Alan Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to permit the transference of clear title to certain land in Douglas, WY. I believe that this legislation should be uncontroversial because of the unique history of this land, and the obvious public benefits which will accrue from its transfer. Among those benefits: The transfer will facilitate the cleanup of a 200-foot-wide blighted area that divides the city in half. It will also enable a number of citizens to finally secure sound and merchantable title to property on which their homes are located. These actions will do much to continue to revitalize the city's downtown business district. The need for this legislation is based upon the particular legal history of this land. In the mid-19th century, the United States was eager to fully settle the Western territories which had been acquired during the Mexican War and in the Louisiana Purchase. The principle means of accomplishing this lay with the development of the railroads, which could bring not only settlers, but the rapid transportation of commerce. Laying rail over these vast expanses of the West was a most expensive undertaking. Realizing this, Congress passed a number of railroad acts allowing the immediate establishment of a series of railroad right-of- ways. This was done through the use of special grants that were immediately effective once a railroad decided to locate its track over a specific piece of ground. According to a document entitled ``Railroad Lands and Rights-of-Way'' that was prepared by The First American Title Insurance Co., these grants provided railroads with a limited fee title to strips of land ranging from 200 to 400 feet in width wherever the track might be laid, as long as they adhered to the general routes established in these congressional acts. No patents were given on these rights-of-way because the congressional act was sufficient in itself to convey the interest to the railroad. The titles to the track strips granted by Congress have been determined by [[Page S 12960]] various court interpretations to be limited fee estates. This is an interpretation that has grown up over time, quite apart from the specific mandates of statutory language. It is at this point that the city of Douglas, WY, enters the story. On March 3, 1875, one of these congressional railroad acts established a railroad right-of-way for the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad through a section of what is now central Wyoming. Almost immediately the city of Douglas, WY, was born and it grew up around the right-of- way, which still runs right smack through the center of town. As the years passed, the railroad sold portions of land out of the 200-foot-wide easement to the local citizens. Many of these lots now contain homes whose current owners now have a quite serious problem: because the right-of-way is a limited fee, they are unable to gain good and clear title to their land. To make matters more confounding, the railroad ceased operation and sought abandonment of this right-of-way on April 14, 1989, and filed formal notice in the Federal Register to that effect. In its wake, the railroad left behind this strip of land that has since become quite unsightly and overgrown with weeds. Additionally, this land also contains a number of dilapidated old buildings that blight the community and are dangerous attractions to young children. Fortunately, the city of Douglas remedied one of the most serious dangers by remodeling an old depot and part of the surrounding strip into the city's chamber of commerce and a railroad interpretive center. The city stands by now, ready and able to develop the remainder of this land into an attractive subdivision if Congress is willing to transfer clear title to this land. I trust that the Senate will approve of this legislation in order to transfer this land which previously was governed by the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad. To do so will clearly serve the public interest, and impinges upon no private interests. The good citizens of Douglas will greatly benefit from this correction of a problem rooted in long- ago 19th century law, and I earnestly urge its passage.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, Bob Packwood will soon be absent from us. He is also my friend. He will always be my friend. He was chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee and helped to recruit me for this Senate post early in the year 1978. He has been loyal, steadfast, and true. And I trust that I was able to return that to him in earnest friendship. I have prepared some notes. Many of you know me well, and when I really have something to say, I write it down in my own way, no staff, no winging it, which has sometimes put me in a lot of trouble. But I just want to share a few things that come from down deep inside, and they are brief. They may match some of the things said by my dear friend Mark Hatfield and dear friend John McCain. This remarkable career of Bob Packwood's public service will now end. The political story of his life will close on its final chapter. But other aspects of his life will go on. And we must not, we cannot, and we should not forget the extraordinary accomplishments and successes of this superior legislator simply because of the maelstrom of negatives that have poured forth from some who have chosen to act as judge, jury, and executioner, at so many levels of our society. He was the man who always fought so hard for women and their rights. No one can challenge that statement. He was the man who worked doggedly for civil rights and fairness and empowerment for the lesser people of society. He was the man, often the only man, who carried the banner for women's reproductive rights when others were unwilling to unfurl it. He was the man who fought for job equity and the crashing in of the glass ceiling for women in this country. Every single thoughtful, activist women's group was once on his side ``through thick or thin,'' at least until recent times. Then many of them consciously and callously abandoned him, not willing to consider even a shred of evidence portraying ``his side'' of the story. Now, please make no mistake here. I am not defending what Bob Packwood did or did not do. I do not know the circumstances of all of that, only what I have read and heard. And having practiced law in real life for 18 years, it is my experience to pay guarded attention to what I read or hear. Justice, freedom, and due process depend on various rules of procedure and process. There are few of such rules in the Senate or in the court of public opinion. The Ethics Committee of the Senate was established partly to avoid the travesty of a trial by the media. That mission has now been seriously thwarted and twisted. None of this recent crisis needed to have come to pass. I was serving as assistant leader of our party during a late night session in the month of November 1993. In the Chamber, we were debating and having a great public discussion of the issue of exercising the Senate's power of subpoena of one's most intimate, personal recollections, one's own diary. Late that night Bob Packwood appeared before Senator Bob Dole and myself in Bob's office with his written resignation in his hand, signed by him and to be effective at 2 a.m. the following early morning, just hours away, 3 hours away. That apparently was not enough, for that very next morning the Ethics Committee delivered certain files, records, and pleadings to the Justice Department for ``further proceedings'' as to possible criminal matters, while the committee had made no previous public reference as to any such criminal conduct. Bob Packwood at that moment of time said that he then had no choice but to remain in the Senate in order to fight the charges from the firmest of battlegrounds. I remain terribly disturbed about the entire process. These are not personal reflections upon members or any particular member of the Ethics Committee, I assure you. Oh, yes, yes, I know, we should brush all this past brooding aside because the feeding frenzy is now on and the waters are now blood flecked and teeming with scissor-teethed piranha. Where I personally get in a lot of trouble in life is because of a simple philosophy ingrained in me by a tough grandfather who practiced law and a dear and marvelous father who practiced law, who taught me the power and worth of that craft, and two stalwart sons who come now after me and are practicing the very special profession of law. The best original advice was, ``If anyone goes to jail, be sure it's your client.'' I liked that advice. I cherished that advice. But I learned a more important thing then, and it will always be so, that there are always two sides, always, always. We have only heard one. There is such a thing as due process and fairness. That has not yet been completed. There are some stirring words in our Nation's founding documents and in all laws that take their breath of life from those documents and what comes from them requires--no, certainly, it demands--that we must be able to confront our accusers; that we be able to review and examine all papers and documents and witnesses that the ``prosecution'' may deem relevant in the case. We know that the process of selecting evidence that is ``relevant'' or ``not relevant'' does not rest with the parties but with an unbiased finder of fact. We cherish the law that any accuser must at some point, in some proceedings somewhere within the system of justice within this country, be required to raise their right hand and swear to God or make other affirmation that what they are telling is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and that person then, after affirming such an oath, is to be subjected to cross-examination based upon the rules of evidence and due process. It is my understanding that 6 of the 19 accusers of Senator Packwood have not yet been identified in the media and do not wish even at this time to be publicly identified. Apparently, they are to remain ``unidentified'' even to the extent of retaining that status as [[Page S 12800]] the committee releases the record of the proceedings to date. Senator Packwood indicates that a number of witnesses have come forward on his behalf because they have read about it or suddenly learned of the complaints against him on television or in the press. Additional witnesses are not going to be able to come forth as long as complainants remain unidentified. Perhaps there is yet some forum for Senator Bob Packwood to state ``his side.'' That will be his choice, not mine. So Bob Packwood is leaving our midst. We know not what the future will hold for him, but he is a fighter. He has fought for women and their rights. He has fought for the lesser in our society and for their rights. He is a true civil libertarian and his public life should not be judged in parts but in sum total. He has conquered an affliction that surely contributed to his downfall, alcoholism. These last recent years have obviously been nightmarish for him and obviously also for his accusers. That is so true. But the Good Book speaks of judgment and justice and truth and forbearance and tolerance and forgiveness, and we might draw on some of those timeless strengths and attributes in judging this man. Very few of us in public service have had a life unexamined, but now that will be so to ever more degree. But how far back in life do we then go? As I have said several times before, the Al Simpson who was on Federal probation at the age of 18 is not the same Al Simpson standing here. The Al Simpson who was thrown in the clink at age 20 for clubbing a guy around on the streets of Laramie is not the same Al Simpson standing here, although sometimes the feelings are still burning down there. [Laughter.] How far back do we go? Anyone here want to go back in their life to 1969 to see what you were up to? Check with me. Come in. Let us have a visit about that. So if we in the Senate really are to receive the same treatment, for this is what the public is always demanding of us, that we should expect the same treatment--no more and no less--than our fellow men and women, then, pray tell me why the statute of limitations in any jurisdiction in America is no longer than 6 years for offenses far more serious in nature than the ones charged against our brother from Oregon. That may be very difficult for some to understand, but it is the truth. The statute of limitations is limited to 6 years in the most lenient of jurisdictions and is an average of 3 years in most other jurisdictions, and yet they have plumbed the scraps of life of Bob Packwood back to the year 1969. Where does it all end? That would be a good question to ask ourselves, and many surely will not do it in any public forum. But when we return to the comfort and solace of our own homes this night, visiting with loved ones and friends and reflect upon the sadness and tragedy of Senator Bob Packwood and of the victims--and I mean that--remember what can be asked and inquired of the accusers can also be the nature of an inquiry to the accused, which is this: How would you feel if this were happening to you? That is not a diversion. That is not a clever phrase. That is not corny. It is not naive. It is not uncaring. It is not unresponsive. It is not the mumbling of a bald, emaciated 64-year-old Senator from Wyoming who ``just does not get it.'' I have heard all of that guff before. It is just something we should not forget in life as we are pushed forward in the undertow of the immeasurable tide of the information age of a free society. The print and electronic media is now playing all of the varied roles heretofore to be performed only by administrative and court tribunals. There was a reason for the Ethics Committee. It was to avoid a ``public hanging.'' It was to avoid ``frontier justice.'' It was to avoid ``vigilante justice,'' if you will. That is one of the reasons why it was created. Something has surely gone awry. It will be up to those of us remaining in the Senate to set the course anew. And to my friend Bob Packwood, God bless you, Godspeed. You are loved by many. Thank you. [Applause in the galleries.]

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, one of my nicest colleagues, some months ago, drew my attention to a most intriguing document that had been sent, unsolicited, to his splendid wife. This little gem of an item was sent by an organization with which I have, alas, become too well acquainted: The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. I was most intrigued by this missive, and come the merciful end of these remarks, I trust that my colleagues will understand why. Most of them, I believe, already know that I have been reviewing the activities and structure of the American Association of Retired Persons, [AARP]. Let me simply say here that I had chosen to review the AARP, alone among seniors' groups, for a variety of reasons--ranging from Federal grant receipts, to failure to pay appropriate taxes, to hiding a massive business empire behind the glossy veneer of nonprofit social welfare law. But, I took pains to point out, there is no law against distorting the truth. They may say some outrageous things, but there is no law against that. When they do that, using their first amendment rights, I would simply use mine to set the record straight--as I see it. No, Mr. President, there is no law against uttering untruths, but neither is there a law against pointing out untruths when they are uttered. And this pathetic document, from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, is a case study in distortion, fear-mongering, sophistry, and yes, outright falsehoods. It is a shameful and disgraceful exercise, concocted with only one nefarious purpose: to frighten senior citizens out of their money. Let me be directly, unmistakably clear to all out there who might be listening. If you are part of an organization like this, an organization dedicated to bilking seniors' out of their money in this way, please hear this: Do not take heart in my earnest review of the AARP. Do not assume that this is an open invitation for you to twist and to distort and to otherwise capitalize on the travails of your behemoth rival. Because I certainly believe that this sort of wretched activity is also worthy of a congressional hearing. I know that the Aging Committee has looked at these mail-order practices before. Perhaps it will again. Perhaps I will do so in my Social Security Subcommittee: The topic will be ``Deceptive Tactics Employed in Fundraising.'' And this item will be exhibit A in that hearing. Now, let me give a little historical background about this particular document: Some weeks ago, I met in my office with Martha McSteen, the president of the National Committee, along with Max Richmann of the same group. This meeting occurred because I felt they had reneged on a promise they had made to me. They had come before the Finance Committee, and I had criticized them severely for their distortion of the ``notch'' issue-- they had been perpetuating a notion without factual foundation, an idea that individuals in the ``notch'' had somehow been ``shortchanged.'' At that time, they promised me that they would not continue to raise the ``notch'' issue. They conceded that the Notch Commission had correctly concluded that there was ``no legislative remedy.'' And so I was chagrined to see the ``notch issue'' raised yet again in a National Committee fundraising letter. So I asked them into my office to explain this. They were very contrite, and most eager to please. They assured me that they would not continue to beat the drum on the ``notch'' issue, and then made me another promise. I had challenged them to employ a little honesty in communications with their members. I had said to them, ``I hope you will not say that we are cutting or reducing benefits when we are only proposing to slow increases.'' And they replied, ``Oh, no, Senator. We aim to be very truthful in that regard, unlike other rival groups. We will not employ that scare tactic.'' That is the way this group works. They come before the Congress and they smile, and they are accommodating, and then they send out these vicious, inflammatory, false statements to their membership. Let me read from this document to my colleagues. I have made numerous notes on my copy, including occasional exclamations of ``H.S.''-- initials for a phrase I shall not spell out here in this public forum. For example, the National Committee is particularly insistent in drawing a line between ``earned entitlements'' and ``welfare.'' We can't do anything to address spending on Medicare, they say, because they have all been ``paid for.'' They even go so far as to talk about the monthly part B premium and to say, ``None of these benefits are handouts. You've earned * * * them through your * * * payments into the system.'' [[Page S 12348]] That is a flat-out lie. Medicare part B is not paid for with payments into the system. It is a direct benefit, unearned, it has no trust fund, and it goes directly from the general taxpayer's contributions to beneficiaries. Unlike part A, it is not financed by payroll tax contributions. The premium collected under part B is paid upon voluntarily joining the program, and accounts for only a small fraction of cost. Part B is a transfer of resources--like any welfare program-- pure and simple. Then they go on to say that their experienced, skillful lobbyists, ``helped convince Members of Congress to defeat the proposed balanced budget amendment because it did not include adequate assurances that Social Security would be protected.'' And further, ``Actual savings to Seniors * * * at least $1,000 per year.'' They go on to say that ``our political activism saved seniors a total of $4,521 in future retirement benefits.'' Again, that is so much malarkey. First, they reached that figure by lumping in various Medicare measures and then saying that they had saved over $4,000 in retirement benefits. Medicare is a not a retirement program, it is a health care program. Seniors who are not retired can receive Medicare. So the lion's share of the claim of $4,521 in savings disappears right there. And the rest of it disappears, too, because there was never a suggestion that Social Security benefits would be cut because of a balanced budget amendment. In fact, we recently passed a budget resolution that meets the terms of that balanced budget amendment, and it does not cut 1 cent in Social Security benefits. So the claim by the National Committee that they had somehow saved seniors from over $1,000 in Social Security cuts annually is an outright lie. We proceeded with our resolution precisely as if the BBA had passed, and no such cuts are contained in it. The kicker, though, is that the reader is urged to send them some more money, so that they can save Social Security all over again. Another quote: ``No one else is fighting for''--enter name of the recipient--``in the same way the National Committee is today.'' This letter tells seniors that this committee is the only thing standing between them and the loss of their benefits. Outrageous, despicable, contemptible. I could go on--there is so much more. But let me turn to the poll that is contained in this letter. Here is a good one: ``Would you be able to maintain the retirement standard of living you're planning on if Congress cut Social Security and Medicare benefits by 20 percent?'' Here is another one: ``Would your other insurance and savings be sufficient to cover any hospital costs you may expect to incur during retirement if Congress severely reduces the amounts currently paid under Medicare part A?'' I cannot imagine how anyone--including my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--could find any factual basis for these questions. Even the severest critics of Republican budget plans do not allege that we are planning to ``reduce the amounts currently paid''--everyone on both sides agrees that it is only a question of how fast per capita Medicare expenses will rise. The latest figures are that they will go up from $4,800 to $6,700. Even the harshest critics contend only that benefits will not rise fast enough to meet expenses. For the committee to imply that anyone is plotting to reduce current benefits is an out- and-out lie. Here is the final one that has to make you grab your sides: ``Before receiving this package today, were you aware that the National Committee's work has saved seniors thousands of dollars in future retirement benefits, such as the $4,521 you learned about in the letter?'' Well, as we have seen, that figure is a fiction, a falsehood. I want my colleagues to imagine the ``average'' recipient of this letter, who is not here in Washington, does not follow our budget debates, but depends upon Social Security. This letter just might induce them to part with what they can barely spare--to be saved from destruction and send it to the National Committee. And that is indeed the intention of this letter. This mailing was sent out by people preying upon our senior citizens, who have so little in the way of moral scruples that they seek to profit by using lies and fear to shake money out of them. Then they come here, before us, and they purport to care about the welfare of our elderly. What hypocritical, contemptible rubbish. So I will indeed consider expanding the scope of the hearings in my Social Security Subcommittee, the chairman permitting. Perhaps the subject of unethical, untruthful tactics in fundraising is something that deserves closer attention from us. And if and when I go forward with such hearings, these people will be my first subjects of inquiry. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record. I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. I note that Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd are on the floor. I would like to ask them a question about fossil energy research and development. It is my understanding that, within this account, the Senators have agreed to shift $1,405,000 from fossil energy environmental restoration into cooperative research and development. Is is correct to say that the chairman has agreed to his shift in funding?

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to my friend Senator Pell, who through the years has been such an extraordinary supporter of the arts--music, theater, visual arts, the performing arts. He is an extraordinary man, a gentle man, and a gentleman. And I also pay tribute to Senator Jeffords, who must just be listed as totally consistent, totally steady, totally fair as he pursues this great interest of his. As for me, I, too, have found the arts and music and history and the visual and performing arts to be a very important part of my life. If politics is your sole reason for existence, it is a very barren experience, a rather barbaric experience. For me, the arts and music are the salvation, the softening of the edges of what we do here. And so, throughout the years, I have tried my level best to support these projects and programs, and I do thank Senator Pell and Senator Jeffords. I think this is an excellent amendment, restoring a total of $17 million in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and for the Institute of Museum Services, which is a very small agency that does very big work. I think we have to commend Jane Alexander, a remarkably astute, bright, effervescent lady who knows what the problems of the NEA are and has sought to correct them, and has done a magnificent job of that. Also Sheldon Hackney of the National Endowment of the Humanities knows the problems, perceives them, intelligently looks at them, and has to suffer, along with Jane Alexander, the slings and arrows of an outrageous fortune, especially when he proposes something, I think, as vital as having a ``National Conversation,'' which would be well worth doing, so that instead of the subterranean dealings with issues such as immigration and racism and homosexuality, we would discuss those things in a national conversation, where people could come into a civil surrounding and talk instead of just saying the most evil thing and writing the most outrageous columns--doing all the divisive things that are done in this remarkable arena. I think this is an excellent step. I am proud to cosponsor it. The amendment is budget neutral. We would offset the funds, as indicated in the amendment, by striking at administrative costs. Many smaller programs are exempted from this reduction, as is the Park Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We realize those two offices have taken some pretty good shots. It is all there. Many of my colleagues who support the arts may be feeling the pressure in this year of budget constraint. But even if we pass this important amendment, the arts endowments will have taken a very tough hit, a full 30-percent cut--the deepest in the bill. Without this amendment, State grants at the NEA will be reduced by 30 percent, and ``national significance'' grants will be slashed by more than 50 percent. I believe that is a very high, very inequitable reduction that does not accurately reflect the usual thoughtful sentiment of this body. I understand all of the difficulties. I commend Senator Gorton, a steady, thoughtful person, who listens to all of us, hears our pleas, which finally turn into plaintive wails or peals for assistance from on high; and Senator Byrd, who listens so patiently and wisely to all of this, and has, for so many years. He is absolutely tireless and is exceedingly fair in his work. The fact is, in my State, direct Federal grants from the arts agencies provide critical funding for marvelous institutions that are seen and visited by people all over the United States. There are the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody; the Grand Teton Music Festival, in its 7 weeks of performance in the beauty of Jackson Hole, where we have previously hosted the New York Philharmonic in residence for 2 weeks during our centennial year; the University of Wyoming Art Museum; the Mountain Man Museum; the Nicolaysen Museum, and in Southwest Wyoming; Green River; Rock Springs, all are receiving funding. There are hundreds of smaller programs that we do not see, and these endowments enrich the lives of so many Americans, particularly those in rural communities or ``frontier'' communities such as Wyoming. The State art grants that find their way to small towns are also used at schools and local festivals. One found its way into the use of an ``art mobile'' at the University of Wyoming--my vital wife Ann was so very active in that--where you take original art, such as etchings, water colors, oils, out ``on the road'' to tiny towns where young people walk up and say, ``What is an etching? How do you do that?'' And you say, ``Well, you take a copper plate and either do it in dry point, or you do this by pouring acid in there and that eats those lines out, and then you put ink in there and place paper there, and you press it and pull it, and that is an etching.'' And they say, ``I did not know that!'' They might also say, ``What is dry point?'' ``What is gouache?'' Those things may mean nothing to some but to a kid, they may fire the imagination. That is what we should do. People in rural areas simply do not have any access to the many privately-funded cultural institutions that exist in larger cities. Indeed, it illustrates the bizarre irony of the argument that the endowments are ``welfare for the rich.'' Just let me conclude with a few of the programs that are supported by the Wyoming Arts and Humanities Council. I will leave it up to my colleagues to decide whether these programs provide ``welfare for the rich'': An Arapaho language immersion program for preschoolers on the Wind River Indian Reservation; A performance of the Bear Lake Music Festival Orchestra at Evanston High School; A presentation of Handel's ``Messiah'' in Afton, WY, in the Star Valley; A theater production for people with physical and mental handicaps in Riverton; ``Fiddler on the Roof'' presented in Sundance, WY; Operating support for the famed drum and bugle corps, ``The Casper Troopers''; Concert performances by ``The Grizzlies'' in Meeteetse, Torrington, Saratoga, and Encampment; A ``Young Author's'' contest at Saint Stephens Indian School; A fellowship for research on Shoshone Indian history; A ``Centennial Singers'' performance in Baggs, WY; A performance of the Utah Symphony in Wind River; Musical workshops and a concert at the Chugwater Attendance Center; Fellowship to research child development at the former Heart Mountain Japanese Relocation Center; Lectures by biblical archaeologists presented by the UW religious studies committee; Operating funds for the ``Traveling Western Art Exhibit'' in Green River; A Wyoming territorial park exhibit of the first women to serve as members of common law juries; Support for the children's theater in Thermopolis; A jazz festival in Powell; To bring a visiting artist to Pinedale; A guest lecture on ``The Oregon Trail'' in Medicine Bow; A folk dance performance in Dubois; and Over 100 grants to elementary and secondary schools for arts in education. A program at the former Heart Mountain Japanese Relocation Center. That ought to be studied. This is where our fellow citizens were placed behind barbed wire in 1943. They were not aliens, they were not permanent resident aliens; they were U.S. citizens put behind wire. That is where I first met Congressman Norm Mineta. We were together in the Boy Scouts--he behind the wire, and me in the town of Cody. Interesting times. The two of us have shared much together in talking about it and remembering it. The people who attend these events are not ``highbrow elitists.'' They are genuine, hard-working, sensible folks whose lives are truly brightened and improved by the work of the NEA and NEH. And today these folks are provided enlightenment in a sea of the present shallowest, coarsest television pop culture of the ages. People certainly do actively participate in the arts. In the past 4 years, more than 3 million people have attended NEA or NEA-supported events or facilities in Wyoming alone. That is not too bad in a State with only 476,000 people! Yes, yes, there is always going to be the emotional debate regarding obscenity. We have all seen the grotesque--stupefying, actually--and explicit photographs and listened to the very real concerns of many Members of the Congress. But in nearly 30 years, with nearly 100,000 grants, only a small handful of those projects have been controversial in any way. That is a pretty good track record, a handful of decisions in 30 years. I believe we could find a greater number of mistakes or oversights in many more Federal agencies, or perhaps even in the Congress itself! We just might have made a mistake or two here in 30 years. But that never receives the same level of intense scrutiny. In directing our displeasure, we should attack the cancer, not kill the patient. The arts are an integral part of our society and serve as a unifying force. We are all concerned about the economy and appropriate use of dollars. But this is a measure that I hope will pass. I thank again Senator Gorton. I thank all those involved--Senator Byrd. The Interior appropriations bill is all about conserving our Nation's resources. I deeply believe the money we spend on our culture is no less important than the money we spend on our natural resources, our forests, our animals--the flora, the fauna--and our energy. This bill provides a great deal of taxpayers' money to conserve those natural riches. We should make a similar Federal commitment to stimulate and preserve fully our Nation's varied cultural treasures and riches. I thank the Chair and I thank particularly the managers of the bill for their extraordinary patience and courtesy.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, here we go again. On the 21st of this month our country's western agricultural way of life will face an assault unlike anything that it has faced before. On that date the Department of the Interior's rangeland reform regulations are scheduled to become the ``law of the land.'' Originally, those regulations were to go into effect on February 21. However, at that time a 6-month moratorium on their effectiveness was granted. Then my good friends, Senators Pete Domenici and Larry Craig began working on balanced legislation both to codify existing regulations and to incorporate parts of Interior's ``Rangeland Reform'' regulations into a more workable plan. The sponsors have made a gallant effort to enact this legislation by the August deadline. However, the slow pace of Congress--we have such a heavy volume of legislation to consider this year--has prevented us from finishing this legislation in a timely manner. In short, Mr. President, Congress needs more time--90 more days at least--to do the people's work on this vitally important issue. At a meeting this morning, Secretary Babbitt told me and a number of my colleagues that, in effect, regardless of the fact that we are trying to work on definitive legislation that addresses this issue, he will not grant another moratorium. So, we have no alternative but to acquire additional time through legislation. During this debate we may hear the opponents of this pending legislation argue that additional time is not needed--that the Interior's regulations are [[Page S 11878]] fair, and will adequately address all the problems so that we need worry about. All I suggest that any Senators who believe this should ask the majority of the people in my State--or virtually any other affected western State--who are familiar with these regulations whether they are fair. If you do, you will hear a resounding and unanimous ``no.'' If these regulations are indeed ``fair,'' then why has the Interior Department felt the need to embark on a mission to override public opinion, and to stall or even kill the Domenici legislation? As my fine colleague, Senator Thomas, has pointed out, this seems to surely skirt the edge of the statutory prohibition on lobbying with appropriated funds. Perhaps this desperation arises out of the knowledge that they will not be able to run roughshod over yet another aspect of American life. Or perhaps they are concerned that their subtle but fully deliberate plan to totally drive the western rancher and his or her livestock off of public range lands is threatened by the Domenici bill. Mr. President, I would urge my colleagues to give Congress a chance to at least debate this issue on a stage that is free from the outside pressures of an agency hell bent on the reckless enactment of unsound rules and regulations just to spite the Republican Congress. If, in the end, the legislation fails and the regulations go into effect, so be it. At least and we can then say that we have had a debate that was spirited, fair, and impartial and free from an agency attempting to further its own agenda. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Thomas amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, briefly, because I know we are ready to move on with this legislation, I certainly want to speak in support of the Work Opportunity Act of 1995. That bill which my fine colleagues, Majority Leader Dole and Senator Packwood, have placed before us represents, I think, a very good starting point for welfare reform. I commend both of them for their work and for working with all of us to ensure that our concerns were taken care of. It is not a perfect bill. A bill rarely is. But it surely puts us on the right track. They have listened to my suggestions, especially with regard to recognition of rural areas and amending the bill to include vocational training and the definition of work. That is a provision Wyoming needed in the bill, and now under the bill, recipients can receive vocational training for up to a year. I appreciate that very much. That was very attentive to our needs. I strongly felt that welfare reform should be a high priority. I think we all agree with that. There is much to do. Not only to ``get tough'' with those who might best be described as welfare addicts, which offend us all, but also to help those who truly want to become self-sufficient, which charms us all, and know that these people need our attention. So, if we can do this in a humane and responsible manner--there is not one among us who has a desire to be punitive or destructive to any of those who are disadvantaged and most vulnerable in society. I do not see that. That is an absurd premise. When we talk about welfare reform, it is important that we look at the big picture and understand the reasons why people are on welfare. It is a very difficult thing. Those who have studied it for decades are unable to really come to closure on how these things happen, why is this occurring, why is the birth rate here, and what is the rate of illegitimacy? Nobody has done more work in that area than the senior Senator from New York. We read his studies, his works, and appreciate his extraordinary range of and grasp of the issue. It is a giant puzzler for us. In Wyoming, I know a single parent will tell me that they could get by without welfare if they just received the child support they were supposed to get in the divorce. I know about that because I did about 1,500 of those in my practice of law for 18 years. ``If he would pay the child support, I would not need to be on welfare.'' That is very true. I have often felt we should put teeth in the welfare and child support enforcement laws. I applaud the leadership for including serious child support provisions in this bill. I am particularly pleased by the provisions that improve our ability to track down absent parents and streamline the process to make interstate enforcement less complicated and unmanageable. This is what has happened for years. You get the decree and support order, and the husband takes off. This will inject some responsibility in here for a group in society known as ``fathers'' who are not here on Earth simply to sire the flock and move on, and that has to stop. Paternity establishment is another high priority in the legislation, and we are addressing that. I appreciate the approach in regard to block granting. Our very able Governor, Jim Geringer, a very able administrator, tells us that they need and require flexibility. We want to give that flexibility in the form of block grants so States can shape their own programs, make themselves laboratories. I am one who just does not believe that the Federal Government, or we here, have a monopoly on compassion. I do not see how people can even imagine that State officials somehow care any less about families and children than the Feds do. I think that these programs and flexibility are very important. I also agree with Senators Packwood and Chafee in their approach to the child welfare provisions included in the bill by not putting child welfare and child protection into block grants. They have recognized that we should not be too hasty in turning everything over to the States at one time. There is a consensus here among child welfare administrators that Federal protections have led to new improvements to this system and critical incentives to the State. It was true in my State where the system was in complete chaos until the State had guidelines and requirements to follow for receiving the Federal funding. Only then did Wyoming develop a child protection and foster care program that takes care of its most vulnerable and neglected children. In fact, were it not for the standards that Congress enacted--and I know this is strong language for a Republican, but in this situation, were it not for the standards Congress enacted in 1980, the States and territories with the worst track [[Page S 11807]] records, such as the District of Columbia, would have been allowed to continue to disregard the basic safety of abused and neglected children with complete impunity. So I support block grants. I feel that aid to families with dependent children, along with the JOBS Program and AFDC child care programs, should be block granted. I would like to see States given the flexibility to run these programs as they see fit without Congress defining specific categories to whom States cannot pay benefits. With regard to SSI, we had hearings on supplemental security income. I agree that drug addicts and alcoholics should not receive cash payment benefits because they have a so-called ``disability.'' It is a self-induced one in many cases. However, I do feel that these addicts and substance abusers need to receive treatment for their addictions. I feel that sensible improvements have been made also in this area of children's eligibility for SSI. We had anecdotal examples of parents coaching their children to act up in school, and families who have all of their family on SSI rolls. However, those are only anecdotal evidence, and we should not use them as an excuse for carrying out some wholesale purge of children from the SSI rolls. We should make sure the low-income families who have children with severe disabilities are taken care of, especially if one or both parents must stay at home to care for this very troublesome and disabled child--and often they are similar and often a tremendous burden upon a parent in a time of stress. With regard to immigration, we will deal with that in a large area of the immigration subcommittee, which I chair. But I think it is very important to note here that since our earliest days as a nation, we have required new immigrants to be self-supporting. In the year 1645-- and I see my colleague from New York pique his interest, because he loves history--Massachusetts refused to admit prospective immigrants with no means of support other than public assistance. But America's first general immigration law--the big one, before the big influx in the early 1900's--was passed in 1882. In 1882, it prohibited the admission of ``any person unable to take care of himself or herself without first becoming a public charge.'' This restriction still exists. Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act excludes those who are ``likely at any time'' to become a public charge. Courts have come along and interpreted that in a way which made it absolutely senseless. But that is the law. I think our Nation's welfare law should be consistent with America's historic immigration policy. This bill, in conjunction with immigration proposals under consideration within the subcommittee, will create a long absent commonality. Many immigrants--half of the new immigrants in fiscal year 1994, according to the State Department--are permitted to enter only because a friend or relative in the United States has promised, that is sponsored, and said to the U.S. Government that the newcomer will not require public assistance. Should this new immigrant then fall on hard times, it is the responsibility of the sponsor--that friend or relative who promised the support--to provide the aid. This Dole bill will require all Federal welfare programs--save a few ``public interest'' programs--to include the income of this sponsor when determining a recent immigrant's eligibility for welfare. The message in this area with regard to welfare is very clear: America is serious about our traditional expectation that immigrants be self-supporting. Newcomers should turn to the friends and relatives who sponsored them for assistance before seeking aid from the American taxpayer. Hear that clearly. Immigrants who come here and are sponsored must be self-supporting. They will not turn to the taxpayers first; they will turn to their sponsor first. I look forward to a healthy debate on all these issues. We will have one. I am happy to see us move forward. We need to move toward this program of work and self-sufficiency while leaving States without restrictions, giving flexibility. I thank the leaders for their fine work in moving this legislation forward.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I would simply like to add my strong support for this bill and in particular, for the provision relating to the land conveyance of the former Air Force radar bomb scoring site near Powell, WY. This provision properly authorizes the Secretary of the Air Force to convey, without consideration, to the Northwest College Board of Trustees, all right, title, and interest of the United States--in and to--the parcel of real property consisting of approximately 24 acres located in Powell, WY. This parcel also includes facilities such as a commissary and post exchange, as well as housing facilities that the Northwest College will most surely put to good use almost immediately. The Northwest College Task Force, several members of the Wyoming Legislature and the Powell Chamber of Commerce have all endorsed the re-use proposal submitted by the Northwest College. Northwest College will use the facilities to help to alleviate their acute student housing shortage and for other educational and classroom purposes. Mr. President, I sat on the Northwest College Board for 8 years and I can certainly attest to the fact that this is a great community college. One of the best. This transfer of Air Force property will be well noted and greatly appreciated by the community of Powell, WY and the college, as they face continued growth into the 21st century. I would like to offer my deepest thanks to Senator Thurmond, Senator Burns, and Senator Nunn for their efforts--as well as their fine staff representatives--in this endeavor. They have all been so supportive of the Wyoming delegation's efforts regarding this provision, and I do greatly appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the pending motion regarding hearings in the current Ethics Committee investigation of our colleague, Senator Bob Packwood. I have listened very carefully to the remarks made by my colleague, Senator Boxer of California. Let me try to start on a positive note, a nonpartisan note, by outlining those areas where we agree. The Senator from California has urged us to focus our thoughts, to avoid being distracted by irrelevant issues, or by peripheral considerations. She has, in the past, urged us to remember what the issue is, saying, ``I am not the issue.'' I could not agree more. Senator Boxer is not the issue; partisan politics is not the issue; and I will say very firmly--and I hope this is heard correctly--sexual harassment, even, is not the issue here. Senator Packwood has not been charged with that. My colleague from Iowa has just spoken about another issue we were both involved in, the Clarence Thomas hearings. Remember, too, please, in that particular grievous exercise sexual harassment was not the issue in that matter either. I know that may be shocking to some, but Anita Hill never charged Clarence Thomas with sexual harassment--ever. That was never in the record, never any part of that proceeding. She wanted us to ``be aware of his behavior and his conduct. That is all borne out in the record. You can find that to be true through the Democrats and Republicans who served and anguished with regard to that. The issue here is, how we do the difficult business of conducting ethics investigations, of passing judgment on our colleagues in a way that is fair and is nonpartisan? That is the issue here--the only issue. The issue before us is whether or not we are going to begin to dismantle the nonpartisan process by which such decisions are made in the U.S. Senate and whether to subject gritty, tough, sometimes ugly ethical decisions and questions to the whims of partisan majorities. That is the issue. I hope everyone will understand this. It is absurd to say that it is a ``threat'' to simply note that it is a very, very bad idea to make these questions contingent upon who can rally the most votes on the Senate floor, and, ironically, this surely cedes a terrible degree of power to the party in the majority. Hear that. That is not a ``threat.'' That is as real as you can get about partisan politics. We have, through the Ethics Committee, deliberately created a nonpartisan forum in which these questions can be addressed. It is just about the worst job any Senator can have. I do not want it, would never take it. Chairing that committee is a daunting task. At the very least, in the past, we have tried to assure the chairman and co-chairman of the Ethics Committee that the process employed by the Ethics Committee would be respected, and that the full Senate would not interfere to change the rules in the middle of a case. And I do hope that any suggestions that there is an attempt at secrecy here can be swiftly laid to rest. I have been reading all this now for about 2\1/2\ years. I read about the witnesses. I read about what they have said about Senator Packwood. I do not know what is left to hear--except one thing that I am anxious to hear, and that is what will be said when somebody stands up and puts their right hand up and, under affirmation or oath, subjects themselves to cross-examination and the rules of evidence. Then I will be right here. I would love that. I practiced law for 18 years. Few here did. I am not talking about ``leaks'' from the Ethics Committee, but it is surely all out there. There is not a single new thing you are going to find that is relevant. You might find some things that are not relevant, or what happened that might destroy somebody else from an event occurring 10 years ago, 20 years ago. Let the record be very clear here too. I have never received or seen a committee deposition. That has been reported. Perhaps that is my own misstatement. I have never seen a deposition. I have seen statements. Those statements have a very different view of the ``contact'' that took place at that particular time; a very different view. Those will come out. Somebody will be very hurt in that process. That is not a threat. That is the way it works. But I think, when we talk about secrecy, it is very difficult for anyone to believe that when the committee is going to release thousands upon thousands of pages of documents in an unprecedented airing of private information--yes, even personal diary information--I can assure you that few of us, if this were happening to us, would find that to be a laudable result. Who among the hundred of us does not know dozens, even hundreds of individuals who stand ready to cast all form of aspersions upon us for things that we may have done through the decades? Fortunately, I threw all mine right out there when I first ran. It is all there for the public to see. I believe any one of us would be stunned to find that there was to be a release of thousands of pages of such allegations. I do not believe any of us would ever feel that such an action, as seen by us or the public, would be called ``covering up,'' or ``secrecy.'' What an absurdity. What we are debating today my colleagues, and I hope all will understand, has nothing to do with the merits of the case in question. It has to do strictly with the integrity of the process itself. It has to do only with whether or not we will respect the judgments of the committee with respect to the appropriate process to follow. What is the appropriate process? What is it in such a case as this? Do we calibrate our sensitivities to the issue of sexual misconduct by how much we are willing to trample upon the nonpartisan procedures of the Senate in order to achieve a desired result? Do we measure our sensitivity by how far we are willing to go back to dredge up embarrassing and inappropriate conduct? No. We measure--or should measure--our sensitivity and our seriousness by the degree to which we ensure that such charges are weighed in a nonpartisan atmosphere of fairness. Even if Senators are to be held to a higher standard of conduct, this surely does not mean we should employ a lower standard of fairness. Under the current Federal law--hear this--when an individual wishes to bring a charge of sexual harassment, the individual has 180 days to file that complaint with the EEOC if there is no State agency to handle the complaint, 180 days, hear that; 300 days is the limit in a State with a deferral agency. There is not a single statute of limitations in America that is over the limit of 6 years for sexual harassment--and Senator Packwood has not been charged with sexual harassment; not one case. Not one jurisdiction in the United States. Go back more than 6 years, and here we are back in 1969, we are back in 1974, we are back in 1979 and 1980. Why is there a statute of limitations? Probably because the reliability of such charges, such grievous charges as these, cannot be accurately judged at a tremendous distance from the time in which they were alleged to occur. I agree with Senator John Kerry, my good friend from Massachusetts. Let us indeed apply to ourselves the laws we apply to others because the biggest one out there is the statute of limitations on tort and sexual harassment. It is 6 years, as far back as you can go in any jurisdiction in this country. But in the matter of the conduct of the Senator from Oregon, conduct which even the Senator has himself said was ``terribly wrong''----

Mr. SIMPSON. But in the matter of the conduct of the Senator from Oregon, conduct which even the Senator has himself said was ``terribly wrong,'' we are dealing with charges reaching back for decades. All of us will soon pore through thousands of pages of depositions to investigate charges that would not get a moment's hearing if they were brought before any other jurisdiction in this country. It is astonishing the degree to which we go. And we do that because we are different. These are decades after the fact. If ever there was a ``consistent pattern'' of behavior here, the pattern ceased to exist some time ago. What we see here is a case study in the continuing destruction of a man. I ask my colleagues, how would you feel if this were happening to you? There is a good reason to pose the question, because if we approve the resolution of the Senator from California, someday it will happen to each of us, whether we ``had it coming'' or not. Our political opponents will see to it. Believe it. It is a sad chapter in the Senate history if this resolution passes.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, we are not disqualifying 140,000 organizations of the United States. We are disqualifying those that receive funding from the Federal Government, and very few of these do. Some receive minuscule amounts, most receive none. Here is the Mutual of America Life Insurance Co. with assets of $5.5 billion. I doubt that they receive anything from the Federal Government for lobbying activities.

Mr. SIMPSON. What we are saying is if anyone gets stung here in this process, they can go become a 501(c)(3) if they are really into big- time charity, doing things that you would like to see charities do. They can be a 501(c)(3). That is a charitable corporation; that is $1 million limiting activity of lobbying. They can give up lobbying or they can go into a separate split-off. They can split into two, a lobbying organization or a grant organization. That is what we are saying. We are seeing abuses of the system. This is not about tax exemption. This is about lobbying. I thought that is what this is about. Why in the world should we allow a group to have unlimited ability to spend their members' dues and then use Federal money to offset what they ordinarily would have paid? They would have had to pay for this somewhere but, no, they get it from the Feds. I think that is wrong if you are doing lobbying reform. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. So is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. SIMPSON. They are a (c)(5); the AFL-CIO is a (c)(5).

Mr. SIMPSON. No, they are not.

Mr. SIMPSON. Directing my remarks to the Chair, of course, rather than my colleague from Connecticut, let me just say we are not wiping out anybody. We are not in the business of wiping out 501(c)(4)'s, and if you want to go to 501 (c)(6)'s and (c)(5)'s, I am ready to go there, too. But I did not want to bite off too big a chunk because I did not want to get into it with the chamber of commerce and the AFL-CIO.

Mr. SIMPSON. Oh, he lost.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Connecticut, after 16 years of legislating on the floor, I remember one incident distinctly. We went for 5 days of debate--I was managing the bill--and suddenly in the door came one of our colleagues. He happened to be on our side of the aisle and had paid no particular interest in the measure, and suddenly just went for it tooth and fang. I thought, well, that is interesting.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, we did have a hearing in the Finance Committee on these issues of tax exempts, and we will have many more. We did, indeed. The ``little guys'' that people have been talking about protecting, grassroots and so on, they are going to be well protected because they are, most of them, 501(c)(3). We are talking about a singular group of maybe 140,000--that is exactly correct--and we are talking about big time, big time lobbying. One group spends $26 million a year on unlimited lobbying and receives grants from the Federal Government. We are saying if you do that, then you are no longer going to receive the grants. You can lobby to oblivion; you can continue to do whatever you wish to do. Or if you wish not to receive grants or receive grants, you take your choice. Or you can split into two 501(c)(4)'s, one lobbying with all sorts of money and dues, it is perfectly appropriate, without limit; or, if you are going to receive Federal funds, you do not lobby. You take your pick.

Mr. SIMPSON. I will yield to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, under the present law of the United States, when we are talking about a tax-exempt corporation, we are seeing happening in the country--this is something we have had one hearing on; there will be many more--where the Government is subsidizing the programs and activities of huge lobbying organizations that are engaged in things on the direct edge of UBIT, which is the unrelated business income Tax, that are involved in profitmaking activities and that receive a tax-exempt status. What we are saying is those organizations which lobby without limit-- and this is the only one in the whole panoply that lobbies without limit, without any kind of limitation on the amount of money they can spend. So if you are going to do a lobbying reform bill, it would seem to me that you would want to deal with the one subsection (c) corporation that can spend itself into oblivion and even use Federal money in the process of receiving grants, awards, notes, whatever it may be, bonuses, contracts, and we are saying you make a choice here. If you are going to lobby, then you are not going to receive Federal grants. If you want to receive Federal grants, you do not lobby. Take your pick.

Mr. SIMPSON. Certainly.

Mr. SIMPSON. The point of the amendment is there are many tax-exempt 501(c)(4) corporations that receive grants, awards, contracts, or loans, or any other form from the Federal Government and use it to lobby the Federal Government for more Federal money for themselves.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, if I can draw the attention of my colleagues back to the issue here, we had the debate which was not participated in by everyone. And I understand that. I have been here for several years. Let me tell you what this is. This is not an attempt to get anybody. The amendment is very clear. I am going to read it. Here is the amendment with regard to 501(c)(4) corporations. There are a lot of them. This does not have anything to do with 501(c)(3) corporations, charitable corporations, the kind we think of most often. It has nothing to do with universities. It has nothing to do with 501(c)(5) corporations or 501(c)(6) corporations. Remember, a 501(c)(4) corporation is tax-exempt and has unlimited ability to lobby with unlimited sums of money. They can lobby with $20 or $30 million, if they wish. There is no limitation whatsoever on lobbying activities. That is a 501(c)(4). The 501(c)(3)'s are limited to a certain amount, a million bucks. You cannot go over that--501(c)(5)'s and (c)(6)'s have limitations. Here is what the amendment says: An organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which engages in lobbying shall not be eligible for the receipt of Federal funds constituting an award, grant, contract, loan, or any other form. Meaning that if a 501(c)(4) decided that they wanted to continue to lobby and were receiving Federal funds, they could no longer continue to lobby. However, if they wished to continue to receive Federal funds, then they would limit their lobbying activities. They can also go into splits, if they wish to split a 501(c)(4) organization. At least that would be an improvement over present law, which simply says that these groups can lobby. And if you are doing something with lobbying reform, it would seem to me you would want to do something with the one tax- exempt organization that can lobby with unlimited funding and still receive grants from the Federal Government to do so.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I was listening with interest to the discussion of Medicare and these issues that confront us, what we are going to do--the ancient litany of a tax cut for the rich, and this type of activity. I just want the American people to be certain that they remember that Medicare will go broke in 7 years and Social Security will go broke in the year 2031. It would be very helpful if they could come forward and tell us what we should do about that.