tariff covering the twine that Uni-Pac imports was accidentally omitted. This was a mistake. The HTSUS was not supposed to change any prevailing duties when it became law. However, because of the omission, the twine imported by Uni-Pac was bumped to the other classification with a duty rate of 27.6 cents per kilogram and a 15 percent duty, a 300-percent increase over the previous tariff. This mistake will cost Uni-Pac over $100,000 in increased duties if it is not corrected. Uni-Pac has sought several remedies to this problem. The International Trade Commission does not have the authority to fix it. They have looked for other domestic suppliers of this twine, to no avail. There are no U.S. manufacturers of any twine that will work in their machines, and the twine used in these machines is not used in any other machine sold in the United States. The only way to fix this problem is to amend the 1988 Harmonized Tariff Schedule to include a classification for the twine imported by Uni-Pac and restore the duty rate that had previously been in effect. This new classification is limited in its scope so that it only covers the twine imported by Uni-Pac for use in the Born palletyer. This legislation also liquidates the increased duties that resulted from the omission of this classification in the 1988 HTSUS. I am indebted to my colleague in the House, Mr. Lipinski, for his work on this issue. This is not a controversial issue, so I am hopeful that we can move quickly to address this problem. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I will be very brief, I say to my friend from Washington, because I have a satellite TV feed to high school students in Illinois that is going on right now.

Mr. SIMON. I will be very brief. Mr. President, I strongly support and am pleased to cosponsor this amendment. It is right in theory. It is in line particularly with the Court decision that was made the other day about guns in school. I happen to disagree with that Court decision, but that is the law of the land. But it is right practically. What we are doing without this amendment is massively overturning two centuries of tort law and tort decisions. What this amendment says is, ``Let's move a little slowly. Let's apply this in the Federal courts but not in the State courts.'' So we can learn, and maybe we will want to, after we have had a little experience, apply it to the State courts. I think it is a sound amendment. I am pleased to support and cosponsor the amendment of my colleague from Tennessee. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I visited the American University in Beirut long before I was a Member of Congress and was favorably impressed by what they did. The stunning statistic, which I had never read before, that there were 19 American University in Beirut alumni among the founding delegates at the San Francisco U.N. Conference, is dramatic evidence of the good work that they do. The first lesson from the Tom Friedman column is that we should adequately support this fine and important university. political earthquake of November 8, 1994, I served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and chaired the Subcommittee on African Affairs. I learned to my chagrin, a little more than a year ago, that only 1\1/2\ percent of American economic aid to sub-Sahara Africa goes for higher education. In our aid programs we have to meet emergencies--and Africa has more than its share of emergencies--but we also have to be looking long- term, and one of the ways that we help Africa long-term is to see to it that they have leadership in the future. One of the most effective ways to see that they have good leadership in the future is to make an investment in higher education. I hope we reflect on the Tom Friedman column.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, my wife and I took off on a rare vacation of any length, when we spent 10 days in Spain and Portugal over the Easter recess. While I was there, I picked up the New York Herald Tribune and read the Tom Friedman column, which originally appeared in the New York Times, paying tribute to Malcolm Kerr, who served as president of the American University in Beirut. An incidental surprise in the article was to learn that Steve Kerr, who plays for the Chicago Bulls, is the son of the late president of American University. Mr. Friedman has a point to make on what we ought to be doing in the field of economic assistance to other countries. I ask that the Tom Friedman column be printed in the Record. The column follows: A Bullet From America Threatens an Invaluable Beirut School (By Thomas L. Friedman) Washington.--When I was a reporter in Beirut in the early 1980s the three most chilling words anyone could say to you were: ``Have you heard?'' The news that followed was almost always bad. That is why I shuddered on the morning of Jan. 18, 1984, when a banker friend called me to say: ``Have you heard? Malcolm Kerr has been shot.'' Malcolm was the president of the American University of Beirut, an expert on Arab politics and a friend of mine. I immediately ran over to the AUB campus. By the time I got there Malcolm was dead, the gunmen were gone and the only trace left of the murder was the bullet hole that had gouged the wall on the stairs to his office. I have been thinking about Malcolm and the AUB lately because his widow, Ann Zwicker Kerr, has just published an affectionate memoir of both entitled ``Come With Me From Lebanon.'' The book chronicles how they met on the AUB campus in 1954, she as a junior year abroad student from Occidental College and he as the son of AUB instructors. (Ann's parents wanted her to go to school in Europe, she wanted to go to India, so they compromised on Lebanon.) Years later, after marrying, she and Malcolm returned to the AUB as teachers, and finally, after 20 years at the University of California at Los Angeles, they came back to run the AUB in the middle of the Lebanese civil war, out of a conviction that it was an institution worth saving. In Malcolm's case, it became an institution worth dying for. I fondly recall sitting on the veranda of Marquand House, the AUB president's residence overlooking the Mediterranean, drinking freshly squeezed lemonade and listening to Malcolm's sober and always biting analysis of Arab politics. I was reminded of it reading Ann's book, in which Malcolm complained that there were ``two rival student groups each wanting to organize its own Miss AUB contest-- a Miss Left-Wing AUB and a Miss Right-Wing AUB, and after heroic efforts the dean of students finally got them together, only to have the army move in and scrap the whole thing!'' No one knows who murdered Malcolm, but clearly it was extremists intent on driving the United States, and its marines, out of Beirut. (He left behind four kids, one of whom, Steve, plays guard alongside Michael Jordan for the Chicago Bulls.) I hope this book gets read by two audiences. For the general reader it is a throughtful period piece about Americans abroad--a reminder of that generation of American secular missionaries, most of them teachers and doctors who, long before the Peace Corps, dedicated their lives to spreading the gospel of Jefferson and Lincoln in the Arab East. They came innocent of any imperial ambitions and they both nourished and were nourished by the local educational institutions they ran. I also hope it is read by all those in Congress who today are so eagerly, and mindlessly, slashing U.S. foreign aid. Because when America cuts foreign aid, it isn't just cutting payoffs to the Guatemalan army. It is also cutting off the AUBs. Who cares? Well, consider this: When the United Nations was founded in San Francisco, there were 19 AUB graduates among the founding delegates, more than any other university in the world. Educational institutions like the AUB are literally factories of pro-Americans. Since its founding in 1866 it has graduated 34,000 students from all over the Middle East, who were educated in the American system and exposed to basic American values and standards. Today those graduates are cabinet ministers, business executives and educators peppered throughout the region. Most important, the AUB is still one of the only real liberal arts colleges in the Arab world. It is the best answer to Islamic fundamentalism. In fact, most of the AUB's students today are Sunni and Shite Muslims, who still see an American degree, not a Khomeini decree, as their ticket to advancement in the world. But the AUB today is struggling. In 1985 it got about $15 million a year in American foreign aid. Today it gets $1.8 million. Tomorrow, if some in Congress have their way, it could get nothing. It would be an ironic tragedy if the AUB, having survived civil wars, bombings and the murder of Malcolm Kerr, were to have the fatal bullet put in its head by a stingy U.S. Congress controlled by people with no sense of America's role in the world or the institutions that sustain its values abroad.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of praise to various people for direct lending, including some to Paul Simon. But the person who really pioneered direct lending for the student loan program and was convinced of its usefulness before I was, is Congressman Tom Petri, a Republican Member from Wisconsin. Recently, he sent a ``Dear Colleague'' letter on direct lending because it is now threatened by people who profit from the present system. His ``Dear Colleague'' is titled ``Cut Corporate Welfare,'' and I ask that it be printed in the Record. The letter follows: Cut Corporate Welfare Dear Colleague: Those of us who call ourselves fiscal conservatives won't have one shred of credibility as budget cutters if we are unwilling to go after corporate welfare with the same zeal we apply to other types of waste. And in this kind of effort, liberals should be willing to join us. Please consider the following case carefully. Suppose you were a banker and you were able to make loans that: were fully guaranteed by the federal government (i.e. as safe as t-bills); paid you interest directly from the federal government for a period of years at 2.5% more than the interest on t-bills; were fully as liquid as t-bills (or even more so) because you could sell them at any time at face value or even a slight premium in a large secondary market with plenty of eager buyers; require no credit-worthiness analysis up front; and required no collection effort for a period of years (you do nothing but sit back and collect your interest), after which you could still sell them or start collecting on them and receiving an extra .6% interest? Wouldn't that be a great deal? Wouldn't you fight like Hell to keep it? You bet. And the deal exists--it's the guaranteed student loan program. But it's a lousy deal for the taxpayers. They'd be much better off selling t-bills themselves to finance the loans (rather than renting banks' capital at 2.5% more than the t-bill rate) and then contracting for loan servicing with the current private servicers on a competitive bid basis. And guess what? That's what direct lending is. It's still a public/private partnership, but the one useful function the private sector performs--loan servicing--is priced in a market process rather than a political negotiation over interest rate premiums. Think about it another way: what useful function are the banks providing? They can't assess risk. They take no risk. We can get cheaper capital. And we wouldn't even need their servicing if we collected these loans as income taxes through the IRS. Make no mistake--guaranteed student loans contain an enormous bank subsidy. That's one of their four main sources of waste (the others are default costs, administrative complexity, and mistargetted subsidies for students). If we don't get rid of this corporate welfare, we'll have to cut more somewhere else. The choice is clear--are you for the banks or for the taxpayers? True fiscal conservatives should have no doubt about whose side to take. Sincerely, Thomas E. Petri, M.C.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, there is more and more discussion on affirmative action these days. Most of those who question affirmative action are the same people who opposed the civil rights legislation. But there is no question that, like any good thing, affirmative action can be abused. I ask that an excellent Los Angeles Times editorial titled, ``Glass Ceiling? It's More Like a Steel Cage'' be printed in the Record, as well as a tongue-in-cheek column by Robert Scheer, ``Who Needs Affirmative Action?'' and a column that I wrote for the newspapers in Illinois discussing this subject. The material follows: [From the Los Angeles Times, Mar. 20, 1995] Glass Ceiling? It's More Like a Steel Cage--Bush Panel Finds Little Room at Top for Women or Nonwhites In the heated debate over affirmative action, some who want to abolish all such programs suggest that lots of white males are being unfairly shunted aside in favor of lots of African Americans, Latinos, Asians and white women. However, there simply are no facts to support this. Indeed, according to a bipartisan commission appointed by then-President George Bush, the senior ranks are still populated almost exclusively by white males. The findings by the Glass Ceiling Commission, a panel of business executives and legislators, are important and especially timely. It is expected that an initiative calling for a blanket rejection of policies that allow race, ethnicity and gender to be taken into account in hiring, promotion and college admissions will make it onto the California state ballot. In Washington, President Clinton, mindful of the evident exodus of angry white men from the Democratic Party, for starters has ordered an evaluation of federal affirmative- action programs. That's defensible and could prove useful. But too many in Congress are rushing to jump on the anti- affirmative-action bandwagon, including Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole. Ironically, long before Dole made his presidential ambitions public, he sponsored the very bill that created the federal panel to study the situation of minority men and all women in American industry. And it is that panel, in reporting its findings last week, that turned up so little evidence of progress. The facts are simple. White male managers dominate the senior levels at the top 1,000 U.S. industrial firms. They also dominate the top 500 business firms. In the top echelon of U.S. commerce, no less than 97% of the positions at the level of vice president and above are held by whites, the panel found. Between 95% and 97% of these senior executives are male. They have a lock on most of the top jobs, while most minority men and women and most white women struggle to crash the glass ceiling. The commission said that one case of the paucity of promotions was the fear and prejudice of white men. Of course that is only part of the problem. More minorities and women must be given access early on to educational and social opportunities that lead to business success. But even education does not always level the playing field. Asian Americans are nearly twice as likely to hold college degrees as the general population, yet they remain much less likely to become executives and managers. Do racial stereotypes block their promotion? Black men with professional degrees earn 79% of the pay of their white male counterparts. Black women with professional degrees earn even less; they earn, on average, only 60% of what white males do. Latinos, who are less likely to have the advanced degrees that foster advancement in companies, are ``relatively invisible in corporate decision-making positions,'' the report says. Their visibility should increase as their qualifications and numbers increase. Latinos are also hampered by pernicious stereotypes, including the misperception that most Latino workers are foreign-born, the panel maintains. The Glass Ceiling Commission based its findings on hard information, not unsubstantiated fears. Facts, and nothing but, should inform the intense debate over affirmative action--and the decisions that will determine how this nation can fairly handle the moral obligation of opening the doors of opportunity to all who knock.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I have been inserting into the Record items on affirmative action from time to time because I am concerned that the distortion of affirmative action can result in loss of opportunity for many Americans. Columnist William Raspberry had an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, and in other newspapers in which his column is circulated, on affirmative action. It appeared during the days when Congress was in recess, and many of my colleagues may not have seen it. It is simple common sense, and we seem to lack that so often. I ask that the William Raspberry column be printed in the Record. The column follows: Affirmative Action: Aid in Doing the Right Thing (By William Raspberry) It was 1967, and I had just taken my new wife--a Washington native--on her first visit to my home state of Mississippi. She had heard all the horror stories of racial mistreatment, and she was pleasantly surprised at the way white salesclerks seemed to be going out of their way to be nice. She was particularly intrigued by one middle-aged white clerk at the J.C. Penney's in Tupelo. For some reason, this woman, having learned that we were from ``up north,'' wanted to talk--even after we'd paid for our purchases. Just as we were about to make our final effort to leave, her face lit up. She caught the attention of a black woman across the store and beckoned her to come over. ``This,'' she said, introducing us, ``is our new salesclerk.'' I don't suppose I'll ever forget the humiliations, large and small, of growing up under the American apartheid that used to be the rule in the Deep South. But I'll also remember the pride this one white woman displayed in the fact that her boss had done the right thing. It was almost as if she herself had been somehow redeemed. It's something I think of when I hear well-meaning people say that affirmative action is ultimately demeaning to minorities and it would be better to just let merit be the rule. It's reasonable to punish discrimination, they say, but an artificially produced diversity comes close to the discredited practice of setting racial or sexual quotas; worse, it is tantamount to acknowledge that minorities and women are inferior. It came back to me the other day when a colleague called my attention to Katha Pollitt's column in the March 13 issue of The Nation magazine. This liberal publication has been a staunch advocate of affirmative action and diversity and all the things that give minorities and women all those warm- fuzzy feelings. But listen to this one passage from Pollitt's piece: ``In the 13 years I've been associated with The Nation, we've had exactly one nonwhite person (briefly) on our editorial staff of 13, despite considerable turnover. And we're not alone: The Atlantic has zero nonwhites out of an editorial staff of 21; Harper's, zero out of 14; The New York Review of Books, zero out of nine; The Utne Reader, zero out of 12. A few do a little better, although nothing to cheer about: The Progressive, one out of six; Mother Jones, one out of seven; In These Times, one out of nine; The New Republic, two out of 22; The New Yorker, either three or six, depending on how you define `editorial,' out of 100 plus, . . .'' It's a passage that could fuel right -wing radio talk shows for months. But that wasn't Politt's point. Her point, which seems unaccountably difficult to grasp, is that it's not necessarily bigots and hypocrites that stand in the way of the ``diversity'' so many of us favor; it's the fact that people tend not to pay attention to unpleasant facts that they can as easily ignore. Atlantic editor William Whitworth told The Post's media critic, Howard Kurtz, that his magazine's statistics were ``unfortunate'' and ``embarrassing.'' He went on to describe the publication's open-door policy, its desire to have black journalists and his bafflement that so few have applied. Whitworth at least answered Kurtz's queries, as some others did not. Still I found myself wondering what sort of shot the magazine might have taken at, say, an insurance company or police department that offered a similar defense. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the management of the Penney's store in Tupelo made just such an argument before some combination of legislation, court decree and affirmative action forced a change in the company's hiring policies. And it wouldn't surprise me, sometime down the road, to hear Whitworth and his peers boasting of their success in hiring black writers and without any sacrifice in quality, either. Why do opponents of affirmative action find it so difficult to understand that even good people need a nudge now and then, or to comprehend that anti-discrimination statutes are insufficient to overcome deeply entrenched racial attitudes? What black writer--unemployed or working elsewhere--could be certain that some white guy on one of these liberal publications has the job she should have had? How can anybody know? In some jobs, discrimination is easy to spot; the 120-word- per-minute typist who loses out to a competitor whose top speed is 80 wpm has a discrimination claim. But what of the applicant for an editorial position, or a legal clerkship, or a securities brokerage? Anti-discrimination laws won't do it and neither will affirmative action--although these things may help employers to focus on their behavior. I keep hoping that the time will come when nearly all employers will react as haven't lived up to what they know to be right and with pride when they know they've done it right. That's why I remember that beaming clerk in Tupelo 28 years ago. And, by the way, I don't recall the faintest indication that her black colleague found it demeaning to have been hired for what may have been the best job of her life.

Mr. SIMON

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