Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I, obviously, have not read the bill. But if we recognize the problem and work together, we can do something for the American people in this session of Congress. I commend him for his leadership.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for 30 seconds? I want to commend the Senator for his statement.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, and my colleagues in the Senate. On November 14, I announced that I will not be a candidate for reelection to the Senate nor for any other office. I will be leaving with great respect for this body and with great appreciation to the people of Illinois who made it possible for me to serve here. The evening of my announcement, President Clinton called me from Djakarta, Indonesia, to wish me the best. He made a suggestion: Once a month I should report to the public on what is happening and what should happen in Congress. He indicated that since I will not be a candidate for reelection, my words might take on added significance and not be viewed as another partisan speech. I am making the first of my monthly comments today, the 113th anniversary of the birth of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a President who has been praised recently by both President Clinton and Speaker Newt Gingrich. FDR and Congress worked together on the huge problems the Nation then faced. A glance at the policy landscape provides these recent positive developments, from my perspective: First, a peaceful change in the majority party in both Houses of Congress. While I personally would have preferred retaining Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, I also recognize that for a free system to thrive, peaceful change must occur from time to time. Second, Congress has voted to place the laws and regulations that govern our private sector counterparts on itself, and the President has signed that measure. That will protect our employees better and make us more sensitive to the difficulties others face. Third, the Senate Judiciary Committee--and now the full House of Representatives--have approved a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The passage of the amendment first urged by Thomas Jefferson come none too soon as we careen down the fiscal hill toward the fate of far too many nations: monetizing the debt, meeting our obligations by printing more and more money that is worth less and less. There are negative developments also. I would include: First, excessive partisanship in Congress by both political parties as we adjust to the new status each has. That we will differ on issues is both natural and healthy; that we are sometime petty in our differences may be natural for all of us who have above-average egos, but it is not healthy. Second, a mean-spiritedness toward the poor surfaces in too much discussion of welfare reform, sometimes bordering on racism. We need genuine welfare reform. The danger is that we will move organizational boxes around on a chart and try to convince the public and ourselves that we have done something constructive. Even worse, there is talk of taking punitive action against poor people. Third, the two parties have entered into a bidding war on tax cuts. Many of the Republicans promised one in their Contract With America, and President Clinton pledged the same in altered form. Both sides are wrong. If I may personalize this, I face a choice of giving myself a small tax cut and imposing a further burden on my three grandchildren, or sacrificing a little and providing a better future for my grandchildren. I do not have a difficult time making that choice, and I do not believe most Americans do. We should pledge a reduction in the deficit instead of a tax cut. Others can provide additional pluses and minuses. But one issue that dominated the political landscape only a few months ago is almost absent: health care. Yes, the President--to his credit--mentioned it in his State of the Union Message, but little is said on the floors of the House and Senate about this massive problem. Television and radio news programs rarely mention it. What once was a dominant issue at town meetings in my State has almost staged a disappearing act. But it will not disappear, not as long as almost 40 million Americans remain unprotected, the only citizens of any modern industrial nation with that status. It will not disappear as long as Americans are added to the lists of uninsured at the rate of more than 91,000 every month, 3,055 every day. Since the day President Clinton waved his pen at us in a joint session of Congress on January 25, 1994, 1.1 million more Americans have lost their health insurance coverage, bringing the total to 39.7 million. And costs continue to escalate. Medicare spending, for example, will double in the next 7 years and will then consume 16 percent of our total Federal spending. But we cannot tackle Medicare costs without tackling the health care costs in the rest of our economy. As we cut from Medicare, we shift the burden to the private sector--and every private-paying patient makes up the difference when Medicare underpays hospitals by about $13 billion every year, as it does now. Seven days ago marked 56 years since Franklin Roosevelt sent a message to Congress for a national health program. But early in 1931, as Governor of New York, he reported to the legislature of that State: ``The success or failure of any government in the final analysis must be measured by the well-being of its citizens. Nothing can be more important [than] * * * the health of its people.'' Since then, Harry Truman and Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton have called upon us to protect our citizens better, and Congress has failed to respond. This issue will not go away. It is more than grim statistics. It is my former staff member, now a consultant with the Federal Government but without health insurance coverage because she is technically not an employee. At a dinner with two friends, she suddenly experienced chest pains, paleness, perspiration, and nausea--often symptoms of a heart attack. She refused to go to a hospital for fear of the cost. It turned out she has a problem with food poisoning that was not serious. But how many people have died who actually have had heart attacks in that situation? A woman in McHenry, IL, wrote to me about the health coverage horrors her daughter and son-in-law have gone through, facing the loss of their home and car. And then this woman who wrote to me added: I have had cancer, so I can never quit my job as no one else will give me insurance. My husband has had ileitis and two types of diabetes so no one will give him insurance. We are trapped in our jobs and could not afford to pay for our own insurance if we ever got permanently laid off or had to switch jobs. We are 48 and 53 years old and this is a scary thought. I am a Republican and will continue to vote Republican. However * * * during some lean times I had to let my health insurance lapse. It was not, as some politicans and demagogs so smugly suggest, because I spent the money on recreation. I spent the money on food, rent, and bills. But I was forced to stay in the hospital a while. Now I am completely financially ruined. I'm 41 years old and I'm ruined. Or the mother in Ottawa, IL, injured in an automobile accident, whose husband suffered injury in a work- related accident and must find different work. She writes My husband and I and three children ages 18, 12, and 10 are now without health benefits. Due to our disabilities and unfair treatment by insurance companies our financial situation is dire. The stories go on and on. Those stories will multiply if we do not act. And other changes in health care delivery are emerging. Each week fewer and fewer Americans have an independent choice of physician. Each week, for-profit corporations are taking over not-for-profit hospitals, reducing the number of nurses on duty and requiring resident physicians to see more patients in less time, diminishing the quality of health delivery. At least one physician in Illinois has decided to give up the practice rather than provide care that uses mass production techniques. And Medicaid patients--poor people-- routinely are given the cold shoulder for nonemergency care by many hospitals who prefer patients with insurance coverage. The United States is the wealthiest nation but not the healthiest nation. Twenty-one nations have lower infant mortality rates than we do, and 23 industrialized nations have fewer low-birthweights babies. Yet these countries spend far less on health care then we do, and many have a longer average lifespan. That is not because of an act of God but because of flawed policy. Our poor health record did not come as some divine edict from above but emerged from the indifference of men and women in this very room. Why? Part of the reason was complexity and delay on the part of those of us who supported a health coverage program. But that is only a part of the picture. What primarily caused the confusion and opposition was the greed on the part of those who profit from their cut in this trillion-dollar business. Newsweek reported that opponents spend $400 million, more than twice what the two major Presidential candidates spend in the last two elections combined. When CEO's who are engaged in the present system pocket as much as $10 million in 1 year, do you think they will be anxious to alter the present procedures which help them and hurt millions of Americans? The Wall Street Journal recently stated that Health Systems International of Colorado has $475 million in cash, and the amount is growing by $500,000 a day, and the Journal reports they are ``hunting for new ways to park the money.'' Do they want to change the system? The same article quotes Margo Vignola of Salomon Brothers saying that the top nine HMO's have $9.5 billion in cash, ``way beyond what HMO's need.'' Do they want to change the system? Pfizer, the pharmaceutical company, gave $221,235 to the Republican national committees in soft money before the election. Did they do that because they want to change the system? The common assumption is that with a Democratic President and a Republican Congress, no significant progress in health care can be made. I challenge that assumption. The greatest contribution of Harry Truman's Presidency--one of many significant contributions he made--was the creation of the Marshall plan. To many it seemed doomed when offered. The first Gallup Poll after its proposal showed only 14 percent of the American people supported it. On top of that, after the 1946 election, President Truman had to work with a Republican Congress. But one man, Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan, a key Republican, stood up strongly and supported the Marshall plan and helped to save Western Europe. The Republicans in the Senate have designated as their new leader on health care Senator Robert Bennett of Utah, one of the more thoughtful Members of this body. Is it possible that he, together with the new chair of the Finance Committee, Bob Packwood, can be the Arthur Vandenbergs of our generation? It is politically understandable that Republican Senators might have been reluctant to work with Democrats on health care reform in the 103d Congress, for fear that they would hand Democrats a legislative victory. But now, that is behind us. With Republicans in control of both Chambers of Congress, there is no question that bipartisan agreement on health care will be of benefit to the broad public and not simply a political victory for one party at the expense of the other. Could we, for example, at least provide coverage for all pregnant women and children age 6 and under? Do we have the courage to stand up to the profiteers to at least do that? Let me add that it is not enough for Senators to stand up. They are not likely to do it in splendid isolation. Business and labor leaders, professional people and those who have been abused by this system must join in a chorus for action. Their voices will not be as strong as the decibel level of those who speak from greed, but Senators and House Members should know that there are at least some Americans who know and understand the dimensions and the importance of the issue. There are occasions when we, in the Senate, must ask ourselves: Why are we here? Let us look in the faces of 39 million Americans without health care coverage and ask ourselves that question. Let us look at the millions more who will lose their coverage if they lose their jobs or change jobs. Let us not be silent and unresponsive to their pleas for help. Let us not be so eager to hold public office that we violate the public trust, not by disobeying the law, but by following the shifting winds of public opinion and the pressures of big campaign donors. There are no Americans who today look to their forebears and say with pride, ``He or she voted against creating Social Security.'' There are no Americans who look to their grandparents or great-grandparents and say with pride, ``He or she voted against Medicare.'' We are not here in the Senate simply to assume an exalted title and let the media message our egos. We are here to create a better future for our people and for generations to come. In the last session, the Senate did not even vote on health care. That will not happen again. But we should do more than give ourselves an opportunity to vote. We should, in a fiscally prudent, pay-as-you-go way, give all Americans what we as legislators and Federal employees have: health care protection. We should give future generations the ability to look back upon us with pride and say, ``They were the first political leaders to guarantee health care coverage for all our citizens.'' Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, a few months ago, we passed the dubious milestone of having 1 million inmates serving time in prison. That number is expected to soar further as Congress and the States respond to the public's fear of crime by enacting longer prison terms for drug offenders and other criminals. Before we head full-steam down this prison-building path, I think we need to consider carefully whether we are being smart about how we punish criminals. Last year, I asked my staff to survey prison wardens around the Nation for their views on our crime policies. The results were surprising. Only 39 percent recommended building more prisons. But 65 percent said we should use our existing prison space more efficiently, by imposing shorter sentences on nonviolent offenders, and longer prison terms on violent ones. A few States, such as Florida and Georgia, have begun to respond in this way. They have begun to look at innovative ways to free up prison space by sentencing nonviolent criminals to ``intermediate sanctions,'' such as home detention and work release. As a recent article in the Economist noted, these programs are highly cost-efficient. In Florida, for example, these alternative programs cost only $6.49 per day per felon, compared with nearly $40 per day for prison. And, the programs don't compromise public safety. As the Economist reported, ``A 6 year survey by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency shows that in Florida, people sentenced to such penalties are less likely to be arrested within 18 months of their release than similar offenders who had been sentenced to between 12 and 30 months in jail.'' That is what I call being both tough on crime and smart. It is an approach Congress should consider before it spends billions more on another incarceration binge. I ask that the full text of the Economist article be reprinted in the Record. The article follows: [From the Economist, Nov. 19, 1994] Alternatives to Prison--Cheaper is Better Richmond, Va.--Self-preservation requires American politicans to be slap-'em-inside tough on crime these days. The argument for toughness stands on uncertain ground: the number of Americans in prison has more than doubled since 1982, now standing at over 1m, and yet notified violent crime has risen by two-fifths, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Still, the voters want to lock the villains up, and the politicans reckon they had better get on with it. The next question is how much it will cost the taxpayer. In Virginia, whose capital has the country's second-highest homicide rate, the General Assembly recently met in extraordinary session to lengthen prison terms for violent criminals and--like 13 other states and the federal government--to abolish discretionary parole for newly convicted felons. That needs nearly 30 new prisons. Some say this could cost $2 billion. The new Republican governor, George Allen, says that the true cost is closer to $1 billion, and that the state's prison population would anyway have doubled, without the new measures, by 2005. But the Democrats who control the legislature balked even at that figure, and have given Mr. Allen only about $40m to erect a handful of the work camps needed to accommodate the queue of prisoners waiting for space in the local jails. Mr. Allen, who has promised not to raise taxes, will have to go back to the Assembly next year and try to find the rest of the $370m that he describes as a down-payment for safer streets. It costs $19,800 a year to keep an inmate behind bars. It is doubtful whether the governor can raise what he needs by cutting expenditure elsewhere and selling off surplus state properties. Many state agencies are still operating on recession budgets. The sale of state land and equipment is expected to net a paltry $26m. On the other side of the country, in Oregon, where parole was abolished in 1989, a cheaper way of coping with over-full prisons is being tried. Oregon's voters are not keen on paying more, either: the advocates of tougher penalties for crimes against property failed to get enough signatures to put their proposal on the ballot last year, presumably because it would have cost $300m a year. So the state legislature, in providing more money for the corrections department, said that most of it should go into alternatives to prison for non-violent offenders. That would free some existing prison space for more dangerous criminals. This approach has already been tried in states with some of the highest incarceration rates in the nation, among them Florida and Georgia. So-called ``intermediate sanctions'' for non-violent felons--for instance, house arrest or work programmes--are cheap. In Florida, they cost only $6.49 per day per felon, compared with prison's near-$40 a day. They may also be working. A six-year study by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency shows that in Florida people sentenced to such penalties are less likely to be arrested within 18 months of their release than similar offenders who had been sentenced to between 12 and 30 months in jail. Texas, though, stays old-fashioned about its prison problem: it throws money at it. Twice this year, the Texas legislature has taken $100m from other parts of the state government to pay for more prisons. The voters, who rejected a $750m bond issue for schools, backed $1 billion for the Corrections Department. The trouble is that new parole restrictions look like further increasing the demand for Texan prison space. In the Lone Star state, getting into prison may prove tougher than getting out of it.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, there has been much talk recently about rewriting last year's Federal crime bill. That talk has focused on spending billions more for prison construction and longer sentences, while drastically reducing funds for prevention programs. I urge my colleagues to think hard about whether these changes represent smart policy. Last month, I conducted a survey of 157 wardens, and I asked them to comment on our present crime policies. By large margins, the wardens warned that our overwhelming emphasis on building prisons just isn't working. They urged a far more balanced approach to crime-fighting, that mixes punishment, prevention, and treatment. The Daily Southtown, in a recent editorial, called on Congress to listen to the advice of these experts, rather than moving rapidly ahead with policies that may be politically popular, but ultimately shortsighted. That is a message we would all do well to heed. I ask that this editorial be reprinted following my remarks. The editorial follows: [From the Daily Southtown, Dec. 8, 1994] Wardens' View on Crime: Mandatory Sentencing Won't Solve Problem Is ``locking them up and throwing away the key'' the most effective approach to reducing crime? Not if you listen to the prison wardens across the country who are in charge of the nation's inmates. Some 157 prison wardens were surveyed by a U.S. Senate subcommittee, and 85 percent of them said the politically popular approach--mandatory, longer incarceration--didn't work. The survey was conducted at the request of Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.). The survey showed that ``the idea we can solve our crime problem by putting more people in prison just has not worked,'' Simon said. The senator said most of the wardens favored approaches punishment. Sixty-five percent said they preferred increasing sentences for violent criminals and cutting sentences for non-violent inmates. Some 92 percent favored placing non-violent drug offenders in residential treatment programs, halfway houses, home detention and boot camps rather than prisons. And contrary to the rhetoric that proved so popular in the November election, the wardens said they wanted programs in prison for drug treatment, vocational training and educational programs. Simon said he asked for the survey because he feared the new Republican majority in Congress would rewrite the 1994 crime bill to remove prevention and treatment programs and replace them with more costly punishment approaches. Our elected officials ought to give some serious thought to the recommendations of the experts--the people who run our prisons--rather than setting new policies based on what would serve the politicians best in future elections.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, one of the finest things that has happened in the U.S. Senate since I've been here was the election of Paul Wellstone. I was reminded of that the other day when I was catching up on my reading and read in the magazine Tikkun his article on domestic violence as a health care issue. It really goes beyond discussing it as a health care issue. He talks about the necessity to have education and be sensitive and to protect all of our citizens better than we are now protecting them. I ask to insert into the Record the Paul Wellstone article. The article follows: Domestic Violence as a Health-Care Issue (Paul Wellstone) Domestic violence is a crime. Surely this statement is not a matter of contention or debate anymore--or it certainly should not be. But it wasn't too long ago that we did have to make the argument, because domestic violence was a secret, something that happened behind closed doors, a ``family matter.'' Police would be called; they would arrive; and they would leave. And then they would be called again. And again. Now, of course, it's different, because everyone knows that domestic violence is a crime as pervasive--if not more so-- than murder, armed robbery, or drug dealing. The only argument now involves what to do about this seemingly intractable problem. Domestic violence is a health-care issue. Now this is something new. Once this perspective on the problem is introduced, however, informed opinion-makers pause a moment, think about it, and say, ``Oh, yes, of course it is.'' But what are the implications of approaching domestic violence in this way? Evidence indicates that domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women, more common than auto accidents, muggings, and rapes by strangers combined. Indeed, it is the most frequent cause for women to seek attention at hospital emergency rooms. Not surprisingly, the health consequences of domestic violence include bruises, broken bones, birth defects, miscarriages, and emotional distress, as well as long-term mental health problems. Although domestic violence touches men as well as women, we know that women and children are the primary victims. We know that the very place in which a woman and her children should feel the safest and most protected--their home--is all too often the most violent, dangerous, and even deadly place. The emotional and physical well-being of women and children is compromised when they suffer or witness abuse. And the costs are staggering. As a member of Congress, steeped in the current health-care debate, I can't and won't let this information simply be stored away to be trotted out as factoids for rhetorical purposes: Congress is on the threshold of actually doing something to address the domestic violence health issue. In the course of the national debate over health care, we have been hearing the arguments for comprehensive reform. The prevalence of domestic violence and the toll it takes on the nation's heath are two of the reasons we need health-care reform that includes universal coverage, and a good, affordable package of benefits. The victims of domestic violence are living, breathing, suffering women and children. They, along with other Americans who need care, give a soul to this debate that goes beyond technical discussions of ``employer mandates,'' ``hard and soft triggers,'' and all the other process jargon that so easily takes center stage in a Washington debate. Health-care reform--to meet the needs of victims of domestic violence--needs to include universal coverage, elimination of preexisting condition clauses, public-health efforts to prevent domestic violence, and training for health-care providers to identify, treat, and refer victims. It should contain a benefits package that includes a visit to a doctor who will routinely ask about abuse and violence in the family just as she asks about a history of smoking or heart disease. Universal coverage would mean that a woman who stays in a relationship because she is dependent on an intimate partner for health coverage for herself and her children would know that coverage was guaranteed even if she left the relationship. Leaving an abusive relationship is already terribly difficult; many of the women involved worry about not being able to support their children or themselves. Many are ashamed to let relatives know of the abuse. And, when women do leave abusive partners, they must worry that the rage behind the abuse will become homicidal. A woman seeking to leave an abusive relationship should not have to worry about loss of health insurance for herself and her children-- especially when experience shows that victims of abuse are heavy users of the health-care system. When congressional discussion turns to ``universal coverage'' as being only a goal, or meaning 95 percent (or so) of the population, I will be reminding my colleagues about these women and their children. Along with universal coverage, we need to prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage to people because of preexisting conditions. Eliminating preexisting condition clauses would protect women who are now denied coverage because their medical records explicitly indicate they have been battered, or because of repeated health problems that have occurred as a result of domestic abuse and violence. The federal government should be a leader in developing and implementing innovative community-based strategies to provide health promotion and disease prevention activities for the prevention of violence by training providers and other health-care professionals to identify victims of domestic violence, to provide appropriate examination and treatment, and to refer the victims to available community resources. This should include the development and implementation of training curricula that teach health-care providers to identify and name the symptoms, the promotion and importance of developing a plan of action should the abuser return, and how to refer their patients to safe and effective resources. Already we have taken some steps in this direction by adopting my Violence Reduction Training Act, which is now being implemented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A comprehensive benefits package would include clinic visits that gather a complete medical history and entail an appropriate physical exam and risk assessment, including the screening for victims of domestic violence, targeted health advice and counseling, and the administration of age- appropriate immunizations and tests. This type of clinic visit would mean that a doctor would ask about a history or incidents of violence as part of her regular medical history interview. Doctors already ask about their patients' medical history with cancer, smoking, diet, or heart disease. Sadly, family violence is not something about which doctors, or other health professionals, often inquire. Some of my congressional colleagues and my constituents will continue to remind me that passing this type of health- care reform is going to be expensive. Of course it is. But we are already spending the money one way or the other. The annual medical costs alone of reported domestic violence injuries are astounding: A study conducted at Chicago's Rush Medical Center found that the average charge for medical services provided to abused women, children, and older people is $1,633 per person per year. This would amount to a national cost of $857.3 million. Many of these costs are borne by emergency departments--the most expensive way to provide these services. As with the current discussion surrounding the criminal nature of domestic violence, we are now at the point of asking: given that domestic violence is a health issue, what do we do? One of the important things that we can do is to pass comprehensive health-care reform that is universal, comprehensive, and affordable. By passing comprehensive reform, Congress will be taking an important step to prevent and reduce the incidence of domestic violence. Passing health-care reform will not be a panacea for the victims of family violence. In the same way that police cannot solve the crime of domestic violence, health-care professionals are not going to solve this problem. If we are to break this cycle of violence, we must recognize that all of us in the community are stakeholders. We all need to be involved: health-care providers, educators, business people, clergy, law enforcement officers, advocates, judges, media, and community residents. Even if Congress enacts health-care reform and even if communities start to deal with this escalating problem, as a country we are still faced with a whole host of problems that we are only beginning to comprehend. For instance, we now have to ask about the responsibility of the healthcare community to provide leadership for community collaboration. And how should the role of health-care providers intersect with others in the community? Furthermore, the provider is now confronted with serious ethical questions such as whether physicians should be mandated to report information about abuse and if so, to whom? Is the obligation to notify the law enforcement or legal systems greater than the responsibility to respect the victim's autonomy? If a victim asks that there be no action, should a doctor or nurse or therapist honor the request? And what are the responsibilities of health professionals with regard to the perpetrators? What is the role of neighbors who hear much too much through thin walls? I don't have all the answers to these types of questions. Indeed, since we have just opened the door to this discussion, I'm not sure anyone does. But that, in part, is the point. We have now initiated this debate, and we have begun talking as a community--knowing full well that because of this conversation we will begin solving one of the most devastating social and medical problems facing every one of us. For the last two years, my wife Shelia and I have been traveling throughout Minnesota, convening gatherings and attending events where such issues are being discussed. The conversations are having an impact. We are seeing community action throughout the state, and we are seeing a tremendous number of providers, judges, and police getting involved. My own experience in Minnesota makes me believe that similar efforts nationwide will also be successful. We must begin this discussion with a sense of urgency-- peoples' lives and safety are at stake.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the Elkay Manufacturing Co. which is celebrating its 75th year in business today. Elkay has enjoyed steady growth and solid achievements throughout its existence, including many industry innovations. Over the past 75 years, Elkay Manufacturing has grown from a small father-and-son manufacturer of handmade German silver sinks to the world leader in the sales of stainless steel sinks and water coolers. As a result of this continued success, employment at Elkay Manufacturing has grown from 3 employees in 1920 to 2,300 employees today. Elkay Manufacturing has consistently been able to recognize positive opportunities and respond to them. This strong awareness of both industry and customer needs is what has enabled Elkay to become a leader in the industry. I am proud to recognize the achievements of Elkay Manufacturing and its commitment to high standards, quality, and continuing innovation in the products it manufactures in Illinois and across the Nation.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, there are many trouble spots in the world. But there may be no more dangerous border right now than the one that divides North and South Korea. Approximately 1 million troops, North Korean, South Korean, and United States, are arrayed along either side of that 150-mile-long line. And yet, with all that firepower ready to use, there is practically no communication across that line. It is one of the most hermetic borders in the world, rivalled, perhaps, only by those of Albania in its heyday. Last December my colleague Senator Frank Murkowski and I saw that formidable border with our own eyes, when we crossed the demilitarized zone from North to South. And that same month we all saw some of the consequences of the lack of communication, when a United States helicopter was shot down over North Korea. What in other circumstances might have been handled as a routine incident became a protracted war of nerves, with the freedom of one U.S. airman and the remains of another hanging in the balance. Why? Because there are so few trusted channels of communication between North and South. When Senator Murkowski and I visited Asia last month, the agreed framework between the United States and North Korea was the focus of our discussions in both Pyongyang and Seoul. The agreement, while not perfect, offers an important opportunity to end North Korea's nuclear program. It also--and this is extremely important as well--can open new channels of communication between North and South, and thereby reduce tensions in northwest Asia. The sense of the Senate resolution that I am proud to submit today with my colleague Senator Murkowski expands the channels of communication envisaged in the agreed framework. The resolution calls for the executive branch to establish timetables for a range of tension-reducing measures between North and South Korea. Dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear reprocessing facility would be a major step, but only one step, in that area. Other important measures connecting North and South would be: liaison offices; a joint military commission with a particular focus on information exchange and threat reduction; expanded scientific, cultural, educational and sports exchanges; postal and telecommunications services between North and South; and reconstruction of road and rail links between the two countries. The President should appoint a senior official to work on all those steps with North and South Korea. All the measures I just listed add up to communication. Opening North Korea to outside influences will not be easy, will not happen overnight, and will not bring overnight results. It is an effort, though, that we should make, because the payoff in reduced tensions on the Korean peninsula could be very great indeed. This resolution aims to support the nuclear accord, and build on it in constructive, positive ways.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Then I withdraw my opposition. In that case, I have no objection to the amendment. Once again, I am on the same side as my colleague from Minnesota.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, it is rare that I differ with my colleague from Minnesota. He is one of those who has really brought compassion to this body and I have great respect for him. One of the best things that has happened in the U.S. Senate since I have been here is the election of Paul Wellstone to the U.S. Senate. I differ with him on this for two basic reasons. No 1, the argument that is made against the balanced budget amendment by those who oppose it is that we can do this, we can balance the budget, without a balanced budget amendment. Therefore, the pain inflicted would, in theory, be the same, whether we have the balanced budget amendment or whether we do not, with one exception. And that exception is this: Every econometric study shows if we pass the balanced budget amendment, we are going to have lower interest rates. If you have lower interest rates, you will have an easier time balancing the budget with a constitutional amendment. If you have lower interest rates, you are going to stimulate investment and employment; you are going to stimulate revenue for the Federal Government, for State and local governments. That is No. 1. So I think you cannot make an argument both that this is going to hurt and we can balance the budget without the constitutional amendment. Second, we have to ask as we look at States and local governments, what will happen if we do not have a balanced budget amendment? You look at that GAO report of 1992--and it would be modified some, thanks to the vote of the Senator and mine in passing that budget in August 1993--but they say, in that report that if we follow the basic path we are on now that by the year 2020 their projection is, because of interest growth and entitlement growth, that social services would be cut by one-third and defense cut by two-thirds. Frankly--my colleague from Minnesota has been around here long enough. I do not think that is the way the pie would be cut. I think it is much more likely that it would be closer to 50-50, on both sides. But that assumes--the GAO report assumes, optimistically--that we do not monetize the debt, that we do not just start the printing presses rolling. an exception to this history--but the history of nations is, when you get around 9 percent of deficit versus GDP, except for a wartime situation, you start monetizing the debt. We are going to go beyond that. I ask the Members of this body just to take a look at what happened in New York City. This was before my colleague from Minnesota was here as a Member of this body. New York City faced bankruptcy. New York City was rescued by the U.S. Government. But New York City had to cut its programs for poor people up to 47 percent. There is no United States of America, no big umbrella, to rescue this country. We are one-fifth of the world's economy. If we go down the tube economically, there is nobody out there to rescue us. The International Monetary Fund cannot begin to deal with our problem. The International Monetary Fund, in the case of Mexico, is offering to help to the tune of about $2 or $3 billion in guarantees. They cannot go further than that. So, though I have great respect for my colleague from Minnesota, I do believe this amendment should be defeated.

Mr. SIMON. If my colleague will yield?

Mr. SIMON. If that is correct, then I withdraw my opposition.

Mr. SIMON. Just for 1 minute. I thank my colleague, and if this passes, if the balanced budget amendment passes--and I believe it will--then I think we have to at that point let State and local governments know, let everyone know what kind of a glidepath we are on. I do not think we need to do that prior to passage. I think that compounds the problems of passage--very candidly.

Mr. SIMON. May I have 1 minute?

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would like to insert a statement by Keith Geiger in the Congressional Record. The statement follows: [From the National Education Association] Children, TV, and the Public Good (By Keith Geiger) Do you believe that ``Super Mario Brothers,'' the cartoon based on the popular video game, teaches children self- confidence? Would you call television broadcasts of ``G.I. Joe,'' ``The Flintstones,'' and ``The Jetsons'' educational programming? Welcome to the world of children's television--where these and other equally astounding assertions are made regularly by TV stations applying to the Federal Communications Commission for license renewal. Even more remarkable,the FCC agrees that these programs serve ``the educational and informational needs of children'' as required by the Children's Television Act. Here we are, a nation deeply concerned about the lack of values, the level of violence, and the academic achievement of our children and youth. But flip through the channels and Saturday morning or weekday afternoon. You'll find program after program glorifying space-age shoot-em-ups, ninja warriors, brutality and mayhem. Many of the shows are nothing more than promotional vehicles for toys. With a very few--immediately obvious--exceptions, television aimed at children is the domain of toy manufacturers. In the words of Shari Lewis of Lamb Chop fame, ``Our kids are very much for sale to the highest bidder.'' This isn't a new phenomenon. It's the reason the Children's Television Act was passed four years ago. The problem is, this act hasn't changed children's programming. It was written very broadly, and the FCC rules governing its implementation are weak. There's no definition of what constitutes educational programming--or of how much of it a station must provide. So ``G.I. Joe'' and ``Super Mario Brothers'' become ``educational.'' And millions of U.S. children watch ``Mighty Morphin Power Rangers,'' which has been taken off the air in Canada and New Zealand because of excessive violence. When asked recently to define quality children's television, Shari Lewis replied: ``You must role model for kids the kind of behavior you want. If the intention is to do a program that seduces children to watch through explosions, chases, crashes, verbal and physical hostility, and aggression, I don't care if you tack on a pro-social message at the end of the show.'' That is exactly what has happened under the Children's Television Act. Broadcasters have produced some so-called educational programs. But what many of these programs do, in the words of a Christian Science Monitor editorial, is to ``hide a smidgen of educational nutrition inside a candy bar of frenetic entertainment.'' And the truth remains that children learn far more from all the action and freneticism than they do from the moralistic words. The FCC is currently deciding if it should strengthen the regulations that implement the Children's Television Act. The National Education Association is one of more than a dozen education and children's advocacy organizations urging the Commission to put real teeth into its rules. We want the FCC to define educational programs and to require that stations schedule at least one hour of such programming for children each day. These programs should be of standard length (not announcements or shorts) and be shown between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. (nearly half of educational programs now air between midnight and 6:30 a.m.). Given the fact that 70 million children in our country watch an average of four hours of television a day. I'd like to issue a challenge. Let every station agree that from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. on Saturdays, all its children's shows will be truly educational. That should take care of any competitive worries. And it would give our children two options: watch an educational show or turn off the TV. Whichever they choose, America wins. Television wields immense influence over children. It defines the games they play, the clothes they wear, the way they view their world. It's time we confront the power of this medium and insist that those who profit from it also have a social responsibility to use it to contribute to the public good.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the achievements of the Bethel New Life Organization of Chicago, IL. Bethel New Life has been chosen as one of the 24 winners of this year's Renew America for Environmental Sustainability Award. Bethel New Life is dedicated to reversing the trend toward urban decay and has focused its efforts in Chicago's west side neighborhoods. Building on established community resources, Bethel has developed several job-creation programs. Bethel also concentrates on the needs of Chicago's elderly by sustaining a home-based elder care program that will create 325 new jobs in the area. Additionally, Bethel is working with Argonne National Laboratory to develop a local recycling and manufacturing center with a materials processing plant already in operation. Community involvement is crucial to the success of Bethel's program, and this is accomplished through Bethel's support of neighborhood block clubs where local high school students improve math and science skills by learning to monitor the local air quality. I commend the Bethel New Life Organization for its dedication and commitment to job creation and enrichment in Chicago's urban areas. It is my hope that Bethel will serve as a model for other community organizations working to better their neighborhoods.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank you. I am going to oppose this amendment. I have great respect for Senator U.S. Senate we would not need a balanced budget amendment. Fritz Hollings has shown more courage in the Budget Committee--and I have served there along with Senator Dodd and others--in talking about revenue, talking about cuts, talking about the needs of our country and that is essential. I think there will be a lot of votes on this side supporting it in part because there is some resentment to the Contract With America and it is pie-in-the-sky we can cut taxes and spend more on defense, and it is just unrealistic. I, however, oppose it for this reason, and that is, if it were popular to balance the budget, we would have done it a long time ago, the Fritz Hollings votes in the Budget Committee would have passed. The reality is we need a straitjacket to force us to do the right thing, and that is why it is essential for the country that we have a balanced budget. The principle has to be established, and once we establish the principle, then we can argue among ourselves how to go about it. But we have not established the principle. I will just give you one quick illustration. Back about 3 years ago, I introduced a bill for long-term care with a \1/2\ percent increase in Social Security to pay for it. Two of my colleagues in the Senate, one of whom is still serving here now, came to me and said they thought it was a great bill, they would like to cosponsor it if I would just drop the \1/2\ percent tax to pay for it. We can do that now. We can spend money, not pay any attention to whether it balances or not. The reality is, if we want long-term care, we have to have the revenue. Senator Hollings is correct--and I know I differ with some of my colleagues on the other side on this--he is absolutely correct when he says this is going to have to be a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases. I do not think there is any way to do it without that. And I do not favor just putting this thing off. If this passes, and I believe it will, if this passes in a few weeks, then I want to move on that glidepath right away, and I will join Senator Hollings and any other Senator. We cannot wait until the States act; we have to move immediately. But, frankly, we do not need to spell out how many toes we are going to step on when we have a balanced budget amendment. It is not going to be easy. It is going to be tough, but not to do it is going to be infinitely tougher on the future of this country. So I, with great respect for the sponsor, am going to be voting on the other side on this particular motion.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I read George Will's column attacking Peter Edelman. It was a column written by someone who, obviously, has not had a chance to get acquainted with Peter Edelman. Knowing both George Will and Peter Edelman, my instinct is that if the two of them got acquainted, George Will would be one of his enthusiastic supporters, or at least a supporter. John Douglas, who headed the Civil Division of the Justice Department under Robert Kennedy, is the son of our former colleague Senator Paul Douglas. Paul Douglas was one of the finest people who ever served in the U.S. Senate, and John is cut from the same cloth. I believe my colleagues would be interested in his letter to the editor, which appeared in the Washington Post. I join in the sentiment it expresses. I've known Peter Edelman for a number of years, and I've always regarded him as a solid, substantial, well-balanced person, who would be a great judge. I ask to insert the John Douglas letter into the Record at this point. The letter follows: Mr. Edelman's Qualifications (By John W. Douglas) I write in response to George Will's attack on Peter Edelman's qualifications to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals here, an attack centering on a law review article he wrote some years ago on the 14th Amendment [op-ed, Dec. 18]. I have known Mr. Edelman for more than 30 years and have the highest opinion of his character and competence. He worked as my special assistant in 1963 and 1964 when I was an assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department's Civil Division. He performed in outstanding fashion in a variety of matters, including litigation for which he was directly responsible, handling his work with skill, excellent judgment and high standards. He has earned equally high marks for his subsequent work as an assistant to Sen. Robert Kennedy, a vice president of the University of Massachusetts and a law professor at Georgetown. This long record of distinguished and principled service commends him strongly for nomination to the federal judiciary. Thus, it would be a shame if his critics' attacks on his article's treatment of theoretical constitutional issues were allowed to preclude his nomination. I am confident that at a confirmation hearing Mr. Edelman would be able to convince the committee that, if confirmed, he would faithfully follow the law, as is required of all federal judges, and that he fully understands that neither the due-process clause nor any other constitutional provision guarantees subsistence, or any level of subsistence, to its citizens; consequently, these are matters for the political branches, particularly the legislatures, to deal with and decide. In any event, this particular question should not be decided in advance of a hearing and in a vacuum without giving due weight to Mr. Edelman's impressive record.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I am sure that, like me, my colleagues in this Chamber have been appalled by the pictures coming out of Chechnya. There is a grim familiarity to the events taking place there. Massive military force sent by Moscow to take on lightly armed, or unarmed, civilians: this is something we saw in Hungary in 1956, in Czechoslovakia in 1968, in Afghanistan in 1979. We hoped we wouldn't see it again. With Chechnya, though, we are also seeing something new, and very significant. With the exception of the ultranationalists on the one hand, and the diehard pro-Yeltsin camp on the other, Russian public opinion has risen up in outspoken opposition to a war they feel is not worth the cost. Not worth the cost in lives; not worth the cost in money; not worth the cost to Russia's name in the world community. Freedom of speech is one of the foundations of a democratic system, and there's no guarantees that that freedom, or that democracy itself, have taken permanent root in Russia. But the reaction of the Russian public to the war in Chechnya is a heartening indication that the first shoots of a civil society are beginning to appear in Russia. In a recent column William Safire makes this point very well, contrasting the tumultuous energy of Russia's political environment with the deceptive stability of one-party rule in China. I ask that Mr. Safire's column ``Yeltsin's Tiananmen,'' be printed in the Record in full. The column follows: Yeltsin's Tiananmen Washington.--Which great power is more unstable today-- China or Russia? The quick answer, of course, is Russia. The elected leader, Boris Yeltsin, is besieged in Moscow after his bloody siege of Grozny, capital of the Connecticut-sized breakaway republic of Chechnya. Russian television showed vivid pictures of the bombing of that city even as it showed Yeltsin saying it wasn't so; then the cameras showed Yeltsin upbraiding his Defense Minister for making him look like a liar. As Helmut Kohl telephoned to tell him that world opinion frowns on the savage method his Russia Federation is using to preserve its borders, Bill Clinton wrote a ``Dear Boris'' letter reaffirming support of Federation unity but stressing how ``distressed'' he is at civilian deaths and suggesting mediation by an organization of 53 nations. What's Yeltsin to do? The Chechens are dead serious about secession. If Russia lets Chechnya go, other Causasian dominoes will fall and Moscow will be denied the Caspian oil it needs to rule a hundred nationalities across 11 time zones. He tried negotiation, which was met by a declaration of independence; he tried an internal coup, which flopped; now he's trying force, which is bringing world obloquy on his head because the Chechens are fiercely fighting for their homeland and the Russian Army has no heart for a lengthy guerrilla battle, especially after its loss in Afghanistan. All that--added to Yeltsin's personal punchiness and isolation--is why Russia appears unstable. We tend to equate the future of democracy with the future of Yeltsin, who is on his last leg. But consider the political miracle taking place in Moscow today. An unpopular and unjust war is being denounced in the Parliament, with reformer Grigory Yavlinsky, openly calling for Yeltsin's resignation. The military is publicly divided between conscience-stricken warriors and hard-line incompetents. Free speech is spilling out all over. The newspapers, after centuries of czarist and Communist docility, are crusading: a picture of Defense Minister Pavel Grachev is captioned ``the most talentless commander in Russia.'' And the television crews are bringing home the horror of the war just as American cameramen did in Vietnam, with similar impact on Russian public opinion. This is wonderful. The world should be proud of the Russian people, who should be prouder of themselves for exercising their new-found freedom to debate a great issue. Contrast that democratic turmoil to the facade of ``stability'' in China. With the death of Deng Xiaoping imminent, the leadership is cracking down on dissidents. By jailing its leading independent thinkers, the regime in Bejing reveals its inherent weakness. The new imprisonment of the courageous Wei Jingsheng, China's Sakharov, was the tip- off that the leadership fears a popular uprising, this time led by angry workers rather than idealistic students. As Deng sinks, the number of panicky arrests rises. This demonstrates again that succession in a Communist state is a ruthless wrestle for power within an impenetrable clique. It mocks the assurances of China's Western apologists that a market economy leads to political freedom. In a litchi nutshell, here's the play: Yang Shangkun, an old army leader whose powerful family was neutralized by Deng, is close to Adm. Liu Huaqing, the nation's top military leader. They may challenge Deng's proteges, party boss Jiang Zemin and Prime Minister Li Peng, by backing economic chief, Zhu Rongji, or promoting a next- generation politician, Hu Jintao, or by backing Qiao Shi, the former national security adviser and now chairman of the rubber-stamp People's Congress, hereinafter known as ``China's Newt Gingrich.'' What do 1.2 billion Chinese have to say about all this? Zilch. (Analysts in Bejing, aware of the exclusive accuracy of my prediction of Mao's successor in the 70's, will have to puzzle out ``zilch.'') And therein lies real instability. A monolithic, totalitarian state, repressing the spirit of freedom, only seems secure; we have seen how it can suddenly collapse. A noisy, unruly democratic state, drawing on the legitimacy of free elections, is more secure--no matter how shaky the leadership. That's why Russia is in better political shape than China.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, all of us watched with agony while a 19-year-old, Nahshon Wachsman, was captured, made a public plea for his life, and then was slain. People on the Palestinian side, the Israeli side and people of every religious persuasion were hoping and praying that his life would be spared. But it was not. How do parents face such a tragedy? The Jerusalem Report has a story about Nahshon's parents. Because it has both the international dimension, and lessons about how to face grief and pain, I ask to insert it into the Record at this point. The article follows: [From The Jerusalem Report, Dec. 1, 1994] Ordinary Heroes (A month after his son was executed by Hamas kidnappers, only the unshakeable faith of Nahshon Wachsman's parents is enabling them to cope with their grief) (By Yossi Klein Halevi) Yehudah and Esther Wachsman's phone doesn't stop ringing. The Jewish National Fund wants to plant a forest in memory of their 19-year-old son, Nahshon, kidnapped and killed by Hamas terrorists in October. A Jerusalem religious school wants Esther and Yehudah to address its students about the dangers of religious extremism. The Kfar Saba municipality wants them as guests of honor at a rally for national unity. Families afflicted by terror attacks are usually considered victims, not heroes. Yet the Wachsmans, whose quiet dignity during the kidnapping ordeal riveted the country, have become symbols of strength--at a time when Israelis fear that their ethos of courage is slowly being sapped by exhaustion and prosperity. Rabbis who came to the Wachsmans to impart religious inspiration were instead inspired by their faith; Knesset Speaker Shevah Weiss and the commander of the Golani infantry brigade in which Nahshon served emerged from the Wachsman home repeating virtually the same words: We came to strengthen the Wachsmans, but were instead strengthened by them. Yehudah, in a knitted yarmulke and sandals, and Esther, in a beret and denim skirt, shattered the stereotype of the Israeli Orthodox Jew as extremist and intolerant. Esther appealed to her son's kidnappers to remember that they all worshiped the same God; and the army's failed attempt to rescue Nahshon, Yehudah thanked the Muslims and Christians who had prayed for his son, and offered to meet with the parents of Nahshon's killers. And despite anonymous right- wing callers demanding that he stay away, Yehudah accepted an Israeli government invitation and attended the signing ceremony for the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty, just days after he completed the shivah mourning period for Nahshon. The Wachsmans managed to emotionally unite the country, however briefly, in a way it hadn't know in years. Tens of thousands of Israelis, from secularists to ultra- Orthodox, joined prayer services for Nahshon's safety and lit an extra Sabbath candle on the Friday night that he died. Weeks after Nahshon's death, thousands of letters are still coming to the Wachsman home in Jerusalem's Ramot neighborhood--not only from [[Page S1244]] Israelis but from people around the world, many sending poems and taped messages of support. The Wachsmans insist they are ordinary people; and indeed, the middle-aged, modern Orthodox couple are unlikely heroes. Yehudah and Esther, both 47, are short, sturdy, wide-faced. Yehudah, with a long graying beard, paunch and piercing eyes, speaks with an intensity softened by ironic humor. Esther's little-girl voice--callers for Yehudah often ask her if her father is home--is deliberately calm: The mother of seven sons, she learned to keep steady through the chaos of daily life. Yehudah and Esther are both children of Holocaust survivors; and that experience affected them in very different ways. Yehudah grew up in Romania and moved to Israel at age 11. The war destroyed his father, who became closed and bitter. ``I saw what anger could do to a person,'' says Yehudah. ``And I decided that if I ever experienced tragedy, I would react in the opposite way from my father.'' Life provided him with opportunities to fulfill that challenge. One of their sons, 8-year-old Rafael, has Down's syndrome. Yehudah himself lived for years on dialysis, finally undergoing a kidney transplant four years ago which forced him to quit his job as a math teacher and work from his home, selling real estate. Yehudah thought of his father, a broken, silent man shuffling between work and home; and refused to be bitter. Esther grew up in Flatbush, cherished daughter of Polish survivors. ``I was the national treasure, the consolation,'' she says, with a wry smile. ``I was never allowed to be unhappy. The rule of the house was: Never tell me upsetting news. And of course I wouldn't say anything that would upset my parents.'' Indeed, just after Nahshon's death, Esther had one overriding thought: that her 83-year-old father, silenced by a stroke and living in Queens, mustn't be told. ``The same business: Don't upset them.'' Esther says that, as a teenager, she was a ``typical JAP. If I wore the pink dress on Tuesday that meant I couldn't wear it for another week.'' But then her life changed when she visited Israel in 1967, and fell in love with the country. Back in New York, where she was studying to be a teacher, she felt like a hypocrite, praying for a return to Zion when Zion was so easily accessible. In 1970, she returned to Jerusalem, and got a job helping run a Jewish Agency summer camp for American teenagers. One of the camp counselors was Yehudah Wachsman. Four months later, they married. Becoming the mother of soldiers--Nachshon and his two older brothers all served in Lebanon--forced Esther to confront mortality, and reconsider the values on which she was raised. ``I spent years glued to the radio, waiting for news,'' she says. ``Living in Israel made it impossible for me to remain what I was.'' Less than a month after the tragedy, the atmosphere in the Wachsman home is deliberately normal. Friends drop by, everyone speaks in conversational tones, the Wachsman boys exchange small jokes. Immediately after the shivah, each of the boys individually approached Esther and Yehudah and said: Let's not allow this home to turn gloomy. ``I realized I had no choice but to go on,'' says Esther. The boys were sent back to school, and Esther resumed her job teaching English at the elite Hebrew University High School. Most of all, the family has tried to maintain the home's relaxed atmosphere--a place where friends of the Wachsman boys feel so comfortable that over the years some have virtually moved in. Even now, grief doesn't suppress the good-natured teasing that marks Esther and Yehudah's relationship. When they discuss their political positions with me--he supports the peace process with reservations, she opposes it with reservations--they pretend to be exasperated with each other. Esther: ``My husband is unique, there is no one else with quite his point of view.'' Yehudah: ``If she says so, it must be true.'' Then they smile: They are amused, not annoyed, by their differences. Inevitably, though, the home bears traces of the ordeal. A table in a corner is piled with prayer books and yarmulkes: During the week of the kidnapping, there was non-stop communal praying here. On a makeshift charity box are written words urging those who place money into it to say a prayer for Nahshon's safe return. And mounted on the breakfront is a picture of Nahshon, smiling and wearing a T-shirt with the words: ``I've been drafted.'' Esther manages a smile when speaking of Nahshon. ``He was in an elite unit, the shortest, thinnest kid among big, brawny fellows. They called him the baby of the unit. But he was the one who encouraged them in Lebanon. They used to say to him, `Nahshon, this is hell, wipe that smile off your face.' And he'd say, `Everything will be okay, let's just do our job.' ``Nahshon epitomized non-conflict. He couldn't stand it when his brothers fought. If his parents argued about something, he'd say, `Is it really so important?''' Esther and Yehudah see that quality of peacemaking as a hint of Nahshon's destiny. Everyone has a mission in life, they believe; and since the kidnapping created such a powerful sense of unity among Israelis, perhaps that was related to Nahshon's mission. Esther says that, during the entire week of the kidnapping, she was certain that Nahshon would return alive, that the out-pouring of prayer around the country would somehow protect him. She doesn't believe those prayers were wasted. ``Prayers don't get lost. Jews prayed for 2,000 years to return to Israel. Our generation made it back. Eventually the time comes for the fulfillment of prayers. The soldiers who tried to save Nahshon could have all been killed--maybe the prayers protected them.'' She rejects self-pity as firmly as religious doubt. ``I don't ask: `Why me? Why anyone?' Look how many people lost entire families in the Holocaust. You pick yourself up and go on. That's part of Jewish history.'' In fact, both Esther's and Yehudah's fathers lost their first wives and some of their children in the Holocaust. And though neither says so, it is clear that their parents' ability to create new families after the war has strengthened their own life-force. But for all their optimism and faith, the Wachsmans have an account to settle with God. Esther: ``When Yehuah was on dialysis, I said to God, `This is as bad as it can get.' Then my son Rafael was born with Down's syndrome and I said, `OK, God, You can't do anything worse to me than this.' When Nahshon died, I thought, `You really did do something worse.' ``I work with non-believing people. They think I'm protected from pain by my faith. But the grief is just as severe; the only thing faith does is keep me sane. I`d break down if I didn't believe there was some master plan, that every person was put on Earth for a purpose. But''--her voice turns to an emphatic, almost angry whisper--``it does not lessen the pain.''

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, there are more than 180 countries in the United Nations. They range from the world's largest countries in area, in population, in economic output, down to some very small countries indeed, countries that are smaller than some counties in my own State of Illinois. I have nothing against those small countries being members of the United Nations. On the contrary, I feel that any country capable of making a real contribution to the activities of the United Nations should have the opportunity to do so as a full member of that organization. For that reason, it is all the more unfortunate that a country of 21 million people, a country that has made great strides in consolidating democratic institutions and practices, a country that has become a significant economic power and a major contributor to international assistance efforts--that such a country should find itself closed out of the United Nations. I am speaking, of course, of Taiwan. Together with my cosponsor, Senator Brown, I am pleased to submit today a Senate Concurrent Resolution that reaffirms, as the sense of the Senate, what many of us in this Chamber have already concluded: That Taiwan deserves to participate fully in the United Nations as a full member, and that the U.S. Government should encourage the United Nations to begin studying means to bring this about. Congressman Solomon introduced an identical resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 8, earlier this month. I would especially like to call my colleagues' attention to a particular element of this resolution: namely, that in seeking membership in the United Nations and other international institutions, Taipei does not intend to challenge the current international status of Beijing. Rather, Taiwan would seek admission as part of a divided nation. There are precedents for this; this has worked before. East and West Germany were admitted to the United Nations as separate parts of a divided nation; North and South Korea were admitted to the United Nations as separate parts of a divided nation. I am pleased that, last June, the Senate agreed to by voice vote a similar resolution expressing the sense that Taiwan should be brought into the United Nations. There have been some changes in the political makeup of the Congress since then. I think that is all the more reason, then, that the Senate should go on record and affirm something that has not changed: Our support for Taiwan's integration into international institutions. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I commend the Senator for his comments. If the demands of those of us who favor a balanced budget amendment spell out how we do it, they are always making speeches how you can balance the budget without a constitutional amendment. It seems to me that it is incumbent on them to spell this out also. Is that being unrealistic?

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Iowa. I thank him for his leadership on this. When he mentioned the States that are affected, he should have included Oklahoma, which is the State of the Presiding Officer. The Japanese Prime Minister is here today to create good will for his country, and I hope he has a very good visit. However, it is appropriate that we let the Japanese Prime Minister know right now here and clearly, that one of the Japanese-owned corporations in this country is creating ill-will in this country, and is not doing any good for United States-Japanese relations. In addition to the comments of my colleague from Iowa, I would point out that the Secretary of Labor asked to meet with the chief executive of the Bridgestone-Firestone Co. here in the United States. He refused to meet with the Secretary of Labor to talk about this. I have a wire service story in which Secretary Reich is quoted as saying: I consider this outrageous, quite frankly. Japanese companies in this country have a sterling record of social responsibility, in general. And I think that is correct. Most Japanese corporations in this country have an excellent record. This company is refusing even to meet with the Secretary of Labor. I have never heard of an American corporation or a corporation in this country refusing to sit down with the Secretary of Labor. The company said: * * * it would be happy to send Charles Ramsey, its chief negotiator-- Only they are not negotiating. to meet with-- The Secretary of Labor. That is like sending an errand boy. The Secretary of Labor ought to be able to sit down with the person who is making the decision. This is only the third time, I am told, since the early 1930's when a major corporation--and that includes major corporations in the United States of America, with the air traffic controllers being one of the three--this is the third time we have had a permanent replacement of strikers of this magnitude. Our whole tradition is against it. It is very interesting that this Japanese-owned corporation cannot do in Japan what they are doing in Oklahoma and Illinois and Iowa and Ohio and Indiana. It would be illegal for them to do it in Japan, and they are doing it here, contrary to our traditions. It is illegal to do it in Canada or all of Western Europe, except for Great Britain. I think that the company is making a great mistake. I have been around public life for a while--I am 66 years old. I have observed a little, and I have noted when this pendulum swings too far to one side, pretty soon side, and that is the danger in labor/management relations in this country. It is a danger for Bridgestone/Firestone. I heard my colleague from Iowa say the other day that he would not buy any Firestone tires. Believe me, I am certainly not going to buy any Firestone tires, and I think there are going to be a lot of people in the United States who are going to feel the same way. The sensible thing is to sit down and negotiate. I have, Mr. President, over the years been involved in some labor/management negotiations. Sometimes it gets tough, but getting people together around a table, sooner or later--a little bit like a conference committee between the House and the Senate--sooner or later you get something worked out. That is what Bridgestone/Firestone should do, not dismiss 2,300 employees. They ought to sit down and try to work things out. That is the American tradition. I note that the Wall Street Journal, in an article about the chief executive of Bridgestone, refers to him as a bulldog, that he is a born gambler. Well, he is gambling with something that is very important. He is gambling with his company's future. He is gambling with labor/ management relations in this country. He is gambling with the lives of 2,300 workers and their families. I hope common sense prevails, and I hope the Japanese Prime Minister gets the message that we who have spoken on the floor of the Senate have nothing but good will toward Japan. I respect that country. I might add, I grew up in the State of Oregon--something I do not stress in the State of Illinois--but I grew up in the State of Oregon. My father was a Lutheran minister and, in 1942, stood up when Japanese-Americans were taken away from the west coast. That was my first real experience in civil rights. I was 13 years old then. I remember the hostility that my father received on that occasion. I do not want to sour United States-Japan relations. I want an improved relationship. I think the Japanese Prime Minister would be wise to get a message to the chief executive of Bridgestone: sit down and try to iron this thing out. I yield back my time to my colleague. And, again, I thank him for his leadership on this.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, every day our budget deficit grows larger and larger. In this time of crisis, we need to use every available weapon in our arsenal to fight the growing national deficit. It takes a constitutional amendment that requires Congress to pass a balanced budget; and it also takes a constitutional line-item veto amendment, which I introduce today. This line-item veto amendment takes as its model the amendment that appears in the Constitution of my home State of Illinois. According to some studies, the Illinois State government is able to reduce its annual budget by about 3 percent because of the line-item veto. Similar success on a Federal level will bring us that much closer to reducing the national debt. My amendment is a simple one. It is a constitutional amendment to permit the President to reduce or disapprove any item of appropriations, other than an item relating to the legislative branch. If the President does not reduce or disapprove an item of appropriations, it becomes law. If he does reduce it, then Congress is empowered to override the President's veto by a simple majority vote of each House. There are those concerned that the line-item veto takes away power from the legislative branch and puts it into the hands of the executive. That might be true if this veto were like all others and required a two-thirds override. But my amendment is faithful to the principle of majority rule in passage of legislation. It threatens only those appropriations which do not have majority support and it is those appropriations items which often are the least credible in the eyes of the American people and most difficult to justify. Forty-three States now have the line-item veto. As ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, I--in conjunction with my friend from Colorado, who now serves as subcommittee chairman--hope to devote serious efforts toward securing passage of this important piece of legislation. The line-item veto is by no means a panacea. It is, however, a big step in the right direction for any serious attempt to put our fiscal affairs in order.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois also for her comments. And since she mentioned her son Matthew, let me just add, he is a young man who is going to serve his community and country well in the future and Carol Moseley-Braun ought to be a very proud mother of that son. I think what Senator Wellstone has proposed here is important. Let me just give you one simple fact. Twenty-three percent of the children of this Nation live in poverty. No other industrial nation has anything like that figure; no 23 percent in Great Britain or Canada or France or Germany or Italy or Japan or Norway or Denmark or Sweden or the other countries you could mention. Why, why do 23 percent of the children in this country life in poverty? This is not an act of God. There is no divine intervention that says the children in Iowa and the children in Missouri and the children in Illinois ought to be living in poverty more than children in other countries. It is not the result of a divine intervention; it is not an act of God. It is a result of flawed policies. It starts in this room, my friends, in this Hall where we meet. Will the Wellstone amendment, if it is passed, result in changed policy? No one can know for sure. Even the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, for whom I have such a high regard, cannot know for sure whether this will have any significant result in moving us in the right direction. But it might. At least when we are talking about welfare reform, we are going to be looking at things. And I hear everybody wants welfare reform, including the people on welfare. But I think there are a lot of people who think we can do welfare reform on the cheap. There can be no real welfare reform without a jobs program. And you are going to hear me saying this over and over again. And I am pleased my colleague from Illinois mentioned the balanced budget amendment. It is very interesting. This year, we will now spend 10 times as much on interest as we will on education. We will spend almost twice as much on interest as all the poverty programs put together. I ask the Presiding Officer, who is a distinguished former governor of Missouri, if the people of Missouri had a choice of spending less money on interest and more to help poor people, which would they prefer? You know the answer and I know the answer. But we have just kind of backed into this without thinking. The amendment of the Senator from Minnesota says: Let us think about it. Let us pay attention. Let us at least look at what we are doing to our children. Again, I simply ask you: Why is the United States alone among the Western industrial nations in having 23 percent of its children in poverty? It grows out of this room, and in this room we can change that policy and give a brighter future to our children. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.