Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, some of my colleagues may remember that when the new telecommunications law was before the Senate, I offered an amendment to limit the expansion of radio station ownership by any one corporation or any one individual. That amendment was tabled by a vote of 64 to 34. The other day I read an article by Prof. Jerry Landay, former broadcast journalist, who now teaches at the University of Illinois. The article appeared in the Christian Science Monitor under the title. ``The Rush To Gulp U.S. Radio Stations.'' I ended up voting against the bill even though I know there were some good things in it. But diversity in ownership is good for all the media. I don't like the concentration of ownership that is taking place in newspapers, but that is not a federally regulated entity. Radio stations and television stations are federally regulated, and we have every right to demand diversity of ownership and not monopolistic or oligarchical practices. I ask that the Jerry Landay article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Christian Science Monitor, May 7, 1996] The Rush to Gulp US Radio Stations (By Jerry M. Landay) The surface glamour faded long ago from radio. But Americans keep as many as five or six sets in the house and use them regularly. Don Imus, Rush Limbaugh, and Garrison Keillor remind us that television hasn't stripped all the glory from the medium or its revenues--Totaling $11.5 billion in 1995. The radio stations that CBS owns--39 of them--grossed a half-billion dollars last year. Like the printing presses in the Federal Mint, commercial radio stations in America churn out cash in prodigious amounts. Returns of 40 to 50 percent yearly are not uncommon. Multibillion-dollar mergers and acquisitions in the telephone and television-based industries spawned by the new telecommunications law have stolen our eye from the land rush now under way in Radioland. A vast consolidation of ownership has begun among America's 10,000 commercial stations. Just two months after passage of the law erased the limits on the number of radio stations a single owner may acquire, a station-buying blowout is justifying critics' fears that the law is not spurring competition, but monopoly. An industry that once had to base its license renewals on service to a station's community has been let off the hook by Congress and the president. Rita Zanella, a media analyst at Gruntal & Co. in New York, predicts that eight or 10 big station groups will eventually control the entire broadcasting industry. ``You control pricing,'' she told the Chicago Tribune. ``You eliminate your competition and have greater control over what you can charge.'' To cite just a few examples of the radio land rush, Jacor Communications Inc. of Cincinnati spent nearly a billion dollars in February to acquire 26 radio stations and two television stations. Jacor now controls 62 percent of the radio revenues in the Cincinnati, market, nearly half the Denver market, 30 percent of the Tampa market, and a quarter of the radio business in Portland, OR. In a single deal worth $1.2 billion, announced earlier this month, the Sinclair Broadcasting Group of Baltimore acquired 34 radio stations in 27 markets, along with a group of television stations, becoming a miniconglomerate in a single bound. With the purchase of three stations in March, Citadel Communications Corporation now owns seven of the most powerful AM and FM stations in Albuquerque's 36-station radio market. That includes KKOB, which blankets much of the southwest, and the city's only classical music station, KHFM. Arthur Schreiber, a former manager of KKOB and a veteran of the radio wars, predicts that Albuquerque's classical-music listeners will soon find themselves without choice on the air. ``It's hard for me to believe that Citadel can meet its debt service by continuing to play classical music on a station that cost it $5.6 million,'' says Mr. Schreiber. The federal government is essentially licensing the drive to bigness. Station brokers predict that 1996 will be the most lucrative year ever for station trades. I a deregulatory environment, small, aggressive companies such as Jacor and Citadel can become mass-comm players in a single bound, with lenders anxious to supply cheap money. But radio isn't just any business. Radio is an essential part of our civic capital. It speaks over publicly licensed frequencies to millions of listeners, at home, at work, and on the road. In the past stations were more than juke boxes. They provided breaking news and weather bulletins, specialized information for farmers, investors, community organizations, local governments, and emergency services. Before the start of deregulation in the 1980s, owners were limited to seven AM and seven FM stations, to ensure diverse voices and dispersed power. The new barons of radio are absentee owners who convert their stations from local presences into cash cows for instant milking, their values ballooned for trading to the next buyer. The name of the game is to avoid being the ``last sucker'' stuck with debt if recession hits. Radio, once the most trusted news source in America, has increasingly abandoned the role of local service-provider. Newsrooms in many stations have been cut to the bone--one or two readers, Schreiber says, ``ripping and reading'' news and weather supplied to all clients by a single news source, the Associated Press. there is teeth-gritting sameness in the music they play, as dial-twisters who have traveled long distances in a car can testify--various shades of rock and country music. Before deregulation, the Federal Communications Commission required buyers to hold their stations for at least three years before resale, to ensure local commitment. In the new environment, a wheeler-dealer can theoretically turn his station over as soon as the FCC approves the purchase. Media writer Ken Auletta was told by the head of a station ownership group: ``It's commodity trading to us. We don't know [our] community. We're short-term players.'' The fundamental question is unavoidable: Is mass communications solely a growth game for entrepreneurs, banks, and Wall Street, or is it also a social partner that justifies its existence by living up to its civic obligations? The late Donald H. McGannon, a respected industry leader of the 1950s and '60s as chairman of the Group W (Westinghouse) Stations, was a businessman with a vision who told his staff: ``If we do the right thing in our cities and towns, the money comes.'' They did--and it did. The times have changed. But not the relevance of McGannon's vision. Undoing the damage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 will be difficult, but it will have to happen.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I want to speak just briefly on two subjects.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague from Idaho, and my thanks to Senator Coverdell from Georgia. I knew Senator Craig when he was Congressman Craig. We said hello, but that was just about it. But I had a chance to work with Senator Craig here and came to have great respect for him. I am grateful to all those who were helpful to us: Senator Hatch, Senator Thurmond, Senator Heflin, Senator Bryan, others in both political parties. A balanced budget constitutional amendment, one of these days, has to pass. The question is, how much we are going to hurt our Nation before we pass it. There is just no question, if we had passed it back when John F. Kennedy complained about spending $9 billion on interest--today we are spending $344 billion on gross interest--what a much better country we would have. We cannot wait another 5 or 10 years. We are going to have chaos.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I will speak just briefly on another subject. That is, Senator Lugar and I and Senator Warner and a total of 25 of us on both sides have introduced a bill to say, let us have a study of the growth of legalized gambling in our country. This is not the most Earth-shaking thing, but the fastest growing industry in our country is legalized gambling. And there are problems with that. It is the only form of addiction that Government promotes. We would be shocked if we saw a sign saying, ``Smoke Marlboro cigarettes. You know, they're fun to smoke'' or ``Drink more whiskey. You'll really have a good time,'' because both of those provide revenue for Government. But we do not seem to be shocked when there are billboards, like on the south side of Chicago, saying, ``The Illinois lottery--this is your way out.'' This is the impoverished area of Chicago. That is not the way out for people. It is education. It is hard work. It is the kind of things that we know have to be done. So Senator Lugar, Senator Warner, and I introduced this legislation. To the credit of Senator Stevens and his committee, it was reported out by voice vote. Now we want to move it through the Senate. The House has already passed a bill. We have to work the two out. My hope is that we could get this done quickly. I spoke last week to Senator Dole. I would love to see, before Bob Dole leaves, the Senate have us pass this legislation. The New York Times 3 days ago had an editorial urging the Senate to pass this legislation. The Christian Science Monitor has an editorial. The last paragraph reads: It's time society knew the real costs of gambling. The Senate should pass the measure without delay. I hope we do this. I have no illusions. We are not going to stop legalized gambling in this country. We are not going to close Las Vegas or Atlantic city. But I think we should be looking at the possibility of steps to limit the growth. For example, you can now or shortly will be able to, on the Internet, gamble by computer using your American Express or Visa or some card. We do not know where that is going to lead. I think a commission ought to be looking into this. There are people who get addicted. I got into this because my mother is a member of a Lutheran Church in Collinsville, IL. And a substitute teacher at a Lutheran school of that church, unknown to her family, got addicted to gambling. They thought the money was going for rent and paying the bills and so forth. One day they came home and there was a note saying you could find her in the shopping mall parking lot. She had committed suicide. She went to a riverboat casino and got addicted. And you know, these stories multiply. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these two editorials.

Mr. SIMON. I urge Senator Dole, if possible, prior to Tuesday, to bring this up. I would hope we could pass it quickly. If that cannot happen, I hope Senator Lott or Senator Cochran, I am not voting on who will be the leader over there on their side, but I hope that we could move on this quickly. I think it is clearly in the national interest. This, again, is not an attempt to stop legalized gambling in this country. It is an attempt to say ``Let's look at where we are.'' I see the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee. He is nodding, either because I was speaking, or he wishes to speak. I yield the floor to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I served for 10 years over in the House. Handling the garage entrance there has been a police officer, D.E. Moss. I learned today he is retiring today. I am probably like most of my colleagues. We just do not thank people around here enough. Here is an officer who is great to us who serve in Congress. More importantly, he has been great to the public. He has just made a great impression for the U.S. Government and has served our people well. I think of him. I think of Ed Litton who is down in the Dirksen Building, an officer who works there at the subway. But it is true of the people who record what we have to say, whether it has merit or not, the people who sit at the front desks, the pages, the people who work the doors, all the people who really make this place function so well. D.E. Moss' retirement is a good occasion to remember that we are in debt to a great many people.

Mr. SIMON. I would be pleased to yield to my colleague.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I want to pay tribute also to Senator Hatch, Senator Craig, and Senator Thurmond, who have been among the leaders on the Presiding Officer's side, and former Senator DeConcini on our side, as well as Senator Heflin and Senator Bryan. The charge is made that we are talking pure politics. I would be naive if I did not admit there is some politics in all of this. Obviously, Bob Dole is a candidate for President, and he wants to stress this. I have to say, in fairness to Bob Dole, this is not a phony position on his part. This is a stand he has taken all along. I am supporting Bill Clinton for President, but I appreciate Bob Dole's stand on the balanced budget amendment. To my Democratic friends, if you want to depoliticize it, pass it. To my friends on the other side who are opposed to a minimum wage, you want to depoliticize the minimum wage? Pass it. It will be eliminated from the election. And the same on the balanced budget amendment. The Presiding Officer is from New Hampshire where in the woods and the trails of New Hampshire, prior to the Revolution, there was talk about ``taxation without representation.'' My latest grandchild is now 2 months old. Nicholas Simon, 2 months old, does not know anything about the taxation that has been imposed upon him. Talk about taxation without representation, that is what we are doing to future generations. Listen to the Democratic platform of one century ago, 1896. We are opposed to the issuing of interest-bearing bonds in times of peace. Incidentally, no other country in history in times of peace has moved from being a creditor nation to being a debtor nation. Not only have we done that, we have moved from being the No. 1 creditor nation to being the No. 1 debtor nation. It is like moving from Super Bowl champ to the very last place. We have a lot of Jefferson-Jackson dinner parties. I assume the Presiding Officer has never been invited to one of these. Andrew Jackson said, ``I am one that does not believe a national debt is a blessing but rather a curse.'' Thomas Jefferson was not in the United States when the Constitution was written. He was over in Paris, negotiating for us. When he came back, he said, ``If I could add one amendment to the Constitution, it would be to require a balanced budget.'' It is very interesting, Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard who opposes the constitutional amendment, says this in testimony last year: Despite the misgivings I expressed on this score a decade ago, I no longer think that a balanced budget amendment is, at a conceptual level, an ill-suited kind of provision to include in the Constitution. The Jeffersonian notion that today's populace should not be able to burden future generations with excessive debt does seem to be the kind of fundamental value that is worthy of enshrinement in the Constitution. In a sense, it represents a structural protection for our children and grandchildren. There is, as the Presiding Officer knows, a lot of cynicism toward Government, much more so than in Western Europe, where the taxes are much higher than they are in the United States. I believe a fundamental reason for that is that, with the exception of Israel, no modern industrial State spends as high a percentage of its tax dollars on interest and on defense as does the United States. The average citizen does not see much for that. They do not see much in the defense area. Clearly, we have to spend money in defense. For interest, all we get out of the huge debt is higher interest rates. That is it. Now, I have heard some of my colleagues say they cannot vote for this because of Social Security. My friends, that is a fig leaf. It would make more sense to say, ``Your astrologer advised you not to vote for this.'' The reality is, this provides more protection for Social Security than Social Security will have without this. Those who say, ``Well, let's make it 2002 excluding Social Security,'' not one offered an amendment to the budget to do that when that was up. Yet, they suggest we should enshrine it in the Constitution. I, frankly, worked with Senator Hatch in trying to fashion something that over a period of years--and worked with Senator Domenici--over a period of years would slide into that, because you cannot do it from 2002 that quickly. That would harm the economy. It is very interesting that the chief actuary for Social Security for 21 years, Bob Myers, says it is essential for Social Security that we do it. Now, why is that the case? As Adam Smith warned us in ``The Wealth of Nations,'' a classic document, he said that the history of nations is that you keep piling up debt and then you eventually debase the currency. That is where we are headed--there is just no question about it--as you look at those long-term projections. We are going to keep piling up the debt, and then at some point the order will be made, ``Start the printing presses rolling; we are going to print the money. We are going to debase the currency. We are going to do what the economists call `monetize the debt.' '' I get a publication that has a very limited circulation, I am sure, called Grant's Interest Rate Observer. It comes out every week. Here is the most recent. You will be interested in these figures: May 17, 1995, foreign bank holdings of treasuries, $444 billion. May 15, 1996, a year later, $553 billion. It goes up and up and up. And Lester Thurow, the distinguished economist, says the question is not ``if'' foreign governments and people in other countries are going to stop buying our bonds, the question is ``when.'' We have to face up to this. I heard Senator Murkowski speak just a little bit ago in which he said 18 percent of our bonds are now held beyond our country. In fact, the figure is larger than that because a lot of it is hidden. Many countries prohibit their citizens from buying bonds from other countries. Just take the 18-percent figure. If you take the $344 billion that is the gross interest expenditure that CBO now says it will be, take 18 percent of that--if my math is correct, I just calculated it here quickly--that is $62 billion that will be sent overseas for interest this year. Now, there are some who believe if you help the wealthy, it will trickle down and help everybody. I do not happen to believe there is much validity to that. But there sure is not much validity to sending that $62 billion to wealthy people in Great Britain or The Netherlands or Saudi Arabia or Japan. That is not going to trickle down to American working men and women. That just does not make sense. Mr. President, $62 billion abroad is four times what we are spending on foreign aid. In other words, we are spending four times as much on foreign aid to the wealthy as we are on foreign aid for poor people. That just does not make sense. The head of the IMF has complained that the wealthy United States goes into the financial markets and raises interest, and poor countries have to pay that high interest. Prof. David Calleo of Johns Hopkins University calls that action obscene. Now, to the credit of Senator Domenici and Congressman Kasich and people in this body who voted to say we will balance the budget in 7 years, to your credit on that side, you led the way on this. I voted for it in the Budget Committee, but you led the way. Let me say, in all candor, we are not going to have a balanced budget in 7 years unless we have a constitutional amendment. We are putting all the tough decisions in the last years. That is true in the Democratic proposal; it is true in the Republican proposal. Those of us in public life like to do popular things. We need the discipline of a constitutional amendment. We have great interstate highways today. President Eisenhower proposed issuing bonds to pay for it. A Senator by the name of Albert Gore, Sr., said, ``Let's not have deficit financing. Let's increase the gas tax and pay for it on a pay-as-you-go basis.'' His amendment, fortunately, prevailed. We saved hundreds of billions of dollars. That is what we have to do, put Government on a pay-as-you-go basis. I heard Senator Hollings earlier today, and I have great respect for him, talking about the need for some changes in our tax structure. Let me tell you, fundamental changes are not going to happen without a constitutional amendment. I hear people complaining about Alan Greenspan and what the Federal Reserve Board is doing. Our primary problems--and sometimes I differ with Alan Greenspan--but our primary problems are fiscal, not monetary. The $344 billion we will spend this year on interest is 11 times what we will spend on education, 22 times as much as we spend on foreign aid, and twice what we are spend on our poverty programs. The Concord Coalition--cochaired by former Senator Warren Rudman from the State of the Presiding Officer, cochaired by Paul Tsongas, which also has Paul Volcker on its board--did an economic analysis. The deficit, in the last 20 years, is costing the average American family $15,500 a year in income. I do not know of any families in Illinois or New Hampshire or Oklahoma who would not welcome that kind of an increase. But it takes some discipline to move us in the right direction. We have shown that we do not have it on our own. We need the discipline of a constitutional amendment. We need to have, real candidly, political cover. We ought to do it on our own, but we are not doing it. We need to go back to whatever State we are from and say that we really hated to cut this program, we really hated to increase these taxes, but the constitutional amendment forced us to do it. If there is anyone in this body who is not certain how to vote--and there probably is not--I suggest that they look at their children, look at their grandchildren. Forget who you might offend in this body and what they think. Look at those children and grandchildren and simply ask: How do we build a better future for them? If you ask that question, then the vote will be in favor of a constitutional amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the New York Times carried a story the other day about people in Wisconsin from the pro-life and pro- choice side of the abortion issues, to use the names each side uses, meeting together to talk about what can be done in a constructive way on the issue of abortion. About 100 people met at this meeting. I commend them for doing it. This is a meeting that I or some other Member of the Senate should have called a long time ago. I remember when Cardinal Bernardin, the Roman Catholic prelate in the Chicago area, said that people of sincerity on both sides ought to be meeting and trying to work together on a common agenda. For example, we know that girls and boys who drop out of high school are much more likely to be involved in teenage pregnancies. And a high percentage of those end in abortions. If we have programs to encourage people to stay in high school, we are going to have fewer abortions. That may not be as emotionally satisfying as carrying a picket sign or haranguing someone, but it does infinitely more constructive good and it is something that both sides could agree upon. I applaud the leaders, Mary Jacksteit and Sister Adrienne Kaufmann, for what they are doing. I ask that the New York Times article be printed in the Record. The article follows: A Weekend Without War Over the Abortion Issue Madison, WI.--In workshops and seminars, 100 people from both sides in the fight over abortion met here this weekend to talk about their beliefs without proselytizing or condemning each other. At its first national conference, which ended today at the University of Wisconsin, a group known as the Common Ground Network for Life and Choice brought together community organizers, members of the clergy, writers and academics in an effort to defuse the rancor that often colors the abortion debate. ``Common Ground is trying to maintain a civil environment in which people can discuss the issues,'' said Mary Jacksteit, a former labor lawyer who co-founded the organization in Washington in 1993. ``This is the place for light instead of heat.'' The aim, Ms. Jacksteit said, is to ease the dispute over abortion and find points of commonalty that can be put into practice on a local level. Critics say Common Ground members risk compromising their beliefs by fraternizing with their opponents. But Ms. Jacksteit said the group's focus was not necessarily on abortion. Rather than developing a middle position, the organization favors exploring issues that can have a cause and effect bearing on abortion--like teen-age pregnancy, birth control, adoption and sexual responsibility. Ms. Jacksteit and the group's other founder, Adrienne Kaufmann, a Benedictine nun, refrain from labeling themselves and decline to be pinned down on the beliefs. ``Neither one of us have been either pro-life or pro-choice activists,'' sister Kaufmann said. ``We do not have a hidden agenda.'' Many participants in the conference identified their position only by attaching colored stickers to their name tags, a green dot indicating support of abortion rights, a blue dot indicating opposition. One-third had blue dots, one- third had green dots and one-third had no sticker. In a Friday workshop, groups of participants sat knee to knee in a circle of chairs, Planned Parenthood board members beside Operation Rescue organizers, a Baptist minister who supports abortion rights beside someone long active in social issues who opposes abortion. ``When President Clinton vetoed the late-term abortion bill, I was pleased,'' said the Mel Taylor, a Baptist pastor for Denver and a supporter of abortion rights. ``But I was also very aware of how my friends on the other side were grieving. What I can't do anymore is gloat.'' For the participants, a willingness to engage in dialogue did not mean conceding their beliefs. ``I don't feel like I have to give an inch at all,'' said Loretto Wagner, a veteran abortion opponent who started the Common Ground chapter in St. Louis. ``To learn to trust people does not demand any kind of compromise. But I don't have to stand on my principles with my chin thrust out in confrontation. The whole concept of Common Ground involves recognizing our similarities rather than our differences, and not coercing or forcing our agenda on someone.'' With 1,500 members in 21 states, Common Ground has tried such bridge-building in a number of communities, Ms. Jacksteit said. In Buffalo, Common Ground works with schools to combat teen-age pregnancy. In St. Louis, an abortion clinic gives prenatal care to women who decide not to terminate a pregnancy and refers them to a crisis pregnancy center run by opponents of abortion. These services were arranged by the directors of the clinic and the crisis center, who are members of Common Ground. In 1995, after the announcement that two abortion clinics would be built in Davenport, Iowa, Common Ground members talked about ways to reduce the potential for violence. In another workshop on Friday, participants critiqued their own sides in the abortion conflict. ``I think it's possible to disagree with somebody without calling them a baby killer or believing they are monsters of fiends,'' said Frederica Mathewes-Green, the author of ``Real Choices'' and an abortion opponent. The slogan ``It's a baby,'' popularized by abortion opponents, only deadlocks the debate, Ms. Mathewes-Green said. It perpetuates the misbelief that women and babies are on opposite sides of the issues, she added, and alienates women who face unplanned pregnancies. Conversely, the slogan ``It's a woman's choice'' trivializes the death of the fetus, the author Naomi Wolf told participants at the Friday workshop. The death of the fetus has become ``the blind spot'' of the abortion-rights movement, said Ms. Wolf, who supports abortion rights and who last fall condemned the oratory of the abortion-rights movement in an essay in The New Republic. ``I think there is a great hunger in America for a discussion on this issue,'' she added. Most Americans ``want to preserve abortion as a legal right, but condemn it as a moral iniquity.'' Many Common Ground members said they were viewed with suspicion not by their adversaries but by their allies. They said their willingness to sit down and listen to the enemy was seen as a form of betrayal. The apparent mistrust is not a surprise to Sister Kaufmann. ``We live in an adversarial society,'' she said. ``To be in a non-contentious conversation with someone is viewed as strange behavior.''

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I felt like cheering as I read Tom Friedman's column in the New York Times on the gasoline tax, which I ask to be printed in the Record after my remarks. Frankly, no tax cut makes any sense when we are still running a huge deficit. Tax cuts are pandering at their worst. But of all the tax cuts the one that makes the least sense is the 4.3-cent-a-gallon cut in the gas tax. Even our neighbors in Canada, who have much greater distances to cover with a sparser population, have a gasoline tax roughly double our gasoline tax. No country outside Saudi Arabia has a gas tax lower than ours. We illustrate over and over again the need for doing what Thomas Jefferson first suggested--having a constitutional amendment to restrict Government borrowing. For most of the first two centuries of our country's existence that was not a huge problem, but we are so motivated by polls and gimmicks that we are doing a great disservice to our country. If President Clinton had stood up and said this is wrong, he would have picked up support both in conservative circles as well as generally. It is interesting that after we had passed the 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax increase, I did not have a single person among the 12 million people in Illinois object to that tax increase. I talked to a western Senator where you might expect greater sensitivity, and he told me he had the same experience. The article follows: [From the New York Times] The Silly Season (By Thomas L. Friedman) Washington.--I have a confession to make: Even before the old Bob Dole became the new Bob Dole, our family station wagon wasn't exactly plastered with his bumper stickers. But last week I returned from an overseas trip to find that Mr. Dole was proposing to repeal the 4.3-cent-a-gallon gasoline tax, and I've changed my mind about the old guy. Yes, sir, scrapping the gasoline tax. That's the sort of leadership America needs; that's the sort of spirit of sacrifice the country's been missing: a President who's ready to sacrifice the budget, to sacrifice the environment, to sacrifice energy conservation, to sacrifice oil reserves in order to save the American people 4.3 cents a gallon. And when Mr. Dole's sidekick Dick Armey, the House majority leader, suggested that we consider cutting the education budget to make up for the lost gas-tax revenue, well, then and there I knew I was a Dole man. I mean, cutting education to save Americans a few pennies a gallon at a time when their gas is already the cheapest in the world--that's the kind of thinking that will keep us the world's most competitive nation in the 21st century. I sure hope the Japanese don't get that idea. Are we out of our minds? Raising the gas tax has been one of the few smart things we've done in recent years. It promotes energy conservation, it helps protect the air, it encourages development of alternative energies, it promotes national security by reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil supplies--and it reduces the budget deficit. That 4.3-cent-a- gallon tax raises $5 billion a year. It is one of the reasons the deficit has been cut in half since 1993. Any proposal to repeal the gas tax should be hooted out of Congress with scorn. Unfortunately, that's not what President Clinton did. Instead he's trying to trade his support for this idiotic gas-tax repeal for a Republican endorsement of his proposal to raise the minimum wage--the worst sort of election-year poker. Mr. Clinton is saying to Mr. Dole: ``I see your foolishness and I raise you one.'' It is hard to believe that the Dole proposal for repeal of the gas tax is effective even as political pandering. How many people are really going to change their votes from Clinton to Dole over 4.3 cents a gallon? Moreover, how can Republicans argue that a balanced budget and deficit reduction are the two most urgent priorities in American politics and then, when gas prices go up a bit due to seasonal factors, simply discard the gas tax without regard for the long-term budget implications? ``It only makes sense politically if it is part of a broader Dole strategy for lowering taxes,'' says Bill Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard. And then for Mr. Armey to even hint that we might pay for this giveaway by cutting education--that takes your breath away. For a cheap political high with the shelf life of a dead fish, a House Republican leader is ready to cut $5 billion a year from education? How could such a thought even cross Mr. Armey's mind? Forget about what a Dole Presidency would be like; if this keeps up I'm not sure we can afford a Dole candidacy. The truth is we shouldn't be lowering our gas taxes. We should be raising them. Gasoline is probably the best bargain commodity in the U.S. marketplace. The latest blip aside, the real price of gasoline in the U.S. has been falling for 15 years (and if the Iraqi oil sanctions are eased by the U.N. soon, gas prices in the U.S. will likely resume that downward trend). In France and Italy, gas goes for $4.50 a gallon; in Japan it costs $3.75. Most of the difference between their prices and ours is taxes that those Governments use to finance public services. We could put a 50-cent-a-gallon tax on U.S. gasoline, get rid of the deficit and still have a huge competitive edge over the Europeans and Japanese. ``This is one of the easiest and most attractive ways of raising tax revenue, and we're just giving it away,'' says the oil economist Vahan Zanoyan, of the Petroleum Finance Company. In his speech announcing his resignation from the Senate, Mr. Dole insisted that: ``My campaign for the President is not merely about obtaining office. It's about fundamental things, consequential things, things that are real. My campaign is about telling the truth, it's about doing what is right.'' If that's true, then I can't wait for the Dole campaign to begin.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, a friend of mine, Robert Luken, sent me an article from the Catholic Times, the Springfield, IL, diocesan newspaper with a story by John Thavis that was distributed by Catholic News Service under the title ``Worldwide Gambling Boom Is Cause for Concern,'' which I ask to be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. It contains not only good moral advice but good common sense that we must keep in mind as we approach a decision on whether or not to have a Federal commission to look at the huge growth of gambling in our country. I urge my colleagues to read the article. The article follows: [From the Springfield Catholic Times, Apr. 21, 1996] Worldwide Gambling Boom Is Cause for Concern (By John Travis) Vatican City.--A worldwide boom in gambling--increasingly sponsored by the state--is raising moral concerns among Vatican officials, theologians and Catholic social scientists. Gambling is not a new issue for the church. Bingo has been a parish mainstay for decades. Local churches have raised money through raffles or other take-a-chance offerings. But this small-scale ``social'' gambling has given way to a more aggressive form that, according to church experts, has a corrosive effect on individuals, families and the entire social fabric. In the U.S., nearly $500 billion is wagered legally every year. ``Gambling is obviously reaching alarming proportions. I think it represents a menace to the basic institution of the family and to the community at large,'' said Jerzy Zubrzycki, a member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, who has spent years researching the effects of gambling. Gambling ``is a search for a quick fix, like the drug culture. It's escapism instead of facing one's problems and trying to grow,'' said U.S. Jesuit Father John Navone, a theologian at Rome's Gregorian University. For Swiss Dominican Father Georges Cottier, Pope John Paul II's in-house theologian, the spread of gambling is no less than a sign of a ``social disease.'' The house never loses, but the weak and their families often do, he said. Yet, surprisingly to many, the church's official teaching on gambling is quite tolerant. According to the ``Catechism of the Catholic Church,'' games of chance and betting are not in themselves evil or unjust. They become morally unacceptable when they ``deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others.'' The catechism also rejects unfair wagers or cheating; but there's no explicit mention of the state's role in promoting lotteries, casinos or ``scratch-and-win'' tickets. The Vatican has not examined the finer moral points of state-sponsored gambling in any comprehensive way, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declined to answer questions about the issue. Church officials are, however, tracking recent statements against gambling by bishops in the U.S., Canada and Australia. ``The state, instead of being a brake or a guide on this issue, is playing the game itself. Unfortunately, this is part of the crisis of values in society,'' said Franciscan Father Pier Giuseppe Pesce, a Rome theologian who advises the Vatican. Mary Ann Glendon, a U.S. lawyer and a member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, said state-sponsored gambling often appears a painless way to produce much-needed revenues. But really, it's a ``regressive tax'' that hits the poor hardest. What she especially finds objectionable is that the state ``imitates the private operators of casinos, in trickling in this little wins'' to keep people coming back. It's ``very cynical and very exploitative,'' she said. Father Cottier said he thought the Vatican should take a closer look at the morality of all this. One way in which the issue might be advanced, he said, is for a bishop to pose formal questions for response by the doctrinal congregation. But none of those interviewed was proposing a ban on gambling. The question is more complex than that, they said. As Glendon said, ``When we address the moral issue we have to make sure that we are not trying to eliminate things that make life pleasant and fun.''

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, and my colleague from Georgia, I thank you. I am pleased to rise in support of this. Let me comment first of all on the politics of this because there are those on my side who say this is political. And I do not think there is any question that its timing right now is in part political. That does not get to the merits of it, however. I would have to say--and I say this as someone who is supporting Bill Clinton for reelection--that Bob Dole has been consistent on this. This is not a phony position that he is taking in order to gain a few votes in an election. Second, in terms of the politics, let me just add that if we should pass it we give Bob Dole a small victory in terms of politics because whatever has happened in the past people do not worry about that in an election. They talk about what is going to happen in the future. If we defeat it--and it is Democrat votes that defeat it--then you hand Bob Dole a much bigger issue. That is the political reality. A second political reality is the public image--I say to my friends on the Republican side--of Republicans is they simply are too hard- hearted, are not considerate of those who struggle in our society, and too often candidly propose amendments and pass bills that confirm that impression. On our side, the public image is they are good-hearted people. But they are fiscally reckless. And too often we seem to go out of our way to confirm that. And if it is Democratic votes that defeat this tomorrow, or whenever we vote on this, we will have played into what is the worst of our perceptions. But aside from the politics--and the politics really should be extremely secondary--we are talking about something that is absolutely essential for the future of our country. This is not a new idea. Thomas Jefferson was the first person to suggest that we needed this kind of a constitutional amendment. He was not in the United States in 1787 when the Constitution was written. He was negotiating for us in Paris. When he got back, he said, ``If I could just add one amendment to the Constitution it would be to prohibit the Federal Government from borrowing money.'' He wanted an absolute prohibition which this amendment does not do. It leaves room for emergencies to have deficits. But he said one generation should no more be willing to pay for the previous generation's debts than for the debts of another country. That was a very interesting observation from him. I was reading the other day and came across where John Kennedy in 1963 complained about the huge amount of money that was being paid for interest for which we got nothing. Do you know what the gross interest expenditure was in 1963? Mr. President, $9 billion. That is a terrible waste of money. But do you know what the latest Congressional Budget Office figure is for this fiscal year? Gross interest expenditure--$344 billion. What if we had such a constitutional amendment in place in 1963, or what if we had it in place in 1980 when the total debt was less than $1 trillion? And if we do not pass it tomorrow, 5 years from now or 10 years from now the situation will be much worse. And people will say, ``Why didn't they act?'' Why, indeed? Mr. President, $344 billion--we will spend 11 times more on interest than on education, 22 times more on interest than foreign aid, and twice as much on interest as all of our poverty programs. What do we get for it? Nothing other than higher interest rates. And I mentioned foreign aid. It is interesting. We now pay in interest to other countries somewhere in excess of $45 billion a year-- when I say other countries, I am including people who own the bonds; maybe individuals in other countries. In other words, we are spending roughly three times as much on interest for those who are more fortunate than we are spending on foreign aid for those who are less fortunate. And it is getting worse. One of the publications I receive-- and I am sure it has a very small circulation--is called Grant's Interest Rate Observers, published in New York City. The last edition has this very interesting statistic: May 17, 1995, foreign central bank holdings of Treasuries, $444 billion; May 15, 1996, 1 year later--it was $444 billion--it is $553 billion. And it is not going to go on indefinitely. The distinguished economist Lester Thurow said that at some point other countries and people in other countries are going to say, ``We are not going to buy those bonds anymore.'' The question is not if they are going to say that; the question is when they are going to say that. We are headed for serious, serious trouble. If you read an Adam Smith quotation--I should have brought it over here--in his ``Wealth of Nations,'' 1776, he said this is the history of nations: They pile up more and more debt, and then they find out the only politically satisfactory answer to solving the debt problem is to debase the currency. That is where we are headed. Let no one make any mistake about it. Unless we have the discipline of a constitutional amendment, we will eventually do what the economists call monetize the debt. We are just going to start the printing presses rolling, because as you look at Social Security and other projections of entitlements in the long run, eventually some Congress--we may not be around at that point; I certainly will not be around--is going to face one of three very drastic choices. First, to dramatically increase taxes. And you know how popular that would be. Or to dramatically cut back on Social Security and other expenditures, and you know how popular that would be. And the third option, print more money, and that is where we are headed. Now, the opponents will say we can do it without it. Both sides have agreed we are going to have a 7-year balanced budget. My friends, the Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, will grow green hair before the budget is balanced in 7 years under this proposal. It just is not going to happen. Both parties put the really tough choices out to the end of 7 years. That is the politically easy thing to do. If it was politically easy, we would have balanced the budget a longtime ago. What we like to do is tell people we are for balancing the budget, but we are going to put off these really difficult decisions. We need the discipline of a constitutional amendment to force us to do the right thing. Now, some will argue, well, we ought to exclude Social Security. And we have since 1969 had a unified budget that has included Social Security. I have always favored excluding Social Security. Some of us who have been pushing this have tried to negotiate where we could over a period of years move in that direction to protect Social Security even more. But real candidly, we have been unable to pick up any additional votes by doing that. But let no one use the figleaf of Social Security to cover opposition to this. Bob Myers, chief actuary for Social Security for 21 years, said it is absolutely essential for the future of Social Security that we have a balanced budget amendment, because if we do not have a balanced budget amendment, frankly, we are going to monetize the debt, and that means just printing the money and the trust funds will just really move down. I see I am being signaled on time.

Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague. Let me just add two or three more points. We are spending an increasing percentage of our tax dollar on interest. I do not care whether you are Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. That just does not make sense. We ought to be spending our money on goods and services. And then let us differ on whether we have a national health program, which I strongly favor. Maybe my colleagues here differ with me on that. But we ought to have pay-as-you-go Government, and if we want to have a program, we have to pay for it. And if we do not have the courage to vote the revenue, we cannot have the program--just that basic. It is true for a family. It must be true for a nation. This is also welfare in reverse. The biggest welfare program we have in the United States by far is interest, and it is welfare for the rich, and increasingly the rich beyond our borders. I know there are some who argue this trickle-down economic theory: Give to the wealthiest and it will help everybody. I have never bought that theory. I believe if you give money so people can buy General Motors cars, if you give to the people at the bottom, the president of General Motors is going to do all right, too. But it does not necessarily work in reverse. Even if you buy the trickle-down theory, who can argue that if you give money to wealthy people in Japan and Saudi Arabia and Great Britain and The Netherlands, that is helping people here in the United States of America? We end up raising interest rates. We have seen Wharton and the other schools, the econometric studies that say if we pass this, when we achieve a balanced budget we will have interest rates--the largest projection--the prime rate dropping 3.5 percent. You have had the Concord Coalition study that says the deficit in the last 20 years is costing the average American family today $15,500 a year in income, and yet we continue dissipating our funds, violating the future of our children and our grandchildren. It just does not make sense. We ought to do the right thing, and the right thing is to have a balanced budget requirement in the Constitution unless there is an emergency. Then you can get 60 percent of the vote. I thank my colleague from Georgia for his leadership. And let me just add my thanks to Senator Hatch and Senator Craig and Senator Thurmond and others. Senator DeConcini, when he was here, was very helpful on this. Senator Heflin has been, and others. But this is one where I know politics rears its head at this point in our Nation. This is one where we have to say, what does the Nation need? And I think it is very clear what we need. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON. If my colleague will yield, I thank him for his comments. The reality is, we have already wounded America. But the wounds will become much more severe if we do not pay attention to this.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I cast one of the few votes against the immigration bill that passed the U.S. Senate recently. And I did it because part of the bill simply goes too far. We are in a period in which there is a great deal of mean-spirited and anti-immigrant sentiment, a mean-spiritedness and sentiment that does not serve the Nation well. For example, my amendment to permit people who are illegal immigrants, and who are going to become citizens, to get student aid that is available to all American citizens, is just common sense. We want these future citizens to be productive members of our society. The bill that passed the Senate not only denies them that assistance, but can be the basis for deportation if they receive that aid for one year. Two items have appeared recently that should cause us to reflect a little more. One is an op-ed piece in the Chicago Sun Times, by a member of the editorial board, Tom Sheridan. The other is an article titled ``A Crackdown on Immigrants Is Restricting Scholarships'' by Dirk Johnson that appeared in the New York Times. I ask that both articles be printed in the Record after my remarks. Both suggest that we are being short-sighted in what we are doing. I urge my colleagues to read these two items if they have not done so. The op-eds follow: Foreign Treasures (By Tom Sheridan) First, an explanation. I'm half-Irish on my father's side. Third generation. My mother's ancestry is more muddled, though European. My wife is half-Italian (third generation), with the rest mostly German. With that mix, our kids would be a diverse lot. But we also have children who are Filipino (first generation) Hispanic (second generation) and Asian. What I've done to enrich the Sheridan family gene pool is nothing less than remarkable. It's the same way families--and Nations--are enriched: Each of us has ancestors who came from somewhere else. All of which makes me very impressed with people becoming U.S. citizens these days. And damn glad I was born here and didn't have to take the citizenship test. I might not pass it. A study question for the citizenship test: How many changes or amendments are there to the U.S. Constitution? Do you know? Without looking? There's a lot of public yelping these days over immigration--legal and no-so-legal. Illegal immigration is just that--illegal--and should not be tolerated. Congress is right to clamp down on it. But we seem to have confused the two. It has given us a sense of public schizophrenia. On one hand, the folks in Congress have passed legislation making it harder to immigrate--even legally. On the other hand, Immigration and Naturalization Service people are working doubly hard to help people become citizens. Bills rolling through Congress would slow the immigration process. Included in the measure passed by the Senate this month are provisions to sharply limit federal benefits available to legal residents, even as they pursue the process of becoming citizens. It means that legal immigrants couldn't apply for a student loan, a tuition grant (even based on merit) or federal job- training assistance. The penalty is deportation. Even if a legal immigrant gets help, and later seeks citizenship, the reward would be deportation. Should we tolerate legal residents who perform acts of terrorism against the United States, or threaten its society with acts such as drug-smuggling? Of course not. But under the recent Terrorism Act, a legal resident who has been a successful member of society for years and ran afoul of the law would be deported. That's hardly a welcoming gesture. It would make me wonder whether our nation, which has traditionally embraced all classes of people, really wanted me. It screams election-year propaganda: ``Look everybody; look how tough we are.'' Such tough talk is phony. But only three senators, including Illinois Sen. Paul Simon, saw it that way and voted against it. All of which brings me to the act of becoming a citizen, which more than 19,000 people did through the Chicago INS office last year. Five times that many will take the oath to support and defend the United States this year. Test question: What amendment addresses or guarantees voting rights? Citizenship USA, an INS project, took over 18,000 square feet of the old Sears store on State Street on April 30. Workers are processing at least 800 people a day to work through a backlog of citizenship applications. In the 12- month period ending this fall, INS officials expect that an amazing 60,000 new citizens will have been naturalized in Chicago. That's wonderful. The next celebration of citizenship will take place May 24 in the International Amphitheater, where 10,000 new citizens from scores of nations around the world will be sworn in. Question: Why did the Pilgrims come to America? Answer: For religious freedom. And a better life. That's something we should keep in mind when we put up roadblocks to the process that enriches us as a nation. Immigration certainly enriched me.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, our former colleague in the Senate, Ambassador Robert Krueger, has been nominated to be Ambassador to Botswana after serving as Ambassador to Burundi. A report that he sent around to some friends about Burundi is worth reading for anyone interested in that troubled nation. I ask that Ambassador Krueger's report be printed in the Record. The report follows: Burundi: An Oklahoma City Massacre Every Hour (A Report by Ambassador Robert Krueger, April 24, 1996) Summary: The situation in Burundi is more threatening to human life and democracy, with a greater chance for major conflagration, than at any time in the last two years. A European diplomat says that ``if the world gives up on Burundi . . . perhaps a million may die'' there. (End summary.) On the weekend of April 19, Americans mourned again and reflected on the worst terrorist attack in our history: 168 people killed a year ago in Oklahoma City. Television cameras covered the scene; dignitaries spoke on the occasion; and citizens everywhere questioned how terror could strike so unexpectedly, shattering lives in an instant and a sense of security for years. But if we adjust proportionately for the difference in populations, Burundi has an Oklahoma City-size massacre every hour of the day. Burundi's population is only about one- forty-second (1/42) that of the USA. Hence, 4 people being killed in Burundi are numerically equivalent to 168 killed in the USA. Regrettably, a reasonable estimate is that 100 people are killed daily in Burundi; or, four every hour, 24 hours a day. Understandably, cameras in America focussed, on April 19, 1996, on Oklahoma City; or on Lebanon, where at least 75 were killed. And world attention naturally follows the camera. Yet, normally there are no international camera crews in Burundi. But the filling continues. This cable is a reminder that in an obscure country in the heart of Africa, the killing is proportionately vastly heavier than what the cameras are covering; or, indeed, than in almost any place else in the world. And as the protagonist of Arthur Miller's play ``Death of a Salesman'' said, ``Attention must be paid.'' I recently sent a summary report (Secstate 80807) stating that I had perceived a steady destruction of democracy and an increase in mayhem during my almost two-year tenure as ambassador to Burundi. And the situation now seems to me worse than when the cable was first drafted several weeks ago. Even though I have not been in Burundi for the past 7\1/ 2\ months, and I must rely on the reports of various individuals whom I learned to trust when I was there, I am regrettably but firmly convinced that the situation in Burundi is at this moment more precarious, with a larger possibility of massive bloodshed, than at any time since my arrival in Burundi in June, 1994. In 1994, and often in 1995, visitors would regularly ask, ``Will Burundi be another Rwanda?'' with, of course, all the fears of historically large genocide which the question carries. My response was ``I won't predict for more than two months or so into the future; but, no, we will not have a Rwanda-type disaster in that period.'' And that much proved true. But today, I find that the president of the large political party, Dr. Minani of Frodebu, has openly written in official public documents, just two weeks ago, that the believes Burundi is in a situation like that of Rwanda before April 6, 1994, the onset of the deluge. Other Burundi leaders and foreign diplomats with whom I have spoken sound more ominous tones than anything I had heard in Burundi during my time there. ``The center will not hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.''-- W.B. Yeats While the international community and those who support democratic institutions in Burundi have both hoped that political centrists and moderates would gain greater control, the country has instead become increasingly polarized. As the poet Yeats said, writing of another revolution, ``The center will not hold.'' Certainly it has not held in Burundi, and the risk is increasing of mere anarchy being loosed--if not upon the world--then at least upon Burundi and other countries in Central Africa. The president and prime minister no longer travel together, and are said to be openly at odds. The prime minister's party, Uprona, has renewed its periodic call for the president's resignation. Moreover, the divisions are not only inter-party, but intra-party. Many Hutu members of parliament are now more sympathetic with Nyangoma than with their official leadership. And divisions among the Tutsi community--in the army itself, within Uprona, within the various minor parties--are forcing people more and more to the extremes. prime minister tells the populace to defend itself against ``enemies'' As is well known, the prime minister several weeks ago called upon the population to defend itself against its ``enemies.'' But, as Dr. Minani pointed out in a recent Frodebu announcement, the Prime Minister did not define who those enemies were. That determination was left to the minds of the arming populace. Such calls to self-defense, it is reliably reported, have been repeated in the prime minister's visits to various locations in the countryside. Meanwhile, the FDD and other guerrilla groups have enlarged their attacks. And in face of an impotent civilian government incapable of protecting them, the majority of the population have sometimes given support to guerrillas even as they spread terror. immolation and murder Consider some of the events of the last several weeks, reported to me from several sources that have proven reliable in the past. (A) In an act of ethnic purification, over Easter weekend, 22 Hutu domestic workers were immolated in Nyakabiga quarter in Bujumbura by their Tutsi employers. (B) Reportedly, 50 Hutus, including community leaders, were killed in the city of Gitega: all were members of Frodebu and related Hutu minor parties. The head of the agriculture department for that region and several teachers in secondary schools were among those murdered. The provincial governor has now fled, as have other Hutu political leaders from Gitega, the second-largest city in Burundi. To judge from recent government actions in other provinces, the civilian governor's departure will offer an excuse to replace him with yet another military governor. (C) Even the national radio, known to favor Tutsi interests, and likely to underestimate the killing, has acknowledged that at least 300 people were killed in Gitega province between April 5-12. (D) Tutsi extremists have driven the Red Cross from the city of Gitega so hat it will be unable to witness and possibly report on the carnage. (E) The FDD attacked and killed a large number of Tutsi students in an urban center (the name of which I failed to record). (F) After an attack by the FDD against the army, at Bukeye, on April 10 the army killed more than 30 Hutu civilians in revenge. (G) An official in the security service has confirmed that members of the military are recruiting Tutsi civil servants and students, training them, and issuing them weapons for use against their ``enemies'' in the countryside. (H) A university official has confirmed that a letter circulating now on campus has been signed by over 100 Tutsi students, urging their classmates to stop academic work and take up arms with them against Nyangoma and his allies (i.e. Hutus) in the Bujumbura quartiers of Mutanga Nord, Kinama, and the countryside. (I) Lt. Col. Nzeyimana Dieudonne, a high-ranking officer in the gendarmerie, was assassinated on 20 April (reportedly by Sans Echec) in Bujumbura. (J) The Hutu parliamentarian Gahungu Gerard, from the Province of Cibitoke--a moderate with a Tutsi wife, was killed by a gunman in Ngagara. (K) On 20 April, at least 7 (perhaps more) Hutus were killed in the Bujumbura quartier of Nyakabiga, having been kidnapped and brought there from other parts of the city. (L) Over 30 Hutus were massacred in the commune of Rutovo by Tutsi militias, assisted by the army. (M) A secondary school (lycee) in Kayanza was attacked with grenades; two students were killed, others injured. ``Perhaps a million will die. . .''--a European diplomat The above are a few illustrations of what is happening. They form but a fraction of the total picture. I have received reports of fighting during the past two weeks in Bubanza, Gatumba, Ngozi, Mutare, Karuzi, Gitega, Rutama, Bururi, and other locations. One reliable source said that at least 75-80% of the country is currently shaken by violence. A respected Western diplomat told me that every province except Bujumbura was now subject to attack by guerilla forces. Perhaps most poignantly, I was asked by a very experienced European diplomat who once served in the USA and now serves in Burundi, ``Please, I know the generosity of the American people. Do what you can to see that the USA remains concerned. I am afraid, (he continued) that most of the world is about to give up on Burundi. But if the world gives up, there is a risk that not just thousands, but perhaps a million will die in a rage that no one can justify.'' I am not suggesting that I expect a million people to die. I do not. And I would be shocked if Burundi suffered carnage on anything approaching that scale. Nor do I believe Burundi has yet arrived at a situation similar to Rwanda on April 6, 1994. But when I observe that the president of the majority political party and an experienced and balanced European diplomat foresee such possibilities, it should give us pause. Two years ago, very few people in Burundi used such severe terms. These two would not have. Today, many others might do so. If asked whether I am predicting the imminence of a major civil war I would say: no. But with qualifications. During the months I was present in Burundi, I said confidently that no such event would occur within the next two months. I can no longer confidently say that. I don't know if the probability of such an event is 5%, 10%, 20% or higher. I do know it is no longer an impossibility. Reports from every quarter describe the situation as more precarious than in 1994 or 1995. The capacity of the Burundi populace to absorb horrendous punishment and yet to persevere is awesome, but not infinite. I don't know the trigger point of national rage. And I have only the reports of others, not of my own eyes. But all their eyes see the situation as deteriorating more rapidly than before. An unclassified cable is not the place to explore suggestions for possible ways to address all these problems. Yet, as ambassador, I want without delay and without reticence to offer a partial account of some of the events and attitudes that now prevail in Burundi. They sound the most threatening and dangerous toward peace, justice, democracy and human life that I have heard during the period that I have been privileged to serve as ambassador to Burundi.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, recently Howard Stringer, chief executive officer of Tele-TV, received the First Amendment Leadership Award presented by the Radio and Television News Directors Foundation at their annual banquet. In his remarks, he comments about the need for sensitivity and realism in dealing with the problems of television violence. In working with television executives on this problem, I have found none superior to Howard Stringer. He is both sensible and sensitive. I urge my colleagues to read his remarks, which I ask to be printed in the Record. The remarks follow: Radio and Television News Directors Foundation Annual Banquet and Celebration of the First Amendment (By Howard Stringer) This is an interesting moment for any broadcaster to accept an award attached to the 1st Amendment. Just weeks ago, President Clinton and a number of television executives assembled in The White House to collaborate on a ratings system which would measure and proclaim the intensity of sex and violence on their programs. The President endorsed the V- chip as a device that would, ``hand the remote control back to America's parents.'' It would be one small step for broadcasters, but a giant step for viewers. Some observers found the quid-pro-quo a little cynical--free use of the spectrum for digital compression on one side, election year political advantage for the other, but all in all, surely a positive gesture. Some observers are concerned that the government has at least nudged its unholy way into content. Remembering President Nixon's use of the IRS as a weapon against political enemies, some day a President could recognize that in the digital future, whoever controls the chip not only controls V for Violence, but V for Voters. In the near term, I'm more worried that this new political contract will do two things. Firstly, it will engender cynicism if it has no impact at all, and secondly, it will let programmers off the hook, especially if by gladly accepting the V-chip they abdicate further responsibility for content. The cynicism factor is no small consideration. Since I came to America, successive governments have trumpeted a grand solution to whatever ails the country. The war to end communism in Vietnam, the war on poverty, the war on hunger, the war on racism, the war on drugs, all created a level of expectation, only to be followed by let down. After World War II, America became, in Robert Samuelson's words, ``a nation of enthusiastic problem solvers'' with the expectation that everything could be easily solved. When solutions fail, he observed, we sink into an atmosphere of ``free floating gloom.'' The ranks of the cynical grow ever larger. In 1993 I attended hearings on Capitol Hill on the subject of violence. With the valiant exception of Senator Paul Simon, most of my interrogators clearly hadn't watched television, couldn't differentiate between network and cable, and weren't terribly interested in debating the issue on its merits. One Congressman told me that he was going to vote for the V-chip because he was fed up with network news reporters attacking Congressional junkets. On the evening after the hearings, I received a telephone call from that remarkable reporter, Jimmy Breslin. He told me he'd just spent the night in Bedford Stuyvesant, where kids were out on the streets, armed to the teeth, dealing in drugs, joining gangs and dropping out of school. ``Trust me'' said Breslin, ``those kids aren't watching your network.'' Of course he was right. The street kids of urban America aren't glued to ``The Nanny,'' ``Friends,'' ``Touched by an Angel.'' We'd be a lot safer if they were. The gutter body count is more accurately represented in movies like ``Die Hard'' or ``Terminator,'' which are `R' rated, than on television, though even in those movies at least the good guys win and the bad guys lose. Ratings systems are valuable to the child with responsible parents. They're not much of an obstacle to the latch-key kid with nothing but time on his hands. So even if we accept that the V-chip will help some parents, let's not fool ourselves that it will diminish violence on the street. Otherwise, the letdown will, as I've said, promote yet more cynicism all round. My second point is that all of us in the broadcasting or cable or telephone programming community have a higher responsibility that the government cannot and should not enforce. Instead of debating the issue of TV's relationship to violence, let's turn the question on its head. Can we help society fight violence? Can we do more? Bill Moyers said recently, ``What we need is a strategy of affirmation by society as a whole, from homes, schools, churches, synagogues and all the institutions that transmit values.'' What about from our entertainment institutions? There has been violence in great literature and in great drama beyond Shakespeare to the ancient Greeks. Blood is the ink of much theatrical history, but great writers understand great consequences. Villains are doomed. Victims mourned. The audience is taught accountability, responsibility, sensitivity and compassion. It's not enough for the audience to leave the stage or screen just thrilled or amused. The true artist can teach us to care, and of course, to feel. If the sociopaths who parade through our news clips show no remorse, then maybe our entertainment programs should. If the eyes of killers reflect only the chill of arctic wastes, then maybe we should offer warmer vistas. If dozens of people die unrecognized and unmourned in our movies, then maybe we should shed tears for them. If we perceive the loss of life as unremarkable, then the absence of love will also be unremarkable. Death stings, pain hurts, loss devastates, fear terrifies. If we complain that television merely mirrors reality, then let us try to reflect our reality more skillfully and honestly. Violence is not poetic or balletic. It is ugly. Violence inspires more tears than cheers on the streets of our cities. True artists have the power to move not only their audiences, but also their times. America won more than the Cold War. It's also winning the global infotainment war. We export popular culture to the world. With that victory comes some responsibility. We can give audiences only ``What they want'' and cynically wait for the cash registers to ring, or we can challenge our creative minds to reach further into their souls. We can certainly do more than shelter gratefully behind labels, and allow taste to evaporate. In the end industry leaders must take personal responsibility for what goes on the screen. If we separate like church and state, our artistic values from our personal values, then we create programs for others we would not be willing to share with our own family and friends. If we produce dreadful entertainment just because we automatically assume they, the viewers, will like it, eventually the viewers will turn on us, challenge our cynicism and demand not just the V-chip but the C-chip-C for censorship. The greatest threat to all our hard won freedoms, whether freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press or the right to petition is cynicism. I accept this award on behalf of my colleagues, my collaborators and my comrades, especially those of you I know in this room who are anything but cynical. If all of you are to be custodians of the new world cultural order, then you have a clear duty to try to protect and cherish its citizens.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, Jeff Lyon had a brief observation under the title ``Common Sense, R.I.P.'' in the Chicago Tribune magazine, which I ask to be printed in the Congressional Record after my remarks. It comments on the death of 7-year-old pilot Jessica Dubroff, but its real commentary is on our society and what we have permitted. It is worth reading and reflecting upon. The article follows: Common Sense, R.I.P. (By Jeff Lyon) Despite what legions of editorial writers have said, the real message in the death of 7-year-old pilot Jessica Dubroff is not that we're pushing our kids too hard, which, it goes without saying, we are. It's that everywhere you look, the perishable human commodity known as common sense has died. Of course, it's absurd that the FAA lets tots fly planes. But it's equally crazy that we can't get a ban to stick on guns that can kill a dozen people in a microsecond. Or that the government is allowed to spend more than it takes in for years, even though any imbecile know what happens when you charge up too much merchandise on your credit cards. An entire generation celebrates sexual promiscuity, then is surprised when the harvest is AIDS, herpes, illegitimacy and marital erosion. An industry that makes billions selling a lethal, highly addictive drug like tobacco claims the stuff is harmless in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and is allowed to get away with it. We pile people into public housing, take the dignity of work away from them and are astonished when the result is a permanent underclass. We put our schools on short rations, then are shocked that our kids think like Beavis and Butthead. We let the rankest, foulest programming spew out over the airwaves and wonder why there is moral decay. There was a time when people recognized that certain behaviors had consequences. It was a lesson that sank in the first time you got sick after Mom warned against eating too many potato chips. But that kind of wisdom has become another casualty of modern life. Maybe moms and dads aren't dispensing it anymore. Maybe moms and dads aren't even home anymore. Whatever the cause, as a society we've forgotten our umbrella and now it's started to rain. Isn't it time we reacquired the sense to go inside?

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would like to briefly highlight the work of several telecommunications companies and organizations, which together have created the Alliance To Outfox Phone Fraud. This cooperative alliance, which includes the Illinois Consolidated Telephone Co., is working to educate and enlist the assistance of consumers in preventing telephone fraud, a rapidly growing crime which costs consumers nearly $3.7 billion every year. As telecommunications technology continues to improve, the potential for fraudulent activity also rises. As hackers have become sophisticated enough to keep pace with new technology, telephone fraud has grown because consumers are often unaware of the new dangers. Telecommunications fraud takes many forms--``shoulder surfers watch or listen as customers enter their calling card numbers on pay phones; criminals posing as police officers or telephone company representatives try to bill calls to homes; and high-technology cellular thieves use cloning devices to steal cellular phone serial numbers. Summer travelers are particularly susceptible to telephone fraud. As we approach the hectic summer travel season, I urge consumers to take precautions to ensure that they do not become victims of this increasing crime. Certainly, the efforts of the Alliance To Outfox Phone Fraud to increase consumer awareness are a step in the right direction.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, North Korea is considered today a rogue state--the last country with a Stalinist system and surely the most isolated country in the world. During the cold war, when we looked at other nations as enemies, we made clear that our differences with those nations were with their governments and not with their people. The same should be true of North Korea today. The food situation in North Korea is turning dire. There are reports of conditions approaching famine, caused by natural disasters, poor harvests, and economic mismanagement. The World Food Program, with personnel on the ground to assess conditions and monitor deliveries, is appealing for more food aid to avert a disaster. Hunger could lead to instability, which could cause desperate actions by the North Korean military, and that would be in no one's interest. The administration wisely granted $2 million in food aid earlier this year, but the situation has worsened, and we should do more. The following editorial from today's New York Times urges the President to put hunger above politics and provide food aid. That is the right thing to do--for humanitarian reasons and in the interest of reducing tensions on the Korean peninsula. I ask that the article be printed in the Record following my remarks. The article follows: [From the New York Times, May 22, 1996] Famine Aid to North Korea Near-famine conditions in North Korea pose a moral and political challenge to the United States and its allies. America's goal should be to feed the hungry without reinforcing the already dangerous military capacities of an erratic, belligerent and poorly understood regime. This can be done by providing generous amounts of grain and other basic foodstuffs, but insisting on a reasonable degree of international monitoring to make sure the aid is distributed throughout the country and not hoarded or sold by the Communist Party and military elite. The United States has previously provided modest quantities of aid through the United Nations World Food Program and Unicef, both of which monitor deliveries. South Korea has supplied more substantial aid through direct shipments. But animosity on both sides of the 38th Parallel scuttled the South Korean effort, and now Seoul is pressing Washington to hold back as well. South Korea wants further food aid suspended until North Korea accepts President Clinton's recent proposal for four-way peace talks involving the two Koreas, China and the United States. Bowing to that pressure would violate an admirable American tradition of not using food as a diplomatic weapon. An entire people should not be punished for the sins of their hard-line Communist leaders. The United States joined other Western donors in feeding Ethiopia during its famine in 1991-1992, though its Marxist tyranny was no less unsavory. The same principle should apply to North Korea if it is stricken by widespread famine this summer, as a new United Nations alert predicts. For most of its 50-year history, North Korea did all it could be discourage trade and even humanitarian assistance from the outside world. Fearing ideological contamination, Pyongyang preached an extreme doctrine of self-reliance and used its heavy-handed police apparatus to keep out all but a few trusted Communist friends. But decades of economic mismanagement, political uncertainties following the 1994 death of Kim II Sung and the abrupt loss of Russian and Chinese support, combined with disastrous flooding last year, have brought widespread suffering and forced the regime to appeal for help. The Clinton Administration should grasp this opportunity to put hunger above politics and advance its own policies of cautious courtship of North Korea. The nuclear freeze agreement the two countries reached in 1994 marked a recognition by Washington that a nuanced combination of military deterrence and diplomatic engagement offers the most promising approach to maintaining security on the Korean Peninsula. In present circumstances, humanitarian aid, military deterrence and opening North Korea to fresh winds of change all go together. The Clinton Administration would be right to explore the possibilities.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, with 28 years of active-duty service, Lieutenant Colonel Dunkle will be retiring from the U.S. Air Force, Medical Service Corps, this August. During his years with the Air Force, Lieutenant Colonel Dunkle has helped manage the delivery of military medical services. As a senior member of the MSC, he has mentored younger service members. The delivery of quality medical services to our active-duty force is a critical job that Lieutenant Colonel Dunkle has done with vigor and excellence. We should recognize the contributions of this soldier and his MSC staff.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, it has been my practice in each of the 41 years I have spent in public life to volunteer a detailed accounting of my finances. I ask that my financial report for 1995 be printed in the Record. The financial report and related announcement follow: Announcement For the 41st consecutive year that he has held public office, U.S. Senator Paul Simon, D-Ill., has released a detailed description of his income, assets and liabilities-- the last such report that he will file before retiring from the Senate when his term ends in January 1997. Simon has been making the voluntary annual statements longer than any other national officeholder. Simon set his policy when he left the newspaper publishing business he had established to enter public service and has followed the practice during his eight years in the Illinois House of Representatives, six years in the Illinois Senate, four years as lieutenant governor, 10 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and now 11 years in the U.S. Senate. The listing predates disclosure requirements of state and federal law and continues to exceed those requirements. Senate rules today require only the listing of income within broad brackets. Simon's practice also has set the standard for many officeholders in Illinois. Simon also continues to exceed Senate requirements by listing detailed income for his wife, Jeanne. The Illinois Senator lists 1995 income for himself and Jeanne Simon totaling $196,300.60, down from $206,287 in 1994. The figure includes Paul Simon's Senate salary, Jeanne Simon's per diem compensation as chair of the Naional Commission on Library and Information Science, and reimbursements to Paul and Jeanne Simon for travel and other expenses. The Simons had assets of $551,837.35 and liabilities of $106,979.79 for a net worth of $444,857.56. Earlier disclosures have shown Simon to be one of the least wealthy members of the United States Senate. The detailed 1995 financial report of Senator Paul Simon follows: Income statement: Paul and Jeanne Simon--1995 General Income (Paul Simon): Salary, U.S. Senate.....................................$133,600.00 State of Illinois, General Assembly System................22,281.60 Book Royalties.............................................2,788.45 Dana College, Homecoming Payment Refund.......................43.00 Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Insurance Reimbursement..............100.75 Movies Unlimited, Refund......................................20.49 Discover Card, Cash Back Bonus.................................7.28 Earnings, IRA................................................989.46

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate will pass S. 1624, a bill to reauthorize and provide a permanent mandate for the Hate Crimes Statistics Act. I would like to thank Chairman Hatch for his leadership on this important issue, as well as my 51 colleagues who cosponsored this measure. In addition to its strong bipartisan support in the Senate, this bill also has the strong support of Attorney General Reno, as well as the endorsement of major law enforcement and advocacy groups. The Hate Crimes Statistics Act, which passed the Senate in 1990 by a vote of 92 to 4 and was signed into law by then President Bush, requires the Justice Department to collect data on crimes that show evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. Until this Act was passed, no Federal records of such crimes were maintained. This lack of information made it difficult to determine whether a particular crime was an isolated incident, or part of a continuing series against a particular group. The act has proven successful in its initial purpose--the creation of data collection--and has also served as a catalyst for an FBI effort to train State and local law enforcement officials about hate crimes. Hearings held before the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution in 1992 and 1994 showed that one of the prime benefits of the act is that it has helped dramatically increase the awareness and sensitivity of the police about hate crimes. Not only do victims of hate crimes benefit from a more informed police force, but greater police awareness encourages others to report hate crimes. Since all data submission under the act is voluntary, we did not anticipate 100 percent participation by State and local law enforcement agencies from the start. Nonetheless, over the course of 4 years, there has been great progress in participation levels. In 1991, 2,771 law enforcement agencies participated in the voluntary reporting program. In 1994, more than 7,200 agencies participated. Local police, advocacy groups, mayors, and others have joined the effort to encourage every law enforcement agency to comply, and as more and more local agencies participate, the statistics will be more and more useful to identify trends and formulate responses. In addition, the FBI is in the process of working with States to upgrade their computer systems. When this transition is complete, the data should be even more useful. Unfortunately, there are still law enforcement agencies in some States and many large cities which are not yet participating in the data collection. We need active oversight of this act to ensure that these agencies join in this important effort, making the statistics more accurate and useful. FBI Director Louis Freeh has stated that he is committed to the continued tracking of hate crimes statistics. However, we believe that this effort has proven its usefulness and deserves a permanent mandate. Collecting such data will not erase bigotry. It will, however, be a valuable tool in the fight against prejudice. Obviously, the FBI statistics do not yet accurately reflect the level of violence motivated by prejudice in our society. We need only read the headlines and reports by advocacy groups to see how widespread the problem of hate crimes remains in our Nation. The Justice Department recently launched a civil rights probe into a rash of arson which has destroyed at least 23 black churches in the South since 1993. The Justice Department is trying to determine whether the crimes are racially motivated, and whether they are connected. Several of the incidents have been solved, however, and clearly racism motivated the offenders. The teenagers found guilty of burning a church in Mississippi in 1993 shouted racial epithets during commission of their crime. Racist graffiti was spray-painted on the walls of a Knoxville, TN Baptist church set afire on January 8, 1996. Sumter County Circuit Court Judge Eddie Hardaway, a black judge who sent two white men to jail for vandalizing black churches, was recently the victim of a shotgun attack which shattered bedroom windows in his home. During the 1960's civil rights movement, many black churches were set ablaze, however in the late 1980's and early 1990's only one or two such crimes were reported each year. This recent string of arson reminds us that prejudice and hate crimes remain a problem in our Nation. Recent reports by private groups, such as the Anti-Defamation League, the National Coalition on Anti-Violence Projects, and the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, confirm that unfortunately the problem of crimes based on prejudice continues. The ADL's 1995 annual audit of anti-Semitic incidents actually had some good news: the 1,843 anti- Semitic incidents reported to the Anti-Defamation League in 1995 represented a decrease of 223 incidents, or 11 percent, from the 1994 total of 2,066. This is the largest decline in 10 years. However, this good news is tempered by the seriousness of many of the incidents reported. For the fifth straight year in a row, acts of anti-Semitic harassment against individuals outnumber incidents of vandalism against institutions and other property. The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Projects and New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project report similar findings for 1995. There were fewer incidents of violence against homosexuals in 1995, but the incidents were more violent. There was an 8 percent drop in the number of incidents, but a 10 percent increase in the number of assaults and rapes. We need to realize that the name-calling, the graffiti, the discrimination, and the threats and violence are all signs of a pervasive problem. The more informed we are about the scope and nature of our communities' problems with hate crimes, the better able we will be to develop effective prevention and prosecution strategies, as well as support structures for victims of these crimes. I am pleased to join with Senator Hatch today to express our gratitude to our colleagues, the Attorney General, law enforcement and advocacy groups across the Nation who helped us to pass this important legislation and urge our friends in the House to move quickly to pass this as well.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I certainly agree to that--particularly if the Senator from Tennessee will agree to your amendment. Seriously, I do not have the floor, but I am pleased to hear the Senator from Tennessee.