Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. They did not say that.

Mr. SIMON. But they contemplated a world in which we can sit around and debate for 2 or 3 weeks whether or not to declare war. The President is going to have to make some fast decisions. And I think ordinarily we could get 60 votes for any kind of an emergency. But this contemplates doing less than that or the President living within the budget constraints. I think the amendment Senator Heflin drafted is sound, and I am going to support the amendment rather than the motion to defeat.

Mr. SIMON. If the Senator will yield, with all due respect to my friend from West Virginia, I think his argument is with the framers of the Constitution rather than with Senator Hatch and myself, because they spent a great deal of time to see that we would avoid using this matter of the military and national security as an excuse to get into wars excessively. Washington's Farewell Address is on our desk. This was not put out here by those of us who happen to favor this constitutional amendment. Washington warned about that, just as Washington in this farewell address warned about acquiring debts. I think this particular amendment is completely consistent with the discussions of 1787.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if I may suggest to my friend from West Virginia, and he is my friend for whom I have a very high regard, this is no more in conflict with the other provision in the Constitution than the requirement that we have a two-thirds vote for a treaty. That does not permit the Vice President to cast that deciding vote. Or a two-thirds vote for impeachment. So we put the entire Constitution together. This particular provision was added by our colleague, Senator Heflin, for a national emergency.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, Jim Wright served as Speaker of the House of Representatives and, prior to that, majority leader of the House. I had the privilege of working with him on a number of things and found him to be a genuine leader, not just someone who holds the title of leader. Not long ago, I read a reference about a column that he had done for the Fort Worth Star Telegram on the subject of civility. I wrote to him and asked for a copy of a column, and it is the kind of enlightened common sense that you would expect from Jim Wright. The first paragraph of his column sums up our situation beautifully: Civility. The word is little used these days, the quality it describes too little practiced. It is a necessary lubricating oil for the machinery of a free society. In its absence, the gears of democracy grind in noisy dissonance to a screeching halt. I ask that the entire Jim Wright column be printed in the Record. The column follows: [From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Oct. 23, 1994] Throwing Sand in Society's Machinery Civility. The word is little used these days, the quality it describes too little practiced. It is the necessary lubricating oil for the machinery of a free society. In its absence, the gears of democracy grind in noisy dissonance to a screeching halt. Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary defines civility as the state of being civilized. Its marks, the dictionary notes, are politeness, consideration, courtesy. The modern term grew from a Latin word, civilitas. In its original form, it signified ``the art of government.'' The preservation of liberties--free speech, free press, free religious expression--has always exacted a price. Part of that price is civility, respect for the institutions of our government and fellow citizens with whom we disagree. Deprived of its oxygen, the lungs of a democratic society would ultimately collapse. Too much of what passes for debate in this election year, protected by the liberties to which we pay homage, pollutes the public dialogue as noxiously as carbon monoxide contaminates a living environment. The hallmark of a civilized human order is the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. We seem to be losing this. Instead of reasoned disputation, we hear increasingly hateful and unreasoning allegations brandished like weapons designed to inflict injury and mortal hurt. The mail last week brought astonished recipients a fund- raising appeal so rotten and rancid with hate as to offend the very garbage cans into which it should be forthrightly consigned. On an official-looking letterhead with a Washington address, the plea for contributions begins with the following outrageous claim: ``I have in my possession compelling evidence that proves beyond all shadow of a doubt that White House aid [sic] Vincent Foster was murdered * * * vital clues that lead right to the Oval Office.'' Begging for money to spew out more such bile, the writer promises to prosecute a case of impeachment against President Clinton, presumably for the murder of his lifelong friend. Really, this is beyond the pale. No president of the United States should have to contend with such inflammatory and unfounded libel. It is not enough that special counsel Robert B. Fiske, a Republican and no friend of Clinton's looked carefully into this bizarre allegation concerning poor Foster's suicide and reported it to be just that. Tasting blood and heedless of the proven emptiness of their brazen claim or the hurt it inflicts upon loved ones and friends of the late presidential aide, professional purveyors of venom continue their calculated campaign of calumny against the president. Hate-Clinton solicitation letters have become a cottage industry. For some the good is political power. For others it's just a way to fill greedy coffers with contributions bilked from innocent, well-meaning Americans gullibly alarmed by the strident claims of right-wing media personalities such as Rush Limbaugh and the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Preachments of hate, prejudgments of guilt and eagerness to repeat the vilest slanders are not new to American society. But they do seem to have reached preposterous proportions in this election year. Twenty-six years ago, Lyndon B. Johnson deplored the incivility of some anti-war demonstrators who shouted slogans to drown out opposition. ``They are chiefly united in the certainty with which they advance their views,'' he said, ``and in the vehemence with which they mock the views of others.'' Thomas Jefferson 160 years earlier compared political extremists to ``patients of Bedlam, needing medical more than moral counsel.'' He despaired of ``any attempt to set one of these zealots to right, either in fact or principle.'' Presently, things are going better. American policy is working. In Haiti and Iraq our will prevails without war. North Korea, after 40 years of implacable hostility, agrees to remove its nuclear threat. World tensions abate. Israel and Jordan proclaim a historic peace. At home the economy grows, unemployment falls, prices are stable. We should rejoice, but we don't. Pollsters report a sour mood, agitated to anger by apostles of discontent. Seldom have political partisans so boldly boasted of obstruction, so viciously attacked colleagues and their own institutions. What's missing is civility. Congress. Republicans, desperate after 40 years in the minority, are turning ever more negative. Some nervous Democrats follow suit. Not only do dissident members attack the personal integrity of our president, but they seem out to weaken and destroy Congress itself. Absurdly, they think this is what the public wants. Senate Republican Leader Bob Dole and House Whip Newt Gingrich recently pledged support on the Capitol steps for a constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms. House members should not be trusted, the argument goes, to serve faithfully for more than six years, nor senators for more than 12. But at the heart of this gimmicky assault on the Constitution lies an unspoken assumption that the public cannot be trusted to choose wisely. The hypocrisy of the position that these two publicly profess is transparent in the fact that Dole has been in Congress continuously since 1960, and Gingrich, who would limit future colleagues to no more than three terms, is seeking his ninth. If their logic should ever prevail, the legislative branch will be vastly weakened, bereft of strong and experienced leaders, much more at the mercy of an authoritative executive branch. There will be no Sam Rayburns, no Robert A. Tafts, no Arthur Vandenbergs or Barry Goldwaters to curb the presidential appetite for power or to soften its occasional rashness with their wisdom. And civility.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, for several years I had an outstanding staff member, Pamela J. Huey, who, unfortunately for me, moved to Minneapolis with her husband and family. She was not only a superb staff person but she is a genuine humanitarian. She and her husband have adopted two African-American children. I have seen Benjamin develop into a fine young man and their new child, Anthony, I am sure will do the same. She has written for the Minneapolis Star Tribune an article titled, ``Colorblind Adoptions Changed and Enriched Our Lives.'' I ask that her article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Jan. 29, 1995] Colorblind Adoptions Changed and Enriched Our Lives (By Pamela Huey) The national debate on welfare reform, teenage pregnancy and orphanages demands another look at transracial adoption as one positive alternative for children who need stable, loving homes. While some within the African-American community and other minorities continue to oppose the adoption of children of color by Caucasian parents, I would argue that such adoptions are not only successful but desirable, producing benefits for parents, children and society as a whole. Five years ago, childless and wanting to start a family, my husband and I approached an agency in Washington, D.C., specializing in foreign adoptions. But the paperwork, red tape, cost and prospect of spending an undetermined amount of time in another country were daunting. We learned our agency did receive ``domestic'' placements but these children were nearly always black or biracial. We wondered why, if there were babies in our own country in need of loving, nurturing homes, would anyone travel halfway around the world for a baby? Skin color seemed the only answer. We told the agency that the race of the child did not matter--a baby was a baby--and within seven months we were parents of a beautiful black 17-day-old boy. This Christmas, we became parents of Anthony, a 6-week-old African-American baby, also born in Washington, D.C. Adopting Benjamin and Anthony has changed and enriched our lives in profound ways that we did not anticipate. When we moved to the Twin Cities in 1992, we chose an integrated neighborhood in south Minneapolis. The church we chose, Park Avenue United Methodist, has a spiritual mission to increase understanding between the races and to bring people together as one to worship God. Benjamin attends Seed Academy, a private school with an Afrocentric curriculum. We've attended classes for multicultural families. We've participated in the YMCA's ``home team'' program for multicultural families. The Twin Cities area seems to have no end of opportunities for us. But most importantly, we have a perspective on race relations and racial prejudice that we otherwise would never have had. The love of parent for child has no equal, and loving Benjamin and Anthony was given us a window on a world previously closed to us. Now, as parents, we hurt for the young black males who are considered threats just because of their race. Interracial adoption breaks down barriers and increases understanding in new ways that filter through the extended family. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters and cousins, even neighbors and family friends, also are exposed to this new understanding and a family love that crosses racial lines. We hope growing up in our racially blended family will give Benjamin and Anthony skills for living in both white and black worlds and that their worlds will be more human and loving, rather than divided along racial lines. Harvard Law Prof. Elizabeth Bartholet wrote in the May 1991 issue of the University of Pennsylvania Law Review that ``transracial adoptees appear more positive than blacks raised inracially about relationships with whites, more comfortable in those relationships and more interested in a racially integrated lifestyle.'' American University Prof. Rita Simon, who has done exhaustive studies on the long-term effects of these adoptions, has written that transracial adoptees perceive ``their world as essentially pluralistic and multicolored.'' We hope we are not being naive. We know Benjamin and Anthony will face racism and hatred in future years, and we are trying to prepare them for that. As we prepared for our second adoption, I asked Benjamin what kind of sister or brother he would like. His first response was ``black.'' But then he thought for a moment and responded, ``Any color would be OK.'' Pamela Huey is a journalist who lives in Minneapolis.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, recently, Lally Weymouth had an op- ed piece in the Washington Post about Turkey's remarkable Prime Minister. It's a great tribute to her. The political storms are not easy to weather in Turkey, but one of the things that our friends in Turkey must understand is that an improved relationship with the United States, and much of Western Europe, is in the interest of all of us, but it is not likely to happen until Turkey faces up to the Cyprus question and the Armenia question. I recognize that is easy for a politician of the United States to say, and not easy for a political leader in Turkey to say because of the decades of emotion on these issues. But if the people in the Middle East can get together, even though it is not all smooth, and if the people in Northern Ireland can get together, then it seems to me, the Turks, the Greeks, and the Armenians ought to be able to work out a better relationship than the one they now have, and that is in the interest of all parties. I ask that the Lally Weymouth column be printed in the Record. The column follows: [From the Washington Post, Nov. 28, 1994] Turkey's Confident Leader (By Lally Weymouth) In a country where a radical Islamist party is growing in strength, and increasingly women are seen on the streets of major cities wearing the chador, the prime minister is a decidedly modern woman who has surprised the experts with her staying power. From the day 48-year-old Tansu Ciller came to power little over a year ago, analysts have been predicting the fall of her coalition. So far, however, she has managed to prove them wrong. It remains true, however, that virtually every move Ciller makes is controversial. Some Turks criticize her as a disorganized novice; she's an academic-turned-prime minister. Others say she has failed to deal with Turkey's economic crisis; inflation this year is running at 116 percent, and the growth rate is negative. Yet the prime minister appears cool and unflappable as she stops out of a helicopter in Istanbul and enters her palace to talk about Turkey's problems. For one thing, Turdey's relationship with Washington has deteriorated in the post-cold war era. Meanwhile, Ciller has many soldiers deployed fighting terrorists in the southeast of Turkey. On the domestic front, she's engaged in an effort to reschedule a by-election for some national assembly seats, a vote originally scheduled for early December. Experts have been predicting that Ciller's party wouldn't fare well in these elections, since the majority of seats at stake are located in southeast Turkey, where the fundamentalist ``Welfare Party'' is strong. Ciller, however, says confidently, ``We are the majority party in the parliament * * * and I think we'll increase that majority. We're going to do much better than ANAP [the other right-of-center party.] I'm secular and democratic and progressive and this is what people want. The central threat to Ciller's party and to all mainstream Turkish parties is the radical Islamist ``Welfare Party.'' The prime minister nevertheless plays down the fundamentalist threat, claiming that the fundamentalists have only 15 or 16 percent of the vote. Indeed, she argues that their core vote is even smaller than that; she believes that Welfare attracts a considerable number of protest voters who are reacting to Turkey's economic problems. Shouldn't her party (the True Path) merge with the other right-of-center party (the Motherland Party)--to offer voters a united front against the fundamentalists? Ciller, who has acquired a populist touch, strikes out at the Motherland Party, calling it elitist, ``the product of the military coup. They had contacts [only] with the upper class,'' says Ciller, claiming that her True Path Party ``represents the peasants and small businessmen, the artisans and free trades--the private sector.'' In the next elections, she predicts, Turkish voters will opt for one party, and ``very likely it's going to be me and my party they will choose.'' As Ciller sees it, she's faced with two major problems: an economic crisis and a terror threat. In the economic realm, she's trying to privatize the state sector: ``I'm for a free market economy * * * but we've had problems in the economy because the government sector was so big. The government is in finance, in banking, in manufacture--everywhere.'' As for terrorism, when Ciller became prime minister, the Syrian-sponsored PKK terrorists controlled large areas of southeast Turkey. Although she and other Turkish officials have not noticed any dropoff in Syrian support for the terror group, Ciller says she has used her army to regain control over much of the southeast. The prime minister says confidently that factories and schools are open again after having been closed for six years. ``Life is going back to normal * * * and I did it in one year,'' she said. ``We still have problems, but it's a big step in the right direction.'' Her government has been criticized for the harsh methods used by the army in fighting the PKK, but Ciller claims she had no choice: ``The fight was not against people living in the southeast [but] against the PKK who were killing the Kurdish and Turkish people without discrimination.'' Turning to foreign affairs, Ciller notes that Turkey was a faithful U.S. ally during the Cold War, and cooperated with the United States and its allies in prosecuting the gulf war, shutting down an oil pipeline from Iraq that had produced large revenues for Turkey, thus causing economic hardship. Recently, when Saddam marched toward Kuwait, Ciller said she told President Clinton that ``we back the U.S. 100 percent and that I would provide any help the president would ask.'' Yet she hesitates when it comes to the question of renewing ``Operation Provide Comfort''--the program started by the United States and the international community to aid the Kurds in northern Iraq. ``My people have hesitations about Provide Comfort because they feel it might help separate northern Iraq from the rest of the country,'' she said. ``We feel the territorial integrity of Iraq should be maintained.'' Ciller has endeavored to warn Washington about Russia's aggressive posture. ``We know what is going on there * * * and we cannot close our eyes to the fact * * * that there are forces within Russia who want to go back to the old empire, to the old ways * * *. Aggression should be stopped--be it in Bosnia, in Azerbaijan or Kuwait.'' Tansu Ciller is looking to the future. She plans to guide Turkey into the Customs Union of the European Union. Then, she wants Turkey to play some role in the Middle East peace process. Moreover, she wants to aid the Turkic Republics of the former Soviet Union emerge into independence. But, says the prime minister, ``we need help.'' She does; she also deserves it.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a most unique piece of legislation--the Illinois Land Conservation Act. This bill is the result of a broad-based, bipartisan consensus involving Federal, State, county and municipal concerns. It is a model for the land reuse challenges faced by so many communities throughout the country who are impacted by military base closures. I believe this to be one of the most significant conservation and economic development efforts ever attempted. The closing of the Joliet Army Ammunition Plant in northeastern Illinois has provided a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to recapture and preserve the tallgrass prairie that once covered most of the Prairie State. The Illinois Land Conservation Act will create the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie. The term ``Midewin'' commemorates the grant medicine society of the Potawatoni Indian Tribe--the original inhabitants of this area of Illinois. This prairie will comprise 19,000 acres of land, which is home to 16 State endangered and threatened species, all within an easy drive of metropolitan Chicago. A 910-acre tract adjacent to the Midewin Prairie will become our county's largest national veterans' cemetery. Under the auspices of the Department of Veterans Affairs, this long-awaited site will provide a dignified place of rest for the many veterans in this region who sacrificed so much for our country. The remaining acreage will be developed as an industrial park and a county landfill by the local communities. Mr. President, the impact of the Joliet Arsenal closing has been profound on the entire region--particularly the small communities. The municipalities surrounding the arsenal have sustained the military presence here for the last 50 years, with several generations of families involve in the important work of defending our freedom. The Illinois Land Conservation Act is our opportunity to provide a true peace dividend to those who have supported this vital facility over the years. I hope all my colleagues will support this innovative effort that recaptures an important part of our past, and addresses our needs for the future.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I thank the Chair. Let me just make a few observations. First--and I do not question the sincerity of my colleague from Louisiana at all on this; I know he is sincere--some who attack this are going to attack it no matter what. One former Member of this body was attacking this because the courts were going to intervene, and then we adopted the Danforth amendment, and he attacked it because it was toothless and it was unenforceable. It is kind of a no-win situation for some of the opponents. Second, in terms of a precedent for what you are talking about, court intervention, the only real precedent is the Jenkins case in Missouri where you are dealing with individual rights and something that is not real clear. Here you are talking about an institutional situation where we can precisely measure what has happened. I think on balance the risk is very small. And I would quote from former Attorney General Barr. I see little risk that the amendment will become the basis for judicial micro- management or superintendence of the Federal budget process. Furthermore, to the extent such judicial intrusion does arise, the amendment itself equips Congress to correct the problem by statute. On balance, moreover, whatever remote risk there may be that courts will play an overly intrusive role in enforcing the amendment, that risk is, in my opinion, vastly outweighed [vastly outweighed] by the benefits of such an amendment. We clearly have the ability to determine who has standing. Now, obviously--and I heard my friend from Michigan, Senator Levin, quote Congressman Schaefer. I differ with Congressman Schaefer in terms of what our implementing legislation should be, and I think the majority in the House and Senate will. I think standing ought to be limited to, perhaps, 10 Senators, 30 House Members, 3 Governors--something along that line--and limited solely to the Federal courts. I think we can pass something like that so there is not going to be, in any event, just a huge amount of litigation even if you try stretching your imagination. I point out, also, we can avoid all of this by building small surpluses, as Alan Greenspan, Fred Bergsten, and other economists have recommended that we do. If we do not have surpluses, if we have a situation, with a 60 percent vote, we can have a deficit. And it takes a 60 percent vote to add to the debt. These are very precise measurements. We are not talking about individual rights where there may be strong disagreements. I point out also, and my colleague from Colorado, Senator Brown, pointed this out in committee when we had the hearing, that States have somewhat similar provisions, 48 of the 50 States, in their State constitutions. There has been almost no litigation on this. So the history of States suggests this will not happen. Senator Brown mentioned in the history of Colorado's provision, there has been no litigation on this question. Does that mean the courts cannot ever get involved? The answer is, if we blatantly ignore the Constitution, then there is a narrow window for the courts to get involved. That window, I think, should remain open. I do not think we should close that window. I think it is unlikely that will ever be a problem. But who knows who will be in Congress 50 years from now? Some Congress may decide we just want to ignore the Constitution. I cannot imagine that, but it is possible. In that kind of case, the courts can intervene. But I think the history of State provisions, the provision that says the Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, makes it very clear we are not going to have a massive amount of litigation. I thank my colleague for yielding the time.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the answer is we can imagine all kinds of scenarios. But the reality is that we want to handle this ourselves. We do not want the courts to get involved. If some future Congress were just to blatantly say, ``We will ignore the Constitution,'' then the courts might get involved. The courts have only been involved in a tax matter in the Jenkins case in Kansas City where we have a different constitutional principle involved. In this amendment we are not talking about very precise things, but about a self-enforcing mechanism.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, in response, my instinct is that unless there was a blatant violation of the intent of this amendment, the courts would not get involved. We are not dealing with something like the 14th amendment where it is somewhat amorphous.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the language of the report is among the Federal programs, and among the Federal programs where we guarantee bonds are REA's in Wisconsin and Illinois and Minnesota, and other States. We guaranteed Lockheed bonds in California. We guaranteed bonds for New York City, for Chrysler. Only when there is an outlay by the Federal Government is that subject to the balanced budget amendment. That is what the report language says. It is good language, and the amendment should be defeated. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, first of all, I think Senator Dorgan makes a very good point. I will add, that family does not mortgage itself because they want to but that is the only way they can acquire the thing. When you have a $1.6 trillion budget and the biggest capital item is $8 billion, less than 1 percent of that budget, then you do it on a pay-as-you-go basis. Second, the point that was made for States, I happen to know a little bit about the Illinois toll road. I was in the State legislature. I voted against it. I wanted to do it on a pay-as-you-go basis. We could have done it, and no one in Illinois would be paying tolls today if we had been prudent. The reality is, we have the lowest gasoline tax of any country outside of Saudi Arabia. If we want to do something in mass transit or highways, we can do it on a pay-as-you-go basis. Finally, I urge that everyone listen to what the General Accounting Office suggests and that is we ought to divide our budget into investment and consumption but not have a separate capital budget as an excuse for a deficit.

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

Mr. SIMON. I know we are limited to 20 minutes. If you can respond on the time of Senator Biden.

Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague. If I may have the attention of my friend from New Jersey and tell him that I agree completely on the need for long-term investment. But I believe the case is not there for carving out this exception for the balanced budget amendment. It is very interesting that you mention the interstate highway system. President Eisenhower, to his great credit, proposed the interstate highway system. And he suggested that we issue bonds for it. And a U.S. Senator by the name of Albert Gore, Sr., stood up and said we should not issue bonds, we should have a gasoline tax to pay for them. And as of about a year or maybe a year and a half ago, the estimate was we saved $750 billion in interest. The largest project we have now is a nuclear carrier. $7 billion or so is paid over 5 years. We can do that on a pay-as-you-go basis. GAO has said we ought to separate investment from consumption in our budget. I agree with them. But they local unit of government may have. It is also interesting, as we look at the history of our budget, as our deficits have grown, our capital investment has diminished so that, if we are interested in capital investment, what we ought to be doing is getting the deficit down and, in fact, we will have more capital investment. Now, I happen to favor, for example, moving ahead in a massive way for mass transit. I think we could say to the Chicago Transit Authority and the others, ``We are going to set aside 2 cents of our gasoline, $2.4 billion, for your capital investment,'' and then if they want to-- because they do not have the ability to do anything--if they want to issue bonds, they can do that. I would finally point out that this balanced budget amendment, believe it or not, does not prohibit capital investment, in a way that I happen to think is not the desirable thing. The Judicial Building right next to Union Station was a project designed by our colleague, Senator Pat Moynihan. Architecturally, it is one of the most attractive buildings in the Capitol area today. Without my knowledge--because I would have voted against this method of financing--we are leasing that for 20 years, and at the end of 20 years we will own that building. I do not favor that, but I mention that simply to suggest there is flexibility within this amendment.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I served after the opening of World War II, but I can remember Iwo Jima vividly. My political mentor was Paul Douglas, who served in this body, was a great U.S. Senator, was a marine, and proud to be a marine in spirit. I wish I could hear Paul Douglas give a talk today. He was 50 years old when he volunteered to be a marine, went over and was wounded in Okinawa and Iwo Jima. But I think of people like Dale Bumpers and John Glenn when we talk about courage. You look about, and Howell Heflin, he was in the Marines, too. We can be very, very proud of those who served our country. But I think of John Glenn and that little thing that he got into when he was shot into space. It was incredible. I see our colleague, Chuck Robb, who was in the Marines, and John Chafee, and probably some others here who were in the Marines. As one who was not in the Marines, who was not in the service during that period--I was in from 1951 to 1953--I just want to say we are very proud of those who served in the Marines, those who served in that Pacific war. It was a war where we were fighting people who were forced, as Senator Bumpers said, to do the things that we were forced to do. It was a war where there was clear aggression, where we stood up for what we should stand for. I am proud, as an American who was too young to fight in World War II, of those who did.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. If I may, if my colleague will yield, the first time I did this was at a town meeting somewhere. Someone asked about the tax cut, and I said I believe in telling you the truth, and I do not anticipate my answer is going to be popular. Frankly, I had not seen the polls. And I told them I was opposed to the tax cut; that we ought to be using that money to reduce the deficit. And instead of boos, I got cheers from the town meeting, and that has been my experience ever since. I think that would be the experience of most Members of the Senate when they try it out with the people.

Mr. SIMON. I think the reality is if we put this in as a sense of the Senate here now, there are some of my colleagues who disagree with the Senator and me, in fact probably a majority disagree with the Senator and me on this. But even assuming it is a majority on our side, there may be some who would vote against the proposition because this sense of the Senate is there, and so I think it has the possibility--I am not saying it is a probability, but I think it has the possibility of losing a vote or two, and I think my colleague from Utah would agree we need every vote we can get.

Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield on that?

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I have been authorized by Senator Hatch's staff to take 5 minutes of Senator Hatch's time. Let me say, I agree with 99 percent of what my colleague from Wisconsin has to say. I applaud his leadership on this. A tax cut just does not make sense when we have this kind of a deficit. I am going to vote against his amendment because I do not want to get it mixed up with the balanced budget amendment. But I could not agree with him more in terms of the substance. It is not only the things that he mentioned. The Clinton tax cut is, frankly, more responsible than the Republican tax cut, but they are both wrong.But in terms of equity, it is very interesting, for those who have an income of $30,000 or less, even the Clinton tax cut gives them only 5\1/2\ percent of the tax cut, while those of us who get $100,000 to $200,000 a year--and that is the majority of us in the U.S. Congress--some exceed that amount--we number of people get a much bigger chunk of the tax cut. A tax cut just does not make sense. My colleague from Wisconsin has been leading the effort on this, and I applaud his effort. I assume this issue is going to come before the Budget Committee. I am going to be with Senator Feingold there. I assume it will be debated in the Chamber. I am going to be with Senator Feingold in the Chamber. I do not favor having it on this particular constitutional amendment. I think we should try to avoid everything that might confuse the constitutional amendment. But in terms of principle, he is absolutely on target, and I commend him. I yield back the remainder of my 5 minutes to Senator Hatch.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate Robert Mier, a distinguished Illinoisan who died of lymphoma on February 5. Mr. Mier's impact on cities in Illinois and throughout the world has been great. Robert Mier served as the city of Chicago's economic development director from 1983 to 1989. During this time, he was the architect of Chicago's 1984 development plan, which became a national model for equity-oriented local municipal development. Mier's approach emphasized jobs, neighborhoods, and equitable distribution of resources and opportunities as a means to combat urban crime and poverty. During his Chicago tenure, Mr. Mier also spearheaded efforts to fight plant closings, and he worked toward empowering neighborhoods to spur development. Illinois in 1975, specializing in teaching and research on community economic development, social policy planning and methods of implementation. As founder of the University of Illinois' Center for Urban Economic Development, Mier prepared future generations in a ``bottom up'' approach to dealing with the problems facing our cities. The center continues today to provide technical assistance to community-based development organizations and policy research on local development. More recently, Mr. Mier focused on writing and teaching, while still remaining active in developing urban economic programs in Chicago, as well as Los Angeles, Denver, and Belfast, Ireland. Robert Mier's passing leaves a great void that will be felt not only by his family, friends, and colleagues, but by the world as well. His life is a sterling example of an activist leader of an important cause, whose insight and commitment will inspire generations to come.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I start off from the same premise as my friend from Nevada and my friend from Florida. The reality is, we have a contract with Social Security recipients. And I started--I say to my colleague from Florida, if I may have his attention here--I started off precisely where he is for some of the same reasons. If you check back about 10 or 12 years ago, I introduced a balanced budget amendment that excluded Social Security. I want to protect Social Security. We have today only 11--I should not say ``only,'' because it is still too high--but 11 percent of those over the age of 65 who live in poverty. And those who say, ``Well, since we have 23 percent of the children who live in poverty, somehow this is wrong,'' the reality is, Social Security has worked, it is a contract that has worked. We have to protect it. And we ought to deal in other ways to protect the children. But my reason for not including it, as we worked on the language, in those outyears is because I want the Federal Government to feel that it has an obligation not just when there is a surplus, as there is today, but in those outyears that go down. And some projections have it earlier than the year 2019. I think if this is agreed to, what leaders of Congress should do--and my friend from Florida has been a real champion in the whole area of senior citizens and protecting them--I think people like Senator Graham and others ought to sit down with the AARP, with other senior groups and say, ``How do we protect this in the long run?'' I do not want an exclusion where we say, ``Well, Social Security is off by itself,'' and then in another couple of decades or three decades it starts going down the tube and Congress can say, ``Well, that is excluded from the Federal budget. We don't have a constitutional responsibility here.'' I think we ought to protect Social Security. I have voted statutorily for many years to balance the budget without including that surplus, and I know my friend from Florida has also. But, I think if the constitutional amendment passes--and I would add the great threat to Social Security is the monetizing of the debt; that we are just going to start the printing presses rolling. That is the huge threat. That is what Bob Myers has talked about. This is a judgment call. I respect my friend from Florida and my friend from Nevada and others who are going to vote on the other side of this. But if this amendment loses, let no one have any doubt about it, that the best way to protect Social Security is to protect the value of the dollar so that those bonds are meaningful. And that is why we have to agree to the amendment. But I think then we are also going to have to review a lot of things that we have not reviewed up to this point. Just as one example--I do not know the right answer here--I think is the immigration law. We may very well, as we may very well have to say in the future we are going to give priority to younger people as immigrants because of this situation, things that we have traditionally not done before. But I agree completely that we have to protect the system. I do not want to go on a pay-as-you-go system. I think that would be devastating. And I have to say, I am not convinced we should follow the path of other nations in terms of private investments. But this amendment does not change that. I think we have to be cautious as we move in that direction. But I just wanted my colleagues from Florida and Nevada to know that those of us who will vote against the amendment also believe very strongly that we have to protect Social Security.

Mr. SIMON. I do not have a question. I ask unanimous consent that I have the floor for 5 minutes following the statement.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield just for 5 minutes, I would like to respond.