Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to strongly associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Arizona with regard to the recent news on our efforts on campaign finance reform. Last week, we were extremely pleased to see a bipartisan group in the House essentially agree to introduce the kind of legislation that the Senator from Arizona and I have proposed. Today, we are also pleased by the announcement of the support by the chairman of the Democratic National Committee and the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. We are not so excited about the fact that these people happen to be leaders in the Democratic Party--that is good--but the more important thing is that it is another sign of the importance and the value of the bipartisan nature of this proposal. The House proposal last week was bipartisan. Adding these two Senators to this group makes it another significant step in bringing both parties together with regard to this issue. I have been very pleased with the quick response from various Senators on signing on to this bill. Week by week, we have added new people. I also want to note the editorial endorsements that the Senator from Arizona alluded to. The Feingold-McCain-Thompson bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Dallas Morning News, Milwaukee Journal, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Kansas City Star, Houston Chronicle, Nashville Tennessean, the Boston Globe, and many others. Of course, this was added to last week in addition by the endorsement of Ross Perot, who has indicated a lot of support on this issue. Today, the addition of the support of Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska and Senator Dodd of Connecticut helps us move in that direction. It takes about 100 steps to pass this bill. It is a complicated, very controversial bill that has been a knotty problem for the Congress for many years, but I think we have taken about 25 or 35 of those steps already. These endorsements are very important today. Senator Dodd's response at the news conference to the question of, ``Why do you think this bill has a chance of actually passing?'' was right on target. The fact that this bill has Republican and Democrat cosponsors and represents the first truly bipartisan bill, the first truly bipartisan bill in nearly 10 years, automatically makes this effort different, dramatically different than past efforts. Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska also made an excellent point about nobody understanding the need for reform better than those of us who are charged with the responsibility of raising these awful amounts of money. So this is progress. I want to emphasize what the Senator from Arizona did. It is only progress in the context of a continued bipartisan effort. If either party thinks they can gain political advantage by turning this into a partisan issue, all they will succeed in doing is killing this effort. This effort can win. There is every sign that it will win and that the President would be willing to sign it. With that caveat, with that effort to make sure that this is a continuation of the effort of bipartisanship, I welcome their support, and I look forward to further support from Members on both sides of the aisle. I thank the Senator from Arizona and the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my friend, the senior Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] in introducing this legislation. This is the most recent of several bipartisan reform efforts in which I have joined with Senator McCain. In many ways, this measure focuses on the downstream results of the other problems on which we have worked. Unjustified corporate subsidies, through direct appropriation or through the Tax Code, continue to prosper in part because of the influence of the special constituencies that benefit from those subsidies. But, Mr. President, these subsidies also continue to exist through simple inattention, and the Corporate Subsidy Commission created by this legislation will bring some needed scrutiny to subsidies that, though they may have had some merit once, are no longer justified. Targeting unjustified corporate subsidies would be appropriate at any time, but they are especially needed as we try to balance the Federal books. We absolutely must subject these kinds of corporate subsidies to tougher scrutiny than we have before. As with the spending we provide to individuals, nonprofits, and State and local governments, if we are to eliminate the Federal budget deficit, we need to demand a higher level of justification for corporate programs. There is no doubt that those of us who have cosponsored this legislation differ greatly on the total package of spending cuts we would propose to balance the Federal budget, as the reconciliation legislation this body passed dramatically demonstrates. But we are all united in suggesting that much more needs to be done in the area of corporate subsidies. This legislation continues the broader effort to reduce the deficit that I have made, and which began with an 82+ point plan to reduce the deficit I offered during my campaign for the U.S. Senate in 1992. Many of the provisions of that plan eliminated or reduced corporate subsidies that are no longer justified, including both direct appropriations and tax expenditures. Mr. President, I am particularly pleased that the Commission's mission will include the review of tax expenditures. They are a significant and growing portion of the Federal budget. In a June, 1994 report, the General Accounting Office, using data from the Joint Committee on Taxation, stated that spending for tax expenditures totaled about $400 billion in 1993. As that report notes, spending done through tax expenditures moves immediately to the front of the budget line. Tax expenditures are, in effect, funded before the Federal Government pays for a single school lunch or an aircraft carrier because, under our budget process, tax expenditures must be funded as they are created, and with the exception of a few that must be reauthorized, they can grow in the absence of Congressional oversight. Mr. President, some current tax expenditures are certainly justified. However, the system of tax expenditures itself lacks appropriate review and control mechanisms, and many individual expenditures are unjustified. The result is a loss of overall economic efficiency for the Nation's economy, and scarce budget resources at a time when we are trying to balance the Federal books. [[Page S 16508]] This Commission can provide needed review of inefficient and expensive corporate subsidies, requiring Congress to examine this spending in a timely manner.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. United States funds are already adequately and elaborately protected from being used in China at all. In reality, what the House amendment is trying to do is prohibit U.S. support for family planning in the 140 other countries that the UNFPA operates. It essentially punishes the United States and other countries of the international community for China's human rights violations which the UNFPA, again, is simply not responsible for. As we look to the 21st century, we should have a post-Mexico City policy on population. The House amendment brings us backward--not forward. Family planning is too important for us to lose ground on. But that is exactly what the House amendment does. It causes us to lose ground on population control. We cannot let this stand, Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to support the Leahy amendment and to strip this extreme amendment from the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Leahy- Kassebaum amendment. The Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Kansas have done more in the last few minutes to clarify this issue than I think has been done for some time--the very clear point that the Senate position on this in the past does not provide Federal funding for abortions through these organizations. That is the fact. For that reason, I stand in strong opposition, as well, to the House language. The House language endangers our national interests. It is not simply an [[Page S 16482]] antichoice or antiabortion, or a proabortion issue, as some of the proponents say. What it is is antifamily planning. The House position smacks of being against the interests of women and international development. Population assistance is a critical component of our foreign aid program, and a worthy investment in bracing for the threats to U.S. national security that will arise throughout the 21st century. Even President Nixon, who was not known as a prochoice activist, listed population growth ``among the most important issues we face * * * a world problem which no country can ignore, whether it is moved by the narrowest perception of national self-interest or the widest vision of common humanity.'' Indeed, President Nixon pledged full U.S. support and cooperation in supporting U.N. population and family planning programs at the same time the United States played an active role in founding the U.N. population fund known as the UNFPA. If we were to enact the House language, Mr. President, we would cut off support for UNFPA as well as the crucial private organizations supporting family planning and women's rights and manageable population growth. Mr. President, the world population today stands at 5.7 billion people, almost double what it was in 1960. It is growing by about 100 million people per year. Most of this growth is in the developing world in regions that cannot, of course, sustain their current populations. The environmental and economic effects of this population program are very significant. The effect on women as a population is really disastrous. If development efforts are going to be successful, they have to include the full participation of women--at least 50 percent of the world population. However, if women are not given control of their own bodies, or if they are compelled to carry and deliver unlimited numbers of children, then they cannot be full partners. They cannot be full partners politically, economically, or socially in the development of their country. The U.S. population programs, in conjunction with international strategies, have actually yielded incredible results for our country and for the world. We have seen reductions in maternal mortality rates. We have seen improved child survival statistics. We have seen increased literacy among women. And we have seen healthier, burgeoning economies in many parts of the world. Mr. President, this in turn strengthens U.S. efforts to promote food security, international trade, and improved public health, all of which improve our standard of living. And they also reduce the risk of disaster assistance or the deployment of U.S. troops, as the Senator from Kansas was alluding to in her previous remarks. I have had the opportunity to work with the Senator on the Foreign Affairs Committee on the subcommittee concerning Africa where these problems can become very, very severe very quickly. The provision of population assistance and family planning services is important to the United States. Mr. President, again, it is hardly support for abortion--although the House amendment infers this. In fact, Mr. President, that is what I think is the fundamental misunderstanding in this debate, and I think we need to dispel that today. Abortion does not equal family planning; in fact, responsible and safe family planning reduces the need for and incidence of abortion. Nevertheless, somehow this debate always winds up being a bit of a red herring debate about abortion. Mr. President, if the proponents of the House amendment were trying to prohibit U.S. funds from being used to pay for abortion, they already achieved that goal many years ago. U.S. foreign assistance cannot by law be used to pay for abortion. Let me repeat that: U.S. foreign assistance cannot by law--by current law--be used to pay for abortion. It says so throughout the foreign aid law, and it is reiterated in this conference report that we are considering right now. Now, Mr. President, barring people from speaking about family planning, contraceptives, and abortion will not solve the problem, not to mention the fact that it is a blow for the concept of free speech that the United States worked so hard to promote throughout the world. Similarly, cutting off private groups which use funds from other sources for their abortion activities is only going to hurt the pursuit of U.S. Government interests. As in the 1980's when we saw some of these regressive policies applied, most effective organizations turned down U.S. funding since they could not and would not agree to these conditions. I commend them for their perseverance, but I think it was shameful that the United States did not contribute to programs designed to meet our own needs. These are the reasons that the House language on Mexico City policy and the gag rule have to be stripped from this conference report and why the Kassebaum language should be restored. As for these counterproductive restrictions on UNFPA, I again submit, as I and others did before the Foreign Affairs Committee, that this is an attack on family planning. It is not a serious attempt to stop abortion, nor is it a serious attempt to do anything about the disgusting practice of coercive abortion. Pulling out of the U.N. population fund is not going to stop coercive abortion in China, for the simple fact that UNFPA does not engage if any coercive abortion procedures in China now. UNFPA's mandate in every country, including China, is the provision of family planning services and maternal and child health care in 140 countries around the world. It has no mandate--it has no mandate--to engage in the provision of abortion or abortion-related services. Mr. President, in reality, it is programs supported by the UNFPA that make abortion less likely. If I believe that withdrawing from the UNFPA would reduce the incidence of coercive abortion in China, I would wholeheartedly support such a move. Human rights abuses such as this should be addressed at the United Nations and through diplomatic and economic levers such as the most- favored-nation status approach, which I have advocated and continue to advocate with regard to China. In fact, this is one of the reasons why I introduced legislation this year with the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms, to withdraw MFN from China. Mr. President, prohibiting United States contributions unless the UNFPA pulls out of China is going to do nothing to solve this problem. UNFPA officials have already expressed their firm opposition to the practice of coercive abortion despite what some Members on this floor have said in what amounts to misquoting the organization. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, Mr. President, a letter I received from the UNFPA on their perceptions on the China policy, which I hope will clear up the misunderstanding.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the 2000 page reconciliation measure that the Senate passed is deeply flawed. It is a massive work, and difficult to comment on in any serious, detailed way because making an assessment of the reconciliation bill really amounts [[Page S 16091]] to assessing the individual components of the measure, as well as the proposal as a whole. On both counts, this bill is troubling. Mr. President, last May, during consideration of the budget resolution, I shared my own perspective about the direction we should pursue to balance the budget. I argued that part of our effort should include changes to Medicare, and I identified areas where some savings could be realized. I also noted that some in the Majority party were undermining our ability to make these reforms by failing to play straight with the American people, implying that cuts to Medicare are needed solely to keep the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund solvent. That portrayal was, and is, entirely misleading, as, of course, it was meant to be. For though some changes are needed to keep the Hospital Insurance fund solvent, that trust fund is not the entire story. Savings in Medicare must also be found as part of the broader effort to reduce the deficit and balance the Federal budget. Mr. President, I made this point last May, and I make it again today because I fear that the political spin doctors who have chosen to depict Medicare cuts as being apart and separate from the rest of the budget are doing a great disservice to the cause of deficit reduction. In an effort to minimize the political fallout that is inevitable if Congress cuts Medicare, they may undermine any chance for a budget package that will achieve the consensus it must have if we are to make the politically tough decisions needed to balance the Federal budget. Mr. President, we need to be honest with the American people. The Hospital Insurance Trust Fund does need to be shored up, but that is not the only reason we need to find savings in Medicare. Nor is the impending insolvency of the trust fund something new. The Hospital Insurance Trust Fund has been within a few years of insolvency every year since 1970. Mr. President, Congress has been dealing with that problem off and on for 25 years now. I understand that it will take about $90 billion in savings over the next 7 years to extend the trust fund's solvency to 10 years, about one third of the total reduction proposed by the majority part. But the trust fund solvency is not the whole story, despite what some want the American people to believe. Medicare clearly has an impact on the budget, and part of the reason cuts are being proposed stems from our Federal budget deficit. And rightly so. Mr. President, Medicare is not Social Security. It should be on the table with other areas of Federal spending. Mr. President, I have sponsored legislation that includes Medicare changes. Medicare changes were part of the 82+ point plan to reduce the deficit I offered during my campaign for the U.S. Senate in 1992. More importantly, I have voted for legislation that contained significant, specific changes to Medicare twice during the 103d Congress. The reconciliation legislation we passed as part of the President's deficit reduction package included nearly $60 billion in Medicare cuts. I also voted for, and was proud to co-sponsor, the bipartisan Kerrey- Brown deficit reduction package which also included significant, specific Medicare cuts. And, Mr. President, I am willing to vote for Medicare cuts again. But not the $270 billion in cuts that are proposed in this measure. Mr. President, last May I laid out a number of specific areas in which I thought savings could be realized. I was pleased to see a number of those ideas included in the Medicare provisions of the reconciliation bills that have been made by the Senate Finance Committee. These included changes in the reimbursement of capital-related costs of inpatient services; repairing the flawed reimbursement formula that results in overpayments for some outpatient services; and, establishing a new prospective payment approach for home health care services. I was pleased as well to see that the Finance Committee proposal includes some improvement in the reimbursement formula for Medicare HMOs. The current formula rewards inefficient health care markets and punishes efficient health care markets and those areas, like many rural areas, that have inadequate service capacity. For Vernon County, WI, about an hour west of my home, the Medicare formula would reimburse an HMO about $211 per month per enrollee. That is just a little bit more than half of the national average of $400 per month. Mr. President, it should not surprise my colleagues to know that there are no Medicare HMOs in Vernon County. By contrast, in Miami, Medicare HMOs receive about $615 per month for every enrollee, nearly three times as much as in Vernon County. At triple the reimbursement of Vernon County, it is little wonder that HMOs in places like Miami are able to offer the wonderful additional benefits to which proponents of Medicare HMOs point when arguing for expanded use of managed care in Medicare, benefits like prescription drugs, eye glasses, and dental services. Though it remains to be seen whether or not the Finance Committee's changes to the formula will be sufficient, the blended formula approach appears to move in the right direction. I also want to commend the authors of the Senate proposal, and of the Ways and Means plan, for asking higher income Medicare beneficiaries to pay a larger share of the cost of their Medicare part B services. I proposed that very reform in 1992, as part of my 82+ point plan to reduce the deficit and balance the budget, and am glad to see it included in the two proposals. Mr. President, I endorse this change. It should be made in order to help reduce the deficit. But those who have sought to avoid criticism of this and other Medicare changes have used the pretense of the impending insolvency of the Medicare trust fund, and in doing so they have done no favors to the cause of deficit reduction. Far from it. By misrepresenting the facts to the American people, they have undermined and jeopardized the already politically difficult, but nevertheless necessary task, of reforming Medicare. Mr. President, the problems created by deliberately misleading people about the real need for Medicare reforms are compounded by a number of flawed, even harsh provisions. These include the across-the-board increase in part B premiums and deductibles. Unlike the means-tested premium increase on upper income beneficiaries, which I support, the across the board increases in premiums and deductibles hits lower income seniors and disabled. Mr. President, the median income of elderly households is less than half that of non-elderly households. And incomes for the oldest old are by far the lowest of any age group. Households headed by someone aged 75 or older had annual median incomes of less than $13,622 in 1992--$4,000 lower than the next lowest income group, those of households headed by people between age 15 and 24. And over one-fourth of the elderly households have incomes of less than $10,000 per year. Mr. President, while the elderly are disproportionately poor, they also spend far more on health care as a group than anyone else, and this should not surprise us. What may be surprising to some, however, is just how much our seniors do pay already even with Medicare. In 1995, the average older beneficiary will spend about $2,750 out-of-pocket for premiums, deductibles, copayments, and for services not covered by Medicare. I might add, Mr. President, that these costs do not include the potentially crushing costs of long-term care which can total nearly $40,000 in some areas for nursing home care. The across-the-board increases in premiums and deductibles will only add to these already high out-of-pocket costs. Mr. President, let me add that under the current protections in our Medicaid program for lower income Medicare beneficiaries, some of the impact on the poorest of our elderly would be softened, but the reconciliation measure eliminates the guarantee of help for those beneficiaries. [[Page S 16092]] Mr. President, rural seniors are among the most at risk under this legislation. Because rural areas depend on Medicare to support an already inadequate health care service capacity, the massive Medicare cuts hit rural seniors and providers especially hard. Making matters worse is the so-called Budget Expenditure Limit Tool, or ``BELT'' provision included in the bill which provides for automatic cuts in the traditional Medicare fee-for-service program if budget targets are not met. Despite the improvements made to the Medicare HMO reimbursement formula, rural beneficiaries will continue to rely much more heavily on the traditional Medicare fee-for-service program than their urban counterparts, placing them at special risk because of the BELT provision. Mr. President, as bad as the Medicare cuts are, the Medicaid cuts may be even worse. Again, reforms to the current Medicaid program are clearly needed, not only to improve services for those lower income families needing health care, but also to reduce the pressure on our budget deficit. But the $182 billion in cuts proposed in this bill are unacceptable, as is the loss of the current Federal protections that ensure safe nursing home care, guarantee help for the poorest Medicare beneficiaries, and provide the critical safety net of health care services to poor women, children, and the disabled of all ages. Though spousal impoverishment protections were retained in the provisions reported by the Finance Committee, I am extremely concerned about the prospects for spousal impoverishment when this measure goes to conference. Comments made by the Speaker indicate that spousal impoverishment protections are very much at risk. Mr. President, I am equally concerned about reports of a little known change in the law that permits States to bill the adult children of those elderly needing long-term care services. This smacks of a return to the days of bills of attainder and workhouses for the families of those unable pay their debts. Much has been said on other protections that have been eliminated and I will not repeat the arguments that have been made. But, Mr. President, it is apparent that those seeking to tame our Medicaid budget do not understand the underlying forces which contribute to the bulk of Medicaid growth, namely the rapidly increasing need for long-term care services. Though the elderly and disabled make up about one quarter of the Medicaid population, they account for 59 percent of the Medicaid budget, with the bulk of expenditures for them going to long-term care services. Pressure on the long-term care budget will only increase. Our Nation faces a rapidly growing population needing long-term care services, a population which is disproportionately poor. The answer, Mr. President, is not to turn Medicaid into a block grant program, imposing a unilateral cut, and shoving responsibility for those left without services onto the States. The answer is fundamental long-term care reform. Along with Senator Paul Simon, I introduced a comprehensive long-term care reform measure, S. 85, that would be an important first step in helping States deal with this growing problem. It is based on the bipartisan reforms we made in Wisconsin during the 1980's, where we established consumer-oriented and consumer-directed home and community-based services that allow those needing long-term care to remain in their own homes and communities. Those reforms helped bring Wisconsin's Medicaid budget under control, and saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Between 1980 and 1993, while Medicaid nursing home use increased by 47 percent nationally, in Wisconsin Medicaid nursing home use actually dropped 15 percent. This is the kind of national long-term care reform that is needed to tame the Medicaid budget, offered a version of that proposal as an amendment to this bill, but that amendment was defeated. Mr. President, other provisions of the reconciliation bill are significantly flawed. According to the Treasury Department, the bill's cuts to the Earned Income Tax Credit amount to nothing more or less than a tax increase on 17 million low-income, working Americans. In my own State of Wisconsin, some 206,000 families will experience a tax increase of $330 on average in 2002, according to Treasury figures. The assault on the Student Loan Program is also troubling. The new limitation on direct lending programs adds real injury to this insult, making it even more difficult for families to send their children to college. Mr. President, as disturbing as the provisions contained in the measure are those which are not such as the lack of effective change to the Federal Milk Marketing Order system. Mr. President, the provisions in this bill with respect to dairy policy could not be any worse for the Upper Midwest. The provisions reported by the Agriculture Committee dramatically reduce the support price for milk, cutting the dairy price support program more than any other commodity on a proportionate basis. The dairy program which accounted for less than two percent of commodity program spending in 1994, took 9% of the cuts made by the Agriculture Committee in this bill. Those cuts could have been acceptable, Mr. President, if the inequities and market distortions of the Federal Milk Marketing Order system that have discriminated against the Upper Midwest had been addressed by the Committee. Unfortunately, the Agriculture Committee abdicated their responsibility on Market Order reform and left the system intact, leaving in place a bill that pulled the rug out from under manufacturing prices for the Upper Midwest, and leaving in place the excessive subsidies for fluid milk in other regions of the country. Unfortunately, Mr. President, this bill did not stop there. Instead, during floor action, the Senate granted its approval to the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact which will allow six northeastern states to set artificially high prices for milk paid to their producers. Mr. President, to my knowledge, this is the first time that Congress has granted approval to a price-fixing Interstate Compact. The Compact erects walls around the Compact states, preventing lower cost milk produced outside the Compact region from entering those six states. It is protectionism in its worst form. This compact also provides a subsidy to Compact-state processors who are forced to pay this higher price for milk, in order to allow them to ship their products outside the compact and remain competitive. Those compact products, produced and exported with the subsidy, will then compete with products produced by processors and producers in other states that have not been granted this special privilege. The Compact, Mr. President, is inherently market distorting, regionally discriminatory, and overly regulatory. I think this body will regret providing its approval to this arrangement. Unfortunately, the Senate included another provision during floor debate that further worsens the inequities of the current system. The Senate approved a Class IV pricing scheme for inclusion in Federal Milk Marketing Orders which taxes all producers nationwide to support the overproduction of a couple of West Coast states. The Upper Midwest dairy producers and processors overwhelmingly oppose this provision because it adds just another layer of regulation to the already discriminatory milk marketing order system. It will reduce prices for all producers nationwide in order to pay for the surpluses produced on the west coast. Wisconsin producers, while being denied an opportunity to share in the benefits of the highest class of milk, Class I milk, will now be required to suffer the loss of the lowest priced class of milk, even though they are not responsible for its production. Mr. President, this bill represents the worst possible outcome for the Upper Midwest dairy industry, and in particular, for Wisconsin dairy farmers. In short, Mr. President, the Senate approved some very bad policy which appears inconsistent with the principles of many members of this chamber and which is completely out of step with [[Page S 16093]] the dairy marketing conditions of the 1990's. Another area in which this bill remains far too silent relates to the lack of discipline imposed on our U.S. tax code. I am particularly disappointed at the weak effort made to address the rapidly growing spending done through the tax code. Along with tax cuts and defense spending, these tax loopholes are sacred cows in this budget. At $400 billion and growing, these tax expenditures are among the most important areas of Federal spending, and they are hardly touched in the reconciliation bill before the body. Mr. President, many of the tax expenditures are certainly worthy, but others are hard to justify. Just like the inappropriate subsidies made through direct appropriations, many tax expenditures not only put pressure on the budget deficit, they also distort the market place, lowering overall economic efficiency of the Nation. But, despite the clear need for careful scrutiny in this area, made all the more timely by our common goal of reducing the deficit, tax expenditures are largely given a free pass. Mr. President, it is obvious to all that the massive cuts to Medicare and Medicaid--nearly a half trillion dollars over the next 7 years--are far more than are necessary to address our budget deficit, and in fact make it more difficult to enact a budget plan that will balance the Federal books. Nor can the health care system that provides care for the most vulnerable in our Nation be safely and prudently sustained with this kind of revenue loss. The question occurs--why are these harsh cuts being proposed to the health care programs for our most vulnerable? Mr. President, the inescapable conclusion is to fund a fiscally irresponsible quarter of a trillion dollar tax cut. Mr. President, this tax cut not only jeopardizes the fundamental missions of Medicare and Medicaid to provide health care for retirees, poor women, children, and the disabled of all ages, it also jeopardizes efforts to balance the Federal books. Mr. President, if there were no quarter of a trillion dollar tax cut, we could develop a bipartisan budget plan, including reductions in Medicare and Medicaid, that would balance the Federal books by 2002 or even sooner. Mr. President, if there were no quarter of a trillion dollar tax cut, Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, and others, would be far more receptive to calls for sacrifice, especially if they are told, honestly and straightforwardly, that those sacrifices are intended not just to bolster the Trust Fund, but to help get our Federal budget out of the red. More importantly, Mr. President, if there were no quarter of a trillion dollar tax cut, we could fashion a budget plan that would be politically sustainable for the time it takes to reach balance and eliminate the Federal budget deficit. I have no doubt that the deep flaws in the reconciliation measure before us jeopardize the very goal the supporters of that measure profess--a balanced Federal budget. Mr. President, I find similar fault, though to a much lesser degree, with the President's original budget as well as his later offering, both of which retain a fiscally reckless tax cut, though one which, admittedly, is much more modest than is being proposed by the Republican leadership. We cannot afford either the Democratic tax cut or the Republican tax cut, and we could go a long way toward reaching a politically sustainable budget agreement that would balance the Federal books by 2002, and even sooner, if both parties scrapped their tax cut proposals and instead focused on eliminating the deficit. Mr. President, contrary to the image portrayed by the spin doctors, it is the Senate that has produced the most significant reform in this Congress. Bipartisan efforts in the area of gift ban, lobbying reform, and the beginnings of campaign finance reform all have their roots here, in the United States Senate. I earnestly hope this body will eventually put together the kind of sustainable, bipartisan deficit reduction plan that will balance the Federal budget before 2002, and do so without harming the most vulnerable in society. The key is to eliminate the absolutely irresponsible quarter of a trillion dollar tax cut. If we can agree to do that, restrain the growth of tax loopholes, and put the Defense budget back on the budget table, we will have moved a long way toward establishing a responsible glidepath to a balanced Federal budget, and elimination of the Federal budget deficit.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment eliminates the special 22 percent percentage depletion allowance for certain mine substances-- asbestos, lead, mercury, and uranium. It would allow mining companies to deduct only the cost of their capital investments as other businesses have to do. The amendment would save $83 million over 5 years, and the bulk of this tax break goes to lead mining. I do not think that makes any sense to have this kind of subsidy when State and local and Federal health officials and environmental agencies are spending precious resources for lead abatement and testing. [[Page S 16031]]

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Wellstone and Senator Bumpers, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the 1990 farm bill contains a provision designed to prevent California cheese [[Page S 16014]] processors from receiving artificial milk manufacturing incentives which are significantly higher than those allowed in the rest of the country under the Federal milk product support program. The reconciliation bill repeals this provision resulting in a $20 million cost to the Federal taxpayer by the purchase of additional cheese surpluses from California. This amendment strikes that provision and leaves current law intact and saves $20 million.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I offer an amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Pressler, Senator Grams, Senator McCain, and Senator Kohl, which I send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment provides for flexible community and home-based, long-term care programs for individuals with disabilities of any age that have been Medicaid funded by striking provisions in the bill providing new tax expenditures for long-term care insurance and expanded IRA's. The amendment would save $2.3 billion over 7 years. It is based on a very successful program in Wisconsin that has saved us hundreds of millions of dollars by keeping people in the community rather than in nursing homes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by Senator Cochran to grant the consent of Congress to the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact and to create a class IV pricing system for milk used to make butter or powder. Both of these provisions would take dairy policy in the opposite direction in which congressional reformers are attempting to take all agricultural policy--this amendment provides more market intervention, more regulation, and more inequity. It is unfortunate that the major changes that this amendment makes and the enormous precedent that it sets will not be fully debated by this Chamber. I am certain that few Members of this Chamber will have an opportunity to actually learn and understand just what it is they are voting on. I am also certain that this amendment will be approved. This amendment balkanizes the U.S. dairy industry by insulating the Northeast dairy industry from the market conditions that all other farmers in this country must face. This amendment will provide congressional consent to an interstate compact, the like of which has never been approved by the Congress. It is, Mr. President, unprecedented. This compact will allow a Commission in the Northeast to set fluid milk prices artificially high for the six States in the compact. It allows dairy farmers in six States in the Northeast to enjoy higher prices for their milk, erects barriers to keep out lower cost milk from outside the compact walls, and will result in lower prices for producers in the rest of the United States. The compact would allow for an increase in the fluid milk differential up to $17.40 per hundred pounds of milk, or in terms of gallons--$1.50 per gallon. This is well over $3 greater than the price producers in the New England order enjoy currently for fluid milk. However, the compact we are being asked to approve also allows that price to be increased with inflation, as measured by the CPI, since 1990. By the year 2,000 the cap could be well over to $20 if inflation increases by 3 percent per year. With those kinds of price increases, we can expect producers in Vermont and elsewhere to increase their milk production in response to those higher prices. And, Mr. President, as far too many dairy farmers know, production increases in one region of the country drive down milk prices for producers throughout the Nation. One might ask why producers in the Northeast should be allowed to have their milk prices adjusted for inflation each year, when that privilege is given to no other commodity in any other region. One might ask why we should allow one region of the country to increase consumer costs when virtually every other effort in this Congress has attempted to eliminate the burden on consumers from overly regulatory agricultural policies. We must ask, why should the Congress grant its approval to the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact? The answer is that Congress should not provide its consent for an interstate price fixing compact. The supporters of this amendment have tried to present this as a very simple idea--that of a simple interstate compact designed to help the struggling producers of that region in isolation from national markets and having no effects on non-compact producers. But, Mr. President, producers in the upper Midwest have learned through painful lessons that regional changes in milk prices have national effects and national implications. The Northeast Dairy Compact is not a simple proposal. It is not an innocuous interstate compact isolated to the participating States and it will have national implications. Mr. President, it is time to remove the artificial fluid milk price differentials that discriminate against certain regions to the benefit of others, distort markets, and cost consumers millions of dollars in food costs annually--It is not time to enhance them. I would urge my colleagues to think seriously about whether or not this body wishes to endorse price-fixing compacts of any nature. The precedent that congressional approval of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact would set is very serious indeed--we will be allowing a small group of States to fix prices for a product produced and marketed nationally. The second half of this amendment establishes a class IV pricing system which benefits a few producers on the other coast of the United States--the west coast powder-producing States, to the detriment of producers elsewhere. This class IV pricing system is not necessary for the U.S. dairy industry to expand exports. I have 30,000 dairy farmers in Wisconsin that want to expand exports and are planning to do so, but Wisconsin dairy producers oppose class IV pricing. Why? Because it forces them to pay a tax to support producers on the west coast. In fact, producers throughout the country will likely pay a minimum of 15 cents per hundredweight to help producers on the west coast continue to overproduce milk powder which will no longer be supported by the Federal Government which is no longer demanded by the domestic market. I would urge my colleagues to look with a skeptical eye on projections that this amendment will greatly enhance producer revenues to compensate for powder tax that all producers will pay. If such projections were realistic, the thousands of milk producers in the upper Midwest--the heart of this Nation's dairy country--would be embracing this proposal, not opposing it. Mr. President, this amendment provides help to producers in eight States--the six Northeastern States that will benefit from the Compact, and two west coast States that will benefit from the class IV system. All other producers in between are the big losers. [[Page S 16002]] I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It creates more regulation, more market distortions, and discriminates against all but a few producers in the country. Mr. President, this is bad policy.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as President Clinton prepares for his meeting with President Soeharto of Indonesia tomorrow, we are hearing a lot about Indonesia's recent economic achievements, and its great potential for United States investment. I also salute Indonesia's economic success, and believe there are many valuable lessons in Indonesia's experience which can be applied to other developing countries throughout the world. But, Mr. President, today I rise to highlight ongoing concerns about Indonesia's continuously dismal record on human rights. Repression, occupation, and brutality, such as that practiced by Indonesia, are ingredients for instability, and undermine long-term, sustainable economic growth. In fact, I would submit that unfortunately, Indonesia's potential will go unrealized until its human rights record improves. Freedom of expression is under attack by the Indonesian Government. In the past year, gag orders have been placed on controversial figures, prominent journalists have been arrested and sentenced to prison, and seminars of nongovernmental organizations have been broken up. In addition, the country's only independent trade union, the Prosperous Workers Union of Indonesia, is virtually banned, and its members are routinely interrogated and harassed. The Indonesian military regularly intercedes in peaceful gatherings with impunity. Foreign business and professionals cannot function effectively in this kind of environment. In Irian Jaya, there are numerous credible reports of torture, disappearances, and the killing of 16 indigenous people by Indonesian forces in the last year. Indonesia's stability also depends upon the military withdrawal from the territory of East Timor. For that reason, it is in the interests of President Clinton, the international business community, and the donors to take an interest and aggressively pursue an effective human rights strategy for Indonesia. Last year, when Presidents Clinton and Soeharto met in Jakarta, President Clinton gave the issue of human rights attention. However, since then, there has been an escalation of tensions and violence in East Timor. For example, reports of arbitrary detentions and incidents of torture by Indonesian soldiers have been continuous all year. Forms of Indonesian torture are reported to include electric shocks by cattle prod; slashings with razor blades and knives; sleep deprivation; and hanging people upside down by their feet. On January 12 of this year, six civilians in Liquicia were reported summarily executed by the Indonesian military. Even the Government- appointed National Commission on Human Rights found that there was ``a process of intimidation and torture by security officials'' which resulted in ``unlawful shootings by the military.'' For this, two officers were punished not for murder, but for violating an order from a superior. There has also been an outbreak of gang violence in East Timor. Hooded vigilantes, described by residents and human rights monitors as military-related bands and commonly known as ``Ninjas,'' have been terrorizing, abducting, assaulting, intimidating, and harassing East Timorese civilians. Notably, the Ninjas have not been reigned in by the same military that has so effectively suppressed the East Timorese opposition. There must be an investigation into the operations of these groups, and why they are permitted to continue terrorizing the East Timorese. These recent incidents underscore the need to accelerate the United Nations sponsored dialog on East Timor with genuine East Timorese participation. The dialog should be the vehicle by which the numerous U.N. resolutions be implemented. The dialog should also be aimed at demilitarizing the territory, and working toward a just resolution that respects the rights of all parties to the conflict. While administration rhetoric has been supportive of the East Timorese, United States policy has not been forceful enough. For example, the administration has not applied much pressure to encourage the Indonesians to participate seriously in the U.N. talks. It has never devised a strategy, or requested a plan from the Indonesians, for troop withdrawal from East Timor. There have been few, if any suggestions, of what else the United States can do to leverage human rights reform beyond raising the issue. In fact, I often get the feeling that the administration is trying to placate the same Indonesian military that is guilty of so many horrendous abuses. For example, the administration has lobbied fervently to get the United States taxpayer to subsidize Indonesian military training, when Indonesia has been purchasing IMET courses out of its own pocket for the past four years. Now, the administration is trying to sell Indonesia F-16 aircraft, despite a ban on the sale of small arms which is explicitly linked to human rights violations. Furthermore, I am unclear as to what the administration has actually expressed to Indonesia as to what is our human rights policy regarding linkage to arms sales. Tiptoeing around the violence and occupation is not going to work. Rather, I believe that publicity and international condemnation would be more effective. As a tiger economy, Jakarta has much invested in its image. And its international image should reflect its potential and accomplishments. But it should also include Indonesia's brutality and disrespect for human rights. President Clinton has an opportunity here not only to communicate his sincere commitment to human rights, but also to implement a substantive plan of action which can improve the lot of the East Timorese, and also enhance Indonesia's long-term development prospects. President Soeharto, who knows well his own country's battle and victory against Dutch colonialism 50 years ago this year, should understand the principle of self-determination we are advocating for East Timor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this amendment is simple and straightforward. It eliminates the fiscally irresponsible and reckless tax cut that is the core of this fatally flawed reconciliation package. All the other provisions of the reconciliation bill, in my view, flow from this singular act of fiscal irresponsibility. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, student loans and the earned income tax credit, as well as the other provisions in this measure, all driven by the need to fund a quarter of a trillion dollar tax cut, are so out of proportion to any consensus the public would support that I think they doom any hope their supporters might have of really balancing the budget. Mr. President, just as we are beginning to climb out of the hole that was dug 14 years ago, somebody wants to shove us back in. Mr. President, we have made remarkable progress in lowering the Federal budget deficit during the 103d Congress. The President's deficit reduction package produced $600 billion in lower deficits and got us about half the way there--almost half the way there to a balanced budget, from over $300 billion to about $160 billion. In fact, Mr. President, but for the debts rung up during the 1980's, we would be in balance today. But we still do not have a balanced budget, and we cannot afford any tax cut--not the President, not the House, not the Senate tax cut. We need to balance the budget. That should be our first priority. Actually, Mr. President, this bill is really an alchemist's dream. Those who have crafted this measure have finally invented a machine that makes gold. The reconciliation bill really amounts to just that. It is a machine that makes gold. All you do is feed health care services for the most vulnerable among us in our Nation, and out comes gold. Of course, Mr. President, not everyone shares equally in that bounty. The gold from this machine largely benefits the best off in our Nation. The better off you are, the more you get. The less well off you are, the less you get. I am not going to dwell any further on the distribution issues relating to the tax cut. As I have noted many times on this floor, this issue comes to me as an issue of pure fiscal responsibility. Even if the benefits of tax cuts were more fairly distributed, I would oppose it. We cannot afford to cut taxes while we still face a Federal budget deficit of $160 billion. Nobody out there believes that makes fiscal sense. It is the opposite of sense. And you cannot spend $1 three times. You cannot say you are spending the dollar to save Medicare and then you are going to use the same dollar to eliminate the deficit and then you are going to use the dollar for tax cuts. You can only spend it once. This budget uses it not to save Medicare, not to reduce the deficit, but to fund tax cuts. For that reason, I regard this as the most important amendment in this process, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I thank the Chair. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Florida and I thank the Chair. If we do not make changes very quickly, I am very concerned that older people in our society are going to get the message from this budget that we have changed our attitude toward their contributions in building this society. What other impression are senior citizens supposed to get, when a huge percentage of balancing the budget is based on enormous, and I think in many cases unjustified, changes in Medicare, changes that will increase the premiums of seniors in this country well beyond what they would have been. Equally bad is something that is being discussed, as we sit here today, over in the Senate Aging Committee, namely the completely unjustified elimination of the Federal nursing home regulations from OBRA 1987. What fiscal or other justification is there for saying to older people who now must be in a nursing home after a hard life, a life of work and contribution to country and family, that we are not going to be sure on a national level that people are protected from unhealthy and unsafe conditions? Those of my colleagues who served in State legislatures, or served as Governors of their State, will certainly confirm that Medicaid makes up a huge portion of the State budget. And, Mr. President, if they have any passing knowledge of their State's Medicaid program, they will also confirm that the bulk of the Medicaid budget, and the source of the greatest growth in that budget, is probably the growing demand for long-term care services, typically nursing home care. This is certainly true for Wisconsin. But, Mr. President, in Wisconsin, back in the late 1970's, we came to the realization that unless significant reforms were enacted, the rapidly increasing nursing home use would be too heavy a load for the States' budget to sustain prudently. Through a bipartisan effort--and Mr. President, I stress bipartisan because Governors and legislators from both parties supported the effort--we made some significant reforms to our long-term care system. The centerpiece of that reform was the creation of a home and community-based program, called the Community Options Program, or COP. COP provides flexible, consumer-oriented and consumer-directed services that help keep the disabled of all ages in their own homes and communities. It builds upon the existing set of so-called informal supports--the caregiving done by family members and friends. Mr. President, the results have been dramatic. Between 1980 and 1993, while Medicaid nursing home use increased by 47 percent nationally, in Wisconsin Medicaid nursing home use actually dropped 15 percent. Mr. President, long-term care reform is the key to taming our Medicaid budget. But that is not the route pursued in this bill. Instead of a comprehensive reform that would help States cope with the growing population of those needing long-term care services, this bill cuts and runs. It cuts the Federal Government's share of this growing burden by $182 billion over the next 7 years. It runs away from the problem of a mushrooming population needing long-term care by block granting the program and dumping responsibility in the laps of State policymakers. Mr. President, this is a prescription for disaster. For 30 years, States have made policy decisions based on one set of rules. Based on those rules, over those 30 years an infrastructure of long- term care has evolved that is heavily skewed toward expensive, institutional care. That was not by accident. The system that developed in that time produced the incentives that resulted in this institutional bias. But, Mr. President, that infrastructure cannot change overnight. And it certainly will not change simply because the Federal Government slashes funding and runs away from the problem. Just the opposite is likely to happen. Today, Medicaid is essentially a provider entitlement. Providers of specific services are funded, and that infrastructure, which has been so influential at both the State and Federal level in writing the rules which produced the system we have today, is not going to disappear. That skewed infrastructure is well situated at the State level to win the fight for the pool of resources this bill greatly reduces. This bill is not reform; it merely makes a flawed situation even worse. The same problems that exist in Medicaid today will exist under this bill. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to commit, and let the Finance Committee craft a product that will let States wean themselves off of their addiction to expensive institutional services and instead move toward helping families keep their disabled loved ones at home, utilizing consumer-oriented and consumer-directed home and community based care. So I hope we support the Graham amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this week President Clinton will be meeting in New York with Chinese President Jiang Zemin. We can recall that about this time last year, in Indonesia, President Clinton also met with Jiang Zemin; going into that meeting the President declared: ``the United States, perhaps more than any other country in the world, consistently and regularly raises human rights issues.'' I expect that in the reports coming out of this latest meeting we will hear that President Clinton once again took issue with the Chinese leadership for the egregious abuse of human rights in China. I only wish, Mr. President, that a result of these exchanges would be an improvement in China's human rights record. Unfortunately, there has been little change in Chinese behavior in this regard. We can begin by reading the administration's own State Department Human Rights Report, which acknowledges that in 1994 ``widespread and well-documented'' human rights abuses continued unabated and that in many respects the situation ``has deteriorated.'' We can recall the highly publicized case of American human rights activist Harry Wu, imprisoned by the Chinese Government only months after the November 1994 Clinton-Jiang Zemin meeting. Wu, subsequently expelled by the Chinese Government, has worked for years to document and expose horrific practices such as the harvest of body parts from executed prisoners for use in transplants. If Wu--a citizen of the world's only remaining superpower and a country whose riches, technological expertise and markets are needed by the Chinese Government--could be treated with such impunity, how can it be for the Chinese human rights proponent who is laboring in relative anonymity? In the past year Human Rights Watch/Asia reports that several activists have disappeared, others sent into internal exile, and still others detained while their houses were ransacked for the simple crime of speaking out in favor of political openness. Furthermore, two prominent dissidents who were released just prior to the 1994 decision on MFN, Wei Jeisheing and Chen Zemin, are back in custody: at least, we assume Wei Jeisheing is in custody--he has been missing since April of this year. Mr. President, I believe that the lack of progress on human rights is attributed to the fact that U.S. actions have been inconsistent with the spoken principle. Rather than seek to impose a cost on China for its abuse, rewards are bestowed on the leadership. I refer, of course, of the renewal in June of most-favored-nation [MFN] status for China. The President's announcement continued what I believe to be an ill- considered abandonment of a policy linking MFN status--or other economic benefit--for China to an improvement of its human rights situation. The administration argued that U.S. business investment and overall improved economic ties would lead the Chinese in the right direction on human rights. In fact, the Chinese leadership appears to have taken the exact opposite lesson: that the United States puts corporate interests, market access, and profits before fundamental rights. Mr. President, we have in MFN a weapon that the Chinese fear. Whenever it appears that its status is in question, they cancel high- level official contacts. They threaten to limit the access of American corporations lusting after a potentially huge market. Why are the Chinese so visceral in their reaction? The $20 billion trade surplus China has with us, a surplus it uses to continue financing its economic development, might have something to do with it. It is clear that the Chinese care deeply about this trade relationship and the benefits it brings to their economy. We have leverage, and we should use it to oppose egregious human rights abuses, [[Page S 15584]] such as slave labor, torture, and disappearances of Chinese citizens. President Clinton did this effectively earlier this year when, in response to flagrant Chinese piracy violations against United States companies, President Clinton threatened to slap $1.1 billion worth of trade sanctions on China. Rather than face economic retaliation, the Chinese immediately promised to make statutory changes to address this problem. I am proud that the United States was willing to stand up for our software industry; it should do the same for human beings. This is one of the reasons I introduced legislation in July to revoke MFN status from China because of its human rights record. We have had strong bipartisan support for linking MFN and human rights in the past. Taking that action will get Chinese attention in a concrete manner, in a way that words have not and cannot, and I renew my call to have such a resolution passed and supported by the administration. Alternatively, I would welcome another strategy the administration could put forth for how human rights can be more effectively protected and promoted in China. Clearly, raising the issue has not been successful. This week's meeting is an opportunity to pursue this issue more aggressively, and I would urge the President to do so.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act. Like almost all of my colleagues, I believe that an undivided Jerusalem is the legitimate capital of the State of Israel, and that United States policy should clearly reflect that. Accordingly, the United States Embassy should be housed in Israel's capital, just like it is in every other country, and not in the country's economic center. Of course, the Jerusalem issue is practically unique in world politics. The ancient city is holy for Jews, Christians, and Moslems, and both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital. The Tomb of the Holy Sepulchre is sacred for Christians to honor Christ's death. Moslems claim the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa mosque as the site of Abraham's sacrifice. Jews pray at the Kotel, the Western Wall, the last remaining wall of the ancient synagogues, as well as the scores of other holy sites nestled in so many quarters. Named as the City of Peace, Jerusalem has unfortunately been split by war. Throughout history, Arabs and Jews and Christians have locked each other out, and have often accused each other of desanctifying religious monuments, and barring access to each other's holy places. Incidents have occurred where Moslems have felt offended by desecrations of their holy monuments and religious foundations. My own memory is seared by the defacing of meaningful and historic synagogues in the Old City's Jewish Quarter in 1947-67, when the city was not controlled by Israel. I remember with pain the laundry that hung on the Wailing Wall, a place of immensely spiritual and sacred value for Jews. I cannot forget the pictures of Jewish tombstones thrown around the Mount of Olives cemetery just at the foot of the walls of the Old City. Though the international community has tried to split Jerusalem under the political solution of corpus separatum, to my mind, the spirituality and emotion of the city make division impossible. Given the 3,000 years of the history of Jerusalem, it will always be the heart of the Jewish people and the capital of the Jewish state. Indeed, it is the capital of the sovereign nation of Israel--a sovereignty the United States has heavily invested in and fiercely supported for 45 years. If our support for Jewish sovereignty over the land of Israel is to mean anything, then the United States should recognize Israel's capital appropriately. Waiting years--if not decades--for the right moment to move the United States Embassy is not an appropriate recognition of Israel's sovereignty. As much as I hate to admit it, I do not think there will ever be a right time for a move with such emotional associations. And therefore, now is as right as ever. In exchange, Israel must guarantee universal access to other religions who seek to honor their holy places as well. I believe that, save some very unfortunate incidents, Israel for the most part has protected the right of access to Moslem and Christian holy places, and has a responsibility to continue to do so. I am very sensitive to concerns that such a move by the United States at this time would undermine the peace process. I understand the risk that perhaps the United States would compromise its important position as an honest broker in the peace process: To that, I respond that America's position is nonnegotiable since Israel's claim to Jerusalem is nonnegotiable. Already, there should be no doubt of what the United States position is; hiding our Embassy in Tel Aviv does not change that. I am also troubled by suggestions that such a move would predetermine the outcome of the final status talks between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, and tie the chairman's hands in other critical negotiations. I am not persuaded, however, that the move of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would have such a devastating effect. It is important to keep this proposal in perspective, and not underestimate the power of the commitment of the parties themselves to the peace process--wherever the U.S. Embassy is housed. Further, I believe that Prime Minister Rabin's own assertions that Israel will not cede Jerusalem are just as important to the process, and can guide United States actions on the issue. The stationing of the United States Embassy in Jerusalem has been a widely supported proposal. The Democratic Party has included it as a plank in our platform since 1967. Sweeping majorities in Congress have urged it for years. It has not been a partisan issue; it has not been a personal crusade for just a few Members of Congress. Indeed, it is when we have broad-based and bipartisan support such as this that coherent and successful policies emerge. Israel has always been a beneficiary of such unity. For that reason, I appreciate Senator Dole working [[Page S 15526]] with the administration to craft a bill that can have near-unanimous support, and to avoid the nonsense of division on an issue like Jerusalem. This year Jerusalem is celebrating its 3,000th anniversary. For it to remain the unclaimed capital of Israel is a shame. We should honor it, and the State of Israel, with the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Small Business Fair Treatment Act of 1995, a measure designed not only to afford regularly relief to our Nation's small businesses, but also to begin to change the attitude of Government regulators who are often viewed by small business as adversaries rather than as sources of help and guidance. Mr. President, the regulatory structure that has developed over the years performs important safety, health, and consumer protection functions. Just 2 years ago, a cryptosporidium outbreak in the city of Milwaukee's water supply left 104 people dead and over 400,000 people seriously ill. That was a tragic reminder of how just one small crack in the regulatory process can have devastating consequences for a community that until then had never experienced any such problems. The need for strong, effective regulations is undeniable. At the same time, few would dispute that the current regulatory system needs meaningful reform. Mr. President, I have held over 175 listening sessions in my home State of Wisconsin during the 2\1/2\ years that I have been a Member of this body. Countless times I have had constituents stand up at these meetings and express their tremendous frustration and anger with a regulatory process that too often is impractical, impersonal, and needlessly burdensome. This body debated a regulatory reform proposal earlier this summer that sought to respond to this widespread frustration and anger. But many of the proposals that were offered on the floor of the Senate during that regulatory relief debate earlier this summer focused more on changes in the actual rulemaking process and featured solutions that if not entirely Washington-based at least took a Washington perspective in addressing the issue. The central devices that evolved in that debate as the tools by which the regulatory process would be improved, such as judicial review and the petition process, were approaches to regulatory relief that reflected a large corporation, Washington lobbyist, Washington law firm based approach to solutions. Mr. President, there certainly is a role for our Nation's larger corporate citizens to play in the regulatory climate of this country, but those interests do not always represent the interests of all businesses, and the solutions to the regulatory problems of large businesses are not always appropriate or effective for smaller businesses. While a multinational corporation with substantial resources might find it reasonable to devote funds to an enhanced petition process, that kind of solution might mean little for a small, family owned business with a fraction of the resources of a large firm, and little working knowledge of the rulemaking process. As well, Mr. President, solutions proposed during the regulatory relief debate did little to focus on the day-to-day, practical problems of regulation with which small businesses must contend. By contrast, this legislation focuses on small business, and on the practical problems of dealing with Government agencies and regulations. It contains a number of provisions that make it easier for small businesses to comply with Government regulations, including several that are similar to some excellent ideas offered as part of legislation sponsored by the chair of the Senate Small Business Committee, Mr. Bond, as well as others that have been implemented at the direction of President Clinton. The bill requires agencies to publish compliance guides that provide a straightforward, plain language description of a rule or regulation with which a small business must comply. These guides would be required to be published and disseminated by the agency before any enforcement action was brought. Beyond the obvious help these guides could be for businesses affected by a Government regulation, requiring an agency to think out and describe a new regulation in a clear and understandable way will only enhance the ability of that agency to administer the regulation. The bill also requires agencies to establish procedures for the use of so-called no action letters. These are letters issued by an agency in response to a specific request of clarification from a small business trying to comply with that agency's regulations. The bill requires agencies to make a timely determination whether or not to issue such a no action letter, and if such a letter is issued, the bill establishes that the business could rely on it in an enforcement action related to matters laid out in the letter. In addition to providing specific direction to a small business in dealing with subjective interpretations of agency regulations, a no action letter also establishes a record to which other businesses can turn in seeking guidance on how a particular regulation should be interpreted. A body of no action letters also ensures consistency in the interpretation of regulations by an agency, something that can only further enhance compliance. Mr. President, the bill also allows small businesses to request an audit from a regulator without the fear that the findings of such an audit would be used in any enforcement action. The findings from such an audit would not be used in any enforcement action, if correction of any identified problem were made within 180 days, except if the basis of the enforcement action were a violation of criminal law, or if the voluntary audit was requested for the purpose of avoiding disclosure of information required for an investigative, administrative, or judicial proceeding that, at the time of the audit, was imminent or in progress. In listening to small businessmen and women in Wisconsin, one of the most troubling complaints that is raised with respect to Government regulation is the feeling that Government agencies too often take a confrontational or adversarial approach in dealing with the business. Whether or not this feeling is justified in every instance, in many instances, or in only a few, it is honestly felt and reveals a problem that needs fixing. When the relationship between those who oversee and enforce regulations and those who must observe them deteriorates in this manner, it only hinders compliance. By allowing businesses to request a review of their operations, without fear that the results would be used against them, we can begin to improve that relationship, and change the way business perceives regulators from adversaries to sources of help. Mr. President, another provision in the bill allows small business a 6-month grace period to correct violations of Environmental Protection Agency regulations after they have been identified, unless there is imminent risk to public health or worker safety. This proposal has already been implemented at the direction of President Clinton, and in my own State of Wisconsin, small businesses have informed me that this extra time has allowed them to work with EPA to develop a plan of action to deal with an identified problem. We should codify this directive, and this bill does just that. Another Presidential directive that we should codify is allowing regulators to waive up to 100 percent of the punitive fines on small businesses for first-time violations where the firm acts quickly and sincerely to correct the problem. While as a general rule, we should ensure that rules and regulations are enforced uniformly, it makes sense to provide regulators some flexibility in addressing the first-time regulatory infractions of a small business. Small businesses trying to comply with regulations should be allowed to devote scarce resources to correcting problems instead of paying fines. Here again the target of this measure is not only to provide regulatory relief to small business, it is to improve and enhance the relationship between small businesses and Government agencies. Though these last two provisions have been implemented by executive order, enacting them into law will give them permanence, and will prevent future Presidents from simply rescinding them through subsequent Executive order. An additional directive of the President's that merits the full force of Federal law is a prohibition against using personnel practices that reward agency employees, directly or indirectly, based on the number of contacts made with small entities in pursuit of enforcement actions, or on the amount of fines levied against small entities to enforce agency regulations. The section responds to comments made to my office by small business people who have reported that agency personnel have felt compelled to find something wrong, even if it is small, in order to justify their visit to the firm. This goes to the heart of what the role of a regular is. Personnel practices based on these kinds of performance incentives may quite naturally provoke adversarial relationships. Regulators need to remain independent from the entities they oversee, but unnecessary antagonism can actually hinder efforts to ensure compliance with the rules. Mr. President, I want to reiterate my sincere and spirited support for reforming the regulatory process that is currently in place. The current system is not acceptable; the need for reform is clear and imperative. And though the larger regulatory reform legislation has bogged down, I very much hope a compromise can be worked out and a meaningful reform package can be enacted into law. But, Mr. President, even if a compromise can be hammered out, it is likely that it will still reflect a process-oriented approach that may provide large corporate interests with avenues for relief, but does little to address the day-to-day problems facing small business. Nor does such legislation address the very real feeling of small businesses that Government regulators too often act as adversaries rather than to provide guidance in helping firms to comply with the law. Mr. President, the provisions of this bill are designed to help do just that. The provisions outlined in this measure both provide some practical regulatory relief and can improve the relationship between businesses and agencies. The process reforms of other regulatory reform measures merit our consideration, but I urge my colleagues not to allow that approach to dominate a debate which should rightly be focused on that portion of the business world that is most severely burdened by Government regulation--small business. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I, too, am about to speak about the situation in Bosnia and am glad to follow on the remarks of the majority leader and the Senator from West Virginia, both of whom have expressed a concern about the role of Congress as we go forward with this possible commitment of troops into the situation in Bosnia. This week, administration officials testified before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, the House International Relations Committee, and the House National Security Committee on the issue of the deployment of United States troops as a part of NATO's implementing force in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. While the testimony laid out some of the proposals the administration is contemplating, it opened up many, many questions for consideration, some of which the majority leader just listed. The most constructive forum, in my view, to debate those issues, though, is through the constitutional process embodied by the War Powers Act by which Congress is required to authorize the deployment of troops into imminent hostilities. For that reason, I am pleased that just today the President has indicated that he will seek congressional approval of the mission, as Senator Byrd just reported. I am not completely satisfied, however, that the President will request authorization prior to the time that he has actually made a commitment. I want to be sure that he does not sign a peace treaty with that commitment in it and then come back and say, ``By the way, I need your approval to go forward.'' If Congress is going to really be a partner in the process envisioned under the Constitution then we should either vote on an authorization prior to the commitment to deploy is made, or alternatively, the President should clearly state that any commitment he makes for U.S. troop deployment during negotiations is contingent upon congressional approval. One way or the other, the President has in effect rendered Congress' role meaningless. To ensure that this most necessary exchange takes place in the most constructive sequence, Mr. President, I am going to introduce a sense- of-the-Senate resolution today which would express our intention to vote on a resolution of approval prior to the commitment to introduce United States forces in Bosnia as a part of IFOR. My resolution does not approve or disapprove of the administration's proposal. Rather, it requires the Senate to debate and vote on it before we are presented with a commitment to deploy. What I am trying to avoid, Mr. President, is being presented with a fait accompli to authorize a deployment, and therefore undermine the important debate that we should have had. Mr. President, in many respects this is a bit of a rehash of the war powers debate, the debate about whether this body has the right and the responsibility to authorize the use of American troops. Indeed, the mere fact that this resolution is needed indicates the institutional crisis we face in this country about how we make the gravest of decisions--the decision about whether to send American men and women in harm's way overseas. This is a debate we face every time American troops are called to active duty. Unfortunately, it is not a question we have seriously sought to resolve. Instead, we seem to muddle through each crisis and try to work out sort of a case-by-case understanding between the Congress and the President, somehow hoping that the skeleton of war powers will stay hidden in the closet just until the current crisis goes away, as if there is not going to be another crisis in the future. Mr. President, the issue of war powers will not go away because its purpose really makes too much sense to ignore. While the War Powers Act has certainly failed as a mechanism for implementing article I of the Constitution, its intention should be heeded, and Bosnia is a perfect example of why. The Constitution and the War Powers Act were both crafted to take advantage of the collective wisdom and power of both the President and the Congress in making some of the most serious decisions we face. Our democracy does not vest in one person so much power that he or she alone can use military force to accomplish their own goals. Rather, our system splits such an awesome power by charging the President with commanding the Army, the Navy, and giving Congress both the power to declare war and the responsibility to appropriate funds for military action. Mr. President, Congress is not simply supposed to be consulted on such matters or just be a rubberstamp for such actions. Congress is supposed to be an active partner in this process. Mr. President, I think this is shared power worth protecting. While I have no doubt of President Clinton's motives in committing 20,000 troops to Bosnia, I want to ensure that some other future President does not have the unilateral authority to send 80,000 troops for some reason that she or he alone supports. We have to remember that how we proceed here can and will set a precedence on how troops are deployed for other peacekeeping or peace-enforcing missions. Mr. President, this process is also important for marshaling public support for any military operation--which, as any of our veterans will tell you, is a critical element for success for any mission. It is through the authorization process that the mission is explained and refined to the American people generally, and specifically for those folks that are asked to serve their country and risk their lives. The questions are answered, fears are alleviated, and the American people are given an opportunity to air their views on what the mission means and is worth to them. In this case, in this case of Bosnia, there are many, many, unanswered questions at this point, many good questions that the President will want to answer in building support for this mission. Mr. President, these are very, very crucial questions. They are fair questions. Their answers hold great consequences for this country, for NATO, for the Balkans, and perhaps for the world. Certainly, if we are going to do something as drastic as deploy U.S. troops, we have to create a process by which the Congress and the executive work together to forge a workable and attainable mission. Mr. President, my main point is that consultations are not going to be enough. Authorization that comes just after a commitment to the parties has already been made is not sufficient, either. Congress has to have this debate before the President is authorized to commit troops, and any commitment he makes prior to congressional approval, I believe, has to be explicitly conditioned upon subsequent congressional consent. This is the only way to ensure that article I of the Constitution is respected and that the awesome decision of placing U.S. troops into imminent hostility is one that is jointly made by the executive and the legislative branches. Our troops must have the confidence that, if they are going to be sent to Bosnia, they are doing it with the support of the American public through their elected Representatives. If they cannot get that, then perhaps we may actually say that their mission may not be worth the risk. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Small Business Fair Treatment Act of 1995, a measure designed not only to afford regularly relief to our Nation's small businesses, but also to begin to change the attitude of Government regulators who are often viewed by small business as adversaries rather than as sources of help and guidance. Mr. President, the regulatory structure that has developed over the years performs important safety, health, and consumer protection functions. Just 2 years ago, a cryptosporidium outbreak in the city of Milwaukee's water supply left 104 people dead and over 400,000 people seriously ill. That was a tragic reminder of how just one small crack in the regulatory process can have devastating consequences for a community that until then had never experienced any such problems. The need for strong, effective regulations is undeniable. At the same time, few would dispute that the current regulatory system needs meaningful reform. Mr. President, I have held over 175 listening sessions in my home State of Wisconsin during the 2\1/2\ years that I have been a Member of this body. Countless times I have had constituents stand up at these meetings and express their tremendous frustration and anger with a regulatory process that too often is impractical, impersonal, and needlessly burdensome. This body debated a regulatory reform proposal earlier this summer that sought to respond to this widespread frustration and anger. But many of the proposals that were offered on the floor of the Senate during that regulatory relief debate earlier this summer focused more on changes in the actual rulemaking process and featured solutions that if not entirely Washington-based at least took a Washington perspective in addressing the issue. The central devices that evolved in that debate as the tools by which the regulatory process would be improved, such as judicial review and the petition process, were approaches to regulatory relief that reflected a large corporation, Washington lobbyist, Washington law firm based approach to solutions. Mr. President, there certainly is a role for our Nation's larger corporate citizens to play in the regulatory climate of this country, but those interests do not always represent the interests of all businesses, and the solutions to the regulatory problems of large businesses are not always appropriate or effective for smaller businesses. While a multinational corporation with substantial resources might find it reasonable to devote funds to an enhanced petition process, that kind of solution might mean little for a small, family owned business with a fraction of the resources of a large firm, and little working knowledge of the rulemaking process. As well, Mr. President, solutions proposed during the regulatory relief debate did little to focus on the day-to-day, practical problems of regulation with which small businesses must contend. By contrast, this legislation focuses on small business, and on the practical problems of dealing with Government agencies and regulations. It contains a number of provisions that make it easier for small businesses to comply with Government regulations, including several that are similar to some excellent ideas offered as part of legislation sponsored by the chair of the Senate Small Business Committee, Mr. Bond, as well as others that have been implemented at the direction of President Clinton. The bill requires agencies to publish compliance guides that provide a straightforward, plain language description of a rule or regulation with which a small business must comply. These guides would be required to be published and disseminated by the agency before any enforcement action was brought. Beyond the obvious help these guides could be for businesses affected by a Government regulation, requiring an agency to think out and describe a new regulation in a clear and understandable way will only enhance the ability of that agency to administer the regulation. The bill also requires agencies to establish procedures for the use of so-called no action letters. These are letters issued by an agency in response to a specific request of clarification from a small business trying to comply with that agency's regulations. The bill requires agencies to make a timely determination whether or not to issue such a no action letter, and if such a letter is issued, the bill establishes that the business could rely on it in an enforcement action related to matters laid out in the letter. In addition to providing specific direction to a small business in dealing with subjective interpretations of agency regulations, a no action letter also establishes a record to which other businesses can turn in seeking guidance on how a particular regulation should be interpreted. A body of no action letters also ensures consistency in the interpretation of regulations by an agency, something that can only further enhance compliance. Mr. President, the bill also allows small businesses to request an audit from a regulator without the fear that the findings of such an audit would be used in any enforcement action. The findings from such an audit would not be used in any enforcement action, if correction of any identified problem were made within 180 days, except if the basis of the enforcement action were a violation of criminal law, or if the voluntary audit was requested for the purpose of avoiding disclosure of information required for an investigative, administrative, or judicial proceeding that, at the time of the audit, was imminent or in progress. In listening to small businessmen and women in Wisconsin, one of the most troubling complaints that is raised with respect to Government regulation is the feeling that Government agencies too often take a confrontational or adversarial approach in dealing with the business. Whether or not this feeling is justified in every instance, in many instances, or in only a few, it is honestly felt and reveals a problem that needs fixing. When the relationship between those who oversee and enforce regulations and those who must observe them deteriorates in this manner, it only hinders compliance. By allowing businesses to request a review of their operations, without fear that the results would be used against them, we can begin to improve that relationship, and change the way business perceives regulators from adversaries to sources of help. Mr. President, another provision in the bill allows small business a 6-month grace period to correct violations of Environmental Protection Agency regulations after they have been identified, unless there is imminent risk to public health or worker safety. This proposal has already been implemented at the direction of President Clinton, and in my own State of Wisconsin, small businesses have informed me that this extra time has allowed them to work with EPA to develop a plan of action to deal with an identified problem. We should codify this directive, and this bill does just that. Another Presidential directive that we should codify is allowing regulators to waive up to 100 percent of the punitive fines on small businesses for first-time violations where the firm acts quickly and sincerely to correct the problem. While as a general rule, we should ensure that rules and regulations are enforced uniformly, it makes sense to provide regulators some flexibility in addressing the first-time regulatory infractions of a small business. Small businesses trying to comply with regulations should be allowed to devote scarce resources to correcting problems instead of paying fines. Here again the target of this measure is not only to provide regulatory relief to small business, it is to improve and enhance the relationship between small businesses and Government agencies. Though these last two provisions have been implemented by executive order, enacting them into law will give them permanence, and will prevent future Presidents from simply rescinding them through subsequent Executive order. An additional directive of the President's that merits the full force of Federal law is a prohibition against using personnel practices that reward agency employees, directly or indirectly, based on the number of contacts made with small entities in pursuit of enforcement actions, or on the amount of fines levied against small entities to enforce agency regulations. The section responds to comments made to my office by small business people who have reported that agency personnel have felt compelled to find something wrong, even if it is small, in order to justify their visit to the firm. This goes to the heart of what the role of a regular is. Personnel practices based on these kinds of performance incentives may quite naturally provoke adversarial relationships. Regulators need to remain independent from the entities they oversee, but unnecessary antagonism can actually hinder efforts to ensure compliance with the rules. Mr. President, I want to reiterate my sincere and spirited support for reforming the regulatory process that is currently in place. The current system is not acceptable; the need for reform is clear and imperative. And though the larger regulatory reform legislation has bogged down, I very much hope a compromise can be worked out and a meaningful reform package can be enacted into law. But, Mr. President, even if a compromise can be hammered out, it is likely that it will still reflect a process-oriented approach that may provide large corporate interests with avenues for relief, but does little to address the day-to-day problems facing small business. Nor does such legislation address the very real feeling of small businesses that Government regulators too often act as adversaries rather than to provide guidance in helping firms to comply with the law. Mr. President, the provisions of this bill are designed to help do just that. The provisions outlined in this measure both provide some practical regulatory relief and can improve the relationship between businesses and agencies. The process reforms of other regulatory reform measures merit our consideration, but I urge my colleagues not to allow that approach to dominate a debate which should rightly be focused on that portion of the business world that is most severely burdened by Government regulation--small business. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on July 31 of this year, in an extraordinary gathering on a 200-acre dairy farm in Greenleaf, WI, 300 farmers, rural business people, and others in the agricultural sector came together to convey to Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman the importance of reforming an archaic agricultural program, known as the Federal Milk Marketing Order System. This program, created in the late 1930's has discriminated against the Wisconsin dairy industry for years Those who attended this forum represent different segments of our dairy industry which have divergent political views and affiliations, but they all [[Page S 15362]] agreed on one fundamental issue--Federal orders must be reformed. For an industry that is made up of individuals whose only shared characteristic is their independence and staunchly self-reliant nature, this type of unanimity is rare. They wanted their message to be heard by one of the few people with the power to make Federal milk marketing orders both consistent with milk markets of the 1990's as well as equitable to all those affected by them. The current program for regulating the pricing and sale of milk provides higher prices for fluid milk to producers distant from the Upper Midwest. While that scheme might have made sense when Wisconsin was the primary dairy producing State in the United States, but in 1995, it defies logic. This system not only creates an artificial incentive for greater milk production, but has led to increased production of manufactured dairy products driving down prices throughout the Nation and increasing Government surpluses. Federal milk marketing orders are a perfect example of excessive Government regulation creating a system which is completely out of sync with current marketing conditions and which discriminates against Wisconsin and Upper Midwest dairy producers. Mr. President, Secretary Dan Glickman listened for over an hour to farmers frustrated not only by the existence of this system, but also by its institutional resilience. I commend him for that. It is the first time in a long time that Wisconsin dairy farmers have felt that a Secretary of Agriculture actually cared about what they had to say. Dan Glickman came not to talk to lobbyists, not to talk to politicians and not to talk to Government officials, but to listen to those whose livelihood depends, in part, on the decisions he makes. This was a unique forum in that average farmers spoke directly to the Secretary. It linked 54 of Wisconsin's 72 counties to the meeting via satellite. While the time did not allow all those who attended to speak, those producers who did represented the diversity of my home State's agricultural sector--dairy, soybeans, corn, wheat, alfalfa, and specialty products such as mink. Each, in turn, talked about what is good and what is bad about our current Federal policies. Primarily, though, they talked about dairy policy. At the outset of our meeting, the Secretary conceded that discrimination exists within the Federal order program benefiting some regions more than others. In response, he pledged his support to try to change the existing number and administration of current milk marketing orders. He further pledged his support to try to consolidate those orders, make periodic adjustments in price differentials, and to potentially create multiple price-setting base points. While I am not entirely pleased with the Secretary's choice to attempt these changes through the administrative process, I am pleased with his admission that the system is broken. Mr. President, as the Congress moves toward final action on the budget reconciliation and moves toward the 1995 farm bill, I think it is important that the Secretary heard the message of Wisconsin farmers. I hope that my colleagues will hear that message as well. Action on these items, the Secretary conceded, will be a challenge in that other regions will fight to maintain their current artificial advantages. Despite the deregulatory rhetoric of many in the 104th Congress, the Secretary's prediction is proving to be true based on recent action by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. The legislation reported by the Agriculture Committee fails to address needed reform of this system, despite the tremendous budget savings and consumer benefits that could result from such action. That is a disappointment, Mr. President. Instead, Mr. President, the committee chose to take the easy road by cutting support prices, instead of making the difficult choices associated with milk marketing order reform. And indeed, as the Secretary pointed out at Greenleaf, these are very difficult decisions. They are so difficult that the House of Representatives, unable to reach agreement on reform, is moving on a path toward total deregulation of the dairy industry, including the elimination of Federal milk marketing orders. Mr. President, total deregulation of the dairy industry, is not my first choice. I would rather work with my colleagues to achieve reasonable and responsible reform of Federal orders. However, for the last 3 years, many dairy farmers in Wisconsin have been telling me that if they cannot get reform, if other regions of the country will not compromise, deregulation would be a farsight better than the raw deal they are getting now. Mr. President, I want to work with my colleagues during the budget reconciliation process and the farm bill deliberations to reach agreement on Federal orders. However, if others are unwilling to move toward a level playing field, dairy farmers in their States may end up with nothing at all. Mr. President, in Greenleaf, WI, the Secretary of Agriculture heard loud and clear that Upper Midwest dairy farmers are fed up with the current program that regulates milk markets. I urge my deregulation- minded colleagues to listen to what the Upper Midwest is saying on this issue as well. It is time to do the right thing--reform Federal milk marketing orders or end them. I want to publicly thank the many people who took part of the day to travel to this small community to make their voices heard to Secretary Glickman. I ask to include the names of the participants at the conclusion of my remarks. I hope the seriousness of the situation experienced by these farmers and their families will be taken into account as these issues are debated in the days and weeks ahead. Participants in the Forum With Secretary Glickman at Greenleaf, WI, July 31, 1995 Mark Mayer, Frank Dillon, Rodney R. Littlefield, Randy Knapp, Kathi Millard, Stephen I. Rishette, Marc A. Schultz, Tim Rehbein, Tom Kruezer, Mary Behm, Sue Beitlich, Betty Plummer, Kevin Larson, Rod Webb, Randy Anderson, Judy Derricks, Kelly Olson, Julie Dokkestul, Bob Oropp, Dwight Swenson, Nolan Anderson, Lee Gross, Roger Johnson. Kevin Connors, Bob Bjorklund, Gordon Rankin, Dave Williams, Tom Syverod, John Markus, Ralph Rounsville, Alvin Erickson, M. Kopecky, Laura Wind-Norton, Dan Butterbrodt, Russ Dufek, Ken Horton, Randy Cochart, Clifford Duffeck, Mahlon Peterson, Bob Bosold, Sandy Webb, William Dacholm, Joel McNair, Paul Rodriguez. Dolores Rodriguez, Craig W. VerKuilun, Tom Cochren, Deborah Van Dyk, Linda Leger, Marty Mackers, Shawn W. Pfaff, Arnold Grudey, Duane Tetzloff, Paul Gruber, Tom Badth, Leonard and Betty Wajciehowski, Myron McKinley, Dennis Donohue, Elmer R. Kitzeron, Gerald Van Asten, Orvell A. Debruin, John J. Peters, Connie Seefeldt, Dick Vaitihauer. Ken Jenks, James Kalkofin, Jim Harris, Rep. Bill VanderLoop, Robert Fryda, Katy Duwe-Fryda, Ray Diederich, Gerlinda Dueholm, Jeremy Herrscher, Len Maurer, Roger Wyse, Stewart Huber, Dick Hauser, Renea Heinrich, Pete Kappelman, Don Norton, Bill Pamperin, Dave Mennig, Jerry Lehman, Brad Brunner, Grant E. Staszak, Reuel Robertson, Jerome Blaska. Gregory Blaska, Norma Norton, John T. Vinhoefer, Allen Schuh, Steve Pamperin, Jerome Pamperin, Nelda J. Harris, Duane Patz, Tes VanDyke, Fred Huger, Dan Krebsbach, Steve Kellerman, Rudy and Margaret Klug, Ron Hillman, Jim Jolly, John Rouch, Kevin Erb, Jim and Lorraine Shellcox, Paul Krause, Greg Hines, Robert Zimban, Michael Mengar. Gerald H. Vander Heiden, Gary Anderson, Jon Bechle, Bill Penterman, Tom Davies, Robert Karls, Gary Terlinden, Vicki Wiese, Jim Hunt, James E. Burns, Audrey Sukinger, Tom Walsh, Earl Walsh, Pat Leavenworth, Rama Stoviak, Ron Jones, Dan Natzke, Melvin Blarke, Irv Possin, Mike Rankin, Jay Rudolph, and Harold Epp.