Paul Simon

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, last summer the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence asked kids how their lives had been affected by guns and gun violence. Over 200 school-age children wrote and submitted essays. Last Sunday, the Chicago Sun Times printed the three winning essays. The expression, out of the mouths of babes, has never been more true than when reading the three winning essays. These three winners, a second-grader, a seventh-grader, and an eleventh grader, get what far too many of their elders do not: bullets, guns, and violent death should not be an increasingly routine part of these children's lives. I ask that the three winning essays printed in the Chicago Sun Times be printed in the Record. [From the Chicago Sun-Times, Sept. 29, 1996] Kids, Guns, and Death It is a sad fact of life: Children today are profoundly aware of the threat of gun violence. Last summer, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence asked school- children how this omnipresent danger touches their lives, and what they thought should be done to end it. Asked to speak for themselves, more than 100 children from nearly two dozen schools submitted essays. It is powerful testimony. Many wrote of their personal brushes with gun violence; far too many told of losing family members and friends, and a few of actually witnessing fatal shootings. Here are the winning essays from three age categories. These young authors will read their entries Oct. 5, when the 14th Annual Walk Against Handgun Violence steps off from the Daley Center Plaza at 11 a.m. Zachery Jefferson Last week, when I layed down to rest for the night. I couldn't sleep because I heard the sound of gunshots in the air. My heart just pound and pound, until I heard the lock turn and the door slam. After I heard my mommy's voice. I was able to sleep. I was worried about my mother walking to our building. I live in a tall building called Stateway Gardens. My mother Ms. Jefferson's work day begins in the afternoon and ends late night about 12:30 midnight. I know it isn't safe for my mom to walk the street in my neighborhood at night alone. She has to work to take care of my sister and I. When I grow up I want to be a policeman, not just a policeman but the Chief of Police. I want to change things. It should be against the law for people to just shoot. Those bad people who are shooting guns like crazy mustn't realize how it feels to worry, or maybe they don't have a mother who works to take care of a family. Well, my heart pounds and beats like a drum when I am upset or worried. For those who don't know what it feels like, I'll tell you. It's like losing something very special and that moment when you realize it's gone, your heart races real fast and sweat pops on your face and your knees shakes. Please stop now. If you don't, watch out for me later! I will be coming with my badge on. Rhea Jackson Guns are something very serious. Many people think that a gun is the answer to solving their problems that won't go away. This isn't true. There are many other ways to solve your problems. People today don't care if a younger child gets injured, shot, killed or even paralyzed because all that really matters to them is to kill their problem that won't go away. Today many boys are killing each other over some crazy things like money, drugs, shoes, name-brand clothes and even girls. That affects me a whole lot because that might be me one day. Instead of the boy getting shot I might get shot in his place. I come from a very overprotective household with a father who is on me like white on rice. Sometimes I feel that he needs to give me a break and let me go to a friend's house. However, when I go I see people who don't have fathers they can turn to and I realize why my father is like that. He doesn't want me to get caught between gangs cross-firing at each other. Then I begin to see how lucky I am to have him around. I feel that it must stop because many youngsters, like myself, want to live long, be able to live to see over the age of 21. I think that the gangs should come to a truce and live together in peace. If that doesn't work, then the police should be more aware of the gang activity going on. I'm saying these things because my cousin almost got in a crossfire between two gangs. They don't realize that bullets don't have names like they think. I think that the reason why kids join gangs is because of peer pressure, for attention and because they don't have anyone to turn to. As you can see there are many things that scare me and other kids. The gangs have little kids, even kids at the age of 5, planning their funerals instead of dreaming about their weddings or Sweet 16 birthday parties. If my essay gets published in a popular magazine or newspaper, please remember: ``Bullets Don't Have Names.'' Claudia Ruiz I personally experienced gun violence with the death of my cousin. I grew up with him and when he died from seven bullet wounds. I lost part of myself. Anyone who loves someone close to them knows that the pain is incurable, except with the dulling that time brings. It changes the lives of all those who knew the victim because part of their life is gone and there are no second chances. Nothing is worth dying for, especially when the decision is not yours. No one has the right to make that decision for anyone. The anger that accompanies the pain is also destructive. Often when a gang member is killed, his brothers seek revenge. This brings further violence and loss of life. No one gains, and the cycle of violence keeps turning. The cause of gun violence is that teenagers are joining gangs at an early age. Some of them join gangs because of the lure of money from selling drugs. Perhaps their family is poor and they need the money to support themselves and their family. Selling drugs offers them an easy solution. More often gang members come from families where they were neglected. They are looking for somewhere to belong, somewhere safe. I believe in each cases that the blame lies largely on the parents who do not give their children the support they needed while they were young. However, that is not to say that the parents are not facing tremendous odds trying to raise their children in an environment where gun violence and gang membership is prevalent. In large families, the older children are neglected as the parents are busy looking after the young. Unfortunately, the older children still need their guidance. Often, elder children become lonely and depressed. For these reasons, they may join a gang to find friendship and belonging. Although the gang may feel like their salvation, their only salvation is to be able to talk to their parents instead of fighting against them. These youth need someone to show them that their families are where they may find safety. They need counseling so that they may talk about their fears and the problems in their family and on the street. In addition, violence prevention counseling would educate the youth to find other solutions to violence in resolving their anger. They need someone to point them in the right direction and to show them they have choices in the future if they make the right decisions now. They need guidance to learn how to be themselves.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I submit for the Record the following corrections to the text of S. 1897 (Report No. 104-364): Sec. 635. (a)(3) Diabetes is the sixth leading cause of death by disease in America, taking the lives of more than 169,000 people annually. Sec. 635. (a)(5) Diabetes is the leading cause of new blindness in adults 20 to 74 years of age. Sec. 635. (a)(6) Diabetes is the leading cause of kidney failure requiring dialysis or transplantation, affecting more than 56,000 Americans in 1992.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. It is a matter of controversy right now before the National Labor Relations Board, as I understand it. What we are doing is we are moving in and making a decision. That is not the way we ought to operate here. We ought to have a hearing. We ought to proceed in the normal way. This is obviously a matter of controversy. This is not how you solve controversies and how you make good legislation. I yield the remainder of my time back to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. SIMON. You may ask a very brief question.

Mr. SIMON. I will let the Senator from Louisiana get his own time here.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, as Senator Kennedy said, everyone is for the FAA bill. The question is this amendment that was tacked on that was neither in the House version nor in the Senate version. Let us just go over what it does again. It benefits one company--one company. It interferes in litigation. The Presiding Officer, Senator Thurmond, for whom I have come to have great respect, has seen in the Judiciary Committee that when we interfere in litigation, with rare exceptions we make a mistake in the U.S. Congress. Third, it interferes in a labor-management negotiation that is going on. We should not be taking one side or another. I do not know who is right. All I know is Congress should not be deciding this. We interfere also in a competitive situation. How does this affect UPS? How does it affect the Postal Service? How does it affect other competitors? No one knows. But people can sure guess. Then, finally, the process is wrong. We have not had a hearing on this. The committee of jurisdiction has not had a hearing on this very complicated and, obviously, controversial labor-management issue. It has been rejected. Just a few weeks ago the Appropriations Committee rejected this very amendment. Yet we see it sliding in on a conference committee here. What it does, in essence, is it says Federal Express and all its employees are to fall under regulations that govern airlines. It so happens Federal Express has about 35,000 truck drivers who, under this legislation now, are going to be considered like airline pilots as far as labor-management relations. That is not the way to govern. It may be this is very meritorious. Let us have a hearing. Let us go through the normal process. But it should not be stuck on in a conference when neither the House nor the Senate had it, when this has been rejected several times by both the House and the Senate.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, upon the passage of the omnibus appropriations package, I would like to take a moment to discuss a provision that will prohibit the expenditure of funds for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' [ATF] disability relief program. The background behind this simple provision is as follows. Under current Federal law, someone who has been convicted of a crime punishable by more than 1 year is ineligible, or disabled, from possessing a firearm--a sensible idea. However, Congress created a loophole in 1965 whereby convicted felons could apply to ATF to have their firearm privileges restored, at an estimated taxpayer cost of $10,000 per waiver granted. We have fought to end this program and have succeeded in stripping the program's funding in annual appropriations bills since 1992. This year, we faced an additional challenge in our efforts to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons. A recent court case in Pennsylvania misinterpreted our intentions and opened the door for these convicted felons to apply for judicial review of their disability relief applications. In this case, Rice versus United States, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that the current funding prohibition does not make clear congressional intent to bar all avenues of relief for convicted felons. By their reasoning, since ATF is unable to consider applications for relief, felons are entitled to ask the courts to review their applications. This misguided decision could flood the courts with felons seeking the restoration of their gun rights, effectively shifting from ATF to the courts the burden of considering these applications. Instead of wasting taxpayer money and the time of ATF agents, which could be much better spent on important law enforcement efforts, such as the investigation of church arsons, we would now be wasting court resources and distracting the courts from consideration of serious criminal cases. Fortunately, another decision by the fifth circuit in U.S. versus McGill found that congressional intent to prohibit any Federal relief-- either through ATF or the courts--is clear. The fifth circuit concluded that convicted felons are therefore not eligible for judicial review of their relief applications. Given this conflict in the circuit courts, it is important that we once again clarify our original and sustaining intention. The goal of this provision has always been to prohibit convicted felons from getting their guns back--whether through ATF or the courts. It was never our intention to shift the burden to the courts. Congressman Durbin and his colleagues succeeded in their efforts to include language in the House appropriations bill to make clear that convicted felons may not use the courts in their efforts to get their guns back. I applaud the House committee for its wise vote on this issue. During the same markup, Congressman Durbin's efforts were undermined by a related exemption offered by Congressman Obey. This exemption would have allowed those individuals convicted of nonviolent felonies the ability to appeal for judicial review of their relief application. According to Congressman Obey's amendment, the opportunity to appeal to the courts would have been closed to those felons convicted of violent crimes, firearms violations, or drug-related crimes. All other felons would have been allowed to apply to the courts for review of their relief applications. Mr. Obey's exemption was clearly inconsistent with the original intent of this provision for three simple reasons: First, one need only consider people like Al Capone and countless other violent criminals who were convicted of lesser, nonviolent felonies, to understand how dangerous this Capone amendment will be to public safety. Our intent when we first passed this provision--and every year thereafter--has been to prohibit anyone who was convicted of a crime punishable by more than 1 year from restoring their gun privileges via the ATF procedure or a judicial review. Second, as Dewey Stokes, the former president of the Fraternal Order of Police noted, most criminals do not commit murder as their first crime. Rather, most criminals start by committing nonviolent crimes which escalate into violent crimes. An ATF analysis shows that between 1985 and 1992, 69 nonviolent felons were granted firearms relief and subsequently re-arrested for violent crimes such as attempted murder, first degree sexual assault, child molestation, kidnaping/abduction, and drug trafficking. Third, there is no reason in the world for the taxpayers' money and court resources to be wasted by allowing the review of any convicted felons' application to get their guns back. It made no sense for ATF to take agents away from their important law enforcement work, and it makes even less sense for the courts, which have no experience or expertise in this area, to be burdened with this unnecessary job. Let me make this point perfectly clear: It was never our intent, nor is it now, for the courts to review a convicted felon's application for firearm privilege restoration. I am pleased that the conference committee understood our original intention and did not allow the Obey provision to stand. As it stands, the omnibus appropriations law is consistent with our lasting desire to stop arming felons.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. What you say underscores the point, that the way we finance campaigns today taints the whole process, there is just no question about it. We can exchange charges, but we need to improve the system.

Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield just for 30 seconds?

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I have great respect for my colleagues from Arizona and my colleague from South Carolina. Senator Hollings in many ways has contributed significantly. He has talked more candidly about the revenue situation that the Federal Government faces than any other Member of this body and I am grateful to him for that. He also is the one who educated me on the whole question of gross interest versus net interest. One of the little games that administrations of both parties play is they list net interest rather than gross interest so interest does not look so bad. Fritz Hollings is the person who educated me on that. But I think on this issue he is wrong. I think there are three questions that we have to ask ourselves. When you ask those questions, then you have to come to the conclusion that we are making a mistake. First of all, who benefits? The answer is--no one has questioned this--one corporation, Federal Express, benefits. No one else benefits by this. Second, there is the question of litigation that is pending. My colleague, the Presiding Officer, sits on the Judiciary Committee. He has not been there too long yet, but he will become, over time, one of the most valued members of the Judiciary Committee and of this body. I have said that, not just in his presence, but to others. I can tell you that, almost always, it is wrong to pass legislation that interferes in litigation. It is just bad policy. And third, the process is wrong. We are going through this and there is no question it is a major change, without any hearings. When the Congressional Research Service says, ``The deletion of `express company' from section 1 of the RLA does not appear to have been inadvertent or mistaken,'' my friend from South Carolina says they are wrong. I do not know who is right. But I would think the committee of jurisdiction ought to hold a hearing on this. I also have great questions of whether we should interfere in a competitive situation. Senator Kennedy is correct when he says UPS is designated in two different ways, and Federal Express wants to be designated in only one way. Federal Express, as I understand it, has about 1,000 planes and 35,000 trucks. What they want to do is to be designated as an airline, including the 35,000 trucks. Maybe that is what we should do. I doubt it, but maybe that is what we should do. I think we ought to at least hold a hearing on it. I am also concerned, and I say this to my friend, the senior Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, who has been a leader, I think we have to honestly ask ourselves, why is Federal Express being given preferential treatment in this body now? I think the honest answer is Federal Express has been very generous in their campaign contributions. I have to say, they have been good to Paul Simon. My guess is, if you check this out, you will see they have been good to every Member of this body. I am grateful to people who contribute, but I don't think they ought to set public policy because of those contributions. I think that is what is happening here. We need to change the way we finance campaigns, and I commend my colleague, the senior Senator from Arizona, for being a leader in this area. The system distorts what happens here, and I think this is an example of that distortion. They have good people, like George Tagg, who I think most of us know, just a very, very fine person. I think most of us frequently use Federal Express. I am not knocking the company. I say to the company leaders who, I am sure, are monitoring what is going on here right now, I think they are well on the way to winning a pyrrhic victory. I think they may well, as the Senator from South Carolina has suggested, get the 60 votes, but I think you will see that journalists, academicians and others are going to use this as an example of a special interest prevailing and the public interest not prevailing. Not to have a hearing on this fundamental question is simply wrong. I hope that somehow a compromise might be worked out where a hearing would be agreed to and it would be agreed that the committee would act, not necessarily favorably, but the committee would act on it shortly after the first of the year. This process is wrong. There is no question the underlying bill should pass, but I think we are doing a disservice to the Senate and to the Nation as we move ahead in this way. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I am grateful to my colleagues who have been so good to me in my years in Congress, but let me also express my gratitude to a lot of others who are not as visible: The pages who serve us so effectively; the people in front, including Bill Lackey, Bob Dove, Scott Bates, all the people who work with us at the front desk; the court reporters, including the distinguished reporter from Menard County, IL; the people in the cloakroom, and the officers. I rise today specifically because I just learned yesterday that Ed Litton, who has been an officer in the Dirksen Building through the years and has been marvelous to me and to the other Senators, but, equally important, and this is true for all the people around here, they are good to the public, and I think make a great impression for American Government. Ed Litton is going to retire October 30. He is going to beat me into retirement. He has just been superb. He is good to people, and I think typifies the police officers in the Capitol area. They have really contributed immensely. I just wish Ed Litton and his family the very best on his retirement. He can look back on his years of service with a great deal of satisfaction. As I leave the Senate, I leave with a great sense of gratitude to all the people who have served us so well, most of whom I regret to say I probably have not thanked as I should. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I have visited Egypt and other nations in the Middle East several times. Egypt is playing a key role in the peace process. As former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said, ``Without Egypt, there is no war, without Syria, there is no peace.'' A strong and healthy Egypt that has an open and peaceful relationship with Israel and its neighbors is a key to ensuring stability in the Middle East. Former President Anwar Sadat and the current President, Hosni Mubarak, have helped develop a vibrant and growing Egypt and secure an enduring stable peace with Israel. Under President Sadat, Egypt became the first Arab nation to make peace with Israel. Making that peace allowed Egypt to concentrate on other domestic priorities and Israel's other neighbors to become accustomed to the notion of peace with Israel. And, even after his death, President Sadat's dream of an expanded peace in a more stable Middle East began to take greater shape. President Mubarak continued Sadat's rapprochement with Israel and helped contribute to plans for establishing a Palestinian homeland. He also worked for greater dialog with Israel and other Arab nations that remained technically, at war with Israel. In light of Egypt's precarious position, though, President Mubarak has been under immense pressure from domestic as well as international forces. Since 1992, the Government has been under attack from an Islamic guerrilla group that has committed several acts of terrorism. In response, the Egyptian Government has for the past 4 years resorted to military tribunals, whose methods and procedures are often unfair, to try Islamic militants, as well as moderate political opposition members. Egyptians have also been illegally detained and allegedly tortured while in police and military custody. While Egypt's human rights record is not as bad as most nations in the region, I am still concerned. I am also concerned that too much of U.S. foreign aid to Egypt goes to the military. Egypt's unemployment rate is over 17 percent, almost 50 percent of its people live at or below the poverty line, and pollution remains an intractable problem. The United States can help Egypt more effectively by putting less emphasis on military aid, and more on economic aid so that Egypt can invest in its infrastructure, worker training, and education. Egypt, as a leader in the Arab world, sets an example for other nations to follow. It cannot remain a stabilizing force if its military grows, while its economy suffers and its own citizens are mistreated and jailed without trial or thorough investigation. Fighting terrorism does not have to lead to abrogation of civil liberties. As I approach my return to academia, I will continue to encourage ways for the United States Egypt partnership to achieve greater peace and stability in the Middle East. Mr. President, we must recognize that a stable and secure Egypt is good for peace in the Middle East. It is in the United States best interst to see a democratic Egypt with human rights observed.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I am pleased that the omnibus appropriations bill includes provisions in title VI that would privatize the Student Loan Marketing Association, known as Sallie Mae. This is the first time that a major government-sponsored enterprise has been cut loose from its Federal moorings, and that is an important precedent. I began calling for Sallie Mae's privatization in 1991, when I questioned the high salaries it was paying its executives, and I raised concerns about the organization's intense and often-deceptive lobbying against student loan reforms. That did not seem appropriate for a government-created entity. This is not the privatization bill that I would have written. Untying the company's ties to Federal taxpayers may take years, longer than I believe is necessary. Sallie Mae is not being required to repay any significant amount to taxpayers. It is true that a fee was imposed in 1993, but the company has found a loophole to avoid paying a large part of that fee, and the privatization bill fails to close that loophole. But despite these flaws, this is an important development, particularly in the larger context of improving government. We can learn from this effort, and I hope that my colleagues, in future Congresses, will take a close look at a bill I introduced with Senator Pryor recently, S. 2095, which promotes a more rational and consistent approach to government-sponsored enterprises and government corporations. Mr. President, the Sallie Mae privatization provisions include important language designed to ensure that all students have access to loans. The Higher Education Act already requires that student loan secondary markets using tax-exempt bonds may not make lending or loan- purchasing decisions based on the borrower's race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age, handicapped status, income, attendance at a particular institution, length of the borrower's educational program, or the borrower's academic year. The purpose of this rule is to ensure that secondary markets do not use such factors as excuses for not effectively performing the supportive functions for which the markets have been allowed to participate in the Federal student loan program. Section 604 of the omnibus appropriations bill amends the Higher Education Act to impose on Sallie Mae the same service requirement that apply under current law for tax-exempt secondary markets. This is a important element of the privatization legislation.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I wish to express my disappointment that the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997 does not include funding for research and development in the area of converting salt water to fresh water. Although, with the assistance of the Senator from Nevada Mr. [Reid], we did make a breakthrough in this Congress by passing legislation that authorizes funding for research and development into desalination, we failed to appropriate funds for this important research. The United States was the world leader in desalination research during the 1960's, but Federal Government support was eliminated during the 1970's. It is vital that the United States again take the lead in desalination research and technology. We are in a situation where, depending on whose estimates you believe, in the next 45 to 60 years we will double the world's population. Our water supply, however, is constant. Clearly, we are headed toward major problems. The reality is the cost of fresh water is gradually going up, the cost of desalinating water is gradually coming down, but there is a gap that remains. That gap is going to hurt us unless we move in the area of research. Converting salt water to fresh water is currently inexpensive enough for drinking purposes. Almost 90 percent of the water used in the world, however, is for industrial and agricultural purposes. Producing enough fresh water from saline water to grow crops and supply factories with water in arid parts of the world remains far too expensive. In a report on desalination authorizing legislation, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works expressed the significance of desalination research and development, stating, ``The United States should renew its commitment to developing this key technology and once again move the United States to the forefront of desalination technology and development.'' Mr. President, the ability to efficiently convert salt water to fresh water is vital to the future of our country. It is vital to the future of civilization. For this reason, I am pleased that the Senator from Nevada will be taking the lead in assuring that funding for desalination research and development is included in any supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1997, and in specific appropriations for fiscal year 1998.

Mr. SIMON

Mr. SIMON. I am not trying to obstruct this thing. I hope we can work out a reasonable answer. I think the reasonable answer is that this piece of labor-management legislation ought to be considered by the Labor and Human Resources Committee when the Senate comes back into session, not stuck on a bill that was neither in the House nor the Senate. All of a sudden we are injecting ourselves. I do not think that is the way to legislate. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON. If my colleague will yield for 1 minute.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I have to tell you I do not know much about the history of this at all other than I know we are injecting ourselves into this labor-management dispute, which we should not be doing.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, as my colleague from Arizona knows, I have great respect for him and the significant contribution he has made in so many areas. Everything he says about the necessity for passing this bill is correct. But what we are doing in this labor-management provision is bypassing the committee of jurisdiction. I remind the Senator from Arizona--I do not think he was here when I mentioned it--this particular amendment was tried on the Appropriations Committee, was defeated in a 10 to 10 vote in the Appropriations Committee. It is a matter of real controversy. It injects the U.S. Congress into a labor-management dispute. I do not know which side is right, but I know that the committee of jurisdiction has not had a hearing on this; that the committee of jurisdiction has not acted, and all of a sudden we are adding this amendment. I do not think that is the way we ought to legislate. As far as my friend from Alaska saying the House is not in session, the House continues to be in session. They are not going to have any more votes. If we pass this without this amendment, it will clear in the House without any objection whatsoever. The Senator from Arizona knows that. The question is not whether the FAA bill should pass. The question is whether it should pass while we insert ourselves into a labor- management dispute that maybe someone in the Chamber knows more about than I do. I do not know that much about it. But I do not think we have any business getting ourselves in the midst of that thing. I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I could not agree more with the Senator from North Dakota. The question is, Are we going to take some amendment that was not either in the House bill or the Senate bill where we move in and say we are going to take sides in a labor/management dispute? I frankly do not know whether the corporation or the labor union is right. But I do not think we ought to be moving ourselves into the middle of this thing. So, Mr. President, I offer this bill on behalf of Senator Kennedy and myself.

Mr. SIMON. I agree with my colleague.

Mr. SIMON. I am pleased to yield to my colleague from North Dakota.

Mr. SIMON. This is the labor-management issue that was added on. And just so there is no misunderstanding, Mr. President, I will introduce for myself and Senator Kennedy the FAA bill with this provision stripped. I am just going to leave it at the desk. I am not asking unanimous consent to move it ahead. Clearly, this ought to pass, but we should not at the last minute with using the cover of FAA inject ourselves into a labor-management issue that has been rejected by Congress before, and all of a sudden in the last minute we are trying to get it passed. That is not the way to do things. We ought to have hearings. If Congress wants to get in the middle of this labor-management fight, let us do it after hearings; let us do it very, very carefully. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of my colleague from Alaska, I agree with 99 percent of what he had to say. What happened, Mr. President, is that in conference on this very vital bill--and the Senator from Alaska is correct when he says this is a vital bill--in conference, a matter where the Congress injects itself into a labor-management issue of one corporation, an amendment that was defeated 10 to 10 in Appropriations Committee when it came up.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in morning business.

Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield?