Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, recently, in Tikkun, a journal that comments on political and religious affairs from the Jewish perspective, I saw a comment under the title ``A Muslim Voice Against Terrorism'' by Iman Plemon T. El-Amin. He is an assistant to Iman Warith Deen Mohammed, and the journal comments: ``While Louis Farrakhan tends to be portrayed in the media as the dominant voice of Islam in the United States, Warith Deen Mohammed represents a significantly large following. This statement about Islam should be read by all those who claim that they never hear Islamic leaders speaking out against Hamas violence.'' There is a tendency, in the United States, and particularly in our media, to identify the word Moslem with the word radical or fundamentalist, so you constantly read about Moslem radicals or Moslem fundamentalists; and there is not an awareness that most Moslems practice their religion in a responsible way, just as most Christians and Jews and people of other beliefs do. The United States is becoming more and more a pluralistic society with people of many religious beliefs contributing to enriching our society. Among those whose numbers have grown significantly in the last decade are Moslems and Buddhists. The statement by Imam Plemon T. El-Amin is a good antidote for those who see Moslem voice only in forms of extremism. I ask that the statement be printed in the Record. The statement follows: [From Tikkun, Vol. 10, No. 2] A Muslim Voice Against Terrorism (By Plemon T. El-Amin) Muslim voices against terrorism have not been silent, but it is the trend, perhaps even the policy of major media, to downplay the voice of reason, the voice of faith, and the voice of principle, in favor of the shouts of the extreme, the wails of the grief-stricken, and the threats of the treacherous. The voices of peace, justice, mercy, and tolerance are not difficult to find among Muslims and Islamic media, who consistently denounce acts of terrorism and reject them as illegitimate and unacceptable Islamic strategies or methods. Imam W. Deen Mohammed, internationally and nationally recognized leader of the largest identifiable Muslim-American community, explained recently that: ``Islam insists that the best human behavior be demonstrated even when engaging an enemy in war, Our Prophet Muhammed (prayers and peace be on him) ordered that civilians not be made the victims of war. He (the Prophet) cautioned the Muslims to take care not to attack those who were not bearing arms against them. Islam and the Prophet's life require of us that we uphold justice and be a peace-seeking people.'' Muslims are guided and obligated by the Qur'an, which reveals to us that we must not wage war for self-interest, material gain, or mere retaliation. Muslims are to fight or wage war only when someone hinders them from the worship and work of God. And when we fight, we must reject barbaric methods of warfare and doing any harm to women, children, the elderly, the sick or wounded, and even to animals or vegetation. Muslims are commanded by God to do justice to all, irrespective of whether they are friend or enemy, under all circumstances. God says in the Qur'an, ``O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice even as against yourselves or your parents or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor.'' (4:135) ``O you who believe! Stand out firmly for God as witnesses to fair-dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just, that is next to piety. And be regardful of God, for God is well-acquainted with all that you do.'' (5:9) The definition of jihad is not Holy War, nor can it be used to justify terrorism. Imam W. Deen Mohammed has stated that ``Jihad means struggle in everything that God has established for Muslims to do. The emphasis on jihad in the Qur'an and in the life of Prophet Muhammed was not for the purpose of conquering lands or overthrowing nations, it was for the purpose of liberating the higher instincts, the higher aspirations in man.'' Cowardly acts of terrorism upon innocent men, women, and children is not a doorway to Heaven, but a gateway to Hell. Blind aggression and retaliation are sins, and as Muslims we reject these practices by our selves, our kin, our foes, the rich, or the poor. Past and recent acts of terrorism that victimize innocent human beings, such as the World Trade Center bombing, the mosque assault by Baruch Goldstein, and the recent suicide bombing in Tel Aviv are deplored by our community and must be condemned by all God-conscious and civilized communities, both Muslim and others. We must all stand up for peace and toleration. Among both the Palestinians and the Israelis are those guilty and responsible for the many women and children left maimed and dead. Each side has produced both perpetrators of violence and victims of injustice. In Islam, one injustice, or even many, does not justify another. Man's law and rule has failed both peoples. It is time to embrace the law and rule of God, especially since both people identify themselves as people who hold the rule of God above the law of man. The voice of the Muslim is not mute. Our voice is that of the Qur'an, and the life of the Prophet Muhammed. Both ring with clarity that peace is to be loved and sought, and terrorism is to be hated and rejected.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I was in my office when my press secretary called and said, ``Howell Heflin is announcing he is not going to run again.'' I turned on that TV set to hear at least part of what he had to say. Howell Heflin has made a real contribution to this body and to the Nation. One of the ways he has made a contribution is that he has taken his job as Senator seriously, but he has not taken himself too seriously. And I think that is very important. He has a great sense of humor. Well, there may be some disagreement on that here, whether he has a great sense of humor or not. But, you know, you get talking with him about an issue and all of a sudden he will say, ``Well, on a story. And all of a sudden, the tension in the situation has been deflated. That sense of humor and ability to laugh at yourself and still take your job seriously, I think, is important. Both Senator Grassley and Senator Hollings mentioned something else that I think is important, and that is he is partisan but not excessively partisan. We have too much partisanship today in this body. We have to be looking at issues and making judgments on issues. I am not suggesting either party is more guilty of this than the other. We both have our problems here. I can remember very distinctly when I first met Howell Heflin. I was asked to go down to speak in the State of Alabama. Hubert Humphrey, some of you will remember, got cancer. For speaking engagements, they would reach around to others. When they really got desperate, I was over there in the House, and I went down to Alabama. They said, ``We have this really fine chief justice down here who is thinking about running for the Senate.'' I met Howell Heflin at that dinner. He has probably forgotten that day, but I remember it very, very well. I learned, in just a brief conversation with him that evening, one other factor about Howell Heflin, and that is he a genuine humanitarian. He wants to help people. That is what this business is all about. Robert Byrd gets criticized periodically for helping the people of West Virginia. He has never had a critic in Paul Simon for helping the people of West Virginia. I applaud him for doing it. Howell Heflin has helped the people of Alabama, but he has helped the people of our whole Nation. Then, finally, he is both a scholar and a good judge of humanity. I remember when we had a well-publicized nominee before the Judiciary Committee. I sit next to Howell Heflin on the Judiciary Committee. I remember he was asking this nominee a question. As the nominee answered the question, Howell Heflin leaned over to me and said, ``He's lying.'' I knew right then how Howell Heflin was going to vote on that nominee. Howell Heflin knows the human character. But he also looks at the details of legislation. He gets that pencil--he usually works with a pencil, not a pen--he gets a pencil out, and on his finger, he has a little knob on it. It is a little red on the end of that finger. It looks like he took a Band-Aid off of it. He gets that pencil out and he starts scribbling things down. Then, all of sudden he will say, ``Mr. Chairman, what about section 3 on page 18? What does this mean?'' And all of a sudden he has shifted the whole discourse. He has made a tremendous contribution. I am proud to be his friend. It is an honor to serve in the U.S. Senate with Howell Heflin. The people of Alabama ought to be very, very proud of their decision to send Howell Heflin to the U.S. Senate. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, one of the interests of all Members of the House and Senate, I am sure, is to preserve Social Security. We may differ on the avenue to achieve that, but we share that concern. What should be clear to anyone who looks at the Social Security matter with any serious concern is that the national debt is the threat to Social Security. I have just finished reading an editorial column in Congressional Quarterly written by David S. Cloud, titled ``Social Security Funds Not Immune Forever.'' In that article he says what is the simple reality: ``The longer Congress and the White House delay dealing with the deficit, the greater the threat to Social Security's long-term existence.'' No one can seriously question the validity of that statement. I hope that sometime between now and the time this Congress adjourns, we can get one more vote for the balanced budget amendment. At this point, I ask unanimous consent to print the complete David Cloud editorial column in the Record. The column follows: (By David S. Cloud) If Republicans and Democrats in Congress are as dedicated to eliminating the federal deficit as they profess, someday soon they will have to answer serious questions about the future of Social Security. Otherwise, neither party's promise to preserve Social Security--or to balance the budget--can be considered altogether credible. Congressional debates about Social Security center almost entirely on charges that one party or the other is plotting to deny benefits to retirees or is looting the trust funds of payroll tax revenue. While deep cuts in Social Security are certainly possible in coming years, it won't happen because of some secret desire by elected officials; it will happen because Congress is left with no other choice. The relationship between Social Security and the deficit is not obvious. Thanks to big payroll tax increases enacted in 1977 and 1983, Social Security recovered from near-bankruptcy and is now taking in more revenue from workers' paychecks than it pays out in benefits every year. The result is a growing trust fund balance, expected to be about $900 billion by 2000, that many view as a nest egg to pay benefits for baby boomer retirees next century. The surplus is often used as justification for leaving Social Security alone. There are indeed good reasons to view Social Security as unique. No other program has such a broad base or such a strongly implied contract: Workers sacrifice now in the form of payroll deductions for the security of benefits after they retire. And the program has an uncontested record of sharply reducing poverty among the elderly. But defending Social Security in isolation from the rest of the federal budget is as misleading as it is enticing. Politicians are especially prone to try. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., has singled out Social Security as the only program immune from cuts as Republicans work to balance the budget by 2002. Senate Democrats recently killed the constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget after they failed to win special protections for Social Security. But all this ignores a central fact: It is unlikely that the budget can be balanced without affecting a program that now constitutes more than a fifth of federal spending. Why can't Social Security be left alone as long as it is self-financing? For openers, a program of Social Security's immenity--$330 billion in fiscal 1994--consumes tax revenue that could otherwise go toward reducing the deficit, if Congress didn't have to keep payroll taxes at such high levels to finance the Social Security system. Some of those benefits are going to retirees who, by any definition, are well-off. In 1990, families with income above $100,000 received more than $8 billion in Social Security benefits. The logic of capturing some of that money for deficit reduction proved inescapable in 1993, when Congress raised taxes on some upper-income retirees by taxing more of their Social Security benefits. (House Republicans now want to repeal that tax increase.) There seems to be no appetite for undertaking a bolder attempt at scaling back Social Security benefits among recipients further down the income scale. The other option--increasing payroll taxes--does not seem likely. Yet the longer Congress and the White House delay dealing with the deficit, the greater the threat to Social Security's long-term existence. The reason rests with what is happening to all those surplus dollars Social Security is now accumulating. The trust funds are being invested in U.S. Treasury bonds, with the promise that the money plus interest will be paid back next century. In other words, the government is borrowing from the Social Security trust funds and eventually will have to repay those funds. But continuation of massive borrowing from now until then will only make it harder to repay the obligations when the baby boomers retire. When will this demongraphic crunch hit? Baby boomers will begin to retire around 2010. According to the 1994 Social Security Board of Trustees report, the trust funds will not run dry until 2036, absent further congressional action. But the fiscal strain will actually arrive much sooner--beginning around 2013, when the Social Security system starts drawing heavily on interest payments from the Treasury to pay for benefits. If the federal government is still running a deficit, making those interest payments to the Social Security trust funds will necessitate a massive addition to government borrowing, or a big income tax increase. All of the choices will be unappetizing--a mountain of additional debt, angry workers asked to more heavily subsidize retirees, or sharp cuts in Social Security benefits. And any effort by today's politicians to segregate Social Security from the rest of the budget will matter not a whit.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the March 6, 1995 edition of the New Yorker included a thoughtful piece on regulatory reform by James Kunen. He recalls the history that led to the enactment of laws and agency regulations designed to protect the public from unsafe foods and warns against regulatory reforms that will doom us to repeat that history. This article deserves the attention of the Senate as we prepare for the upcoming debate on regulatory reform so I ask that it be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the New Yorker, Mar. 6, 1995] Rats: What's for dinner? Don't ask. Ninety years ago, Upton Sinclair's immensely popular documentary novel ``The Jungle'' exposed the conditions then prevailing in the American meat-packing industry. ``Rats were nuisances, and the packers would put poisoned bread out for them; they would die, and then rats, bread, and meat would go into the hoppers together,'' Sinclair wrote, in one of many vivid passages based on his research in Chicago, and he added, ``There were things that went into the sausage in comparison with which a poisoned rat was a tidbit.'' Peering back in time from the moral heights of the present, we may find it hard to make out why the captains of industry circa 1905 conducted their businesses so rapaciously. Were their hearts more resistant to the promptings of conscience than those of today's corporate executives? Or did Sinclair's villains do what they did because it kept costs down and, besides, they could get away with it? Such questions are of more than just literary interest right now, for what can be got away with may be on the brink of vast expansion. Sinclair's best-seller helped spur the passage by Congress, in 1906, of America's first great consumer-protection measures--a federal meat-inspection law and the Pure Food and Drug Act, which together prohibited the shipment of adulterated or mislabeled foods in interstate commerce. The first great political obstruction of consumer protection quickly ensued. When producers of dried fruit complained that limits on the use of sulfur as a preservative might hurt sales, President Roosevelt's Secretary of Agriculture, James Wilson, backed down. ``We have not learned quite enough in Washington to guide your business without destroying it,'' Mr. Wilson explained to them apologetically, no doubt omitting to deride the inside-the-Beltway outlook of the Department's scientists only because the Beltway had yet to be built. Pro- and anti-regulatory forces have grappled for advantage ever since. This week, the House Republicans, as part of their Contract with America, are striving to rout the rulemakers once and for all with a set of measures they imaginatively call the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 1995. The legislation would erect new obstacles in the already tortuous path of risk assessment.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, more than 1.8 million Americans are employed as engineers, making it the Nation's second largest profession. National Engineers Week has been celebrated annually since 1951 in order to increase recognition of the contributions that engineering and technology make in the quality of our lives. During the week of February 19 to 25, more than 40 well-known engineers participated in a variety of activities to help promote engineering. Among those activities was the national engineers week future city competition. This competition encourages middle-school students to help envision solutions to facing our Nation's cities. These seventh- and eighth-grade students use math and science skills to design tabletop models of futuristic cities, and each group of students is assisted by a teacher and a volunteer engineer. This year a team of students from Glencoe, IL, was among the seven teams from around the country that went to the final competition at the National Science Foundation, and I was pleased when they took third place in the competition. Those deserving special recognition are Stephanie Richart, Alexandra Wang, and Denise Armbruster, and their teacher, Barbara James, of Central School in Glencoe, and also Bob Armbruster who volunteered his services in helping the group with their project.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the President of the United States has nominated Dr. Henry Foster to become Surgeon General of the United States. I have had the chance to visit with him and see him at one public meeting in action, and I have been favorably impressed. I believe there has been great distortion of who he is and what he stands for. I was interested in seeing in the Chicago Defender the other day, a statement by the president of Fisk University on the Henry Foster nomination. Because of its insights, I ask that the statement be printed in the Record. The statement follows: [From the Chicago Defender, Mar. 13, 1995] Backs Dr. Henry Foster's Nomination (By Dr. Henry Ponder) I support Dr. Henry Foster's nomination to become the next surgeon general of the United States. I would speak against the three most-mentioned reasons why he should not be confirmed. They are: (1) the number of abortion procedures he has performed over the last 30 years; (2) his integrity; and (3) the bungling of his nomination by the White House. Regarding the first point, it is yet to be proven that Foster committee any crime or illegalities in the years that he has practiced medicine as one of America's premier board- certified obstetrician/gynecologists. It must be reiterated that abortion is not considered illegal in America for, under Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion procedures performed by a doctor, sizable portion of Americans, is still constitutionally acceptable. Until that ruling is reversed, Foster and any number of other doctors will not be in violation of the law. Ironically, Foster pointed out recently on ``Nightline'' with Ted Koppel, that he ``abhors abortion.'' In cases which he had to perform abortion procedures, he said they were only ``for rape, incest and saving the life of the mother.'' Should a man be castigated for something his society allows or permits as lawful, or should his society confer good behavior upon him for being law-abiding? I think rational men and women would agree with the latter rather than the former. It can be clearly shown that Foster has done nothing wrong, illegal or unconstitutional. He has stayed within the confines of his professional ethical code and parameters and societal jurisprudence. He should be commended and not assailed. The second issue being used to stop Foster's nomination is integrity. It is said that, at different times. Foster said he performed about 12, 39 or some 700 abortions over the last 30 years. Foster said that he misspoke about the number of abortion procedures he has performed in his career. How many of us have not misspoken and corrected ourselves when we learned the facts? I think the worst kind of man is the one who refuses upon learning he is mistaken to correct himself. Foster, before the nation and on ``Nightline,'' stated that upon reflection and in hindsight, he should have consulted his records more thoroughly about it. When Foster had the chance to reexamine his files, he, as any man with integrity will do, correct himself and apologized for the error. This should not taint one's character. It should rather brighten it. But, unfortunately, in today's America, contrition on the part of anyone is a sign of ``a damaged good'' that is irreparable. Even the good book, the Holy Bible, says that one should be forgiven in their contrition. Integrity to me is being able to say you are wrong when you discover that you are. Foster should not be raked over the coals for admitting error, if in the process, he sets his records straight. Thirdly, there is no question that the White House bungled this nomination. They have said as much. this whole affair could have been handled better in a straight and clearer manner by presenting Foster as a nationally renowned medical practitioner who, over 30 years, has performed abortion procedures to save the life of the mother, or due to rape or incest. It would also have been communicated that he abhors abortions and only performed them under the rarest of such cases. I accept the statements by the president's staff that they made a mistake in handling the nomination and concur with them that the strong credentials Foster brings to the position of surgeon general outweighs presidential staff bungling and error or at worst misjudgment. I wholeheartedly support foster's nomination and I ask the Senate to confirm him and for the country to stand by the president's excellent choice. He shouldn't be punished or scapegoated for the controversy and the tensions that abortion brings to the political arena for there are rational people on both sides of the battle. Better yet, there are some who are working to eliminate at the root, the instances that lead to teenage pregnancy. Foster is a general in this army and he deserves to be confirmed as surgeon general.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, we are receiving regular reminders obliquely of the need for a balanced budget amendment. In Sunday's Washington Post Jane Bryant Quinn's column ends with the words: ``Big cuts in the Federal deficit would improve confidence abroad. But Congress and the voters aren't there yet.'' And in a column by Stan Hinden there is reference to Donald P. Gould, a California money manager of a mutual fund. In the Hinden column, among other things, he says: ``Gould noted that the global strength of the dollar has been slipping for 25 years-- except for an upward blip in the early 1980s.'' It is not sheer coincidence that for 26 years in a row we have been operating with a budget deficit. Hinden also notes in his column: ``Since 1970, the dollar has lost more than 60 percent of its value in relation to the German mark and has dropped almost 75 percent in relation to the Japanese yen. In 1970, it took 3.65 German marks to buy one U.S. dollar. As of last week, you could buy a dollar with only 1.40 marks.'' I served in Germany in the Army after World War II, and I remember it took a little more than 4 marks to buy a dollar. The Washington Post writer also notes: ``Gould, who is president and founder of the Franklin Templeton Global Trust--which used to be called the Huntington Funds--is not optimistic about the dollar's future. He sees little chance that the United States will be able to solve the fiscal and economic problems that have helped the dollar depreciate.'' We are getting that message from people all over the world. I cannot understand why we do not listen Finally, Donald Gould is quoted as saying: ``For the first time I am aware of, during a global flight to quality, that quality has been defined as marks and yen and not dollars.'' I hope we start paying attention to this kind of information.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, my colleagues in the Senate know that I think that the policy of the United States toward Cuba does not make any sense at all. I have introduced a bill which would permit Americans to travel to Cuba. To deny travel to any place, other than for security reasons, is an infringement of basic free speech. We have to be able to learn as much as we can everywhere. To restrict travel is to restrict the thought and learning process. The New York Times recently had an editorial titled ``Cuba: Time to Change Direction.'' It points out the ridiculousness of our present Cuban policy. I ask that the New York Times editorial be printed in the Record. The editorial follows: [From the New York Times, Mar. 19, 1995] Cuba: Time to Change Direction The sight of Fidel Castro in a business suit being escorted about Paris this week as an honored guest deserves some consideration in Washington. With the Soviet Union gone and the cold war over, the only threat that the Cuban Communist poses to the United States lies in the imagination of ideological warriors like Senator Jesse Helms. While the time has not yet come to welcome Mr. Castro to Washington, a re- examination of Cuba policy is long overdue. The embargo of Cuba, begun when John Kennedy occupied the White House and Nikita Khrushchev was Soviet leader, has outlived its usefulness. Conservatives still cling to the notion that isolating Cuba and creating misery for its people will eventually cause an uprising and sweep Mr. Castro from power. Now that he is without Soviet support and his economy is in tatters, they reason, sanctions should be tightened. This scenario is unwise and inhumane. Cuba will survive because other nations are investing there and are not participating in the embargo. Last year when a resolution against the embargo came up at the U.N., it passed by 101 votes to 2. The kind of outright rebellion envisioned by Senator Helms and some Cuban-Americans, if it did occur, would bring bloodshed and more misery for many Cubans. At a time when Washington is trying hard to encourage peaceful transitions elsewhere in the region and world, it makes little sense to encourage bloodshed in Cuba. An increasing number of younger, more moderate Cuban- Americans are fed up with the revenge fantasies of their elders, and would like to see more dialogue and commerce with Mr. Castro's regime. They feel that his repressive policies could not continue for long if the barriers were lifted and ordinary Cubans could have a taste of material success and a whiff of personal freedom from the north. Washington's anachronistic policy may even help Mr. Castro, by giving him a convenient scapegoat for all his failure at home. Without the embargo, the excuses would be gone. Open communication with the United States, freedom for Cuban- Americans to invest in businesses back home, and access to North American goods could be first steps. More favorable trade conditions could be held out as incentives to further reforms. Mr. Castro's Paris visit illustrated the power of the friendly gesture. After his warm reception by President Mitterrand, Mr. Castro agreed to allow a French human rights group to visit. There should be gradations in American policy toward repressive governments. When American national security is potentially threatened, as with Iran and its efforts to develop nuclear weapons, Washington is justified in banning commerce. In cases like China and Cuba, where internal policies are anathema to Americans but American security is not at risk, commerce can be encouraged but trade privileges should be withheld. Scuttling the embargo would take some political courage. All the White House had to do last week to inspire Mr. Helms's wrath was to hint that it might consider lifting some additional sanctions imposed last year during the immigration crisis. But the political clout of the Cuban exile community has diminished in recent years as more Cuban-Americans have abandoned the traditional confrontational stance. Long gone are the days when Soviet troops and bases in Cuba represented a real threat to the United States and Mr. Castro was exporting arms and revolution in the hemisphere. Cuba, absent the ghosts of the cold war, is an impoverished neighbor of the United States led by a dictator overtaken by history. American policy should reflect that reality rather than a world that no longer exists.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Does the Senator from Arizona further agree that, when the bill proceeds to conference, it will be the intent of the manager of the bill to specify that both Members of Congress and persons adversely affected by the act may utilize the review procedures.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, at this time I ask the distinguished Senator from Arizona to enter into a colloquy with me. Two days ago, the distinguished Senator joined me in passing an amendment to ensure expedited review of any remaining constitutional questions raised by the line-item veto proposal. The intent of that amendment was to provide a speedy way of removing any cloud regarding the separate enrollment provision I would like to thank the distinguished Senator for his support in this matter. Upon review of the amendment, I believe the amendment warrants additional clarification. As written, the amendment permits ``any Member of Congress'' to bring an action under the expedited review procedures. However, it has come to my attention that the Federal courts have raised some question about whether a Member of Congress has standing to pursue such a suit under article III of the Constitution. If the Federal courts ruled that a Member of Congress lacked standing in such a case, the expedited review procedures would become null and void. To take account of this contingency, I believe that it is important also to allow any person adversely affected by the act to bring an appropriate test challenge under the act's expedited review procedure. Does the distinguished Senator from Arizona agree?

Mr. SIMON. To eliminate any misapprehension, let me specify that subsection (a)(1) of the expedited review procedure should read as follows: (a) Expedited Review.-- (1) Any Member of Congress or any person adversely affected by the Act may bring an action, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief on the ground that a provision of this Act violates the Constitution. Does the Senator from Arizona concur with my modification?

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor. Let me address one concern that people have, is no question the Russians do not like this move toward expanding NATO, and there is no question that there are genuine fears, whether justified or not, on the part of some of the countries of Central Europe with Russia. There is no reason, at some point in the future when democracy is insolubly established in Russia--and it is moving in the right direction--that Russia cannot become a part of NATO. As a matter of fact, if I were a Russian leader looking at a potential foe, I would not be looking to the West, I would be looking to the East-- China, with all the population and potential there. I think this is not only in the best interest of the countries of Central Europe. I think this is in the best interest of Russia, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. SIMON. I heard the Senator say he was going to propose this if the Bradley amendment was defeated. I, frankly, think we need this 10- year thing, whether the Bradley amendment carries or not because the Bradley amendment does exempt certain types of tax breaks.

Mr. SIMON. The time is from the Senator--I do not see that in the amendment from the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. SIMON. But, if I may, what the Bradley amendment says is: . . . but such term does not include any benefit provided to a class of taxpayers distinguished on the basis of general demographic conditions such as income, number of dependents, or marital status. Why I favor the idea of the 10-year projection is, even if the Bradley amendment is accepted, if someone wants to get a tax break for divorcees, just as one example, we ought to know what that is going to cost, not just for 5 years but for 10 years. So I think the Exon amendment still makes sense even though we accept the Bradley amendment. I am strongly for the Bradley amendment.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. I think this is an extremely important amendment. Frankly, this line-item veto is not in ideal shape, from my perspective. But what happens when we have a one-time appropriation is we have a one-time wound. If we vote $500,000 to save Bill Bradley's birthplace--and I know Bill Bradley would oppose such an appropriation--that is a one-time appropriation. But when we put in these little tax favors for people, these little things that provide tax breaks, that is a wound that bleeds year after year after year. I think it is extremely important that we adopt this amendment. I would like to see a line-item veto that also would give the President, frankly, the authority to reduce appropriations. Apparently, we cannot do that under the present Constitution. I wish we could. I prefer that. But I think if we are going to deal with appropriations in a line-item veto, we also have to deal with tax expenditures in a meaningful way. The Dole amendment deals with it but in a very narrow sense. This is even more narrowly crafted than I would like to see, but it at least gives us the ability to stop a running wound, and we have created too many running wounds. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the Bradley amendment. Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, A.M. Rosenthal had a column recently in the New York Times titled ``American Class Struggle,'' that contains a great deal of common sense that we ought to be listening to. I am uncomfortable when people of either party start moving on economic class line demagoguery, and there has been some of that on both sides. I was particularly pleased to read in the Rosenthal column the comments by a highly respected economist Felix J. Rohatyn. He said in a speech at Wake Forest University: The big beneficiaries of our economic expansion have been the owners of financial assets and a new class of highly compensated technicians working for companies where profit- sharing and stock ownership was widely spread. What is occurring is a huge transfer of wealth from lower- skilled middle-class American workers to the owners of capital assets and to the new technological aristocracy. As a result, the institutional relationship created by the mutual loyalty of employees and employers in most American businesses has been badly frayed. . . . These relationships have been replaced by a combination of fear for the future and a cynicism for the present as a broad proportion of working people see themselves as simply temporary assets to be hired or fired to protect the bottom line and create ``shareholder value.'' Mr. President, I ask that the Rosenthal column be printed in the Record. The column follows: American Class Struggle (By A.M. Rosenthal) When the Republicans took over Congress in the November election, I didn't take it hard. I voted for candidates from both parties, so I told my Democratic friends not to go into mourning. After all, shifting control of Congress once every few decades was not exactly destroying democracy. But I began to get nervous when I heard Representative Newton Gingrich boast that he was a revolutionary, the only one around. Myself, I think the first American Revolution was carried out well enough to be the last. Any major-party leader who prattles about being a revolutionary strikes me as stunningly insensitive to the havoc that revolutions cause, especially when they are rooted not in oppression but in the brain of a politician afloat in self-esteem. I still give him the benefit of the doubt; put the revolutionary talk down to a boyish pose. But sometimes a pose creates a result a young fellow might not foresee. The fact is that the ambitions of the Newtonians, their lust for the quick, dramatic change and their deep fascination with themselves do have in them the makings of one important ingredient of revolution. That is class struggle. Done carefully, with each Federal program to be sliced examined with the caring attention that we usually save for our own self-interest, much of the Contract With America could be of benefit. But absent that tenderness, the program is turning into more than Americans who voted for it might want. They expected to save some government money spent on other Americans, give bureaucrats the scare of their lives, and have a good housecleaning. But I doubt they expected the slash-and-burn campaign the Republicans have mounted against so much of the economic and social safety net created by Republican as well as Democratic administrations since World War II. What's more, all this is going on when a particular kind of economic expansion is also taking place. Felix G. Rohatyn, senior partner of Lazard Freres, described it in a speech at Wake Forest University last week: ``The big beneficiaries of our economic expansion have been the owners of financial assets and a new class of highly compensated technicians working for companies where profit- sharing and stock ownership was widely spread. ``What is occurring is a huge transfer of wealth from lower-skilled middle-class American workers to the owners of capital assets and to the new technological aristocracy. ``As a result, the institutional relationship created by the mutual loyalty of employees and employers in most American businesses has been badly frayed. . . . These relationships have been replaced by a combination of fear for the future and a cynicism for the present as a broad proportion of working people see themselves as simply temporary assets to be hired or fired to protect the bottom line and create `shareholder value.''' All right, put this attitude toward workers as disposable together with ``slash that net.'' Target people on welfare wholesale, take important aid programs from immigrants, legal or not, put Medicare on the cutting board and hint that Social Security will be next. Reduce money for narcotics therapy, summertime jobs for youngsters, health care and other parts of the net created over the last five decades. Cut very deep, very fast. Inevitably Americans who find themselves poorer or more frightened, with nothing between them and the ground, will look to business, a big beneficiary and supporter of the cuts, to erect a new net. Too bad for them. Mr. Rohatyn warns that it won't work, that being the social safety net of last resort is government's business, which makes two of us. So: If they destroy too much of the government safety net, Republicans will be loading business down with a job it cannot do, with working-class expectations it does not want to meet and cannot. As a bleeding-heart conservative, I believe that will be not only the prescription for class struggle but the beginning of its reality. Class struggle does not automatically bring revolution-- real, not sound-bite. But in 1932, President Roosevelt understood the danger of economic class struggle, and moved to overcome it and save capitalism. Left unrecognized or ignored, class struggle creates divisions that can undermine society--any society.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise today to join a number of my colleagues who are asking that hearings be held on the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster for Surgeon General. Dr. Foster is widely recognized as one of the Nation's leading authorities on infant mortality, as well as preventing teen pregnancy and drug abuse. He has contributed a great deal during his career, and is clearly an excellent candidate for the position of Surgeon General of the United States. It is important that we focus on Dr. Foster's credentials and look at how he has dedicated his career to helping others. After finishing his medical training, Dr. Foster returned to his native rural South and began his lifelong crusade against infant mortality. Dr. Foster developed a comprehensive approach to maternal and child health which involved teams of doctors, social workers, and nutritionists, with a goal of preventing health problems in mothers and newborn babies. The teams worked in rural communities to reach women early in their pregnancies, identify those women with a high potential for complication, and ensure they received specialized attention throughout their pregnancy and following the birth. Dr. Foster's approach was ahead of its time, becoming a national model for regionalized perinatal care. In 1991 the ``I Have a Future'' program, which Dr. Foster developed, was named a ``Point of Light'' by President Bush for its innovative work to reduce teen pregnancy and build self-esteem for at-risk youth. This program works with parental and community involvement, to help teenagers learn skills needed to start a business or get an education, and to point out the consequences of teenage pregnancy. These are only two of the successful, innovative programs which Dr. Foster great contributions that Dr. Foster has made. Mr. President, there has been much discussion about Dr. Foster performing abortions. Abortion is a legal procedure that should not disqualify Dr. Foster or any other nominee from Federal appointment. In response to some remarks about this performing abortions, Dr. Foster states that he believes abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, ``but [his] life's work has been dedicated to making sure that young people don't have to face the choice of having abortions.'' With efforts such as the I have a future program, Dr. Foster has shown this dedication. Mr. President, there are several things that have been twisted and misinterpreted in looking at Dr. Foster's career. We must look at this total record, and his commitment to working with young people, parents, and teachers to ensure we do decrease teen pregnancies, do decrease the number of low birthweight babies, do decrease the number of children living in poverty, and do decrease the number of abortions performed in this country. I have heard from numerous medical groups in support of Dr. Foster, including, the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Physicians, American College of Preventive Medicine, and many more. His distinguished career, and his commitment to the health of women and children, eminently qualify Dr. Foster for the position of Surgeon General. I look forward to his consideration by the full Senate.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. If the Senator will yield for that purpose.

Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague from Arizona.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield, Mr. President, I am sure we can work that out. If the Senator's staff will work with my staff overnight, I think we are reaching a point of agreement.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I believe this is an amendment that will be acceptable to both sides. But my colleagues will have overnight to look at it and make a determination. It is identical to the language that is in the House. It says that any Member of Congress may bring the question of constitutionality before the Federal court, and a panel of three judges will make a determination of its constitutionality and then it can be appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. What we do not want is to live in limbo. We have people like John Killian of CRS and Prof. Larry Tribe of Harvard who believe it is constitutional. You have others like Louis Fisher of CRS and Walter Dellinger, who believe it is not constitutional. I do not know who is right. The courts have to make that determination. But we ought to know as quickly as possible whether it is constitutional. My sense is it will pass, and it is clearly going to be signed by the President. Let us find out whether it meets constitutional test. That is what we are asking. And that very simply is what the amendment does. I thank the President. I thank my colleagues for yielding, and particularly Senator Levin who was here on the floor before I was. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON. Let me just explain, the amendment I hope to offer simply calls for expedited judicial review. It is identical to an amendment that was accepted on the House side. I think, whether you are for or against this bill, it makes sense. I believe it would be acceptable to both sides but I at least want to lay it down tonight and then, if there is not agreement tonight, then we can agree on it tomorrow.

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