Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this is an amendment that restores the National Security Education Act. This was introduced by our former colleague, Senator David Boren, and was cosponsored by Senators Nunn and Warner. It was signed into law by President Bush. Before he leaves, I say to my colleague, the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, because I know of his interest in this field, this is our former colleague, David Boren's bill. It sets up studies in foreign languages, in these isolated foreign languages where we have very little knowledge, and it is extremely important. I just mention it to Senator Pell because I know of his interest in this area.

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

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I have an amendment, but I do not see either of the floor managers present. I think it would not violate anything if I asked unanimous consent to set the Helms amendment aside so that I can offer an amendment.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I concur completely with my colleague from Connecticut. Foreign policy should reflect the national interest, not the national passion. Our policy in Cuba reflects the national passion, not the national interest. If the old leaders of the Soviet Union and Cuba had gotten together and said let us try and figure out a United States policy that will keep Castro in power, they could not have figured out a better policy than the policy we have followed that made Castro a hero to his own people, that isolated him. I think we need, if there is such a word, to de-isolate Cuba. I think, for example, we ought to at a minimum sell food and medicine to Cuba. What harm comes to the United States if we sell food and medicine to the people of Cuba? And as I read this amendment, all of a sudden we are saying to countries all over the world, if you do not follow the policy that we and we alone are following--no other country in the world has this policy toward Cuba--if you do not follow our policy, then you are going to have economic reprisal against you. That is not the way. It may have been, immediately after World War II, when we had better than 50 percent of the world's economy, we could muscle our way around like that even though it would not have been good public relations for the cause of freedom and democracy. Today, we are one-fifth of the world's economy. Yes, we are the only superpower that is left, but it just is not rational to follow this kind of policy. I think we ought to be sitting back and asking ourselves, No. 1, is Castro a threat to the United States? I think the answer to that clearly is he is not a threat to the United States. No. 2, is he violating basic civil liberties, human rights, in Cuba? Yes. He is, in fact, probably the worst violator of human rights throughout this hemisphere. Then the question is, How do we get them to change their policy? That is what we ought to be asking ourselves, not how we can pick up a few votes back home from people who want us just to corner him. You corner a dog, you corner a snake, and they lash out. I think we ought to be taking another look at this. I think the Helms amendment is well intentioned. It will not serve the national interest, not serve our national policy at this point. Amendment No. 327 (Purpose: To delete the rescission of funds for the National Security Education Trust Fund)

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, there was of a variety of comment before the vote on the balanced budget amendment, one of the more sensible appearing in the Buffalo News, written by Douglas Turner. I ask that the column be printed in the Record. The column follows: [From the Buffalo News, Feb. 27, 1995] Budget Amendment's Time Has Come; The Democrats Are Mortgaging Their Future by Opposing It (By Douglas Turner) Washington.--Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan predicted on Friday that the Senate will defeat a proposed amendment to the Constitution calling for a balanced federal budget. If he's right, and the learned New York Democrat quite often is, that Senate action will squelch the bill that easily passed the House last month. The crucial Senate vote will probably come Wednesday or Thursday. Loss of the amendment will not be good for the country. Fighting this idea whose time has come will also be a calamitous loser for the Democrats. They won't get the Senate back in 1996 or 1998 if they win on this week's roll call. It guarantees returning the Republicans to control of the House after next year's elections. House GOP Campaign chairman Bill Paxon will say a bigger Republican majority is needed to offer up this amendment again. If the amendment fails, the states will be denied their opportunity to vote on the measure. This will insult our embattled federal system. Belief in our national system is already under heavy attack from junkyard dog conservatives. Defeat will be the same as Washington Democrats saying to the nation: ``We know you have a legal right to consider this popular idea, but we don't trust you, not even your sophisticated state legislatures, enough for you to consider it.'' Dumb. ``Popular'' doesn't describe the momentum behind the balanced budget idea. Eighty percent of the nation wants this amendment. Even in liberal New York State, support is overwhelming. Moynihan is one of the Democrats who does believe voters are smart enough to understand. He has spent days, weeks, honing and delivering his arguments against the amendment. He's published a small booklet about it, and gave a lengthy floor address last week. He talked about it on ``Meet the Press'' again yesterday. Central to their arguments, and Moynihan's, is their concern for loss of flexibility. The amendment, they say, will deprive Congress of the ability to infuse a sinking economy with enough federal money to restore its vigor. We'd be inviting a sustained economic Depression, they say. Moynihan devised a chart that shows the big spikes in the national economy before 1940. These show crippling variations in gross national product, up and down by as much as 15 percent in the span of a couple of years. Post-1940 variations are mild, and generally positive, on this chart. These came after the massive New Deal expansion of the government bureaucracy and the practice of ``counter- cyclical'' federal spending. The chart is an icon to a generation of politicians and professors steeped in the Keynesian tradition of demand economics. The chart looks good until you think about it. First, it credits special surges in federal spending for the relative stability of the post-war economy. But it ignores the role of such income support programs as Social Security, and the importance of the labor movement as post-war stabilizers. It also ignores the fact that the most celebrated ``counter-cyclical'' spending (not did build many fine projects, and it helped hundreds of thousands of individuals. It had little if any lasting effect on the economy as a whole. The last counter-cyclical experience occurred during the recession of 1982-83. To help the unemployed and help stimulate a flat economy Congress threw a few billion into public works and expanded unemployment benefits. There is nothing in this proposed amendment that would bar Congress from taking such modest steps again. If a crisis like the Depression occurred again, a three-fifths majority in each house could bypass the amendment's spending restrictions. If there were a crisis, the people would respond just as they did in the 1930s. They threw out a catatonic GOP and installed Democrats, giving them a three-to-one margin. The Democrats are on the wrong side of this one. Balancing the budget is a liberal concept, in the classic sense of the word, liberating. Interest on the debt nearly equals all the government spends on discretionary programs, such as disease control, transit, research, aid to cities, education and foster care. Interest payments are crowding out aid to the underprivileged just as much as entitlements. Interest payments go to people rich enough to buy government securities in $10,000 and $100,000 lots--not exactly the guy in your neighborhood Legion hall. It is a loser for the Democrats on demographic lines. It is the young voter--not the aging one--that is going to pay and pay and pay to get this debt off his back. For every sophisticated argument against it, there is an even stronger common sense argument for balancing the budget--sooner than later. The people aren't dumb.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the Anti- Defamation League [ADL] for their continuing work to expose and combat hate crimes, and to bring your attention to their most recent ``Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents.'' For the past 16 years, the ADL has compiled data about anti-Jewish attacks. Their efforts in the collection of data and the development of programs regarding anti- Semitic acts increase public awareness of this problem, and help generate constructive solutions. I commend ADL for continuing this important endeavor, and would like to share with you some of their recent findings. Unfortunately, the ADL's 1994 survey indicates that the number and severity of anti-Semitic hate crimes has worsened nationwide. There were 2,066 incidents reported to ADL from 46 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico in 1994 alone. This represents an overall increase of more than 10 percent from 1993, and constitutes the first time the audit total has gone over 2,000. I was particularly troubled by the dramatic rise in the number of violent, destructive, and, in one case, deadly assaults against Jews. For the fourth year, the number of anti-Semitic acts against individuals outnumber the incidents of vandalism against institutions and other property. The number of reported incidents of assault, threat, and harassment totaled 1,197. This represents almost an 11-percent increase from 1993. In fact, acts of harassment and personal assault have risen 291 percent in a 10-year span. Shootings, arsons, and firebombings were also far more prevalent than in previous years. In 1994, there were 25 arsons and 10 arson attempts, compared with the total of 41 arsons in the 5 previous years combined. While these numbers make a dramatic statement about the magnitude of anti-Semitic hate crime, some specific examples more graphically illustrate the sad story of hatred present in our society today. The most violent incident occurred in New York City, where, on March 1, a lone gunman opened fire on a van filled with Hasidic students crossing the Brooklyn Bridge. One student died in the attack and three other students were seriously wounded. The ADL reports that in Memphis, two older teenagers attacked two 13-year-old Jewish boys with a sword while yelling anti-Semitic epithets. In February, in Eureka, CA, a bedroom of a Jewish family's home was set afire and a message was left: ``I got a Jew.'' In Michigan, in November, a Jewish couple received a package in the mail containing a severed dog's head wrapped in a plastic bag, on which was written ``Dirty Jew'' and swastikas. Tragically, anti-Semitic incidents on college campuses continued to rise and increased by 17 percent from 1993. At South Alabama University, a Jewish faculty member found a note in his campus mailbox reading, ``Death to Jews--That means you* * *'' At Northwestern University, ``Kill all the Jews'' was written on a residence hall adviser's memo board in response to the question, ``What do you think of race relations at NU?'' At Temple Law School, a student was harassed by a member of the Western Heritage Society who said, ``I heard you discussing cross burnings and I'd like to arrange one for you.'' From February through April, nearly 300 books in the library of Cleveland State University in Ohio were defaced with hate stickers incorporating Nazi themes. The ADL's report did contain some positive information, however. The number of arrests made in connection with anti-Semitic crimes more than doubled from the 1993 total. This may be attributable in part to the growing impact of State and Federal hate crime legislation and improved hate crime training programs for law enforcement officials. For example, Colorado law enforcement agencies recently brought charges, resulting from an 8-month investigation into Denver-area hate groups, against 21 young adults, ages ranging from 19 to 26, who were members of white supremist and skinhead organizations. outstanding and important work.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, when I think of individuals who speak for our societal conscience from a spiritual perspective, I know of no other more qualified or appropriate than my good friend Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, the Archbishop of Chicago. He recently addressed the Harvard Business School Club of Chicago regarding his concerns with the rapid commercialization of our health care delivery system. I ask that his speech be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks. Whether we agree with it or not, there is a wave of fundamental change underway in our health delivery system. It is the transformation or assimilation of nonprofit hospitals and health providers into for- profit health delivery systems. Almost every day, you will read in the business section about how many hospitals are being purchased by large investor-owned companies. Let me be clear, I am not opposed to the idea of encouraging private enterprise and industry innovation in our health care system. Indeed, our health care system, which is the best in the world for those who have access to it, was largely built on the foundation of cutting-edge medical technology and research conducted by for-profit pharmaceutical and medial equipment companies. What I would like for us to reflect upon, however, is whether the rapid unrestrained commercialization of the health care delivery system is in the best long-term interests of our country. Cardinal Bernardin wisely states in his speech that, ``* * * there is a fundamental difference between the provision of medical care and the production and distribution of commodities * * *'' and that ``* * * the primary * * * purpose of medical care delivery should be a cured patient * * * and a healthier community, not to earn a profit * * *.'' As we work together toward reforming portions of our health care system this year, I hope all of us will take some time out to reflect upon the fundamental changes that are taking place in the health care system today and ask whether they are in the best interests of our society tomorrow. As you do so, I hope that you will have Cardinal Bernardin's advice in mind. The speech follows: Making the Case for Not-for-Profit Healthcare Good afternoon. It is a privilege to address the Harvard Business School Club of Chicago on the critical, but often conflicted issue of healthcare. Because of its central importance to human dignity, to the quality of our community life, and to the Church's mission in the world, I have felt a special responsibility to devote a considerable amount of attention to healthcare at both the local and national levels. In the last year, I have spoken at the National Press Club on the need to ensure access to adequate healthcare for all; I have issued a Protocol to help ensure the future presence of a strong, institutional healthcare ministry in the Archdiocese of Chicago; and in order to be more in touch with ongoing developments in the field, I have joined the Board of Trustees of the Catholic Health Association of the United States--the national organization that represents more than 900 Catholic acute and long-term care facilities. In the interest of full disclosure, I must warn you that this considerable activity does not qualify me as a healthcare expert. Healthcare policy is challenging and extraordinarily complicated, and in this area I am every bit the layman. But because of its central importance in our lives--socially, economically, ethically, and personally--we ``non-experts'' avoid the healthcare challenge at our peril. I come before you today in several capacities. First, as the Catholic Archbishop of Chicago who has pastoral responsibility for numerous Catholic healthcare institutions in the archdiocese--though each is legally and financially independent. Second, as a community leader who cares deeply about the quality and availability of healthcare services throughout metropolitan Chicago and the United States. And third, as an individual who, like you, will undoubtedly one day become sick and vulnerable and require the services of competent and caring medical professionals and hospitals. the growing threat to not-for-profit healthcare In each role I am becoming increasingly concerned that our healthcare delivery system is rapidly commercializing itself, and in the process is abandoning core values that should always be at the heart of healthcare. These developments have potentially deleterious consequences for patients and society as a whole. This afternoon, I will focus on one important aspect of this problem: the future vitality and integrity of not-for-profit hospitals. Not-for-profit hospitals constitute the overwhelming majority of Chicagoland hospitals. They represent more than three quarters of the nonpublic acute-care general hospitals in the country. Not-for-profit hospitals are the core of this nation's private, voluntary healthcare delivery system, but are in jeopardy of becoming for-profit enterprises. Not-for-profit hospitals began as philanthropic social institutions, with the primary purpose of serving the healthcare needs of their communities. In recent decades, they have become important non-governmental ``safety net'' institutions, taking care of the growing numbers of uninsured and underinsured persons. Indeed, most not-for-profit hospitals regard the provisions of community benefit as their principal mission. Unfortunately, this historic and still necessary role is being compromised by changing economic circumstances in healthcare, and by an ideological challenge to the very notion of not-for-profit healthcare. Both an excess supply of hospital beds and cost-conscious choices by employers, insurers, and government have forced not-for-profits into new levels of competition for paying patients. They are competing with one another, with investor- owned hospitals, and with for-profit ambulatory facilities. In their struggle for economic survival, a growing number of not-for-profits are sacrificing altruistic concerns for the bottom line. The not-for-profit presence in healthcare delivery is also threatened by a body of opinion that contends there is no fundamental distinction between medical care and a commodity exchanged for profit. It is argued that healthcare delivery is like other necessary economic goods such as food, clothing, and shelter and should be subject to unbridled market competition. According to this view, economic competition in healthcare delivery is proposed as a welcome development with claims that it is the surest way to eliminate excess hospital and physician capacity, reduce healthcare prices, and assure the ``industry's'' long-term efficiency. Many proponents of this view question the need for not-for-profit hospitals since they believe investor-owned institutions operate more efficiently than their not-for-profit counterparts and can better attract needed capital. Thus, they attack the not-for- profit hospital tax exemption as an archaic and unwarranted subsidy that distorts the healthcare market by providing exempt institutions an unfair competitive advantage. This afternoon, I will make three arguments: First, that there is a fundamental difference between the provision of medical care and the production and distribution of commodities; second, that the not-for-profit structure is better aligned with the essential mission of healthcare delivery than is the investor-owned model; and third, that leaders in both the private and public sector have a responsibility to find ways to preserve and strengthen the not-for-profit hospital and healthcare delivery system in the United to clarify an important point. the advantages of capitalism and free enterprise In drawing the distinction between medical care and other commodities on the one hand, and not-for-profit and investor- owned institutions on the other, I am not expressing any general bias against capitalism or the American free enterprise system. We are all beneficiaries of the genius of that system. To paraphrase Pope John Paul II: If by capitalism is meant an economic system that recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property, and the resulting responsibility for the means for production--as well as free human creativity in the economic sector--then its contribution to American society has been most beneficial. As a key element of the free enterprise system, the American business corporation has proved itself to be an efficient mechanism for encouraging and minimizing commercial risk. It has enabled individuals to engage in commercial activities that none of them could manage alone. In this regard, the purpose of the business corporation is specific: to earn a growing profit and a reasonable rate of return for the individuals who have created it. The essential element here is a reasonable rate of return, for without it the commercial corporation cannot exist. society's non-economic goods That being said, it is important to recognize that not all of society's institutions have as their essential purpose earning a reasonable rate of return on capital. For example, the purpose of the family is to provide a protective and nurturing environment in which to raise children. The purpose of education at all levels is to produce knowledgeable and productive citizens. And the primary purpose of social services is to produce shelter, counseling, food, and other programs for people and communities in need. Generally speaking, each of these organizations has as its essential purpose a non-economic goal: the advancement of human dignity. And this is as it should be. While economics is indeed important, most of us would agree that the value of human life and the quality of the human condition are seriously diminished when reduced to purely economic considerations. Again, to quote Pope John Paul II, the idea that the entirety of social life is to be determined by market exchanges is to run ``the risk of an `idolatry' of the market, an idolatry which ignores the existence of goods which by their nature are not and cannot be mere commodities.'' (Emphasis added.) This understanding is consistent with the American experience. In the belief that the non-economic ends of the family, social services, and education are essential to the advancement of human dignity and to the quality of our social and economic life, we have treated them quite differently from most other goods and services. Specifically, we have not made their allocation dependent solely on a person's ability to afford them. For example, we recognize that individual human dignity is enhanced through a good education, and that we all benefit by having an educated society; so we make an elementary and secondary education available to everyone, and heavily subsidize it thereafter. By contrast, we think it quite appropriate that hair spray, compact disks, and automobiles be allocated entirely by their affordability. healthcare: not simply a commodity Now it is my contention that healthcare delivery is one of those ``goods which by their nature are not and cannot be mere commodities.'' I say this because healthcare involves one of the most intimate aspects of our lives--our bodies and, in many ways, our minds and spirits as well. The quality of our life, our capacity to participate in social and economic activities, and very often life itself are at stake in each serious encounter with the medical care system. This is why we expect healthcare delivery to be a competent and a caring response to the broken human condition--to human vulnerability. To be sure, we expect our physician to earn a good living and our hospital to be economically viable, but when it comes to our case we do not expect them to be motivated mainly by economic self-interest. When it comes to our coronary bypass or our hip replacement or our child's cancer treatment, we expect them to be professional in the original sense of that term--motivated primarily by patient need, not economic self- interest. We have no comparable expectation--nor should we-- of General Motors of Wal-Mart. When we are sick, vulnerable, and preoccupied with worry we depend on our physician to be our confidant, our advocate, our guide and agent in an environment that is bewildering for most of us, and where matters of great importance are at stake. The availability of good healthcare is also vital to the character of community life. We would not think well of ourselves if we permitted healthcare institutions to let the uninsured sick and injured go untreated. We endeavor to take care of the poor and the sick as much for our benefit as for theirs. Accordingly, most Americans believe society should provide everyone access to adequate healthcare services just as it ensures everyone an education through grade twelve. There is a practical aspect to this aspiration as well because, like education, healthcare entails community-wide needs which it impacts in various ways: We all benefit from a healthy community; and we all suffer from a lack of health, especially with respect to communicable disease. Finally, healthcare is particularly subject to what economists call market failure. Most healthcare ``purchases'' are not predictable, nor do medical services come in standardized packages and different grades, suitable to comparison shopping and selection--most are specific to individual need. Moreover, it would be wrong to suggest that seriously ill patients defer their healthcare purchases while they shop around for the best price. Nor do we expect people to pay the full cost of catastrophic, financially devastating illnesses. This is why most developed nations spread the risk of these high-cost episodes through public and/or private health insurance. And due to the prevalence of health insurance, or third-party payment, most of us do not pay for our healthcare at the time it is delivered. Thus, we are inclined to demand an infinite amount of the very best care available. In short, healthcare does not lend itself to market discipline in the same way as most other goods and services. So healthcare--like the family, education, and social services--is special. It is fundamentally different from most other goods because it is essential to human dignity and the character of our communities. It is, to repeat, one of those ``goods which by their nature are not and cannot be mere commodities.'' Given this special status, the primary end or essential purpose of medical care delivery should be a cured patient, a comforted patient, and a healthier community, not to earn a profit or a return on capital for shareholders. This understanding has long been a central ethical tenet of medicine. The International Code of the World Health Organization, for example, states that doctors must practice their profession ``uninfluenced by motives of profit.'' The advantages of not-for-profit institutions This leads me to my second point, that the primary non- economic ends of healthcare delivery are best advanced in a predominantly not-for-profit delivery system. Before making this argument, however, I need to be very clear about what I am not saying: I am not saying that not- for-profit healthcare organizations and systems should be shielded from all competition. I believe properly structured competition is good for most not-for-profits. For example, I have long contended that the quality of elementary and secondary education would benefit greatly from the use of vouchers and expanded parental choice in the selection of schools; similarly, the Catholic Health Association's proposal for healthcare reform envisions organized, economically disciplined healthcare systems competing with one another for enrollees. Second, I am not saying that all not-for-profit hospitals and healthcare systems act appropriately, some do not. But the answer to this problem is greater accountability in their governance and operation, not the extreme measure of abandoning the not-for-profit structure in healthcare. What I am saying is that the not-for-profit structure is the preferred model for delivering healthcare services. This is so because the not-for-profit institution is uniquely designed to provide essential human services. Management expert Peter Drucker reminds us that the distinguishing feature of not-for-profit organizations is not that they are non-profit, but that they do something very different from either business or government. He notes that a business has ``discharged its task when the customer buys the product, pays for it, and is satisfied with it,'' and that government has done so when its ``policies are effective.'' On the other hand, he writes: ``The `non-profit' institution neither supplies goods or services nor controls (through regulation). Its `product' is neither a pair of shoes nor an effective regulation. Its product is a changed human being. The non-profit institutions are human change agents. Their `product' is a cured patient, a child that learns, a young man or woman grown into a self- respecting adult; a changed human life altogether.'' In other words, the purpose of not-for-profit organizations is to improve the human condition, that is, to advance important non-economic, non-regulatory functions that cannot be as well served by either the business corporation or government. Business corporations describe success as consistently providing shareholders with a reasonable return on equity. Not-for- profit organizations never properly define their success in terms of profit; those that do have lost their sense of purpose. This difference between not-for-profits and businesses is most clearly seen in the organizations' different approaches to decision making. The primary question in an investor-owned organization is: ``How do we ensure a reasonable return to our shareholders?'' Other questions may be asked about quality and the impact on the community, but always in the context of their effect on profit. A properly focused not- for-profit always begins with a different set of questions: What is best for the person who is served? What is best for the community? How can the organization ensure a prudent use of resources for the whole community, as well as for its immediate customers?

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my friend Robert Sampson, of Arlington Heights, IL, on the occasion of his 70th birthday, Saturday, March 4. He is a truly remarkable person, whom I admire and respect. Bob Sampson has been an inspiration to many Americans. He has muscular dystrophy, which has caused him to be in a wheelchair since he was 9 years old. He lost his college scholarship when the school he was to attend found out he was disabled. Undaunted, he went on to college and law school and became a successful attorney for the city of Chicago. He then joined United Airlines, where he rose to be a senior vice president. As a successful member of the business community, Bob could have chosen to stay out of the struggles surrounding disability issues. Instead, he has been unselfish in his drive to help other people with disabilities gain access to buildings and equal employment opportunities. He was one of President Carter's first appointments to the U.S. Architectural Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, after having served as the Vice Chairman of the President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped. A long-term member of the board of directors of the Muscular Dystrophy Association, Jerry Lewis' ``big kid,'' he has told his personal story to millions of people to raise money to find a cure for muscular dystrophy. He has never forgotten his roots. Bob Sampson has been a role model for all of us, teaching that disability is not inability. I join his wife Jean, his children--Patty, Rob, and Kathy--his grandchildren, and his many friends in wishing him a very happy birthday, and many more.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, it has been only 2 months since the retirement of our former colleague, Senator apparent that his unique role remains unfilled in this body. None of the phrases coined to describe Howard Metzenbaum--``The People's Watchdog,'' The Tiger From Ohio--quite does justice to the real service he performed for the public and for the Republic in his duties here. Someone of his stature, courage, and sheer persistence comes to the fore all too infrequently in public life today. I commend to my colleagues, and to all others who care about this institution, an article written in the closing days of Howard Metzenbaum's Senate service that adds some historic perspective to his distinguished career. I ask that the article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Dec. 4, 1994] Howard's End (By Thom Diemer) Metzenbaum was true to form through his last days in the Senate. His leaving was like a fingernail scratching a chalkboard. He always had a chip on his shoulder. His pursed-lipped scowl could intimidate a trash-talking bureaucrat or unnerve an imperious Republican. He knew he had the edge, he confided to aides, once his adversary got angry. Howard Metzenbaum was true to form through his last days in the United States Senate. He went out with neither a bang nor a whimper. His leaving was more like a fingernail scratching a chalkboard. Some of his colleagues squirmed as Metzenbaum battled for one last lost cause. But most shrugged or grinned, saying in so many words, ``That's Howard.'' In a special lame-duck Senate session on Thursday, Metzenbaum railed against the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, saying it was weighted down with ``deals for big business'' and would ``shortchange American workers.'' He was one of only 13 Democrats voting against the trade pact. His determination, fearlessness and unrelenting partisanship brought him acclaim and notoriety during 19 remarkable years as Ohio's junior senator. ``I think people know I vote in accordance with the dictates of my conscience, not with the political winds,'' he said in an interview last month. ``There are people who hate me with a passion, but when I do meet them, I laugh and kid them, and I tell them I absolutely defend their right to be wrong.'' His character was shaped by a work ethic cultivated during the Depression, a commitment to government activism personified by the New Deal, close ties with the American labor movement and an ethical grounding in Reform Judaism. ``I always worked,'' he said. A lean upbringing in Cleveland's Glenville neighborhood fueled his resentment for a system that he saw as stacked against the little guy. Brushes with anti-Semitism opened his heart to the plights of other minorities and persecuted groups. popularity defied logic Metzenbaum's national stature grew as he gained power and influence in the Senate, yet there was no mellowing. He could be vitriolic, blustery and reckless even with retirement looming at the age of 77. He never shed his partisan image. Political analysts puzzled for decades over the secret to his electoral success: How did an acerbic, left-wing ideologue, out of step philosophically with many of his constituents in a Republican-leaning state, become one of the most dominant public figures in Ohio history? ``There is no question that in my political career I have taken strong stands. No question some people were very unhappy with those stands,'' he said at his last Senate news conference. ``But fortunately, enough people decided they were positions of conscience or conviction and they respected me for it. Therefore, a number of them voted for me and I was able to remain in office.'' He was a curmudgeon, the last angry liberal. In 1988, his final campaign, he vanquished Cleveland Mayor George V. Voinovich by 588,000 votes. Results strongly suggested more than 1 million Ohioans split their tickets, voting for both Metzenbaum and Republican President George Bush. ``He has been able to convert his liberalism into a populism that not only benefits people on the bottom rungs of the ladder, but also the middle class,'' Ohio State University political scientist Herb Asher once said. ``That's why he has been so successful in Ohio: Howard Metzenbaum is a fighter, and a fighter for us--the middle class.'' Ohio Senate President Stanley J. Aronoff, who helped the late Robert Taft Jr. of Cincinnati defeat Metzenbaum in Metzenbaum's first Senate bid 24 years ago, said ``voters have a propensity to like him or dislike him--very little in- between.'' ``The interesting thing with Metzenbaum is that, as time went on, he was able to become comfortable even in conservative Cincinnati,'' Aronoff added. ``In some respects, even though his philosophy would be leftish, he came to be regarded as conservative.'' consistency applauded John C. Green, director of the University of Akron's Raymond C. Bliss Institute for Applied Politics, explained it this way: Metzenbaum, he said, had a ``tremendous knack for being right about issues people care about''--job security, pensions, workplace safety, cable television rates and a raft of consumer issues. Conversely, his battles on Capitol Hill against the Central Intelligence Agency, multi-national corporations--or in favor of gays in the military--were of little consequence to average, working Ohioans. ``Talking to people we hear over and over again, `I don't like Metzenbaum, I don't agree with him, but I always know where he stands and I admire him for that,' Green said. ``Although he was perhaps more liberal on many issues than Ohioans were, Sen. Metzenbaum has been remarkably consistent.'' A Republican critic, media consultant Roger J. Stone, was less generous. ``Two words,'' he said when asked to explain Metzenbaum's electoral success, ``luck and money.'' Metzenbaum's fund-raising prowess was unmatched by any other Ohio politician. He raised a record $8 million to battle Voinovich, taking from union members, Hollywood stars, the arts community and liberal-oriented interest groups. He was never shy about asking. mentor and tormentor For years, Metzenbaum was said to be hated by Republicans, unloved by his staff and disrespected by reporters, many of whom saw him as a shameless publicity-monger. There was some truth to all those observations, but Washington loves success. Metzenbaum converted many of his critics because he was effective at what he did. Joel Johnson, his administrative assistant for most of his last term, said he had been both a ``mentor and a tormentor'' to his staff. He was fiendish about punctuality, demanded that work be nearly perfect, and read the riot act in unsparing, colorful language when an aide let him down. ``We were all pretty tough,'' said Barry Direnfeld, a Cleveland native who started as a mailroom clerk for Metzenbaum in 1974 and later became his legislative director. ``It was a hyper place.'' At a Capitol Hill retirement party for the old tiger during the final week of the Senate session, dozens of former staffers nodded as Johnson's voice cracked as he said how proud he was to work for Metzenbaum, a tough boss who inspired loyalty. There were no tears from the Republicans or the reporters. But they came to his party--from crusty Strom Thurmond, the one-time Dixiecrat and only senator older than Metzenbaum, to Doug Lowenstein, the journalist Metzenbaum credits for hanging the nickname ``Headline Howie'' on him. Lowenstein eventually worked as a legislative assistant for Metzenbaum. His decision not to seek a fourth term opened the door for a Republican, Mike DeWine, who defeated Metzenbaum's son-in- law, Joel Hyatt, in the campaign for the open Senate seat in November. But Metzenbaum battled to the wire, a whirl of activity as the clock ran out on the 103rd Congress. baseball obsession He made a pest of himself trying to convince the Senate it should jump into the baseball strike, stripping the owners of their antitrust immunity so the players union could take them to court. His contempt for the millionaire owners, passion for anti- monopoly laws and instinct for media attention drove him, even while friends like Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa implored him to drop the issue. He seemed oblivious to the fact that the ballplayers he supported were a far cry from the blue collar trade unionists he stood up for as a labor lawyer in the 1950s and 1960s. On Sept. 30, Metzenbaum ignored his pals' pleas and struggled in vain to get his antitrust amendment attached to another bill, But that wasn't the only item on the agenda. The same day, he fired off a letter to President Clinton, urging him to fire CIA Director James Woolsey for his handling of the Aldrich Ames spy case. On Oct. 8, the Senate's last day of regular business, he had ``holds'' on a half-dozen bills and was threatening to block a dozen more. Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat, said his office had forms to keep track of bills that were stalled: ``a box for Republican holds, one for Democrats, and one for Sen. Metzenbaum.'' he did it his way Howard Morton Metzenbaum was born on Chesterfield Ave. on Cleveland's East Side on June 4, 1917. His father, Charles Metzenbaum, was a wholesale jobber who sold bankrupt stocks during the Great Depression. ``They were struggling to eke out an existence,'' he says of his father and mother, Anna. ``They were wonderful parents. I found no fault with them at all.'' No fault. That's about it. He is devoted to Shirley Metzenbaum, his wife of 48 years, but he doesn't talk much about the family he grew up with. When he does, it is with a certain detachment. An older brother, Irwin, once ran unsuccessfully for the Ohio Senate and lives in obscurity in Cleveland. A cousin, Jimmy, served in the Ohio legislature, immediately preceding Metzenbaum, who was elected to the Ohio House in 1942. Years later an uncle, scissors,'' a surgical tool common in operating rooms. ``I cannot explain why I am the way I am,'' said a man not given to introspection. ``I cannot think of any individual who molded me.'' No teacher, no mentor, no guru. He did it on his own. Metzenbaum hurried through Glenville High School, running track for the Tarblooders and once racing against the great Jesse Owens, then at East Tech, who left him in the dust. And he worked. In high school, he sold magazines and hauled groceries in a wagon to housewives at 10 cents a delivery. He owned a car before he was old enough to drive. An older boy operated an unlicensed livery service for him, ferrying patrons to a race track. The business was short-lived. He woke up one morning, and the car, a 1926 Essex, was gone. His dad had sold it to make a mortgage payment on their home. Worse still, he and Alva ``Ted'' Bonda, a lifelong friend and business partner, tried to sell class rings at Glenville, but their entire inventory was stolen from a school locker. ``The person we bought them from bothered us for years,'' Bonda said, laughing at the debacle. ``I think that's why Howard became a lawyer.'' At Ohio State University, he ran a bike rental business and played trombone for 50 cents an hour in a youth orchestra. During law school, he began drafting legislation for state lawmakers. He scalped tickets and sold mums outside Buckeye football games and hit the road from time to time with a carload of consumer items. Driving through towns like Findley and Fremont, Metzenbaum and partners sold shopkeepers razor blades, toiletries, pencils, and--yes, the old rumor is true--condoms. ``The police would hassle you, because condoms at that point were sort of something dirty or smutty,'' he recalled. leftward tilt begins War broke out in Europe. Metzenbaum, despite his allegiance to Franklin D. Roosevelt, initially questioned U.S. involvement. He was embarking on a dangerous flirtation with the far left--associations that would haunt him throughout his career. Metzenbaum said he conducted himself in a way that no one ever thought or suggested he was a communist--``Well, I won't say nobody.'' Some did regard him as a fellow traveler. He had been a member of the National Lawyers Guild and a co-founder of the Ohio School of Social Sciences--organizations regarded as communist fronts by red-hunters of the 1940s and 1950s. Metzenbaum was red-baited in the 1970 campaign against Taft, and again in 1987 when an old rival sprang to his defense. A briefing paper urged GOP candidates to use his past connections to brand Metzenbaum a ``communist sympathizer.'' Sen. John Glenn, Ohio Democrat, a bitter foe of Metzenbaum in the Democratic primaries of 1970 and 1974, was among the first to denounce the paper, material prepared by the National Republican Senate Campaign Committee. The material was scrapped, but the irony couldn't be missed: Metzenbaum, for all his left-wing leanings, is a capitalist of the first order. He started out as a tax consultant when he found the prestigious law firms were not hiring ``nice young Jewish lawyers,'' as he put it in a 1988 Plain Dealer Sunday Magazine article. He jumped into politics in 1942, right after law school, serving first in the Ohio House, then in the Ohio Senate where he sponsored a groundbreaking fair-employment act. He remained in Columbus until 1950, leaving after he lost a bid to become majority leader. He suspects anti-Semitism was to blame; he can still tick off the names of the five state senators who turned against him. business blossoms After the war, he and Bonda and a third partner, Sidney Moss, got interested in the rental car business, but soon realized there was more money to be made in airport parking lots. At the time, airports were still on the order of tourist attractions. Most travelers used trains or buses. ``There was no organized parking at airports,'' Bonda said, ``it was just free parking.'' Not for long. APCOA--Airport Parking Co. of America--made them millions of dollars, branching out with well-lighted, guarded lots at dozens of airports. The partners sold APCOA to ITT in 1966 for an estimated $6 million. It was the first of many profitable ventures for Metzenbaum and Bonda, including the suburban Sun Newspapers, and part- ownership in the Cleveland Indians. Some enterprises used union labor; others kept unions out. Metzenbaum married, reared four daughters and kept his finger in politics and the labor movement. He served as counsel to the Ohio AFL-CIO. He marched in Selma with Martin Luther King Jr. and Viola Liuzzo. In 1958, he managed the campaign of the cantankerous Stephen M. Young to a stunning upset victory over Sen. John Bricker, a diehard Republican conservative. Six years later, he helped Young win again, this time over Robert Taft Jr. going for the big time By 1970, Metzenbaum, his fortune made, his family secure, decided to re-enter politics. All he had to do was defeat a national hero--astronaunt John Glenn, who was also seeking the Democratic Senate nomination. That race was recalled at his farewell bash in October as a number of old friends wore buttons from that campaign, proclaiming, ``I'm a Metz fan.'' Little known outside the Cleveland area, he ran a brilliant campaign against the overconfident Glenn. He used television advertising extensively--a pioneering effort by Ohio standards--and emphasized bread-and-butter issues. Organized labor closed ranks behind him. The young consumer movement embraced him. He even capitalized on the success of the miracle New York Mets, using the ``Metz fan'' slogan. He upset Glenn but lost to Taft in the general election. Four years later when William Saxbe gave up Ohio's other Senate seat to become attorney general, Gov. John J. Gilligan, at the urging of union leaders, named Metzenbaum to the open seat. Glenn was furious and immediately challenged Metzenbaum in the bar-knuckled 1974 Senate Democratic primary--the Civil War of Ohio politics. It was a low point for Metzenbaum, one of many in his mercurial career. When Metzenbaum suggested that ``Col. Glenn,'' a Marine career officer, had never held a real job, Glenn unloaded on him: ``Go with me and tell a Gold Star mother her son didn't hold a job. Go with me to Arlington National Cemetery. . . .'' He lectured his opponent, who, because of substandard eyesight, had never served in the military. Glenn won. Metzenbaum had to wait until 1976, when he finally unseated Taft in what was almost certainly his last chance to win a big one. But the feud with Glenn lasted for years. The two men hardly spoke during Metzenbaum's first term. Glenn refused to expressly endorse him for re-election in 1982. They reconciled at mid-decade, and worked well together when Democrats recaptured the Senate majority in 1986. ``I've been waiting 20 years to say this,'' Glenn said at Metzenbaum's goodbye party, ``come January of 1995, I'll be the only one of us who has a job.'' The Metzenbaum style Metzenbaum's big mouth and perpetual wheeling and dealing got him in trouble. In 1974, 22 Republican senators voted not to seat the freshman Metzenbaum because of his dispute with the Internal Revenue Service over a five-year-old tax liability. The millionaire entrepreneur hadn't paid any federal income taxes in 1969. ``That didn't bother me,'' he said. ``I stood there in back and I said, `Incredible. Howard Metzenbaum's the subject of a Senate debate. Isn't that great?' Metzenbaum was embarrassed by the revelation in 1983 that he accepted a $250,000 ``finders fee'' for putting together a seller and buyer for the elegant Hay-Adams Hotel, a block from the White House. Insisting all the while he had done nothing wrong, he eventually gave back the fee, with interest. He called his clumsy performance in the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings in 1991 a ``low point'' in his political career. Charges that one of his staffers had leaked Hill's sexual harassment allegations to the media knocked him off balance. Foreign affairs were not his forte. He once called for the assassination of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafy--and he praised Iraq's Saddam Hussein as a potential peacemaker, before the Persian Gulf war. A lifelong opponent of capital punishment, he disappointed many of his closest supporters in 1987 when, with re-election coming up the next year, he backed the death penalty for drug kingpins in federal cases. ``In retrospect,'' he said recently, ``I am not positive whether there was some rationalization about that decision or not.'' He rarely had doubts about which course to take. He didn't hesitate in opposing a popular constitutional amendment banning desecration of the American flag, for instance. But he almost voted for the Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction plan--wrestling free from a panicked aide trying to stop him--and the advocacy of his close friend Sen. Paul Simon sorely tempted him to back a balanced budget law. Pernnial roadblock Despite a productive third term, Metzenbaum will be most remembered for what he stopped, rather than what he pushed through the legislative maze. He was a master of the filibuster and an upsetter of the pork barrel. He had a Holmesian knack for finding the mischievous language hidden in legislation. ``The first major decision that Howard made was a break with a new president and filibuster on decontrol of natural gas prices,'' Direnfeld said, recalling the senator's battle with President Carter in 1977. He said Metzenbaum's attitude was, ``I will do whatever it takes.'' Metzenbaum lost and later had to admit deregulation didn't cause the price explosion he feared. As he said in announcing his retirement last summer, ``I've won my share of battles and fought my share of lost causes.'' He was so proficient at weeding out waste, extravagance and special interest projects that the Washington Post headlined a 1982 news story: ``Thank God for Metzenbaum!'' railroad to Alaska, exposed a timber industry giveaway in the same state and shut down a multi-billion tax break for the oil industry--to name a few battles won. It was often said he saved taxpayers billions, yet he frequently appeared on ``big spender'' lists put out by conservative groups targeting lawmakers enamored of social spending and redistribution-of-wealth tax policies. He frequently got knocked down. He failed to bar companies from replacing strikers with permanent new hires; had little success in his war against the insurance industry, often fell short in bids to deny antitrust exemptions to various concerns, including baseball. ``Howard Metzenbaum seemed to go out of his way to antagonize business,'' said Jack Reimers, immediate past president of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, recalling Metzenbaum's Ohio Senate days. ``He was the opitome of the anti-business politician--he thrived, savored and sought to be viewed that way.'' He infuriated colleagues too, making lasting enemies who waited for chances to torpedo his bills. ``One man's pork is another man's building project,'' noted one former House member. Rep. David L. Hobson, a Springfield Republican respected on both sides of the aisle, said the senator from his home state never opened a line of communication with him. ``We don't have any contract with Metzenbaum--none,'' said Hobson. ``You know what people say to me? `That's Howard.' champion of causes When he joined the Senate majority in 1987, Metzenbaum was determined to show he could legislate constructively. He compiled a solid if unspectacular record of accomplishment. The Ohioan passed legislation forcing companies to give workers 60 days notice of a plant shutdown, ordering the food industry to put nutrition labels on its products, and making bankrupt companies honor their pension commitments. He was a burr under the saddle of the National Rifle Association. He sponsored the Brady handgun waiting-period law and co-sponsored the assault weapons ban. He led the successful fights to ban armor-piercing bullets and guns that cannot be identified by airport metal detectors. He wrote the key age discrimination law and was co-sponsor of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. He was one of Israel's best friends on Capitol Hill and a consistent voice for organized labor. Sen. Ernest Hollings, a South Carolina Democrat, angered by Metzenbaum's interruptions during a debate, once referred to him as ``the senator from B'nai B'rith.'' He championed laws for the smallest of constituencies. He provided incentives for drug manufacturers to develop ``orphan drugs'' for treatment of rare diseases. Typical of Metzenbaum, when he discovered some of the drug firms were reaping big profits, he tried to trim back the incentives. He won breakthrough federal funding for Alzheimer's research, watched out for migrant workers, and was always protective of America's children. One of the last bills he got enacted--and one of his proudest achievements--will make it easier for couples to adopt a child from a different race. His dedication to the wellbeing of children, his adoration of Shirley, his delight in his grandchildren--that was his softer side. ``He is not the same man who came here 19 years ago. He had a chip on his shoulder. He was demanding and impatient and wanted to accomplish a lot,'' said Johnson. ``He changed. He grew and matured.'' back to the future To this day, he thinks he could have defied the Republican landslide and won re-election this year, had he chosen to run again. But even in semi-retirement, as president of the Consumer Federation of America, he will be in the face of the business interests he fought for years. Take one last look at his Senate office in the Russell Building on Capitol Hill. It is a revelation, nothing less than a small gallery of contemporary art. Instead of the tiresome grip-and-grin photos with presidents and other luminaries, the works of Red Grooms, Robert Rauschenberg and Frank Stella--all Metzenbaum intimates--are on display. He and Shirley nurtured the artistic communities in Washington and Cleveland. His instincts for good art, a good deal, and good politics seldom failed him. He was prescient in his maiden Senate speech. On April 10, 1974, he scolded his new colleagues for their leisurely pace--for running an ``elephantine government that moves clumsily to set policy by reacting to crisis.'' ``The people pay a terrible price,'' he said. ``No wonder the people are angry--they have a right to be.''

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, last May scientists at Fermi Laboratory in Batavia, IL found the first direct evidence of the top quark, the sixth and last component of a standard model of matter that explains the relationships between subatomic particles. This week, teams at Fermi Laboratory announced that they have confirmed evidence of the particle, leaving no doubt about its existence. I want to congratulate them on their accomplishment. And, I want to add that basic science research in this country, like that which goes on at Fermi Laboratory in Illinois, Brookhaven in New York, and Stanford in California, contributes greatly to our understanding of basic science and provides vision and hope to thousands of curious students and researchers who are pursuing a future in the sciences. The President in his fiscal year 1996 budget proposed adding $100 million above the 1995 level to enhance the work going on at our major DOE-operated basic research facilities. I support this initiative. The United States currently leads the world in particle physics research. Without a continued investment in our DOE laboratories, our scientists will find themselves uninvolved and disadvantaged in what's becoming a worldwide community of basic science research. For nearly a decade, the superconductor super collider was the centerpiece of the Nation's basic science program. While I fully supported the project and opposed its termination, the project's expense sacrificed valuable resources going to other worthy laboratories, like Fermi lab in Illinois. With the cancellation of the SSC, we gutted our high-energy physics research budget and threatened to send a message to the world that we no longer were willing to invest in high energy physics research. We now have the opportunity to make effective use of our current facilities and to remain important contributors to a world-wide effort. With the leadership of Senator Bennett Johnston and President Clinton, we are once again investing in the research capabilities at Fermi lab and other leading laboratories, and as evidenced by the resent discovery of the top quark, we continue to be world leaders in this area. The United States has tremendous potential to lead the way in scientific research in the next decade, but only with sufficient funding. I applaud the President for his leadership in this important area.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I wish to thank several people, and then I would like to take a couple of minutes for a brief comment on what has just taken place. I wish to thank Senator Hatch, who has been great to work with, who has been a real leader on this. Senator Craig came over from the House and was like a breath of fresh air working on all of this. Senator Thurmond through the years provided leadership. On our side, Senator Heflin was very helpful. I have to acknowledge a former Senator who helped prior to this time, Senator DeConcini; my colleague from Illinois, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun has been superb; Senator Campbell; Senator Robb. And I also want to pay tribute to the leader of the opposition, with whom I sincerely differ on this, Senator Byrd. He is a powerful and highly respected opponent. I also want to thank Congressman Charlie Stenholm and the House Members for all the work they did, and very specifically Aaron Rappaport from my staff, and all the other staff members on my staff and the other staffs who spent so much time on this. Mr. President, this is a sad day in the history of our Nation. We have narrowly missed the opportunity to give generations to come a brighter future. Presented the chance to break our addiction to economic gluttony, by the narrowest of margins, we have determined that we do not have the will to kick the habit. Like a pregnant woman whose child to be will suffer from a cocaine addiction, we cannot summon the will to break our debt addiction even though we know it will harm our children. We will break our addiction sometime in the future, the Senate said in 1986, when it also failed to pass the balanced budget amendment by one vote. The national debt then was $2 trillion. We can solve our problem without a constitutional amendment, voices on the Senate floor urged then and, of course, we have not. Now the debt is $4.8 trillion instead of $2 trillion, and the attractive siren song of the opposition is the same. It would have been easier to break the habit in 1986 than in 1995, and it is easier in 1995 than it will be in 1999. Each year, the grip of the addiction grows, and each year we spend more and more on interest and less and less in ways that help the most vulnerable in our society. We are headed toward monetizing our debt and devaluing our currency, the steps nations take historically as they pile up too much debt. No nation has come close to accumulating the amount of peacetime debt that we have. When and if monetizing our debt occurs, everyone in our society will suffer. Ironically, among those who will suffer the most are those on Social Security, because of the devaluation of the U.S. Treasury bonds which secure the Social Security retirement trust funds. I say ironically because much of the opposition to the balanced budget amendment has been mounted in the name of Social Security. The threat to Social Security is the debt, and the real way to protect Social Security is this balanced budget amendment. Instead of giving our economy a lift with lower interest rates that come with the reduced deficit, the Senate has made a decision to stumble along and have higher interest rates. There are at least two proposals to move us on a glidepath toward a balanced budget by the year 2002 without a constitutional amendment. I probably will support one of them, though it is unlikely the goal will be achieved without the discipline of the constitutional amendment. But even if the goal is achieved, because there is not the long-term assurance to the financial markets that a constitutional amendment offers, interest rates will not be reduced as much. The Nation will pay a staggering interest penalty for which we will get nothing other than higher interest rates. Those who purchase bonds combine the need for a small profit margin plus a hedge against inflation. We have just increased the cost of the hedge against inflation. Because the trade deficit is tied into the budget deficit, we will continue to export more American jobs, and our standard of living, that could rise significantly, will at best move up modestly, perhaps decline. With higher interest rates there will be less investment that would create more industrial and construction jobs. Is it impossible to kick the debt habit? No. But each year that goes by it becomes more difficult and at some point it becomes politically impossible. I do not know where that point is nor does anyone else. We have done today what most addicts do--postpone the tough decision. Future generations will not look upon this day with pride. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would ask for order.

Mr. SIMON. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.

Mr. SIMON. I would simply point out, is there going to be pain if we pass this? Yes. But it is very interesting, there were polls by the Wirthlin Group which showed 76 percent of the population favors this, and 53 percent said they favor it, but they also believe it is going to cause them pain. The American people are yearning for leadership. Tonight, my friends in the Senate, let us give it to them.

Mr. SIMON. Madam President, and my colleagues, first, let me pay tribute to Senator Byrd, who is a very worthy foe and certainly one of the most distinguished Members of this body. I also appreciate the leadership of Senator Hatch on this, Senator Craig, and my colleagues on this side, Senator Heflin, Senator Robb, Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator Exon, Senator Campbell, and I should be mentioning others. If we had a proposal in here that said, two decades after we balance a budget, we are going to have an average increase in income of every American of 36 percent, we would vote for it overwhelmingly. And yet that is precisely what the General Accounting Office says will happen if we balance the budget in this country. Data Resources, Inc., one of the two top econometric forecasters in this country, says if we balance the budget, the prime rate will go down 2.5 percent and we will have an increase in national income of 2 percent. CBO says at least 1 percent growth in income. The Wharton School in Philadelphia says the prime rate will go down 4 percent. We have an opportunity to do these things that can help our economy immensely. And I hope we do not muff that opportunity. I heard a reference from Senator Byrd to history. It is important to remember that Thomas Jefferson, in 1787, said, ``If I could add one amendment to the Constitution, it would be to prohibit the Federal Government from borrowing.'' And remember the rallying cry of the American Revolution--taxation without representation. What are we doing to our grandchildren and generations to come? If that is not taxation without representation, nothing is. And talk about history, I have not heard one opponent talk about economic history here. I have not read one editorial talking about economic history. The reality is the history of nations is that when they pile up debt and they get around 9, 10 or 11 percent of deficit versus national income, they start monetizing the debt. They start the printing presses rolling. CBO says we are headed for 18 percent. We can take a chance that we will be the first nation in history to go up 18 percent without monetizing the debt, but we are taking a huge, huge gamble. The Declaration of Independence. We are making, every year as we add to the deficit, a declaration of dependence. We now owe roughly $800 billion in our bonds to other countries. If the Simon family gets too deeply into debt, we start losing our independence; and if a nation does, it starts losing its independence. Senator Dodd and I are old enough to remember 1956, when three nation friends of ours--Israel, France, and Great Britain--went in and seized the Suez Canal, which President Nasser had taken. They did it because they were our friends; thought they could get by with it, and it was just before an But something else happened we did not know about, or most of us did not know about until sometime later. The United States threatened to dump the British pound sterling. And without firing a shot, the troops of Great Britain, France, and Israel withdrew. We are in that situation. Talk about American foreign aid. We now spend twice as much in foreign aid to the wealthy through interest and bonds than we do in foreign economic assistance to poor people. This year, the current estimate is $339 billion on interest, 11 times as much on interest as education, twice as much on interest as all our poverty programs combined, 22 times as much on interest as foreign economic assistance. It gets worse each year, and it will continue to get worse unless we pass this amendment.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hatch, Senator Craig, and everyone who has played a part in this. I got on the Dirksen elevator the other day and right after me came in Senator John Chafee and he said, ``What a horrible debt we are imposing on future generations.'' That sums it all up. We heard precisely the same arguments in 1986. We had $2 trillion worth of debt and now we have $4.8 trillion worth of debt. This year we will spend $339 billion on interest. We will spend twice as much as what we spend on our poverty programs, 11 times as much as we spend on education, 22 times as much as we spend on foreign economic assistance. In fact, we spend twice as much money on foreign aid for the wealthy in terms of interest on bonds that are held overseas than we spend on foreign aid for the poor. Will it be painful if we pass this? Yes. There is going to be some pain. There is going to be infinitely more pain for this Nation and a lowered standard of living if we continue to have these huge deficits. The pain we are asked to impose upon ourselves is small compared to some of the steps that, for example, Margaret Thatcher took in Great Britain to turn that country around. If you assume no change in interest rates, and every projection is that if we pass this, interest rates are going to go lower--but if you assume no change in interest rates, and no deductions on Social Security, it means that we can grow 1.7 percent a year in income. Put another way, in the year 2002, it is anticipated we will have about $300 billion more in income than we are spending this year. We can have a gradual growth, but we will have to have restrained growth. I have read the editorials, Mr. President, as have you, criticizing this. It is interesting that not a single editorial has mentioned economic history. Take a look at this chart right here. This is the latest CBO estimate of where we are going in deficit versus national income, GDP. Historically, as nations have come around 9 or 10 or 11 percent, right around here, they have started monetizing the debt, started the printing presses rolling, started devaluing their currency. Those who vote against this are taking the chance that we can be the first nation in history to go up to this kind of debt without monetizing the debt. But what a huge gamble with the future of our country. As responsible Members of this body we should not be making that gamble. I have heard a lot of about Social Security on the floor of the Senate today and these past days. I want to protect Social Security. The only way you can protect Social Security is to make sure we do not devalue our currency. I think it is vital for the future of our Nation and our children and generations to come that we pass this constitutional amendment.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would like to comment on the editorial. First, they say it is unnecessary. Federal deficits have indeed been too high. That poses a threat that borrowing will siphon savings away from productive private investments. Clearly, that has happened already. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York said between 1978 and 1988 the deficit cost 5 percent growth in our national income. But the fact that borrowing must be contained does not imply it ought to be eliminated--any more than family borrowing, to buy a house or pay tuition need be eliminated. I will get into that because that is stressed later. A prudent rule would keep Federal debt growing less quickly than incomes. This rule would justify deficits of about $200 billion a year, close to current levels. That is what the GAO calls stumbling along at the present level. But, in fact, the CBO forecast is that those deficits are going to escalate, and escalate significantly. We have shown we do not have the political will to do anything about it. That is the simple reality. In 1986, this House, by one vote, failed to pass the balanced budget amendment. Then the debt was $2 trillion. Now it is $4.8 trillion and we are hearing the same arguments again, that we can do this without a balanced budget amendment. Second, they say the amendment is misleading. Proponents claim the amendment would protect future generations against ruinous interest payments. True, today's children will owe taxes when they grow up to pay interest on Federal debt. But proponents ignore the fact that the tax payments will flow right back to these children as owners of Government bonds. I would make three points here. One is, Thomas Jefferson said one generation should no more be willing to accept the debts of a previous generation than the debts of another country. Thomas Jefferson was right. Second, this argument that this interest just flows back into our own hands ignores the reality that we have somewhere between $650 and $800 billion owned by other countries, people in other countries. In fact, foreign aid to the wealthy of other countries is at least double the foreign economic assistance we give to poor people. And that foreign economic assistance to the wealthy is through our indebtedness. Third, this editorial ignores the redistribution effect of the interest. Who pays the interest in our country? By and large, people of limited means. Who collects the interest? Those who have enough means to own the T-bills. That is not the average citizen. That is redistributing money to those who are more fortunate. It is interesting, of the $339 billion we are estimated to pay for interest this year, that is roughly twice what we will spend on our poverty programs, 11 times what we will spend on education, and 22 times what we spend on foreign economic assistance. Then they say it is unenforceable. If it were unenforceable, my good friend--and he is my friend--Senator Byrd, would not be fighting this amendment like he is. Of course, it is enforceable. They say the amendment fails to provide an enforcement mechanism. When you require a three-fifths vote for the increase of the debt, you have a very powerful enforcement mechanism. They say it is irrational, Federal bookkeeping lumping ordinary spending with long-term public investments, a point they made earlier. The reality is, while a family has to borrow for a home or a college education, the Federal Government does not, and frankly, even a State the size of Illinois does not have to. I served in the State legislature for 14 years and served 4 years as Lieutenant Governor. A State the size of Missouri--and I do not mean this disrespectfully of the State of the Presiding Officer--is in a little different situation than a large State. But in the State of Illinois, frankly, we do not need to do it and the Federal Government does not need to do it. It is interesting that the long-term investment has gone down as the deficit has gone up. In fact, the argument is just the reverse, and I would point out also--and I mentioned this on the floor several times, and the Presiding Officer has heard me mention this, I am sure--when President Eisenhower, to his great credit, proposed the Interstate Highway System, the largest single capital project in the history of humanity, he suggested issuing bonds. Senator Albert Gore, Sr., the father of our present Vice President said, ``Let's not issue bonds. Let's increase the gasoline tax and do it on a pay-as-you-go basis.'' Fortunately, he prevailed. As of a year and a half ago, the estimate was we had saved $750 billion in interest. Then they say it is reckless; when the economy slows, tax revenues fall off and spending on unemployment insurance and food stamps rise. This automatic rise in the deficit by triggering spending serves to mitigate the slowdown. Study after study, including the unanimous report of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, then chaired by Senator Lloyd Bentsen, said we respond too slowly in emergencies. And because of the deficit, we have simply been unable to respond. When President Clinton suggested that we spend $15 billion on a jobs program to stimulate the economy, and $15 billion is not much in a $6 trillion economy, we were not able to get $15 billion passed. I voted for it, but we could not do it. Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Fred Bergsten, who served under Jimmy Carter, said that if we would plan for a 2-percent surplus and President could respond when unemployment passed a certain level in any region, then we could respond quickly. We can respond just as quickly and more quickly with a constitutional amendment. Finally, let me make three other points. One is the New York Times editorials have consistently ignored economic history, and I have to say the Washington Post editorials have done the same. They just act as though we are dealing by ourselves with an absolutely new initiative and no other nation has ever gone through this debt before. The reality of the history of nations is that they pile up debts and pile up debts and then they become so bad they start monetizing the debt; they start printing money. And we are headed to do the same thing. Nations have done that historically when they get around 9, 10, 11 percent, except in a wartime situation where there is a freeze on private and public spending. We are heading, according to CBO, to 18 percent. We can take a chance that we will be the first Nation in history to be able to do that without monetizing the debt. But what a chance for the future of these pages and my children and my grandchildren. We should not be doing it. Second, it ignores the reality that the General Accounting Office and CBO and Data Resources, Inc. and everyone says if we balance the budget, we will improve the standard of living of our country. GAO says balance the budget and in two decades you will have an increase in the standard of living of approximately 36 percent. That type of economic information is totally ignored by this New York Times editorial. And finally, not so much in this editorial but in others, and all the horror stories that have been spread around here about what is going to happen to social spending, what is going to happen to this or what is going to happen to that, how do we get there? There are two options. One is if you do not make any changes in Social Security and if interest rates do not go down, and every projection is that they will go down but you would have some savings on interest because you would not have as much of a large deficit, we would have to limit non-Social- Security spending growth to 1.7 percent between now and the year 2002. That is doable. Let me put it another way. Revenue in the year 2002 will be approximately $300 billion greater than what we will spend this year. What we have to do between now and the year 2002 is to control the growth of spending so it does not exceed that amount. That is doable. Is it going to cause a little pain? Of course, it will. If there were not pain, why, we could pass a balanced budget; we would have done it a long time ago. We need the discipline of something to force us to do the right thing. So my hope is that tomorrow we will do the right thing. This is my 21st year in Congress. This is the most important vote I will have cast in those 21 years. We are talking about the future of our country. We make a lot of short-term decisions because of one thing or another, and I am as guilty of that as anyone. Here is one where we ought to ask ourselves not which party is going to benefit, not what it is going to do to each of us politically--and I realize it is easy for me since I am not going to be running for reelection--we ought to be asking what is going to happen to the future of our country. I think if we ask that question and dig, the answer is fairly obvious. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I probably agree with the editors in the New York Times 90 percent of the time. Today they have an editorial on ``Unbalanced Amendment,'' which shows an emotional attachment to a position that I do not think is very rational. I ask unanimous consent that their editorial, be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, February 19-25, 1995 marks National Engineers Week, a time when America honors the 1.8 million men and women who make up our Nation's second largest profession. I commend our Nation's engineers for their contributions to technology in the private and public sectors. The technological breakthroughs achieved by engineers have enabled people around the world to live healthier, more efficient, and more fulfilling lives. In my home State of Illinois, engineers have provided people with valuable scientific innovations in areas such as communications, medicine, and agriculture. I would also like to recognize the work of three junior high students from Central School in Glencoe, IL: Stephanie Richart, Alexandra Wong, and Denise Arbruster. These three students were the Chicago-area winners of the National Engineers Week Future City Competition. This competition asked students to envision a 21st century city, and then express their ideas through computer printouts, scale models, and oral presentations. Many local engineers graciously volunteered their time to advise students on their projects. I salute everyone who participated, and I wish the Central School team well in the national competition here in Washington.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help individuals trying to adopt a child from a foreign country. The adoption landscape has changed dramatically in this country over the past 25 years. While international adoptions continue to be a small part of total U.S. adoptions--about 15 percent--thousands of Americans pursue them every year. Our law regarding international adoption is in a state of some confusion. U.S. law requires that a child be certified as an orphan in order to be eligible for adoption by an American and for an immigrant visa to the United States. This can be accomplished in one of two ways: proof that both parents are dead or; irrevocable release by a sole parent for adoption and emigration. Under U.S. law, a sole parent is the mother of an illegitimate child. Many countries, however, have stopped using the term illegitimate, as have many States in this country. Children born in such countries to parents who are not married are now considered legitimate but born out of wedlock. Technology, these children are no longer eligible for adoption and emigration to the United States, even if the child's father has abandoned him or her. the INS until recently allowed the adoption and emigration of children who were legitimate but born out of wedlock under their native countries' laws. Last fall, however, the INS issued a new interpretation of the law that required written notice of abandonment from both biological parents. U.S. Consular offices in host countries began disapproving visa applications for children who do not fit the statutory sole parent of an illegitimate child definition, even when it was clear that the biological father had abandoned a child. Around the world, adoptions by U.S. families ground to a halt. There is a simple and easy fix to this problem and this legislation will do just that. My bill would change the current use of legitimate and illegitimate in the section of the INS Act that defines ``child'' for immigration purposes to born out of wedlock. With this relatively simple change, we can ensure that hundreds of Americans will be able to proceed with international adoptions that are legitimate and meet the legal definitions of both a host country and of the U.S. Both INS and the State Department strongly support this bill. I request that this legislation be printed in full in the Congressional Record.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. Let me just go back to 1787 again for a moment. They spent a great deal of time on the fact that Congress had to declare war because they did not want Members to get arbitrarily, at the whim of a President, into a war. We are living in a very different world today. We have not formally declared war since World War II. We did not declare war in the Korean war; we did not declare war in the Vietnamese war. In Desert Storm, we had a resolution. We had, in Vietnam, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. To say that a simple majority of those in the House and the Senate would have to approve our getting involved in some conflict is certainly in line with what they talked about in 1787 when they drafted the Constitution.