Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, let me say first that I agree with three- fourths of what my colleague from North Dakota has just said. First, I think it makes absolutely no sense to be talking about a tax cut now. I think it is just absolutely irrational. It politically makes sense but it does not make sense any other way. And so I agree with him. Let me point out one other area where we can save money and do a great deal of good for the people in our country. That is if we pass a minimum wage bill. If we pass a minimum wage bill, we will spend less money on food stamps; we will spend less money on welfare. That is very practical. I do not know the precise numbers, but I saw one figure yesterday that we will save approximately $1.8 billion a year if we pass a minimum wage bill, in terms of a Federal budget. I do not know how thoroughly documented that is. Where I differ slightly from my colleague from North Dakota--I agree with him that we ought to be moving away from reliance on the Social Security trust fund in balancing the budget, and we came very close to an agreement on that--where I do differ is that it seems to me that the Krauthammer column is correct in saying the great threat to Social Security is the debt. Because if we do not change our policies, we will end up monetizing the debt, printing money, devaluing our currency. We are already seeing some of that. I want to comment on that in just a moment. We are already seeing some of that, just in the days since we failed to pass the balanced budget amendment last Thursday. I am a cosponsor of the bill to move, by legislation, toward a balanced budget by the year 2002. There are two problems with that. I hope it can have some impact. I, frankly, do not think ultimately it is going to work, because as soon as the squeeze gets on we simply change the law. That is the reality. There is a second problem with it. Assuming that it works. And that is interest by the financial markets is composed of two things. One is they want to have a margin of profit. That is always going to be there. The second thing the financial markets do is they put into interest, a hedge against inflation. So every study, CBO, Data Resources, Inc., Wharton--all of them say if we pass a balanced budget amendment interest rates will go down. We have seen what has happened to interest rates since a week ago Thursday. We did not pass the balanced budget amendment. There will be no similar confidence in the financial markets by any statutory change that we make. So we will be paying a premium on interest for our failure to pass a constitutional amendment. We will spend hundreds of billions of dollars, in my opinion--and no one knows this precisely--unnecessarily on interest because of our failure to pass a balanced budget amendment. Data Resources, Inc., one of the two most prominent econometric forecasters in the Nation, predicts that, by the year 2002, if we pass it, the prime rate will drop 2.5 percent. Wharton says 4 percent. But Data Resources, 2.5 percent. They say half the savings that we must get can come from interest savings. That is a very significant savings. Finally--and this is not in relation to the comment of my colleague from North Dakota, but to what has happened--I notice the international publications are very clear in pointing to our failure to pass the balanced budget amendment. Some of the domestic publications are, too, though there is much more focus on Mexico as a reason for the fall of the dollar. The reality is, if we had our fiscal house in order, what we have done by guaranteeing $20 billion in loans to Mexico would be just a blip on the horizon. A $20 billion loan guarantee for a country with a $6 trillion economy is not that significant an item. But when you compound it with our failure to pass a balanced budget amendment, then you have a problem. I would like to quote a few items here, if I can find them. Yesterday's Los Angeles Times lead story, ``Greenspan Asserts Deficit Sank Dollar. Fed chief says defeat of balanced-budget amendment sent wrong signal to global markets. He says Washington must cut deficit to ease pressure on greenback.'' Then let me read the lead story by James Risen. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan on Wednesday blamed last week's Senate defeat of the balanced-budget amendment for the sudden plunge in the value of the dollar and pointedly warned Congress that the currency will remain under pressure until Washington tackles the deficit. There are a number of stories along the same line. I am not going to bother reading all of them at this point. The point is, it is easy for us here to point to Mexico and say that is the cause of our problem. The reality of the cause of our problem is right here in the U.S. Senate, and we have to face up to that reality. The longer we postpone facing up to that reality, the greater the jeopardy we put the dollar in and all the ramifications that will have on the standard of living of our people. I hope we will face up to reality. Mr. President, since I do not believe anyone else seeks the floor right now, let me glance through a few of these things here. Here is the Financial Post, from Great Britain, ``The Current U.S. Get the Balanced Budget Amendment Passed.'' Here is the Independent, also a British publication. * * * defeat of the balanced budget amendment only reinforced in foreign eyes Washington's reputation for incurable fiscal profligacy. And most important of all, the tectonic plates of interest rate expectations have abruptly shifted. AFX News. I confess I do not know where that is from. I think some of the support the dollar got from the election of the Republican Congress has faded with the defeat of the balanced budget. Quoting some analyst here. Here, from Singapore, the Straits Times. The dollar's fall began last Friday, after Federal Reserve Board member, Mr. Lawrence Lindsay, told reporters that the yen-dollar rate had not reached a ``critical level.'' It coincided with the failure of the U.S. Senate to pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced Federal budget. The failure was seen as a lack of political will by the United States to tackle its twin deficits--budget and trade deficits--widely seen as among the factors contributing to the weak dollar. And the stories go on. Here is one from Japan, the Daily Yomiuri. The move was accompanied by news that the U.S. Senate voted down an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have forced balancing of the national budget by 2002. This combination caused the mark to soar, followed by the surge of the yen. And the stories go on. Clearly we have the ability here to get ahold of this thing. We ought to do it for the future of our country. But it is affecting us right now, and I hope in some way we can find one more Member of the U.S. Senate who will vote for a constitutional amendment. I think when that happens, if that happens, you will see a reversal. Obviously, I cannot predict and guarantee this. But the evidence is pretty overwhelming. You are going to see a reversal of what has happened to the dollar. I hope we do the sensible thing. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the pending amendment, which is the Kassebaum amendment. I would like to make one brief point. Later I will probably speak on some other points. But in 1935 when Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act, section 13 stated: Nothing in this act, except as specifically provided for herein, shall be construed so as either to interfere with or impede, or in any way diminish, the right to strike, or to affect the limitations or qualifications on that right. Then in 1938 in the Mackay radio case, the Supreme Court interpreted that as permitting permanent striker replacement. But that really did not happen in our country to any great extent and has not happened up until very recently. By tradition, we have worked things out, and we have avoided what most Western industrialized countries have outlawed. But the point I want to make is that in the discussion on the floor of the Senate, it has been assumed that the President's Executive order is as sweeping as our proposal last year on prohibiting permanent striker replacement. It is nowhere near as sweeping. It gives no additional powers to the National Labor Relations Board. Let me just read two pertinent sections. This is the President's Executive order. It is the policy of the Executive Branch in procuring goods and services that, to ensure the economical and efficient administration and completion of Federal Government contracts, contracting agencies shall not contract with employers that permanently replace lawfully striking employees. All discretion under this Executive order shall be exercised consistent with this policy. Then section 4(a): ``When the Secretary determines that a contractor has permanently replaced lawfully striking employees, the Secretary may''--no mandate-- ``may debar the contractor thereby making the contractor ineligible to receive government contracts.'' It is much more restrictive than the legislation that we had before us last year that a majority of the Senate voted for but because of our filibuster rules we were unable to pass. I will hold off saying anything further at this point, Mr. President. I will have some further comments before long. I see my colleague, the new Senator from Oklahoma, here. I believe he wishes to speak. So I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if I may get back to mundane things that we talk about here, amendments--and it is good, not simply as a tribute to the Chaplain but it is good for us to pull ourselves back and remind each other there are things more important than these amendments we vote on, and we too easily forget. Mr. President, let me comment again on the amendment that is before the Senate. It is very easy to forget we are talking about people, real people who are struggling for a living when we talk about people who go on strike. I just have been going through some testimony given a couple of years ago by people who were struggling. I just this morning was with Senator Kennedy, who held an informal session with a number of people who spoke on the need for a minimum wage. Two people I remember particularly. One is--and I believe I have his name correctly--David Dow, who has two children, a daughter 2, a son 1. He and his wife went 1 year to college. Then their first child was coming along so they had to quit. They are struggling on the minimum wage. They cannot afford health insurance. They are paying $75 a month for their student loan, making that payment on the minimum wage. And he just told about the struggle he is going through. These are real people we deal with when we are talking about a minimum wage. It is not some theoretical thing. There was a small employer there who said he would like to pay the minimum wage if everybody else had to raise their minimum wage so we would all be on the same level. We are talking about--and here they are judgment calls; I recognize that, but we are talking about trying to maintain some sense of balance in our society. I think that is what is needed in this area of permanent striker replacement. All the other Western industrialized nations, with the exception of Great Britain, Singapore, and Hong Kong, outlaw permanent striker replacement. Italy, Greece, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland--I am sure I am forgetting a few--Japan, all of them outlaw permanent striker replacement, and they do it for a very solid reason, that there is an imbalance. I say this as a former employer who was in business myself. There is an imbalance. Obviously, it is a struggle for a small business person. It was not easy for me in business. But as an employer I am at an advantage over somebody who is just struggling to pay a mortgage and to get by. And so we had built into our structure certain things that give some power to the employees. While we have not outlawed it as a result of the Mackay Radio decision in the Supreme Court of 1938, with only three exceptions in large businesses we have exercised self-restraint and avoided having permanent striker replacements. I think it is important that continue. I have been working with both sides in the Caterpillar strike in Illinois. Let me add I have great respect for Don Feits, the chief executive officer of Caterpillar, and Owen Biever, the president of the United Automobile Workers. My feelings are, if we just turned this whole thing over to the two of them, we would get it worked out. But if at Caterpillar you were to have permanent striker replacements, in a community like Peoria, it would just tear that town apart. It just would not be good. I think virtually everyone recognizes that. While that is a more volatile situation because of the concentration of employees of one company, I think we have to recognize we have to have balance, and that means, among other things, labor and management working together more than we have traditionally done. Germany has something they call mitbestimmung where an officer of the union is on the board of the corporation, but when that corporation talks about what they might offer to the unions in terms of concessions when they go to a contract, that union representative absents himself. But that way the unions get a chance to understand the problems of management and management gets to understand the problems of the unions. It is also important they work together and get together for a cup of coffee, a beer, whatever, and just talk things over informally. Do not wait until you get to contract time. But occasionally we have situations that get to the extreme, and I do not think we should let that extreme go to the point of having permanent striker replacements. I think that puts things out of kilter. I do not think we should be in a situation where we want to encourage it. The President's Executive order does one thing and one thing only. It says if we are going to buy supplies, we will not buy them from people who have permanent striker replacements, or at least we have that option. That is up to the Secretary of Labor. My hope is that we will not adopt the Kassebaum amendment. My hope is, this bill, even though he needs this emergency supplemental appropriation, would veto it and say give me a clean bill on what we need in the Defense Department. I know that postpones things for the Defense Department, and I know they would not be happy about it, but the better answer is for us not to accept the Kassebaum amendment and to move ahead and maintain this important balance between labor and management that we need in this Nation. Mr. President, if no one else seeks the floor, I question the presence of a quorum.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I agree with two-thirds of what my colleague from West Virginia has to say, and he knows I differ on the balanced budget amendment. I do believe, however, in the immediate choices that we face, one is a tax the House I voted against the Reagan tax cut and I voted against the Democratic tax cut. We were in a bidding war, we are in a bidding war again. I am going to vote against the Republican vote, and I am going to vote against the Democratic tax cut. I do not think they make any sense at all. In terms of tax increases, I think the political reality is we can only pass them if they are for designated purposes. The American public--if we need it for balancing the budget, it is very interesting--53 percent of the American public says they are for balancing the budget, even if it means they have to sacrifice. I think they are willing to face that. In 1990, if I may be immodest, I faced reelection. One of the things my opponent, a very distinguished woman who served in the House, Lynn Martin, used against me, is that I said I think we need increases in Federal taxes to balance the budget. I can remember reading in Roll Call that I was destined to defeat. I ended up getting the biggest plurality of any contested Senator of either political party running for reelection that year. I think people want to be told the truth. The reality is on tax increases--if we take the 18 Western industrialized countries as a percentage of our income--we pay a lower percentage than any of the other countries. We have the lowest tax on gasoline of any country outside of Saudi Arabia. We have the lowest tax on cigarettes. We do not have a value-added tax that many countries have. But I think the reality is we have to tie any kind of revenue increase with something concrete, like a health program. Or like getting rid of the deficit. As my colleague who is presiding, Senator Craig, knows, I have said all along that I think we have to combine cuts in spending to achieve a balanced budget with increases in revenue. I think that is the reality. I do believe--and here I differ with my colleague from West Virginia--I do believe the only way we are really going to get a balanced budget is with constitutional restraint. I respect the fact that he and I differ on that question. I thank him for yielding.

Mr. SIMON. I agree.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the words of praise of Dr. Halverson that Senator Byrd just provided us. I cannot do it with the same eloquence. I hate to say it, the few poems I memorized back when I was in grade school and high school I cannot recite now. But I wish I had Senator Byrd's recollections or ability to recall things so vividly. Every once in a while someone says, ``Why do you need a Chaplain in the Senate?'' We go through the same pains and agonies that everyone else does, and we have, in addition, the stress of being here. I hope I never have to go through what the Senator from West Virginia has gone through, seeing a grandchild die. I cannot imagine how tough that must be. But I know having a Chaplain, not just for Members of the Senate but for our staffs--Chaplain Halverson was there to help anyone associated with the Senate who had problems, and the same is true of Chaplain Ford in the House. When I was in the House, I can remember one of my colleagues looked as if something was wrong. I sat down next to him. I said, ``Everything all right?'' He said, ``I just got word that my son committed suicide.'' I will never forget it. He needed help, and it is important to each of us and important to the Nation that we provide that. I have noticed Chaplain Halverson--yes, he is good to each of us who is in the Senate, but I think equally important, he is good to all the staff. I can remember serving in the House with someone who was always good to his colleagues, but he was mean to elevator operators and others. Frankly, I never had any respect for him, even though he was a person of great ability. One of the things I really appreciate about Chaplain Halverson's service is he was available to everyone. He has served this Senate, he has served all of us very well. I want to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Byrd. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in morning business.

Mr. SIMON. I thank the Chair. Parliamentary inquiry. When are we scheduled to return to--I believe the pending amendment is the Kassebaum amendment on the emergency supplemental?

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I have the floor, and I would like to respond to his question, and then I will be happy to yield to the Senator for a question. I think the point made by the Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely valid. You can be a good, sincere person, but just not be a good replacement baseball player or person working in an airplane factory. I am going to be leaving the U.S. Senate after 1996. The Chicago White Sox are not interested in me. I cannot understand it, but that is the reality. Michael Jordan was a great basketball player, but he did not do very well on the baseball field. I think the point made by my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, is extremely important. We find, even where you do not have permanent replacements, sometimes factories try to keep going and the results have not been quality products. When we are talking about the defense industry, we want quality production. I point out also to Senator Kennedy that France makes military equipment. They sell planes, and they prohibit permanent striker replacement. Germany makes weapons; they prohibit permanent striker replacement. Italy manufactures military equipment; they prohibit permanent striker replacements. I have not heard from anyone that has said that, in any way, inhibited them from moving ahead. My colleague from Kansas wishes to ask a question.

Mr. SIMON. I say to my friend from Kansas that if she wants to go further and prohibit temporary striker replacement, I will support that endeavor. As a matter of fact, Quebec does that right now. Canada, as a whole, prohibits permanent striker replacements. In Quebec, you cannot even have temporary striker replacement. But whether they are temporary or permanent, there is no question that striker replacement results in a diminution of quality of the end product. The point made by Senator Kennedy is an absolutely valid point. Let me make a couple of other points while I have the floor, Mr. President. When the Senator from Oklahoma says Congress has clearly stated its opinion quite the way it was implied by my friend, Senator Nickles. The reality is that the House of Representatives passed a bill to prohibit striker replacement, and in the U.S. Senate, 53 Members went on record for this, a majority in the U.S. Senate--53-47. But because of our filibuster rule, we did not pass a law. When the Senator from Oklahoma says Congress has clearly stated its opinion, he is correct. But contrary to the situation when in 1991, a number of people, including the present Speaker and present majority leader of the House, introduced legislation that would have required employees to be notified in writing that they could not be required to join a union, that did not pass either body. But George Bush issued an Executive order requiring that notices be put up in all workplaces telling employees that they are not required to join a union. To my knowledge, no one tried to reverse that. We recognize the authority of the President to issue that kind of a statement. Finally, Mr. President, I see my friend from Texas anxiously waiting a chance to get the floor. Because we have had a discussion of social issues, and the Senator from Washington, Senator Gorton, said that there has been no demonstrable success in our social programs, the reality is, as we have pared down the appropriations for our social programs, more and more of our children are living in poverty. We, today, have 23 percent of the children of the United States living in poverty--far more than any other Western industrialized nation. That is not, as I have said on the floor of this Senate before, an act of God; that is a result of flawed policies. We have to show greater sympathy and concern and we need to have programs to help people. We are on one of these basic philosophical arguments here: Should Government tilt against working men and women, or should it not? I think Government should not tilt against working men and women. I think that is the fundamental issue here. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see the Senator from Texas, and I am sure he will agree with every word I have said here.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I spoke earlier today in opposition to the amendment by the Senator from Kansas. I would like to point out a couple of things. I mentioned this morning that permanent striker replacement is against the law in a number of countries, and someone apparently has since questioned whether that is true in Japan because I list Japan as one of the countries where it is illegal. Let me quote article 7, section 1 of the labor union law of Japan. The employer shall not engage in the following practices: (1) discharge or show discriminatory treatment towards a worker by reason of his being a member of a labor union or having tried to join or organize a labor union or having performed an appropriate act of a labor union * * * Now I would like to quote from the Congressional Research Service. The words ``an appropriate act of a labor union'' are construed to include acts arising from collective bargaining with the employer, such as strikes, picketing, and so on. Therefore, under Japanese law it is unlawful for an employer to discharge a striking employee. In other words, what President Clinton has done is to give through Executive order workers in the United States the same protection that workers in Japan, Italy, the Western European nations have, with the exception of Great Britain. The only Western industrialized nations that do not offer this protection are Great Britain, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the United States of America. This morning someone pointed out to me that I failed to mention Greece as one of the nations that has this particular stipulation. When my friend from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, mentioned that the action is unprecedented and invalid, the courts would find it invalid. Let the courts decide--not the Senate of the United States on an emergency supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense.

Mr. SIMON. I am pleased to yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I think it is not in the national interest. chief sponsor of the amendment, and all of my colleagues that consistency is not necessarily the virtue of any of us in this body. But I remind my colleague from Kansas, who is now the Presiding Officer, that on January 6 of this year, 2 months and 3 days ago I introduced a resolution, a sense of the Senate--nothing nearly as sweeping as the Kassebaum amendment--which simply said to the Bridgestone/Firestone Co., a wholly owned Japanese subsidiary with 4,200 workers, they ought to get together and have talks and not have the permanent replacement. At that point, the distinguished Senator from Kansas, who is my friend, with whom I enjoy working on African issues and many other things, said: I know the Senator from Illinois is well-intentioned. But this is neither the time nor the place for Congress to be considering anything other than this very important bill which is before us. The amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois is completely extraneous from the matter at hand, and for that reason alone I believe the Senate should table his amendment. If I may use the words of the Senator from Kansas, and just modify them slightly, I would say the amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas ``is completely extraneous from the matter at hand, and for that reason alone I believe the Senate should table her amendment.'' Her words were heeded by this body, and by a narrow margin that amendment was defeated. I hope this amendment will be defeated. It is part of what Senator Kennedy was just talking about. We have a very fundamental philosophical decision to make in Government--whether Government is going to help the wealthy and powerful, or whether it is going to help those who really struggle. My strong belief is the wealthy and powerful do a pretty good job of taking care of themselves, particularly with the system of campaign financing that we have in this country. And what we ought to be doing is trying to help people who struggle. This amendment goes in the opposite direction. I point out that in the United States today only 16 percent of our work force is organized by labor unions. No other Western industrialized democracy has anywhere near that low a figure. If you exclude the governmental unions, that number drops down to 11.8 percent. Not too long ago, George Shultz, the distinguished former Secretary of State and Secretary of Labor, made a speech that was quoted in the New York Times in which he said things are out of balance in our country, that the fact that labor union membership is so low, so small in our country, is not a healthy thing for the United States of America. I agree with him completely. I think we need greater balance. That is the word that ought to be part of our dialog here. The reality is that we had pretty good balance in labor-management relations over the years, since the early 1930's. When a Democrat came in, the National Labor Relations Board shifted a little bit on the side of labor, and when the Republicans came in, it would shift a little more on the side of management; but it was a pretty good balance. Then Ronald Reagan became President, and all of a sudden it got way out of balance. That has done real harm to labor-management relations in our country. The minimum wage that Senator Kennedy talked about is one part of providing a little balance. Real candidly, I think the minimum wage would do more in terms of welfare reform than any of the bills that I see before us that are labeled ``welfare reform'' right now. But in terms of permanent striker replacement, I mentioned Bridgestone/Firestone, a Japanese-owned corporation. Permanent striker replacement is illegal in Japan; it is illegal in Italy, it is illegal in Germany; it is illegal in France; it is illegal in Denmark; it is illegal in Norway; it is illegal in Sweden. I do not know what countries I have skipped now, but the only countries outside of the United States of America where it is legal--the only democracies where it is legal to fire permanent strikers are Great Britain, Hong Kong, and Singapore. In every other Western industrialized democracy, that kind of action is illegal. Traditionally, we just have not done that in our country. I do not think we ought to be moving down that line. I think the President's action provides a little balance that is needed. Let me add, Madam President, if this amendment is adopted, I am going to have a series of amendments on labor law reform. For example, if you have a pattern and practice of violating the civil rights laws of this country, you cannot get a Federal contract. I think it ought to be the law in this country that if you had a pattern and practice of violating labor laws, you should not be able to get a Federal contract. I think if you have a pattern and practice of violating worker safety laws, you should not be able to get a Federal contract. When you organize--in Canada, for example, if you want to organize a plant or site, you have 30 days in which a majority of people can--the 30 days comes after you get the majority of people. You get a majority of people to sign cards and pay $1, and 30 days after that, that plant or site is organized. In the United States, it can draw out for 7 years before a plant is organized, and in the meantime, an employer, for all practical purposes, has the legal right to fire people for their union activity. There are a whole series of things that can be done. If this amendment is adopted, we are going to have other amendments in this area. But I would get back to the fundamental point that my colleague from Kansas made to me when I proposed an amendment, which was just a sense of the Senate and had no permanent implication, as this one does, when she says, ``The amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois is completely extraneous from the matter at hand, and for that reason alone, I believe the Senate should table his amendment.'' The Senate listened to her then. I hope they will listen to her words now and table the amendment of the Senator from Kansas. Madam President, I yield the floor. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON. No.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, recently, the Bloomington Pantagraph had an on the matter of gambling in Illinois. The phenomenon is not a problem only in Illinois. I have introduced legislation calling for a national commission to look at where we are going in this area and to look into its impact on the Nation. We are talking about the fastest growing industry in the United States, and there are obviously problems that go with that escalation. The Drake Law Review recently had a very extensive study of this question and came to the conclusion that we are harming our country. I hope Congress will authorize a careful look at this whole question. The editorial follows: [From the Pantagraph, Feb. 23, 1995] Odds Against Controlling Gambling Fever in Illinois Gambling fever seems to be spreading across Illinois like a prairie fire. Horse tracks have been around for awhile, but the state broke new ground by subsidizing the rebuilding of Arlington International Raceway when the original track burned. For those who didn't want to go to the tracks, there have been plenty of bingo parlors around. And the state finally got around to licensing them to make them legal. And there is the state lottery, where the proliferation of games to lose money--with a few exceptions, of course--never ceases to amaze us. We also have the riverboats, the floating crap games. It hasn't been enough to just have the riverboats; owners have chartered buses to transport gamblers from various cities. Oh yes, let's not forget the offtrack betting parlors that have sprung up in at least a half-dozen Illinois cities. But there is still constant stirring in Springfield for more licensed gambling--casino gambling. Had enough? There's more. The mega-raffles seem to be hitting Illinois much harder this year, too. There's one in Bloomington-Normal now. Central Catholic High School's Dream House raffle is offering a top prize of a $200,000 house under construction on Bloomington's northeast side. Only 2,400 tickets are being sold at $100 each. Sangamon County is concerned enough about such raffles that it regulates them with a code. Last month, the county raised the maximum for such raffles from $150,000 to $250,000. Since then, a fourth ``mega-drawing'' of the year has been announced in Springfield--this one for a $180,000 house to benefit Big Brother/Big Sister of Sangamon County. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that in that same city, legislation was introduced two weeks ago to permit video lottery gambling at locations licensed to conduct charitable games, primarily private/social clubs. We haven't even mentioned the office pools or the illegal bookies and tip boards in probably every major city. It seems rather ironic that this fever pitch for gambling is often tempered because proceeds are earmarked for charity, or education, or county fairs. We know gambling is an easy way to make a quick buck--for the sponsor. And we haven't mentioned that a small bet for a large prize can be titilating. But the stakes seem to be escalating. It's time Illinois legislators take a more critical look at gambling--what it was, what it has become, what it has done and where it is going. Please, no more legalized gambling. We'll bet there are ample opportunities to lose money now.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would like to make an observation or two. Sometimes we do things in the U.S. Senate that no one pays much attention to around the world. In the 4 days since we have turned down the balanced budget amendment, we have seen a precipitous fall in the dollar. I heard on the radio as I came in this morning, and at a breakfast meeting where I heard the distinguished presiding officer speak, I heard a reference to the international markets being concerned about the action and our failure to face up to our deficit problems. The Chicago Tribune, yesterday, front page subhead ``Dollar's Role as the Top Currency of International Trade Is Threatened.'' And I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this article mentions a currency trader that is apparently very prominent. I have to say I am not that knowledgeable in this field. A gentleman from Zurich, Switzerland, Manfried Holliger, says: Foreign economists say that Congress' refusal last week to pass a constitutional budget by 2002 showed that Washington is simply not serious about putting its economic House in order. The German mark is already replacing the dollar as the currency of choice in Europe, and it may do so in Asia, too [Holliger said]. That will undermine international faith in the U.S. economy and its government even further. I cannot understand what benefit U.S. leaders see in allowing the dollar to fall even more than it already has. When I served overseas in the Army--and I have to say that was a long time ago, 1951 to 1953--for $1, you got 4 German marks. That has changed dramatically. Every once in a while, we do things here that are of monumental importance to the Nation. What happened last week is of such import. If we want to stop the slide of the dollar, the U.S. Senate can do it very, very quickly by adopting the balanced budget amendment. I say to my 34 colleagues who voted against it, any one of you can do a great favor for this Government and for the future of world stability by changing that vote. I hope before too long we will have a changed vote. The news on the dollar should be a matter of concern to all of us. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

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, I thank my colleagues. I thank them not only on my behalf but on behalf of our former colleague, Senator David Boren. I will call him and tell him the news. And I believe I am safe, after my conversation with the Secretary of Defense, in saying the Secretary of Defense also thanks you.

Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague from Rhode Island. In Desert Storm, we sent 500,000 American troops over there, and we found we had only 5 people who could translate Iraqi military documents. The need for having knowledge in these areas is extremely important. I called David Boren, who is now president of the University of Oklahoma, and I say to my colleague from Mississippi, he indicated not only were Senators Warner and Nunn cosponsors of this, but Senator Murkowski and Senator Cohen, and he also indicated that Senator Lieberman and Senator Feingold had been of help to him in this. The other day, I asked the Secretary of Defense about this, and he said this is a small item but extremely important. He said it really is important that we have people who learn these isolated languages. My reason for being involved in this is back when I was a member of the House Education and Labor Committee, the then Secretary of Education, Ted Bell, asked to zero out our foreign language program, and Cap Weinberger, who was then Secretary of Defense, and Bill Casey, who was then head of the CIA, contacted me and said this is extremely important for us. This is an area where we have serious deficiencies. My hope is that the managers will be willing to accept my amendment. But if they are not, then I would want to press forward to have a vote on the amendment. I will yield the floor at this point, and the floor managers can have a chance to look at this. But, again, this is the measure, the chief sponsor of which was Senator David Boren, and Senators Nunn and Warner were cosponsors. President Bush signed the legislation. The Secretary of Defense says this is very important for the Defense Department. It is a relatively small amount we are talking about, $6 million. The offset is more than the $6 million because to handle the outlay portion of that, we need to do better than that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I spoke earlier today about the falling dollar. I quoted the Chicago Tribune. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record some more items.

Mr. SIMON. Yesterday's Washington Post, in an article by John Berry, ``Dollar Keeps Falling Against Yen and Mark,'' quotes a Washington economist, L. Douglas Lee: ``The way to address the problem is to do something to bring savings and investment closer together--such as reduce the federal [budget] deficit,'' Lee said. And that pointed to yet another reason for the dollar's weakness--last week's Senate defeat of a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget, which ``was read as a negative by the currency market,'' Lee said. The Wall Street Journal, the day before yesterday, in an article by Michael Sesit, ``Currency's Slide May Mark End of Reserve Role.'' The basic problem for the dollar is that there are just too many of them sloshing around, says George Magnus, chief economist at S.G. Warburg & Co. in London. The U.S. current account deficit--a broad measure of trade in goods and services plus certain financial transfers--is huge and growing. In addition, ``there is still an underlying outflow of investment capital'' as U.S. companies continue to invest in plants and equipment overseas, he says. Here I might add what encourages that outflow is when you do not have a decline in interest here and when it is more productive, when you get more for your capital, to invest in other countries. The balanced budget amendment, every projection said, would send interest rates in this country down. Then the article continues, quoting this London economist: ``And don't forget that the U.S. is the world's biggest debtor nation, with external liabilities of $750 billion at the end of 1994,'' he adds. Last week's defeat of a constitutional amendment that would have required a balanced budget by 2002 only underscored the country's lack of will to reform its ways. Here is another one, an article from yesterday's Wall Street Journal, quoting Rudiger Dornbusch, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist, listing the budget deficit accounts as one of the two major reasons for the drop in the dollar. The recent slump in the dollar coincides with the Senate's rejection of a constitutional amendment that would have required a balanced budget. ``Germany is balancing the budget without big talk over the next four years. We are widening the deficit with big talk,'' Mr. Dornbusch said. And today's Los Angeles Times, ``Dollar Again Plunges, Setting Off Stock Selloff.'' In the middle it says, ``It's pandemonium, isn't it?'' said Robert A. White, senior vice president at Standard Chartered Bank in New York. ``It's shocking to a lot of us old-timers in the market, to see the dollar ostensibly removed as the reserve currency of the world.'' * * * * * * * * highly visible news from Washington seems to have convinced speculators that the dollar is a less attractive haven than in the past. Traders have repeatedly mentioned the rescue plan for Mexico and the defeat of the balanced-budget amendment in Congress in recent days as reasons to abandon the dollar. ``There's a complete lack of faith in the Fed, the Administration and in Congress to get the budget in order, to get the trade balance in order,'' White contended. The reality is, if we had our fiscal house in order the $20 billion loan guarantee for Mexico would just be a blip out there. It just would not have any kind of an impact. In a $6 trillion economy that is not a big thing. But when you compound it with our failure to address our fiscal deficit, then the little things become big things. I hope we learn the lesson. My hope is that 1 of the 34 who voted against the balanced budget amendment will recognize that a great mistake has been made, and that we are harming our country right now. We are now talking about calling on the Federal Reserve and many other nations to come to the rescue of the dollar, and that is going to cost us a great deal. There is a much less expensive way to do it--pass the balanced budget amendment. Mr. President, if no one else seeks the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.