Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, today I have the distinct honor of recognizing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] for 50 years of activities dedicated to protecting the public health of the people of the United States. What began on July 1, 1946, as the Communicable Disease Center has expanded its purview to include a wide range of efforts in research and prevention of disease, disability, and injury. In service to humankind, our Nation and the world, CDC employees have distinguished the agency and themselves through their efforts in the laboratory, the office and the field at the Atlanta headquarters, several sites nationwide and locations spotting the globe. In 1996, the activities of the CDC reflect the wide range of issues and activities necessary to promote the public health. The CDC is still a center of activity to combat infectious disease, but today, it is much more. The CDC's Epidemic Intelligence Service, established in 1951, continues to train doctors to solve the most complex medical mysteries and as the original focus of the CDC has expanded, new divisions devoted to occupational safety and health, chronic disease prevention and health promotion, injury prevention, health statistics, and environmental health have been established. The components of the CDC also reflect the diversity of society; currently there are offices dedicated to women's and minority health. As we know, threats to the public health recognize no national boundaries. So today, the CDC also plays an important role in worldwide efforts to promote health, overcome global health threats, eradicate disease, and prevent illness, disability, and premature death. There is a small number of CDC staff members working around the world. During its first half century, the CDC has responded to health emergencies in such diverse locales as Love Canal, Philadelphia, New Mexico, Washington State, Southeast Asia, India, and Zaire. CDC activities have paralleled the revolutionary advances in medical sciences made during the second half of the 20th century. Throughout the first 50 years of the CDC, we can point to events which represent significant milestones in the mission to promote a healthy nation. The litany of achievements is too long to list here, but includes a primary role in the eradication of smallpox; the identification of the linkage between smoking and cancer; the publication of public health statistics; the immunization of children; the tracking of health trends; and the surveillance and investigation of threats to health including polio, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, Legionnaires' disease, Ebola, and exposure to hazardous substances. Promoting health is more than merely controlling the spread of microorganisms. Promoting health involves research and education. As early as 1947, the CDC established programs to communicate information to the public concerning specific health problems or illnesses. Through the years, there have been many topics covered including rabies, measles, gonorrhea, diabetes, nutrition for women of child-bearing age, breast cancer, and HIV/AIDS. Promoting health also demands that we focus on changing behavior which is clearly unsafe or potentially dangerous. To that end, the CDC has launched efforts concerning tobacco use and violence in our society. During its 50 year history, the CDC has been in the forefront of efforts to combat more recent threats to health such as HIV/AIDS, as well as afflictions which have menaced us in the longer term, like cardiovascular disease. The CDC is also looking ahead by targeting more prevention efforts to youth; enhancing the capabilities of communities to detect, monitor, and overcome health problems; and developing partnerships which will enhance efforts to change unhealthy behavior. The CDC enters its sixth decade focused on priorities designed to detect, meet, and overcome threats to the health of the people of our Nation and the world. Today, the CDC provides leadership and direction in the prevention and control of diseases and other health conditions. I commend the CDC for its past efforts and I am confident that as new menaces to the public health emerge and new priorities evolve, the CDC will remain vigilant, proactive, and poised to take action to protect the people of our Nation and the world.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment of my colleague from New Jersey, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation. The policy of the Federal Government up to this point has been not to sell weapons to the public. Now that policy is going to be reversed. If we were just taking $76 million and sending it down the drain, that would be bad enough. But, frankly, I would vote for sending it down the drain rather than doing what we are doing; 176,218 rifles are going to be handed over by the Federal Government. To whom? I do not know. But if anyone in here believes, of those 176,000 there are not going to be some people who are going to abuse those rifles, you are living in a dream world. I just had a conversation this morning with my colleague, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, who has been trying to get money for school construction. The GAO says we are $15 billion in arrears on elementary and secondary school construction. She has been unable, at this point, to get one penny of Federal Government money for school construction. We say we do not have money for school construction. But here we have $76 million we are going to give away as a boondoggle to the National Rifle Association and the gun clubs. If we have 176,000 surplus rifles, we ought to destroy them. One of the reasons we have made progress in this country, in terms of murders in this country, is that a few years ago this Congress adopted a change so that you have to go through photos and fingerprints and some other things in order to become a gun dealer. We had a situation where we had more gun dealers than service stations in this country. And three-fourths of the gun dealers were not stores as we know them. They were in the kitchens of homes, they were in the basements, they were in trunks of cars. We had all kinds of illegal activity going on, and the ATF did not have the resources to handle it. Now, if the Lautenberg amendment is not adopted, do you know who is going to be the No. 1 gun dealer in the United States of America, with no control on where those guns go? The No. 1 gun dealer in the country, if the Lautenberg amendment is not adopted, is Uncle Sam. How many people are going to be killed because of what we are doing with this sending out to the public 176,000 weapons? I do not know. Illinois is 5 percent of the Nation's population. That means we are probably going to get 8,500 additional weapons. The State of Illinois has a lot of needs. We do not have any need for 8,500 more weapons scattered around the State of Illinois, given out by the National Rifle Association, or sold by them. I heard my friend from New Jersey use the word ``boondoggle.'' That is exactly what this is. Why, with the Federal Government short of funds, we should have a subsidy to the National Rifle Association and these gun clubs is beyond me. We are going to give them $8,800,000 worth of property and $4,400,000 in cash--let somebody stand up and defend that--and 176,000 rifles. I do not know what they are. When I was in the Army, M-1's were the rifle. I assume we have moved beyond that stage. I see Senator Glenn, who is an expert on the Armed Services Committee. But this kind of nonsense, $9.5 million worth of ammunition we are going to hand out. I have seen ridiculous things pass this U.S. Senate. I have never seen anything as ridiculous as this move ahead. We ought to be doing something about it. It is interesting, who are the people who are going to take advantage of this? In the State of Michigan, the Michigan Militia took advantage of even the marksmanship program we have had at the National Guard base at Camp Grayling. These are the counterparts to the Freemen out in the West. But this kind of a giveaway? You can argue for all kinds of subsidies in this country, but this is a subsidy that no one can defend with any logic. I see my friend from North Dakota just walked onto the floor. He has been in the Budget Committee and has been a bulldog in trying to see our money is spent wisely. Here we have the Federal Government giving away $76 million to the National Rifle Association, giving away 176,000 rifles. We are going to be the No. 1 gun dealer in the Nation with this sale, and instead of destroying these weapons, we are going to be handing them out to people with no control on who gets them. It is terrible policy, and the Lautenberg amendment ought to be adopted by voice vote. It should be unanimous, but I recognize the power that our friends in the National Rifle Association have. They have used the democratic process very effectively. But the U.S. Senate should stand up to them. I say to staff members who may be watching this on television, I do not care what your party affiliation, what your background, look at this carefully. This is bad news for the country if the Lautenberg amendment is not adopted. I thank my colleague for his courage and vision in offering it. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation that I hope will pass this body, I hope, overwhelmingly, but I know the power that our friends in the National Rifle Association have. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I join in questioning this amendment. I say to my colleague from Georgia, for whom I have great respect--I notice the Senate staffers were asked by Washingtonian magazine which Senator retiring would be missed the most, and the person who came out first in that contest was Sam Nunn. I agree with that assessment. I was home grabbing a bite to eat. We just live about 10 minutes from here, and I heard Senator Nunn speak and Senator McCain. I hope the Senator from Colorado will forgive me, but as soon as he got up to speak, I got in my car to come down here and heard the end of Senator Lieberman's comments. The point that Senator McCain made that this is ill-timed, I think, is appropriate, and I hope my colleague from Georgia will think about deferring this amendment until we get to the foreign ops bill after the election. This is an emotional issue in Russia. You can argue that it should not be an emotional issue, but the people in Russia were told year after year after year by the propaganda machine that NATO represents a military threat, and even though the Soviet dictatorial apparatus is gone, that fear of NATO is there. It is an emotional issue in Russia. For those who say, ``Well, emotions shouldn't govern decisions on foreign relations,'' take a look at--and I know many of my colleagues will disagree with me on this--take a look at what the United States is doing vis-a-vis Cuba. Our policy in Cuba is clearly a reaction to national passion rather than national interest. We could not have devised a policy ultimately that is more favorable to Castro than the policy that we designed. So in Russia, you have an emotional reaction to NATO. The amendment that is before us is tilted. There is just no question about it. I have enough confidence in the Senator from Georgia that if this were to be withdrawn and then some of us get together before we have the foreign ops bill and try to fashion something, I think we can do it. I will add here, I think there are ways of defusing this a little bit in Eastern Europe. The President of the Parliament of Belarus was here about 10 days ago and visited with me. One of the things he said to me was, ``I hope you don't permit NATO to be expanded. It's a very emotional issue in Belarus.'' I said, ``What if we were to say that nuclear weapons could not be based in any of the additional countries that come into NATO?" He said, ``That would be a very different thing. That would make it much more acceptable.'' Frankly, because nuclear weapons can reach anyplace in a matter of minutes today, militarily it is not necessary. I think some compromises can be worked out. Let me just add, for anyone from the Russian Embassy who is interested who may be listening, I think this is in the best long-term interest of Russia. Yes, I am concerned about Poland and the Czech Republic and Hungary and the other Central European governments. I had the privilege, some of you may recall, of being the chief sponsor of the bill to provide aid for Poland in 1989, right after the change there. It has been dramatic. I have been in touch with the situation in Poland for some time. They have fears. Whether they are legitimate or not, that is a matter of judgment, but they have fears of their neighbor to the east. Ultimately, the great threat that Russia faces militarily is from China, not from the West. I hope when we have a more stable democracy in Russia--and Russia is moving in that direction, clearly--I hope Russia can become a member of NATO. But I think to adopt this amendment right now is not in our interest. Frankly, I do not think even having a vote on this amendment right now is in our interest. I think--and I again have a huge respect for my colleague from Georgia, who is one of the giants of this body--but I think it would be much better to consider this after the Russian election, the runoff election, which is not that many days off. But if we have to vote, I will vote for a substitute or vote against this amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Madam President, the Department of Defense currently conducts desalting research at the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive RD&E Center in Warren, MI. I have introduced an amendment to authorize additional funding for this research. Desalting technology is critical to our military. Naval troops, of course, depend on desalting facilities to produce fresh water on ships. In addition, ground troops have relied on desalting technologies to guarantee the availability of potable water in the Middle East and around the world. Adequate, efficient, and cheap access to high-duality fresh water will be vital to maintaining the readiness and sustainability of those troops, and those of our allies. My amendment is very simple. It expresses the sense of the Senate that improved access to fresh water will be an important factor in helping prevent future conflicts in the Middle East, and that the United States and its allies should promote and invest in technologies to reduce the costs of desalination. In addition, my amendment stipulates that the Secretary shall place greater emphasis on making funds available for research and development in this area. Madam President, this may not seem like an issue that would be a priority for a Senator from Illinois. But it affects all of us, and it affects the future stability of the world. With the end of the cold war and the fear of nuclear annihilation significantly reduced, the next military conflict will not likely be over territory or hatred, but rather over water rights. This month, United Nations officials have expressed fear that wars over water could erupt in the next decade. And within the past few years, both King Hussein of Jordan and former Prime Minister Rabin of Israel have declared that if there is another war in the Middle East, it will not be about land, it will be about water. If we can find lower cost technologies to convert salt water to fresh water, we can really make a difference. The world population now stands at approximately 5.5 billion and it is rising. In numbers, the world's population grows each year by an amount equal to half of the current U.S. population. By the year 2050, population experts project a world with ten billion people. And yet, while population is rising, water resources are not. You do not need to be an Einstein to recognize that we are headed for problems. Madam President, let me give you some examples of the global water crises we currently face. The Aral Sea was once the fourth-largest body of fresh water in the world. Soviet experts had assured Khrushchev that he could divert water going into the Aral Sea for irrigation purposes and that runoff and other sources would eventually replenish the temporary water loss. Shipowners were told not to worry. Now, however, ships are stranded on dry land, literally 50 miles from the new shores of the shrunken Aral Sea. The list of affected countries is long. Mauritania is a desperately poor country right on the ocean--and yet it can grow only 8 percent of its food because of water shortages. Spain is facing the worst drought in 100 years. Since 1992, rainfall in the south has been less than 30 percent of average. And Algeria, Morocco, Tunishia, and Ethiopia will all soon face critical problems. UNICEF has warned that 35,000 children worldwide--a majority of them on the African continent--are dying daily from hunger or disease caused by lack of water or contaminated water. Madam President, less than 1 percent of the Earth's water can be used directly for human consumption, or agricultural uses. As we have to deal with diminishing water resources, the only place we can get additional water is from the ocean. Desalination can help us address this problem. U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, responding to a letter I wrote him, said: ``I am particularly pleased to hear of your interest in water issues and the legislation you are sponsoring on research on less costly desalination methods. As you rightly point out, such concerns are uppermost in the minds of people in regions where fresh water is scarce, not least in my own part of the world. During my tenure as Secretary-General, I will do my utmost to promote international cooperation regarding this most crucial resource.'' Clearly, this is an area where we can work together to affect the future of humanity. I commend the managers of this bill for recognizing the importance of desalination research and I thank them for their support of my amendment.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the community of Springfield, IL, recently dedicated a new Korean War Memorial which features, inscribed in stone, this poem, written by Glen Genseal in tribute to our fallen soldiers in Korea: My Brave Young Men (by Glen Genseal) I took a walk in the park of my old home town Hardly noticing anything that was around. Just this day, I don't know why, I looked at the cannon and stone war plaque when passing by. There were name upon names written on the plaque Of brave young men who never came back. A certain guilty feeling came over me, I didn't know why, but I was soon to see. Off in the distance, I thought I heard Soldiers marching to cadence and time. I blinked my eyes, shook my head, Looked at the plaque, And here's what it said: Take a good look at my brave young men as they go marching by, I want you to hear all their widows and mothers cry. I want you to touch each salty tear, And feel each heartache, that will never disappear. Look into the lost eyes of every wife, mother, and dad, Then gently squeeze the small hand of each fatherless child That war has left so sad. Oh my friend, never forget as you walk by, The sacrifice of my brave young men who had to die. Let it be known and always ever so plain, That my brave young men did not die in vain. America will always be the home of the brave, America will always be the land of the free. Because of the life of each young man Whose name, written in blood, is upon me. God bless America and my brave young men. Mr. President, Tracy Johnson, who has done a superb job for the people of Illinois and for me in my office in Springfield, is the daughter of Glen Genseal. She is proud of her father and of his contribution to this lasting and fitting memorial to those who served and died in Korea, and I am proud of them both.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Wisconsin.

Mr. SIMON. I think the comments of my friend and esteemed colleague from Washington underscore something I have learned in 22 years here. I am a slow learner. I have not learned much, but one of the things I have learned is every reform ultimately needs a reform. That is one of the laws you can put down and it almost always is the case. I commend my colleagues from Arizona and Wisconsin, Senator McCain and Senator Feingold, for their foresight and their courage in offering this legislation. This is not an abridgement of free speech. The reality is we have restrictions. If someone in the gallery right now decides they want to make a speech here, the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Idaho, is going to say, ``No, you cannot.'' That is not unconstitutional. So we have sensible restraints in our society. The other day I saw a bumper sticker here in Washington that tells something of the public mood. It was a little bumper sticker that says, ``Invest in America. Buy a Congressman.'' Kind of a sad commentary on where some people think we are. I do not believe you can buy a Congressman, but I think we have a system that warps the results of this body. I thought Senator Wellstone's speech was outstanding. I am sorry I did not hear the others. I hope political science teachers around the country will read it and give it to their classes. Frequently people who visit here, Mr. President, are astounded at the few numbers of Senators who are on the floor. I think they would be more astounded and more outraged if they knew this fact--and I cannot prove it right now, but I am reasonably sure it is true--right now, this minute, there are more Senators raising money than are on the floor of the Senate. I believe that to be the truth. It is a usurpation of the time that we ought to be devoting to issues, to be going out raising money. It affects all of us. I have never promised anyone a thing for a campaign contribution. But if I end up at midnight in a hotel and there are 20 phone calls waiting for me, 19 of them from names I do not recognize, the 20th is someone who gave me a $1,000 campaign contribution--at midnight I am not going to make 20 phone calls. I might make one. Which one do you think I am going to make? The reality is you feel a sense of gratitude to people who are generous enough, and obviously wise enough, to contribute to your campaign. But it means that the financially articulate have inordinate access to policymakers. I can remember before I ran for reelection in 1990, just before we formed the new Congress, that two key members of my staff came to me and said, ``You ought to shift over to the Finance Committee.'' Why did they want me to shift over to the Finance Committee from Labor and Human Resources or the Judiciary Committee or the Foreign Relations Committee? So I could raise more money. That is a practical reality around here. Even beyond that reality, when people come into my office or they are on the phone and they ask me to vote for or against something and they have been generous to me, I sometimes wonder, ``Are they going away thinking I agree with them because of the contribution?'' That distorts things. This whole distortion concerns me. I can remember when I voted for NAFTA, a group of people who said they had been major contributors to me almost implied I had been bought and how could I possibly vote for NAFTA? The process just distorts everything. I spoke here about 2 hours ago on the west Capitol steps to the PTA. They are here, interested in getting more money for education. My friends, what if the PTA and the other groups like that had as much money to contribute as the defense industry? Would we have a different budget today? You bet we would have a different budget today. We would have appreciably more spent on education, which is in the national interest. This bill does not solve every problem. It does not go as far as I would like to see us go. But it certainly is a step forward. Why is this Nation the only one of the Western industrialized nations not to provide health care protection for all of our citizens? Mr. President, 41 million Americans do not have health care coverage. Those 41 million Americans are not big contributors. The insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the people who profit from the present system are the big contributors, and we are letting this system just roll on. Mr. President, 24 percent of our children are living in poverty. No other Western industrialized nation is anywhere close to that. This is not an act of God. This is not some divine intervention that says children in America have to live in poverty more than children in Italy or Denmark or France or other countries. It is a result of flawed policy. It is a result of policy that is disproportionately responsive to those who can finance campaigns. The 24 percent of our children who live in poverty, their parents are not contributing to our campaigns. That is the reality. So, we do not pay as much attention to them as we should. One of the arguments I have heard against this is the least valid of all the arguments against it, and that is if we change this, that would be unfair to nonincumbents. Let me tell you, no system is better for incumbents than the system we have right now. We occasionally have people who win who spend less. I am looking at two of them, Senator Feingold and Senator Wellstone. But they are the rare exception. I managed to do that in my first Senate campaign, too. But, generally, incumbents under the present system have a huge advantage, and incumbents tend to think whatever system got us elected has to be a pretty good system. Let me, finally, say I announced right after the last election I was not going to run for reelection. I felt it was time for me to move on and do other things. Not the major consideration, but a consideration, was that in my last election I had raised $8.4 million. I enjoy policymaking. I even, unlike a lot of my colleagues, enjoy campaigning. I enjoy going down the streets of small towns as well as Chicago and elsewhere, campaigning. I do not enjoy fundraising because I think it is distasteful, and I think many, many people understand it is distorting our system. So I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I think it moves us in a direction we ought to be going. It is a step in the right direction. For my friend from Washington, who said the present bill, the reform adopted in 1974, is not working as it should, I would not like to see the present law repealed, weak as it is. My guess is my friend from Washington would not want to see it repealed either. This is a step forward. It is a step the Nation needs.

Mr. SIMON. I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Arizona.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, back when we had the telecommunications bill up, I had an amendment that would have permitted some enlargement of ownership in radio stations, but kept a cap on. The bill we passed took the cap off completely. In this morning's newspapers, on the front page of the New York Times and Washington Post, are stories about Westinghouse buying a huge chunk of American radio. The business section of the New York Times says: ``Westinghouse would own 32 percent of top markets.'' That is not a healthy thing. I would like to read the honor roll. I say to my colleagues on the other side, I regret there are only two Republicans listed here, because we end up in partisan mode so often in this body, and I am sure this is one of those cases where others might have voted with us if that had not happened. But those who voted for limitation, and not taking the cap away are: Senator Daniel Akaka; Senator Joe Biden; Senator Jeff Bingaman; Senator Barbara Boxer; Senator Bill Bradley; Senator Dale Bumpers; Senator Robert Byrd; Senator Kent Conrad; Senator Mike DeWine; Senator Chris Dodd; Senator Byron Dorgan; Senator Russ Feingold; Senator Dianne Feinstein; Senator Tom Harkin; Senator Jesse Helms, who has some background in this business of radio; Senator Bennett Johnston; Senator Ted Kennedy; Senator John Kerry; Senator Bob Kerrey; Senator Frank Lautenberg; Senator Pat Leahy; Senator Carl Levin; Senator Joe Lieberman; Senator Barbara Mikulski; Senator Pat Moynihan; Senator Patty Murray; Senator Claiborne Pell; Senator David Pryor; Senator Harry Reid; Senator Chuck Robb; Senator Jay Rockefeller; Senator Paul Sarbanes, and Senator Paul Wellstone. Voting ``present'' was Senator Nancy Kassebaum. That was a great mistake, lifting that cap off completely. Now, we are in a situation where one corporation, or even one individual, theoretically, could control radio in this country. I think it is not a healthy thing. I do not know what happens, but I hope that in the next session of Congress--and I recognize it will not happen in this session--there will be some kind of a cap put on. I do not think it would be a healthy thing if one corporation, for example, in Alaska, or Georgia, or Washington, or Delaware, or Illinois, held all the radio stations. I think this tendency toward concentration of ownership is not a good thing for our country, and I simply want to commend my colleagues--particularly, Senators Mike DeWine and Jesse Helms, who went away from the party lines to vote for that amendment. I commend them, particularly. I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding the time.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may address the Senate for 5 minutes.

Mr. SIMON. To address the Senate for 5 minutes.

Mr. SIMON. I do not agree with Alan Greenspan on everything, but I think he has served this Nation well. I think it would be a great mistake to turn down his nomination. Where I differ with him is when we talk about full employment. The Fed tends to believe that, in and of itself, is inflationary. The reality, I think, is if you have people working and being productive, that can be deflationary, rather than inflationary. But our principal problem--there are really two problems. The Federal Reserve has nothing to do with either of these problems. Indirectly, in terms of interest, when the interest rates are down, that does help, but the problem is fiscal policy. We get our deficits down and interest rates will come down. The Wharton econometric model says if we balance the budget, we are going to have a 3\1/2\ percent lower crime rate in this country. Otto Eckstein's old group, I forget the name, says 2\1/2\ percent. Everybody says interest rates will be lower if we get the deficit down. We have a very practical illustration. Mr. President, 30-year T bonds, January 15, 1993, 7.43 percent, and rumors are starting about a Clinton budget; February 12, after the proposal for reduction of the budget is known, interest rates go down to 7.18 percent; February 17, he announced his plan--something is wrong with the dates I have here; it must be February 7--down to 7.07 percent; July 16, it hit 6.58 percent; August 6, Congress passes the legislation, and interest rates are down to 5.9 percent, a 1\1/2\ percent drop because of a change in fiscal policy. Let me just add, it is debt, not only the Federal Government but corporate debt and individual debt, too. We are just not a saving people. The phrase ``no downpayment'' is almost uniquely an American phrase that we do not find used in other countries. Corporate debt, our taxes, are structured in such a way that we encourage corporate debt. I have a bill I hope someday will pass that says corporations can deduct 80 percent on interest but 50 percent on dividends, so you encourage equity financing rather than debt financing. It is a wash in terms of the Federal Treasury. There are ways we can reduce the fiscal problems. The second problem is one I do not hear talked about here, but one that the Federal Reserve has to be keenly aware of. That is, we have indexed a great many things. Indexation is in and of itself inflationary. Most nations have not indexed like we have, Social Security being the prime example. So if you have any kind of inflation, indexation feeds the inflation. When, in fact, we have inflation, we ought to be cutting back on expenditures, we will be making more expenditures. I do not care whether it is Alan Greenspan, Lester Thurow, Alice Rivlin, whoever it is, if we do not deal with indexation and fiscal policy, we are not going to have low interest rates that we ought to have. Finally, Mr. President, I cannot think of anything that would be more disconcerting to the financial markets and cause interest rates to go up more than if we were to reject Alan Greenspan. I think it is important that we confirm the President's appointment. I think it is the right appointment. I think Alan Greenspan has served this Nation well. My vote will be a resounding yes to confirm him.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, a press conference was held yesterday, which included, among other persons, Congressman Tony Hall; the head of AID, Brian Atwood; and Julia Taft, the head of Interaction. Also present were Rudy von Bernuth, executive director of the Council of Voluntary Agencies, and David Beckman, president of Bread for the World. The press conference called attention to the abysmal record of the United States compared to other nations in our response to world hunger. For example, France, with only 60 million people, compared to our 250 million people, has provided more foreign economic assistance than the United States. And we have a gross national product--national income--that is 5\1/2\ times that of France. Japan, Germany, and France are all ahead of us in absolute dollars given, when once we were by far the leading country. Not only that, but in terms of the percentage of our national income, we are behind every Western European country, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. Denmark provides almost 1 percent compared to our one-tenth of 1 percent. Ahead of us are Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, France, Canada, Belgium, Luxembourg, Australia, Switzerland, Austria, Finland, Germany, United Kingdom, Japan, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, New Zealand, and Italy. I ask to have printed in the Record the transcript of the news conference and the article in the Washington Post by Thomas Lippman. The material follows: U.S. Loses Rank in Global Giving (By Thomas W. Lippman) The United States, once the world leader in aid to developing nations, has dropped to fourth in the amount of money it spends on such aid and is a distant last among donor nations in the percentage of economic output devoted to foreign aid, according to new figures released yesterday. Japan, France and Germany contributed more money to Third World development last year than the United States did. America fell to fourth place from second, behind Japan, in 1994. The United States also was last among the 21 nations in the Development Assistance Committee of the Paris-based Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development in the share of national output devoted to Third World assistance, OECD reports. Among the countries that contributed more of their gross national product were Portugal, Ireland and New Zealand, negligible economic powers by comparison with the United States, which has by far the world's biggest economy. The OECD figures were trumpeted at a news conference yesterday by Clinton administration foreign aid director J. Brian Atwood and spokesmen for nongovernmental groups supportive of foreign aid. They used the figures to argue that U.S. aid has fallen too far and that this country is abdicating its global responsibilities. ``Our foreign assistance program accounts for less than 1 percent of our national [federal government] budget, about $34 per taxpaying family,'' Atwood said. ``That's not generous. We should feel ashamed. We are failing to fulfill our responsibilities as a world power. More importantly, we are failing our own national interests and we're failing our own national values.'' Atwood's Agency for International Development has been hit especially hard by budget cuts imposed by the Republican- controlled Congress, where many members are hostile to most forms of foreign aid. This morning, Atwood said, AID will begin laying off 200 workers, including veterans with years of experience in the field and foreign language skills, because ``we do not have the budget to sustain their employment.'' Atwood and his allies--including Rep. Tony Hall (D-Ohio) and Julia Taft, president of the Interaction umbrella organization of volunteer groups--made the same argument they have been making for the past year and half: that it is penny-wise but pound foolish for Congress to beef up defense spending but cut development assistance that could make military interventions unnecessary. ``Many members of Congress, especially the newer ones, they express a deep hostility toward foreign aid,'' Hall said. ``Many elected officials lack the vision and the leadership to make it clear to their voters that the eradication of poverty is in the best interest of everyone, both rich and poor countries.'' Congress has not been moved by such arguments. Funds for development and humanitarian assistance--not including military aid--were cut from $8.4 billion in fiscal 1995 to $7 billion this year and are scheduled to decrease a bit more next year--even as the House voted earlier this month to spend $11 billion more on defense than the administration requested. Using slightly different categories, the OECD credited the United States with $7.3 billion in development aid in 1995. Japan gave $15.5 billion, France $8.44 billion and Germany $7.5 billion. The U.S. figure was one-tenth of 1 percent of GNP, lowest in the contributors' group. The highest was Denmark, at just under 1 percent of GNP. The role of U.S. assistance in the developing world was narrowed by the heavy concentration of funds going to Israel and Egypt: $2.05 billion of the $7.3 billion was earmarked for those two Middle East nations. Supporters of foreign aid complain that Americans in general, and many members of Congress, believe foreign aid is a big-ticket item in the U.S. budget that can be slashed to cut the deficit. The reality, Taft said, is that this represents ``widespread misunderstanding about how little money really goes to foreign aid.''

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the United States should become a humanitarian leader once again instead of dragging our feet. And in the long run our failure to do the generous and right thing will cost our people both in security terms and in economic terms.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the National Security Education Program has been temporarily suspended. The consequence is that an estimated 324 U.S. graduate and undergraduate student finalists are anxiously waiting to hear whether they will be able to study and conduct research in critical national security areas of the world. These students are waiting because a change in the service obligation was attached to the FY 1996 Defense Appropriations Bill to require NSEP award recipients to ``be employed by the Department of Defense or in the Intelligence Community.'' Previously, students could fulfill this requirement by working in any branch of the federal government or higher education. The current service obligation is unworkable. However, I agree that there should be a return of investment to the Department of Defense for its support of the National Security Education Program. To this end I am offering an amendment that will improve this program by better targeting the service obligation to meet national security needs and to increase program accountability. The continuation of the National Security Education Program is vital to fill the existing gap in America for linguists and country specialists in critical areas of national security. I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to a letter that I received from the Honorable Walter Mondale, Ambassador of the United States to Japan, about the importance of the National Security Education Program. As Ambassador Mondale's letter points out, we have only 1,700 American students studying in Japan, compared with 45,000 Japanese students in the U.S. The National Security Education Program has made the largest number of awards to American undergraduate and graduate students to learn the language and culture of Japan. This is only one example of over 100 countries in which NSEP recipients have studied. The continuation of this program makes sense because it is in America's long-term national security and economic interests to educate our students in foreign languages and cultures. I urge my colleagues to read Ambassador Mondale's letter and to work with me to support improvements to the NSEP and the continuation of other federal programs that support international educational and cultural exchange. I ask unanimous consent that Ambassador Mondale's letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if I may suggest to the new leadership over there, as one who is not going to be around here too long, I think we ought to accommodate families as much as possible. So in the evenings when you can stack the votes I think it is desirable to do so. I just pass that along and suggest it to the new whip. I congratulate him publicly on that. I see that Senator Craig is here. I think to the extent that you can accommodate family life here it improves the United States Senate.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, in all the discussion about the problems of gambling in the United States, most of us in those discussions use statistics. What we frequently fail to understand are the human beings involved in the addiction. Ken Adelman, the former head of The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and now a columnist who is nationally syndicated, recently had a column in the Washington Times that told about a cousin of his. It tells in simple, graphic terms why we need a commission to look at this problem. I don't know how many personal cases I have heard of since introducing the bill on the commission, but it is enough to encourage me to fight for its creation, and I hope my colleagues will have the good sense to pass the measure and create the commission. I ask that the Washington Times column be printed in the Record. The column follows: [From the Washington Times, June 13, 1996] Hidden Human Toll of Gambling (By Ken Adelman) Stopping for a fund-raiser in Las Vegas last weekend, Bill Clinton solicited big gambling bucks, as has Bob Dole. Lost in the policy debate over state-sponsored gambling--via lotteries, casinos, horse races, whatever--is the personal dimension. This hasn't been lost on our family, which has endured pain from my first cousin, Alby, becoming a compulsive gambler. At 15 years old, I should have sensed Alby's problem when our grandfather, Papa, took us on a trip abroad. The whole way Alby wanted to bet on whose room would have a higher number (Papa's or ours), whether our seats would be on the right or left side of the airplane, on anything really. He was--and presumably is, though I haven't seen him in years--an engaging and brilliant fellow. We never suspected the years of jail and a failed life gambling would bring. Between prison sentences, beginning at age 16 or so, Alby would hit the track, poker tables, and sports events. No state lotteries had yet been established, so we can't blame them for our family woes. How much state-sponsored gambling, now dubbed ``gaming,'' multiplies the number of Albys in America should be a key focus of the national commission on gambling, which Congress is now debating. ``The main ambitions I ever had were fantasies,'' Alby told me in 1975, when I spent six months researching his life. He poured his mathematical genius, personality and wit into gambling. Alby won big at times--$10,000 in one day and $7,700 in one race. But those triumphs were fleeting as all winnings went back into the game. The amounts were staggering, at least to me. Alby burned through more than $1 million before turning 30. He squandered it all, as well as two marriages and a host of natural abilities. Alby became attracted and then addicted to horse-racing while still in high school. ``When you're at the track or when you're gambling, you're in a different world,'' he mused. ``There's nothing else that matters until you walk into reality again. It's a dream world.'' Gambling became his trademark. ``When I won, I would have a lot of money in my pocket and flash it around. It was an ego trip for me.'' And a macho thing, since compulsive gambling is mostly a man's disease. Unlike alcoholism or drug addiction, only 10 percent of compulsive gamblers are women. But women become victims. One elderly landlady in New Mexico housed Alby and a buddy when they were 16. After they skipped out without paying rent, she wrote Alby's parents, ``They were both good, likable kids.'' She missed them after Alby ``left town like something from a cannon. He said he needed to return home on account of a death of a sister.'' No sister had died. Such began a life of lies. Though having now spent more than half his life behind bars, Alby never considered himself a criminal. He trashed common convicts, especially armed robbers: ``They're stupidest people in the world. They go to jail for 10 years for a hundred bucks when I can get $50,000 with a pen in hand rather than a gun.'' Like most compulsive gamblers, Alby abhors violence. None of his crimes involved guns, knives or physical assaults. They involved passing bad checks and schemes of every sort. Though non-violent, they still hurt others, especially family members. Alby's father bailed him out of jail and dangerous situations for several years before giving up. His grandfather lasted longer, but after Alby stole his prized stamp collection and World War I medals, he too gave up. The burden falls too on friends and neighbors. Rummaging through family correspondence, I came across scores of sad stories. One came from the mother of a high school buddy who ``loaned'' Alby his coin collection but never got it back.``My son is a stranger to you but he is my only child and the most important person in the world to me,'' she wrote Alby's folks. ``The coins he's been saving since he was little were his only concrete asset. They are now gone. Though sharing an addiction, compulsive gamblers differ from drug and alcohol abusers. The gambling life is one of involvement and stimuli. Drug and alcohol addicts lead a life of withdrawal and passivity. While gambling is as old as humanity itself--archaeologists have found a 4,000-year-old lamb bone used as dice-- compulsive gambling is a relatively new affliction. Upward of 10 million compulsive gamblers in America--perhaps 10 times the number of drug addicts--may be increasing in numbers now. For state and local lotteries not only furnish the opportunity, but encourage ``striking it rich'' without any effort. Alby's tragedy may become epidemic since legalized gambling has increased 2,800 percent over the past two decades. To grasp this danger, imagine the furor if state and local governments not only legalized drug sale and use but themselves sold and advertised drugs to the general public. As Congress debates establishing a national commission on the effects of gambling, everyone has focused on the commission's subpoena powers. More critical would be a focus on the human toll gambling takes, on tales of wasted lives, like Alby's.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Senator Kyl from Arizona. I knew our distinguished colleague from Arizona when he was in the House, but I did not know him well. I have come to have great respect for him as a legislator. He really is a legislator who works on bills and does the nitty-gritty work that is so important. But I believe that an amendment to authorize the resumption of nuclear testing is very ill-timed. First of all, we have had over a thousand nuclear tests in the last 50 years. We do not need additional nuclear tests. If we were trying to perfect some new nuclear weapon, then it makes sense. But that is not the policy of this Government. But more important than that, India and Pakistan are reluctant to join in a comprehensive test ban. What we need now is for all nations with nuclear power to come aboard. China, apparently, is coming aboard. But India and Pakistan we do not know yet. We should not do anything that is going to move a comprehensive test ban further away. We need it as soon as possible. It is in the interest of the United States, and it is in the interest of the world. I think this amendment, and I know the motivation is good on the part of our colleague from Arizona, but I think it is an ill-timed amendment that is not in the national interest. Mr. President, if no one else seeks the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, one of the most shortsighted policies we have anywhere is our policy toward Cuba. The reality is, we are letting a small group dictate American policy because of domestic political interests. There is not a single nation in the world that doesn't believe our policy toward Cuba is counterproductive. Our aim should be to get the Government of Cuba to ameliorate their hard stands on human rights issues, and it has had the opposite effect. Certainly, if we had followed a different course, it is hard to believe the situation could be any worse than it is right now. Recently, the New York Times had an article by Larry Rohter titled, ``Latin American Nations Rebuke U.S. for the Embargo on Cuba.'' They are right in their criticism. I ask that the New York Times article be printed in the Congressional Record. The article follows: [From the New York Times, June 6, 1996] Latin American Nations Rebuke U.S. For the Embargo on Cuba (By Larry Rohter) Panama, June 5.--In a display of near unanimity, the countries of the Organization of American States, gathered here for their annual meeting, singled out the United States, criticizing the recent extension of the economic embargo against Cuba as a probable violation of international law. The criticism came in the form of a resolution aimed at the Helms-Burton Law, which President Clinton signed into law in March. A vote on Tuesday on the measure, which had 32 co-sponsors, ended with the United States, traditionally the organization's dominant force, as the sole dissenter. Dismayed by the strong language of the resolution, the United States fired back with a harsh assessment of the behavior of some of its closest allies, including many members of the organization who have supported American intervention in the past in places such as Haiti and the Dominican Republic. In a stinging speech at the gathering, which ends on Friday, the United States delegate, Harriet C. Babbitt, condemned the resolution as an act of ``diplomatic cowardice.'' ``What is the message that will emerge from this assembly?'' she asked her fellow delegates. ``That the hemisphere will flex its muscles to defend and justify illegal expropriations, but remain silent while our brothers and sisters in a neighboring state remain subject to the caprices of a brutal dictator? Where is our sense of perspective?'' Cuba was ``excluded'' from the organization in 1962 as part of an American diplomatic effort to isolate Fidel Castro and the Communist Government he continues to lead. Since then, Cuban officials and the state-controlled press have regularly ridiculed the organization as a claque of subservient puppets manipulated by the United States. In Havana, a spokesman for the Cuban Foreign Ministry said the resolution ``was really a surprise,'' and thanked organization members for their support. The Helms-Burton legislation tightens the 35-year-old economic embargo against Cuba by allowing American citizens to sue foreign companies that ``traffic'' in property seized from Americans and denies executives of those companies the right to enter the United States. Congress overwhelmingly approved the bill after Cuban Air Force pilots shot down two small civilian aircraft owned by Cuban exile groups in February, killing four people. The resolution is directed against all laws that ``obstruct international trade and investment'' or ``the free movement of persons.'' In addition, the Inter-American Juridical Committee, an independent body that advises the organization on legal matters, was asked to ``examine the validity under international law'' of Helms-Burton and to prepare a ``judgment'' as soon as possible. Coming from a forum that has always done its best to avoid controversy, the vote could only be interpreted as a stunning defeat for the United States and a rejection of the Clinton Administration's get-tough policy toward Cuba. But at a news conference after the rebuke, Ms. Babbitt tried to put the best face on the vote and to mend some fences. ``We have in effect agreed to disagree on this issue,'' she said. ``We share the same goal, but we disagree on the methods of attaining that goal.'' Privately, members of the American delegation said they were distressed not only with the language of the resolution but also by the manner in which it was pushed through. They also complained of being given insufficient time to consult with Washington.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I know that all of my colleagues share my concern about the increasing violence committed by and against young people in our Nation. There are many factors contributing to youth crime and violence and, as legislators, it is essential that we consider them not only as a whole but also individually. One of the contributing factors is clearly the easy access to handguns by young people. According to ``Violence by Young People: Why the Deadly Nexus?'' by Prof. Alfred Blumstein of Carnegie Mellon University, the number of murders committed by juveniles involving a gun has doubled since 1985, while there has been no such shift in the number of non-gun homicides. Guns are therefore playing a disproportionate role in the juvenile murder rate. The legislation I am introducing amends the Youth Handgun Safety Act. Senator Kohl sponsored this important act, which was passed as part of the 1994 crime bill, to establish a minimum age requirement of 18 years old for the possession of a handgun. Specifically, the act makes it illegal for anyone under age 18 to possess a handgun and for anyone to knowingly transfer a handgun to a juvenile. There are exceptions for ranching or farming, and when the juvenile has written consent from a parent and is in compliance with all State and local laws. The act makes handgun possession and transferring a handgun to a juvenile a misdemeanor crime punishable by fines and up to 1 year imprisonment. Of course, Congress intends this measure to apply to handguns that have traveled in interstate commerce. Before the act became law, it was illegal for a licensed dealer to sell a handgun to anyone under age 21 and a long gun to anyone under age 18. However, there were no Federal penalties for the under-age person who bought the gun or for private transfers of a handgun. I applaud Senator Kohl for his sponsorship of this important initiative. As it now stands, however, the Youth Handgun Safety Act defines the term ``juvenile'' as a person who is less than 18 years of age. My proposal would amend the definition of ``juvenile'' in this measure to mean a person who is less than 21 years of age. Unfortunately, more and more frequently we hear stories about juvenile brawls which turn into deadly battles. Increasing the age limit for possession of a handgun to 21 is one step we can take to try to reduce this bloody cycle. Recognizing that alcohol and teenagers can be a deadly combination, Congress wisely amended the highway fund to include penalties for States that did not raise the drinking age to 21. We should follow this example when it comes to guns and teens as well. By introducing this measure I hope to encourage my colleagues to think about how we might help our teens to grow into responsible young adults. As limiting access to alcohol has certainly saved lives, so too will limiting access to handguns. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I know that all of my colleagues share my concern about the increasing violence committed by and against young people in our Nation. There are many factors contributing to youth crime and violence and, as legislators, it is essential that we consider them not only as a whole but also individually. One of the contributing factors is clearly the easy access to handguns by young people. According to ``Violence by Young People: Why the Deadly Nexus?'' by Prof. Alfred Blumstein of Carnegie Mellon University, the number of murders committed by juveniles involving a gun has doubled since 1985, while there has been no such shift in the number of non-gun homicides. Guns are therefore playing a disproportionate role in the juvenile murder rate. The legislation I am introducing amends the Youth Handgun Safety Act. Senator Kohl sponsored this important act, which was passed as part of the 1994 crime bill, to establish a minimum age requirement of 18 years old for the possession of a handgun. Specifically, the act makes it illegal for anyone under age 18 to possess a handgun and for anyone to knowingly transfer a handgun to a juvenile. There are exceptions for ranching or farming, and when the juvenile has written consent from a parent and is in compliance with all State and local laws. The act makes handgun possession and transferring a handgun to a juvenile a misdemeanor crime punishable by fines and up to 1 year imprisonment. Of course, Congress intends this measure to apply to handguns that have traveled in interstate commerce. Before the act became law, it was illegal for a licensed dealer to sell a handgun to anyone under age 21 and a long gun to anyone under age 18. However, there were no Federal penalties for the under-age person who bought the gun or for private transfers of a handgun. I applaud Senator Kohl for his sponsorship of this important initiative. As it now stands, however, the Youth Handgun Safety Act defines the term ``juvenile'' as a person who is less than 18 years of age. My proposal would amend the definition of ``juvenile'' in this measure to mean a person who is less than 21 years of age. Unfortunately, more and more frequently we hear stories about juvenile brawls which turn into deadly battles. Increasing the age limit for possession of a handgun to 21 is one step we can take to try to reduce this bloody cycle. Recognizing that alcohol and teenagers can be a deadly combination, Congress wisely amended the highway fund to include penalties for States that did not raise the drinking age to 21. We should follow this example when it comes to guns and teens as well. By introducing this measure I hope to encourage my colleagues to think about how we might help our teens to grow into responsible young adults. As limiting access to alcohol has certainly saved lives, so too will limiting access to handguns. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr President, Richard Cohen, the thoughtful columnist at the Washington Post, recently had an op-ed piece on gambling in the United States titled, ``Playing It Close to the Vest.'' It is a hard hitting, but factual presentation of the situation that we face today. One of the things that I noted, was the reference to the lottery in Maryland. He writes: Gambling has yet another dirty secret. It makes a lot of money from those who can least afford to lose it. For instance, residents of Baltimore, Maryland's poorest jurisdiction, wager $316 per capita on the State lottery; for Montgomery County, the State's richest jurisdiction, the figure is $115. Lest you think that phenomenon applies only in Maryland, look anywhere lottery tickets are sold. The problem with the lottery is only a small tip of a much bigger iceberg. I ask that the op-ed piece written by Richard Cohen be printed in the Record. The op-ed follows: [From the Washington Post, May 28, 1996] Playing It Close to the Vest (By Richard Cohen) I am thinking now of one of the ``Godfather'' movies in which the young Michael Corleone, having transplanted his family and operations to Nevada, bluntly tells a U.S. senator what to do and how to do it. That sort of thing, of course, could never happen today. Instead, the gambling industry merely makes political contributions and hosts fund-raisers. For most politicians, that's the offer they can't refuse. By way of illustration let us look at the progress of a proposal to establish a national commission to study gambling. This is not the worst idea to come out of Washington, because not much is known about gambling's real impact. Twenty years ago, only two states had some form of gambling; now only two states do not. So it seemed to Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) and Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.) that a study was in order. That, though, was easier proposed than done. The resolution passed the House, but the Senate has been a different story. There, opposition of the gambling industry has slowed things down, and the post-Dole leadership reportedly is hostile to the study. The American Gaming Association (``Gaming?'') has bought itself a trifecta of top lobbyists and has thrown oodles of money into, particularly, the Republican Party. Steve Wynn, owner of Las Vegas' Mirage casino company, now has the sort of entry into GOP circles that was once reserved for captains of industry. Little wonder. Last June, he hosted a fund-raiser for Bob Dole. The take: $478,000. In June 1994, he raised $540,000 for the GOP. Just possibly for this reason, Newt Gingrich recently proposed that the gambling commission not even have subpoena power. Just by coincidence, he made this proposal in Las Vegas. Family values at work again. The ``gaming'' industry insists that there is really nothing to study. Gambling--er, gaming--is heavily regulated and state controlled and so clean that you can see mommies with their kiddies at the slots in Vegas. But that, of course, is the problem. It would be interesting to know just how many mommies are gambling away their kids' milk money as they feed the slots or, worse, video poker machines. The poker machines, in particular, are known for their addictive charm. Gambling is a huge business. It takes in more money than the movies, baseball, football, theme parks or just about anything else you can name. About 70 million people attend professional baseball games annually, but 125 million go to casinos, where there is never a rainout, but then the sun never shines, either. Americans wagered nearly $500 billion in 1994 and lost about $40 billion of that total. Most of the losers could afford what they left on the table, but some, clearly, could not. These compulsive gamblers--maybe no more than 4 percent to 6 percent of all players--may well account for at least 25 percent of the gambling industry's profits. They are to gambling what pint buyers are to the liquor industry: a gold mine and a dirty shame. Gambling has yet another dirty secret. It makes a lot of money from those who can least afford to lose it. For instance, residents of Baltimore, Maryland's poorest jurisdiction, wager $316 per capita on the state lottery; for Montgomery County, the state's richest jurisdiction, the figure is $115. Lest you think that phenomenon applies only in Maryland, look anywhere lottery tickets are sold. Here and there in this country, in weird pockets of liberalism and in homes for the aged, some people can be found who still care about the poor. As for the rest, we mostly don't care if they spend more than they can afford or if the government, through the false hope of a lottery, imposes what amounts to a ``dream tax'' on those who can least afford it. No more government as nanny. If people want to gamble, let them gamble. But let us not fool ourselves. Some of them will gamble the rent money, and some will become addicted to games like Keno and after a while, maybe the money that states collect from gambling in going out in social services. It's one thing for the mob to bleed the poor; it's quite another thing for the state to do the same thing. Whatever the case, little is known about gambling's impact, and, it seems, the gambling industry likes it that way. It pretends that what was once an industry dominated by the mob is now the equivalent of a state fair. Not quite. Politicians still are on the take, and the poor are still being victimized. Little wonder the gaming industry is so reluctant to have the feds take a look. It sells fantasy, but often delivers misery.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, one of the most impressive political leaders in our world today is the courageous Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma, who has quietly, consistently but firmly, stood for democracy for Burma, now called Myanmar by its present leaders, but still called Burma by Aung San Suu Kyi. The military government there which still does not permit free assembly or a multiparty system, or other things that democracies take for granted, to its credit, has released Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest. Recently, the Los Angeles Times published an interview with her by Scott Kraft, which said something about her courage and her country. I particularly like his question ``How does it feel to be a free citizen?'' She replied: I'm a free citizen but the country is not free. So I feel like a free citizen in an unfree country. I appreciate the opportunity to be in touch with the people. That is what our work is all about. You know, I always felt free. I felt free when I was under house arrest because it was my choice. I chose to do what I'm doing and because of that, I found peace within myself. And I suppose that is what freedom is all about. I ask that the Los Angeles Times article be printed in the Record. The article follows: Aung San Suu Kyi--Striving to Build a Democracy Amid the Harsh Regime of Myanmar (By Scott Kraft) Aung San Suu Kyi had a rigid routine during the six years she spent under arrest in her family's lakeside home. She would rise at 4:30 a.m. for exercise and meditation, then spend the day reading biographies or autobiographies and listening to the radio. The only human being she would see was the maid. Though free for eight months now, she still spends most of her days in that two-story house. But the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize winner is hardly isolated. Two appointments secretaries, one for foreign dignitaries and the other for fellow party members, have guided thousands of visitors to meet her. ``I'm afraid I can no longer keep to a strict timetable,'' Suu Kyi says. ``I can't get up at 4:30 anymore because there are times I don't get to bed until 2 a.m. If I got up early, I wouldn't be able to operate full-steam for 12 hours.'' Many here hoped her release was a first step toward democracy in Myanmar. But the military regime, which nullified her party's victory in the 1990 elections, still runs the country. It is stage-managing a constitutional convention while trying to attract foreign investment. Suu Kyi is biding her time and rebuilding her party network. Her weekdays are filled with appointments and on weekends, hundreds of supporters gather outside the gated compound to hear her speak and answer their questions. Soon, she says, the government will come to its senses. Even as the government tries to ignore her, Suu Kyi, 50, remains the most-respected political figure in Myanmar. Her father, Aung San, is considered, even by her detractors, as the greatest hero of Burmese independence. He was assassinated in 1947, when she was 2. Suu Kyi left Burma in 1960, at age 15, and later received a degree from Oxford University. She married a Briton, Michael Aris, who is now a professor and specialist in Tibetan studies at Oxford. In 1988, she returned to Burma to tend to her ailing mother and became a leader of the pro-democracy movement. Aris and the couple's two sons, Kim, 18, and Alexander, 22, who are in school abroad, usually visit Suu Kyi at holidays, as they did during her years of house arrest, if the government grants them visas. Suu Kyi is prevented from leaving Myanmar only by the certainty that she would never be allowed to return. In person, Suu Kyi is low-key and polite, though her determination is evident. She always refers to the country as Burma and the capital as Rangoon, purposefully ignoring the government decree that this nation be called Myanmar and the city, Yangon. She meets visitors at home in a square room surrounded by 1940s-era photographs of her family and a wall-sized painting of her father. ``The painting is a bit Andy Warhol, don't you think?'' she says, ``But it's really a very good likeness.'' Q. How would you assess the eight months since you've been released? What are the positive developments and the disappointments? A. Well, in politics, I don't think you ever get disappointed as such. It's an occupational hazard that things don't always turn out as you would wish them to. You hope for the best and prepare for the worst. That's politics. The most positive aspect of things since my release is the fact that our party has become far more active. We've been reorganizing and reconsolidating. We've been subjected to a lot of restrictions. There continue to be intimidations and harassment. But we still have the strong support of the people and we manage to get along with our party building. Q. Many in the West thought that when you were released, everything would begin to improve. A. I don't think it's as simple as that. There are some people who say I was released because the government thought the National League for Democracy was dead. But in fact, it is far from dead. There have been miscalculations like that in the past by this government. In the 1990 elections, the government thought we might win a plurality but not an absolute majority. In fact, we got 82%, with the result that those elections have been totally ignored and our members persecuted. Q. So you aren't disappointed in the slow pace of change? A. I wouldn't say ``disappointed'' is the word. There is so much happening within our party that it does compensate for what is not happening on the other side. Of course, we know that the best thing for the country is national reconciliation, which can only take place through dialogue. And we hope that it will take place sooner rather than later. But that doesn't mean we just sit and hope. We have other work to do and we carry on. Q. So you aren't impatient with the pace of things? A. If you are very busy, you have no time to be impatient. If you ask us when do we want democracy, well, we want it now, of course, I feel just as strongly about that as anybody else. But because we are so occupied with our numerous jobs, we are not that impatient. Q. Do you think the current constitutional conference, in which your party is not participating, is a step in the right direction? A: No. That constitution is not headed for democracy. In the first place, they are not allowing political parties to operate effectively, and without political parties operating effectively there can be no multiparty democracy. The constitution they are writing really doesn't mean anything. A constitution is just a piece of paper unless it has the support of the people, and many a country has gone through many a constitution that is unacceptable to the people. Such constitutions do not last. Q: So what can you do to get this government to change direction? A: It is the will of the people that the country should become a democracy, and I'm sure the people will join me in guiding the country to its democracy. We will do what we can as a legally registered party. We will use political means of reaching our goal. This is our constant. Q: So you are talking about passive resistance. A: We don't really believe that the way to bring about democracy is by encouraging popular uprisings. We believe that democracy will come through the strength of the political will of the people, expressed through political parties. Q: How does it feel to be a free citizen? A: I'm a free citizen but the country is not free. So I feel like a free citizen in an unfree country. I appreciate the opportunity to be in touch with the people. That is what our work is all about. You know, I always felt free. I felt free when I was under house arrest because it was my choice. I chose to do what I'm doing and because of that, I found peace within myself. And I suppose that is what freedom is all about. Q: Do you think that it is possible the government thought it could make you a nonperson by releasing you? A: Sounds likely, doesn't it? Yes, it seems likely. Q: The government often points out that you are married to a foreigner. How important is that criticism to the average Burmese? A: I don't think it means very much. If I were married to a Burmese, they'd probably attack my husband's family for other reasons than that he was foreign. Don't forget that they are also attacking--very, very viciously--other party leaders who are not married to foreigners. Q: Is your husband able to visit you? A: He came for Christmas, but last year he was refused a visa for the Easter holidays. So he comes if he gets a visa. Q: You have frequently called for dialogue with the government. A: Yes, we believe in dialogue and we will always believe in dialogue because that's the way all political problems end up. Q: Has the government made any overtures to you? A: Our party has a policy that we will make no statements about dialogue until we decide we are ready to bring out an official version. Q: So you're saying . . . ? A: What I'm saying is that I'm not answering your question (laughs). Q: If there is an election based on the government's new constitution, would your party participate? A: We don't even know whether there is going to be a constitution or what sort of constitution. In any case, I don't think we should be talking about the next elections when the issue of the last elections has not yet been resolved. Q: Currently, the government is promoting foreign investment, and many companies, including Unocal in Los Angeles, have investments here. What's your message to those companies? A: We have always said--very, very clearly--that Burma is not right for investment. The climate is not right because the structural changes necessary to make an investment really profitable are not yet in place. We have now acquired in Burma a small group of very, very rich people. We did not have such people eight years ago-- people who could go to a hotel and spend $1,000 on a meal. That was unheard of. And the gap between the haves and the have-nots is increasing. That does not make for social stability. Q: Do you think the government's hold on power will be strengthened as it opens up the economy? A: Well, it's not a free market. Some are freer than others in their access to the market. The mechanism necessary for a really healthy open economy does not yet exist. And one of the most important parts of that is the rule of law. You have to know where you stand. . . . Without that, there can be neither credibility nor confidence. And every businessman must agree that good business cannot be done without credibility and confidence. Q: What do you do to discourage investment? A: It's not just what I say and it's not just the support there is abroad for the movement for democracy. Potential investors who really study the situation in depth, who don't just take a superficial view, will come to their own conclusion that the time is not yet right. They may want to put a little bit here so they can have a toe hold, waiting for the day when Burma takes off. Of course, that day will be when democracy comes. Q: In your heart, when do you think that will come? Are we talking five years? A: I can't really say. But certainly I don't think it will be that long. On the other hand, I know there will be a lot of problems to deal with once we have democracy. In fact, I think we'll probably have more problems after we have democracy than before. This is always the case when a system changes from an authoritarian system to an open and transparent one. Q: You tell the crowds that democracy is no panacea. A: Yes, I tell them that under a democracy, we will have to be prepared to take responsibility for our country's problems. Once they have democracy, they can no longer blame the government because they are really the government. Q: But won't there need to be pressure to bring about change here? A. There is international pressure. But of course what is more important is that there is pressure from within. The Burmese people are tired of authoritarianism, and they have seen for themselves that the authoritarian system has not done the country any good at all. Our standards of education are falling. Standards of health are falling. The face that we have new hotels does not make up for the fact that our children are less well-educated. Q: Were you surprised, after your release, that there was still strong support for you? Did you worry that you might have been forgotten? A: No, no. I was not that surprised. It's nothing to do with me. It has more to do with the desire of the people for a system that gives them both liberty and security. This is what people want, isn't it? People want to be free and at the same time they want to be secure. Q: And you personally? A: It's not me they are supporting in particular. The government seems to think it's me personally that the people are supporting. This government always gets things wrong. We won the election in 1990 because the people wanted democracy. It was not because of me. Q: Do you worry about your safety? A: No, I don't worry very much at all. It's not because I'm all that courageous or anything. It's just that there is no point in it. If they want to do anything to me they can do it any time they like.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Nebraska. I see my colleague from Iowa here, and I will try not to use the whole 15 minutes. I am going to join Senator Exon in opposing this budget resolution for several reasons. First, we have tax cuts in here. Now, I recognize that leadership of both parties is saying we ought to go ahead with a tax cut. I do not think it makes any sense whatsoever when we have a deficit. It is like when we say we are going to have a 7-year glidepath to a balanced budget, but we are going to start off with a tax cut. That is like having a New Year's resolution that you are going to diet and then you start off with a great big dessert. It is not a very propitious way of doing it. And both parties are saving the tough things, the tough decisions, to the end of the 7 years. That is why we need the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, in order to really move in that direction. Second, in the area of defense, the conference is $11.3 billion over what the Pentagon requested. No other agency gets more than they request, but the Defense Department does. I think it is unrealistic. Let us compare it to the next function, function 150, international affairs. The United States, in terms of our budget, is behind every country in Western Europe and Japan in terms of the percentage of our budget that we now use to help in foreign economic assistance--behind every one. But we are ahead of every one in the percentage of our budget that we put in defense. Frankly, what other countries question about us in the area of the military and in the area of foreign affairs is not our weapons systems, but our backbone. A few people are killed in Somalia and we get out. In Bosnia, we make speeches for a long time before we do anything. The budget, I think, is unrealistic in terms of international need and how we get stability in other nations. But, primarily, I want to talk about an area where Senator Olympia Snowe has provided leadership, and I am grateful to her for that, and that is in the area of education. We are now $4.4 billion from where the President requested. We are down $2.5 billion from where it was when it passed the Senate. Now, every study done of this country, every study for the State of Nebraska, or the State of Iowa, or the State of Maine, or the State of Illinois, done by conservatives, liberals, you name it, every economist says we are going to have to do better in education. In higher education, we are ahead of other countries, but the gap is narrowing. In elementary and secondary and preschool education, we are behind most of the other developed nations. Among the 18 top industrial nations of the world, in terms of expenditures for elementary and secondary, we are 14th. There are some basic things we ought to do. For example, I was able to get, in the last Elementary and Secondary Education Act, a paltry $90 million-- paltry in terms of its need--to encourage schools, to give a little bit of a carrot to schools to go longer than 180 days. If you go to school in Japan, you go 243 days a year. In Germany, they go 240 days a year. When you go to school in the United States, you go 180 days a year. Can we learn as much in 180 days as our friends in Germany, Japan, and in other countries do with longer school years? Of course, we cannot. Why do we go 180 days? In theory, it is so our children can go out and harvest the crops. Well, I say to the Presiding Officer and my colleagues, I live at Route 1, Makanda, IL, population 402. Even in Makanda, IL, the young people do not go out and harvest the crops anymore. That was a different era. We have to adjust. If we just moved from 180 days to 210, by the time you finish 12th grade, that would be the equivalent of 2 additional years of school, and we would still be, in a major way, behind other countries. But Senator Kennedy made the point a few minutes ago that when you look at these cuts, what you have to look at, also, is the growth in student population. And so it is doubly devastating. I remember visiting a Head Start Program, and almost all Head Start Programs have waiting lists, in Rock Island, IL. On Monday morning, one group of kids come in; on Tuesday morning, a second group comes in; on Wednesday morning, a third group comes in, and so on. I asked the woman in charge, ``What if you could have these children here 5 days a week?'' She smiled and said, ``You cannot believe the difference it would make in their lives.'' We are not doing it, and we save money with a budget like this? You save money like building a house and you do not put a roof on it. Very, very shortsighted. We make great speeches on prisons in this body. Oh, I have heard speeches about crime and how we put people in prison and everything. Eighty-two percent of the people in our prisons and jails are high school dropouts. You should not have to be an Einstein to figure out that maybe if we invested a little more in education, we would not have to put so many people into prison, and maybe we would be a much better country if we did. That is the kind of thing we ought to do. This budget takes a step backward in the field of education, rather than a step forward. I am not going to be around here next year, and my good friend from Nebraska is not going to be around here next year. I hope that whoever sits in this body will listen to the Presiding Officer when she stands on this floor and says that we have to do better in the field of education, as she has done many times. And while it is true you are not going to solve problems by just throwing money at them, I do not hear that same argument used in the Defense Department. And while money alone is not going to solve the problem in the field of education, without additional resources, we are not going to solve the problem. That is the simple reality. We ought to be asking how do we build a better America as we put a budget together. When you ask that question, I think you will come to the conclusion that we ought to be doing more in the field of education. I yield the balance of my time back to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr President, I supported the creation of the office of independent counsel and have voted for its reauthorization. I am now convinced that is the wrong way to solve this particular problem. My judgment is that we should look at the office of Attorney General with great care when a nomination is made. And if the nominee is too close, in any way, to the President, that nomination should be rejected. And if the nominee has been active in political life beyond the normal type of engagement, that should be weighed. Such a person should not automatically be rejected, but there should be ample evidence that the person will serve with honor. An ideal type of arrangement was when Ed Levi was chosen as Attorney General by President Gerald Ford. No one for a moment thought that the man who left as president of the University of Chicago to become Attorney General could be politically manipulated by the President, even if the President wanted to do that. My impression is that Janet Reno is made of the same stuff and that her appointment was a good appointment. When I was sounded out about John F. Kennedy appointing Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General I indicated to Bob Wallace, the Kennedy staff person who asked me about it, that I thought it was a mistake because the Attorney General should not be too close to the President. As it turned out, Bobby Kennedy did a good job as Attorney General, but as a precedent it was not good. In the same way, Ed Meese was much too close personally and politically to Ronald Reagan to serve the Nation as effectively as he might have as Attorney General. The Chicago Tribune had an editorial recently titled, ``A Case Against Independent Counsel.'' Their conclusion is that we should simply do away with the law. I reluctantly believe their conclusion is correct. But it will be correct only to the extent that we assure the American public that the Attorney General is of an independent bent. It may even be that we should appoint an Attorney General for a period of 10 years, subject to removal from office under conditions that are carefully spelled out in the law prior to ending that 10-year period. But the Chicago Tribune editorial contains words that we should reflect on. Mr. President, I ask that the article from the Chicago Tribune be printed in the Record. The article follows: A Case Against Independent Counsel Remember Sam Pierce? That's OK. Ronald Reagan didn't remember him either, even when Pierce was serving in his cabinet as secretary of Housing and Urban Development. (Reagan once greeted him in a receiving line as ``Mr. Mayor''). Pierce and Reagan have been gone from Washington for almost eight years, but the effects of their presence continue to be felt. In Pierce's case, they are felt less in policy than in the work of an independent counsel, or special prosecutor, who is said to be tidying up loose ends in a probe of abuses and mismanagement in Pierce's agency during the Reagan years. As of the end of March, this investigation had resulted in 17 convictions of former high-level officials and the associates to whom they steered contracts or directed favors. The most prominent of those convicted was James Watt, the blunt former secretary of the Interior in the Reagan administration, who in January pleaded guilty to attempting to mislead the grand jury in the HUD investigation. He was sentenced to five years of probation, 500 hours of community service and a $5,000 fine. To obtain these results, the independent counsel has run up a tab of almost $21 million--an average of $1.2 million per conviction. That's offset somewhat by the $2 million in fines and $10 million in recovered HUD funds. But even so, the pursuit of justice in the HUD case has been an extremely costly affair. The HUD probe is not even the most expensive by an independent counsel. Lawrence Walsh's Iran-contra investigation cost more than $40 million. Kenneth Starr's Whitewater probe bids fair to become the most expensive ever--by one estimate it already has cost $25 million. Altogether, special counsels have cost the taxpayers $100 million over the last 10 years. This mounting expense, for results whose value more and more members of Congress consider dubious at best, has inspired a questioning of the independent counsel law that arguments from principle could not. The logic behind the law (formally, the Ethics in Government Act) is simple and seems unassailable: When high- level officials in an administration are accused of serious breaches of the public trust, it takes an independent outsider to conduct a credible investigation. There is a built-in conflict of interest that makes it impossible for the normal Justice Department processes to work. Without a law, the president cannot be counted on to permit an independent investigation of his administration. The only problem with this logic is that in the long scope of U.S. history, it has not been shown to be true. Most Justice Department officials and prosecutors behave honorably. In the one great historical instance in which the Justice Department's integrity was in serious question-- Watergate--overwhelming political pressure forced President Richard Nixon to yield and accept an independent counsel. An independent counsel law is a source of permanent temptation to political mischief. The Democrats in Congress used it to bludgeon the Reagan and Bush administrations. Now--after the Democrats insisted on renewing the law in Bill Clinton's first year in office--the Republicans are using it to bludgeon the Clinton administration. No fewer than four independent counsels are at work investigating issues from Whitewater to whether Henry Cisneros lied to the FBI about how much money he gave his former mistress. As the figures on the HUD investigation suggest, independent counsels operate with none of the budget constraints that fetter ordinary prosecutors. And they can pursue their quarry indefinitely, meaning that individuals can remain under threat of prosecution for years, with devastating effects on their families, fortunes, careers and psyches. That's not fair. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) and Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) each have proposed legislation to reduce the powers of independent counsels and make them more accountable to Congress. Better that they should simply do away with the law. As the Nixon case demonstrates, when a president's behavior threatens the very constitutional order, the public will demand an independent counsel. Absent such an outrage, it's best to let normal legal processes work.