Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank my friend, the Senator from Nebraska. I rise to support the Democratic leadership's amendment to restore funding to the Medicare Program. I believe it is imperative and in the national interest that we balance the budget. I have supported a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution since first embarking on elected public service as a member of the Nevada Legislature in the 1960's. I continued that support as the attorney general of my State and later as Governor, and on at least two occasions as a Member of the U.S. Senate. In my view, balancing the budget is critical for our economy to remain viable at home and for us to become internationally competitive abroad. Mr. President, this budget proposal that we are dealing with fails the most fundamental of tasks, and that is a task of fairness. It is rather ironic that it is this month--Older Americans Month--and the month in which the Fourth White House Conference on Aging was held, that the Senate is considering cutting Medicare to the magnitude of $256 billion over 7 years. It is the same month in which the other body already passed $280 billion in Medicare cuts. In my view, Mr. President, this is an unconscionable way to address Medicare reform. Seniors have always been willing to help our country out when asked to shoulder the responsibility. They do not want their children and grandchildren to carry the burden of the financial deficit. They are willing to share it, but not unfairly bear the burden of needed revenue cuts to balance the Federal budget. Let us be clear, Mr. President, these are Medicare cuts, and the impact will be devastating. But under this budget resolution, the burden is not being fairly shared. Seniors are taking a disproportionate hit, and for what? To help pay for tax cuts to benefit those in our society who are among the most affluent in our country--those citizens making up to $200,000 a year. Seniors throughout this country are dependent upon Medicare to ensure access to the health care services they need. I can certainly understand, and I think my colleagues will understand, that their real fear is that the health care system upon which millions rely may be gutted as a consequence of this budget resolution. In 1993, when Medicare faced a significant cut, I introduced an amendment to the budget reconciliation package of that year to eliminate a large part of the additional proposed Medicare cuts by repealing section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code, the so-called pharmaceutical tax benefit, which provides a tax cut for companies operating and hiring workers in U.S. possessions. The amendment failed. The story was the same. Seniors were asked to suffer an unfair portion of the burden. Let us not fool ourselves. Seniors understand very well how these massive proposed Medicare cuts are going to directly affect them. They understand health care cost shifting. They know how increases in copayments, deductibles and monthly premiums hit their pocketbooks. They know how Medicare health care access can decrease after cuts are implemented. And, most importantly, they know these changes will mean that they are going to pay more to get less health care coverage. Seniors also understand, Mr. President, that Medicare costs must be reduced and cuts can be made. We all know there is still a significant amount of fraud and abuse in the Medicare system that siphons off funds from legitimate health care. Changes can be made in Medicare to achieve information savings. No doubt, there are ways to contain explosive Medicare's growth, but in a much less devastating way than the proposal before us. In Nevada, I hear poignant stories from many seniors, particularly those living on fixed and limited incomes, where only Medicare can ensure health care access. For seniors, the fear is very real that Medicare will be impacted to such a degree by these proposed cuts that they may no longer be able to afford their Medicare deductibles, copayments and premiums. These cuts translate into about $900 per year per senior by the year 2002 in higher premiums, copayments and deductibles. Over the 7 years until 2002, this means an additional cost of $3,200 for a single senior, $6,400 for a couple. My State of Nevada is impacted most severely. Nevada is the fastest growing State in the Nation. It has also just been named the first choice of seniors seeking a retirement location. Nevada's nearly 200,000 Medicare recipients will soon be joined by thousands more seniors. Nevada leads the Nation with the growth projection of 122.7 percent for the number of seniors age 65 and over from 1993 to the year 2020. Many Nevada seniors have already experienced the difficulty in finding a physician willing to take new Medicare patients. The growth in the number of seniors seeking medical care coupled with these proposed Medicare cuts will certainly impact their access to Nevada's health care system even further. This will not be a problem unique to Nevada but one seniors across the Nation will face. Mr. President, Medicare celebrates its 30th anniversary this year. What an anniversary present some Members of the Senate are providing for the Nation's seniors. For 30 years, seniors have had health care services and have not had to fear that an illness will devastate their personal finances. But now, 30 years later, they have much cause to worry about whether Medicare is going to continue to be there for them when they need it, or whether they are going to be able to afford the cost. [[Page S7043]] We all want to assure that seniors in our States will continue to have health care coverage. We can do that if we take a more reasoned and rational approach to reforming Medicare to sustain its financial viability. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to restore $100 billion of the proposed Medicare cuts as a step for a better approach. Our seniors deserve no less from us. I yield the floor and thank my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Harkin- Hollings Democratic Leadership's amendment to restore $40 billion in funding to the Federal student financial assistance program, and education programs, such as Head Start, to be paid for out of proposed tax cuts for the wealthy. Cutting the student financial assistance program by $14 billion over the next 7 years, and eliminating the in-school interest subsidy for graduate and professional students is truly beyond my understanding. Over and over again Senators come to this floor and talk about how the most important resource we have in our country is our children. Over and over again Senators lament that our country's children are behind the rest of the industrial world in educational achievement, and that we must focus on educational opportunities to keep this country competitive. And yet, we are offered a budget resolution that would cut back substantially on student financial assistance. I do not understand. This Budget proposal would freeze funding of Pell Grants. These are needs-based financial assistance grants. These are the grants that help ensure approximately 4 million low and middle income students have the opportunity to go to college or receive vocational training. We have not yet been able to provide funds for all of the students who qualify for these grants. Still this budget proposal would freeze such grant funding. What should I say to the low or middle income mother and father with a child who wants to go to college? No Pell Grant for your child. We had to freeze those funds to pay for a tax cut to benefit some of the most affluent in our country--those making up to $200,000. Do we really want to say the need for the affluent to get a tax cut is greater than a low or middle income child's need to go to college? I can hardly believe such a message. I know firsthand how important educational opportunity is for helping assure employment achievement. I have three grown children, all of whom received bachelor degrees. I am particularly proud each has also gone on to earn graduate degrees in medicine, law and education. Thankfully all three of my children have also been able to find work in their chosen fields. But not all children qualified to further their education get to do so, simply due to the lack of money. And yet this budget proposal would end the AmeriCorp program. The President's program allows people the option of working in their communities to earn financial credits to go to college or to pay off school loans already incurred. And why would we want to eliminate that option for hardworking and dedicated students to earn their way into college or out of their school debts, so those making $200,000 can receive a tax cut? And not only does the budget proposal cut and freeze student financial assistance, it would force graduate and professional students to pay interest that accrues on their student loans while they are still in school. Under current law, the Federal Government pays the interest on student loans while the students are in college. During a recent conversation, a Nevada lawyer told me the recent law school graduates he has hired quite commonly carry a law school loan debt of $1,000 per month. This frequently is being paid over a 10-year period. And yet this Budget would require interest accrual while the student is still in school. Students could face increases in their loan debt of 20 percent to 50 percent, depending on how much was borrowed. Why would anyone want to pay for a tax cut for the affluent by requiring young people to go further into debt--while they are still in school--by paying interest on their school loans? Additionally, this budget proposal would freeze funding for Head Start and special education programs. Like Pell Grants, we have not yet been able to provide funds to cover all of the children eligible for Head Start--those low income children most at educational risk. And once children start school, this budget would freeze the funding for their special education needs. Again--why would we want to pay for a tax cut for the affluent by cutting off funds to the most vulnerable young children in our country who are just starting to begin their education? Who needs the leg up here--the person making $200,000 or the low-income child needing a lunch and a chance to learn their colors and numbers before starting first grade? I have a long record reaching back to the beginning of my political career in the 1960s of supporting balancing the Federal budget. As a U.S. Senator, I have voted twice for such legislation. There are many cuts I will support, some will be unpopular, some will take a hit on Nevada. But I also have a long record of supporting investing in our children and their education as a top priority for whatever funds we have. We cannot maintain a viable economy [[Page S7116]] at home, nor be a viable competitor abroad if our children are not educated. I have, and will continue to support efforts to try to balance the Federal budget by 2002--but through a fair budget proposal. When efforts to balance the budget rely on eliminating educational opportunities for our children, it is a most foolhardy way to accomplish. I urge my colleagues support the Harkin-Hollings amendment. We must continue to invest in our children to ensure they do not have the door to educational opportunity slammed in their faces.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a little noticed, but I think significant, event that occurred last week. Last Thursday, Northern States Power transferred spent nuclear fuel from its reactor pool at Prairie Island into a new dry storage cask located at the reactor site. Prairie Island, near Red Wing, MN, is the location of two of Northern States Power's three nuclear power reactors. Licensed to operate starting in 1973 and 1974 respectively, Prairie Island 1 and Prairie Island 2 share a spent fuel storage pool. Today, 20 years into the 40-year licensed life of the reactors, the pool is filling up. Northern States Power needed to find more storage for the waste generated at Prairie Island. Fortunately, licensed technology, dry cask storage, was available which would allow the utility to move the oldest spent fuel assemblies out of the pool. NSP proposed to locate the casks at the reactor site. Thursday's announcement of final NRC approval to load the casks is the final chapter in a prolonged political and public relations effort by NSP to resolve until the year 2002 its Prairie Island waste problem. The public outcry that erupted after NSP proposed to expand on-site storage is every utility executive's nightmare, and led to the perception of the Prairie Island situation as the poster child of the nuclear power industry's current propaganda campaign for interim storage of high-level nuclear waste in Nevada. In spite of the obvious solution available to NSP, on-site dry casks, the Prairie Island situation has, for several years now, been held up as the prime example of why Congress must immediately reopen the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to speed up progress on moving high-level nuclear waste to Nevada. Twenty percent of the Nation's electricity power supply, we have been told, is at risk if Congress does not act soon. Reactors will shut down, cities will go dark, and electricity rates will skyrocket, if Congress does not take the waste off the hands of the utilities soon--according to the nuclear power industry. The nuclear power industry's shameless campaign to get the Federal Government to take responsibility for its waste is not new. In 1980, at the same time Congress was considering options for the permanent disposal of high-level waste, the nuclear power industry was pushing for away-from-reactor storage, or AFR. Without a Federal AFR facility, according to the industry, reactors would begin closing by 1983. Of course, no Federal AFR was built, and no reactors closed for lack of storage. Besides creating the misleading impression of a crisis, of impending doom, the nuclear power propaganda campaign has always sought to create the impression that there is only one solution, one option for avoiding the supposedly catastrophic consequences of reactor shutdowns: move the high-level nuclear waste to Nevada. That is the only proposal that is offered. First, we as a State were targeted for a permanent repository. That program is an acknowledged failure. Now we are targeted for interim storage. For the nuclear power industry, that means 100 years, subject to renewal. That amounts to de facto permanent storage. According to the nuclear power industry, interim storage in Nevada is the only salvation for the future of nuclear power. Nevadans have made it crystal clear that we want no part of the nuclear power industry's solution to its waste problem. Nuclear waste is not welcome in Nevada. Nevertheless, the nuclear power industry, and its surrogate for this matter, the Department of Energy, has been relentless in its efforts to force Nevadans to bear the health and safety risks of solving a problem we had no role in creating. Mr. President, there are solutions to the nuclear waste storage problem that do not include Nevada. Last weeks events at Prairie Island make that abundantly clear. [[Page S6649]] For all their propaganda, and all their complaining to Congress, the nuclear utilities find a way to handle their waste, and keep reactors open and running. The CEO of Northern States Power, John Howard, has said ``Resolution of interim storage for spent nuclear fuel from our country's commercial power plants has reached crisis proportions.'' Mr. Howard's assessment--that interim storage of nuclear waste is an impending crisis, and, thus, Congress must act to move this waste to Nevada as soon as possible--is a common theme in the nuclear power industry. As the Prairie Island situation demonstrates, however, the crisis scenario is simply not true from a technical or scientific perspective. Of course, I do not expect many of my colleagues will hear much about the resolution of the supposed crisis at Prairie Island. The resolution of the Prairie Island waste situation simply does not track with the contrived crisis scenario developed by the nuclear power industry and its lobbyists. To admit that nuclear utilities can find ways to take care of their own waste would shatter the carefully constructed fiction that interim storage in Nevada is the only possible alternative to shutting down the reactors. It should be acknowledged that Northern States Power paid a price for the approval of additional storage at Prairie Island. The debate over increased storage was intense, and many are still not happy. NSP was forced to make concessions, such as building more renewable energy sources. Other utilities are not anxious to go through what NSP went through. The unfortunate fact for nuclear utilities is that nuclear power, and nuclear waste, are not popular. The public relations and political problems associated with expanding storage capacity at reactors is an inescapable cost of nuclear power. Northern States Power also paid a financial price for expanding storage at Prairie Island. As other utilities do the same, especially after the 1998 goal for operation of a permanent repository included in the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, some action ought to be taken to provide some relief to the ratepayers who have paid in the first instance into the nuclear waste fund and who are not receiving the storage at that fund which they contemplated would be operational by the year 1998. I might say parenthetically, as the distinguished occupant of the chair knows, under no scenario, under absolutely none, will a facility be opened by the year 1998. So I believe as a matter of fairness that ratepayers are entitled to some relief in terms of payment into the nuclear waste fund. I have reintroduced in this Congress, as I have on previous occasions, legislation which this year bears the number of S. 429 which will provide a credit against nuclear waste fund contributions for utilities forced to build on-site storage after 1998. Under S. 429, ratepayers will not be financially penalized for the misguided and mismanaged efforts of the nuclear power industry and the Department of Energy to build a permanent repository in Nevada. I urge my colleagues to reject the nuclear power industry's newest assault on the people of Nevada, and support S. 429. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for a period not to exceed 10 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until the hour of 12:10.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues an advertisement currently getting wide circulation by the nuclear power industry. This advertisement touts the virtues of legislation introduced for the nuclear power industry to address the industry's nuclear waste problem. As many of my colleagues are aware, the industry's solution to its waste problem has, for a number of years, been very simple: ship the waste to Nevada. Since 1982, Nevada has been the target of the nuclear powder industry's efforts to move its toxic high-level waste away from reactor sites. Under current law, Yucca Mountain, 90 miles north of Las Vegas, is being studied, supposedly to determine its suitability as a site for a permanent geologic repository. The repository program has had immense problems. With $4.5 billion spent to date on the program, Yucca Mountain is no closer to accepting the nuclear power industry's waste than it was 13 years ago, when Congress passed the first Nuclear Waste Policy Act. I am not alone in my opinion that a repository will never be built at Yucca Mountain. The nuclear power industry is also frustrated. In a curious juxtaposition from the Nevada perspective, the industry thinks the DOE is being too careful, paying too much attention to environmental concerns, and simply not moving fast enough. While the nuclear power industry still maintains that Nevada is perfectly suitable to host their repository, it has come to the conclusion that Yucca Mountain will never solve its high-level waste problem. The nuclear power industry has a new solution, and of course, Nevada is once again the victim. The nuclear power industry's new strategy is to designate Nevada as the site for its interim storage, beginning in 1998. While the ``interim'' designation is supposed to imply a temporary facility, the nuclear power industry defines ``interim'' as 100 years, subject to renewal. The motive is patently transparent: ship high level nuclear waste to Nevada as soon as possible, without any regard for the health and safety of Nevadans, and then forget about it. The type of public relations campaign being mounted here is nothing new. While we in Nevada have long experience with such campaigns by the nuclear power industry and its hired flacks, I have to admit that this latest advertisement is a masterpiece of deception and misinformation. The headline alone reveals the deceptiveness of the advertisement. ``There are 109 good reasons to store nuclear waste in 1 place'' proclaims the nuclear industry's advertisement. The headline appeals to the logic of the reader--of course, the reader thinks, 1 site is better than 109. The problem is, of course, that the advertisement does not tell the true story. [[Page S6233]] Unless the nuclear power industry has some well kept secret plan to shut down and decommission every reactor at each of these 109 reactor sites, by my count creation of a new, central site for waste storage makes 110 sites, not 1. How the nuclear power industry gets down to one site, when its reactors are still running, and waste is still stored in pools on site, is beyond me. The advertisement also ignores one of the key problems with a central high-level waste facility--the transportation of the toxic waste from the 109 reactor sites to the central facility. The nuclear power industry, in its obsession to dispose of its waste as quickly as possible, is proposing to create thousands of rolling interim storage facilities, on trucks, and rail cars, in 43 States across the Nation. The nuclear power industry's map shows the location of the 109 reactor sites, but not the proposed location for the central storage facility. There is a good reason for this oversight--the industry's target for a central storage facility is not central at all. Not even close. Looking at the map, it could not be clearer--only 15 of the 109 sites identified are west of the Missouri River. This second chart shows the map that the nuclear power industry, if it was being honest, should have run in their advertisement. This map shows the location of the current reactor sites, the proposed location for their central storage facility, and the likely routes through 43 States for the thousands of shipments necessary to move the high-level waste from around the Nation to Nevada. It is obvious to even the casual observer that the nuclear power industry's interim storage proposal could result in an unprecedented level of shipments of extremely toxic, highly dangerous radioactive materials. Every Member of the Senate should take a careful look at this map. Nothing could make clearer the true scope of what the nuclear power industry is proposing. Over the years, as I have fought the industry and the DOE in their efforts to open a repository in Nevada, I have often found my colleagues, both here in the Senate and among the Nation's Governors in my previous position, sympathetic to Nevada's cause. Many in the Senate sympathize with the outrageous abrogation of State's rights. Others understand the potential environmental risks associated with opening a high-level nuclear waste dump 90 miles from the fastest growing metropolitan area in the United States--a metropolitan area with nearly 1 million residents. Still others have understood the potentially grave economic damages that could result from the transport and storage of high-level nuclear waste so close to the premier tourist destination in the United States. Unfortunately, however, these expressions of sympathy have not often translated into action. For too long, the commercial nuclear waste problem has been identified as a solely Nevada issue. The general attitude has been we feel badly for Nevada--but if it is not Nevada, who would be the nuclear power industry's next target? This map should make clear that the nuclear power industry's refusal to accept responsibility for the storage of its own waste will affect every citizen of every State along the routes the industry will use to move the waste. Even those from the few States that are not targets of the nuclear power industry should be concerned. I do not know how many of anyone's constituents are anxious to share the road with a truck moving high- level nuclear waste. Once the word is out to these affected communities, no one will be able to continue to dismiss the issue as simply a Nevada problem. In the absence of a permanent solution to the nuclear waste problem, there is simply no reason to move nuclear waste away from the reactor sites. The only crisis facing the nuclear power industry is a public relations crisis, not a scientific one. The NRC has licensed technology to store waste in dry casks, on site, for the next several decades. Some utilities, of necessity, have taken advantage of this technology. Most refuse to do so. Why are utilities so adverse to accepting the responsibility for their own waste? The answer could not be simpler. Recognizing the political and public relations nightmare of seeking permission to increase storage for high-level waste on site, utilities are seeking an outside solution. Nevada, a State with no reactors and about as far as you can get from a geographically central location, has been chosen as the target. Let me return for a moment to the advertisement. I have not even touched on the misinformation provided by the text. The ad generally relies on the tried and true tactic of the nuclear power industry to create the impression of impending doom if its demands for relief are not met immediately. Congress, then, is pressured to act quickly, irrespective of the wishes, or the health and safety, of Nevadans, or anyone else. This was true in 1980, when the industry claimed that reactors across the Nation would soon shut down if they could not get what was then called away-from-reactor storage by 1983. No away-from-reactor storage was ever built, and no reactor has ever shut down from lack of storage. There simply was no crisis in 1980--and there is no crisis now. It is all an expensive, dangerous ruse. I urge my colleagues to think carefully before falling for this, and other, deceptive misinformation campaigns by the nuclear power industry and its advocates. Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I was pleased to join with my colleagues in adopting Senate Resolution 110 which condemns the horrendous violence that happened in Oklahoma City and urges the administration to bring to justice those responsible for committing this evil crime. In addition, the measure expresses our deepest sympathy to the families that have lost so much and conveys our gratitude to all the Americans who have been assisting in rescue efforts. Today, I would like to recognize those individuals from Nevada who have joined in the heartbreaking struggle to help our friends in Oklahoma. Dr. Scott Bjerke, a specialist in critical care at University Medical Center's trauma unit, Dave Webb, a fire specialist with the U.S. Forest Service, Metro Police Sgt. Bill Burnett, and Clark County fire paramedic coordinator chief Steve Hanson all are members of Clark County's elite 60 member Urban Search and Rescue Task Force which headed to Oklahoma City to assist rescue workers. In addition, the Clark County American Red Cross has sent Caroline Johnson, officer for the disaster computer operations, to Oklahoma City. In times of tragedy, there are always heroes. All the Americans who have been devoting endless time and emotions to ease the pain of so many are the true heros of this tragedy. I am proud that Nevadans have united together with the country during this time of such need. I thank these individuals for their commitment to others. Although we cannot ever heal all the wounds both emotional and physical from this tragedy, I hope that those in Oklahoma will know that Nevadans are praying for them and somehow that will lessen their pain.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for a period of time not to exceed 15 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, we are about to be engaged in a debate in this Chamber on welfare reform, an issue which has failed the recipients, has failed the American taxpayer, and on which I think men and women of good will on both sides of the political aisle agree we must undertake some major structural reforms. I think that we can do so in a bipartisan fashion. It was in this context during the recent April recess that I spent an entire morning at one of the busiest welfare offices in Las Vegas, the West Owens District Welfare Office. May I say, Mr. President, to my colleagues, it was an educational opportunity, and if my colleagues have not previously done so, I would urge each of them to avail themselves of this opportunity. I first sat in on a welfare eligibility interview, a process that lasts for approximately 1 hour. I observed this process from the beginning to its conclusion. In the Owens Welfare Office, eligibility workers sit in very small interview rooms, somewhat affectionately referred to as the ``chutes.'' The eligibility worker has a desk literally surrounded on all sides with shelves full of various forms and regulations that deal with the nearly 20 different programs a person in need of welfare assistance may be eligible to receive. The client comes into the interview room from the reception area, sits across from the eligibility worker's desk, and the interview process begins. Now the interview I observed, contrary to some of the stereotypical images that are often projected, was of a young Caucasian woman. She was married, living with her husband and two children. Her situation represents the prototype of the kind of problem that many people in America face who seek welfare assistance. She and her husband had moved to Nevada from California, and currently both are working. Although their jobs pay above the minimum wage, they are still unable to provide for their family of four. Her employer structures her workweek so that her hours do not exceed 20 hours per week, and so she is ineligible for the medical benefits which her employer pays for those who work full time. One of her children has a preexisting medical condition, so medical care is a necessity. Her husband's employer provides no medical insurance. She also needs to pay for the cost of child care, and her child care cost is more than 50 percent of the gross hourly wage that she makes each hour. Following this eligibility determination interview, I sat down to a very frank discussion with eligibility workers concerning the areas of the welfare system that they believe need reforming. Let me say, Mr. President, I had anticipated the thrust of the comments would be that you all in the Congress need to provide more money; the system works. In effect, I thought I might be hearing a defense of the status quo, because these are eligibility workers, the committed and dedicated people who choose, in terms of their own educational background and their work experience, to provide care to others. So these are highly compassionate, sensitive people who see the travail of life before them every day. To my great surprise, they are as enraged and as frustrated and as angry as are the American people and each of us who, as Members of Congress, have had a chance to look at this system that has failed so abysmally. Their suggestions and comments to us, I think, are extremely worthwhile for us to consider. They are the people that are on the front lines. They know the nuances of the system. They know how the system is ripped off. And they also know of its shortcomings in providing help to those who all of us in this body would acknowledge are in genuine need of help. As one of the underpinnings of the welfare system, I think all of us can agree, whether we position ourselves in the political spectrum to the left of center, to the right of center, or in the middle, that we want a system that encourages people to work. Most of us in America have a work ethic that is part of our background. It is part of what our parents shared with us. And, for whatever measure of success we may have achieved in life, it is the presence of that work ethic that contributed to that success. But a person who is on welfare, who gets a job, who achieves that first rung on the job ladder, oftentimes is confronted with a horrific choice. Immediately that individual may be cut off from all medical care, all child care assistance, and that individual may, in fact, find herself in a more disadvantageous position than before she attained employment. That part of our system, it seems to me, ought to be fundamentally changed. We ought to be encouraging and rewarding those people like the young applicant whose interview I observed, who is going out, getting a job, and trying to help herself and her family. Our present system provides all of the disincentives by not providing transitional help for her, so she can get a little better job, that pays a little bit more, so that she is able to provide for herself and her family. That, it seems to me, ought to be one of the structural incentives that any welfare reform ought to encourage. The welfare system is replete with conflicts, both indefensible and maddening. It is the sort of thing that encourages the American public to react as it does when the word ``welfare'' is mentioned. I would like to talk about a few of those, if I may, Mr. President. One of the key policy problem areas the eligibility workers brought to my attention is how the term ``household'' is defined for determining the eligibility of individuals living together at one residence for different welfare assistance programs. One of the most egregious examples of how policy and effect conflict is the Food Stamp Program definition of ``household.'' Assume with me for the moment that two families have the same number of family members, and the same income. Applying the ``household'' definition can mean a family where everyone is a legal citizen is ineligible for food stamps, while a similar family with one member, who is an illegal alien, is eligible for such assistance. Let me be more specific. Let us assume family A and family B both have a total monthly household income of $1,200, and each parent individually earns $600. Family A's two working parents are both legal citizens. Family B also has two working parents, but one is an illegal alien. the eligibility worker looks at the household members, and finds two working parents who are legal citizens. The worker must count family A's full $1,200 monthly income. Since family A's total household income is more than the monthly gross income allowed for food stamp eligibility, which is $1,066 for a two-person family, family A is ineligible. However, with family B, the eligibility worker looks at the household members, and does not count the $600 income from the illegal alien parent. Only the half of family B's gross monthly household income earned by the legal citizen parent is counted. Family B's gross monthly household income is only $600 a month, well under the maximum allowed. Family B, with the illegal alien, receives food stamp assistance. Although technically the illegal alien member of family B does not directly receive food stamps, it is the member's presence as part of the household that allows for this incongruous and indefensible result. Why, I would ask, are we penalizing the two-parent working family whose members are legal citizens by denying eligibility for food stamp assistance, while allowing a two-parent working family with an illegal alien family member to receive assistance? Would it not be fairer to determine a family's eligibility for assistance by looking at the total income of the household rather than by who is in the household? That is whether the individual parent is illegal or a legal alien. This is a situation that must be corrected. On the other hand, the Food Stamp Program specifically requires welfare offices to report any illegal alien who tries to apply for benefits. However, there is no similar requirement for the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program. Why? It makes no sense as a matter of policy. Throughout this country, people are justifiably angry about illegal aliens who have access to our Nation's welfare system. We can and we ought to, at the very least, require all of our welfare assistance programs to provide information and to report illegal aliens to the Immigration Service. We have all heard from INS that there is simply not enough staff and funding available to investigate every alleged illegal alien, and that priority decisions must, by necessity, be made. But we are creating an atmosphere where those who test the welfare system feel relatively safe in attempting to defraud it. If we do not want illegal aliens to receive benefits they are not entitled to, we need to ensure adequate resources are available to prevent it from occurring. Another area of policy conflict occurs with young teenage parents. We require young teenage parents under 20 years of age to participate in education and training programs or lose their eligibility for AFDC assistance. But once that same young parent turns 20, she continues to be eligible for AFDC benefits, while no longer being required to participate in any education or training program or to work. So what kind of an incentive do we create for those mothers not to participate in education or job training programs and not to work? Millions of American women in this country are single heads of households who get up every morning, get their kids ready to go to school, get themselves out in the job force, and yet we provide no assistance for these women. And the welfare system, as it is currently structured, provides assistance for those who neither seek employment nor participate in job training programs. Again, this is a policy conflict we ought to correct. The eligibility workers also pointed out to me the difference in treatment under the Food Stamp Program between disabled seniors living on limited incomes and homeless people. Disabled seniors who usually have a house many times are eligible to receive only $10 a month in food stamp benefits. I was told by one eligibility worker that she actually sees seniors with cases of obvious malnutrition, something she said would just break your heart, but she is unable to provide more than $10 under the system the way it is currently structured. On the other hand, a homeless person gets expedited service, has benefits available in 5 days, and is able to get the full benefit of $115 a month. It seems to me there is a dichotomy here that is irreconcilable. In the one instance, everyone agrees the deserving senior, who currently gets only $10 a month, desperately needs more to survive, and yet she is not provided that assistance. Another example of a policy and an effect in conflict occurs when an unmarried man and woman live together. Each person is considered separately to determine eligibility for food stamp benefits, even if the woman is pregnant with the man's child. It is only after their baby is born that the man and woman are considered to have a child in common, and are then treated as a married couple, and are no longer eligible for separate individual benefits. Also, couples who were married, who divorce, but continue to live together can be certified as separate persons for food stamps as long as they do not have a child in common. We ought to be encouraging, as a matter of public policy, people to be married and to raise their children as a family. Allowing this aberration--two people living together, previously married, divorced, and now able to receive welfare assistance--clearly is a disincentive we must correct. Intentional welfare fraud can also result in a conflict between policy and effect. If a person receiving aid to families with dependent children benefits is discovered to have committed an intentional welfare fraud, the fraud sanction is to reduce benefits by up to 10 percent or to eliminate the AFDC benefit. The same family may then be eligible for more food stamps and a higher housing allowance because of the reduced AFDC cash benefit, a benefit which was reduced as a consequence of their intentional fraud perpetrated upon the system. That creates the situation in which there is essentially no penalty for this person, because the reduction in AFDC cash benefits is likely to be offset by increases in benefits from other programs. Under the Food Stamp Program, the penalty for fraud is either a 10- or 20-percent reduction in benefits. However, the reality of this situation is when someone commits a fraud, the welfare system basically ends up paying such people to pay the system back for the previous fraud from one program, by increasing that person's benefits from other programs. It makes absolutely no sense at all, Mr. President. I have long been a supporter of strengthening our ability to enforce the payment of child support from irresponsible parents. It came as a surprise to me to learn that the Food Stamp Program, that I have long supported as an essential part of our safety net program, does not require--does not require--its recipients to participate in efforts to try to retrieve unpaid child support payments. All Federal welfare assistance programs must require its recipients to cooperate in State and Federal efforts to recover outstanding child support payments. We need to use every available option to bring delinquent parents back to the reality of their financial responsibility for their children. The eligibility workers also brought to the table suggestions for ways to help eliminate these policy conflicts. First, they suggest more standardization of eligibility requirements for all welfare programs. This would particularly help to prevent a fraud penalty reduction in benefits in one welfare program resulting in an increase in benefit eligibility in other programs, the net effect of which is to provide no net income loss or penalty for the individuals seeking to defraud the system. They also suggest the penalty percentage reduction be made more flexible to allow for differences in the degree of frauds. Additionally, the eligibility workers would like to see fraud penalties follow the person. By that, Mr. President, we mean that under the current system, an individual who is identified as having perpetrated a fraud in one State can collect and apply for benefits in another State. If a person commits a welfare program fraud in one State, and then moves to another State, the person's fraud penalty from the first State should follow the person to the second State for collection. Also, all welfare programs should require their recipients to participate in support. As I stated before, we need to avail ourselves of all options available to ensure child support payment is enforced. When I reintroduced my child support enforcement legislation, my new bill will provide all welfare program recipients cooperate in child support enforcement efforts, as a condition of their receipt of assistance. I want to reemphasize how much each of us can learn from the practical knowledge these frontline eligibility workers have about how the welfare system works, where the problems are, and what the possible solutions are to address them. They are not defenders of the welfare system status quo. They see both the positive and the negatives of the current welfare system, and they are just as frustrated with the welfare system as are the public and Members of Congress. The welfare system must be substantially changed, and on that we can all agree. We can all agree too that there will always be people who will need the safety net welfare assistance provides at some time in their lives, and we must ensure the net is there for them. But as the Senate begins its deliberations on welfare reform, we need to heed the lessons learned by these eligibility workers. As we make the necessary changes, let us always remember to work to ensure the current policy conflicts are not carried forward. Let us not create more unintended consequences when we change the system. I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Frivolous Lawsuit Prevention Act of 1995. This legislation will increase sanctions on lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits. Almost daily we hear stories about some individual or business settling a lawsuit which has little merit just to avoid the costs associated with a drawn out case. The manhours and resources that can be drained from a business while it goes through such a process can be devastating. Many of us had hoped that the rules governing the conduct of court behavior would deter frivolous lawsuits. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize judges to impose ``an appropriate sanction'' upon an attorney which is ``interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.'' Unfortunately, rule 11 has not lived up to our expectations in curbing abusive lawsuits and, in fact, has been recently watered down. This legislation is intended to force judges to punish lawyers or litigants who file or pursue cases which the judge regards as frivolous. Judges would be required to impose sanctions when they find frivolous suits, thereby, taking away their discretion. This step needs to be taken because judges have been reluctant to impose sanctions on fellow attorneys. It has always been difficult to get any group to discipline their colleagues, where it is doctors, lawyers or realtors. That is why we must force judges to impose sanctions when frivolous case are filed. Frivolous lawsuits are a terrible drain on the competitiveness of our Nation. We must provide those who want to fight these frivolous suits rather than settle them the power to go after the perpetrators. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the majority leader. That is agreeable.

Mr. BRYAN. I yield for the purposes of parliamentary inquiry. Will that be on our time?

Mr. BRYAN. Is that satisfactory to the Senator from California?

Mr. BRYAN. I yield myself 7 minutes, Madam President. Madam President, this year Ralston-Purina will spend $13 million to advertise its Chex brand cereal, and Brown-Forman Corp. has budgeted $20 million to help sell California Cooler, and last year McDonald's spent $7.7 million in advertising in Singapore alone. The question arises, what do all of these companies have in common besides each having multimillion-dollar advertising budgets? The answer is that they are all recipients of taxpayer funds which is known as the Market Promotion Program. This program was started in 1986 to promote American agricultural produce. Let me just say a word by way of background. The amendment which the Senator from Arkansas and I have presently before the floor will zero out funding for this program for this year. Last year, the appropriators came up with $85 million for this Market Promotion Program, and in the legislation we are acting on this evening, they have increased the appropriation level to $110 million. In my view, this program, which I am going to describe very briefly in a moment, is corporate welfare. We have debated in this session of the Congress where we can make cuts in the budget. We have talked about Women, Infants, and Children and school nutrition programs. Everything seems to be on the table except the sacred cow of American agriculture, the Market Promotion Program. Very briefly, Madam President, the history of this program dates back a number of years. Currently, we are spending in the neighborhood of $3.5 billion in America on export promotion--$3.5 billion. Of that sum, $2.2 billion is set aside specifically for agricultural promotion. Now, to put this in context, 63 percent of all the money that we are spending for export promotion in America is devoted to agriculture. Agriculture represents about 10 percent of the foreign exports from America. So it is my view that is a disproportionate, indefensible amount. But let us put that aside for the moment. We can debate the merits or demerits of spending $2.2 billion in agricultural promotion. I am talking about the Market Promotion Program. This is a program which, as I have said, is corporate welfare. It is the equivalent of food stamps The way this program works is that advertising budgets of some of the large corporations in America are supplemented by taxpayer moneys. Now, Conagra, a good company, makes the kind of products that are household names in America: Country Pride, Chung King, Wesson, Butterball, Swift, Peter Pan, Armour, Banquet, Swiss Miss. Since 1986, this company has received in taxpayer dollars $826,000. This company has, by 1994 financial data, $462 million in net profits. The advertising budget is $200 million. The CEO receives compensation of $1.229 million annually. How in God's world do we justify, Madam President, spending taxpayer dollars to supplement this program? This is a company that is large; it is successful; and they can effectively handle their own advertising and promotion budget. Jack Daniels, a product that is familiar to many of us, $2.41 million is what they have received through the Market Promotion Program and its immediate predecessor, TEA [Targeted Export Assistance]. The 1994 financial data: Net profits of $146 million, an advertising budget of $74 million, CEO compensation of $703,000. Again, Madam President, I suggest that it is indefensible to call upon the American taxpayer to subsidize a company of this size. McDonald's. Who among us does not enjoy a Big Mac? I know I do. But this is a company that has received, since 1986, $1.6 million, taxpayer dollars, all taxpayer money, to supplement a company that makes a net profit, according to the 1994 data, of $1.2 billion, that has an advertising budget of nearly $700 million, and CEO compensation of $1.78 million. In addition to this, it is not only American companies that receive it. Here is a list--not a complete list--of foreign companies that receive money from the American taxpayer. The point to be made is that at a time when we are making some very tough budget cuts--very tough budget cuts--we are talking about the most vulnerable in our society who have been asked to step forward, whether it is the WIC program, or whether it is school nutrition, or aid to our schools in terms of drug assistance. All of these programs have been hotly debated, but for some reason these agriculture programs are sacrosanct. It is time to eliminate these programs. First of all, they are indefensible in terms of taxpayer dollars being used to subsidize them. And secondly, there is a question as to its effectiveness. The General Accounting Office has done an evaluation, and they find a number of problems with this program. Number one, it is not clear whether the taxpayer dollars that are going into the advertising budget simply are being exchanged for advertising money that is already in the corporate budget. Secondly, there is no criteria as to who is eligible--big company, small company. Third, there is no criteria as to how long you stay in. Do you get in and stay forever? Now, there has been at least one reform that has been added that you have to get out in 5 years. But that is 5 years from 1994, and that means some of these companies have been in this program since its origin. There is no objective statistical data, absolutely none, to suggest or to prove that in fact these dollars have assisted our export promotion program. Madam President, I remind my colleagues that we are spending separate and apart for this one agricultural promotion $2.2 billion. Now, you will recall agricultural exports represent 10 percent of the exports from America. We are spending 63 percent of a total of $3.5 billion that is being spent by the Federal Government on export promotion. There are other brand names that are household products. I think the American taxpayer is entitled to be absolutely outraged when you look at some of these companies, highly successful companies. I have no quarrel with the companies. My quarrel with them is the fact that American taxpayer dollars are subsidizing the corporate giants in America. Let me just give you some more information here. Welch's, marvelous fruit juice, and others, they have received since 1986 $5.8 million; Blue Diamond, these are the folks who are involved in nuts, $37 million; Dole fresh fruit, $9 million. If the Pillsbury Doughboy looks a little chubby to you all, it is because the American taxpayer has been subsidizing his diet pretty heavily. Pillsbury, it says, received during this period of time $10 million. So my point, Madam President, is that if we are serious about cutting the deficit, if we are serious about making the hard choices, the tough cuts, we have to begin with programs like this. Corporate welfare ought to be on the line every bit as much as the other programs which have been targeted in this Congress either for elimination or reduction. Let me say this is not a liberal amendment nor a conservative amendment that my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Arkansas, and I offer. This is an amendment on which those who are to the political right in America, the Cato Institute, and those who are the moderates in America, the Political Aggressive Policy Institute, have taken a look at this program and both have reached the same conclusion: This is a program that ought to be eliminated. To conclude, Madam President, it is time to take these companies off the taxpayer dole. They are capable of fending for themselves. They have marvelous programs, sophisticated staffs. They pay their people top dollar in terms of their promotion programs. The American taxpayers ought not to be asked to spend their dollars to supplement these advertising accounts. The time for action is now. Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN. I have just been informed that Senator Bumpers should be here momentarily. Once he gets here, I am can assure the leader that we are prepared to proceed and enter into a time agreement.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, if I may respond, Senator Bumpers is the primary sponsor of this. I am trying to reach him. He will be here momentarily. I am certainly agreeable in principle to the time limit to accommodate the leader and move this along, but I am reluctant to agree to a specific time until I speak with him. Let me assure the leader I will try to ferret out the distinguished Senator from Arkansas and will be in communication with the leader as soon as possible. Order Of Procedure

Mr. BRYAN. How much time on our side is left?

Mr. BRYAN. I yield to the Senator from Arkansas whatever time he wishes.

Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, let me, in the interest of moving this debate forward, just express my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from Arkansas for his efforts and make just a couple of brief points, if I may. He made the observation, which is absolutely correct, that there are 140 foreign companies. Here is a partial list of them right here. Some of the names you may know and some, frankly, I have never heard of, but 140. To make the point that the distinguished Senator from Arkansas was making, from 1986 to 1993, 20 percent--20 percent--of the budget for this program for branded advertising--that is the McDonald's and the rest of it--goes to foreign companies. Twenty percent, American taxpayer dollars. I do not know how you justify and how you support that. The other point that I would like to make is the GAO report that the distinguished Senator makes reference to has a very interesting piece of testimony, and that is, one of the recipients of the program was asked by the auditors, ``How did you all become involved in the program?'' ``Well,'' she said, ``we got a phone call. They said, `Would you like to get some money?''' As the Senator from Arkansas said, I do not fault the company. She said, ``Tell me how.'' ``Look, we are passing out money on this program called the Market Promotion Program,'' and, indeed, the company did. The company, Newman's Own, Paul Newman's food company. They just got a call which said, ``Look, would you like help for your advertising bills? We will reimburse you.'' This was the testimony of A.E. Hotchner, from Newman's Own. ``We would be delighted to take it.'' As the Senator from Arkansas made the point, number one, it has not been established that it has accomplished its desired purpose. It is not effective. Is that not a prime reason to zero it out? And secondly, philosophically, I must say, Madam President, it sticks in my craw. Companies like this, and good companies--I am not maligning these companies--would get into the public trough and get this kind of taxpayer dollar when everybody in this Congress has talked a pretty good talk about reducing the deficit. This ought to be a no brainer. This is not a difficult decision. This is one in which we should say these companies ought to have the ability to fly on their own. I yield the floor and reserve any time I may have left.

Mr. BRYAN. Thank you, Madam President. Let me just say in response to my friends on the other side of this proposition, I am not arguing with the distinguished Senator from Arkansas that no agricultural promotion is defensible or justified. We are spending $2.2 billion--$2.2 billion--on agriculture promotion for exports aside from this program. What I am saying is this particular program that subsidizes the wealthiest corporations in America cannot be defended, particularly when we are spending $12.2 billion, 63 percent of all the money spent for promotion around----

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I join Senator Bond today in introducing amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. I want to again express my appreciation for the efforts of Senator Bond. I have enjoyed teaming up with him on a number of issues and look forward to continuing this friendship and productive working relationship. As those who follow this issue know, Senator Bond and I came extremely close to getting similar legislation enacted into law last Congress. Versions of this bill passed the Senate 87 to 10 and passed the House of Representatives on several occasions. Unfortunately because this came up at the of the session, one Senator was able to block this bill's enactment into law. I am confidant we can get this legislation to the President's desk this year. This legislation is similar to the version that passed the Senate and House of Representatives last year. Senator Bond and I have made some refinements but the guts of the bill are intact. The heart of this legislation is the investigation process which is undertaken when a consumer discovers a mistake on his or her credit report. We all know that mistakes will occur when you are entering billions of pieces of data in computer banks every month. That is inevitable. What is not inevitable is the frustration consumers experience getting these mistakes removed from their files. This bill requires credit bureaus and the businesses which supply information to verify it within 30 days or remove it from a consumer's file. Thereby, the burden of proof is transferred from consumers to businesses to verify the accuracy of the information in a file. I was struck by the testimony of Nevadans who were forced to jump through a serious of hoops to prove that the information in their file was faulty. They spent countless hours on the telephone trying to track down information and to explain to credit bureau representatives what mistakes have been made. Through no fault of their own, these people were put through the ringer. This legislation should rectify this situation. The bill also brings businesses who furnish information into the regulatory process. Without such a provision, bad actors can wreak havoc on the credit reporting system and on consumers. I would have preferred a higher standard of liability for these businesses but believe this is a good first step. On this point, I must express my total disgust at the behavior of the J.C. Penney Co. In my entire career of public service, I have never seen a more disingenuous lobbying effort by any organization, and I will not soon forget it. This legislation tries to craft a delicate balance on the issue of State preemption. Senator Bond and I are both former Governors so we take States' rights very seriously. We have tried to only preempt those areas of this law which affect the operational efficiencies of businesses but do not harm consumers. Setting a national uniform standard for disclosure forms or timetables, does not set the consumer movement back, yet should help the business community operate more efficiently. I would like to put everyone on notice that I feel very strongly that we should not preempt States' rights in the area of liability-- particularly if we set a low-liability standard as we do in this bill. Certain members of the business community have and will continue to push to preempt this area of State law, but I will fight such efforts and will have to reconsider the merits of this bill, should I lose on this issue. I believe the issues in this bill have been compromised and refined over several years of consideration and do not need much more massaging. They represent an equitable balance with benefits to both the consumers and businesses. I hope we can move this along swiftly. I urge my colleagues support.