Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this should not be done, even in the name of the Contract With America, which I do not support, but I have supported some provisions of this. This really defaces the notion of devolution to the States. Some things still have to be done by the Federal Government and one thing for sure is combating discrimination in this country. Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. How much time remains?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I require. I thank the junior Senator from Illinois not only for her statement, but for her great leadership on this issue. I share her view. I will be stunned if this body, that has risen to the occasion on many instances, actually goes forward and takes this extremely serious and harsh act with regard to the civil rights laws of our country. There was a suggestion at the beginning by the Senator from Missouri that somehow there would still be an ability for HUD to do something about this problem if we do not reverse this. But what the language says in the current committee amendment is: None of the funds provided in this act will be used during fiscal year 1996 to sign, promulgate, implement, or enforce any requirement or regulation relating to the application of the Fair Housing Act to the business of property insurance. That is pretty clear. Maybe they can think about the issue during their coffee break, but they are not going to be able to do a darned thing about it. Do not let anyone kid you, this completely guts HUD's ability to do something about property insurance discrimination. Then there was an attempt, I know in good faith, to suggest that somehow the McCarran-Ferguson Act prevents the Federal Government from taking this step. Let us look at the plain language of the Fair Housing Act. The Fair Housing Act, which is also a law of our country just as much as the McCarran-Ferguson Act, says it is unlawful ``* * * to make unavailable or deny housing because of race, and prohibits discrimination in the provision of services [in the provision of services] in connection with the sale of a dwelling.'' Any American will tell you that homeowners insurance is the provision of services in connection with the sale of a dwelling. It is clearly within the ambit of that statute and it has been litigated. It has been litigated in the legal circuit that both the Senator from Illinois and I live in, the seventh circuit. They took up the question of whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act prevented the application of the Fair Housing Act to property insurance and they ruled that in fact it was perfectly consistent with and within the provisions of that law. So this, too, is a red herring. It is a red herring that attempts to obfuscate the fact that this is a direct assault on years and years of trying to do something at the national level about a widespread national effort by some elements in the insurance industry to prevent honest, hard-working Americans from owning a home. I have come out to the floor since the November 8 election and I have voted to send some powers back to the States. I agree with that sentiment in many areas. I voted for the unfunded mandate bill. With some concern, I voted for the Senate version of the welfare bill. I voted to let the States decide what the speed limit should be. I voted to let the States decide whether we should have helmet laws. I voted to let the States decide what the drinking age should be. I even voted to let them decide whether or not to have seatbelt laws. But this goes too far. This is ridiculous, to suggest you simply leave a consistent national pattern of discrimination up to the States. I recently received a letter from James Hall of Milwaukee. Mr. Hall was one of the lead attorneys in the Milwaukee redlining case that went to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In this letter, Mr. Hall laid out the reasons why the plaintiffs in this case chose the Federal route rather than relying on the Wisconsin State laws and courts. [[Page S 14363]] I ask unanimous request that the text of the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I find it remarkable that the trade publication of the very industry in question has observed this is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to stop HUD from combating legitimate and real redlining abuses and discriminatory practices. I am not out here on the floor today to throw a blanket indictment on the insurance industry. I know many individuals in my home State who work in the industry, and it is my firm belief the vast majority of those people are decent, hard-working Americans who would join with me and the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Illinois and others in condemning this sort of bigotry and discrimination. Unfortunately, it is evidence that these sort of abuses do occur. And the Federal Government has to do all it can do to enforce the Fair Housing Act as is required under current law. I hope my colleagues will set aside their partisan and political differences and adhere to a set of principles that I think we really could all agree on. That not only includes the principle that every American should be free from discrimination wherever it may occur, but also a commitment and dedication to protecting and enforcing the civil rights in this country and continuing to battle the various forms of bigotry and discrimination that continue to pervade this Nation. So, I urge my colleagues to reject the committee language which would quite simply block HUD's effort to fight insurance redlining, and I ask support for the amendment. Exhibit 1 [From the National Underwriter, Aug. 21, 1995] Insurer Attack on HUD Could Backfire As bald expressions of lobbying muscle go, the insurance industry's recent success in cutting off the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's insurance purse strings in the House was certainly impressive. But in the real world--that is, the world outside the D.C. Beltway--the industry's legislative coup may not play as well. A broad coalition of insurers and their associations--led by the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, the National Association of Independent Insurers, State Farm and Allstate--pushed for language in this year's House version of the HUD appropriations bill which precludes the agency from using its funding for any insurance-related matter. That would effectively end HUD's much-feared initiative to set and enforce anti-redlining standards for property insurers. Whatever their antipathies to having HUD stick its nose in their business, we think this coalition made a major miscalculation. With recent court decisions running against them and a high level of public concern over insurers writing off rather than underwriting inner cities, insurers have simply tried to legislate away the heat without addressing the underlying problems which prompted HUD to act in the first place. But the heat will not dissipate so easily, as National Fair Housing Alliance Executive Director Shanna Smith made clear. There are still the courts to consider--and in case the insurance industry has forgotten, if there is one thing consumer groups are good at, it is grassroots organizing of a particularly loud and visible sort that attracts the press and gives CEOs and public relations officials ulcers, not to mention shareholders. The insurance industry--which isn't exactly held up by the public as an example of enlightened corporate interest to begin with--can almost certainly count on organized, deep and sustained consumer outrage if it pushes through the ban on funding for HUD insurance oversight. All this for what? A one-year reprieve? (As part of an annual budget bill, the insurance funding ban is only for fiscal year 1996, and would need to be renewed annually.) However receptive the Republican-controlled Congress is to business rewrites of legislation, and however large public antipathy to poverty and affirmative-action programs seems, we feel the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in the fundamental principle that all U.S. citizens deserve equal access to the same goods and services, including those offered by insurers. HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros called the insurance funding ban ``an affront to civil rights.'' And the National Association of Insurance Commissioners has unequivocally stated that urban poor and minority consumers do not have the same access to insurance products as their wealthier, suburban and white counterparts. NAMIC's vice president of federal affairs, Pamela Allen, says insurers don't seek to avoid redlining issues or civil rights laws, but simply want to avoid dual regulation. Perhaps this argument has some merit, but while the industry may not be looking to avoid redlining or civil- rights oversight, insurers certainly appear to be using a legislative end-run to keep HUD from trying to rectify legitimate insurance redlining and civil-rights wrongs. Fiscally constrained state insurance regulators, with less restrictive unfair trade practices laws, do not have HUD's ability to conduct major probes and extract national settlements from large multi-state carriers. NFHA's Ms. Smith told the National Underwriter: ``I wish the presidents of the [insurance] companies would meet with us. They are sending subordinates in and they are not getting a clear picture of the seriousness of the charges against them.'' If this is true, then we think insurers are jeopardizing their reputations by trying to make HUD go away. Instead of stiff-arming consumer and community-housing groups working with HUD in the process, insurers should act in good faith to seek out and repair any problems which might exist. We know it is unlikely the industry will back off on this issue as it goes to the Senate. But suffice it to say when the next in the never-ending series of industry op-ed pieces on improving insurers' poor public image appear on these pages, we think we will be able to point out one example of what not to do.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield myself such time as necessary. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today will strike the provision buried in the VA-HUD appropriations bill that I believe would likely have serious consequences for the protection and enforcement of the civil rights laws in our country. The committee bill, unfortunately, includes a provision that would prevent HUD from spending any of its appropriated funds to ``sign, implement, or enforce any requirement or regulation relating to the application of the Fair Housing Act to the business of property insurance.'' Believe it or not, this provision would banish HUD from investigating any complaints of property insurance discrimination, or ``insurance redlining'' as it is more commonly known. The term ``redlining'' actually evolved from the practice of particular individuals in the banking industry using maps with red lines drawn around certain neighborhoods. These individuals would then instruct their loan officers to avoid offering their financial services to residents of these redlined neighborhoods. These redlined neighborhoods typically were low income [[Page S 14356]] and minority communities, and it resulted in the unavailability of the financial services that were necessary to purchase a home or a business or an automobile. But even as Congress identified and moved to curb these discriminatory practices in the banking industry, a disturbing and growing level of discrimination was emerging from the insurance industry that would continue to deny certain individuals the basic opportunity to own their own home or to start a small business. Property insurance, as we all know, is almost an absolute requirement to obtaining a home loan. And this was best illustrated by Judge Frank Easterbrook of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in that court's ruling that redlining practices are illegal and a violation of the Fair Housing Act. The judge was speaking for a unanimous court when he observed: Lenders require their borrowers to secure property insurance. No insurance, no loan; no loan, no house; lack of insurance thus makes housing unavailable. Mr. President, the key question, of course, is does redlining actually exist as a practice? Countless new reports and studies indicate that there is a prevalent and growing level of discriminatory underwriting in the insurance industry. Studies such as the 1979 report of the Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin advisory committees to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the recent study on home insurance in 14 cities released by the community advocacy group ACORN have pointed out that insurance redlining practices are, in fact, widespread in America. These reports highlight the fallacies of the contention that lack of adequate insurance in many of these communities is due to economics, or that it is simply due to statistically based risk assessment. In addition, there is, unfortunately, some substantial anecdotal evidence that suggests individuals residing in minority and low-income communities are systematically denied affordable or adequate homeowners insurance. The ramifications of reducing access to affordable and adequate homeowners insurance have proven severe for urban areas with large minority communities. Without property insurance, an individual cannot obtain a home loan. Without a home loan, an individual cannot obtain a home. Thus, refusing to provide property insurance to an individual because he or she lives in a predominantly minority community has to be a clear violation of the civil rights protections of the Fair Housing Act. My own interest in this matter is longstanding, but it especially grew out of a widely reported redlining abuse in the city of Milwaukee, WI, where it was well documented that insurance redlining was occurring on a widespread basis. I was outraged that this sordid, documented discrimination was occurring, not only in my own home State, but apparently in many other States as well, including Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio. Mr. President, it is important not to forget who these redlining victims really are. They are hard-working Americans. They have played by the rules. And they are just trying to buy a home. They are trying to bring a sense of stability and vitality to their families and to their communities, many times communities that desperately need that kind of stability and vitality. Unfortunately, as happened in Milwaukee, they often run into a brick wall of ignorance and injustice. The pattern of discrimination in Milwaukee led seven of our Milwaukee residents to join with the NAACP to file suit against the American Family Insurance Co. An unprecedented and historic out-of-court settlement was reached in this case between the parties where the insurance company actually agreed, rather than go forward with the litigation, to spend $14.5 million compensating these and other Milwaukee homeowners who had been discriminated against, as well as some of the funds for special housing programs in the city of Milwaukee. Mr. President, for those of my colleagues who might think such discrimination in the insurance market is limited to Milwaukee, WI, I assure you this is not the case. There is ample reason to believe that insurance redlining does occur. It occurs all across this country. And we should be taking steps to enhance the Government's ability to combat this form of discrimination. Mr. President, that is just the opposite of what is happening here. We are not taking the steps forward that need to be made. The language in this bill would actually take us about five steps backward. The provisions of this bill are a direct attempt to stop the Federal Government from investigating complaints of discrimination under the Fair Housing Act. That is what it is. Mr. President, I have to say that I am very disturbed by this behind- closed-doors attempt to undermine the civil rights laws of this country. There have been no hearings on this proposal by either the Banking Committee or the Judiciary Committee. Mr. President, I would like to know where the mandate for this change to our fair housing laws came from. I would like to know where the supporters of this radical language feel that the American people are somehow overprotected from racial and ethnic discrimination. Was this part of the Contract With America, to roll back the civil rights protections of this Nation? I did not see it in there. I am very troubled that this would even be attempted. The supporters of this new language claim that the Fair Housing Act does not say one word about property insurance. It is true that the original act does not say that. But as a result of the Fair Housing Act amendments of 1988, Mr. President, which were signed by President Reagan, HUD promulgated regulations that specifically placed property insurance under the umbrella of the Fair Housing Act. These regulations were then promulgated by the Bush administration. Let me repeat that. For those who might think HUD's involvement in combating property insurance discrimination is simply an initiative of the Clinton administration, that is categorically wrong. The regulations were as a result of a law that passed Congress with strong bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. And then the regulations were promulgated under the administration of President George Bush. So let us set aside the faulty assertion that HUD's role in enforcing the Fair Housing Act as it applies to property insurance is somehow just a new effort to expand the Federal Government's regulatory powers over a particular industry. Mr. President, the supporters of this new language also say that regulating the insurance industry should be the sole domain of the States as mandated under the McCarran-Ferguson Act. Mr. President, this, also, is a diversionary tactic. This is not an issue of regulating the insurance industry. The States are the regulators of the insurance industry. What this is, Mr. President, is an argument about whether the Federal Government has the ability to enforce the civil rights of those who have been discriminated against when they are attempting to purchase a home. That is what this is about--not taking away the powers of the States to regulate insurance. And this argument also fails to recognize that virtually every Federal court that has ruled on this issue, including the sixth circuit and the seventh circuit, have held that the Fair Housing Act applies to property insurance and that HUD was legally authorized to enforce the FHA as it relates to homeowners insurance. Mr. President, I would like to begin to conclude these remarks by reading from an editorial in opposition to this ill-advised language, and that led to the attempt to strike the language. Mr. President, this is not an article from The Washington Post or the New York Times. It is from the National Underwriter, which is the trade publication of the insurance industry. Let us see what they say about this attempt to gut the enforcement by HUD. The editorial said: However receptive the Republican-controlled Congress is to business rewrites of legislation, and however large public antipathy to poverty and affirmative action programs seems, we feel the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in the fundamental principle that all U.S. citizens deserve equal access to the same goods and services, including those offered by insurers. . . ..while the industry may not be looking to avoid redlining or civil-rights oversight, insurers certainly appear to be using a legislative end-run to keep HUD from trying to [[Page S 14357]] rectify legitimate insurance redlining and civil-rights wrongs. That is what the insurance industry has even said about some of their counterparts' effort to block this. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of that editorial be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I understand there is a 30-minute time allotment on our side; is that correct?

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senators Moseley-Braun, Mikulski, Simon, Kennedy, Bradley, and Wellstone.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending committee amendment be temporarily set aside and it be in order to take up the committee amendment beginning on page 51, line 3.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again be an original co-sponsor of this effort to terminate funding for the space station, and I commend the senior Senator from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, for his continuing efforts in this area. Every year, Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas comes to the floor with amendment after amendment to cut Federal spending and to help us with our uphill efforts to balance the Federal budget. We need to closely scrutinize every program in the Federal budget, and quite simply, ask ourselves if, given our current financial constraints and given the immense sacrifices we have been asking Medicare recipients, college students, veterans, and many others to make, can we afford to continue this particular spending program? This is the third consecutive year I have joined with the Senator from Arkansas, the Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, and others in this bipartisan effort to delete funding for the space station. Each year, the Senator from Arkansas has presented a number of strong arguments in support of terminating the space station. He has presented information about NASA's notorious cost-overruns. We have learned that a large part of the scientific community, including the American Physical Society and the American Cancer Society--two groups that have been alleged to potentially benefit from this space endeavor--actually oppose continued funding of this space station. We have learned about a recent General Accounting Office report that found that the total amount of funding that will be required to build this space station is $78 billion. And of course, that is $78 billion that we are going to have to borrow and pay interest on for many years to come. The construction of the space station is opposed by many of the leading groups supporting deficit reduction and a balanced budget, including the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, as well as Friends of the Earth. Yet the Congress continues to write a $2 billion check to NASA every year to continue the construction of a space station. Mr. President, I have said before that I do not support shutting down our space program. Clearly, many of our space programs have proven to justify their costs. And it is my hope that when our fiscal house is in order that we can continue and enhance our space exploration initiatives. But it is also clear that we cannot and will not become a financially responsible nation until every Federal program is put on the table, closely scrutinized, and determined to be either justified or not justified given our current fiscal constraints. Mr. President, the space station must be put on the table and we must have the political will and fiscal discipline to once and for all discontinue funding for this costly program. Once again, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, and I yield the floor. Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I regard this is as a commitment from the administration that current policy will remain in place, whether we legislate it or not. I expect the administration to continue to consult with Congress on Indonesia. I am particularly concerned that we agree upon what ``significant progress'' means. Our legislation has included six conditions, including significant troop withdrawals from East Timor and Indonesian participation in the U.N. Secretary General's peace talks. Indonesia must understand that there is an international price to pay for their continuing occupation. Since last July, when Congress passed this amendment, there have been several developments in East Timor--most of them quite discouraging, some quite violent, and some hopeful. The tension in East Timor has been intensifying for the past year-- influenced in part by the ongoing power struggles in Jakarta, the increased resentment of the presence of Indonesian military officers and vigilante groups, and the immigrant settlers brought in by Indonesia to consolidate their occupation of the island. The Indonesians have had some bizarre responses. For instance, last summer, they went to great lengths to pressure their ASEAN partners to prevent private conferences on East Timor to take place in the Philippines, Malaysia, and Thailand. But the violence has been on the increase as well--particularly since the APEC summit in November. During the summit protesters were detained and, by most accounts, tortured. Reports of deaths of protesters at the hands of Indonesian soldiers have been constant all year. On January 12, 1995, there is documented evidence that the military tortured and killed six civilians in Liquicia in a horrendous incident. Even the Government-appointed National Commission on Human Rights acknowledged that ``a process of intimidation and torture by security officials'' occurred and resulted in ``unlawful shootings by the military.'' It found that ``there was intimidation and torture by the security officers in charge at the time to extract confessions.'' Recently, there has also been an outbreak of gang violence, of hooded vigilantes terrorizing, abducting, assaulting, intimidating, and harassing East Timorese. These gangs--commonly known as Ninjas--have been described by residents and human rights monitors as military- related death squad-type bands. Travelers describe walking on the tropical island on a sunny Sunday afternoon, and being passed by armed youths, covered in ski masks. Notably, the Ninjas have not been reigned in by the same military that has so effectively suppressed the East Timorese. For that reason, there is reason to believe that they are tolerated by the military. There is even some evidence that they were created by the military to do what uniformed soldiers cannot because of international attention. Mr. President, there must be an investigation into the operations of these groups, and why they are permitted to continue functioning in East Timor. Other forms of torture by the military are still commonplace in East Timor as well. In January 1994, the U.N. Human Rights Commissioner's Special Rapporteur on Torture reported that the most common forms of torture are beating on the head with wood, iron bars, bottles, and electric cables; kicking with heavy boots; electric shocks--mostly with cattle prods; slashing with razor blades and knives; death threats and faked executions; hanging people upside down by their feet; isolation; sleep deprivation; and the rape of East Timorese women. The U.N. Special Rapporteur for Torture reported last year that there were ``patterns of dealing violently with political dissent and [a] virtual impunity enjoyed by members of the security forces responsible for human rights violations.'' The U.N. Human Rights Commission this year once again comdemned Indonesian abuses in East Timor. It also forced Indonesia to invite the U.N. Human Rights Commissioner to visit East Timor. This was the first time that happened since 1975. The United States, in my view, has not lived up to its leadership responsibilities on this issue. While administration rhetoric--though measured--sounds supportive of human rights protections, the policy has not been forceful enough, given the extreme extent of the brutality that I described. For example, the United States defers to the U.N. peace process by which the Indonesians and Portuguese are supposed to work with the East Timores, yet the United States has not applied sufficient--if any--pressure to get the Indonesians to participate seriously in the talks. The administration says it is concerned about the military troop presence in East Timor, yet it has never devised a plan of action to work with the Indonesians, or requested a plan for Indonesian troop withdrawal from the island. In fact, at most, the administration seems to investigate the level of troop presence in East Timor only when a Member of Congress asks whether the promised reductions ever took place. I am also perplexed why the United States is even trying to placate Indonesia. The administration permits Indonesia to buy IMET: However, for years they have been lobbying to get the taxpayer to subsidize the Indonesian military training. And while there is a small arms ban in place to prevent United States weaponry for being used in human rights violations, the administration is now trying to sell F-16's to the Indonesian military. Mr. President, given Indonesia's defiant human rights policies, I see no reason to weaken United States policy toward it. In fact, the record of the past 2 years only indicates continued repression, continued deterioration, and increased violence against the East Timorese. I appreciate the administration's commitment to continue its current policy, and only hope that it will redouble its efforts on behalf of human rights in Indonesia and East Timor. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, September 21, 1995. Dear Senator Feingold: I am writing about your continuing concern about the human rights situation in Indonesia, including in East Timor, and your interest in the Administration's policy towards that country, specifically our current arms sales policy and our proposed International Military Education and Training (IMET) program. We too are concerned about the human rights situation in Indonesia, including in East Timor, and we raise our concerns with [[Page S 14081]] the Indonesian government regularly. Our current arms sales policy, codified in law last summer and included in S. 908, prohibits the sale or licensing for export of small or light arms and crowd control items until the Secretary has determined that there has been significant progress on human rights in Indonesia, including in East Timor. Current law also forbids funding of International Military Education and Training (IMET) for Indonesia. As you are aware, the Administration has proposed that this ban be rescinded, and there is language in the House authorization and appropriations bills that would permit funding for Expanded IMET (E-IMET) courses. We understand that you or other Senators may be considering amendments to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill that would further restrict the types of defense items that can be sold or licensed for export to Indonesia. We also have heard that some Senators who oppose any IMET funding for Indonesia are considering working to have the complete ban on such funding retained. You have proposed that you and others in the Senate will refrain from attaching language to the Senate's version of the bill restricting arms sales to Indonesia and banning IMET funding if the Administration will agree to abide by our current arms sales policy and accept only funding for E-IMET in FY 1996. We will abide by our current arms sales policy and, though we would have preferred restoration of full IMET, will fund only Expanded-IMET during the coming fiscal year. I hope this information will be useful to you. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we may be of further assistance. Sincerely, Wendy R. Sherman, Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs. Order of Procedure

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the foreign operations appropriations bill, I want to discuss two provisions which sanctioned Indonesia for its deplorable human rights record in East Timor, and which were eliminated in the chairman's bill. I want to make it clear that Indonesia has done nothing to improve its human rights record in the past year which would recommend any change in United States policy. As my colleagues know, Indonesia has brutally occupied the Catholic population of East Timor since 1975. In that time, East Timor has been the focus of many international human rights efforts, not the least of which are those that have been spearheaded by my friend and colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Pell. To my disappointment, those causes have not been championed by any U.S. administration. But in recent years the Indonesia military rule has become particularly cruel. Today, I want to dispel any myths among my colleagues that despite Indonesia's economic successes in the past few years, its human rights record continues to be dismal, and is particularly deplorable in its activities in the last year in East Timor. Such instability and violations can only destabilize the regime that some business interests are all to quick to invest in. Since the Indonesians invaded East Timor 20 years ago, over 200,000 East Timorese have died--about a third of the entire population. Indonesia's self-styled annexation of the territory has [[Page S 14080]] not been recognized by the United Nations, nor the United States, which acknowledges that ``no act of self-determination has ever taken place.'' The military is practically omnipresent throughout the island, and according to diplomats stationed in Indonesia, ``its callousness in dealing with the local population'' is shocking. East Timor made international headlines in 1991 when the military massacred, by conservative estimates, at least 100 East Timorese who were attending a funeral. It was all videotaped before international cameras. Today, the National Human Rights Commission in Jakarta says it has evidence that the massacre was ``not a spontaneous reaction to a riotous mob, but rather a planned military operation designed to deal with a public expression of political dissent.'' Today, 66 people remain unaccounted for, and the commander of the operation is Vice President of Indonesia. Congress has acted twice since then. First, in 1992 we cut off IMET funding for Indonesian soldiers to distance our support for the Indonesian military that committed the atrocity at Dili. Last July, to signal further disappointment with the disintegrating situation, we codified administration policy on the linkage between the sale of small arms and human rights. I have a letter from the administration, addressed to Senator Leahy and myself, which indicates that the administration will continue its ban on the sale or licensing of small and light weapons, and crowd control instruments, until there has been significant progress on Indonesia's human rights record. The letter also says the administration will offer only expanded-IMET--human rights training for the military--to the Indonesians. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Iowa. I have a lot of misgivings about any notion of a constitutional amendment for a line- item veto and would oppose it. However, what passed the Senate was a 5-year sunsetted line-item veto. I think, obviously, we are going to have an experiment with a line-item veto. That is going to be the result of this Congress. The purpose of this amendment is not to say that the line-item veto is automatically a good idea. But it says since we are going to have this experiment anyway, since that is going to be an outcome of the 104th Congress, get on with it, and let this President have that opportunity.

Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time is remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair, and I especially thank my colleague and friend from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, who has taken the lead on this. I am delighted to participate with him, along with the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, and the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, in expressing the sense of the Senate that the conferees on S. 4, the line-item veto bill, should, by September 26, expeditiously resolve the differences of the two Houses in time to consider the conference report on S. 4 prior to the President needing to sign the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bills and also this year's reconciliation bill. If the conferees do not complete action on the conference report in time to allow Congress to consider the report, prior to the President signing of the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bills and this year's reconciliation bill, as the Senator from Iowa pointed out, this amendment further expresses the sense of the Senate that the line-item veto conference report should, to the extent possible, contain provisions making the bill applicable to the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bills and the 1995 reconciliation bill. Simply stated it would give this President, President Clinton, the opportunity to clean out some of the pork in the bills that we may pass in next few weeks this year instead of having to wait until next year. Mr. President, the Senate passed S. 4, the Line-Item Veto Act of 1995 on March 23, many months ago. A few weeks earlier, in early February, the other body had passed their own version of this important legislation. And this was trumpeted quite loudly throughout the country as one of the leading items in the so-called Contract With America. For something other than an emergency appropriations bill, that was very rapid consideration, and I would say in this case rightly so. The line-item veto proposal, in one form or another, in my view, could be a useful tool to help reduce the Federal deficit and balance the Federal budget and more importantly to bring reform to the whole budget process. Indeed the line-item veto was part of the so-called Contract With America agenda and initially being given this kind of expedited treatment. But, Mr. President, the expedited treatment of the line-item veto ended some time ago. The line-item veto bill began to slow and eventually it stalled and it remains stalled. The other body did not ask for a conference committee until mid-May, and it was a month before the Senate appointed conferees. Until last week the other body had still to appoint its own conferees. Now, Mr. President, some have suggested that the failure of the other body to appoint conferees in a timely manner and the general slowing down of the measure was partisan in nature, the delay was a deliberate effort by leadership to deny President Clinton an effective budget tool during this very crucial period of time when we have to consider appropriations bills and reconciliation and the overriding need to balance the budget as soon as possible. I hope this is not the case. Certainly in this body it has to be said that one of the leading proponents of the line-item veto has been the senior Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], a Republican. Now, I know he supports moving rapidly on this question and to give this President this new authority in time to address this year's budget measures. It has been my privilege to work with Senator McCain on a number of reform measures including a number that target these very budget practices that tend to load up our bills with pork and they cannot be eliminated because of the lack of a line-item veto. I was especially pleased that an amendment we offered to the line-item veto bill relating to emergency appropriations was also included in the Senate version of the measure. So this also is dependent on moving quickly on the line-item veto issue. Senator McCain is committed to budget reform. And I believe many of his Republican colleagues in this body share that commitment. I believe that they are ready and willing to provide President Clinton with the line-item veto authority in time to exercise it during this budget cycle. However, Mr. President, as I noted, it was not until last week that the other body finally appointed conferees that allowed Congress the opportunity to come to an agreement on this important issue and give this President, President Clinton, the flexibility that he needs to shape this Federal budget. With the fiscal year almost at an end, and work on various appropriations bills and reconciliation measures scheduled to be completed in the next few weeks, this delay in hammering out a line-item veto measure may well jeopardize our ability to provide President Clinton with this very important additional authority. This amendment we are offering today speaks to this very issue by expressing the sense of the Senate that if a new line-item veto authority is created, that this President be able to act on that authority on this year's appropriations measures and this year's reconciliation bill. This amendment allows Members to go on record to refute those who would suggest that the line-item delay is partisan. And in doing so, it also expresses clear support to allow the President to begin to exercise the kind of specific budget pruning that many of us feel is a necessary response to the budget abuses that do persist in this year's appropriations bills. Pork did not end in this place on November 8. I have a suspicion it increased over the 103d Congress. Just last month, my friend and colleague, Senator McCain, who has helped form a number of colleagues into a group of pork busters, took to the floor and specifically identified a number of problems with the fiscal year 1996 defense appropriations bill. He mentioned an appropriation of $20 million to fund an unauthorized transfer of federally owned educational facilities on military installations to local education agencies. He mentioned a transfer that was not even reviewed by the Armed Services Committee. He mentioned a $1 million earmark for the marine and environmental research and training station, also unauthorized, and he mentioned that this was contrary to the wishes of the Navy. Senator McCain also mentioned the granting of authority for the Coast Guard to draw $300 million from the defense business operations fund, a new authority that I am informed was not considered by the Armed Services Committee. So, Mr. President, there are many examples, but these are good examples of the kinds of provisions that could and should be eliminated with the appropriate application of the line-item veto, and there are equally good candidates for line-item veto review by the President in other appropriations bills as well. I do not think any fairminded person would suggest that this year's crop of appropriations bills is sufficiently pure of budgetary mischief that the line-item veto authority should be postponed until next year. There is plenty that needs to be taken out now. That should be reason enough to act on a line-item veto in a timely manner, but I also believe there is another, possibly more important reason for acting quickly, and it goes to the heart of the original line-item veto debate. Mr. President, I supported the line-item veto measure as it passed this body, and hope to support a conference committee agreement as well, but the question is a very close one for me. I have deep concerns about the potential abuse of an overly expansive line-item veto authority. In Wisconsin, we have seen the abuse of an overly broad veto authority by a number of Governors, and it is safe to say that no one anticipated the extent of those abuses when the line-item veto authority was first contemplated. The current Governor, Governor Thompson, has used the veto authority not only to rewrite entire laws, but to increase spending and increase taxes. [[Page S 14017]] In the hands of a President, that kind of abusive authority would not only defeat the intent of those who have advocated expanded veto authority, it could well upset the checks and balances so carefully designed by the Framers of the Constitution. That is the potential peril of the line-item veto, and I believe it is shared by many of my colleagues who supported S. 4 as it passed the Senate. If the cynics are right, and the line-item veto measure is being deliberately stalled to gain partisan advantage by denying a Democratic President the opportunity to use this new tool, then there may be real cause for concern about what the end product of the conference committee will be. Partisan political advantage is an irresponsible and reckless basis on which to establish this additional authority for the President. A new line-item veto authority crafted on such a foundation may well be susceptible to being overly broad, and one that is subject to Presidential abuse when the authority is finally granted. Instead of fashioning a useful tool to help shape a better, learner budget, a line-item veto authority that is driven by partisan considerations could dramatically shift the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches that was so carefully crafted by the Framers of the Constitution. Mr. President, I very much view our amendment as an insurance policy against just such a disaster. If the Republican-controlled conference committee knows that a President of the opposing party is to have this new expanded authority, they will be less likely to structure a line-item veto that would allow the kind of abuse we have seen in Wisconsin. And the taxpayers are doubly winners. First, because a modest line-item veto authority will be exercised all the sooner. And second, because future Presidents of either party will not become backdoor emperors that can dictate to Congress. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to demonstrate to cynics that at least this body is sincere in its support of a line-item veto, and to ensure that this year's budget gets the kind of thorough review to which taxpayers are entitled. I will conclude by saying that I see that the Senator from North Dakota, who has been a great leader on this issue, is here. I defer to him at this point, given the limited time that is available. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the manager very much for the 15 minutes in order to oppose the Helms amendment on UNFPA and to support the committee language on population and abortion. Everyone understands that this is the same debate we had in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this summer, when the committee voted by a decisive 11-5 vote to authorize $35 million in funding for UNFPA. The UNFPA is the world's leading family planning agency, with approximately one-third of all population assistance to developing countries channeled through it. It provides funds and training for maternal and child health care, family planning devices, and technical assistance for population programs. UNFPA, by its own mandate, is not involved in abortions or abortion- related services. It is family planning agency. So, this is a debate on population. It should not be a debate on abortion. That is why the amendment by the Senator from North Carolina demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what the UNFPA does, and will do nothing to end the horrific practice of coercive abortion. Nowhere in the world--including China does the UNFPA involve itself with abortion policy or the delivery of abortion and abortion-related services. Indeed, if I believed that UNFPA or any U.S. Government program was being used to support coercive abortion, I would vehemently object. Like the chairman, I too, am the father of two daughters and am horrified by the Chinese policies on baby girls. To insinuate that anyone in this body supports such a practice is really disingenuous. That is one of the reasons I introduced legislation with the chairman to revoke most-favored-nation status for China. I believe it should be at the forefront of our human rights agenda with China. It should be an issue at bilateral and multilateral fora; It should be linked to benefits, such as MFN, which the Chinese desire; It should be a subject for the U.N. Commission on Human Rights; And it should be an issue for foreign corporations in China as they are sincerely interested in improving the quality of life for their Chinese employees. But withdrawing from the UNFPA would do nothing to combat coercive abortion because UNFPA is not involved in the policy, and current law governing the United States contribution to UNFPA wholly separates United States funds from being used in China altogether. That law was reaffirmed by a strong, bipartisan 11-5 vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month when we debated the UNFPA issue in an amendment to the foreign aid authorization bill. Current law not only explicitly prohibits United States funds from being used in UNFPA's China program, it also mandates that UNFPA must hold United States funds in separate accounts to ensure that they are not comingled with other moneys which may be supporting family planning services in China. Our provisions also require that the administration certify that China is receiving only the $7 million which the UNFPA 5-year plan allocates. Under current law, if the report shows that UNFPA invests more than $7 million in China, then the United States contribution to UNFPA will be deducted by that proportional amount, so there is no way that additional funds from the United States can be put in in this way. Mr. President, we will do more to influence the China program if we stay involved with UNFPA. The current program ends in December 1995. If we are not contributors to UNFPA, then we will not be at the table at the end of the year to help decide if and how this organization will work in China. That is certainly no way to stop coercive abortion. Further, if we withdraw, we will pull no other country with us. Let me remind my colleagues that when the United States withdrew from UNFPA in 1984, not one single other country joined in our boycott. In any event, it makes no sense to withdraw from this organization since it is in fact exactly the services performed by UNFPA that make abortion less likely and less frequent. [[Page S 14039]] Let us talk about that for a minute. Let us talk about the threat of overpopulation to our national security interests and what UNFPA and global population programs are doing to address it. The world population is exploding. From 1800 to 1930, our planet grew from 1 to 2 billion people. Today, we are up to 5 to 6 billion people, with 1 million born every 96 hours. At this rate, we will have quadrupled our population by the end of this century. Overpopulation hampers economic development, harms world health standards, threatens food security. It stresses the environment, it harms the status of women, and it often forces dangerous migration and refugee patterns. These are among the most serious threats in the 21st century. We must be able to use the achievements of the 20th century; namely, family planning, to counter them. With the UNFPA in the lead, contraceptive use worldwide has quintupled in the past 20 years while the average family size has been halved. Yet, according to the World Health Organization, approximately 350 million couples still completely lack access to family planning services and information. Mr. President, population will be the key to whether improved economic policies succeed; whether we will coexist with our environment or deplete it; and whether political crises become large-scale humanitarian disasters or not. There are fortunately, Mr. President, many success stories to illustrate this point. The so-called Asian Tiger economies--Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand--have been very successful in family planning programs, and they have been put together with assistance from UNFPA. I have also visited, Mr. President, a family planning clinic in Tunisia which has one of the most successful programs in the world. It is also a country which is fast modernizing and developing a strong middle class. In my view, there is no coincidence that the economies of these countries are doing so well. There is no coincidence that the role of women in these societies is improving. Like human rights, global population concerns are U.S. national concerns. Let me say again, while I share the outrage of the Senator from North Carolina about China's abortion policy, I believe that it makes no sense to sacrifice UNFPA for China's abortion policy in which that organization plays no role. If we can focus on what the real issue is here, I think my colleagues will be persuaded that a U.S. contribution to the UNFPA is clearly in our national interest and does not contradict our national values. Mr. President, this amendment really spawns a false debate, and I urge the Senate to follow both the Foreign Relations Committee and also the Appropriations Committee and to defeat it. I thank the Chair and yield the remainder of whatever time I have back to the manager. I yield the floor. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, before I begin speaking about Liberia, I would like to congratulate the managers of this bill for the good work they have done on behalf of Africa in this bill. The Chairman's mark reflects cuts to the accounts that affect development in sub-Saharan Africa, but they do not paralyze our program or signal a United States withdrawal from the region. I think the Chairman acted very responsibly, and I would urge him and the other Senate conferees to protect this mark, at a minimum, in conference. The case for continued support for Africa is strong, and, I believe, that the United States has serious national security interests in the region, which make our investment there an imperative. Today I want to talk about Liberia specifically, though, and to speak as a cosponsor of the Kassebaum amendment on Liberia, which I expect is non-controversial. The amendment will make what a technical fix in existing law, and permit the United States to provide assistance to Liberia to implement the Abuja peace accords reached last month. Since 1989, Liberia has suffered some of the most wretched and vengeful warfare in Africa. More than 180,000 people have been killed; approximately half the country's population has been displaced; and the capital city of Monrovia is bursting with three times its prewar population. The country has been shattered by senseless ethnic and individual rivalries, and has been on the verge of total collapse and anarchy. The conflict has contributed to instability throughout West Africa, and serious violence--mirroring Liberia's factional divides-- has recently erupted in Sierra Leone. I had the opportunity last year to visit Liberia with the past chairman of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, Senator Simon, and listened to first-hand accounts about the war. Children were fighting children to seek revenge for relatives' deaths, or just simply to earn a day's food; arms flow from state to state, available to anyone seeking anything explosive; and violence marks the life of every Liberian citizen. Since 1989 the United States has provided over $380 million for humanitarian relief in Liberia, and $60 million for efforts aimed at conflict resolution. The United Nations has maintained a small peacekeeping mission in Liberia, and the Economic Community of West African States [ECOWAS] has deployed thousands of peacekeepers in an effort to quell some of the violence. It has been a difficult assignment, to say the least. There have been a dozen peace accords in Liberia in the past 6 years. They have failed for a variety of reasons, but most of them were doomed because they were not negotiated with the concept of powersharing for all the factional leaders; rather they sought to isolate some parties, in a war which nobody has won, and in fact everybody has lost. Consequently, there has not [[Page S 13934]] been a unified national will to stop the fighting. The Abuja accord signed last month, though, represents a new way of doing business in Liberia: for the first time, all seven factions are represented and invested in the agreement; and for the first time, there is a concept of power-sharing in Liberia. It also comes at a time when the people of Liberia have actively demonstrated their yearning for an end to the war. Ghanaian President Jerry Rawlings deserves a great deal of credit for his tenacity and creativity in facilitating the Abuja accord. I also commend the Nigerians for the role they have played in these groundbreaking negotiations. For that reason, it is with a cautious sense of relief that I congratulate the people of Liberia on the peace agreement, and join Senator Kassebaum in urging support for the Abuja accord. Given the discouraging history of this war, success is, quite frankly, a longshot, but this agreement is Liberia's best hope at this time for peace. The task of reconciliation in Liberia is daunting, so the Abuja accord must be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. But if the parties take the first steps and demonstrate their commitment to the process, then the United States will finally have an opportunity--after spending years of investing in humanitarian relief for Liberia--to bolster a peace. The first signs have been promising. A ceasefire has been in place, and holding more or less, since August 26; the new transitional government, the Council of State, was inaugurated on September 1; an ambitious timeline for disarmament and demobilization has been set; and democratic elections have been scheduled for August 1996. But there is a long and difficult road ahead, with many obstacles to overcome. For most of the problems, the answers will be hard to come by. For instance, when I was in Monrovia last year, Liberia was in the process of trying to disarm soldiers, pursuant to the Cotonou accords. Yet all they could offer a demobilized soldier was a bag of rice, a jug of cooking oil, and a pair of tennis shoes--just enough to feed a family for a few weeks, and hardly enough to substitute for a job as a soldier. Similarly, to reintegrate a child soldier requires a school and other constructive programs. Clearly, this will be a tremendously complicated and long-term process--one which involves not only national reconciliation, but also the development of alternative economic opportunities. The United States has a moral interest in the fate of Liberia, and we have responded significantly to the humanitarian disaster of the past 6 years. We now must seize the opportunity to invest in peace. While we have limited funds to allocate to foreign aid at all this year, we can use our unique historical relationship with Liberia and the weight of creative diplomacy to advance the process of reconciliation in Liberia. First, we must continue to offer support to the Council of State and, where appropriate and possible, facilitate attempts at reconciliation. We should be available to President Rawlings in his efforts through ECOWAS to forge peace in the region as well. Second, we should redouble efforts to work with other West African States--namely Burkina Faso, Cote D'Ivoire, Sierra Leone, and Nigeria--to stop the flagrant arms transfers to Liberia. Third, Liberia should be designated as a priority within our aid budget to Africa, and resources should be allocated accordingly to support the peace process. If the Abuja accords prove successful, then the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, the Honorable George Moose, or other high-ranking Administration officials should consider visiting Monrovia. These are all issues we will explore when the subcommittee holds its hearings on the prospects for peace in Liberia next week. Over the years, the United States has proven itself willing to contribute in disaster assistance to Liberia. With the Abuja accord, we have a long overdue opportunity to help support a peace. After 6 harsh years of sadistic violence and dislocation, Liberia needs this agreement to succeed. This amendment will clarify that that can happen. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. amendment no. 2714 (Purpose: To Allow Training of Foreign Police Forces During and After U.S. Military Operations) On page 81, line 21, strike ``paragraph'' and insert ``paragraphs.'' On page 81, line 23, after ``enforcement.'' insert the following: ``(6) with respect to assistance provided to reconstitute civilian police authority and capability in the post-conflict restoration of host nation infrastructure for the purposes of supporting a nation emerging from instability, and the provision of professional public safety training, to include training in internationally recognized standards of human rights, the rule of law, anti-corruption, and the promotion of civilian police roles that support democracy.''

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it has been over 3 years since the GAO made its recommendations and over a year since I first contacted the RBCDS about this matter. However, rural America and, in particular, rural Wisconsin communities simply do not have the luxury to wait until Federal agencies finally decide to act. Mr. President, rural America is indeed at a crossroads in terms of converting from traditional resource-based economies which are becoming less economically viable, to other types of activities which also make a substantial contribution to better living in these areas. Tourism can certainly play a major role in improving the qualify of life in many rural communities and, in fact, rural tourism [[Page S 13917]] should be recognized for what it truly is--a legitimate means to enhance economic development in, and the copmetitiveness of, rural America. Tourism can, and does, create jobs which help to improve the economic climate in rural communities and provide lasting community benefits. However, without economic assistance to help stimulate growth in rural development, any such successful transition to tourism may prove difficult. That is why the Government must act, and act in a timely fashion, to assist the economies of rural America. Mr. President, this matter is of importance to rural America. This amendment is not controversial, and will have no budgetary impact. It simply clarifies that tourist and other recreational-type businesses located in rural communities are eligible for loans under the B&I program. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and move for its immediate consideration. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my amendment does not cut a dime from the Special Research Grants Program. I want to make that absolutely clear. It just subjects the proposals for funding under this program to new scientific peer review and competition. Second, this amendment does not negate the committee's recommendations in the report. It just ensures that those recommendations, if they are funded, have to pass a competitive test to be sure they are merited. Third, this amendment replaces the political competition for these research dollars, which I think is inappropriate for an ever-shrinking agriculture research budget, and what it replaces it with is science- based competition. Currently, the defining criteria for which institutions are awarded research grants I am afraid is which Members have the most political muscle to get their projects approved by the committee, and I think that is wrong. I think it is unfair to U.S. farmers for Members of the Senate and the House to be spendthrift with these limited research dollars which continue to shrink each year. Last night, my colleague, the senior Senator from Mississippi, said my amendment would delegate this authority to a ``fancy group of scientists on peer review panels.'' Under our peer review, $50 million is done by peer review, rather than $100 million, which is already done by peer review. Why the difference? I think it is appropriate to a have peer review panel. I think there still will be an opportunity for committee members to identify projects they believe in and to put them in the committee report, but they would have to go through, also, a peer review, and I am sure most of them would do well on this basis. The point here is, if my amendment is adopted, the projects would have to be approved on their merit. We would replace a political competition with a fair competition. Mr. President, I think it is irresponsible of Congress to continue funding these projects based on politics rather than merit. I would say that the scientists that are experts in their field are far better qualified to determine which projects are sound and which are not than are the Members of Congress. So I urge my colleagues to support this item which I think is not only reform in the agriculture area but a reform in our entire budgeting process. I thank the Chair. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, last night an amendment I had proposed to H.R. 1976 was adopted unanimously by the Senate. I thank the managers of this bill, the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] for their assistance and cooperation in this matter. I also wish to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee for their help and guidance on this very important rural development issue intended to clarify that tourist and other recreational-type businesses located in rural communities are eligible for loans under the Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service's [RBCDS] Business and Industry [B&I] Loan Guarantee Program, funded in this bill in the Rural Community Advancement Program. This is an issue that I first became aware of, and especially interested in, after a constituent approached me late last summer at the Rusk County listening session I held at Mount Senario College in Ladysmith, WI. The constituent owns a tourist lodge in northern Wisconsin and expressed his deep frustration at a problem Wisconsin tourist resort owners were having in attempting to obtain financing for rural development. Specifically, this constituent was interested in obtaining funding from the B&I Program to build an 18-hole golf course next to his lodge, but was told that recreational facilities were prohibited from receiving funding under the program. Concerned by this information, I decided to contact the Agency about the program. What I since learned is a clear illustration of why so many Americans are frustrated with the Federal Government. The B&I Program was established by the Rural Development Act of 1972 with the aim of improving America's rural economy by creating, developing, or financing business, industry and employment in rural America. When the B&I Program was first established, no restrictions were placed on guaranteeing loans to tourist or other recreational-type businesses located in rural communities. However, on July 6, 1983, the Rural Development Administration revised its internal lending policy relative to the B&I Program and placed restrictions on the program's regulations by prohibiting such funding to tourist or recreation facilities. As a result, currently these loan guarantees are not made available to tourist or other recreational-type businesses. This policy does not make too much sense to me especially since tourism can definitely play a major role in the development of rural areas. In fact, nationally tourism is a $400 billion industry, and is a $5.6 billion industry in Wisconsin alone. After initially contacting the RBCDS in September of last year, I was advised that the Agency was currently undergoing a review of its loan guarantee policy. I urged the Agency to consider changing its internal lending policy to allow guaranteed business and industry assistance to be made to recreational- type businesses located in rural areas. I want to make it clear that this policy is not the result of any restriction in the authorizing statutes, but rather an agency decision to restrict such funds. In fact, a General Accounting Office [GAO] report released in July 1992 on the patterns of use in the B&I Program came to the same conclusion. It suggests that the B&I Program is underutilized, which is due in part to the Agency's current restrictions on using B&I funds for activities related to tourism. Furthermore, the GAO recommends revising the B&I program regulations to allow the selective use of loan guarantees for these activities. All indications are that the Agency seems to be leaning in favor of adopting these changes. I ask unanimous consent that two letters I have received from the RBCDS indicating they ``intend'' to remove these restrictions, one dated October 14, 1994 and the other dated July 14, 1995, be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am deeply saddened by the loss of a dear friend and former colleague, State Senator John Plewa. I had the pleasure of serving with John in the legislature for 10 years, and for 8 of them in the State senate. He represented the people of Wisconsin, first in the assembly, and then in the State senate, with dedication and devotion, and his constituents returned him to office at every election since he was first elected in 1972. At the time of his death, John had the fourth longest tenure among lawmakers currently serving in the Wisconsin Legislature. John was a lifelong resident of Milwaukee, graduating from Don Bosco High School in 1963. He earned a bachelor of education degree in 1968 at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, and following that, taught history and social studies at Milwaukee Area Technical College prior to his service in the legislature. A committed and passionate advocate for Wisconsin's families, John may be best remembered as the father of Wisconsin's family and medical leave law, which allows people to take time off from their job to provide assistance to a family member needing care, from newborns to an elderly relative--a law that helped pave the way for the Federal family leave law that was enacted in 1993. His commitment to families in need went well beyond the family leave law. John was vice chair of the Senate Aging Committee when I chaired that body, and I saw first-hand his steadfast and effective support of long-term care reforms that help people with disabilities of all ages remain in their own homes with their families. John was also vitally concerned with housing policy, serving on the board of Wisconsin's Housing and Economic Development Authority for 10 years. I had the pleasure of working with John in this area as well when we coauthored Wisconsin's Housing Trust Fund, to provide flexible help to families in need of decent, affordable housing. John would have been 50 years old this Friday. But even though he did not live to celebrate that anniversary, he left Wisconsin an impressive legacy. Today, thousands are able to take time from work to care for a family member without the fear of losing that job. Other families are finally able to afford a decent home. Wisconsin families, who otherwise might be forced apart because of a long-term disability, are able to remain together, and individuals needing long-term care, who otherwise might be forced to seek services in an institution, are able to remain in their homes. All because of John Plewa. Wisconsin families have lost one of their foremost champions, and I know they join in offering their sympathy to the friends and colleagues John leaves behind, to his staff, and most especially to John's wife Susan and their two sons. We will miss him.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator from Mississippi. I admire his leadership in the agriculture area. Let me use the brief time I have remaining to respond to a couple of points he has made about our amendment. First of all, I just do not see how it is possible for a committee, despite its tremendous efforts with the staff and resources of the Appropriations Committee, to make this kind of sophisticated analysis and competitive determination that is sufficient to make a fair determination of competition. The Senator says these are meritorious projects. I do not deny that. Certainly many of them are meritorious. How do we know? What is the criteria for evaluating whether or not the 120 out of 121 projects that were mentioned in the committee report last year were actually of merit to justify the taxpayers' dollars? And given the comments of the Senator from Mississippi, in particular, how he does not want this process left up to a fancy group of scientists, well, this is about a $50 million program. The National Research Initiative, Mr. President, is a $100 million program, and that is left up to a fancy group of scientists. We do have peer review when it comes to $100 million worth. Why not have that fancy group of scientists--actually that is what they are, people who know what they are talking about from an economic and agricultural point of view--why not have those people handling the other $50 million and make it a fair competition? What it comes down to, Mr. President, is what kind of competition are we going to have? The Senator from Mississippi fairly points out there is a competition of sorts for these earmarks. It is a political competition. It is a question of political muscle, who has got the most muscle to get a grant. I suggest that we need a different kind of competition, a competition based on merit. Many of us were elected and many of us particularly last year who came to this body were elected on the notion that we should run this Government like a business on the basis of merit, on the basis of quality, quality control. That is what this is all about, having some quality control in the midst of a very well intended series of efforts to improve agricultural research in this country. I thank the Chair and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote for passage of the welfare reform bill that has been crafted over the past several weeks. I do so, however, with trepidation over where this reform may lead. The Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] has spoken eloquently on many occasions about the potential consequences of ending over 60 years of Federal commitment to the welfare of children who through no fault of their own have either been born into a life of poverty, or who have fallen into poverty because of family misfortune. I will vote for this bill because the current system is badly broken, and we must find an alternative to the status quo. No one likes the current system, least of all the families trapped in an endless cycle of dependency, poverty, and despair. We must change the system and I see this bill as the most moderate measure likely to move forward in the current climate. The basic premise of this bill rests upon the notion that the current system has failed and that we ought to allow the States the opportunity to try to do a better job, with as much flexibility as possible. This approach places a great deal of faith in the good will of State governments to implement programs designed to help, not punish, needy citizens. As a former State legislator, I have a good deal of respect for State governments. I am not convinced that the Federal Government always knows best how to handle every problem. Certainly, there are areas-- like civil rights--which are national in dimension, which require a consistent, bedrock level of Federal involvement to insure that rights derived from our national constitution are fully protected. But I am not convinced that social policy, welfare policy in particular, must always be controlled from Washington. I recognize that part of my willingness to try this approach of greater State control is based upon the fact that I come from a State, Wisconsin, which has long been a laboratory for progressive social policy and demonstration programs. I have said on the Senate floor that much of what Wisconsin has tried to do through direct investment in job training programs for welfare recipients makes sense and is designed to help people join the workforce. Some of the policies, like Learnfare and Bridefare, I have voted against because there is little evidence to show that they will have any real impact on helping people move off welfare and into the work force. I have voted against mandatory family caps for the same reason. Mr. President, I want to reiterate that this is not the kind of bill I would draft if I were the author. I think it falls far short of what is needed in the areas of child care, job training, and services that will help families become self- sufficient. Mr. President, the changes made in the bill through the bipartisan leadership amendment make this a more desirable bill than the one we began debating several weeks ago. This amendment will provide an additional $3 billion for child care services. It includes a maintenance of effort that will require States to spend at least 80 percent of their 1994 level of State funding in order to receive the block grant. Without such a maintenance of effort requirement, Federal dollars would simply replace state contributions, and States like Wisconsin which make a substantial contribution to investing in welfare programs would have simply seen their dollars shifted to States which lack such investments. The amendment contains a contingency grant fund to help States which run out of money under the block grant because of higher unemployment rates. It provides that up to 20 percent of recipients can be exempted from the 5-year time limitation for welfare assistance--a provision that will allow some flexibility in a provision which might otherwise cause untold hardships. The inclusion of each of these provisions has been critical to my decision to support this bill. At the same time, the bill still falls far short of what I think needs to be done to achieve real, meaningful change. I believe that the States will be back here within a few short years asking for more Federal dollars to get the job done. I am also deeply concerned about the provisions of the bill that remove the guaranteed Federal safety net for young children, replacing that 60-year Federal commitment with a system of State block grants which will create a patchwork quilt across this Nation to replace the current Federal commitment. Many States will continue to provide protections for these children and will work hard to help families move from welfare into the work force. The Senate wisely rejected several efforts to impose the punitive-type provisions contained in the version of welfare reform passed by the other body. But there will be some States which will exercise the punitive options available under this bill and will opt to impose harsh requirements upon needy families. These provisions and the lack of national protections for children, wherever they may live, are deeply troubling to me. But we cannot continue the current system. I am hopeful that many of the States will enact innovative programs, like the New Hope program in Milwaukee, WI, that will provide real opportunities for welfare recipients to become economically self-sufficient members of the work force. This bill will give the States the opportunity to demonstrate whether they are willing to make the kinds of investments that will promote this self-sufficiency, rather than serve simply to punish those who fall through the system. As I said at the outset, I am voting for this bill because I am not convinced that welfare policy can only be made in Washington, DC. I think the problems of welfare policy are so complex and difficult that it is a mistake to believe that there is only one approach. This bill will encourage State experimentation which may well lead to better policy development over the long period. I believe that the vote being cast today is either for or against the status quo, and I do not support the status quo. Although I will vote for the Senate bill, I want to make it very clear that I will not support a conference report that contains the kinds of punitive, harsh measures contained in the welfare reform bill proposed by the other body. I hope that the bill that emerges from conference will reflect the moderate efforts that went into the Senate bill.