Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, after the despicable attack on the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City almost 2 months ago, I reacted with the same feelings of shock and outrage as millions of other Americans. Those feelings run deeper than language can adequately describe. The pictures of the ravaged building, the stories of the victims and the families will never be forgotten. Madam President, there should be absolutely no debate about our national resolve to fight terrorism and to keep it from our shores. No American wants to fear that the kind of thing that happened in Oklahoma or at the World Trade Center in New York will occur in their hometown or that one of their loved ones will be hurt by this kind of heinous act. Fighting terrorism requires that we take strong and forceful steps to stop terrorists before they strike, and if they do strike, to prosecute, convict and punish them. We need to make sure that law enforcement officers have the resources to investigate and prosecute terrorist acts; we need to give them tools to apprehend terrorists before they strike. There are a number of provisions of this legislation that are aimed at achieving that goal, and I strongly support those proposals. The bill would make available about $1.2 billion to increase law enforcement resources to carry out these tasks. There are provisions added during floor consideration to provide for tracer elements to be placed in explosives to help identify where these materials are likely to have originated. There are other provisions included in this bill that are also likely to help us fight terrorist threats. Nevertheless, I intend to vote against this legislation. I believe that in the haste to respond to a national tragedy, we may be making mistakes that will be difficult to undo. There are a number of provisions in this legislation that are problematic, and quite frankly, I am equally concerned about the process which brought this measure to the floor of the Senate, the hasty debate, and the pressure to clear the measure without understanding the implications of what is being proposed. The Administration proposed legislation to deal with international terrorism earlier this year; that initial proposal was quickly reshaped as a result of the Oklahoma City tragedy into a bill to deal with domestic terrorism. Although hearings were held in the Judiciary Committee, the Committee never met to debate the bill, there is no committee report, and the measure which was called up by the leader was drafted in private and introduced shortly before many Members left town for the Memorial Day recess. It has also become the vehicle for what is called ``habeas corpus reform.'' What is described as ``reform'' is in fact an attempt to rewrite and weaken what is known as the ``Great Writ''--the common law instrument that allowed citizens to challenge the lawfulness of their detention by the crown. Suddenly, habeas reform has become a tool for fighting terrorism. I find that a stretch of the imagination. What we have is a classic, political move to get another agenda wrapped into an emotionally charged, moving vehicle. In the past year, many of our basic, fundamental protections against government intrusion contained in the Bill of Rights have been under assault. I think many Americans are unaware that these reform movements are in fact assaults upon fundamental rights--not just the rights of criminals, but the rights of all Americans to be free from government overreaching and harassment. I spoke at some length earlier today on my very grave concerns about how the so-called habeas reforms engrafted into this bill aimed at speeding up executions threaten the rights of the innocent and raise the spectre of gross miscarriage of justice taking place. There are also a number of other provisions of this bill that I believe are either not well thought out or misguided. For example, last night the Senate adopted by a voice vote an amendment [[Page S7854]] authorizing a greater role for the military in domestic antiterrorism activities. Provisions dealing with this issue were included in the administration's original proposal and they were of great concern to me and a number of Senators who do not believe that the military should be playing a role in domestic law enforcement efforts. Madam President, one of the hallmarks of a democratic society is the separation of the military--whose primary function is to defend the Nation from outside threats--from internal law enforcement responsibilities. Military dictatorships use soldiers to enforce their laws; democracies do not. This country has a very closely defined set of rules, arising out of the Bill of Rights itself and applied by our judicial system, which guarantee due process and fairness in the administration of justice. Law enforcement personnel are trained in carrying out these rules; soldiers are not. I recognized, Madam President, that a very sincere effort was made by a number of the principal authors of these provisions to craft a very narrow exception to the posse comitatus law, the 1878 statute which limits the role of the military in domestic law enforcement activities. However, I believe that both the process used to craft this amendment and the substance of this amendment are flawed. This broadening of the authority of the military, albeit in a narrow area, was not part of a bill reported by the committees of jurisdiction, but rather was introduced and voice voted within the span of a few hours last night. There were no hearings on this specific proposal, no committee report filed outlining the expectations of how it will operate, and no real public debate over its provisions. Rather, we had a voice vote on language most of us had first seen a few hours earlier. That is not the way to deal with such a fundamental issue. There is no reason for this hasty disposition of this kind of important issue. Beyond the process used, I have concerns about whether the amendment itself may operate to open the door to perhaps an even broader role for the military than even the administration had initially proposed. The administration's proposal did not explicitly give the military the authority to make an arrest, although it had language about disabling and disarming individuals that was troublesome. The amendment adopted last night gives the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense the authority to promulgate regulations governing the role of the military and provides that those regulations shall not authorize arrests by the military except under ``exigent circumstances'' or as otherwise authorized by law. In other words, the military is given the power to make arrests, but the regulations will limit that authority to certain circumstances. Madam President, while I recognize the authority being created is limited to cases involving biological or chemical weapons, I am concerned that we have opened a door that may be hard to close in the future when the case is made that the military can play a greater role, for example, in the war on drugs or other areas which have been the subject of heightened public concern. I do not believe that it is necessary to give the military arrest powers within the U.S. If military needs to be involved in a domestic investigation, I believe that civilian law enforcement officials should be present and available to make any arrests needed. The notion that military personnel will be operating without accompanying civilian officials is very troubling. If authority is needed to detain an individual until a civilian law enforcement official arrives, arguments can be made for that authority, but that does not justify, in my mind, granting a direct power to make an arrest under any type of circumstances. Madam President, in a similar vein, I am concerned about the amendment adopted yesterday which loosens the requirements in current law for issuance of a warrant for what is called a ``roaming'' or ``roving'' wiretap. The Fourth Amendment, in very explicit language, requires that no search warrant may issue unless ``particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'' The Fourth Amendment was written in such precise terms because the drafters of the Constitution were aware of the practice of British authorities of obtaining sweeping search warrants that allowed them to search wherever and whenever they pleased. The rights of the people to be secure in their homes from government officials barging in was not a right recognized before the American revolution. It is perhaps a unique American right, but it is one that many of us regard as sacrosanct. The requirement for specificity is especially important with respect to wire tap authority because a wire tap is particularly invasive--no one knows that a government agent is listening to your private conversations. The law has long required that a wire tap warrant be very narrowly and carefully drawn. Current law allows a roaming wire tap--that is one that moves from place to place--only where there is an allegation that the suspect is moving form place to place with the intent to avoid interception of the communication. The amendment adopted strikes the ``intent'' requirement and allows such a wiretap where the person's actions and conduct would have the effect of thwarting interception from a specified facility. Again, this provision opens the door to greater government powers. I am not convinced that an adequate case has been made that this broader and potentially abusive authority is needed. There are other provisions of the bill that may also have problems that I will not take the time to outline here. In sum, I think the bill was hastily crafted and goes beyond what is needed to deal with a terrorist threat. Madam President, less than a year ago, I confronted this same situation when the Clinton administration's crime bill came to a final vote on the floor of the Senate. Just as with this bill, there were a number of provisions in that legislation that I supported. I supported the concept of putting more police officers on the streets. I supported prevention programs as sensible and cost-effective ways to head off criminal activity. But I objected to other provisions. I objected to the expansion of the death penalty, a form of state- sponsored violence that few civilized nations practice. I note in today's papers that the Supreme Court of South Africa, a nation that has executed people for 350 years has ruled that the death penalty violates that nation's constitution. The pending legislation would also add new death penalties to federal law. I oppose those provisions as well. I also opposed some of the provisions of last year's crime bill that I believed amounted to unnecessary and counterproductive Federal intrusion into the war on crime, which is best fought at the State and local level. Because of these objections, I voted against that bill. Because of my objections today, I am voting against this one. I believe that we are acting in haste, making law from outrage and not from deliberation. I believe that despite good intentions and provisions of the bill that would provide additional resources to law enforcement personnel fighting terrorists, that we are not passing a thoughtful, meaningful response to a real threat. Instead, we are rewriting habeas corpus law because some proponents of these changes saw an opportunity in this bill to move their agenda. We are opening the door to a greater role for Federal Government take actions that will invade the lives of our constituents without reasonable grounds. When we act in haste, we multiply our chances of error and I see errors in this bill. I cannot support it.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I reluctantly voted against the budget resolution, but I believe it does represent a serious, and significant statement on my highest priority: deficit reduction. My own 82-point plan reduces the deficit further and faster than this budget resolution does, and I cosponsored and voted for an alternative on the floor of the Senate that reduces the deficit more and achieves true balance sooner than the budget resolution. Nevertheless, the budget resolution does achieve significant deficit reduction, and if nothing else, it clearly demonstrates that we do not need to change our Constitution in order to balance the Federal books. The purpose of a budget resolution is to establish the boundaries within which we formulate the details of the Federal budget. The most significant flaw in this resolution is that those boundaries effectively preclude us from going after three sacred cows: tax cuts, tax loopholes, and the defense budget. If those three areas had been left on the table, we could have taken a much more balanced approach to deficit reduction, lessening the severity of the cuts to those on Medicare and Medicaid, farmers, students, veterans, and others, while also eliminating the deficit by the year 2000, not 2002 or 2004 or 2008. There were some bright points to the resolution. One important improvement the Senate resolution makes to the one passed by the House is the elimination of what has been called the crown jewel of the Contract With America: the fiscally irresponsible $350 billion tax cut. In a resounding, bipartisan vote of 69 to 31, the Senate rejected an amendment to implement that reckless policy. There are also a number of provisions assumed in the resolution that rightly slate outdated, wasteful, or low priority programs for cuts or elimination. I was particularly pleased to see the Helium program terminated under this budget resolution. I introduced legislation on the first day of the 104th Congress to kill the national helium program, and this budget resolution is an important step in eliminating this vestige of the 1920's. Though the broad budget outlines established by this resolution are skewed, I very much hope we will approach the details of the budget with the kind of bipartisan spirit demonstrated by the strong, bipartisan vote defeating the reckless House Republican tax cuts. If the Senate takes that approach to the specific budget bills, and especially the reconciliation legislation that will determine how cuts are made to Medicare and Medicaid, we may be able to fashion a sensible budget that achieves the significant deficit reduction envisioned in the resolution without harming the most vulnerable. amendment no. 1150

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, and I would like to thank the junior Senator from Massachusetts for offering his amendment that would derail this misguided effort to eliminate the Presidential election campaign fund. It came as a surprise--and a disappointment--to many of us that when the Republican Party announced last fall their new Contract With America and declared their commitment to reforming the Congress and ending business as usual in Washington, that they did not even bother to mention campaign finance reform in their contract. Well, we are now out from under the first 100 days of the contract, and there is still no indication that the Senate will be turning to campaign finance reform anytime soon. But not only are we going to be prevented from taking a step forward, the budget resolution before us today would push us back--20 years back--to the days before Congress recognized how fundamentally flawed our system of Presidential campaigns was. Mr. President, what in the world is the logic behind this? As far as I know, even the most vocal opponents of the Presidential campaign system are not willing to suggest that we have had a single unfair Presidential election in the past 20 years. Nor has any general election candidate for President, to my knowledge, ever said in the past 20 years that their loss was attributable to the lack of financial resources. That is because the Presidential campaign finance system is based on simple principles. One principle is that money should not determine the outcome of elections. Another is that elected officials should not be spending inordinate amounts of time on the phone soliciting campaign funds. That is what the Presidential system is about. If there is a problem of inadequate funding of the Presidential campaign fund, then that should be addressed. We did it 2 years ago and we can do it again. But instead, this resolution is trying to fix a wristwatch with a sledgehammer, preferring to discard the one [[Page S7347]] Federal campaign system that has produced fair and competitive elections during the last 20 years rather than finding a targeted solution to ensuring the solvency of the Presidential fund. Finally, I have to ask why the Republicans are trying to do this under the camouflage of the budget resolution. If opponents of the Presidential system want to eliminate it, then let us have public hearings in the Rules Committee and have an intelligent discussion about it. If opponents of public financing are so convinced that the American people are also opposed to public financing, why are the opponents so reluctant to have a public debate on this issue on the floor of the U.S. Senate? There is not a single word in the budget resolution about what we are going to replace the Presidential system with. But again, I have not heard anyone in the nearly 20 years of this system's existence criticize it for being unfair to challengers, unfair to either party, or dominated by special interests. This is a system we need to emulate, not eliminate. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his leadership on this issue and I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield the time back on behalf of the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I rise to thank my good friend, the senior Senator from Arizona, for his comments regarding various provisions included in the conference report of the rescissions bill. Let me first reiterate how pleased I am to be working with the Senator on a variety of congressional and budget related reforms. He and I share a number of common concerns regarding the impact of special interests on elected Government, and I was delighted when the Senator from Arizona approached me before this session began to see if I would be interested in working with him on some of those issues. That kind of bipartisan spirit is essential if we are to build anything truly meaningful and lasting in the 104th Congress. Without that spirit, all that can be done is to advance an agenda that is hollow and transitory. Despite the understandably partisan tone of the statements often made in the Chamber, I know there are people of good will on both sides of the aisle who are willing to try to tackle problems together. I have often mentioned the Kerrey-Brown deficit reduction package that was developed in the last Congress as an example of that kind of effort. And I was happy to be a part of that bipartisan effort. I think the effort the Senator from Arizona and I are making is another such example of bipartisan work. There has been some progress made already this year. I was delighted that a measure to clean up the emergency appropriations process, which the Senator from Arizona and I sponsored, was included in the line-item veto measure that passed the Senate, and I very much hope that the line-item veto conferees will retain that emergency spending provision. And there will be others as well. Mr. President, one of the ongoing efforts that the Senator from Arizona and I agreed on was to undertake a look at the earmarked items in appropriations bills. The Senator from Arizona has a long history of this already, of certainly some discomfort to some, but I believe it has had an impact. Just the knowledge that the Senator from Arizona will be asking questions about these kinds of appropriations can be a deterrent. I certainly hope this is the case. And I also hope that by joining him in this effort on a regular basis, we can discourage even more. So, Mr. President, that brings me to the rescissions bill. It is ironic that legislation intended to take a first step toward a balanced budget has become again a vehicle for a number of provisions that I think move us in the wrong direction. Not only does the conference report specify new spending, for which there is no compelling or immediate need, it also contains provisions which restore funding beyond the level which passed either House. My friend from Arizona mentioned some of these items. We have all read about the various earmarked transportation projects, courthouses and other building projects that somehow continue to endure. They are kind of like cockroaches; no matter what we throw at them or how many we kill, some of them still survive. Mr. President, there are other programs as well: $12.7 million for a National Swine Research Center. It is my understanding that, as I believe my friend pointed out, there are already a dozen such centers. Do we really need a 13th swine research center? And if we do need a 13th swine research center, should there not be a competitive process to justify where the thing is sited? Another one: $1 million allocated to the Advanced Lead-Acid Battery Consortium. Mr. President, it is my understanding that one company is the principal beneficiary of this research funding. This has all the trappings once again of corporate welfare. I question whether we should be dedicating scarce revenues to the kind of applied research for which the private benefits clearly exceed the public benefits. And then, Mr. President, we find the following provision in section 1008 of the bill. It says: The Administrator shall acquire, for no more than $35 million, a certain parcel of land, together with existing facilities, located on the site of the property referred to as the Clear Lake Development Facility, Clear Lake, TX. The section goes on to explain that NASA is being directed to buy this property to use as a neutral buoyancy laboratory. One might well ask, Mr. President, what this provision is doing in a bill, the main focus of which is to reduce the deficit. But, Mr. President, just when you think you have seen it all, you read the very next provision, section 1009, which reads as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation.* * * NASA shall convey, without reimbursement, to the State of Mississippi, all rights, title and interest of the United States in the property known as the Yellow Creek Facility and consisting of approximately 1,200 acres near the city of Iuka, MS. Mr. President, if you can believe it, it gets worse. Further down section 1009 we find the following. Provided further that $10 million in appropriated funds otherwise available to NASA shall be transferred to the State of Mississippi to be used in the transition of the facility. Not only are we giving away this facility, Mr. President, the Federal Government is actually throwing in $10 million to sweeten the deal in something we call a rescissions bill. Mr. President, in two consecutive sessions of the so-called rescissions bill, NASA is required to pay $35 million for 13 acres of land and facilities in Texas to establish a neutral buoyancy lab and to give away 1,200 acres of land and facilities in Mississippi along with a bonus of $10 million. My back-of-the-envelop arithmetic suggests that Federal taxpayers netted out losing $45 million and 1,187 acres from just those two sections alone. [[Page S7378]] I am sure someone might be able to provide us with some reasons NASA is being required to make these deals, but nothing in this legislation before us suggests anything the least bit urgent about them. Mr. President, should we be asked to swallow these land deals as part of legislation intended to give us a good jump-start at deficit reduction and to provide emergency funding for some urgent problems? I do not think we should. If there are sound reasons to make these land deals, then those who advocate these arrangements should be willing to subject them to the scrutiny of the regular appropriations or authorization bills. These provisions argue strongly for the reform that the Senator from Arizona and I have introduced and that was included in the line-item veto measure we passed. Mr. President, by establishing a new point of order against adding these kinds of nonemergency measures to emergency appropriations bills and by prohibiting OMB from adjusting spending caps or otherwise relaxing the sequester process for emergency appropriations bills that include these extraneous measures, our proposal would limit the ability of some to circumvent the normal legislative process as I suggest may have occurred here. These provisions also argue for the line-item veto measure itself, and I very much hope we can make progress in moving that issue along as well. I just want to reiterate any thanks to the Senator from Arizona and his staff for their continuing vigilance on these issues. There are tangible costs to that work, as anyone reviewing the list of projects that has been rescinded can divine, but in the end, Mr. President, the only way we will end these abuses is for Members to follow the lead of the Senator from Arizona and reject these special provisions even when it means rejecting a project for one's own State. So I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Very well. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time remains?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I knew Les Aspin for 25 years. In 1970, I was a junior in high school in Janesville, WI, when I signed up as a volunteer on Les' first campaign for the First Congressional District seat in Wisconsin. He won that election after a tough recount in the primary, defeated the incumbent Congressman. I then interned in his Janesville, WI, Post Office basement office in 1971 and in 1972 during the summers. During the next quarter century, we had a continuing friendship, as he carved out a distinguished career in the United States House of Representatives, eventually rising to become the chairman of the Armed Services Committee while I prepared for and began my own career. By temperament and training, Les Aspin was a man who listened to ideas and demanded facts. His mind was trained at some of the best educational institutions in the world: Yale, Oxford, and MIT. Sometimes the conclusions he reached after thoroughly probing a problem were not welcomed by all who heard them, but they were always the product of a rigorous and honest intellectual process. Les Aspin enjoyed the successes and endured the setbacks common to all Members who choose a career in public service. His service was marked by unflagging dedication. I believe he always did what he thought was right and he always did his best. One thing was readily apparent. He came from our strong Wisconsin reformist tradition. He was long an opponent of waste and fraud and abuse in Government, including but certainly not limited, to the military. He fought against junk telephone calls as well as junkets. He unearthed cost overruns in big-ticket weapons projects, punched holes in corporate propaganda campaigns, and dragged some highly questionable foreign business practices out into the spotlight. He also criticized the insular environment that enveloped the Defense Department and the defense industry that fostered the waste of taxpayers' money. Along the way, Les Aspin became recognized as one of the Congress' leading experts on military policy. I would say one of the leading experts of any time in the history of our Congress. Les Aspin served his country diligently in many capacities. As an Army captain, he worked as an analyst in the Pentagon; he served on the staff of President John Kennedy's Council of Economic Advisors; he represented Wisconsinites for 22 years in Congress; he enthusiastically took on the giant task of steering the Defense Department into the uncharted waters of the post-cold war era. When Les Aspin suffered his fatal stroke, he was chairing the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, working with his friend and colleague, CIA director John Deutch, on needed reforms in our intelligence communities. Mr. President, Les Aspin was a man I deeply respected and admired. As I look back at the fact that my own entry into politics began in his first campaign for office in 1970, I feel a profound sense of loss at his passing. He was a good friend and a dedicated public servant. Far too soon we have lost an exceptional human being. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me use the last brief period of time to say in response to the Senator from New Mexico that one thing has been accomplished even if we do not win on this vote. That is, the early effort to pretend there was not a tax cut in the Senate budget resolution is over. They are admitting it now, that there is this fund and they are not willing to eliminate it. That is progress. Because that was the first attempt. Why are we not able to support the resolution in this form? It is because the proposal of the Senator from New Mexico is out of balance in the year 2002 because of this very problem of this $170 billion. In fact, what it is, is what is left of the crown jewel of the Republican contract. It is basically lying on the floor now after the vote earlier today; 69 to 31 the U.S. Senate rejected the Gramm amendment which was the crown jewel of the Republican contract. This is all that is left of it. This amendment is an opportunity to say what all the American people really know, which is we cannot afford this. As the Senator from Nebraska said, we are either going to do deficit reduction or we are not. This amendment is the one that allows both parties to come together and strike the iron while it is hot. I hope the Senator from Alaska is right and we get it done in the Finance Committee but we should do it now on the budget resolution.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, who has also been extremely helpful on this issue.

Mr. FEINGOLD. First of all let me thank the Senator from Virginia for his tremendous support on this issue all along. Now I would like to yield to the Senator from Illinois, who has also been as solid as can be in trying to impose these tax cuts.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if a Senator on the other side wishes to speak, we can go forward. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the ranking member and ask how much time we have left on our side?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment, in addition to being jointly offered by Senator Hollings and myself, is also cosponsored by Senator Byrd, Senator Nunn, Senator Bumpers, Senator Kerrey, of Nebraska, Senator Robb, Senator Dorgan, Senator Simon, Senator Murray, and Senator Moseley-Braun. Senator Hollings will speak in a moment or two about this, but let me just say, first of all, this is really the moment when the Members of this body can convey to the American people whether they believe tax cuts are a priority or not. It is a clean vote. We can ensure the focus of this budget resolution stays on deficit reduction and deficit reduction alone by adopting this amendment. Other amendments before us that have been rejected have suggested we use the $170 billion tax cut fund for restoring Medicare cuts or education, earned-income tax credit. I think those were all worthy priority choices. They are all more important than a tax cut at this point. Mr. President, none of those amendments were adopted, and we stand here with there still being the $170 billion kitty, or cookie jar, existing in the budget resolution that came out of the Budget Committee. My amendment simply strikes the section of the resolution which establishes a special budget surplus account. The result will be that any additional savings that would have accrued to this account will instead simply go toward the purpose of deficit reduction. By striking the budget surplus allowance, any fiscal dividend that flowed to the Federal Treasury as a result of the deficit reduction contemplated in the resolution would reduce the amount the Government would otherwise have to borrow. It would eliminate the indebtedness of this country to the tune of $170 billion. Eliminating this cookie jar also brings us that much closer to really balancing the Federal budget without using Social Security, and this point has to be stressed and stressed again. It is my understanding that even under this budget resolution, we will still be using $113 billion of Social Security funds to balance our books in fiscal year 2002. Mr. President, this is not a balanced budget by the year 2002 unless you raid the Social Security funds. CBO estimates that in 2002, the so-called fiscal dividend might be $50 billion for that year by adopting this amendment. So instead of the $113 billion bite out of Social Security, we will reduce it by $50 billion. This tax cut that is hidden in the budget resolution is the loose thread that threatens to unravel the budget, the potential tax cut funded from the so-called budget surplus allowance. This is the symbol of irresponsibility that remains in the budget resolution, and it is not just a little bit of money. It is three times the total that President Clinton proposed in terms of tax cuts earlier this year. He proposed about $60 billion. This is almost three times greater than that, Mr. President, and people did not think that was an insignificant amount either. It is a giant tax cut. At best, the budget that passes this body and finally the one that is agreed upon by both Houses will be unpopular. It cannot help but be unpopular. Some feel that adding a tax cut will sugar coat the medicine and make it politically a little bit less risky to balance the budget. But it will not. In fact, it will do just the opposite. A tax cut will only undercut any work that will be accomplished by Congress. First, it will make those tough cuts we do make suspect. Those whom we ask to sacrifice for the cause of deficit reduction will not be persuaded that their own sacrifice will not instead go to provide tax cuts to someone else, someone who may well be a lot wealthier than they are. The Senator from South Carolina and I think that is a formula for trouble. We simply cannot pass what may be a $1 trillion package of spending cuts, including massive cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and education and other programs, and then ask the Nation to support that package while promising tax cuts to everyone. It will not wash. Beyond that, the potential in this budget resolution for a tax cut is just too great of a temptation. What this $170 billion fund does, Mr. President, is essentially lay out a series of low-calorie menus for a dieter, asking them to eat only celery, carrots, some cottage cheese, maybe a little water, but at the same time we put right next to them a big piece of banana cream pie. That is what this tax cut is. We are not going to put the Federal budget deficit on a diet by providing for a tax cut. Nor will we assure the Federal Reserve and the financial markets by claiming we can do both. [[Page S7204]] It is possible, the prospects of lower interest rates that might flow from really lowering the deficit will be lost, and if we do not act responsibly in this matter some will reject the claims we can have it all. By every measure I know, the Nation has expressed an overwhelming preference for deficit reduction over a tax cut. The mail and phone calls I have received from Wisconsin since November on this have been absolutely clear, because the people of the United States know what is at stake. They know there is no free lunch here. We can reduce the deficit and help ensure their children and grandchildren will have a Government that is financially sound or we can give a nice big tax break now and stick future generations with the tab. By significant majorities, people want the former. They want us to start paying off the bills that have been run up, and they want us to do it now. This is not a partisan issue. For my own part, I have opposed the tax cut plans of both parties because I believe it is the fiscally responsible thing to do. Mr. President, I hope that both sides come together in a bipartisan fashion. I have heard Members of both parties make absolutely unequivocal statements on the floor that they do not believe tax cuts can be a priority at this time. This is an opportunity to come together and say we can have a balanced budget by the year 2002 but only if we resist the temptation to go forward with a tax cut we all would like to vote for but cannot afford. With that, Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the ranking member very much. Mr. President, this amendment, more than anything else, offends the common sense of the American people--they know better than we do--if we vote for this. It offends them because they know darn well you cannot balance the budget and spend $350 billion on tax cuts and tell them it is going to work. It does not work. It is phony and it should be defeated. I thank the Chair. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I certainly thank the Senator from Nebraska, and I want to say I admire how straightforward the Senator from Texas is with his amendment and his approach. He lays it right on the line. He believes we can afford at this point a $350 billion tax cut and still balance the budget. In fact, I appreciate the candor of the whole Republican contract in admitting that this really is the centerpiece, this is the crown jewel of the Republican contract, as stated by the Speaker and as stated by the Senator from Texas. I was amazed when they first came up with that formulation. Of all the different things you could pick from the Republican contract: regulatory reform, trying to get the Government off our back; line-item veto; the balanced budget amendment--for a moment I thought that was the crown jewel of the Republican contract--the issue of unfunded mandates we already dealt with; issues having to do with Congress, living by the rules that it creates for others. All of these things are apparently swept aside when it comes to the importance of delivering a tax cut at this time even though this country has reached a $5 trillion debt and a deficit that has only recently been brought down through the efforts of the Clinton administration. So I agree with the Senator from Texas. This is the key amendment on this whole issue. The Senator says that the tax cut is the heart of the Contract With America. Well, this is the test: Is your heart with the tax cuts or is your heart with deficit reduction? You cannot have it both ways, and this is the test and this is what the American people are looking for. What is very unfortunate is that the Senator from Texas fails to tell what this amendment really does. It takes [[Page S7166]] $170 billion that is already in the budget resolution, adds that much again, makes the cuts deeper for the various programs that are going to be cut, and you know what, Mr. President, it still does not balance the budget in the year 2002, unless you take the money of Social Security. This is not a balanced budget in the first place, Mr. President, and this amendment will only make it worse. Do not let anyone on the Republican side kid you, this budget resolution does not balance the budget in the year 2002, unless you take the money from Social Security. So this amendment cannot possibly solve that problem. The Senator from Texas talks about two visions. He sees this as all about whether we are going to return the money to the people. But that is not what the November 8 election was all about. I think both in 1992 and 1994, the American people spoke with a very clear voice. They did not call for tax cuts. They said get rid of the Federal deficit, get rid of the huge interest payments we have to pay on the debt, do not saddle our children and our grandchildren with this deficit. That was the message in 1992 and it was the message in 1994. It is not a partisan message. People are just saying, clean up the mess that was made in the 1980's that the Senator from Nebraska just referred to. The amendment of the Senator from Texas would make the mess much worse. It would say that even though all these deep cuts are being made in so many important human programs, we still have $350 billion in spare change around for tax cuts. I do not think anyone out there really believes that. Let me agree with the Senator from Texas that this should not be about class warfare. I support neither the Senator's proposal nor the proposal for a tax cut in the budget resolution, nor do I support the President's proposal for a much tinier tax cut. I say we cannot do any of it, and there is a moderate bipartisan coalition in this body of Republicans and Democrats alike who say just get rid of all the tax cuts; whatever we have to reduce spending with, let us use that money to reduce the deficit. You know, Mr. President, my biggest concern is not this amendment. This amendment is going down to defeat, I am happy to say. The crown jewel of the Republican contract will be soundly defeated on the floor of this Senate in a very short while. The Speaker's crown jewel will be gone. The $350 billion is not going to be voted by this body. We will defeat the crown jewel of the Republican contract. But I will say, Mr. President, that this is a stalking horse to make the $170 billion that is already in the budget resolution look moderate. We also cannot afford that, and we will have amendments later to deal with this. If I may have 1 additional minute?

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the ranking member of the budget committee. Mr. President, I rise today to continue my comments on the need to make intelligent reforms to Medicare as part of an overall strategy not only to keep the Medicare hospital insurance fund solvent, but also because of the impact Medicare has on our Federal budget deficit. I very much want to participate in a bipartisan effort to balance our Federal budget by 2002, and as I said a few days ago, I believe Medicare must be on the table as we seek ways to reach that goal. In my comments, I listed a number of Medicare reforms that I would be willing to consider as part of a balanced package, and indicated I would certainly be willing to look at other reforms as well. Mr. President, it bears repeating that if we are to achieve a balanced budget by 2002, or indeed by any target year, we need to make changes to Medicare. Put even more directly, the failure to include Medicare as part of a budget package almost certainly dooms such an effort to failure, if not in the short term, then certainly in the long run. As I also noted, I strongly prefer to make significant changes to Medicare as part of a broader effort to reform our health care system. In that larger context, not only could we make more significant progress in [[Page S7062]] stemming the increasing costs of the program, we would be far better able to address the underlying forces that are increasing the costs of health care both in the public and private sector. But, Mr. President, we do not have that luxury. We apparently will not be debating and passing comprehensive health care reform in the near future, and the failure to do so is not only a tragedy in human terms, it is also a lost opportunity for significant deficit reduction. Nevertheless, Mr. President, we must still make changes to Medicare, even without comprehensive health care reform. Deficit reduction and a balanced budget require it. However, Mr. President, two features of the proposed Medicare cuts put any effort to balance the budget at risk. The first is an issue on which I commented a few days ago, namely the failure to deal honestly with the American people on this subject. This is being done in a number of ways--for example, by minimizing the potential impact of the cuts or by suggesting that the proposed savings can largely be achieved simply by moving to a managed care approach. But a deliberate deception that is particularly troubling to me is the representation that the reason we need to make changes is to Medicare to keep the program solvent. The clear implication that is intended by that description is that any savings realized from cuts to Medicare will remain in the program. Mr. President, that is a deliberate misrepresentation. Yes, we need to make changes to Medicare, and yes part of the reason is that the trust fund that pays for one part of Medicare--the hospital insurance program, known as part A--will be insolvent in 2002. But that is not the whole story. Changes are also needed to Medicare because of the impact that program has on the entire Federal budget. Mr. President, this country is ready to sacrifice to reduce our deficit. In fact, I am struck by the willingness of so many to forego so much. There is almost a physical need to do so. I have seen this in the widespread opposition to the proposed tax cuts that both parties have offered. And with respect to Medicare, I have seen it in the recognition by seniors that reforms are needed. But, Mr. President, that willingness to sacrifice will evaporate if we do not deal honestly with the American people. We need to be straight with the American people, and especially our seniors as we ask them to support changes to Medicare. If we do that, we will have that support. Mr. President, the other feature of the proposed Medicare cuts that troubles me is the potential for harm to one of the most vulnerable groups in this country--the frail elderly. Mr. President, to the credit of this body and our colleagues, for the most part we have not heard the greedy geezer arguments made as a rationale for cutting Medicare. But that argument is certainly made by some. And it is true that there are retirees who are well off. After a lifetime of hard work, there are seniors who have acquired significant savings, and have comfortable pensions. Some of their assets come from equity in their homes, which they have lived in for decades. But that is not the whole story. Millions of elderly are among the poorest of our country. The median income of elderly households is less than half that of nonelderly households. According to the Public Policy Institute, in general incomes rise from age 15 to age 50, and then decline steadily. And incomes for the oldest old are by far the lowest of any age group. Households headed by someone aged 75 or older had annual median incomes of less than $13,622 in 1992--$4,000 lower than the next lowest income group, those of households headed by people between age 15 and 24. And over one-fourth of the elderly households have incomes of less than $10,000 per year. Mr. President, while the elderly are disproportionately poor, they also spend far more on health care as a group than anyone else, and this should not surprise us,. What may be surprising to some, however, is just how much our seniors do pay already even with the coverage provided by Medicare. In 1995, the average older beneficiary will spend about $2,750 out- of-pocket for premiums, deductibles, copay- ments, and for services not covered by Medicare. I might add, Mr. President, that these costs do not include the potentially crushing costs of long-term care which can total nearly $40,000 in some areas for nursing home care. Over the next 7 years, it is my understanding that even without the Medicare cuts being proposed as part of this budget resolution, Medicare beneficiaries can expect to spend more than $25,000 out of pocket for health care costs. This budget proposal before us could add $3,200 more to the total. Mr. President, Medicare has done much to improve the lot of seniors. According to the Public Policy Institute, prior to Medicare, only about half of older Americans had any health insurance compared to 75 percent of those under 65. Employer-provided health coverage was the exception, and most of those with that coverage lost it once they retired. If you wanted to buy private insurance, you were often denied coverage on the basis of age or pre-existing conditions. And those policies that were available were often unaffordable. Without coverage, many simply did not seek care even when they needed it. With the passage of Medicare in 1965, that picture changed dramatically. The Public Policy Institute reports that the share of the elderly population not seeing a physician in a given year dropped from 32 percent in 1958 to 21 percent in 1976. And there was a significant increase in access to hospital services. Let me say a few words about this issue of shared sacrifice, which the Senator from New Hampshire was just addressing. Even with Medicare, though, for the average senior citizen, often an older woman living alone, health care is still very costly. Our seniors spend about four times as much out of pocket on health care as their younger relatives. And those out-of-pocket costs consume an enormous portion of their income. For the average older American, out-of-pocket costs still use up $1 in every $6 of income. And for those over age 85--the fastest growing segment of the population--$3 of every $10 of their income goes toward the cost of their health care. Mr. President, if we did not have Medicare today, and older Americans were forced to buy health care coverage from insurance companies, they would have to pay much higher premiums. The Public Policy Institute estimates that premiums for those aged 65 to 74 would range from $6,400 to $8,500, or, on average, up to half of their annual income. Mr. President, the numbers that describe this issue are so impressive that it is easy to frame our arguments around them. But as many of my colleagues have noted, there is a human side to those numbers, and as important as they are, they do not tell the whole story. I have received hundreds of letters on the proposed Medicare cuts. Mr. President, they are not from well-to-do, retired corporate executives. Many are older women, often living alone. One older woman wrote to me from Merrill, which is in the northern part of Wisconsin. Her letter is typical of many I have received. She told me that she lives alone, and gets $573 per month from Social Security. With that she pays the taxes and insurance on her home, as well as the other costs of day-to-day living. She told me that she just does not have enough money left over to pay for more health care. For that woman, across-the-board increases in premiums or copayments, make terrible choices. She may have to ask herself if she can afford to pay for prescription drugs or food. What about repairs to her home, like fixing a leaky roof? What about the heating bill, Mr. President? Mr. President, you know as well as I do, being from the northern part of this country, it gets very cold in Merrill, WI, and that is a brutal choice to have to make. Another older woman wrote to me. She lives in Milwaukee. She explained that her memory is impaired because of various illnesses. She is sick and totally dependent on Medicare for health care. She did not say what her income is, but if she is average, it is about $17,000 per year. At the level proposed here in the Senate, the cuts to Medicare could mean that she will pay another $3,200 in out-of-pocket costs over the next 7 years, nearly $500 per year in additional health care costs on top of the $2,500 she now pays. Mr. President, this was reflected as well when I met with a delegation from Wisconsin at the White House Conference on Aging. We visited about a number of items, including the absolutely critical importance of long-term care reform. We talked about the prospects of cuts to Medicare. Mr. President, those delegates to the White House Conference on Aging agreed that we do need to make some changes to Medicare. They agreed, though, that we need to ``cut smart'' but not ``cut mean.'' Mr. President, the risk with this level of Medicare cuts is that we will ``cut mean,'' and those who are the least able to afford it, the most vulnerable of our adult population--the frail elderly, will be asked to carry the bulk of our deficit reduction load. Mr. President, I am willing, as I have said many times, to participate in a bipartisan process of which the primary goal will be to actually produce a balanced budget by the year 2002, or earlier. Some Medicare cuts should be part of that process; indeed, they have to be part of that process. But, Mr. President, I cannot support a plan that weakens the health safety net for our poorest and frailest elderly--the very safety net Medicare was designed to provide. I yield the floor. Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to commend the Senator from Minnesota for his persistence on this issue and join with him in once again pointing out the need for legislation that will fundamentally reform the way Congress deals with the thousands and thousands of gifts and other perks that are offered to Members each year from individuals, lobbyists and associations that seek special access and influence on Capitol Hill. It has been roughly one year since this body approved a strong, bipartisan gift ban bill by a vote of 95 to 4. 95 to 4. That bill would have strictly limited the acceptance of gifts from lobbyists and provided only a few limited exceptions for non-lobbyists. One would think, that on a 95 to 4 vote, that this body, invigorated by the new Republican leadership supposedly determined to change the way Washington does business and to bring government back to the people, would have no problem raising this issue in the new Congress and passing another strong bipartisan piece of legislation. But here we are, several months into the new Congress, and still no action from the Republican leadership. Perhaps some of our Republican colleagues feel that there is not really a problem with gift-giving to elected officials and their staffs. Maybe they feel that the American people really do have faith and trust in their government and their elected officials. But the fact is, once you leave the greater Washington area, you cannot help but immediately sense the anger and the cynicism with which the American people have come to look upon this institution. They do not see the beltway as a simple road encircling this city--they have come to see it almost as a boundary separating the rest of America from a kingdom of special interest influence known as Washington, D.C. Mr. President, I firmly believe that there should not be an easier vote to cast than a vote to ban the gift-giving practice. I have said before that this should be a no-brainer. I have held nearly 175 listening sessions in my home State of Wisconsin in the past 2\1/2\ years. Thousands of constituents have raised their concerns and expressed their views on a wide spectrum of issues at these listening sessions. There is almost always disagreement about these issues, whether it is government spending, trade agreements, gun control or reforming our health and welfare systems. But on this issue of gift-giving, the audience sentiment is almost always in perfect unanimity. They are disgusted that this practice is permitted. Without exception, every time I raise the idea of a gift ban I cannot even get a full sentence out before the audience breaks out in spontaneous applause and approval of free gifts and trips. I have said it now a number of times here on the floor and I will say it again: the Wisconsin State Legislature has had a strict gift prohibition in place for over 20 years now and it has worked fine. In fact, the Wisconsin Legislature is regarded as one of the most ethical legislative bodies in the [[Page S6937]] country. And as has been pointed out by my former colleague in the Senate, Congressman Tom Barrett, no one in the Wisconsin State Legislature has starved to death because of the gift ban. Well, Mr. President, there are several of us who are determined to bring this practice to an end. Acting on a tough gift ban will fundamentally reform the way Congress deals with the many gifts and other perks that are offered to members each year, and would mark a sea change in the way Washington, D.C. does business. But we need to do more than simply pass though gift ban legislation. We need to strengthen our current lobbying disclosure laws that are riddled with gaping loopholes. We need to shut down the revolving door that allows public officials to trade on their government experience and contracts for lucrative post-employment in the private sector. But most importantly, Mr. President, most importantly we need to pass comprehensive campaign finance reform that will level the playing field between incumbents and challengers, and diminish the role of special interest money that has come to dominate our election system. It is my sincere hope that this body will begin this process of reform by acting on this measure at the earliest possibility. These are all links in a chain of special interest influence that is wrapped around the U.S. Capitol. Each link of the chain must be broken and this would mark a dramatic first step.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member. As the Senate begins its debate on the concurrent budget resolution, I would like to offer a few comments also on the work of the Budget Committee, and especially on a subject about which I have had a particular concern, and that is the subject of the tax cut; whether it makes sense to have tax cuts at this time part of the budget resolution. The first thing I want to do is praise the Senator from Nebraska, not only for his work on the Budget Committee but for the fact that he was one of the very first Members of this body to point out--and to join me in my efforts to say--we really cannot consistently say we are trying to reduce the deficit and have tax cuts. So I appreciate his leadership on that. He has done that consistently throughout the Budget Committee process. I also want to commend the whole Budget Committee and its chairman, the Senator from New Mexico, for the work that was done on the concurrent budget resolution. As the debate unfolds on the concurrent resolution, there will be a lot of opportunities to criticize the particulars of the document and proposed changes to it. I expect to do both of those things. That is the nature of the legislative body and the consequence of the diverse priorities that are represented here. Before that debate, though, Chairman Domenici should be lauded for his effort. I was especially pleased with his ability to keep the budget deliberations in committee clearly focused on the issue of reducing the deficit. We have different approaches to how we get there, but there has to be a unified, bipartisan commitment that at the end of this budget resolution we will have a resolution that calls for a date certain--and I think it should be the year 2002 or earlier--for a balanced budget to be achieved. Those who are serious about deficit reduction have to make tough choices about where and how much to cut, and I think we have to make those choices right now. When I ran for the Senate, I balanced budget by the year 1998. I still think that would work. But at this point, given the realities, if we can get this done by the year 2002, I think it would be a very significant achievement. But as chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senator from New Mexico, faced not only the same tough choices the rest of us had to face, his choices had to achieve a consensus out of the committee so he could get a majority. I will add that the ability of the Budget Committee to craft a document that at least the majority party argues achieves a balanced budget by the year 2002 does underscore my belief that we do not need, and did not need, a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. How can this process even be unfolding if we need a balanced budget amendment? The line was they simply will never get down to business if we do not change the Constitution. But the product of the Senate Budget Committee proves that we did not have to mess around with the Constitution, we just had to get together in committee and on the floor and do the job now. I think that is very important because people lose sight of the fact that we devoted a month out here to discussing the balanced budget amendment. I think we did the right thing when we defeated it. But now we have the opportunity to show not only that it was not necessary, but that we did not have to wait for the States to ratify it and sort of get started on the project late in this decade, but that we can do it right now. We can do it this very year through the budget process. I know it is tough. I know some Budget Committee members are on record supporting significant tax cuts. Obviously every Member of the Senate would love to be able to vote for tax cuts. But the chairman of the Budget Committee rightly decided that the first priority of the committee is not tax cuts but deficit reduction. The Senator from New Mexico is absolutely right and, given the political pressures he faced in this regard, I think he deserves credit for his efforts. He tried. He tried very hard. He came up short, but he improved the House version, the version of the other body, which provides for even more enormous tax cuts. So that was progress. I wish I could say, though, that those efforts spelled the end of the push for tax cuts. I regret that even the Senate budget resolution itself leaves the door wide open for tax cuts. Do not let anyone tell you the Senate budget resolution does not contemplate tax cuts within this 7-year period. It does and they would be very large; to the tune of, apparently, at least $170 billion. That document creates a special budget surplus allowance dedicated solely for tax cuts. Although I certainly think an excellent job was done in many respects, that special fund is an invitation for trouble if we are going to reduce the Federal deficit and eliminate it. The $170 billion tax cut fund is a cookie jar. It is a special fund put away that could be used for deficit reduction, or to restore the Medicare cuts and the student loan cuts and the agriculture cuts that are a part of this document. I have to reiterate, we could get more deficit reduction or we could still have a completely balanced budget by the year 2002 and not do those very harsh cuts to the tune of $256 billion to Medicare. We need to eliminate this kitty, this cookie jar for the tax cut. Not only is it $170 billion but the special fund will almost certainly lure proposals to enact even more significant tax cuts. I do not think that is the chairman's intent. In fact, I think it is just the opposite. But I think that is what will happen. And once the focus of our work is shifted from deficit reduction to tax cuts, I think it will be a very short route to another tax-cut bidding war. If we have that war it will undo the progress we made in the 103d Congress and the further progress I think the Budget Committee is trying to make with regard to reducing the deficit. In fact, it was just that kind of tax-cut bidding war in the 1980's that got us into this terrible mess in the first place. A major tax cut is not only fiscally imprudent; it may undermine the public confidence we have to have to pursue the painful cuts necessary to balance the Federal budget. The tax cut may be the crown jewel of the Republican contract, but it is really a lump of coal for the children and grandchildren of our future who get stuck with the debt and paying interest on the debt because we did not have the guts to eliminate the tax cut today. If the American people believe we are playing it straight with them, that the cuts we enact are fair and honest, then they will support the work product and make the sacrifices needed for a balanced budget willingly. If, however, they believe that this process is nothing more than politics as usual, that we are enacting a fiscally irresponsible tax cut for the sake of a political agenda, then they will rightly question the sincerity and fairness and prudence of the cuts in the budget package, and any hope for progress on this will be dashed. Inclusion of any type of a major tax-cut measure in this year's budget resolution sends us in the wrong direction. Deficit reduction has to be our highest priority, not tax cuts. Enacting tax cuts at a time when we are still fighting the deficit could well hurt those families whom the tax cut is supposed to help. It is the middle class who will bear the brunt of the higher interest rates that could be triggered by a tax cut, and their children who will bear much of the burden of the continually escalating national debt. Mr. President, this should not be, and I do not think this really is a partisan issue. For my own part, I have opposed the tax cut proposals that Members of both parties have offered. Last November, I opposed the tax cuts included in the Contract With America. But I also opposed my own President's tax cut plan on the day he announced it. Since then, some of both parties have advanced tax cut proposals. But I am happy to say that Members of both parties have joined me in challenging the wisdom of these proposals. The momentum in this body is against a tax cut. The momentum was begun by the good work of the Budget Committee which at least relegated the tax cuts to this cookie jar. That was the first step. The whole Senate should finish it off. Let us get it off the table, and make this budget about one thing and one thing only; and, that is, getting rid of the Federal deficit once and for all so the people in this country can get rid of that sick feeling in their stomachs that the people out here in Washington are not responsible with their tax dollars, so that kind of bipartisanship is encouraging, not only the issue of tax cuts, but also on the issue of deficit reduction in general. The growing bipartisan opposition to the tax cut stems from a belief that deficit reduction is the higher priority, that the savings generated by these very, very tough spending cuts have to be used for deficit reduction and not tax cuts. In that common belief we ought to be able to find the common ground that can be the basis of a truly bipartisan budget resolution. Mr. President, as I said, before, I stand ready to participate in such an effort, and I am sure that many of the people on our side of the aisle share that view. Because the actual work of reducing the deficit requires hard choices, it is so very easy to stray away from that chore. It becomes even more tempting to avoid that responsibility when something as highly charged and politically appealing as cutting taxes competes for our attention. For this reason, the chairman of the Budget Committee again should be commended for keeping the primary focus of his work and his committee's work on deficit reduction instead of reckless tax cuts. So, though I have a number of significant differences with the chairman's proposal, and especially a tax-cut cookie jar, I did want to take this opportunity to thank him for his work. At the end of the day let me conclude by saying that you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say we absolutely must make big cuts in Medicare and farm programs, student loan programs, you cannot say that you have to get this done by the year 2002, or we will have a terrible fiscal mess, and then turn right around and say we have cuts. You cannot have it both ways. As we say back home, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Mr. President, I would suggest you cannot have your deficit reduction and eat it, too. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a resolution, in conjunction with the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and others, which congratulates the people of Angola for the courageous steps their leaders have taken recently in the name of peace and reconciliation in Angola. This has been an arduous and painful process, but the recent meeting between President dos Santos and Dr. Jonas Savimbi, in addition to the deployment of the U.N. operation, signifies a dramatic breakthrough which may unlock the door to peace in Angola. As we all know, Angola has been engulfed in civil war ever since its independence from Portugal in 1975. It not only suffered vast dislocation and neglect following the colonial occupation, but also it became a classic superpower playground as Angola struggled to find for its postcolonial identity. Throughout the 1970's and 1980's South Africa and Zaire launched frequent military incursions in support of the Government of Angola, while mercenaries from Europe and elsewhere helped the rebel forces of UNITA and Dr. Jonas Savimbi fight from the bush. 37,000 Cuban troops supported the government and the MPLA party, and their involvement sparked more independence wars in Namibia. The United States offered covert aid to UNITA in an effort to contain communism in Africa for ``national security'' purposes. In addition, there were secessionist threats from the northern, oil-rich province of Cabinda, which was, ironically, home to many U.S. oil companies throughout the war. This war killed over 1 million people, and displaced and disabled millions more. Cities and fields are completely destroyed, and 9 to 20 million unexploded landmines, supplied by outside powers, lace the countryside. Beautiful coastal lands and mineral-rich areas not only lay undeveloped, but have been damaged and destroyed by warfare. Bitter war enmities between the MPLA and UNITA have created long-lasting rifts which will take at least a full generation to heal. Young boys, who from the age of 10 have been armed and fighting, are dislocated from their families. An entire people has never known civil society. It was with the end of the cold war, the end of the United States- Soviet rivalry, that peace actually had a chance in Angola. When Congress prohibited military aid to Angola, Cuban troops withdrew, and South Africa began to change, negotiations were finally able to begin between the MPLA and UNITA. The peace process of 1991 resulted in the Bicesse accords, and led to elections. But then disputed returns, and militant attacks on the MPLA by Savimbi, destroyed the process. By 1992, serious negotiations had begun again. Thanks to the relentless efforts of U.N. Special Representative Bedouin Beyh, United States Ambassador to Angola, Edward de Jarnette, and others--including South African Nelson Mandela--the Lusaka accords were finally concluded on November 5, 1994. The accords secure a U.N. supervised peace settlement, which includes the deployment of 5,600 U.N. peacekeeping troops, as well as 350 military observers and 260 civilian police. It is intended to enable national reconciliation, demilitarization, economic development, and democratization of Angloa. It will also enable the continued delivery of massive food lifts, which is keeping hundreds of thousands of people alive as the society builds a peacetime environment. There have been some glitches in the peace process, and there have been many incidents we thought Angola would not survive. But the peace process made a big step last week when President dos Santos and Dr. Savimbi finally met face-to-face in Lusaka. [[Page S6827]] They met for several hours, and in the end emerged as cooperative negotiators, both signing the Lusaka accords. They agreed to work as partners to resolve outstanding issues such as consolidation of the ceasefire, resolution of military control issues, demining operations, repair of infrastructure, acceleration of the arrival of UNAVEM troops, the retreat of Angolan soldiers, and the formation of a national unity government. Finally, the two sides demonstrated that they have the political will necessary to reach a lasting and durable peace. This meeting was a long time in coming, and we in Congress should recognize what a milestone it is. For if Lusaka fails, Angola may lose its last opportunity for peace and prosperity. We have a lot to lose of that fails. The resolution we are offering today congratulates the people of Angola for the courageous and determined steps their leaders have taken in support of peace. It also urges all parties in Angola to strengthen their commitment to the Lusaka process, and affirms American support for both parties to abide by their commitments. Finally, because we cannot and should not do this alone, it calls upon the international community to remain actively engaged with humanitarian, political, and economic support to make this process a success. Angola is potentially a wealthy country with soil fertile enough to feed all of sub-Saharan Africa. It is also part of a region which has had economic and stunning political success in the past few years. As Africa seeks to put the cold war behind it, and as southern Africa consolidates into a powerhouse region, the process in Angola becomes all the more important. The meeting convened last week realized many of the gains made in recent months, and hopefully will set the process on a new course.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to praise both the House and Senate Budget Committees for including in their budget assumptions termination of a relatively small program, the helium reserve program. The Budget Committee materials assume a $27 million savings over 5 years from termination of the helium reserve program. As the budget debate unfolds in the House and Senate in the coming week, there will certainly be considerable debate over programs of enormous magnitude--programs with budget outlays in the billions, not millions. Although the Budget Committee materials assume a $27 million savings from termination of the helium reserve program, the actual savings will be significantly higher as the Federal Government sells off the existing helium reserve over a period of time that will not disrupt the private helium market, as well as terminates the program itself. The Federal Government is currently stockpiling enough helium to meet its needs for the next 80 to 100 years. In order to make sure that the taxpayers get a fair price for this helium, the reserve needs to be sold over a period of time to make sure that we do not inadvertently cause the entire market price for helium to fall needlessly. CBO has estimated that we can, at current market prices, eventually recover between $1 and $1.6 billion by this sale. It is not just the current $27 million in savings but a long-term savings by in effect privatizing this area of our Government. I introduced legislation, S. 45, to terminate this program on the first day of the 104th Congress. I am pleased to report that this legislation has gained bipartisan support and that it has been cosponsored by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], the [[Page S6677]] Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], and the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle]. On May 1, 1995, the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas], introduced similar legislation to terminate the program, joined by the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski]. Thus, 15 Members of the Senate, 8 Republicans and 7 Democrats have sponsored legislation to terminate the program. Moreover, President Clinton on January 24, highlighted termination of the helium program in his State of the Union Address as an example of the kind of Federal spending that could no longer be justified. Mr. President, I have previously spoken on the Senate floor about why termination of the helium reserve program is particularly appropriate today in light of the growth of a private helium industry which can more than adequately supply the needs of the Federal Government for this product. The helium reserve program, like many programs which are the target of today's deficit reduction efforts, began decades ago when there was a reason for the Federal Government to become involved in this area. In the case of helium, the program dates back to the time of President Woodrow Wilson. The Helium Act of 1925 was enacted at a time when observation balloons were thought to have strategic merit. It was expanded under the Eisenhower administration when blimps were being used to spot enemy submarines in the Atlantic and to meet the needs of the fledgling space program. Since that time, however, a private domestic helium industry has developed and as of 1995, 90 percent of the helium produced in this country does come from private operations. Now, Mr. President, it is time to terminate the Federal helium program. With the kind of bipartisan support that is now behind this effort, this would seem like a relatively easy task to accomplish during this budget cycle. I hope it will be, but I am not overly confident, given the history of this program and similar programs. Even with the endorsement of both Budget Committees, bipartisan support in Congress, and the backing of the administration, terminating any Federal program, large or small, is never easy. The helium reserve program was targeted for termination by the Reagan administration, by the Bush administration, and now the Clinton administration. Nonetheless, it survived. The Washington Post, in an article published February 7, 1995, entitled ``Odorless, Colorless--and Hard To Kill'' outlined the history of efforts to terminate the helium program and describe it as a ``tale of yet another federal government program that has had more than nine lives.'' Perhaps 1995 will be the year that these efforts succeed. I certainly intend to work to see that happens. But I think we need to look at the survival of these kinds of programs in a broader context. In the last Congress, we terminated another program, the wool and mohair subsidy program, that was started in 1954 when wool was considered to be a strategic material. The program lived on and on long after the original purpose had ended. Unfortunately, even though this was a relatively small but important piece in the President's overall $500 billion deficit reduction plan, I have just learned that there may be yet another attempt to try and revive this program now that we finally finished it off. I certainly hope that does not happen. I have 2,000-3,000 sheep growers in Wisconsin who did not like it when I introduced legislation in the last Congress to terminate this program, but I also know that many of them recognized that it was difficult to continue that subsidy in light of our deficit problems. I also worked with this industry to get legislation enacted during the 103d Congress to enable them, working together, to set up a producer- funded promotion board to help increase sales in the marketplace for their product. I believe that it is very important as we terminate Federal spending programs that we do it in a way that is sensitive to the needs of the communities and individuals who have been dependent to some degree on continuation of these programs. So that process appeared to have worked. We cut the subsidy, but we worked together to find a way to, through producer supported programs, promote the product. They made them less dependent on the Federal Government and yet we were able to move forward for their product. But we have to end many of these programs if we are going to make meaningful progress in reducing the deficit and achieving a balanced budget. Mr. President, as one former President once said, ``Not all spending initiatives were designed to be immortal.'' At least I hope they were not. Yet, we have all learned in one way or another how difficult it is to terminate a Federal spending program. I recall during the last Congress a debate over whether a NASA program originally entitled SETI--Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence--which had been terminated had been revived under a new name. That is another demonstration of how difficult it is to actually end any Federal program. I recently had an interesting experience in attempting to terminate a program in my own State--Project ELF, a cold war relic that I believe no longer serves any significant strategic purpose. The Senate recently voted unanimously to terminate Project ELF as part of the DOD rescission bill. The program survived, somehow, in conference, however, on the grounds that some new purpose justified its continuation. I am not satisfied that there is a meaningful reason for continuing to spend millions of dollars each year--in this case, about $16 million each year--on this program. I am just going to have to continue my efforts to try to eliminate that, although I thought we finally had it in the Senate. During the debate over the balanced budget amendment, I discovered that another program that is high on many deficit-reduction lists, the Tennessee Valley Authority, was going to receive special protection. The Senate committee report on the balanced budget amendment created what could be called constitutional pork by singling out TVA as a program that would somehow not be affected by the proposed amendment, while everything else would be. I add that the House Budget Committee has assumed termination of TVA as part of its budget resolution. I believe this is the direction we should be headed with regard to the program which has a long and significant history, going back to 1933 when it was first created. Mr. President, 60 years later we have to question whether the Federal Government should continue to operate and fund this particular program. In this regard, I have introduced legislation, S. 43, to phase out funding for TVA and thereby reduce the deficit by about $600 million over 5 years. I know that this legislation and termination of Federal funding for TVA will again be strongly opposed by those who benefit from the program, and this, too, will be a hard fight. Mr. President, I mention these various programs that in total amount come to millions--not billions--each year because I think they illustrate one of the problems that confronts Congress as we attempt to reduce the Federal deficit. The cumulative total spending on so many of these smaller programs does add up to significant budget cost. Each one standing alone may not be an overwhelming burden on the taxpayers, but taken together, they are a major part of the problem. Yet, Mr. President, my experience in the past 2 years has indicated that it takes almost as much effort to rein in spending on these relatively small programs as it does to tackle the big-ticket programs. The advocates for the smaller programs work just as hard to preserve them, and they are often quite effective in those efforts. Mr. President, I think we all know that reducing the Federal deficit and achieving a balanced budget will take a great deal of discipline and hard work. I am delighted that both of the Budget Committees have identified the Helium Reserve Program as being appropriate for termination in this budget cycle, and I am prepared to work with other Members of the Senate again on a bipartisan basis to enact legislation that closes down this outdated program in a manner that will help reduce the Federal deficit. [[Page S6678]] Mr. President, I realize there is a lot of partisan rhetoric that goes with any budget resolution. This one is no exception. I want to again take this opportunity, as I did Friday with regard to appropriate Medicare cuts, to signal my desire to work with the majority party to find the cuts that will actually lead to that balanced budget by the year 2002 and to make sure as we do it that we look at both the small and the big programs so we balance the budget not only for the year 2002, but that we can achieve a virtually permanent practice that is not existent here, which is to have a permanent commitment to have a balanced Federal budget into the future. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.