Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, first I want to thank Senator Hatfield and Senator Dorgan for their leadership on this. I am rounding out 22 years on Capitol Hill. I am a slow learner, Mr. President, but I have learned two things, among others. One is, do not get too cozy with dictators. Eighty-five percent of our weapons sent abroad are sent to nations the State Department identifies as human rights abusers. I think we ought to be careful. Second, I have learned that weapons we send abroad may be used against us. Senator Feinstein mentioned Somalia. We could be mentioning Panama, Haiti, Iraq, and other nations. Back--I do not know--2 or 3 years ago I was in Angola with Senator Feingold and Senator Reid and visited the Swedish Red Cross place where they were fitting artificial limbs for children and adults. I saw the huge numbers of people in Angola being fitted for those limbs in part because of American mines, in part because of American mines purchased with American funds. We are today, as has been pointed out, the No. 1 arms merchant in the world. And 56 percent of the arms sold abroad, are sold by the United States. While we are the No. 1 arms merchant, do you know where we are in foreign economic assistance to other countries, compared to the other Western European countries, Australia, New Zealand and Japan? We are dead last. One-sixth of 1 percent of our national income goes to help the poor beyond our borders. Norway is above 1.2 percent, and the other nations in between. And when you contrast what we do with weapons and what we do with economic assistance, it is kind of interesting. From July 11 to 18, the National Basketball Association signed contracts totaling $927 million for free agents. Do you know what we are doing in providing development assistance for all of Africa, the poorest nation, poorest continent today, when you except Egypt? We are spending a total of $628 million, less than we spent in 1 week for free agents for the National Basketball Association. We need some sense of perspective. And for us to spend this amount of money on development assistance for poor countries, and then eagerly get every buck we can get so we can sell arms, and we do not care whether they are dictators or not dictators, that just does not make sense. Without this particular amendment, frankly, we are not going to do anything. We have not turned down an arms request from another country since the early 1980's when we turned down an AWAC's request from Saudi Arabia. This amendment would start to put us in the right direction. Again, let me go to the bottom line. The No. 1 lesson we ought to learn is, do not get too cozy with dictators. And, No. 2, when you sell arms abroad to dictatorships, they may be used against you. I think those two lessons are just fundamental. I hope that we get a good vote on this amendment. I am realistic. Our friends in the defense industry obviously want to kill this amendment. But the merits are so overwhelming I hope we can pass it.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Colorado for his leadership on this. The reality is this is a step forward for stability in central Europe. Two other provisions in here I think are significant. That is, we open the door to the possibility at some future time for Armenia and some of the other Newly Independent States there. The second thing; in Russia and in Belarus and in a few of the countries, there is a fear of nuclear weapons being established at their doorstep. The resolution points out that Spain and Norway, who are current members of NATO, do not have nuclear weapons and still are members of NATO. My hope is that stations of nuclear weapons which have no military significance can be avoided. I think it will diminish fears, in Russia particularly. Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, five years ago today, the National Literacy Act of 1991 became law. In each chamber, legislation in support of literacy had received strong support from both sides of the aisle. In the Senate, our original measure passed in 1990 by a vote of 99-0. Literacy legislation was passed three times by the House. No issue is more important than basic literacy. No issue is less partisan. No issue is more compelling to our nation's ability to survive and flourish. The ability to read, write and speak in English, compute and solve problems is fundamental to functioning at home, on the job and in society. Literacy is an essential ingredient to ensure that each person realizes his or her full potential as a parent, a worker and a member of the community. A United States where every adult is literate is essential if our nation is to continue to compete in the global economy and be a responsible citizen of the world. As important as literacy is for the nation, possessing basic literacy skills is also critical for the individual. The ability to read, do basic computations and think critically opens the door to endless possibilities and unleashes human potential. The lack of basic educational skills robs people of the opportunity to realize personal happiness and economic security. According to the National Institute for Literacy, which was established by the National Literacy Act, about half of the American workforce has reading and writing problems. This limits an individual's earnings and American productivity. Secretary of Education Richard Riley said it well: ``Illiteracy is the ball and chain that ties people to poverty.'' The images of illiteracy are powerful, the consequences are severe. How dangerous it is when someone cannot read instructions on a medicine bottle or a household appliance. How threatening it is when you cannot understand legal rights and responsibilities. How intimidating it must be when computing, measuring or estimating is a mystery. How sad it is when a child's bedtime story must remain unread because a parent cannot decipher the symbols on the page. We have the power to change these disturbing situations. Literacy could be a part of the solution to many of our social problems. It was in recognition of the significance and importance of literate citizenry, that the National Literacy Act became law. This legislation was designed to assist state and local programs to provide literacy skills to adult. It was the first national step toward reaching the goal that all Americans obtain the fundamental skills necessary to function effectively in their work and daily lives, and to strengthen and coordinate adult literacy programs across the nation. The National Institute for Literacy (NIL) has already had many achievements including the establishment of the National Literacy Hotline and the National Adult Literacy and Learning Disabilities Center. The National Institute for Literacy manages the Literacy AmeriCorps program which has assisted families to improve their basic education skills. NIL has funded innovative state and local activities nationwide. The Institute also produces and disseminates timely information on adult education and family literacy practices. Across the country, State Literacy Resource Centers (SLRC), authorized by the Act, meet a great need by fostering collaboration among literacy agencies and increasing local capacity to deliver literacy services. SLRCs have created linkages within the literacy community, but these linkages are threatened because of a lock of federal funds. As our world becomes more complex, the need for literacy becomes greater and the skills needed continue to expand. Thanks to the National Literacy Act, our understanding of the magnitude of illiteracy has increased, and it is clear that sadly, there is still more to be done. An immense need still exists. The most recent statistics available indicate that 80 percent of adults cannot synthesize information from complex material. More than 53 million Americans are unable to locate a single piece of information in a short text. More than 56 million Americans cannot do simple arithmetic. Millions of Americans are unable to locate, understand or use information from written materials; millions of Americans lack quantitative skills. That means they cannot complete a job application, or use a bus schedule, or complete a bank deposit slip. Action is needed now if we are to achieve the national education goal: that by the year 2000, every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. I urge my colleagues to support literacy programs through the appropriations process and through efforts to promote the achievement of literacy in their communities. Advancing literacy initiatives is a crucial investment in our future.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the Senate recently approved a Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1997 that includes an indefensible allotment of tax dollars to a slightly camouflaged version of the earlier Civilian Marksmanship Program. I have written on this subject in a column that is sent to newspapers in Illinois, and I ask that it be reprinted here to call the attention of my colleagues to this questionable line item. The column follows: An Incomprehensible, Irresponsible, Baffling Boondoggle For the NRA (By Senator Paul Simon) Buried in the annual Defense Department authorization bill is an outrageous gift of $77 million that will benefit something called the Corporation for the Promotion Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety. This corporation is the new ``private'' incarnation of the old National Rifle Association-backed Civilian Marksmanship Program. This program was intended to make sure people could shoot straight in case they entered the military. In recent years, however, it has simply funneled cash, weapons and ammunition to private gun clubs, thanks to the power of the NRA. Until a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional in 1979, gun clubs which participated in this program were required to be NRA members. Under public pressure to eliminate this useless and wasteful program, Congress ``privatized'' the program last year. In fact, the corporation is private in name only. When the corporation becomes fully operational in October of this year it will be given by the Army: 176,218 rifles the Army views as outmoded, but valued at $53,271,002. Computers, vehicles, office equipment and other related items valued by the Army at $8,800,000. 146 million rounds of ammunition valued by the Army at $9,682,656. $5,332,000 in cash. That totals $77,085,658. Our friends in the National Rifle Association strongly back this measure and it appears to be a boondoggle for them. What the Army should do with outmoded weapons is to destroy them. Our government has a theoretical policy that it does not sell federally owned weapons to the public. The Civilian Marksmanship Program violates this policy, and the new corporation would continue to violate it. Why we should be subsidizing rifle practice--which is the theory behind this--baffles me. Hardly any of those who will use the weapons will enter into the armed forces. The Defense Department did not request this. I had never fired a rifle or handgun before entering the Army, and with minimal training I became a fair-to-good marksman. Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and I tried to eliminate this incomprehensible expenditure from the bill and we got only 29 votes for our amendment. The NRA still has power. We should be reducing the numbers of weapons in our society, not increasing them. A government policy of destroying weapons and not selling outmoded guns to the public is sound. While rifles are not the primary weapons for crime--pistols are--some of those 176,000 weapons will get into the hands of people who should not have them. If 1 percent reach someone who is irresponsible, that is 1,760 weapons. Let me in advance extend my sympathy to the families of the people who will be killed by these weapons. The will be needless victims of this folly.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the Special Committee To Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation And Related Matters recently transmitted its final report. I have written about this costly, partisan game in a column that is sent to newspapers in Illinois, and I submit it here to call the attention of my colleagues to this political exercise that contributed nothing. The column follows: Whitewater Investigation Was a Costly Partisan Game (By Senator Paul Simon) The Senate Whitewater investigation resulted in a political exercise that contributed nothing, except to add to public cynicism and confirming the already widespread belief that in Congress we are playing partisan games rather than tending to the nation's and the public's real needs. Obviously some people broke the law in the Whitewater events, but the evidence indicated neither a violation of the law nor of ethical standards by Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton while he served either as President or as Governor of Arkansas. But the misuse of the FBI files is another matter. Both the White House and the FBI are at fault. The President probably is not personally involved, but it happened in his White House and administration and it should not be treated as a minor mess-up by the President or his staff. The misuse of police powers by governments is as old as governments themselves, and something that must be constantly guarded against. The abuse of the FBI files comes at a time when there are two other abuses. One is the Senate investigation which spent almost $2 million, received testimony from 139 witnesses, and took more time than any investigation of a sitting President in our history--longer than the Watergate or Iran-Contra hearings. ``Where there is smoke there must be fire'' is an old saying, but those hearing were designed to create smoke. Not only is there a product of questionable worth, we took testimony from many individuals who never in their lives thought they would testify before a Senate Committee, such as secretaries. Some were terrified by the combination of coming before a committee and being on national television. A second abuse is the multiplying like rabbits of special counsels--really special prosecutors--with no limits on their expenses and their ability to use huge resources from the FBI and other agencies. I voted for the law creating the special counsel, but now I sense we need a better answer. Since the FBI and the work of U.S. attorneys fall under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General, my sense is that we should review the possibility of a change in how we structure that office. It differs from other cabinet posts in its broad police and prosecutorial responsibilities, and the recent FBI debacle and the runaway habits of the special prosecutors, might provide an incentive to the next Congress and President to look at this question. For example, we might have an Attorney General appointed for a 10-year term, with a small bipartisan group giving the President a list of five names to choose from, and also giving him the ability to request a new list of names if he found them unsatisfactory, but still requiring confirmation by the Senate. And then have no special prosecutors. This is not a criticism of Janet Reno, who is a much-above- average Attorney General. Another example of a good appointment is President Gerald Ford's naming of Ed Levi, then president of the University of Chicago. No one felt that at any time Gerald Ford could get Ed Levi to do anything but what he believed was in the best interests of the nation. That is the way it should be. My hope is that out of the present mini-storms something constructive can happen.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the United States unfortunately has openly opposed a second term for United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. I have written about this hard-working, effective leader in a column that is sent to newspapers in Illinois, and I submit it here to call to the attention of my colleagues this policy that has not made us any friends. The column follows: A Misstep by the United States (By Senator Paul Simon) Suppose a local Rotary Club had the community's most wealthy and powerful citizen, Sam Smith, as a member. Imagine that the Rotarians had a dues system that reflected the ability to pay, so that wealthy Sam Smith paid more in dues than any other Rotarian. To complicate the story, Sam Smith is far back in the payment of his dues, so far back that the money he owes amounts to almost the total budget of the club for a year. The president of the Rotary Club is up for reelection, and most of the members want him reelected, but Mr. Big, Sam Smith, says no. How popular do you think Sam Smith would be with the other Rotarians? Would his influence rise or fall? And what will the other Rotarians do in their election of a president? The story is true. Only the ``club'' is called the United Nations.The wealthy deadbeat member is called Sam, Uncle Sam. Most of the UN members believe that Secretary General Boutros-Ghali is doing a good job, despite being hampered by approximately $1.4 billion that the United States owes but has not paid. But the United States has made clear that we want to veto his reelection as Secretary-General. The other nations, already too often unimpressed by our uncertain leadership in foreign policy, are not pleased with what we are doing, believing it is dictated by domestic political considerations. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter designated me as one of the delegates to a two-month session of the Untied Nations, and I have followed the UN and its work with more than casual interest. My impression is that overall the United Nations performs a vital service and a good job, not perfect, and that Boutros- Ghali has been a hard-working, effective leader--hampered in part by the United States talking to a great game, but not paying our dues. Egypt is the home of the Secretary-General, and as an Egyptian he is also an African. Africa sometimes is called ``the dark continent.'' It is more accurately described as the ignored continent. One little-known fact is the gradual spread of democracy in Africa, some of them fledgling democracies that deserve more encouragement from the United States and other nations. African countries take pride in having Boutros-Ghali as the Secretary-General. Our opposition to him is coupled with other realities that they see: President Clinton has never visited Africa. Secretary of State Warren Christopher has not visited any sub-Saharan country since he has been Secretary, compared to 24 visits to Syria. Our inattention, coupled with our unfortunate open opposition to the reelection of the Secretary-General, has not made us any friends.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, first, I want to commend Senator Kennedy for all his work with the Food and Drug Administration. He has been a bulldog in fighting to protect the public interest. I stopped at the little store over in the Dirksen Building on the way over here. In the Dirksen Building, I saw pretzels, and I looked on the back of the pretzels and I saw how much sodium and everything else was there. A bag of pretzels gives us that information. When you pick up a candy bar, you have the information. But unless there is an agreement-- and I understand some negotiations are taking place, and we may have an agreement here shortly, and I hope we do--what is going to happen is we are going to continue to not give people information on prescriptions. Some companies do it voluntarily, but a great many do not. What the FDA has worked out is that, by the year 2000, 75 percent of prescriptions will have to provide that information. Frankly, I think the FDA, instead of being undermined, as this bill would do, ought to be criticized for not moving further than 75 percent. I cannot believe we would accept that 75 percent of pretzel bags is adequate. We insist that 100 percent of pretzels or dog food or breakfast food have this information. Why shouldn't people who buy prescriptions have this information? It just boggles the mind. When you take a look at the reactions that come, which Senator Kennedy was talking about, to people--and I can remember one of our colleagues just yesterday in the Democratic Caucus talking about a reaction that he got to drugs that were prescribed to him. Fortunately, he had information there, and he found out by reading the information that it was a reaction to the drug. By all means, we ought to protect the American public. What the Kennedy amendment does, and what the FDA is proposing, is that 75 percent of prescriptions should be covered by the year 2000, which is 4 years from now, and that 95 percent be covered by the year 2006, which is 10 years from now. If there is something wrong with this, it is that we are not covering everybody by the year 2000, all prescriptions, and, much less, by the year 2006, 10 years from now, still having 1 out of 20 prescriptions not covered. I have to ask the question, Mr. President: Why do we have this here? Why would a pharmaceutical company want to prevent the American public from having this information? I assume it is that they may want to make a few more dollars and not have a liability here. I don't know. But, frankly, it seems to me that it protects them from the liability to have that information provided. What we do not need is an FDA gag order. That is what this bill is without an amendment. I am hopeful, from a report I just received from a staff member, that some kind of a compromise is being worked out. I do not know. But to say that the industry can set its own standards, I do not know how many prescriptions there are out here for various medicines. Let us say there are a thousand different kinds of things that could be out there. According to this bill right now, if each year they add one more where they would give the information, then it would take 1,000 years in order to meet that industry standard. And that would comply with this bill as it now is. Mr. President, clearly we have to protect the public. This bill without an amendment does just the opposite. It protects pharmaceutical companies and not the public. Our aim ought to be to protect the public. I want good pharmaceutical companies. I want companies that invest in research and do other things. But we cannot do that and jeopardize the public. We can both protect the public and encourage a healthy pharmaceutical industry.

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

Mr. SIMON. The Senator from Massachusetts knows that we were all surprised--most of us were surprised--that it emerged here. We had been working, as he indicated, in a bipartisan way in our committee to try to deal with some of these problems, and they are very complex. But to say I was surprised is factual. I have to say I am also puzzled. Why does this happen to hit on an agriculture appropriations bill? To my knowledge no one on that agriculture appropriations bill has been called in any of these negotiations. Does the senior Senator from Massachusetts have any idea how it happened to come on this agriculture bill?

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I simply want to again commend my colleague from Massachusetts for his leadership in this whole area, not just on this amendment but he has made a huge contribution in protecting the American public as we look at the FDA. Mr. President, if no one else seeks the floor, I question the presence of a quorum.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment. It is a purely technical modification.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I believe this may be adopted by voice vote. It is cosponsored by Senators Murray, Specter, Jeffords, and Bob Kerrey. The bill without this amendment says States can get credit above the age of 50 only for vocational education. The reality is for many people learning how to read and write, getting that high school equivalency is at least equally important. This permits that possibility. I know of no objection to the amendment. I hope it can be adopted by voice vote.

Mr. SIMON. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of my colleagues.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this amendment simply adds the Public Health Service Act in terms of the exemption, so not only people who plan to become lawyers and engineers, but people who become nurses and physicians can be exempt. It is acceptable, as far as I know, by everyone. I am willing to take a voice vote.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I think we have to look at this very carefully. It provides that States can contract for welfare delivery with charitable, religious, or private organizations. I have no objection to charitable or private organizations, but we have been very careful in this church-and-state area. My father happened to be a Lutheran minister. I believe in the effectiveness of religion not only in our personal lives, but in giving stability to our Nation. We have been careful. For example, we permit religious schools to have some school lunch money. We permit some title I funds. We permit, under certain circumstances, assistance for disabled people that can be provided to religious organizations. But, under this, what we do is we not only say that religious organizations do not need to alter their form of internal governance--I have no objection to that--or remove icons, Scripture, or other symbols--I personally have no objection to that, though I know some who do--we permit churches and religious organizations to propagate people before they can get assistance. I think that clearly crosses the line in church/state relations. I think a hungry person should not have to be subjected to a religious lecture from a Lutheran, a Catholic, a Jew, or a Muslim before they get assistance. What if someone objects? If someone objects----

Mr. SIMON. I will close by saying, within a reasonable period, you appeal to the State, and the State eventually makes a decision. I think we should not waive this.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the New York Times recently had an editorial titled Ducking on Affirmative Action. The subject is the refusal of the Supreme Court to consider a decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that would have devastating consequences for our society. No one should underestimate the shortsightedness and the harm that can come from leaving the Hopwood decision of the fifth circuit stand. Mr. President, I ask that this article from the New York Times be printed in the Record. The article follows: Ducking on Affirmative Action In a hurtful blow to affirmative action in higher education, the Supreme Court said on Monday that it would not hear an appeal by the state of Texas from a lower court ruling that barred public universities from using race as a factor in selecting students. With this sidestepping, the Court left officials in at least three Southern states who are working to open educational opportunities for minorities in an untenable state of uncertainty. It also sowed confusion nationwide--hardly an uplifting way for the Court to finish its term and head into recess. The Court should instead have seized the opportunity to reject the lower court's flawed pronouncement and reaffirmed its historic commitment to carefully designed affirmative action. The high court seemed insensitive to the long history of racism at the University of Texas Law School, whose affirmative action program was challenged by rejected white applicants, giving rise to the case. As late as 1971, the law school admitted no black students. The Court also ignored the Clinton Justice Department, which filed a brief warning that the ``practical effect'' of the lower court's holding ``will be to return the most prestigious institutions within state university systems to their former `white' status.'' The refusal to hear the case left standing a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that caused justifiable consternation in the academic world three months ago. An appellate panel invalidated a special admissions program at the Texas law school aimed at increasing the number of black and Mexican-American students. In doing so, the panel took the gratuitous, additional step of declaring the Supreme Court's landmark 1978 affirmative action decision in the so-called Bakke case no longer good law. That case, involving a suit by a rejected white applicant who sought entry to a California state medical school, resulted in a ruling that barred the use of quotas in affirmative action plans but permitted universities to use race as a factor in choosing among applicants to serve the ``compelling interest'' of creating a diverse student body. If Bakke is no longer good law, it is for the Supreme Court to declare. But instead of grabbing the case to reassert Bakke's sound principle, the justices found a way out in the odd posture of the case. In an unusual one-paragraph opinion that was also signed by Justice David Souter, Justice Ruth Blader Ginsburg said that the Court was denying review because the case did not actually present a live controversy. The kind of two-track admissions system that inspired the legal challenge is no longer used or defended by Texas, she explained. Like most other colleges and universities, the University of Texas Law School now uses a single applicant pool, in which race is one factor to be considered among others in choosing among the qualified. Justice Ginsburg's message, a welcome one, was that the Court's refusal to hear the case should not be read as an endorsement of the Fifth Circuit's analysis. But, in fact, there was a remaining live controversy before the Court in the Fifth Circuit's direction to a state's leading law school to complete-direction to a state's leading law school to completely excluded race as a factor in future admissions. The shame is the Court declined to address it. Instead, the Court left behind a mess. Its refusal to hear the case has put educational institutions in the three states that make up the Fifth Circuit--Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi--in a terrible spot. They could face punitive damages if they fail to change their practices to conform to an ill-considered ruling that may ultimately be judged an incorrect statement of the law. Nervous educators elsewhere in the nation can find some comfort at least in Justice Ginsburg's benign explanation. Eventually, this equal rights battle will find its way back to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, it is premature to give up on affirmative action programs still needed to blot out historic racial bias and promote educational diversity.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. If I may have 3 minutes, Mr. President.

Mr. SIMON. It was mentioned that other countries buy a great deal from us. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record right now the requirements of Australia, Canada, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, all of which are more severe than the requirements that I suggest in this amendment.

Mr. SIMON. Again, what I am suggesting in this amendment is that when a contractor submits a bid, that contractor has to say what percentage of the work will be done in the United States and it be a matter of high importance, not the only consideration, but a matter of high importance for the Defense Department. We do not suggest and we make clear that it would be waived for countries where we have agreements or memoranda of understanding. So I think it makes sense. I hope that the motion to table will be rejected.

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

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this is an amendment that tries to make our present Buy American Act effective on defense contracts. What it says is that when a defense contractor submits a bill, the defense contractor should indicate what percentage of that contract is going to be manufactured here in the United States, and then that should be a high factor in the determination by the Defense Department in consideration for that contract. And we also make clear that this is not to violate any agreement, any treaty we have with any other country and any memorandum of understanding we have with any other country. The reality is that the Buy American Act just has not worked. I had the experience of being on an American base and seeing a truck made in another country, a U.S. military truck there, and I thought, you know, we really ought to be buying trucks made in the United States of America. That is just one small illustration. I ask, Mr. President, unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from the Maritime Trades Department, from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, from the International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers, from the AFL-CIO, and a letter from the Timken Co.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Specter, and Senator Harkin.

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