Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Sure. I did not realize the Senator from Nevada had the floor.

Mr. SIMON. I apologize.

Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would be pleased to yield.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Idaho, and then I will yield the floor, Mr. President,

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I think my colleague misreads the amendment here. We are not talking about treating those funds held by Social Security--the bonds held by Social Security--as any different than the bonds held by the Senator from Florida.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the idea here is simply that we have to have some kind of an enforcement mechanism. So to increase the debt, we have to have the three-fifths. Now the point that my colleague makes that would make it more difficult to shift to a different way of utilizing the funds of Social Security, that is accurate. I would agree with his point, though I have to add that every committee of Congress that has ever studied this, to my knowledge, has come to the conclusion that it would be a great mistake for the Social Security funds to be used for private investment.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I am an original cosponsor of a resolution introduced today by the senior Senator from Pennsylvania designating March 25, Celebration of Greek and American Democracy.'' More than a gesture of friendship and good will, this resolution recognizes the enormous influence Greece and its traditions have had on our Nation. It is fitting that we honor Greek independence in this Chamber, since the ancient Greeks first created the Athenian Assembly and direct democracy. The Greek word ``demokratia'' is a compound of ``demos,'' meaning the people and ``kratos,'' meaning power. To the Greeks we owe our most basic concept of democratic government, which our 16th President from Illinois so eloquently referred to in his Gettysburg Address as, ``* * * government of the people, by the people, and for the people * * *'' Without Greece, its history, and its democratic traditions, we as a Nation would be lacking a strong foundation. For this inspiration, the people of the United States owe Greece deep gratitude. This resolution not only honors Greece on its 174th anniversary of the beginning of the revolution that freed the Greek people from the Ottoman Empire, but also celebrates the historic and close ties between the citizens of Greece and the citizens of the United States. From the Greek philosophical influences on our Founding Fathers, to the neoclassical architecture of our Capitol and many of our State capitols, to Greek support of international struggles against fascism and communism, Greeks through many generations have helped foster and nourish the mutually beneficial ties between Greece and the United States. I urge other colleagues from the Senate to join in cosponsorship of this worthwhile resolution.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. SIMON. You have the floor.

Mr. SIMON. Let me go over this again. The recommendation of several people, including Alan Greenspan and former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Fred Bergsten, a recommendation that I concur in, is that we build in about a 2-percent surplus when we put together a budget. In terms of our $1.6 trillion budget, that would be about a $32 billion surplus. Then because no one, as the Senator points out, can know for sure down to the dollar or even the $1 billion where we are going to come out, we have made clear in committee that there can be up to a 3- percent deficit that would be transferred to the next fiscal year. That would be $48 billion. The $32 billion and the $48 billion combine to $80 billion. That, every one of those, is less than an $80 billion differential except for 2 years. In those 2 years, the procedure would be for Congress to say we can either, with 60 votes, create a small deficit--but it would be small indeed, compared to the deficits today--or we could authorize putting it in the next fiscal year. It is something that we would have to face. But it is a practical way of facing this problem.

Mr. SIMON. Every one of those except two is less than $80 billion.

Mr. SIMON. First of all, as he knows, I have great respect for him. He is an extremely valuable Member of this body. I will tell you what I think is the error of the Senator's assumption here. First, we can build in, as has been recommended by former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Fred Bergsten, among others, about a 2-percent surplus. That on a $1.6 trillion budget would be about $32 billion. Second, because we do have to rely on estimates somewhat, we have talked about having a 3-percent leeway so that you could go 3 percent below and then that would automatically transfer to the next fiscal year. That would be $48 billion. Right now, the combination of those two things would be $80 billion. That would take care of all but two fiscal years the Senator has on the board there. In those two fiscal years----

Mr. SIMON. Would my colleague from West Virginia yield for a question?

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I agree with three-fourths of what Senator Feingold said before and what Senator Ford has said. I believe we do have a contract with people who have signed up for Social Security. As a matter of fact, I do not remember when it was, but about 10 years ago, when I introduced a balanced budget amendment, I had an exemption for Social Security. I finally withdrew that for two reasons. First, I believed that we better protect Social Security by not having it in, and I will explain that in a few moments. Second, we have a contract with a lot of other people, too. And if you put in this exemption for those on Social Security, what about Federal employees? What about veterans? What about railroad employees? What about other trust funds we have set up where we have a contract--for aviation, for highways, for other things?

Mr. SIMON. I agree they are different. But what about railroad employees, if I may ask?

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, in going over some old newspapers that I missed while I was in Illinois over the Christmas/New Year holiday, I came across an op-ed piece by Robin Gerber, a senior fellow at the University of Maryland's Center for Political Leadership and Participation. It comments on what I consider to be a fundamental weakness in our political process today, that people are trying to follow the polls in how they respond to problems. There is a great quote in the op-ed piece from our House colleague, Steny Hoyer, for whom my admiration has grown through the years. Congressman Hoyer states: ``What polls do is confuse us. We're not trying to figure out what's right but what is the passion of the day. Polls make us sloppy intellectually. They are a substitute for thinking.'' I ask that the Robin Gerber item be printed in the Record. The editorial follows: You Can't Lead by Following (By Robin Gerber) There is much talk now of governing from the ``center,'' of how centrist politics can overcome the debacle of the Nov. 8 election and put the president and his party on a true course for reelection in 1996. But it is the moral center that must be found before the political one can be explored. This quest for defining political vision is imperiled by the misplaced reliance by politicians of both parties on public opinion polls. Pollsters' authoritative declamations and directions, gleaned from the complex science of gauging the public interest, corrupt the straightforward instincts needed to govern from the gut. Rep. Steny Hoyer, past chairman of the Democratic Caucus, puts it this way, ``What polls do is confuse us. We're not trying to figure out what's right but what is the passion of the day. Polls make us sloppy intellectually. They're a substitute for thinking.'' In an unprecedented effort to lead by following, politicians of the 1990s use polls to support a new form of hyper-interactive governing. Like some collective psychoanalysis on living room couches across the nation, Americans are being probed and prodded as never before. But you can't legislate by the numbers. From the field of war to the football field, no general or quarterback has led by following the combined opinions of the troops or the tight- ends. Pollsters argue that polls are valuable market assessment tools, a means to focus policy and message on voters' concerns. Even the Founders acknowledged that candidates who depend on the suffrage of their fellow citizens for election should be informed of those citizens' ``dispositions and inclinations and should be willing to allow them their proper degree of influence.'' But polling in 1994 has gone beyond an ancillary tool for governing or campaigning. Rather than a point of departure for sensitive and thoughtful leaders, polls have become a point of no return that overshadows the imperative for leadership. As James MacGregor Burns wrote in his classic text on leadership, ``the transforming leader taps the needs and raises the aspirations and helps shape the values--and hence mobilizes the potential--of followers.'' To be transforming leaders, today's politicians cannot afford to drift, absent the anchor of ideals, in a sea of percentage points. Two hundred years ago, the Federalist papers expressed our belief as a nation that ``the public voice pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good, than if pronounced by the people themselves.'' Measuring and articulating substantive discontent should serve the purpose of keeping elected representatives' debate and decisions in tune with their constituency, not in automatonic lock-step. Pollster Celinda Lake reads the electorate as wanting to raise the pitch of technologically steered democracy so that citizens could directly bestow their opinion on major legislative issues. In that case, perhaps we should give up on our founding ideal of a republic and elect the pollsters directly. Representative democracy is our greatest national heritage and gives us our greatest national challenge. We seek leaders who will listen and interpret sometimes incoherent, sometimes inchoate messages into policies greater than the sum of our collective consciousness. Political leaders who will transform this country, rather than be transfixed by shifting techno-derived edicts, must lead and govern from the center of their own hearts and minds. No poll has yet been devised that can substitute.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, for more than 40 years, since I was a young newspaperman in suburban St. Louis, I have written a weekly newspaper column on the topics of the day. I hope my colleagues will find the newspaper columns I wrote in January of interest, so I ask that they be printed in the Record. The columns follow: The Value of the Carter Missions There has been some editorial sniping--as well as criticism from political leaders, most of it not in public statements-- about former President Jimmy Carter's efforts in North Korea, Haiti and Bosnia. ``We can have only one person making foreign policy for the United States--and that should be the President, is the argument. What these nay-sayers miss is the reality that Jimmy Carter does not make any pretense of speaking for the United States. If he were to travel abroad and claim to speak for the President when he has no authorization to do so, that would be wrong. In the case of Haiti, he went on the mission at the request of the President. But Jimmy Carter is a person of international stature who can do more to bring people together than any person other than Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali of the United Nations. Carter is regarded as well-motivated and not trying to promote any private agenda or any national agenda other than helping to bring about a world of peace and stability. When he has gone at the request of other nations to be an observer of elections, where countries are moving to democracy, there has been no criticism. When he helps bring the two sides of a civil war together in Liberia in Africa, no one pays any attention. At the Carter Center in Atlanta, he gets people from various nations together to discuss frictions and hopes, and there is hardly a paragraph in any newspaper about it. But when he moves onto a more visible problem, then the critics emerge. Part of this is because foreign policy has not been a strong suit of President Clinton. He is better at foreign affairs than he was a year ago and a year from now he will be still better. It is difficult to move from being Governor of Arkansas to overnight being the most influential person in the world on foreign policy. Because of a partial foreign policy vacuum in the current administration, some believe that the visibility of a former President doing creative things causes Clinton political embarrassment. My strong belief is that President Clinton should continue to welcome Jimmy Carter's leadership, as he does that of the United Nations Secretary General, but simply make clear that ordinarily Jimmy Carter is acting on his own, not speaking for the United States. Bosina will produce long-term gains is still unclear. But they have done no harm, and may do great good. In North Korea and Haiti there is no question of the significant contribution of Jimmy Carter. With the possible exception of John Quincy Adams, no former President has served as effectively as has Jimmy Carter. I would also give high marks for post-president leadership to Thomas Jefferson and Herbert Hoover--Jefferson largely through correspondence and Hoover in a variety of public endeavors. My hope is that Jimmy Carter will ignore the critics and continue to serve the cause of world peace. We are indebted to him.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the problem of television violence, which I have addressed on a number of occasions in committee and on the floor of the Senate, has recently been addressed by a group of psychiatrists and other social leaders in Great Britain, where the standards are appreciably tighter than ours. And in reading the Jerusalem Post the other day, I came across an article titled, ``Education chief declares war on TV violence.'' The reaction in Israel to too much violence on the television screen is like ours and the British reaction. At this point, I ask that the Jerusalem Post article be printed in the Record. The article follows: Education Chief Declares War on TV Violence (By Liat Collins) Education Minister Amnon Rubinstein last week declared war on TV violence, telling the Knesset that if networks do not demonstrate self restraint in screening movies, he would submit a bill to the cabinet. Rubinstein's statements came at the end of a discussion on the distribution of ``snuff'' and violent movies in Israel. ``Snuff movies'' document the deliberate torture and murder of a victim for ``entertainment.'' ``This type of film goes beyond all acceptable moral boundaries; we're talking about an evil and sick phenomenon. Therefore we must enforce the existing laws, and if need be I will equip myself with extra penal measures,'' Rubinstein said. ``Freedom of expression and civil liberties do not stretch to filmed murders and violence as entertainment,'' he added. The discussion was initiated by MKs Anat Maor (Meretz), David Mena (Likud), Elie Goldschmidt (Labor) and Shlomo Benizri (Shas), who filed motions for the agenda following an interview in Yediot Aharonot with two youths who collect and view these films. The two adolescents laconically describe how victims have been disembowelled and dismembered alive. One noted that one of the two teenaged killers of taxi driver Derek Roth had seen such movies. He also said he regretted not being awake in time to see the screened footage of the Dizengoff bus bomb. While condemning the movies, Rubinstein warned of trying to turn two adolescents into representatives of an entire generation. Benizri, on the other hand, called the phenomenon ``the result of a sick society.'' All the MKs spoke of the need for police cooperation in rooting out the films, and called for strict punitive measures against both distributors and viewers of these movies.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, one of the gems in our society today is Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America and former assistant to Lyndon Johnson. Recently, I saw his op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times on the 30th anniversary of the inauguration of Lyndon Johnson as president. His article reminded me what I heard on the radio recently that our statistics on the children who live in households below the poverty level has risen to 26 percent. I did not hear the source for that, I do not know if it is accurate. The traditional measurement we have been using is 23 percent. And what a tradegy that is. No other Western industrialized democracy comes anywhere near a figure like that, a figure that is totally and completely preventable. While the Vietnam war marred the record of Lyndon Johnson, what he accomplished in the domestic field--in helping people who desperately need help--should jog our conscience today. There is so much mean- spiritedness and lack of concern for the poor. It appalls me. All Americans need hope and instead of giving many of them hope, we are giving them jail cells or desperate poverty. I ask that the Jack Valenti item be printed in the Record. The editorial follows: Recalling a Man Who Stayed the Course (By Jack Valenti) On this day 30 years ago, Lyndon B. Johnson was inaugurated in his own right as the 36th President of the United States. He has been elected President the previous November in a landslide of public favor, with the largest percentage of votes in this century, matched by no other victorious President in the ensuing years. This day plus two is also the 22nd anniversary of his death. Is it odd or is it merely the lament of one who served him as best I could that his presidency and his passing find only casual regard on this day? He was the greatest parliamentary commander of his era. he came to the presidency with a fixed compass course about where he wanted to take the nation, and unshakable convictions about what he wanted to do to lift the quality of life. Against opposing forces in and outside his own party, in conflict with those who thought he had no right to be President, contradicting conventional wisdom and political polls, he never hesitated, never flagged, never changed course. He was a professional who knew every nook and cranny of the arena, and when he was in full throttle, he was virtually unstoppable. He defined swiftly who he was and what he was about. He said that he was going to pass a civil-rights bill and a voting rights bill because, as he declared, ``every citizen ought to have the right to live his own life without fear, and every citizen ought to have the right to vote and when you got the vote, you have political power, and when you have political power, folks listen to you.'' He promptly told his longtime Southern congressional friends that though he loved them, they had best get out of his way or he would run them down. He was going to pass those civil-rights bills. And he did. He made it clear that he was no longer going to tolerate ``a little old lady being turned away from a hospital because she had no money to pay the bill. By God, that's never going to happen again.'' He determined to pass what he called ``Harry Truman's medical-insurance bill.'' And he did. It was called Medicare. He railed against the absence of education in too many of America's young. He stood on public rostrums and shouted, ``We're going to make it possible for every boy and girl in America, no matter how poor, no matter their race or religion, no matter what remote corner of the country they live in, to get all the education they can take, by federal loan, scholarship or grant.'' And he passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. He was in a raging passion to destroy poverty in the land. He waged his own ``War on Poverty,'' giving birth to Head Start and a legion of other programs to stir the poor, to ignite their hopes and raise their sights. Some of the programs worked. Some didn't. But he said over and over again, ``If you don't risk, you never rise.'' He often said that no President can lay claim to greatness unless he presides over a robust economy. And so he courted, shamelessly, the business, banking and industrial proconsuls of the nation and made them believe what he said. And the economy prospered. On the first night of his presidency, he ruminated about the awesome task ahead. But there was on the horizon that night only a thin smudge of a line that was Vietnam. In time, like a relentless cancer curling about the soul of a nation, Vietnam infected his presidency. If there had not been 16,000 American soldiers in Vietnam when he took office, would he have sent troops there? I don't believe he would have. But who really knows? What I do know is that he grieved, a deep-down sorrow, that he could not find ``an honorable way out'' other than ``hauling ass out of there.'' I think that grieving cut his life short. Every President will testify that when he has to send young men into battle and the casualties begin to mount, it's like drinking carbolic acid every morning. But it was all a long time ago. To many young people not born when L.B.J. died, he is a remote, distant figure coated with the fungus of Vietnam. They view him, if at all, dispiritedly. But to others, to paraphrase Ralph Ellison, because of Vietnam, L.B.J. will just have to settle for being the greatest American President for the undereducated young, the poor and the old, the sick and the black. But perhaps that's not too bad an epitaph on this day so far away from where he lived.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, recently, the annual Man of the Year Award in St. Louis was given to two people rather than one, our two former colleagues, Tom Eagleton and Jack Danforth. They are both among our finest. I am pleased that the citizens of St. Louis appropriately honored both of them. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch published their comments on that occasion, and because of our association with the two of them and because of what they say about government and our attitudes toward one another in this excessively partisan climate, I urge my colleagues to read their comments. I ask that their remarks be printed in the Record. The remarks follow: [From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jan. 10, 1995] A Fractured Community (By Thomas F. Eagleton) I recently attended a meeting of St. Louis businessmen and heard Charles ``Chuck'' Knight, chairman and CEO of Emerson Electric, say the following: ``Downtown's top attractions-- the Arch, Busch Stadium, Kiel Center, Union Station, the convention center, the new football stadium, the casinos-- will draw in excess of 12 million visitors annually. That's more than Disneyland.'' Chuck Knight is correct in his enthusiasm for downtown St. Louis, Downtown St. Louis has been revived. Downtown St. Louis is being rescued. But the city of St. Louis as a whole has not. The Arch does not a city make. Busch Stadium does not a city make. The Kiel Center does not a city make. A football stadium does not a city make. A city is people. A city is neighborhoods. A city is the interrelation of people with common concerns and common hopes. A city is the cohesive interaction of its peoples and its purposes. A city is the sum of its treasured pact and its capacity to flourish in the future. Today's city of St. Louis can glory in its past as one of America's great cities, but as presently structured, it is a fading city with a troubled future. When I entered politics, the city of St. Louis had 850,000 people. Today it is 380,000. The 1994 official State of Missouri demographic report says that in 2020 the population of St. Louis will be between 225,000 and 275,000--much smaller than the Wichita of 2020. There is a structural noose around the St. Louis region's neck. We don't discuss it much, but the St. Louis metropolitan area is the textbook example of the most politically fragmented, disarrayed urban region in the nation. We are America's worst-case governance scenario. When we succeed, we do so in spite of our structural handicaps. Back in 1876, the voters approved the separation of the city from the county. There were five municipalities in St. Louis County at that time. There are now 90. One has 11 residents. There are 21 St. Louis County cities with under 1,000 people. Only nine exceed 20,000. There are 43 fire protection units and 62 police departments. In the St. Louis metropolitan region, resource disparities are staggering. The city has been tax-abated to excess. In the county, there continues a frenetic, never-ending ``land rush'' to capture tax base in unincorporated portions of the county. I realize we live in a time when it is out of fashion to discuss the impact of government on private decision-making. I also realize that we like to cling to the sentimental notion that somehow quaint Webster Groves and Ladue, for example, are so self-sufficient as to have no need of interaction and interconnection with governmental conditions around them. Just as the city of St. Louis has outlived its history, St. Louis County has outgrown its sentimental quaintness. Our city and our county are an aggregation of jerry-built, haphazard, fragmented, disconnected governmental units, many barely treading water. We have had a succession of Boards of freeholders, a Board of Electors, and a Boundary Commission. All have attempted to tinker with the governmental structure and for one reason or another have made no discernable improvement. We have tried some targeted remedies, such as a Sewer District, Junior College District, Zoo and Museum District, and joint support for a hospital. We have Bi-State. These regional efforts have helped, but the city-county disunion persists. St. Louis and St. Louis County still remain as the foremost textbook example of how free people can misgovern themselves on the local level. Enough handwringing. What do we do? We have two choices. Creeping incrementalism. Deal with the situation at the margins--tinkering with charter reform--go to the Missouri legislature or voters for non-controversial changes. Cold bath. Just as the end of communism required a bold, total leap into capitalism, so too the end of St. Louis-St. Louis County disunion will require a bold, total immersion. St. Louis, like Berlin, would be whole again. I fervently believe in the latter precept. Incrementalism won't go to the root of the distress. I'll give an example. Whether the St. Louis Police Board is appointed by the governor or the mayor will not have an overwhelming, decisive impact on the destiny of St. Louis. Only the boldness of urban consolidation--one city--will be meaningful. Let me be clear. I am not alleging that solving the governmental barriers of the St. Louis region will alone create a spontaneous regeneration of a new and greater St. Louis with unfettered decency and personal responsibility reigning supreme. Eliminating the Berlin Wall has not as yet equalized East and West. Eliminating Skinker Boulevard as our own Berlin Wall between poverty and prosperity will not by itself ensure an instantaneous panacea. It would allow for local government to do its part of the societal job at its united best rather than at its fragmented worst. It would allow for a consolidation of effort and a focus of responsibility that simply isn't possible when political authority is fragmented into bits and pieces. The day should come when St. Louis recaptures its population, its tax base and its greatness. To paraphrase a famous Jewish sage, if not now, when? If not us, who? [From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jan. 10, 1995] Short of Perfection (By John C. Danforth) It is a most special honor to be joined in anyone's mind with Tom Eagleton. For all of my political life, Tom has been for me the model of what a public servant should be--smart, energetic, dedicated, always committed to the principles in which he believed. It never mattered to me that his positions were not exactly my own. He was a very fine Senator, and he is a very good friend, and I am proud to share this honor with him. I don't know whether I am making much more out of it than was intended, but it seems to me that there is a message in this dual award--a message from St. Louis to the country-- that it is St. Louis' own answer to politics of the 1990s. The message is that politics does not have to be as mean and as angry as is now the rule. I don't say this only because of the personal relationship between Tom and me. But beyond recognizing our good relationship, there is something more in the message of today's awards. Consider what it means when there are two men of the year who made careers in politics, when one is a Democrat and the other a Republican, one a liberal, the other a conservative, one a supporter of Carter and Mondale, the other a supporter of Reagan and Bush. Consider what it means when there are two men of the year, who often disagreed, who often canceled one another's votes in the Senate. For those citizens who are in a constant state of rage about government, it would be difficult to honor either Tom or me; it would be impossible to honor both of us at the same time. It would be difficult to honor either of us because, with the thousands of Senate votes we cast, each of us has done enough controversial things to make every Missourian mad at least some of the time. And if it would be difficult for an outraged citizen to honor either one of us separately, it would be absolutely impossible to honor both of us together. Even those who agreed with one of us could not have agreed with both of us at the same time. If it is essential to you that your politicians reflect your views, and if it angers you when they don't, then Tom, or I, and certainly both of us together, must have made you very angry very often. Many people have theories to explain the general sense of outrage felt against politics and politicians. Some point to the media generally, or more specifically to talk radio or Rush Limbaugh. Some point to negative election campaigns and unprincipled political consultants. All of that deserves attention, but I think there is something more--something broader than the latest trends in the media or in campaigning. It has to do with what people expect from government. When expectations are unrealistically high, outrage at failure is sure to follow. When we believe that government should have all our answers, we are angry when it has none of our answers. And unrealistic expectations of government are the order of the day. This is true on both the left and the right. On the left, it is thought that government can manage the economy and cure the ills of society. On the right it is thought that government can deter crime and restore personal and religious values. In each case, platforms and programs are thought to hold the key to success, if only the right law is enacted, if only the right people are in charge. We attribute our failures as a country to failures of our government. We say that our politicians are out of touch. They don't do things our way. They are incompetent, maybe even corrupt. Our problems are not of our making, but of their making. If only right thinkers were in power, we could get on with the people's business--the business of balancing the budget and cutting taxes and retaining all the benefits we demand. It is no wonder that we are so angry at government when our expectations are so high. If government has the power to make things right for us and simply doesn't do so, of course we should be mad. But we have got it wrong, wildly wrong by any historic standard. It is not that government is bad, only that it is government. As such it is limited, not by accident, but by design, not because it is poorly run, but because it is run as our founders intended it to be. Government is not perfect, and it was not supposed to be perfect. It is not omnipotent, because it was not intended to be omnipotent. It was not intended to rule the economy or our health care system or our families or our values. It never had the total answer, it never had total power--it had limited power and the limited capacity to make things better. It makes sense to honor Tom Eagleton and Jack Danforth with the same award only if there is a high level of tolerance for each of us, only if you see that each of us was off the mark, that neither of us had all the answers, that it was enough to make a good try. The business of government is not to reach perfection, for perfection is not reached in this world. Marxism's lesson is that when government attempts to reach perfection, it must be totalitarian.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I am asking that a column written by Steve Neal, in tribute to the mother of our colleague, Edward Kennedy, be placed into the Record. It is a great tribute to Mrs. Kennedy. I did not have the privilege of knowing her well, but I wish I had. In addition to what is said in the Steve Neal column, I believe it is not an exaggeration to say that no mother has contributed as much to the Nation in our 206 year history as Rose Kennedy. Her life was a story of tragedy and triumph and a brilliant spirit, despite all the tragedies. The remarkable contributions that Ted Kennedy makes to this body and to the Nation are one of many tributes to Rose Kennedy. At this point, I ask that the Steven Neal column be printed in the Record. The column follows: [From the Sun-Times, Jan. 24, 1995] America's Gold-Star Mom: Rose (By Steve Neal) Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy had style. She spoke on her son's behalf at a Veterans of Foreign Wars hall in Brighton. Mass. It was John F. Kennedy's first campaign. He was running for Congress in 1946. Mrs. Kennedy, who had lost her eldest son Joseph in World War II and had nearly lost another, didn't talk about her family's tragedy. She dazzled the crowd with her wit. As the daughter of a former Boston mayor, Rose Kennedy was a political natural. When she finished her talk at the VFW hall. Mrs. Kennedy got a rousing ovation. Then she introduced the young JFK. Dave Powers, JFK's war buddy, recalled that Kennedy was ``slightly over-whelmed that his mother could talk that well to an audience.'' As Mrs. Kennedy made her exit, her son stopped her and said, ``Mother, they really love you.'' So did the world. Rose Elizabeth Fitzgerald Kennedy, who died Sunday at 104, was America's gold-star mother and one of the more extraordinary women of the 20th century. She taught JFK how to give a political speech and how to work a crowd. He couldn't have had a better teacher. Three of her sons were elected to the U.S. Senate and her son John won the presidency of the United States. She took pride in their accomplishments. ``As Jack's mother, I am confident that Jack will win because his father says so, and through the years I have seen his predictions and judgments vindicated almost without exception,'' Mrs. Kennedy wrote in her diary in June, 1960. ``And so, I believe it. He also says, and has said all along, that if Jack gets the nomination he can beat Nixon.'' Mrs. Kennedy had a long memory. ``We are all furious at Governor [Pat] Brown of California and Governor [David] Lawrence of Pennsylvania because they will not come out for Jack now. Their support would clinch the nomination for him. Joe has worked on Lawrence all winter but he still can't believe a Catholic can be elected.'' Mrs. Kennedy wrote of JFK's first debate: ``I watched Jack last night on the debate, praying through every sentence, as I had prayed during the day. He looked more assured than Nixon and looked better physically. Jack seemed to have the initiative and once or twice rose to inspiring heights of oratory.'' But she noted that he could improve: ``People think that Jack speaks too fast. I agree and have already told him.'' Four of her children had tragic deaths. She said that the wounds of those tragedies never healed. But her courage and faith kept her going. ``One of the best ways to assuage grief is to find a way to turn some part of the loss to a positive, affirmative use for the benefit of other people,'' Mrs. Kennedy wrote in her memoirs. ``I do believe that God blesses us for that and the burden is lightened.''

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, Senator Frank Murkowski and I had the chance to visit Vietnam. And shortly after we got back, I read the column by Tom Friedman in the New York Times about Vietnam, which makes so much sense. We are now inching toward full diplomatic relations that should have occurred years ago. Sixteen years ago I had lunch with the Vietnamese delegation at the United Nations and urged full diplomatic recognition at that time. We should do it now--the sooner, the better. I ask that the Tom Friedman column be printed in the Record. The column follows: [From the New York Times, Jan. 18, 1995] Good Morning, Vietnam (By Thomas L. Friedman) Hanoi, Vietnam.--In 1966, at the height of the Vietnam War, Senator George Aiken became famous for suggesting that we simply declare victory and bring American troops home. That victory was phony, but 29 years later we truly have one in Vietnam, if winning is measured by a Vietnam that is economically, politically and strategically pro-Western. Yet despite that victory, Washington is reluctant to open full diplomatic relations with Hanoi and consolidate its tentative move into America's orbit. It's time. It's time we started relating to Vietnam as a country, not a conflict. It's time that we declare victory and go back to Vietnam to reap it. President Bush should have been the one to open relations. He knew it was the right thing to do, and he had the credibility with veterans' groups to do it. But he didn't. (Wouldn't be prudent.) President Clinton, despite his problems with Vietnam vets, has inched closer to Hanoi, by lifting economic sanctions last year and agreeing to a low- level liaison office this year. For months the State Department has been quietly recommending full normalization, but after the midterm Republican rout the White House said ``Forget it.'' (Wouldn't be prudent.) That is America's loss. people are building a market economy from the ground up. Because U.S. diplomats and businesses are not here in force as the foundation stones are laid and the legal system is reformed, this means U.S. standards, regulations and laws are not being wired in. Australia already dominates the phone system, British Petroleum has the oil sector and Singapore advises on the legal code. I was riding in a taxi here the other day and the driver was studying English from BBC tapes. For 30 minutes I had to listen to a repetition of: ``I like football. I like Manchester United,'' the prominent British soccer team. When they think football here they don't think Dallas Cowboys, and when they think telephones they don't think AT&T. Strategically, the big issue in Asia will be the containment of China, whose military might, and appetite, will grow as China grows. There is no more powerful counterweight to Beijing than Hanoi, whose tiny army bludgeoned China's in their 1979 border war. China is Vietnam's historical enemy. Most of Hanoi's boulevards are named for heroes of the wars against China. The biggest display in the Hanoi Army Museum is not of Vietnam's victory over the U.S. in 1975, but its victory over the Mongols from the north in 1288. A U.S.-Vietnam entente would get China's attention--and keep it. As for our M.I.A's, every U.S. official dealing with this issue says Vietnamese cooperation has improved (not diminished, as opponents of relations predicted) since we lifted the economic embargo. The reason is not anything the Hanoi Government is doing, but because the Vietnamese people, villagers and veterans, are now coming forward with information about graves and bones that they were holding back as long as America was embargoing them economically. U.S. M.I.A. officials say normal relations and more Americans traveling here would only elicit more grass-roots cooperation, which is the only way the 1,621 remaining M.I.A. cases will be resolved. It is pathetic that a small, vindictive cult of M.I.A. activists in America--who broadcast U.F.O. sightings of P.O.W.'s roaming the Vietnamese countryside and demand we withhold normalization to punish Hanoi for war we never should have fought--have intimidated Washington into a Vietnam policy that is bad for M.I.A.'s and bad for America. The Vietnamese, who have 300,000 M.I.A.'s, have let the future bury the past. As Deputy Foreign Minister LeMai told me: ``If we nursed all of our grudges with all the powers that we have fought against, we wouldn't have relations with anyone. The war divided your society; recognizing Vietnam would put this behind you. It would heal your own wounds.'' He's right. It's time we too buried the past. Hue today is a cuisine, not a battle; Tet is a New Year's celebration, not an offensive; Haiphong is a harbor, not something to be bombed at Christmas; and Highway 1 is where they run the Hanoi Marathon, not the military artery of an enemy nation. President Clinton didn't start this war, and he didn't fight this war, but with a little bit of courage, he could finally end this war.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, recently, the Washington Post had an interesting editorial titled, ``Anguish in Rwanda.'' It speaks of the need for the United Nations to have a few troops, to give some stability to a nation that is teetering on the edge of instability. Perhaps even that is a too favorable description of the situation. I introduced legislation in the last session, which I will be reintroducing this session, to authorize the United States to have up to 3,000 troops that would be available to the United Nations for their efforts, subject to the approval of the President of the United States. We should call on other nations to do the same. The great threat to U.S. security and the security of other nations today is instability. By having a small force, a group of volunteers from within our Armed Forces available, we could do much to provide stability in places like Rwanda. I ask that the Post editorial be printed in the Record. The editorial follows: [From the Washington Post, Jan. 25, 1995] Anguish in Rwanda To protect a million-plus Rwandan refugees in Zaire, the United Nations appealed to 60 nations for peace-keepers. All 60 said no. The secretary general then asked for a few dozen U.N. officers to support soldiers from Zaire. Again the answer was no. Falling back, U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali now simply asks the Security Council to make available some Zairian troops assisted by civilian refugee officials. The prospects are uncertain. In the camps there is no uncertainty, only desperation. The Hutus who perpetrated genocide in Rwanda last spring lost to the Tutsi-minority rebels and then carried many of their people, with their supporting community structures, into exile in Zaire. The international relief agencies found these structures essential to funnel in quick aid. But that gave new power and coin to the old Hutu hierarchy, including war criminals, who steal the aid and keep refugees from going home. A moral dilemma has split the agencies: Stay and sustain a regime of killers, or leave and let suffering refugees suffer more. This is the context in which the United Nations seeks to build an alternative security structure. Last year's television pictures of the genocide publicized the need for emergency supplies, and many responded. But the humanitarian needs of the camps merge into an obscure zone of political struggle, and many lose interest. Dozens of countries were ready to send material aid. None is ready to expose its soldiers to risk for the Hutus. Nor is the problem confined to Rwanda. Its descent to a hollowed-out chaos where it can no longer order its own affairs is typical of the ethnic and national disputes that now disfigure world politics. Expect more in humanitarian crises, the CIA warned last month, and less in international relief. So many things remain to be done. Right at the top ought to be the establishment of a standby humanitarian food-and- police service, run out of the Security Council, where the United States has a veto, so that when the next quaking call comes, the secretary general does not have to run around begging 60 distracted countries to help in vain.