Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am not certain how long I will be proceeding at this point. It will be for a while.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will yield for a question without relinquishing my right to the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss possible legislation that would devastate family dairy farmers throughout the Upper Midwest. I understand that the Agriculture appropriations conference committee may report a bill that contains poison pill dairy amendment that threaten the livelihood of dairy farmers throughout the United States. I call them poison pills because they threaten to scuttle the entire Agriculture appropriations bill. It is my duty to my constituents as a Senator from the great dairy State of Wisconsin to make my colleagues aware of these possible actions, and their insidious effects on America's dairy industry, and the effect they may have on our ability to move legislation in these waning days of the 104th Congress. Our current system is hopelessly out-of-date, and completely out-of- touch with reality. Fortunately for our farmers--and I am grateful for this--the USDA has proposed a rule that would begin to modernize our antiquated system. According to the Secretary of Agriculture, the new system ``more accurately reflects the current market condition, is fairer to farmers and consumers alike, modernizes and reforms an antiquated system sorely in need of streamlining and revision.'' In fact, according to the USDA, dairy farmers would have earned 87 cents per hundredweight more for Class I milk under USDA's reforms than under the current system. For 60 years, America's dairy policy has both imposed higher costs on taxpayers and consumers, and at the same time destroyed tens of thousands of family farms. This destructive policy has to go. We need to restore equality to milk pricing, stop regional bickering, and work to ensure that all of our Nation's dairy farmers get a fair price for their milk. My message is simple: our Federal dairy policy is hopelessly out of date, fundamentally unfair, and in dire need of reform. Congress created the current Federal dairy policy 60 years ago when the upper Midwest was seen as the primary producer of fluid milk. During the Great Depression, many worried that consumers in other parts of the country, including young children, did not have access to fresh milk because of inadequate refrigeration and transportation technology. To address these concerns, Congress at that time set up the so-called Eau Claire system, under which producers were reimbursed according to their distance from the small town--I shouldn't say small town; it is a pretty good-size town for Wisconsin--the great town of Eau Claire, WI, in my home State. It is a little unfair to call this the Eau Claire system because it is a lousy system and Eau Claire is a great town. I like calling it the anti-Eau Claire system. My daughter is happily ensconced at the University of Wisconsin at Eau Claire, a huge fan of Eau Claire. But it is generally called the Eau Claire system. So be it. This is how it works. The farther away a farmer lives from Eau Claire, WI, the more he receives for his fluid milk. Under this system, Eau Claire, WI, geographically, is ground zero when the fallout of artificially low prices lands most harshly on Wisconsin dairy farmers and their neighbors in the upper Midwest. Back in the days of the Great Depression, apparently this system seemed to be a great idea. But like delivery in old metal milk cans, the current system is obsolete, failing to meet the needs of either producers or consumers. Six decades ago, the poor condition of America's infrastructure and the lack of portable refrigeration technology prevented upper Midwest producers from shipping their fresh milk to other parts of the country. In order to ensure an adequate milk supply in distant regions, Congress authorized higher fluid milk prices outside the upper Midwest. These higher prices are referred to as class I differentials. Let's take a look at how this system rewards producers in different parts of the country. This chart illustrates the class I differential received by dairy farmers throughout the United States. In Eau Claire, WI, the class I differential is $1.20 per hundredweight. You will notice that it is $1.40 in Chicago. It is $1.92 in Kansas City, MO, and $3.08 in Charlotte, NC. Our friends in Florida receive $3.58 in Tallahassee and $4.18 per hundredweight in Miami for the exact same amount of milk that we produce in Wisconsin. So class I differentials are an arbitrary measure of the cost of milk production. In fact, in recent years, when our dairy farmers have tried to sell their milk in Chicago--in Chicago, a very close distance to Eau Claire and the other Wisconsin communities compared to other places in the country--when they have tried to sell their milk in Chicago, they have been beaten out of that market by milk from the South and the Southwest. That is a sign of an archaic system. This archaic system was designed to make these regions produce milk for their own needs so children in Texas could have fresh milk, not so their producers could unfairly compete against Wisconsin dairy farmers in Chicago. Unfortunately, this system worked too well. The chief result of this system, the only real result of this system, as far as I am concerned, is that our Midwestern farmers are now subsidizing farmers in the Southeast and in the Northeast through these higher class I differentials. Of course, a great deal has changed since the creation of the current system. We can now easily and safely transport perishable milk and cheese products between the States and throughout the country. The industry has perfected the system to such a degree that we can export cheese to countries all over the world. It seems almost comical that in an age when you can order milk through the Internet, our Federal milk pricing system continues to be based on an irrelevant factor. That factor, again, is a producer's distance from this wonderful Wisconsin community of Eau Claire, WI. That is what this whole thing is based on, how far the farmer is from Eau Claire, WI. Unfortunately, the current system's effects on farming communities are anything but common. The current milk pricing system has been putting family dairy farms out of business at an alarming rate. Since 1980, my home State of Wisconsin has sadly lost nearly one-half of its dairy farms. This isn't starting with 2,000 or 3,000 dairy farmers. This is starting with 45,000-plus dairy farmers. We are below 25,000 now. That is since 1980 that we have experienced that kind of loss. The trend is accelerating. Between 1990 and 1998, in those 8 to 9 years, Wisconsin lost 11,000 dairy farmers. So the overwhelming message I hear from family dairy farmers in Wisconsin and Minnesota and throughout the Midwest is that we need milk marketing order reforms. We desperately need a new dairy policy, one that does not arbitrarily penalize the Midwest and devastate the small farmer. We must replace this outdated Depression-era system with a new policy that ensures our Nation's dairy farmers get a fair price for their milk. Ironically, one of the few changes, one of the only changes, we have had at all to Federal dairy policy over the last 60 years has accelerated the attack on small farmers. It has made it worse. Of course, I am referring to the now infamous Northeast Dairy Compact. During the consideration of the 1996 farm bill, Congress sought to make changes in the unjust Federal pricing system by phasing out the milk price support program and reducing the inequities between the regions. Unfortunately, it didn't work. Unfortunately, because of backdoor politicking during the eleventh hour of the conference committee, America's dairy farmers were stuck with the devastatingly harmful Northeast Dairy Compact. It could happen again. The temporary fix of the compact may yet be extended again. We in the upper Midwest cannot stand for that or any change that further disadvantages our dairy farmers, the ones who are left, not the over 20,000 who are gone but the less than 25,000 who remain. We are determined to keep them in business. The Northeast Dairy Compact accentuates the current system's inequities by authorizing six Northeastern States--Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut--to establish a minimum price for fluid milk, higher even than those established under the Federal milk marketing order. The compact not only allows these six States to set artificially high prices for their producers, it permits them to block entry of lower-priced milk from producers in competing States. Further distorting the markets are subsidies given to processors in these six States to export their higher-priced milk to noncompact States. Despite what some have argued, the Northeast Dairy Compact doesn't even help small Northeast farmers. Since the Northeast first implemented its compact in 1997, small dairy farms in the Northeast, where this is supposed to help, have gone out of business at a rate of 41 percent higher than they had in the previous 2 years--41 percent higher. In fact, compacts often amount to a transfer of wealth to large farms by affording large farms a per-farm subsidy that is actually 20 times greater than the meager subsidy given to small farmers. Fortunately for America's dairy farmers, the 1996 farm bill also included language requiring the U.S. Department of Agriculture to replace the current depression-era milk pricing system with a much simpler regulatory plan. After 3\1/2\ years of study and thousands of comments from America's dairy farmers, the USDA published a final rule that consolidates the complex web of Federal milk marketing orders and also reforms the price of class I milk. Mr. President, 59,000 dairy farmers--59,000--participated in a recent referendum, and over 96 percent of them voted in favor of USDA's final ruling. While the USDA's reforms are a welcome improvement, they are only a modest first step in improving the current system. Let's take a look, then, at the final rule's effect on the different milk marketing orders. This chart illustrates the producer class I benefits under the current system, and the USDA's Federal milk marketing order rule. This benefit simply multiplies the class I differential with the utilization rate, or the percentage of class I milk produced in that region. As you can see, upper Midwest producers will continue to get the short end of the stick. They will receive a 38-cent-per-hundredweight benefit under the new rule. In contrast, Northeast producers will continue to receive a high per hundredweight benefit of $1.20, and producers in Florida will receive a whopping $3.95 per hundredweight class I benefit. Unless we follow-up on these reforms and lower the class I differentials, we will continue to lose small dairy farms throughout the United States. Loss of these farms has already devastated rural America for far too long, especially in the upper Midwest. Mr. President, unfortunately, our Nation's dairy farmers are not out of the woods yet. Some in Congress believe that they know better than America's dairy farmers and wish to prevent these moderate reforms, or to circumvent the entire rulemaking process altogether. Who in this Congress knows more about dairy farming than 96 percent of America's dairy farmers? As Congress considers any future dairy reforms, I urge my colleagues to recognize the national nature of milk marketing, the corrosiveness of artificial regional pricing schemes, and the need for comprehensive reforms. We must recognize the inequalities inherent in our current system and work to ensure that our Nation's dairy farmers get a fair price for their milk. If Congress does not act quickly, our Nation's family dairy farms will continue to suffer. Let me be clear. I will use every means available to a Senator to ensure that these necessary reforms go forward and that compacts do not. America's dairy farmers deserve nothing less. After all, approving USDA's final rule is a moderate first step to arresting the devastating effects of the current Federal milk marketing order system. Dairy compacts are simply no way to legislate a national dairy policy. I would like to make my colleagues aware of some of the effects the dairy compacts can have on consumers and taxpayers. Let me begin by citing from an article called ``Dairy Compacts A Sour Deal For All U.S. Farmers.'' The sub-headline is, ``The Agreements Threaten to Undermine Export Growth For The Rest Of American Agriculture,'' by Dennis T. Avery, of the Hudson Institute. It says: Enthusiasm for ``dairy compacts'' is sweeping America. Nearly 30 states now seem likely to pass legislation for such compacts, which are designed to bar dairy products from outside a state or region. The U.S. government has already authorized such a dairy compact for New England, and dairy farmers recently staged a Washington fly-in to rally congressional support for expanding the concept. Supporters of these compacts are trying to recreate a dairy industry of price supports and supply management. Such a vision is incompatible with reducing tariffs on other farm commodities or ending Europe's price-depressing export subsidies. Europe dumps huge amounts of dairy products, along with wheat, foodstuffs and meat, onto the world market at prices far below cost, depressing world markets. U.S. dairy compacts threaten to undermine export growth for the rest of American agriculture and fly in the face of liberalizing farm trade. Free farm trade can't be arranged one commodity at a time. What U.S. dairy farmers are considering could limit the potential for lowering trade barriers on beef, pork, corn, wheat, soybeans and poultry. Although dairy farmers have never seen themselves as exporters, perhaps they should start. After all, this is an era of high-value cheese markets, chilled concentrated and ultra-heat-treated milk, and rising demand in industrializing countries like India. Moreover, South Korea's bonds have regained investment status, after a year of being classified as lower-rated ``junk bonds.'' Over the next three years the South Koreans will lead a parade of Asian countries back into the realm of economic growth. At the moment, however, dairy farmers are willing to write off export markets. Producers of other commodities can't do that--exports are their only path to prosperity. Mr. President, I also want to make my colleagues aware of the effects on consumers and taxpayers. The Washington Post said it well in an April 6, 1999, editorial entitled ``The Price of Milk'': The government sets the price of milk in this country. That's not all bad. Prices are somewhat higher than they would be if left to the market, and some inefficient dairy farmers are kept in business. But supplies of the perishable product are adequate, and small producers are protected against what otherwise might be the predatory and harmful tactics of large buyers. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman has just completed a congressionally required review of the system whereby the government plays God in the market. He has proposed some changes that would rationalize it in certain respects. But he has found the basic balance between the interests of producers and consumers about right. There may be a lesson in that as Congress struggles with the question of how much to support the prices of other commodities or the incomes of their producers. In the 1996 farm bill, a new Republican Congress acted according to conviction, and against political interest as conventionally defined, to put farm supports on a declining path. The theory was that if farmers grew for the market rather than for the government, they and the consuming public alike would be better off. The rollback worked well for a couple of years, while prices and supports were both still high. Now, both have fallen, and even some sponsors of the legislation, if not quite wondering whether they went too far, are busily seeking extra aid. Compelling points can be made on both sides of this argument. The economists are right that artificial price supports are costly in that they shelter inefficient producers. But supports when not excessive also protect against swings in price and production that can harm consumers and producers alike. Costs are involved in going too far in either direction. That's more or less where Mr. Glickman came out on milk. There was a fight about milk marketing orders in the context of the 1996 bill. Midwesterners thought--still think--that their region is disadvantaged by the system in that their efficient dairymen could undersell producers in competing regions were it not for the artificially high minimum prices that the marketing orders impose. They wanted to abolish the system unless it was radically reformed in their favor. Congressmen from less efficient areas were equally determined to preserve it, even members who in other contexts were devout free-marketeers. In the end the two sides compromised by booting the issue to the secretary. Mr. Glickman has proposed modernizing the inherited system in a number of respects, particularly with regard to the price differentials between various regions. On average, he would lower the price of milk by a couple of cents a gallon. But in general he would support the system as fair to both buyers and sellers of milk. If supports should not be excessive, neither should they be so low as to leave both sides in the milk transaction total prey to the market. That may not be an intellectually elegant standard, but it's probably right. The dairy industry is an integral part of our Nation's culture in history. Let's take a look at that role, if we can. Before I do that, let me quote briefly from the New York Times article from Sunday, April 11.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will say a few words about the cloture vote we will have shortly on the bankruptcy bill, S. 625. I understand many in this body want to pass bankruptcy legislation this year. Certainly, the credit card industry is eager for the Senate to act. I want to be able to vote for what I consider a balanced bankruptcy bill. Hardball tactics of this kind will not move this body closer to that goal. By filing a cloture motion a few seconds after he brought up the bill, the majority leader is predetermining the outcome. Cloture, I am glad to say, will not be achieved this afternoon. Cloture should not be achieved until Senators have a chance to offer amendments to the bill. Bankruptcy is, of course, a very complicated area of the law. We have not had real bankruptcy reform and change since 1978. It has an impact upon millions of American consumers and businesses. Unfortunately, S. 625 is a very one-sided piece of legislation. I have found an amazing virtual unanimity among all the experts on bankruptcy. Whether talking to academics or judges or trustees and even practitioners--of course you expect to hear this from debtors' attorneys but also from many creditors' attorneys--they all say this bill as it stands today should not pass. The only way to make it work, the only way to improve it, is to amend it. However, many of the amendments we want to offer--and they are very much relevant to the bankruptcy issue--could not be offered if we invoke cloture today. So I am hopeful and believe Democrats will vote today against cloture, to protect their right to offer bankruptcy amendments to this bankruptcy bill. Let me also take a moment to remind my colleagues that this body passed a bankruptcy reform bill last year by a vote of 97 to 1. I voted for it. We had nearly a unanimous vote for a bill. That bill could have become law if the conference committee had not disregarded the wishes of the Senate. Let me just be clear, in response to the comments a few minutes ago of the Senator from Iowa, there is nothing fishy going on here. It is not as if the same bill that passed 97 to 1 is before us. It is very much the opposite. This is the hard nosed, one-sided legislation that in my mind is the fantasy of the other body in this institution. It is not the bill I was comfortable voting for and was pleased to vote for last year. This bill is not the balanced approach that the Senate came up with last year. So amendments, many amendments, frankly, are needed. The way to reduce the number of amendments is to accept some of them. Many of the amendments I and my colleagues are going to offer on this bill are reasonable, moderate, and widely supported. They will make this a more fair and balanced piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on cloture. And even more, I urge the majority leader and the proponents of this bill to simply face the honest policy disagreements that need to be resolved either through amendments or through negotiations. Strong-arm tactics like filing for cloture right off the bat on a bill of this magnitude and complexity are not going to work. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I received a note that Senator Reed will not be able to join us on this short notice, according to his staff. I do want to take this last moment to say Senator Reed has been an extremely devoted Senator with regard to this issue, in fact, taking what I consider to be the rather courageous and difficult step of going to East Timor just prior to the election. Of course, we all know what happened subsequently. I express my admiration and thanks to Senator Reed of Rhode Island for his work on this issue. I am sure he will address this at a future time. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I sought a few minutes ago to get unanimous consent to have the Senate pass the East Timor Self- Determination Act of 1999, and I am extremely pleased with the support we received from both sides of the aisle on it. Apparently, there was some objection to taking this step by unanimous consent today. Time is clearly of the essence with regard to this very important legislation, in light of the situation in East Timor. We must send a strong statement from the Senate. We have to send a clear message to Jakarta that the Government of Indonesia must live up to its commitment to the people of East Timor. So I will again seek, along with Senator Reed, Senator Harkin, Senator Leahy and others, early next week when we come back, to have this passed. I especially thank the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, and the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, for their longstanding commitment to realize self-determination for people of East Timor. I especially thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Kerry, for their work to ensure swift passage of this important legislation by the Senate. I reiterate, the chairman, Senator Helms, has been enormously helpful in getting this bill through the committee, discharged from committee, and out to the Senate floor. This legislation is crucial to maintaining pressure on the Indonesian Government to live up to the obligations it has made to the people of East Timor and to the international community, including its commitment to admit and cooperate with an international peacekeeping force in East Timor. The bill suspends all military and most economic assistance to the Government of Indonesia, including assistance still in the pipeline, until the President determines the Government of Indonesia is cooperating with the efforts by the international community to establish a safe and secure environment in East Timor and is taking a series of specific, significant steps to that end. I also take this moment to applaud the U.N. Security Council on its passage of a resolution authorizing the deployment of a multinational force to East Timor, and to commend the nation of Australia and other countries in the region that have agreed to provide troops for that force. I reiterate what I believe are the next crucial steps that have to be taken so the people of East Timor can finally realize the independence they so clearly on August 30 expressed a desire to have. The international peacekeeping force must be deployed as rapidly as possible. We must quickly and concisely define the scope of a limited U.S. role in the peacekeeping mission. The international community must keep pressure on Indonesia, pressure that will be brought to bear by this legislation. The peacekeepers, humanitarian workers, and war crimes investigators must be allowed full access to East Timor. Again, it is my hope this will be taken up quickly next week. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of the amendment which Senator Helms and I and Senator Harkin have offered as a substitute be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from consideration of S. 1568; that S. 1568 be taken up; that the amendment being offered by myself, Mr. Helms, and Mr. Harkin be adopted, and I ask unanimous consent to pass S. 1568, as amended.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask if it is appropriate to make my unanimous consent request?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I first have a unanimous consent and, pending the outcome, I ask to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I know Senator Reed of Rhode Island would also like to address this issue briefly. So I ask he also, if he could, be allowed 5 minutes to address this issue after my remarks.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on an aspect of the Transportation appropriations bill that I think deserves mention during this debate. It's a factor that influences legislative debate, but one that we consistently sidestep in our discussions on this floor--money in politics. Well, Mr. President, I'm trying to change that with what I call the Calling of the Bankroll. When I Call the Bankroll on this floor, I describe how much money the various interests that lobby us on a particular bill have spent on campaign contributions to influence our decisions here in this chamber. I have already Called the Bankroll on several bills; for instance, when I discussed the contributions of the high tech industry and the trial lawyers during debate on the Y2K bill, and, more recently, when I pointed out the contributions of the managed care companies and the pharmaceutical industry, among others, during the debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights. And now, we come to the fiscal year 2000 Transportation appropriations bill, as it relates to the airline industry, which has been battling against another bill of rights. While in June the airline industry unveiled its own Passengers' Bill of Rights, it falls far short of what was outlined in other pending Senate legislation, including the Airline Passenger Fairness Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor. I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, Senator Wyden, for his leadership on this issue, and his commitment to giving airline passengers across the country a real bill of rights. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of both amendments offered by my friend from Oregon. The Airline Passenger Fairness Act establishes a national policy to provide consumers with a basic expectation of fair treatment by airlines and to encourage airlines to provide better customer service by outlining minimum standards. The Airline Passenger Fairness Act would ensure that passengers have the information that they need to make informed choices in their air travel plans. But, Mr. President, there is a serious obstacle facing supporters of a comprehensive Passengers' Bill of Rights--the PAC and soft money contributions of the airline industry. The six largest airlines in the United States--American, Continental, Delta, Northwest, United and US Airways--and their lobbying association, the Air Transport Association of America, gave a total of more than $2 million dollars in soft money and more than $1 million dollars in PAC money in the last election cycle alone. Northwest was the largest soft money giver among these donors, giving well over half a million dollars to the political parties in 1997 and 1998. Mr. President, you may remember that Northwest Airlines made headlines across the country earlier this year when they left thousands of passengers stranded on snow-clogged runways in Detroit, leaving some of their customers without food, water or working toilets for more than eight hours. Mr. President, according to the Department of Transportation, consumer complaints about air travel shot up by more than 25 percent last year. Those complaints run the gamut from erratic and unfair ticket pricing; being sold a ticket on already oversold flights; lost luggage; and flight delays, changes, and cancellations. We can and should address these problems, Mr. President. The American people are demanding change; as legislators, we should respond. But we have yet to do anything concrete in this Congress to guarantee airline passengers the rights they deserve. The American people can't help wondering why, Mr. President, so today I offer this campaign finance information to my colleagues and the public to help to present a clearer picture of the influences surrounding this aspect of the Transportation appropriations bill, and the influence of those with a stake in the debate on a comprehensive Passengers' Bill of Rights. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, during this discussion of the Transportation appropriations bill, I've been reminded of a piece of Senate history--the push to break the railroad companies' iron grip on railroad rates by setting up the Interstate Commerce Commission. It was a fierce battle that pitted the public's interest against the economic and political might of the railroads, a clash that was ultimately won by those favoring regulation, resulting in the passage of the Hepburn Act in 1906. One powerful voice for consumer interests in those days belonged to Senator Robert M. La Follette, Sr., of my home state of Wisconsin, one of the greatest Senators ever to hold the office. It's fitting that his portrait now hangs in the Senate Reception Room outside of this chamber along with four other legendary Senators--Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, and Robert Taft. A fearless champion of the American people in the face of the powerful influence of special interests, La Follette did not hesitate to speak out against the railroad companies. In fact, he did so during his first speech in the U.S. Senate in April of 1906, when La Follette broke the unwritten rule that freshman Senators did not make floor speeches. And La Follette didn't just make any floor speech--he delivered an oration that lasted several days and covered 148 pages in the Congressional Record. During those remarks, La Follette addressed the power of the railroad monopolies and declared: At no time in the history of any nation has it been so difficult to withstand these forces as it is right here in America today. Their power is acknowledged in every community and manifest in every lawmaking body. La Follette's battle with the railroad industry came to a head in the summer of 1906, when he embarked on a speaking tour around the country. When visiting the states of his colleagues, he took the unprecedented step of reading the roll call, name by name, of votes on amendments he had proposed earlier that year to make railroad regulation more responsive to consumer interests. This ``Calling of the Roll'' became a trademark of La Follette's speeches, and its effect on his audiences was powerful. When these constituents discovered that their representatives were voting against their interests as consumers and in favor of the railroads, they were outraged. According to the New York Times, The devastation created by La Follette last summer and in the early fall was much greater than had been supposed. He carried senatorial discourtesy so far that he has actually imperiled the reelection of some of the gentlemen who hazed him last winter. In 1906, La Follette Called the Roll on amendments affecting the railroad industry, and today, in the spirit of that effort, I'd like to Call the Bankroll on the railroad industry, which today is composed of a handful of companies that monopolize the various regions of the U.S. rail system. In 1906, Congress saw the need to regulate the railroad monopoly. Today, rapid consolidation in the industry has left us with four Class I railroads, two in the East and two in the West. This merger mania has resulted in reduced competition and another virtual monopoly for the railroad companies. For rail customers and consumers today, this is sure to lead to higher costs and less attention to providing good service, just as it did at the turn of the century. But the railroad companies are resisting any change, and backing up their point of view with almost $4 million dollars in PAC and soft money contributions in the last election cycle alone. During 1997 and 1998, the four Class I railroads gave the following to political parties and candidates: CSX Corporation gave more than $600,000 in unregulated soft money to the parties and nearly $275,000 in PAC money to federal candidates; Union Pacific gave more than $600,000 in soft money and more than $830,000 in PAC money; Norfolk Southern gave more than $240,000 in unregulated money to the parties and almost a quarter million to candidates; Burlington Northern Sante Fe gave more than $445,000 in soft money and nearly $210,000 in PAC money. Mr. President, I Call the Bankroll on the railroad industry today because I'm deeply concerned about how little has changed since La Follette called the roll so many years ago. In 1907, a year after the passage of the Hepburn Act, Congress passed the Tillman Act, finally enacting campaign finance legislation that had been under consideration since an investigation a few years earlier of insurance industry contributions to the political parties. The Tillman Act banned corporations from making political contributions in connection with federal elections, and yet today the railroad companies and thousands of other corporations are giving millions of dollars--totally unregulated--to the political parties. At the beginning of the century, we banned corporate spending in connection with federal elections, but today that spending is rampant, ruling our political system and ravaging our democracy. At the beginning of the century, special interests used money as leverage to win legislation in their favor. Today, with all the historic changes this century has brought, this fact is more true, and more destructive to the people's confidence in our government, than ever. But just as Congress had the power to pass the Tillman Act in 1907, Congress has the power today to pass legislation to curb the influence of money in politics by shutting down the soft money loophole. It's time to put an end to the unregulated contributions that were outlawed nearly 100 years ago. It's time to pass McCain-Feingold and consign soft money to the dustbin of history. Mr. President, I yield the floor. pipeline safety

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the sense-of-the- Senate resolution on fuel economy standards. This resolution has been controversial in my state, and I believe its effect on automobile fuel economy standards has been misunderstood by some. I want to make my position clear: though I will vote in favor of this resolution, I have reservations about some of the language it contains, reservations I made known to the amendment sponsors. My vote today is about Congress getting out of the way and letting a federal agency meet the requirements of federal law originally imposed by Congress. I will support this resolution because I am concerned that Congress has for 5 years now blocked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, part of the Federal Department of Transportation, from meeting its legal duty to evaluate whether there is a need to modify fuel economy standards by legislative rider since Fiscal Year 1996. The resolution simply says the Senate should not recede to Section 320 of the House bill. I believe that the outcome of any assessment of fuel economy standards needs should not be pre-judged. I am concerned that the wording of this resolution needlessly fails to be fully neutral. It tips too far toward saying that the result of an assessment should be a quote increase unquote in fuel economy standards. I have made no determination about what fuel economy standards should be. NHTSA is not required under the law to increase fuel economy standards, but it is required to examine on a regular basis whether there is a need for changes to fuel economy standards. NHTSA has the authority to set new standards for a given model year taking into account several factors: technological feasibility, economic practicability, other vehicle standards such as those for safety and environmental performance, and the need to conserve energy. I want NHTSA to fully and fairly evaluate all the criteria, and then make an objective recommendation on the basis of those facts. I will expect them to do that, and I will respect their judgement. After NHTSA makes a recommendation, if it does so, I will then consult with all interested parties--unions, environmental interests, auto manufacturers, and other interested Wisconsin citizens about their perspectives on NHTSA's recommendation. However, just as the outcome of NHTSA's assessment should not be pre- judged, the language of the House rider certainly should not have so blatantly pre-judged and precluded any new objective assessment of fuel economy standards. Section 320 of the House bill states: None of the funds in this Act shall be available to prepare, propose, or promulgate any regulations pursuant to title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.) prescribing corporate average fuel economy standards for automobiles, as defined in such title, in any model year that differs from standards promulgated for such automobiles prior to enactment of this section. The House language effectively prevents NHTSA from collecting any information about the impact of changing the fuel economy standards in any way. Under the House language, not only would NHTSA be prohibited from collecting information or developing standards to raise fuel economy standards, it couldn't collect information or develop standards to lower them either. The House language assumes that NHTSA has a particular agenda, that NHTSA will recommend standards which can't be achieved without serious impacts, and uses an appropriations bill to circumvent the law's requirements to evaluate fuel efficiency and maintain the current standards again for another fiscal year. I cannot support retaining this rider in the law at this time. The NHTSA should be allowed freely to provide Congress with information about whether fuel efficiency improvements are possible and advisable. Congress needs to understand whether or not improvements in fuel economy can and should be made using existing technologies. Congress should also know which emerging technologies may have the potential to improve fuel economy. Congress also needs to know that if improvements are technically feasible, what is the appropriate time frame in which to make such changes in order to avoid harm to our auto sector employment. I don't believe that Congress should confuse our role as policymakers with our obligation to appropriate funds. Changes in fuel economy standards could have a variety of consequences. I seek to understand those consequences and to balance the concerns of those interested in seeing improvements to fuel economy as a means of reducing gasoline consumption and associated pollution. I deeply respect the views of those who are concerned that a change in fuel economy would threaten the economic prosperity of Wisconsin's automobile industry. Earlier this year I visited Daimler Chrysler's Kenosha Engine plant and I met with union representatives from the Janesville GM plant. In those meetings I heard significant concerns that a sharp increase in fuel economy standards, implemented in the very near term, will have serious consequences. I want to avoid consequences that will unduly burden Wisconsin workers and their employers. In the end, I would like to see that Wisconsin consumers have a wide range of new automobiles, SUVs, and trucks available to them that are as fuel efficient as can be achieved while balancing energy concerns with technological and economic impacts. That balancing is required by the law. At its core this resolution does not disturb that balance, but I wish the language had been more neutral, so that all concerned could be more confident that the process is neutral. In that spirit, I fully expect NHTSA to proceed with the intent to fully consider all those factors. In supporting this resolution, I take the position that the agency responsible for collecting information about fuel economy be allowed to do its job, in order to help me do my job. I expect them to be fair and neutral in that process and I will work with interested Wisconsinites to ensure that their views are represented and the regulatory process proceeds in a fair and reasonable manner toward whatever conclusions the merits will support.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object, I hope to have an opportunity to address the situation in East Timor. I ask that prior to the time period the majority leader laid out, I have an opportunity to speak in morning business for about 20 minutes regarding that situation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I, again, thank the majority leader for the opportunity to address this matter at this time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the tumultuous events that have unfolded in East Timor since the August 30 ballot to determine the territory's political future, and to state clearly what the United States is and should be doing in response to this crisis. How can anyone not be horrified at the blind eye that the Indonesian government has turned to the unchecked violence and mass murder being perpetrated in East Timor by anti-independence militias--violence that even today is blatantly supported by elements of the Indonesian army. In just one week, since the ballot's results were announced on September 4, the militias have driven out or slaughtered nearly the entire population of the capital city of Dili. East Timor is dotted with villages and cities that have become virtual ghost towns in a matter of days. Many of the people that have been driven out have been forced into militia-run refugee camps in West Timor. Mr. President, these innocent civilians are unprotected targets for a group of thugs who are willing to obliterate East Timor completely rather than allow it to start down the road to the independence more than 78 percent of its people voted for on August 30. The message of the militias is clear: if Indonesia can't have East Timor, there will be no East Timor worth having for the East Timorese. Cities are in flames and militia members are stealing anything of value that they have not destroyed. Churches, usually recognized as places of sanctuary--even by combatants during war--have been burned with refugees still inside. Mr. President, this is literally a scorched earth policy. It is like few of even the worst episodes we have seen in the often bloody 20th century. No segment of the pro-independence population in East Timor has escaped the wrath of the militias. Religious leaders, foreigners, and the families of activists have been especially targeted for summary execution. At least 20 priests and nuns across East Timor have been murdered. Three of the priests were among approximately 100 Timorese victims killed in a brutal grenade attack on the town of Suai. Women, children, and the elderly have been massacred. Members of the United Nations Assistance Mission to East Timor (UNAMET) have been targeted, as have foreign journalists who are trying to cover the atrocities. The leaders of the Timorese independence movement and their families are especially vulnerable to attack. Early last week, the Indonesian government released independence leader and political prisoner Xanana Gusmao from jail in Jakarta. On Friday, he learned that his 82-year-old father had likely been murdered by pro-Jakarta thugs, and that his elderly mother is missing. Last week, the United Nations evacuated most of its personnel to Australia. About 80 brave UNAMET personnel elected to stay in East Timor to try to protect the approximately 1300 East Timorese who remained huddled behind the compound's barbed wire fences. They remained barricaded in what was left of the UNAMET headquarters for about a week with little, if any, power, water, or working telecommunications lines. Militia members have repeatedly fired into the compound. On Friday, some of the Timorese, including women and children, desperate to escape the violence, climbed the razor-sharp fence separating them from the armed thugs and attempted to find refuge in the hills behind the UNAMET mission. They were fired on by the militias as they tried to escape. The unarmed UNAMET personnel were powerless to help and could only watch in horror as those they had come to help were shot down by ruthless opponents of justice, self-determination, and the rule of law. Yesterday, the U.N. evacuated most of its personnel and the refugees remained in the compound to Australia. The boldness of the militias, and the complicity of the Indonesian army, and apparently members of the Habibie government, is astounding. I am truly shocked by the total impotence or inaction of the Indonesian government over the last two weeks. President Habibie promised the United Nations, the international community, and--most importantly--the people of East Timor, that he would ensure a secure environment in the territory and that the wishes of the Indonesian people would be respected. Neither has happened. Some argue that Habibie may be unable to stop the violence. Others say he is unwilling. His level of control over the army, which he did not consult prior to agreeing to the U.N.-supervised ballot on the future of East Timor, is, of course, a subject of a lot of debate. Whatever the case, Habibie has not made any compelling strong statements condemning this violence, and has made no attempt to reign in the army personnel who are participating in this rampage. I am also disturbed by the inaction of the head of the Indonesian military, General Wiranto. This past weekend, Wiranto implied that he may not have control of all of his forces. On Saturday, he accompanied a delegation from the United Nations Security Council to Dili, and he saw for what he said was the first time the devastation in that city. Soon after this visit, he said he would recommend that President Habibie accept an international peacekeeping force. Finally, under considerable pressure from the international community, and with the support of General Wiranto and the head of the Indonesian police, Habibie announced early Sunday that his government would allow international peacekeepers, led by Australia, to come to East Timor to restore order and stop the violent rampage of the militias. But, as is often the case in clashes such as this, his announcement, while welcome, came too late for those Timorese murdered by the militias and those hiding in the hills who have been forever scarred by the violence and impoverished by the destruction that has been leveled against the democratic aspirations of the people of East Timor. Now that the international community has reached this critical point in the transition of the political future of East Timor, Mr. President, here, I think, are the steps that must be taken next. First and foremost, the international peacekeeping force must be deployed at the earliest possible date. I am very concerned at the words of delay coming out of Jakarta this morning. I deeply regret that it took President Habibie so long to recognize the need for international assistance. Now, the Indonesian government, military, and President Habibie must cooperate fully with the deployment and must not interfere in the operations of this peacekeeping force. They must allow the force to deploy quickly, restore order, and help the East Timorese people to regain a semblance of security in their own homes and some hope of actually realizing the aspirations manifest in the results of the August 30 ballot. I understand that Indonesian Foreign Minister Alatas continues meeting in New York today along with officials from Australia, to discuss the details of the Security Council mandate for the peacekeeping mission. One of those details clearly is to determine the composition of this international force and the role of the Indonesians themselves in such a deployment. Another should be to lay the groundwork for investigations into the crimes that have taken place in East Timor, including procedures to begin to collect evidence for future prosecutions. Nobel laureates Jose Ramos Horta and Bishop Carlos Belo have called for the immediate formation of a war crimes tribunal to investigate and prosecute those responsible for these vicious crimes. That tribunal should be formed at the earliest possible date. To achieve that goal, the immediate priority of the international community should be to get the peacekeeping forces deployed to gain control of the situation and prevent any further bloodshed, and to allow the Timorese that have fled to return home. The mandate for the peacekeeping mission should also be clear about the rules of engagement for disarming and detaining members of the militias. Some militia leaders have said that they will not disarm. This volatile situation poses a grave risk to the peacekeepers, and must be dealt with carefully and expeditiously. Second, we must quickly and concisely define the scope of the U.S. role in this peacekeeping mission. I am pleased that Australia has come forward to take the lead on this peacekeeping mission in East Timor, and that other countries in the region have offered to contribute troops to this effort. It is my general belief that peacekeeping operations should be led by countries in the region where the conflict is occurring. I am also troubled by some word this morning that the Indonesian government is perhaps balking at the idea of Australia leading this mission--which I think is very appropriate, that Australia do so. The militia-led violence, and the blatant collusion of the Indonesian military in the commission of that violence, is a direct slap at rule of law and the protection for the right to self-determination in international law and supported by the United Nations. I hope that any participation by the Indonesian military in this peacekeeping force will be scrutinized. Those who helped perpetrate the violence must not be placed in positions of trust within this operation. I will say more about my views with respect to U.S. involvement in this peacekeeping operation in a few minute. Third, the international community must keep the pressure on the Indonesian government. I am pleased that the President of our country made a decision I have advocated for some time to suspend military-to- military activities with Indonesia. I am also encouraged that this decision includes halting all new military sales to that country. I hope that the President will expand this decision to immediately halt any sales currently in the pipeline. If we are to be taken seriously by the Indonesian government, those sales must also be included. And these benefits should not be reinstated until specific steps have been taken to implement the results of the August 30 ballot. I have heard many observers argue that Indonesia is too important financially to the United States and other countries to risk angering Jakarta. I would argue that no amount of trade is worth East Timorese lives. If we truly are to support Indonesia in its transition to true democracy, we must insist that the violence stop, and we must use every cent of our economic leverage to do so. Last week I introduced a bill, S. 1568, that would suspend all military and most economic assistance to Indonesia until steps have been taken to implement the August 30 ballot. I am pleased that the Administration has suspended some military aid. It is now imperative that we keep the pressure on by refusing to reinstate that aid--and by threatening to suspend all other aid--until the results of the August 30 ballot are implemented. My bill would suspend new assistance and sales as well as those loans and purchases currently in the pipeline. In order to be effective, we must stop all aid in its tracks, not just new aid. We should also call on our allies to do the same. The recent financial troubles in Asia have made Indonesia dependent on bilateral and multilateral assistance. We should use that dependence as leverage to ensure that the Indonesian government lives up to its commitments in East Timor, including its newly announced willingness to admit a peacekeeping force into East Timor. In that regard, I am pleased that the European Union yesterday announced that it has suspended all arms sales and military cooperation with Indonesia. That welcome development makes it all the more important that we continue to push for passage of our legislation to suspend assistance. We must continue to apply the financial pressure provided for in this bill so that the Indonesians will understand the continuing U.S. resolve to see justice done in East Timor. Finally, the United Nations mandate for this peacekeeping mission should include full access to East Timor for peacekeeping troops, humanitarian workers, and war crimes investigators. The anti- independence movement cannot be allowed to block access to any part of East Timor. In addition, humanitarian workers should also be allowed full access to the refugee camps in West Timor. The nations of the international peacekeeping force must make clear that no such interference will be tolerated. People are dying. Women and children are being slaughtered while the politicians try to leverage the situation to their advantage. President Habibie has a chance to do what is right for his people, and the East Timorese people, before he leaves office. The way to salvage what is left of Indonesia's shredded international reputation is to allow international peacekeepers to deploy rapidly into East Timor to stop this senseless bloodshed. Let me say another word about the U.S. role in this peacekeeping mission. As many of my colleagues know, I have been a vocal opponent of U.S. deployments to such places as Bosnia and Kosovo. While I support the concept of an international peacekeeping force led by countries from the region, it is my strong preference as it was in those cases that U.S. troops on the ground in East Timor not be a significant part of this peacekeeping mission. Our troops are currently overextended in open-ended commitments in such places as Bosnia, Kosovo, and Saudi Arabia. We should do whatever we can to limit our involvement in these places and be very hesitant to get deeply involved in any new missions of this sort. That said, however, I am open to supporting a request to the Congress from the Administration for U.S. financial, diplomatic, communications, and logistical support for an international peacekeeping mission to East Timor that is led by countries in the region. The Administration must continue to consult closely with the Congress prior to making any commitment to assist with such a peacekeeping mission. I believe strongly that the United States must develop criteria for deciding whether and where and how deeply to get involved in peacekeeping missions abroad. Our men and women in uniform and their families deserve to understand the dangers of proposed missions and to be given a good-faith estimate of their length. As my colleagues know, I oppose our continuing involvement in the Balkans. The Administration argued that our action against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was necessary for humanitarian reasons. The trouble I have with our operations in Kosovo is that we have not shown the same willingness to intervene outside of our hemisphere to places like Rwanda and East Timor. What constitutes a humanitarian tragedy that warrants involvement by the United States military? The answer to that questions seems to change frequently under the current policy. I am affraid we really have no policy framework to address this crucial question. But the question will continue to arise and will do so with increasing frequency. In my view, the legal case for international intervention in East Timor is more compelling than the situation in Kosovo because of the long-standing legal disputes over the political status of the territory, as well as the clear expression for self-determination by the people of East Timor on August 30. The people of East Timor cast their votes in a ballot sanctioned by the Indonesian government and supervised by the United Nations. The East Timorese were promised a secure environment in which to express their honest views about the political future of their homeland. Instead, they had to endure intimidation by armed thugs supported by the army and by elements of the government that had sworn to protect them and to respect their wishes. Yet miraculously almost 99 percent of registered voters went to the polls, bringing along their courage and a commitment to freedom. And then when the militias began a murderous rampage, the government did nothing. They would not grant the international community the power to act. So again, Mr. President, let me reiterate my view of the next crucial steps that must be taken in East Timor. An international peacekeeping force must be deployed as rapidly as possible. We must quickly and concisely define the scope of a limited U.S. role in the peacekeeping mission. The international community must keep the pressure on the Indonesian government, and the peacekeepers, humanitarian workers, and war crimes investigators must be allowed full access to East Timor. And it all must happen as soon as possible. Thousands of lives and the legitimate hopes of a people hang in the balance. I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from today's New York Times entitled ``Effective Force for East Timor'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for the opportunity to address this issue at this time.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues Senator Conrad and Senator Chafee to introduce the Fairness in Medicare Home Health Access Act of 1999 to address some serious access problems in the Medicare home health care program. Our bill contains provisions to ensure that all Medicare beneficiaries who qualify for home health services have real access to those services. Mr. President, I have been working to promote the availability of home care and other long-term care options for my entire public life because I believe strongly in the importance of enabling people to stay in their own homes. For seniors who are homebound and have skilled nursing needs, having access to home health services through the Medicare program is the difference between staying in their own home and moving into a nursing home. The availability of home health services is integral to preserving independence, dignity and hope for many beneficiaries. I feel strongly that where there is a choice, we should do our best to allow patients to choose home health care. I think seniors need and deserve that choice. Mr. President, as you know, and as many of our colleagues know, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 contained significant changes to the way that Medicare pays for home health services. Perhaps the most significant change was a switch from cost-based reimbursement to an Interim Payment System, or IPS. IPS was intended as a cost-saving transitional payment system to tide us over until the development and implementation of a Prospective Payment System or PPS, for home health payments under Medicare. Unfortunately, the cuts went deeper than anyone--including CBO forecasters--anticipated, leaving many Medicare beneficiaries without access to the services they need. The IPS is based on past spending: agencies are paid the lowest of three measures: (1) actual costs; (2) a per visit limit of 105% of the national median; or (3) a per beneficiary annual limit, derived from a blend of 75% of an agency's costs and 25% regional costs. These formulas get pretty technical, Mr. President, and I won't go into too much detail about them. What is important is that the net effect of the Interim Payment System is that since IPS pays agencies the lowest of the three measures, agencies in areas where costs are historically low will be disproportionately and unfairly affected. In effect, they are penalized for having kept their costs low in the past. And, Mr. President, Wisconsin's Medicare home health spending has been very, very low, even before the advent of IPS. The 1999 edition of the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care described the variation in Medicare home health reimbursements as ``extreme'': in 1996, the national average Medicare home health expenditure per-enrollee was $532.00, but the maximum and minimum ranged from a high of $3,090 in McAllen, Texas, to an unbelievable $81 in Appleton, Wisconsin, in my home state. Even the area of Wisconsin with the highest reimbursements is only at $267 per beneficiary, about half of the national average. When you consider that these figures are adjusted for age, sex, race, illness and price of services, the variation is truly astounding. Pegging reimbursement to past spending, as IPS does, simply magnifies the existing payment inequalities. Mr. President, in Wisconsin, 29 Medicare home health providers have shut down since the implementation of IPS. Still more have shrunken their service areas, stopped accepting Medicare, or cannot accept assignment for high cost patients because the payments are simply too low. So, what do these changes mean for Medicare beneficiaries? Well, quite frankly, in many parts of Wisconsin, the changes mean the beneficiaries in certain areas or with certain diagnoses simply don't have access to home health care. The IPS has created disincentives to treat patients with expensive medical diagnoses. Few agencies, if any, can afford to care for them. Mr. President, I think that a letter I received from my constituents at the Douglas County Health Department does a great job of illustrating just how bad the access problem is, particularly in rural areas. The Douglas County Health Department operates a home health program in Superior, Wisconsin, in the northwestern corner of my state. According to their letter, as a result of IPS, the program will lose approximately $590,000. Let me read my colleagues a passage from their letter: ``The Douglas County Home Care [program] serves . . . about 400 residents a year, [of which] 82% [are] Medicare covered . . . 33% of our patients live in rural areas not covered by other home care providers. There are four other providers in our area. All have discontinued taking Medicare patients and/or have stopped serving rural patients due to the high cost and low reimbursement.'' The legislation we are introducing today contains several important provisions to enable elderly and disabled homebound individuals to remain in their homes. The bill ensures by statute that by 15% across- the-board cut for all home health providers cannot happen during the Interim Payment System and that it will only be 10% for the first three years of PPS. The bill also makes special provisions for medically complex patients who have more expensive health care needs, and raises the per visit limits to enable home care agencies to continue serving patients in rural areas, where travel times are longer. I think these two provisions are particularly significant because the present IPS does not adequately account for the care needs of homebound individuals in rural areas, and the absence of home care options essentially forces these individuals into nursing homes or hospitals. The bill provides some administrative relief from the 15 minute increment reporting rule and asks HCFA to reexamine whether the cost associated with the collection of data is worthwhile in terms of what those data may yield. Finally, the bill expresses the sense of the Senate that HCFA should ensure that fiscal intermediaries receive and convey accurate and consistent information to agencies. These provisions all need to be in place in order to ensure that we do not punish the most efficient and well-performing agencies as we seek to streamline and modernize the program. Like many of my colleagues, I voted in favor of BBA '97 because I believed it contained meaningful provisions to balance the budget. I want to emphasize that the goal was to balance the budget--it was not to punish home health agencies, and certainly not to deny Medicare beneficiaries access to the home health services they need. I believe we ought to take a serious look at what refinements and fine tuning need to occur to ensure that our homebound elderly and disabled constituents--among the frailest and most vulnerable of our people we serve--can receive the services they need. Without that fine-tuning, I am quite certain that more home health agencies in Wisconsin and in other areas across our country will close, leaving some of our frailest Medicare beneficiaries without the choice to receive care at home. Again, I think Seniors need and deserve that choice, and I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues Senator Conrad and Senator Chafee to introduce the Fairness in Medicare Home Health Access Act of 1999 to address some serious access problems in the Medicare home health care program. Our bill contains provisions to ensure that all Medicare beneficiaries who qualify for home health services have real access to those services. Mr. President, I have been working to promote the availability of home care and other long-term care options for my entire public life because I believe strongly in the importance of enabling people to stay in their own homes. For seniors who are homebound and have skilled nursing needs, having access to home health services through the Medicare program is the difference between staying in their own home and moving into a nursing home. The availability of home health services is integral to preserving independence, dignity and hope for many beneficiaries. I feel strongly that where there is a choice, we should do our best to allow patients to choose home health care. I think seniors need and deserve that choice. Mr. President, as you know, and as many of our colleagues know, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 contained significant changes to the way that Medicare pays for home health services. Perhaps the most significant change was a switch from cost-based reimbursement to an Interim Payment System, or IPS. IPS was intended as a cost-saving transitional payment system to tide us over until the development and implementation of a Prospective Payment System or PPS, for home health payments under Medicare. Unfortunately, the cuts went deeper than anyone--including CBO forecasters--anticipated, leaving many Medicare beneficiaries without access to the services they need. The IPS is based on past spending: agencies are paid the lowest of three measures: (1) actual costs; (2) a per visit limit of 105% of the national median; or (3) a per beneficiary annual limit, derived from a blend of 75% of an agency's costs and 25% regional costs. These formulas get pretty technical, Mr. President, and I won't go into too much detail about them. What is important is that the net effect of the Interim Payment System is that since IPS pays agencies the lowest of the three measures, agencies in areas where costs are historically low will be disproportionately and unfairly affected. In effect, they are penalized for having kept their costs low in the past. And, Mr. President, Wisconsin's Medicare home health spending has been very, very low, even before the advent of IPS. The 1999 edition of the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care described the variation in Medicare home health reimbursements as ``extreme'': in 1996, the national average Medicare home health expenditure per-enrollee was $532.00, but the maximum and minimum ranged from a high of $3,090 in McAllen, Texas, to an unbelievable $81 in Appleton, Wisconsin, in my home state. Even the area of Wisconsin with the highest reimbursements is only at $267 per beneficiary, about half of the national average. When you consider that these figures are adjusted for age, sex, race, illness and price of services, the variation is truly astounding. Pegging reimbursement to past spending, as IPS does, simply magnifies the existing payment inequalities. Mr. President, in Wisconsin, 29 Medicare home health providers have shut down since the implementation of IPS. Still more have shrunken their service areas, stopped accepting Medicare, or cannot accept assignment for high cost patients because the payments are simply too low. So, what do these changes mean for Medicare beneficiaries? Well, quite frankly, in many parts of Wisconsin, the changes mean the beneficiaries in certain areas or with certain diagnoses simply don't have access to home health care. The IPS has created disincentives to treat patients with expensive medical diagnoses. Few agencies, if any, can afford to care for them. Mr. President, I think that a letter I received from my constituents at the Douglas County Health Department does a great job of illustrating just how bad the access problem is, particularly in rural areas. The Douglas County Health Department operates a home health program in Superior, Wisconsin, in the northwestern corner of my state. According to their letter, as a result of IPS, the program will lose approximately $590,000. Let me read my colleagues a passage from their letter: ``The Douglas County Home Care [program] serves . . . about 400 residents a year, [of which] 82% [are] Medicare covered . . . 33% of our patients live in rural areas not covered by other home care providers. There are four other providers in our area. All have discontinued taking Medicare patients and/or have stopped serving rural patients due to the high cost and low reimbursement.'' The legislation we are introducing today contains several important provisions to enable elderly and disabled homebound individuals to remain in their homes. The bill ensures by statute that by 15% across- the-board cut for all home health providers cannot happen during the Interim Payment System and that it will only be 10% for the first three years of PPS. The bill also makes special provisions for medically complex patients who have more expensive health care needs, and raises the per visit limits to enable home care agencies to continue serving patients in rural areas, where travel times are longer. I think these two provisions are particularly significant because the present IPS does not adequately account for the care needs of homebound individuals in rural areas, and the absence of home care options essentially forces these individuals into nursing homes or hospitals. The bill provides some administrative relief from the 15 minute increment reporting rule and asks HCFA to reexamine whether the cost associated with the collection of data is worthwhile in terms of what those data may yield. Finally, the bill expresses the sense of the Senate that HCFA should ensure that fiscal intermediaries receive and convey accurate and consistent information to agencies. These provisions all need to be in place in order to ensure that we do not punish the most efficient and well-performing agencies as we seek to streamline and modernize the program. Like many of my colleagues, I voted in favor of BBA '97 because I believed it contained meaningful provisions to balance the budget. I want to emphasize that the goal was to balance the budget--it was not to punish home health agencies, and certainly not to deny Medicare beneficiaries access to the home health services they need. I believe we ought to take a serious look at what refinements and fine tuning need to occur to ensure that our homebound elderly and disabled constituents--among the frailest and most vulnerable of our people we serve--can receive the services they need. Without that fine-tuning, I am quite certain that more home health agencies in Wisconsin and in other areas across our country will close, leaving some of our frailest Medicare beneficiaries without the choice to receive care at home. Again, I think Seniors need and deserve that choice, and I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today, along with a number of my colleagues, to introduce a bill in response to the ongoing violence in East Timor. I am outraged at what is going on in East Timor today. The Indonesian government clearly has not lived up to its commitment to maintain security following the recent referendum. In fact it is openly supporting the militia violence against the majority of East Timorese, who have made clear their desire for an independent East Timor. If the Indonesian government cannot, or will not, maintain peace, I believe an international peacekeeping mission is the best option. The United States and the rest of the international community must exercise any and all leverage it has with the Indonesians to allow for this contingency. In addition, the United States provides a great deal of economic and military assistance to Indonesia. If the Indonesian government does not take steps to stop the violence occurring in East Timor, we should suspend these benefits. For that reason, I am today introducing a bill which cuts off all military and most economic assistance to the government of Indonesia until the President determines and certifies to the Congress that a safe and secure environment exists in East Timor which will allow the East Timorese who have fled the militia-led violence to return to their homes, allow the United Nations Assistance Mission to East Timor, UNAMET, to resume its mandate, and allow the results of the August 30, 1999, referendum on East Timor's political status to be fully implemented. At long last, on August 30, the people of East Timor went to the polls to express their will about the future of their homeland, choosing between a future as an autonomous part of Indonesia, or as an independent nation. The approximately 99 percent voter turnout in the face of intimidation from the pro-Jakarta militias is a credit to the dedication and courage of the East Timorese people to determine once and for all their own political status. Ironically, the day of the ballot was relatively free of violence. But that was the calm before the storm. After the polls closed, the militias began a rampage throughout the territory that continues today. At least for UNAMET workers have been killed and at least six other are missing. Thousands of East Timorese have fled their homes, which are being looted and burned at will by the militias. According to some estimates, in the past week alone, several hundred people have been killed, and more than 30,000 have been forced to flee their homes. Television news reports have shown desperate East Timorese citizens scaling the razor-sharp barbed wire fence surrounding the UNAMET mission in order to escape the automatic weapons of the advancing militias. There have been reports of beheadings. Nobel Laureate Bishop Carlos Belo and about six thousand East Timorese who sought refuge in his home in Dili were forced to flee when his home was burned to the ground. Bishop Belo, who has endured years of intimidation and countless threats on his life, has since fled to Australia. The United Nations is evacuating many of its workers and international observers. The result of the ballot, which was announced on September 4, was overwhelming--78.5 percent of East Timorese voted for independence. This crushing defeat for the pro-Jakarta militias and their supporters sparked even more violence. Unfortunately, this is just the latest in a wave of violence that has plagued East Timor for almost a quarter of a century. At this point, I would like to recount some of East Timor's history--the events that have brought the people of that territory to the horrific violence that is being unleashed upon them as I speak these words. The East Timorese people have a long history of foreign domination. The Portuguese ruled there for four centuries. In 1975, less than a year after the Portuguese colonial rulers left East Timor, the Indonesian army occupied East Timor, and it remains there today. For 24 years, the people of East Timor have been subjugated by the Indonesian government and harassed by the Indonesian military. The November 1991 massacre of non-violent demonstrators in the East Timorese capital of Dili is but one example of Indonesia's repressive occupation of East Timor. Despite the harsh rule of the Suharto regime--or maybe in spite of it--the people of East Timor held on to their hope for self-determination. This dream is personified by people such as Nobel Peace Prize winners Jose Ramos Horta and Bishop Carlos Belo, who have worked tirelessly, and at great personal risk, for the liberation of the people of East Timor. Following Suharto's resignation in 1998, it appeared that some positive changes were on the horizon for the people of East Timor. This comes after January 27, 1999, President B.J. Habibie announced that the government of Indonesia was finally willing to learn--and respect--the wishes of the people in that territory. On May 5, 1999, the governments of Indonesia and Portugal signed an agreement to hold a United Nations- supervised ``consultation'' on the future of East Timor. Before the ink was even dry on this agreement, proJakarta militia groups--better described as lawless thugs--began a campaign of terror and intimidation against the East Timorese people aimed at quashing the independence movement. And these thugs operated freely while the Indonesian military looked the other way, and in some cases, helped them. In the weeks leading up to the historic referendum, the militias targeted supporters of East Timorese independence, and members of the UNAMET who were in the territory preparing for the vote. And now, the implementation of the results of this ballot, an effort which has already been paid for by the blood of more than 200,000 East Timorese who have been killed since 1975, is being delayed by more violence from criminals who cannot accept the defeat they received at the polls. Despite his promise to respect the wishes of the East Timorese people, President Habibie has done little to stop the violence. Yesterday, he imposed martial law in East Timor, but this announcement has not ended the militia rampage, and the Indonesian military has done nothing to halt the violence. I am concerned that martial law will only embolden the militias. The bill which I am introducing today calls on the Indonesian government to foster an environment in which the result of the August 30 referendum can be fully implemented. And if the Indonesian government does not take steps to that end, all U.S. military and most economic assistance to Indonesia will be cut off. Period. For too long, the Congress has allowed military and economic assistance to be awarded to the government of Indonesia, with few conditions, despite its miserable human rights record and its deplorable treatment of the people of East Timor. It is high time that the Indonesian government learns that the U.S. will not tolerate the violent suppression of the legitimate democratic aspiration of the people of East Timor. Earlier this week, President Habibie asked the Indonesian people to remain calm in the face of the referendum results. It is past time for him to direct the Indonesian army to stop the militias and to discipline those army personnel who are in collusion with the militias in their rampage through East Timor. It is imperative that President Habibie and his government understand that the United States Congress will not sit idly by while bands of thugs continue to loot and burn East Timor, kill innocent civilians, and drive people from their homes. President Habibie said earlier this year that he would respect the wishes of the people of East Timor. His government also promised the World Bank that it would live up to its commitments to the United Nations. It is time he shows that these statements were more than just political rhetoric. He must stop the violence, and he must allow international peacekeepers to enter East Timor without the threat of attack from militias or members of the Indonesian army. I hope the Senate will act on this important legislation at the earliest possible date. We must not allow the Indonesian government to continue to receive U.S. military and economic assistance so long as it is condoning the terror in East Timor. So, Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk. Because of the urgency of the situation in East Timor, I ask that it be considered as soon as possible. Mr. President, I am delighted that the next speaker will be a person who has devoted an incredible energy to this issue; in fact, who recently had the willingness and courage to go to East Timor, Senator Reed of Rhode Island.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I finally ask the Senator to make the comparison between the list that she just read. By and large these are very important groups that represent the average people of this country. There is no way four of them could get together and give $2.9 million as these four corporations I just described did. Obviously these four corporations want this rider to be a part of the Interior appropriations bill. It is the powerful political donors. They may well get their way despite the credibility of groups and interests that the Senator just indicated. I, again, very much thank the Senator from California for her leadership on this. I rise today to share my concern about the number and content of legislative riders to address environmental matters contained in the FY 2000 Interior Appropriations Bill. I hope that all provisions which adversely effect the implementation of environmental law, or change federal environmental policy, will be removed from this legislation when it returns to the floor. I believe that the Senate should not include provisions in spending bills that weaken environmental laws or prevent potentially environmentally beneficial regulations from being promulgated by the federal agencies that enforce federal environmental law. I want to note, before I describe my concerns in detail, that this is not the first time that I have expressed concerns regarding legislative riders in appropriations legislation that would have a negative impact on our nation's environment. For more than two decades, we have seen a remarkable bipartisan consensus to protect the environment through effective environmental legislation and regulation. I believe we have a responsibility to the American people to protect the quality of our public lands and resources. That responsibility requires the Senate to express its strong distaste for legislative efforts to include proposals in spending bills that weaken environmental laws or prevent potentially beneficial environmental regulations from being promulgated or enforced by the federal agencies that carry out federal law. The people of Wisconsin have caught on to what's happening here. They continue to express their grave concern that, when riders are placed in spending bills, major decisions regarding environmental protection are being made without the benefit of an up or down vote. Wisconsinites have a very strong belief that Congress has a responsibility to discuss and publicly debate matters effecting the environment. We should be on record with regard to our position on this matter of open government and environmental stewardship. I have particular concerns regarding several riders contained in this bill. I will site three examples of provisions of concern to me. I am concerned that we failed to strip the rider on the mining millsite issue. This is the second rider of this type we have considered. In Section 3006 of Public Law 106-31, the 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, Congress exempted the Crown Jewel project in Washington State from the Solicitor's Opinion. This rider, in contrast to the previous rider, applies to all mines on public lands. I am also concerned that we have chosen to again include a grazing policy rider as well. It requires the Bureau of Land Management to renew expiring grazing permits under the same terms and conditions contained in the old permit. This automatic renewal will remain in effect until such time as the Bureau complies with ``all applicable laws.'' There is no schedule imposed on the Agency, therefore necessary environmental improvements to the grazing program could be postponed indefinitely. This rider affects millions of acres of public rangelands that support endangered species, wildlife, recreation, and cultural resources. The rider's impact goes far beyond the language contained in the FY 1999 appropriations bill, in which Congress allowed a short-term extension of grazing permits which expired during the current fiscal year. As written, this section undercuts the application of environmental law, derails administrative appeals, and hampers application of the conservation-oriented grazing Guidelines. I also want to voice my opposition to the amendment that would allow oil companies to continue to underpay the U.S. government in royalties for drilling on public lands. I understand that this rider was modified by the manager's amendment, but as originally drafted the rider blocks the implementation of new Interior Department rules to stop these underpayments, just as their implementation was blocked in the last Congress. This is a huge windfall for the oil companies--and as it is with so many special interest provisions that find their way into our legislation, to the wealthy donors go the spoils, while the taxpayers get the shaft. The Interior Department estimates that these underpayments by the oil companies cost the taxpayers up to $66 million a year. And the oil companies that enjoy this cut-rate drilling are not small independent producers. On the contrary, the oil companies that benefit are among the largest in the world. Names like Exxon, Chevron, BP Amoco and Atlantic Richfield. I'd like to take a moment to Call the Bankroll on these companies, something I do from time to time in this chamber to remind my colleagues and the public about the role money plays in our legislative debates and decisions here in this chamber. During the 1997-1998 election cycle, oil companies gave the following in political donations to the parties and to federal candidates: Exxon gave more than $230,000 in soft money and more than $480,000 in PAC money; Chevron gave more than $425,000 in soft money and more than $330,000 in PAC money; Atlantic Richfield gave more than $525,000 in soft money and $150,000 in PAC money; BP Oil and Amoco, two oil companies which have merged into the newly formed petroleum giant BP Amoco, gave a combined total of more than $480,000 in soft money and nearly 295,000 in PAC money. That's more than $2.9 million just from those four corporations in the span of only two years, Mr. President. They want this rider to be part of the Interior Appropriations bill, and as powerful political donors they are likely to get their way. I'd like to discuss one final rider, which undoubtedly deserves its own Calling of the Bankroll. Though I understand that this rider has now been modified by the substitute amendment, the underlying bill initially prohibited the use of funds to study, develop, or implement procedures or policies to establish energy efficiency, energy use, or energy acquisition rules. Unchanged, this language would have blocked federal programs which cut federal agencies' energy expenditures, save taxpayer funds, and contribute to reductions in pollution. In conclusion, I think that delay of mining law enforcement is indefensible, as are the other changes we are making in environmental policy without full and fair debate. I hope my colleagues will join me in demanding that this bill be cleaned up in Conference.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I am grateful for the Senator's tremendous leadership on this. She may be aware that from time to time I do something that I call ``calling of the bankroll''--interest in companies that contribute large sums of money in terms of campaign contributions. I am wondering if the Senator is aware that during the 1997-1998 election cycle oil companies gave the following in political donations to the parties and to Federal candidates: Exxon gave more than $230,000 in soft money and more than $480,000 in PAC money. Chevron gave more than $425,000 in soft money and more than $330,000 in PAC money. I wonder if the Senator is aware that Atlantic-Richfield gave more than $525,000 in soft money and $150,000 in PAC money. BP Oil and Amoco, two oil companies which merged into the newly formed petroleum giant, BP Amoco, gave a combined total of $480,000 in soft money, and nearly $295,000 in PAC money. This is just some of the information we have. I don't know if the Senator was aware of these figures.

Mr. FEINGOLD. They are not small mom-and-pop, independent producers. They are companies like Exxon, Chevron, BP Oil, Atlantic Richfield, and Amoco. I ask the Senator if she is aware of some of the campaign contributions that entities such as this put forward in order to achieve this end.