Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my amendment would allow the National Guard to almost fully fund its operation and maintenance, or O&M account, for the coming fiscal year. This year's Defense Department budget request left the National Guard with a $634 million budget shortfall, including a $450 million shortfall in the Guard's O&M account. This request fell on the heals of a $743 million shortfall for the current fiscal year. I think these shortfalls are wrongheaded and unacceptable. Fortunately, both Houses of Congress have acted more responsibly in funding the National Guard. Even with the improvements from both Houses, though, the Senate appropriations bill we are currently considering leaves the Guard's operation and maintenance account $225 million short. The House bill leaves an even greater gap of $317 million. My amendment would add $220 million to the National Guard's O&M account, leaving just a $5 million shortfall to that account. According to the National Guard, shortfalls in the operation and maintenance account compromise the Guard's readiness levels, capabilities, force structure, and end strength. Failing to fully support these vital areas will have a direct as well as indirect effect. The shortfall puts the Guard's personnel, schools, training, full-time support, and retention and recruitment at risk. Perhaps most importantly, however, I know firsthand that it is eroding the morale of our citizen-soldiers, as I have had the opportunity to visit some of the armories in Wisconsin and have heard this concern firsthand. With that in mind, 26 State adjutants general--a majority of the adjutants general in this country--have contacted my office to voice their support for this amendment. The leaders of the National Guard units in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming, and my own home State of Wisconsin support my amendment. I would like to thank them for their dedication and support, and I hope we decide to heed their call for support of the National Guard. Mr. President, in spite of the National Guard's budget concerns, the administration continues to deliver insufficient budget requests given the National Guard's duties; yet, the administration increasingly calls on the Guard to handle some very wide-ranging tasks. These shortfalls have an increasingly greater effect given the National Guard's increased operations burden. This is as a result of new missions, increased deployments, and training requirements, including the missions in Bosnia, Iraq, Haiti, and Somalia. As I am sure my colleagues know by now, the Army National Guard represents a full 34 percent of total Army forces, including 55 percent of combat divisions and brigades, 46 percent of combat support, and 25 percent of combat service support; yet, the Guard only receives 9.5 percent of Army funds. To offer a comparison with the other Army components, the National Guard receives just 71 percent of requested funding, as opposed to the Active Army's 80 percent and Army Reserve's 81 percent. I think it is time we move toward giving the National Guard adequate and equal funding. This amendment almost achieves funding equity for the National Guard, and the National Guard is the Nation's only constitutionally mandated defense force. Not only have we failed to invest fully in the National Guard, we have failed to invest fully in the best bargain in the Defense Department. That should not come as a surprise, however. DOD has never been known as a frugal or practical department--from $436 hammers to $640 toilet seats to $2 billion bombers that don't work and the Department doesn't seem to want to use. The Department of Defense has a storied history of wasting our tax dollars. Here is an opportunity to spend defense dollars on something that actually works, that is worthwhile, and enjoys broad support on both sides of the aisle. In this regard, the National Guard fits the bill. According to a National Guard study, the average cost to train and equip an active duty soldier is $73,000 per year, while it costs only $17,000 per year to train and equip a National Guard soldier. The cost of maintaining Army National Guard units is just 23 percent of the cost of maintaining active Army units. It is time for the Pentagon to quit complaining about lack of funding and begin using their money a little more wisely and efficiently. Finally, my amendment doesn't terminate any program, nor does it create unsupported cuts to existing programs. This amendment merely follows the recommendation of the other Chamber. Early this year, the House overwhelmingly supported DOD authorization and appropriations bills that provide $2.6 billion to procure 27 Super Hornet aircraft. I think, and the General Accounting Office thinks, that is actually far too much money for a plane that provides only marginal benefits over the current, reliable Hornet. But it is better than the $2.8 billion for 30 Super Hornets that the bill contains. I think we should follow the prudent lead of our colleagues in the other body on this issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the House National Security Committee's report on its fiscal year 1999 DOD authorization bill, which specifically addresses the Super Hornet, be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in the wake of the terrible crime committed in the Capitol last Friday, I want to take a moment to reflect on the courage exhibited by the Capitol Police force in the face of that attack at the heart of America's democracy. The Capitol Police have guarded the U.S. Congress since 1828, but their finest, yet most tragic, moment came on July 24, 1998, when two officers gave their lives to defend their fellow citizens, and our Capitol and all that it represents. Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson, like all the quiet heroes of the Capitol Police force and their colleagues across America, came to work each day, performing their duties with dedication and professionalism, prepared at any moment to lay down their lives so that others could be saved, and the security of the Capitol could be preserved. In a few terrifying minutes on the afternoon of July 24th, that moment came, as Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut gave their lives for ours, and for countless other people working and visiting here that day. As they bravely defended the Capitol, Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut showed the enormity of their courage, the depth of their character, and the fullness of their commitment to duty as Capitol Police officers. As Americans, we owe Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson a debt that can never be repaid. Instead, we can only offer our deepest sympathies to the families of these two brave officers, and pledge to honor their memories with the same enduring strength and vigilance with which they defended our lives. I also want to recognize the other Capitol Police officers involved in apprehending the gunman, rushing people in the building to safety, and conducting the subsequent investigation with such a high degree of professionalism. We commend their service in protecting our Capitol and reaffirm with confidence that under their watch the house of the people will stay open to all the people. Americans can take great pride in the heroism the Capitol Police displayed last Friday, and in the bravery they summon every day as they protect our nation's Capitol. To them I offer my thanks, and the thanks of my staff and the people of the State of Wisconsin, for their courageous work.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in the past, the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill has been the vehicle for proposals relating to an area of great concern to me; namely, growing numbers of executive branch political appointees, and I want to offer a few comments on this matter. I was pleased to introduce legislation early in this session to address this issue. That bill, S. 38, would cap the total number of political appointees at 2,000, and I am pleased to be joined in that effort by my good friend, the Senior Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain). Our proposal to cap the number of political appointees has been estimated by CBO to save $330 million over five years. Mr. President, our bill was based on the recommendations of a number of distinguished panels, including most recently, the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on the Presidential Appointment Process. The task force findings are only the latest in a long line of recommendations that we reduce the number of political appointees in the Executive Branch. For many years, the proposal has been included in CBO's annual publication, ``Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options,'' and it was one of the central recommendations of the National Commission on the Public Service, chaired by former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker. Mr. President, our proposal is also consistent with the recommendations of the Vice President's National Performance Review, which called for reductions in the number of federal managers and supervisors, arguing that ``over-control and micro management'' not only ``stifle the creativity of line managers and workers, they consume billions per year in salary, benefits, and administrative costs.'' Those sentiments were also expressed in the 1989 report of the Volcker Commission, when it argued the growing number of presidential appointees may ``actually undermine effective presidential control of the executive branch.'' The Volcker Commission recommended limiting the number of political appointees to 2,000, as our legislation does. Mr. President, it is essential that any Administration be able to implement the policies that brought it into office in the first place. Government must be responsive to the priorities of the electorate. But as the Volcker Commission noted, the great increase in the number of political appointees in recent years has not made government more effective or more responsive to political leadership. Between 1980 and 1992, the ranks of political appointees grew 17 percent, over three times as fast as the total number of Executive Branch employees and looking back to 1960 their growth is even more dramatic. In his recently published book ``Thickening Government: Federal Government and the Diffusion of Accountability,'' author Paul Light reports a startling 430% increase in the number of political appointees and senior executives in Federal government between 1960 and 1992. In recommending a cap on political appointees, the Volcker Commission report noted that the large number of presidential appointees simply cannot be managed effectively by any President or White House. This lack of control is aggravated by the often competing political agendas and constituencies that some appointees might bring with them to their new positions. Altogether, the Commission argued that this lack of control and political focus ``may actually dilute the President's ability to develop and enforce a coherent, coordinated program and to hold cabinet secretaries accountable.'' The Volcker Commission also reported that the excessive number of appointees is a barrier to critical expertise, distancing the President and his principal assistants from the most experienced career officials. Though bureaucracies can certainly impede needed reforms, they can also be a source of unbiased analysis. Adding organizational layers of political appointees can restrict access to important resources, while doing nothing to reduce bureaucratic impediments. Author Paul Light says, ``As this sediment has thickened over the decades, presidents have grown increasingly distant from the lines of government, and the front lines from them.'' Light adds that ``Presidential leadership, therefore, may reside in stripping government of the barriers to doing its job effectively. . .'' Mr. President, the report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on the Presidential Appointment Process identified another problem aggravated by the mushrooming number of political appointees; namely, the increasingly lengthy process of filling these thousands of positions. As the Task Force reported, both President Bush and President Clinton were into their presidencies for many months before their leadership teams were fully in place. The Task Force noted that ``on average, appointees in both administrations were confirmed more than eight months after the inauguration--one-sixth of an entire presidential term.'' By contrast, the report noted that in the presidential transition of 1960, ``Kennedy appointees were confirmed, on average, two and a half months after the inauguration.'' In addition to leaving vacancies among key leadership positions in government, the appointment process delays can have a detrimental effect on potential appointees. The Twentieth Century Fund Task Force reported that appointees can ``wait for months on end in a limbo of uncertainty and awkward transition from the private to the public sector.'' Mr. President, there is little doubt that the large number of political appointments currently made aggravates a cumbersome process, even in the best of circumstances. The long delays and logjams created in filling these positions under the Bush and Clinton Administrations simply illustrates another reason why the number of positions should be cut back. Mr. President, let me also stress that the problem is not simply the initial filling of a political appointment, but keeping someone in that position over time. The General Accounting Office reviewed a portion of these positions for the period of 1981 to 1991, and found high levels of turnover--7 appointees in 10 years for one position--as well as delays, usually of months but sometimes years, in filling vacancies. Mr. President, I was pleased to see the Government Affairs Committee beginning to examine issues surrounding political appointees and the political appointment process. The issues of vacancy rate, turnover, delays in the appointment process, and of course the total number of appointees, all merit scrutiny by that Committee, and I would very much like to work with Chairman Thompson and the Committee in crafting a bipartisan response to the set of problems that have been identified in this area. I am also encouraged that the Administration is moving forward as well. The total number of appointees is down from last year, and down significantly from the levels seen in 1992. This is a healthy trend, and I very much hope it continues. Mr. President, because the Government Affairs Committee is examining a variety of issues surrounding the presidential appointment process, and with the modest improvements in the overall number of political appointees, I will not pursue an amendment to the Treasury-Postal Appropriations measure capping the number of political appointees. I will, however, continue to monitor the progress made both by the Government Affairs Committee and the Administration. This issue is important not only because of the potential to realize significant deficit reduction, but also because of the impact the appointees have on the day to day functioning of government. As we move forward to implement the NPR recommendations to reduce the number of government employees, streamline agencies, and make government more responsive, we should also right size the number of political appointees, ensuring a sufficient number to implement the policies of any Administration without burdening the Federal budget with unnecessary, possibly counterproductive political jobs. Random Audits by the IRS

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I'm pleased to cosponsor and rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio, Senator Glenn. And how fitting that Senator Glenn has taken the lead on this issue since he spent much of last year investigating the fundraising scandals of the 1996 election. I congratulate him on that work and on offering this very modest, but very important amendment today. Mr. President, as you know, I have spent a lot of time on this floor in this Congress debating the McCain-Feingold bill, and the issue of campaign finance reform. It has been a very difficult issue to make progress on. We have a strong bipartisan majority, including seven Senators from the Republican side of the aisle, in support of reform. A partisan minority continues to block our bill. But one area on which this entire body is united, Mr. President, is the need to enforce the laws that are already on the book. In fact, time after time when we debated the issue last fall and again early this spring, opponents of our bill raised that issue as a reason that they opposed McCain-Feingold. Why should we enact new laws, they said, when we can't even enforce the ones on the book? No less than eight Senators made some version of that argument in last fall's debate, right in the middle of the Thompson Committee hearings. More still raised it when we revisited campaign finance reform in February. In fact, given the arguments made by the opponents of the McCain- Feingold bill, I would hope this amendment would be adopted by 100-0 when we vote. Because all the amendment does is give the resources that the Federal Election Commission says it needs to carry out the duties that we have given it under the law. The very small amount of money that this amendment proposes to add to the FEC's appropriation--just 2.8 million dollars--will bring the FEC's funding up to its full budget request, which is the level that the House passed bill includes. This is a particularly good and important time to fully fund the FEC. The Rules Committee recently recommended approval of three new nominees to the Commission, and one reappointment. If the Senate follows that recommendation, the FEC will have a full complement of Commissioners for the first time since October 1995 when then Chairman Trevor Potter left the Commission. We therefore have a chance to have a fully functioning Commission prior to this year's elections. What better time to have a fully funded Commission as well. What better time to give the FEC the resources it says it needs to do its job right. The additional funding provided in this amendment will go directly to hiring new personnel to beef up the FEC's enforcement capacity. And there is no doubt at all that these additional investigative and legal staff are truly necessary. The FEC simply is not able to keep up with the workload as things now stand. In Fiscal Year 1997, it dismissed 133 cases as being too minor or too old to be worth pursuing. Through June of this year, three quarters of the way through this Fiscal Year, the FEC has already dismissed 144 cases. Now these are not frivolous cases, these are cases that staff has determined are worth pursuing. And here is the most disturbing statistic, Mr. President. In every year since the FEC adopted this practice of dropping cases that it can't get to the number of cases that are dropped because they are not that important has exceeded the number that are dropped because they are stale. Until this year. This year, nearly 60 percent of the cases dropped were high priority but stale. This is a very disturbing fact. The FEC is having a harder and harder time getting to the cases that it deems to be significant because of the rising caseload and inadequate resources. So, Mr. President, frankly, I can hardly imagine how one could argue against this amendment. The FEC is a very small agency, with a very small appropriation, and a very big job. Campaign spending by candidates continues to increase. Involvement in election activity by outside groups continues to expand. We simply cannot pretend that we want the laws to be enforced at election time and then ignore the FEC at budget time. There is nothing that undermines the public's faith in government more, Mr. President, than a feeling that the rules of the election game are being ignored. In a very real sense, Mr. President, this amendment gives us the chance to put our money where our mouth is. I hope we take it. Once again, I congratulate the senior Senator from Ohio for offering this amendment, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Ohio. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky. I already spoke at length on the floor against a very similar amendment in its other incarnation in the other House. Fortunately, that body did not keep this provision on the bill. What is happening here is the opposite of reform. It is the opposite of reform. This is an effort, plain and simple, to hamstring the agency that is charged with the very important responsibility of enforcing the Federal election law to which we all have to adhere--the Federal Election Commission. This effort has deadly serious consequences in terms of the independence of this Commission, and it has to be defeated. The effect of the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky would be to result in the firing of the Commission's general counsel. The amendment involves the Congress in the personnel decisions of the FEC, the agency that we have charged with overseeing the way we conduct our reelection campaigns. The Senator from Kentucky wants to get rid of a career civil servant who is simply trying to do his job to enforce the election laws. The current general counsel's institutional memory and knowledge is critically important now, because we are poised to confirm three new Commissioners, perhaps before the August recess. If we do that, Mr. President, the Commission will be at full strength for the first time in almost 3 years. It has been that long since all six slots on the Commission were filled. And right as that happens, if we adopt this amendment, we are going to throw the Commission into turmoil once again by getting rid of the general counsel and forcing this newly constituted Commission to come to agreement on someone else. That could take months and hamper the enforcement efforts of the Commission at a crucial time, a very interesting time, right after the 1998 elections. Mr. President, I want my colleagues to understand, as the Senator from Ohio has well stated, just how unprecedented this micromanaging of an agency's personnel decisions is. No other agency must reappoint or replace its top staff every 4 years--not one. According to the Congressional Research Service, there are three independent agencies where the general counsel is actually a political appointee, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. In each of these cases, the general counsel has direct statutory authority. But in every other independent agency, including the FEC, the general counsel is appointed by either the chairman or the entire body and serves at the pleasure of the appointing entity. That is what the law is now with respect to the FEC, and there is no reason to change it. In recent years, the FEC has undertaken a number of controversial actions in a very reasonable attempt to enforce the law that the Congress has written. Some of these cases have taken on very powerful political figures or groups--and they have done it on both sides of the aisle. And the crucial point is that the FEC itself has authorized all of these cases by a majority vote. If you don't like a case that the FEC has filed, you need to look to the Commission, not the general counsel. He is just trying to do his job as he sees fit. What we have here, Mr. President, is an effort to intimidate an agency. The proponents of this firing want to punish the FEC's general counsel for bringing forward recommendations to enforce the law, even though in all of the cases I have mentioned, a bipartisan majority of the commission has agreed with him. In every one of those cases a bipartisan group has agreed to take the action. Mr. President, I submit that we cannot let this happen. We need to let the professional staff of the FEC do its job. Surely the 3 to 3 party split on the Commission is enough to make sure that the Commission doesn't go off on some partisan vendetta. We must stop the partisan vendetta that this proposal represents. Protect the independence of the FEC and the nonpartisan nature of its staff by defeating the McConnell amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I wonder if the Senator from Ohio will yield me 6 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to express my concern about Section 342 of the Senate FY 99 Transportation Appropriations Bill. That section creates an exception in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act allowing helicopter landings by the general public on federally-designated wilderness and other protected lands within Alaska. Federal wilderness lands in Alaska are covered by two federal laws: the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, known as ANILCA. To describe the interaction of these statutes in more detail, Mr. President, the Wilderness Act establishes a federal definition of wilderness, and governs the use and administration of land within the various states that have been designated by Congress as federal wilderness. ANILCA, which passed in 1980, is the statute which designated various lands within the state of Alaska as federal wilderness. It also conferred other federal land use designations, creating parks, monuments and other protected status lands in Alaska. The reason I am concerned about Section 342 of the bill before us is that it replaces the word ``airplane'' with ``aircraft'' within ANILCA. Though such a change would appear benign to those who do not know the statute well. However, that is not the case. The practical effect of the proposed amendment would be to permit helicopter landings by the general public in federal wilderness areas and other protected lands in Alaska. Why is this such a concern, Mr. President? There are two major reasons why I find this one-word switch troubling. First, expanding the type of aircraft allowed in federal wilderness areas violates the Wilderness Act and sets an alarming precedent. Section 1110 of ANILCA presently permits the general public use, on lands protected under the act, of ``snow machines, motorboats, airplanes, and nonmotorized surface transportation methods for traditional activities.'' Although airplane use is specifically permitted in Alaska under ANILCA, helicopter landings by the general public are prohibited in all federal wilderness. However, helicopter landings are permitted on a discretionary basis by the federal land management agencies for emergency situations. All public lands in Alaska allow helicopters to land for that purpose. I strongly support allowing helicopters in wilderness areas to rescue injured or lost visitors. And those uses are already allowed. However, I have concerns about allowing helicopter landings in wilderness for other than emergency reasons, for purely recreational purposes. In my home state of Wisconsin, people love the wilderness areas they visit such as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and the wilderness areas in the Nicolet and Chequamegon National Forests. The reason they love those places, Mr. President, is not only because they are among the most beautiful spots in the Upper Midwest, but also precisely because they are remote and are challenging to reach. National Parks are beautiful places. I support them, and I visit them with my family. However, National Parks, which have roads and restaurants and maintained campsites, are not the same as the lands protected under the Wilderness Act. National Parks are maintained for public access, wilderness areas by contrast, are areas where one can bring one's canoe and tent and hike in, or fly to in a float plane, as permitted today under ANILCA. By these means of transportation visitors can enter wilderness areas in a relatively low impact manner. Allowing helicopters into wilderness areas would mean managing lands, that according to the Wilderness Act are supposed to remain undisturbed by human access, in a contradictory manner. Imagine being in a remote spot surrounded by nature on a nice getaway and having a helicopter land right next to you to drop people off for an afternoon of wandering around? I believe we should not sacrifice the very reasons we have protected wilderness in an effort to increase access to the wilderness. If it's easy to get to, it's not a wilderness. Second, Congress and federal land management agencies have already considered the issue of helicopter use on wilderness lands in Alaska and have found it to be inappropriate and incompatible. The Forest Service has explicitly considered and rejected helicopters in Alaska's wilderness. In 1997, the Forest Service completed an EIS specifically addressing helicopter landings in more limited circumstances than the language in this bill. At that time, the proposal was to allow helicopters in areas other than specifically designated wildlife, cultural resource, and research areas. Section 342 would allow helicopters in all areas. The legislative history of ANILCA also specifically excluded helicopters from lands designated under that Act. The Senate Energy Committee considered special access to lands subject to ANILCA, and the Committee Report stated ``the transportation modes covered by this section are float and ski planes, snowmachines, motor boats, and dogsleds.'' Congress has already considered this issue, Mr. President, and we have found that helicopters for general public access do not have a place in Alaska's wilderness areas. I would urge that we not go back on this sound judgment. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment simply states what we all know to be true, and that is that cable rates across the country have risen steadily since the Telecommunications Act of 1996. And there is virtually no competition in the industry. The amendment instructs the FCC to report to us whether this situation is consistent with the FCC's responsibilities, which it still has until March of 1999, to make sure that cable TV rates are reasonable. If not, the amendment asks the FCC to give us an action plan; in other words, what is it going to do to carry out its duties? This is an amendment designed to hold the FCC accountable. We gave it a mission to promote competition and ensure that the rates are reasonable. The American people deserve to know why the agency has not succeeded. The amendment is supported by the Consumers Union and will be a signal whether this body is content to see cable rates rise as high as three to four times the rate of inflation, as has happened during the past year. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this simple amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I always enjoy debating with the Senator from South Carolina. I have to differ, though, with the characterization of the words that are in this amendment. It says: . . . the report shall include a statement of the actions to be undertaken by the Commission to fulfill the responsibilities. If the Commission determines it doesn't need to take any action, this doesn't require them to do anything. There is no mandate at all. We just want to know what they are planning to do. That is all this calls for, a statement of the actions to be undertaken by the Commission. There is simply nothing mandatory about that language at all. We are just asking for a statement of the ideas they have about what to do about the increases in cable rates, if anything. I differ with the Senator from South Carolina that there is no language in here that asks for anything other than a report as to what the Commission may plan to do in the future about the problem of cable rates. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered is designed to tell the FCC that this situation is unacceptable. It makes findings to which I have alluded here--that cable rates are rising and there is no competition in the cable market--and asks the FCC to report back to us within 30 days as to whether it believes that these findings are consistent with the FCC having fulfilled its responsibilities under federal law to promote competition and ensure that cable rates are reasonable. I do not believe that the FCC will be able to tell us in the face of these findings that it has fulfilled its responsibilities. The amendment therefore requires that the FCC inform us of the steps it intends to take to ensure that those responsibilities are fulfilled. The Telecommunications Act was enacted in early 1996. For over two years, the American people have watched with alarm as cable rates have gone in exactly the wrong direction. It is time for the Congress to tell the FCC that is not what was supposed to happen, and that the Commission has to do something to change it. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. It, of course, will not singlehandedly solve the problem, but it should move the Commission, and I hope cable rates, in the right direction. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two newspaper articles concerning rising cable rates and the FCC's decision not to take action, one from USA Today, and one from the Washington Post, be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the ranking member, the Senator from South Carolina, about the amendment. I simply want to point out that, in fact, this 30-day period is not 30 days from today that the FCC would have to complete this report, it is 30 days from the time of enactment of this bill, if the amendment were successful, and that is obviously some weeks, if not months, down the road, to the point where the President would actually sign it. All we are asking here is that a report be issued, not that actions be taken to change the cable rates during this period, but that the Commission actually give us a sense of whether they agree with the findings we have in this report or not and what they intend to do about the problem. I don't think that is an unreasonable request for a 30-day period, or even realistically what it is more likely to be, which is a 60-day to 90-day period. Just to illustrate why we are concerned, why we think it is appropriate that Congress agree to this amendment and make this statement, it is because, in fact, the studies the FCC is doing now I don't think are getting done in a timely manner to answer the questions that have to be answered. For example, Chairman Kennard recognized that there was a problem with regard to its annual assessment of competition in the video- programming market when he said in his statement: Less than 15 months away from the sunset of most cable rate regulation, it is clear that broad-based, widespread competition to the cable industry has not developed and is not imminent. He also noted that perhaps the Commission ought to do something to address the problem. He said: When confronted with allegations of price gouging, cable operators reflexively point to additional programming costs. The Commission's own rules and policies may be a source of this problem. We need to examine whether there are targeted adjustments that should be made to our rate rules. For example, our rules allow programming cost increases to be passed on to subscribers. But is this right? The Chairman went on to say that the FCC was going to look at the problem of programming costs, and that is the study that has been referred to. He said about this: I am therefore directing the Cable Services Bureau to commence a focused inquiry into programming costs to determine the sources of these increases, the variance in costs among various distributors, whether existing relationships impact the prices charged, and if programmers restrict consumer choice. This inquiry will require the cooperation and forthrightness of the industry. I don't know if the FCC got the cooperation of the industry. What I do know, and what is in response to the comments of the Senator from South Carolina, is that it is now July and there is still no report or result from that inquiry. I also know, as I have indicated before, that rates have continued to go up, with many increases taking effect at midyear. I also know that in May the Chairman told the world that the FCC was not going to take any further action to address rising cable rates. So, this amendment is not duplicative of what is going on at the FCC. It has a deadline and a requirement the FCC outline a specific action plan to address the problem of the lack of competition in the cable industry. Based upon the track record that I have just described with respect to the narrower issue that there was supposed to be a study on, it is not getting done. I think we need to follow up on previous congressional directives and have the entire Senate and the other body direct that a more specific study and plan of action result within the timeframe that this amendment calls for. Mr. President, I think this is a reasonable amendment. It is not too much to ask this agency to take a look at the dramatic increases, whether they are reasonable and what they intend to do about it. I urge my colleagues to back the amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the amendment I offer today is prompted by the continuous rise in cable rates across this country over the past few years. You will remember when Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, we were promised that competition would bring lower cable rates for consumers. Well, it hasn't happened. In fact, rates have gone up--alot--in many communities around the country. About two-thirds of the households in this country now rely on cable for their television programming. More and more, cable is part of the monthly budget for the average consumer. It is not a frill or a luxury. We rely on cable for information and for entertainment. And instead of the cost going down because so many people now use the service, the cost just keeps rising. In my home state of Wisconsin, the cable company in the Madison area raised its rates by 9% in June. That's on top of a 7% increase just a year ago, and an 18.8% increase in 1996. According to the Federal Communications Commission, average cable rates across the country rose 8.5% from July 1996 to July 1997, three to four times faster than the rate of inflation. Now, Mr. President, I voted against the Telecommunications Act in part because I was concerned that it would not really promote competition in the cable industry. And look what has happened. The top two cable companies now have over 50% of the market in this country, and the top four cable companies have over 60% of the market. And the biggest problem, of course, is that despite the promises of those who promoted the new telecommunications law, there is no competition at all in the vast majority of cable markets. In all but a handful of communities in this country, consumers still have no choice in buying cable service. Alternatives to cable, such as satellite services, are not readily available to most consumers, or they are too expensive to offer much competition. The number of areas where consumers have a choice between cable operators is very small indeed. Only five million homes out of the 94 million that are capable of receiving cable programming can now choose between two cable operators. Now here's a shocking statistic from the FCC's most recent annual study of competition in the video programming market: Cable rates have gone up more slowly in areas where there is competition! Mr. President, in a truly competitive market, the cable companies would try to keep their rates as low as possible to retain their customers. Companies could charge higher rates based on new investment in facilities or programming only if they could convince their customers to accept those increases rather than take their business elsewhere to a competitor in the same town. Just think about it. You get a notice that your cable bill or a bill for any other crucial service is going to go up significantly. What is the first thing you would do? The first thing you would do in a competitive situation is check out the competitor's rate, of course. But without competition, cable companies are able to increase rates with very little fear of losing their customers. Most people will endure a pretty big increase before they decide to give up their cable service. But even a minor increase might prompt a call to the competitor down the street, if only such a competitor actually existed. The FCC has made it very clear that notwithstanding the fact that its authority to regulate cable rates does not expire until March 1999, it does not intend to take any action this year to hold down cable rates. I am concerned that when the power expires next year we will see even greater rate increases than we have seen since the Act passed in 1996. And those have already been dramatic increases. Earlier this year, I wrote to the Chairman of the FCC, asking him to give serious consideration to a request that had been filed by Consumers Union to freeze cable rates until the FCC could investigate the reasons for the recent increases and also determine whether current cable TV rates are reasonable. In response, FCC's Chairman William Kennard indicated that he believes a rate freeze would be unfair to cable companies that have acted responsibly, and that it would hurt small independent cable operators. With all due respect, I don't think this is an adequate response. The FCC has essentially said that it does not know why cable rates are going up. If that is the case, then it has no idea whether cable companies are acting responsibly or not. And it certainly is in no position to ensure that cable rates are reasonable for consumers. Furthermore, the Telecommunications Act has already deregulated the small operators who serve rural communities. So that is not particularly relevant or a justification for not examining what is happening with these cable companies. At the same time, Mr. Kennard told me that the FCC ``continues to aggressively enforce its cable rate regulations to ensure that cable rates are reasonable under the law.'' I'm not sure what the FCC means by aggressive enforcement, but I don't see it, and certainly consumers whose rates have risen at three times the rate of inflation are not seeing the aggressive enforcement either. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to Chairman Kennard and his response be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previous order be vitiated pending a few moments to talk with the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I object, momentarily.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Does that include the understanding that there will be no second-degree amendment?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Is the Senator propounding a unanimous consent agreement with regard to my amendment?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his courtesy. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my good friend, the Senator from South Carolina, in offering this amendment to express the sense of the Senate regarding the Social Security trust fund balances. I could not agree more with the Senator from South Carolina and also the Senator from North Dakota that there really isn't anything more important than stopping this practice of using Social Security dollars for things they are not supposed to be used for, including premature tax cuts. That is the central budgeting issue in this country. The Senator from South Carolina has been the leader for years and years in making that point. I have greatly enjoyed working with him on this. We are going to continue to work on this until this practice is stopped, until this theft of Social Security funds is prevented. Mr. President, there is a fundamental difference between the way many in Congress approach the budget and the way the Senator from South Carolina and I approach it. That difference is Social Security. For 30 years, Presidents of both parties, and Congresses controlled by both parties, have included the Social Security trust fund balances in their budget calculations. As I had a chance to mention during the debate over the budget resolution itself, the result is a false picture of our country's fiscal health. And just like a false medical report that covers up a serious illness, it can lead to major problems in the future. This false budget picture has been used so often that, in effect, it has almost become a ``budget convention.'' It has so impressed itself into the vocabulary of the budget that we now hear this word ``surplus'' over and over again when there is no surplus. We hear people talking about a budget ``surplus'' in Congress, we see it in the newspapers, and we are even seeing it in letters from constituents who are, in effect, being misinformed into thinking that there is somehow a surplus at this time. Mr. President, the recent CBO estimates of our budget picture have made this matter all the more urgent. Using this budget sleight-of-hand known as the ``unified budget,'' some are pointing to significant surpluses as a justification for their own budget agenda, as the Senator from South Carolina has very eloquently outlined in his remarks. Mr. President, we have not achieved a budget surplus, and despite the greatly improved budget picture, CBO still estimates that we will not achieve anything indicating a true surplus until at least the year 2006. There is a deficit that is still being hidden, and Social Security is the curtain that is being used to hide it. For the current fiscal year, CBO expects the deficit to be roughly $41 billion. That is a great improvement over the $340 billion deficit we experienced in 1992. I am proud to have been a part of bringing that deficit down, but that is still a significant deficit. While the deficit picture improves slightly in the next few years, we still face a real problem on the budget deficit. It is true that if all of CBO's assumptions are borne out, we will barely achieve a balanced budget in 2002 and then again in the year 2005--just in those 2 years. And, of course, this is encouraging news. But it is hardly the kind of significant surplus on which to establish any major new initiatives, whether they be in the spending area or in the tax area. It is obvious that the economy may not perform as well as CBO expects, and the slightest change in the underlying assumptions could mean something very different from surpluses. It could mean deficits that are billions of dollars greater than are currently estimated. CBO itself makes this point in its current estimates. The report states, ``* * * if any of a number of assumptions that CBO has made turn out to be off the mark, budget outcomes could be quite different than projected, even if there are no changes in policy.'' Mr. President, the CBO projections also assume that Congress will be making the spending cuts necessary to comply with last year's balanced budget agreement. Mr. President, as is sometimes said in court, when it comes to assuming that Congress will do everything it should do with regard to making those spending cuts, CBO could be ``assuming facts that are not in evidence.'' Congress has not yet made those spending cuts, and the attitude that is being exhibited by some Members of Congress is not reassuring. We are already seeing a bidding war develop over how to spend the so- called surplus. It is a surplus that isn't even projected to really exist for another 8 years, Mr. President, but they are falling all over each other to figure out how to spend it before we finish the job. With so many focused on how to dispense this phantom surplus, there is an increasing risk that we will not actually finish the important work of truly balancing the budget. Mr. President, just a little over a year ago, a lot of our colleagues were saying it was the most important matter before us and urging us to amend the Constitution itself to ensure that outlays did not exceed receipts in any given year. Now, here we are, just a few months later, and many who supported this drastic step--and, as it turned out, unnecessary step--to amend our Constitution are now very ready to spend a surplus that we don't have. It could not be more inconsistent with what was at least said to be the spirit and the purpose of the balanced budget amendment. Mr. President, it has taken us several years and many tough votes to get where we are today, to get within reach, within vision of truly balancing the budget. It will take more tough votes to finish the job. Unfortunately, the notion of a so-called unified budget, which just began as a political convenience to mask the deficit almost 30 years ago, has now become budget reality for many, many people. This has to stop. ``Surplus'' is supposed to mean something extra like a bonus. What it is supposed to mean is that all the bills are paid and there is really money left over. But, Mr. President, as I noted during the budget resolution debate, one dictionary defines ``surplus'' as ``something more than or in excess of what is needed or required.'' But the so- called unified budget, the surplus is not ``more than or in excess of what is needed or required.'' Those funds are needed; they are needed to pay future Social Security benefits. They were raised by the Social Security system, specifically in anticipation of commitments to future Social Security beneficiaries. There is, however, one simple, straightforward step that this body can take to help Social Security and to protect the trust fund. It is very simple. Just do not spend it. Don't spend it. We have no right to spend it. I urge my colleagues to join the Senator from South Carolina and the other cosponsors of this amendment in passing this amendment and expressing the sense of the Senate that we understand this essential fact: That when Congress makes budget obligations today based on the Social Security funds, whether in the form of tax cuts or spending increases, we are committing to a fiscal path that jeopardizes future Social Security benefits. Mr. President, let me once again sincerely thank my friend from South Carolina for his tremendous leadership on this issue. It has been a pleasure to serve with him on the Budget Committee, and I deeply respect his work to promote not only deficit reduction, but honest budgeting as well. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I need 12 minutes, Mr. President.