Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I was going to speak for 3 to 5 minutes on the Bumpers amendment.

Mr. SIMON. If the Senator from Tennessee has no preference, I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly, and I assure him that I will speak briefly.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment offered by Senator Bumpers. Let me just remind you of where we were not too many years ago. In 1975, I came into the U.S. House of Representatives. If you take the defense budget for 1975 and add an inflation factor, this year we are going to spend $22 billion more than we spent in 1975. In 1975, we were involved in the cold war, a nuclear confrontation. We were involved in Vietnam. Now, the other side will point out that we had a draft then, and we did not spend as much money on personnel. But let us face it, the world has changed dramatically and, because of the pressure from our friends in the defense industry, we are not changing, and we ought to. Gertrude Stein would say, ``Money is money is money.'' For us to say some money is more sacred than others, and we are going to give the Pentagon $11 billion more than they requested, we are going to cut back on education $2.3 billion, I do not think that makes sense. If someone wants to set up a firewall around education--and I strongly support education--I am going to vote against that. I do not think we have a firewall for anything. The Senator from Arkansas makes good sense, and I hope we will have the good sense to do that. I point out, about 3 years ago, by voice vote, without a dissent, I offered an amendment to get rid of the firewall, and the Senate unanimously adopted that. I remember Bill Bradley and Joe Biden were cosponsors of that amendment, along with Senator Bumpers. When we got to conference, our friends in the defense industry went to work, and we lost. But this amendment makes sense. This is in the best interest of our country, and I hope we adopt the Bumpers amendment. Amendment No. 3981 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the funding levels for the Presidential election campaign fund)

Mr. SIMON. If I could have 4 minutes in the process of this.

Mr. SIMON. I wanted to speak on that amendment.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I confess I have some mixed feelings on this. While I have been recognized on opposition time, it is possible that I will vote for it because there are things that I think are very good in this.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, let me say that there is one area where I differ with my colleague from New Mexico, and I have great respect for him. I think he is one of the finest Members of this body, and his leadership in trying to move us toward a balanced budget I applaud. But I think, outside of the philosophy in the budget where the two sides differ--here you see fundamental differences. How much should go for education? How much for this? But two basic deficiencies are: First, we are having a tax cut when we have not balanced the budget. I just do not think that makes sense at all. Our colleague, Senator Feingold, is going to have an amendment on that. Second, we have to deal with the CPI. Senator Moynihan has been excellent and eloquent on this. Senator Nunn was great. Pete Peterson had the article in the Atlantic Monthly. Anyone who is serious about this question, take a look at Pete Peterson's article. We simply have to balance the budget, and that means we are going to have to address the CPI question sooner than later, and the sooner we do it, the better. It is politically awkward. There is no question about that. I have to say, the other side of this, without having studied where we are going, to say that we want to divert 2 percent of the total tax payroll to a private investment plan without doing any studying on it and without having hearings on it, I think is a questionable procedure. I really have qualms about doing something like that. So I have real unease about that portion of the amendment, but facing up to the CPI problem is something that we ought to be doing. I yield the time, and I thank my colleague from Nebraska as well as my colleague from New Mexico.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nebraska. There is much that is good in this amendment. First of all, I applaud the bipartisan effort. We have had excessive partisanship in this body. So I like that, No. 1. No. 2, I do differ with my friend from Nebraska in that you do not tackle the CPI. I think that has to be done. We cannot play games anymore with the American public. We cannot pander, and that is what we have been doing too much of. But I say to my friends from Louisiana and Rhode Island, and they are my friends for whom I have a high regard, what you do in here--and I have talked to both of them about this--you limit direct lending for student aid to 40 percent. It is very interesting that we finally passed an appropriations bill that knocked out that limit, and today, a committee made up by the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and groups from the Business Roundtable picked--and I would like the attention of my colleagues from Rhode Island and Louisiana, because I am going to be asking them a question. Today, they made their annual clearance for finals in a governmental award that is given annually for innovation in Government that saves paperwork and saves money. Mr. President, there were 1,656 nominations for various things that happened in the Federal Government. They have narrowed the list to 25. And guess what? Direct lending is 1 of the 25 that saves money and saves paperwork. The State auditor of Colorado says the University of Colorado alone saves $191,000 a year on direct lending. The Department of Education, as a result of the appropriations bill, has increased the number of schools, colleges, and universities that can have direct lending from 1,350 to 1,800, about 45 percent of the colleges and universities of this Nation. Not a single 1 of the 1,350 who are on new direct lending want to go back to the old system. Not a single one. Now we have gone from 1,350 to 1,800. I ask my friends from Louisiana and Rhode Island, which schools in Rhode Island and Louisiana do you want to tell you have to go back to the old system, you have to have more paperwork, more costs, and you cannot help your students as much?

Mr. SIMON. I yield to my friend from Louisiana.

Mr. SIMON. But my staff tells me that if this amendment is adopted, we have a 40 percent cap.

Mr. SIMON. I think we can meet the numbers, frankly. I am going to check with my staff again. I have been told you have this 40 percent cap.

Mr. SIMON. The reality is, of course--if I may ask for an additional 60 seconds.

Mr. SIMON. The reality is direct lending under balanced scorekeeping, and we are trying to work that out with your staff right now. Direct lending saves money by any normal procedure, as the awards today have indicated. I will check this out with my staff. But if there is any kind of 40-percent limitation, frankly, I am going to have to oppose this, because I think it just tries to move us in the wrong direction. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 4002

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Kerry amendment. I thank Senator Kerry for his leadership as well as Senator Murray from Washington for her leadership. I first had the chance to meet John Kerry many years before we served in the Senate together. I was impressed by him then, and the contribution and sense of vision and understanding he had, and I have been impressed in my years in the Senate. Every study that any economic group makes of where we ought to go, what we ought to do, I do not care whether it is conservative, liberal, what it is, they all come back and say one thing: we have to invest more in education. In the area of higher education, we are still preeminent in the world, though others are catching up. In the area of primary and secondary education, we are now among the developed nations in what we spend per person about 14th. In preschool education, we are way behind. We ought to be doing more. This is where we set the priorities. Let me just give you an historic analogy that my friend from Nebraska is old enough to remember along with me, if he will forgive me, and that is the GI bill after World War II. It was an interesting thing; there was a fight among veterans groups as to what should happen. The American Legion, of which I am a member--and I have sometimes differed with my friends in the American Legion--after World War II said we ought to have an education program for veterans, and they pushed it. And some of the other veterans groups said no, we should have a cash bonus for veterans. Fortunately, for the United States of America, the American Legion prevailed, and the GI bill was a huge step forward for this Nation. We then had in comparative terms about one-third of the income, even accounting for inflation, that we do today. The average grant, if you were to add inflation, from the GI bill today would be $9,400, regardless of income. We struggle for $2,300 in a Pell grant today for those of extremely limited income. However, in a sense we are going through the same fight. And here I differ with some of my friends on both sides. We do not call it a cash bonus today. We call if a tax cut. And instead of investing in education, we are being asked to cut back on education. It is shortsighted. We ought to be looking at our children and our grandchildren and saying, how do we build a better future for them? I have to believe we do not do it by giving tax cuts that, frankly, I do not think are wise. We are saying we are going to balance the budget in 7 years, and it is kind of like a New Year's resolution. We are proclaiming a New Year's resolution to diet and starting with a huge dessert. And then we have the wrong priorities--$11 billion more for defense than the Defense Department requests but cutting back on education. So I strongly support my colleague from Massachusetts in this effort. I think he is right, and I applaud his leadership on this amendment. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. SIMON. I appreciate the Chairman's willingness to look more closely at this issue. I understand and respect his intent in supporting last year's budget scoring change. I moved to strike that language, during debate on the budget resolution last year, both because I questioned the change, and because other budget scoring issues were not addressed at the same time. My concern then, and now, is that the scoring change may have gone overboard, either in how it was written or how it has been implemented. The Chairman has moved swiftly in responding to my request at mark-up last week, and already a meeting has occurred among staff from the Committee, CBO, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Education Department. I ask my colleague what his sense of that meeting is, and where we go from here.

Mr. SIMON. I agree with my colleague. CBO and the Education Department need to share data on this issue in order to answer this question. The meeting on Tuesday was a very good first step.

Mr. SIMON. I would respond that there are a number of imperfections in the budget scoring of student loans, and that the chairman's point about administrative costs is one of them. But on the whole, I believe the imperfections create a bias in favor of the government-guarantee program. That is why I objected last year to addressing only the issue of administrative costs, without considering other issues. I explained some of these issues in a letter to the chairman last week, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMON. I wonder whether the Senator from New Mexico has had an opportunity to review the letter?

Mr. SIMON. I would agree. We are engaged here in fine-tuning an important budget reform, not criticizing it. I thank my colleague for providing that perspective, and for his willingness to look at these issues. colorado river basin salinity control program

Mr. SIMON

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

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I just watched Senator Dole make his announcement. I want to join with Senator Daschle in his comments. I have worked with Bob Dole from my days in the House and have come to have great respect for the huge contribution he has made here in the Senate and to our country. I think sometimes we get so partisan here that we forget the contributions that people are making. Let me add one other thing, because media coverage is so negative all the time on candidates and officeholders that I think one thing is ignored, which is that we have a good choice between two outstanding candidates for President in Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. For philosophical reasons, because of who might be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and that type of thing, I am supporting Bill Clinton. But I am not going to buy a one-way ticket to Canada if Bob Dole gets elected. I think the American people have a choice between two very fine, substantial candidates. That is the way our system should work. In all the negatives that people will hear between now and November 5, the American people should not lose sight of that. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be equally divided.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I first want to commend my colleague from Iowa. As Senator Domenici said, through the years we have to be more prudent in defense spending. I am for this amendment for two reasons: One is it reduces the deficit. Some of us on this floor right now are members of the Budget Committee. Let me tell you without a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget the 7 years that both sides are talking about will not result in a balanced budget. We put all the tough decisions off to the end. Not all of them but most of them. So we are not going to achieve a balanced budget without a constitutional amendment, and this at least moves in the direction of reducing the deficit. Second, I am for it because the budget as it is constituted has an imbalance. What the Grassley amendment does is gives the Defense Department $3 billion more than they requested. Frankly, if I were to put the budget together--for example, in yesterday's New York Times is a story, ``U.N. Says North Korea Will Face Famine as Early as This Summer.'' And in today's Washington Post it says ``No Help Set for N. Korea.'' I do not think that we ought to be using hunger as a political tool. I think we would be much smarter saying we want to help feed people who are hungry whether they are Communists, anarchists, or what their background. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to put these two items in the Record.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, let me point out what is happening in defense spending. Here is the United States. Here are the next five countries in defense spending: Russia, Japan, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany. We are spending more on defense than the next five countries combined. The cold war is over, as Senator Exon just pointed out. Let me take you back to the year when Senator Grassley and I came to Congress, fiscal year 1975. Do you know what the defense budget was then adjusted for inflation? It was $234 billion, $32 billion less than we are requesting here. Then we faced the nuclear confrontation with the Soviets. We had a war in Vietnam, as my friend from Iowa will remember. We had all kinds of challenges. Today we do not need to spend anywhere near this amount. If we were to cut the defense budget in half--and I do not advocate that--but if we were to do that, we would still be spending appreciably more than any other country on the face of the Earth. A little prudence as this amendment suggests is just common sense. I hope the Senate will listen to our friend from Iowa with his amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor of it. I think it makes sense fiscally. I think it makes sense from the viewpoint of what we ought to be doing in the defense area. So, Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Grassley amendment, and I hope there will be enough Senators who say let us look at our real needs. Let us look at our deficit situation. The Grassley amendment logically ought to be overwhelmingly supported. I know that is not going to be the case. If we win it will be by a narrow vote. But we ought to vote for the people of this Nation on this next vote. And I think that is a vote for the Grassley amendment. I yield back the balance of the time to Senator Grassley. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. The late Sam and Rose Odelson of Chicago had 13 children, 8 of whom served in the U.S. Armed Forces during World War II. Four served in Europe, three in the Pacific, and one in the States. Two were injured in combat, and altogether, they earned 20 battle stars. Oscar served in the U.S. Army in Italy. Sidney, an Army veteran who landed at Omaha Beach served in France and Germany. Joe was also in the Army, serving near the tail end of the war in southern France. Irving was one of the first sent overseas, serving in the South Pacific. Julius was 89th Airborne, Roy was in the Army Air Corps, Ben served with the 13th Air Force in the South Pacific for over 2 years, and Mike was an MP in the Philippines. All the eight Odelson boys returned home after the war. A few stayed in Chicago, the others moved out to sunny California to work in the insurance, furniture, or restaurant business. With the recent commemoration of the 50th anniversary of World War II, it is fitting to recognize the achievements of this family. I salute these brothers and their family for their selfless commitment to our country. Every year the Odelsons gather out West in Nevada for a reunion. I am sure that they, as do we, will celebrate their contribution.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, recently I was catching up on my reading and I read in a bulletin published by the Embassy of Ethiopia the speech of President Negasso Gidada on the 100th anniversary of the battle of Adwa. Frankly I had never heard of the battle of Adwa before reading this speech but because of its insight into this historic event as well as insights into Ethiopia I ask to have it printed in the Record after my remarks. Ethiopia and its neighbor Eritrea, who divided into two countries peacefully after years of struggle, are both making progress. It is good to see the progress that Ethiopia is making and I congratulate President Negasso Gidada and the people of Ethiopia on their steps forward. The address follows: Address by His Excellency Dr. Negasso Gidada on the 100th Anniversary Celebration of the Battle of Adwa [The following are selected excerpts from the speech of President Negasso Gidada on March 2, 1996, in Addis Ababa] Dear Peoples of Ethiopia, Invited Guests and Friends of Our Country: At the outset, I wish on behalf of all the peoples of Ethiopia, to express my heartfelt joy as we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Victory of Adwa, an event that is accorded a special place of honor in our long history of struggle to safeguard our independence. A hundred years have passed since the victory of the battle of Adwa, a victory which is a source of pride not only to us Ethiopians, but to those peoples of Africa and other continents who suffered under colonial rule. Today, all over our country we are celebrating with great joy the one hundredth anniversary of the victory achieved at Adwa by our heroic fathers who, with their fervent patriotism, halted the invasion designed to subjugate us under the colonial yoke forced upon our African brothers at the end of the last century. This victory achieved by our heroic fathers over Italian colonialists at Adwa, the centenary of which we celebrate with great color today, had special significance not only for Ethiopia but for the anti-colonial struggle of all the African peoples. It is to be recalled that it was in the last quarter of the previous century that the rich European countries decided to divide up Africa among themselves to satisfy their demand for raw materials and markets. Following their decision, European powers invaded all parts of Africa. They deployed highly organized armies equipped with modern arms with the objective of subjugating under direct colonial rule the African countries, most of which were relatively at low levels of development. Africa and her peoples sank into the darkness of colonialism. The colonial powers keen to exploit the wealth and labor that Africa provided them, sought to insure that no country remained free in Africa and began planning to bring Ethiopia under their control. After having labored to weaken our country earlier through various smaller acts of aggression, they eventually launched an all out invasion in 1896. The invading force deployed by Italian colonialists was, however, dealt a crushing blow by our gallant forebears on March 2, 1989 at Adwa. Ethiopia and her peoples were saved from falling under colonial rule. The colonialists suffered great humiliation. The historic victory scored at Adwa, coming at a time when our continent was suffering from foreign domination, had the strong effect of marking a new chapter in the anti-colonial struggle of the African peoples. The victory of Adwa provided a great example for our African brothers to rekindle their struggle to regain their freedom with new vigor and hope. The victory of Adwa contributed greatly to the intensification of the struggle of black peoples all over the world for their right to live in dignity and equality. Adwa provided a vivid example not only for Africa but for peoples the world over suffering under colonialism and racism to revitalize their struggle. It is because of these features signaling light at the end of the dark tunnel of colonialism to the peoples of Africa that we say that the victory of Adwa, beyond being a war between Italian invaders and Ethiopia, had a special meaning and dimension for Africa. The victory of Adwa enabled us to ensure that after the battle our country remained sovereign and free. The victory provided great morale for the resistance of our patriots when the colonialists returned to Ethiopia in strength 40 years later to invade the country for a second time. The generation that struggle valiantly for five years to put to shame the fascist forces who launched the second Italian invasion was the beneficiary of the patriotic legacy of our fathers who defeated the invaders of Adwa. Furthermore the proud struggle and sacrifice of the present generation against the seventeen year traitorous dictatorship which provided foreign forces the opportunity to interfere in our affairs, is proof that the victory of our fathers in Adwa continues to be passed on from one generation to the other. The century old victory of Adwa which left a legacy of patriotism and resistance to the generation that followed would not have succeeded had it not been for the decisive participation of all the peoples of Ethiopia. If all our peoples had not arisen as one and not demonstrated their readiness to resist the invading army, Ethiopia would not have been saved from colonialism, and either would her people have been spared from humiliation. Thanks to all the heroes of Ethiopia, the victory of Adwa ensured that we were bequeathed a free country. Peoples of Our Country, It is difficult for us Ethiopians to have a clear understanding of the situation in which we find ourselves as well as the struggle that awaits us, unless the victories registered in the struggle to resist foreign invaders and our proud history of resistance are seen against the backdrop of the life we have lived in other aspects of our existence. Although the courage that prevailed over repeated external attempts to humiliate our country guaranteed the survival of our independence and kept our flag flying, it also should be borne in mind that there was another side of our existence that had persisted for a long time. This other side has been marked by lack of social liberty and development and by a system that denied us the opportunities for progress, for peace and consolidating strong national unity. The stark reality until recently was that all the peoples of our country had been subjugated under a system in which their democratic and human rights were stifled and their destinies decided by dictators. Being anti-democratic the system denied the peoples the freedom to uphold their national rights and consigned them to national oppression as well as humiliation. Although our peoples are hard working and our country is endowed with abundant natural resources, we have been exposed to abject poverty and associated social hardships because our economy has remained stagnant. Because we have been denied the opportunity to address these and other related problems democratically, our country and its peoples have suffered from continuous internal conflicts. After a long and bitter struggle, our country has embarked upon a path that will extricate it from these and related difficulties. Nevertheless, poverty and backwardness, oppression and national subjugation still remain today the lot of most of us Africans. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us in Africa to re-dedicate our resolve that had enabled us to achieve independence in the direction of extricating our continent from poverty and related social ills. At the regional level, side by side with the responsibility of promoting growth and prosperity in each country, our mission calls for strict observance of the obligation to adhere to the recognition and mutual interests in order to promote cooperative endeavors to achieve prosperity freeing the continent from its multitude of problems. In recognition of the imperative need to strengthen the economic and democratic foundations of our country's sovereignty and independence, Ethiopia has chosen its path of democratic and economic development. It has taken numerous steps in this direction during the transition period and continues to do more along the same lines. The prevalence of peace and democracy in our country today as well as the development activities in which the whole population participates are concrete evidence that our aspirations are unfolding. Our strong conviction is that the path of peace, democracy and economic growth on which we have embarked will steer our country towards the realization of a fully-fledged and sustainable democratic system. Peace in our country has steadily taken root because our nations and nationalities have worked to make it sustainable. Democracy has become a means through which the peoples address their problems. The constitution of dictatorship has been replaced with a democratic constitution through the active participation and efforts of all our population. This is a clear demonstration of the sustainability of democracy in our country. The lesson to be drawn from the development efforts being exerted by regional governments elected by the peoples and that have taken advantage of the wide and extensive powers they have attained and the prevailing democratic and peaceful conditions, is that any effort on the road we have chosen cannot succeed in the absence of the extensive and active support of our population. All the peoples of our country, therefore, should mobilize their energies that are characteristic of their traditional culture of hard work, for the implementation of the programs of peace, development and democracy drawn up by the government. I would like to take this opportunity to call on the peoples of our country to dedicate their energies that constitute the engine of growth towards the implementation of our plans, thereby fulfilling the creation of the requisite internally conducive environment. I thank you.