Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the amendment I am introducing tonight will make a very simple change to the way in which some of USDA's research funds are distributed. Right at the beginning, let me just correct a statement by the senior Senator from Mississippi which I think was just a brief description. He suggested that our amendment would strike the special purpose grant within the Department. It does not do that at all. It does not change the amount of the grant. It changes the way in which the grants are given. It requires a competitive approach rather than what is, in effect, an earmark approach. So I want to be very clear throughout this debate that we are not striking the grants nor changing the way they would be given out. The amendment would require any funds appropriated under the Special Research Grants Program within the Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service be subject now to scientific peer review by scientists outside of USDA and that all research grants be awarded under this program on a competitive basis. I am happy that the senior Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] is a cosponsor of the amendment as well. This particular program, the Special Research Grants Program, provides grants to State agricultural experiment stations, 1,890 institutions and land grant colleges to carry out applied agricultural research in fulfillment of USDA's mission to encourage and support agricultural research within the federal land grants and other research institutions. In conjunction with the many other programs conducting agricultural research, the Special Grants Program has helped foster important agricultural research. As members of this Chamber may be aware, I have been working with bipartisan coalition of Senators to reduce the amount of so-called pork barrel spending in appropriations legislation. This amendment is intended to further that goal by addressing what I call hidden pork in this appropriations bill. The Special Research Grants Program while fairly straight forward on the surface, is actually not what it seems upon closer inspection. USDA's Special Research Grants Program receives a single appropriation each year to fund the many grants for agricultural research conducted by universities around the country. Last year, Congress provided $52 million for these special research grants. This year, the Senate Appropriations Committee has provided about $50.5 million for special grants, of which some $9.8 million is to be focused on improved pest control research. The funding for this program is very straightforward with only four lines devoted to it in H.R. 1976. However, when I looked at the committee report accompanying this bill, I noticed an extensive list of projects that the Committee has recommended for funding under special research grants. I counted over 90 in all for this upcoming fiscal year. Looking at last year's conference agreement, I found 121 such projects, most of which are identified by one or more states. Then I learned, that in fact, while these projects are not technically earmarks, in that they are not line-itemed in the actual appropriations legislation, USDA treats them exactly as if they were earmarks. So they are in the committee report. But they end up being treated like earmarks. Of the 121 projects recommended for funding last year, all but one grant was awarded and that single grant had its funds rescinded. Based on information I received from USDA, of those 120 projects, not a single grant was awarded on a competitive basis and each grant was made in accordance with the Agricultural appropriations Subcommittee's recommendations. I am sure that are many Members in this Chamber who will tell me that committee reports of course are technically non-binding. That may be technically true, but if the agency administering the program considers those recommendations to be binding, they most surely are. Mr. President, the recommendations for projects to be funded under the Special Research Grants Program are most certainly earmarks. Every Member of this Chamber who has even had a project in his/her State recommended for funding under this program, or has asked for a project to be on that list of recommendations, knows that is the case. In fact, in the bill before us today, very little of the money proposed to be provided to universities will be awarded competitively and subject to scientific peer review. These institutions listed in the committee report simply submit their proposals and receive their funds with few questions asked by the agency. I do not want to pick on any particular State or university, but I think it is important that Members understand specifically what projects they are agreeing to fund under this program. Let me just list a few of the 90 some projects that are earmarked in the committee report: there are recommendations for eight separate research projects relating to aquaculture to be provided to six different universities for a total of $2.5 million for fiscal year 1996. Some of those recommendations are for projects that are described by the committee, others are for research generally on ``Aquaculture''. We have earmarks for: $300,000 for molluscan shellfish research at Oregon State University; $127,000 for multicropping strategies for aquaculture-- University of Hawaii; $370,000 for Chesapeake Bay aquaculture-- University of Maryland; $305,000 for seafood and aquaculture harvesting, processing, and marketing research--Mississippi State University; $308,000 for alternative marine and fresh water species research--Mississippi State University. And then there are the less descriptive earmarks: $592,000 aquaculture, Mississippi State University; $330,000 aquaculture, Louisiana State University; $169,000 aquaculture, University of Illinois. All totaled $2.5 million earmarked for eight different research projects on aquaculture for six different research institutions. Should not it be enough for Congress to merely recommend that aquaculture, generally, be a research priority and leave the specific projects, funding amounts and research institutions up to the USDA and external peer-review panels. Mr. President, here is a sampling of some of the other projects that the Senate will be earmarking in this bill: $296,000 for jointed goatgrass research by the Washington State University; $303,000 for soybean cyst nematode research--University of Missouri; $162,000 for peach tree shortlife research at Clemson University. Some of the projects have vague descriptions such as ``forestry'' or ``dried beans,'' so it is difficult to know what the designated institutions will be doing with the money nor is it clear why these are projects of national priority that they are specifically identified in the committee report. Mr. President, the question for my colleagues is not whether research on aquaculture, jointed goatgrass, or the soybean cyst nematode should be conducted. That is not at issue. At issue is whether Congress should be making these very technical decision for the agricultural sector and for the USDA. First, should Congress be defining for USDA research specialists the current research needs of agriculture down to the exact dollar and facility conducting the research? Second, should Congress determine which research projects have the greatest scientific or economic merit? Third, should Congress pick and choose among competing research institutions and decide, based on political circumstances, which Universities should receive the funding? Fourth, is it at the business of Congress to decide how much of taxpayer dollars each project should receive? Can Congress effectively determine for over 90 research projects what costs are reasonable and which ones are not? Mr. President, I believe that in a time of shrinking Federal dollars for vital agriculture research, the answer to all four of these questions has to be ``no.'' Congress is not equipped to make these decisions, and it should not be our job to make those decisions. In too many cases too many projects are being funded for political reasons rather than scientific reasons. An agricultural researcher's chance of getting Federal tax dollars should not depend on whether that researcher has a person on the Appropriations Committee. The amendment I am offering today ensures that research moneys under the Special Research Grants Program will be awarded to research institutions that submit proposals for projects that are consistent with the research needs of agriculture, that are competitive with respect to the cost of the project and the non-Federal matching funds, and have scientific or economic merit as determined by an external peer review panel. Congress under this can still recommend projects for funding, but those recommended projects will have to compete among a pool of other qualified research institutions. If they cannot pass the competitive test of merit and peer review, then the project should not and will not be funded. In 1994, the National Research Council stated that there remains considerable scope for expansion of the use of competitive grants at USDA and, equally important, the use of peer review. The advantages of this different more competitive approach are indisputable. First, competitive grants are responsive and flexible and can be adjusted to agricultural funding priorities consistent with national needs and the public interest. In 1993, before the Senate Subcommittee on Agriculture Research, the GAO reported that congressional earmarking of research dollars was identified as one of the factors inhibiting USDA from focusing research dollars on current research priorities. During that same hearing, USDA witnesses indicated specifically that congressional earmarking had prevented them from redirecting research dollars for the more current needs. Second, competition attracts new scientists, researchers and economists to an area of research typically reserved to a few select institutions with entree to Congress. That can only be good for research that attempts to solve otherwise unresolved problems. Third, competition in grant awards provides taxpayers and farmers with greater assurances that limited research dollars are being spent wisely and in the most cost-beneficial manner possible. It is that last point that I think is really critical. Over the last 25 years, USDA's research budget in terms of real dollars has actually declined. Of course, now in our efforts to balance the budget research funds will probably continue to take greater hits. The proposed budget for CSREES research in fiscal year 1996 is down $14 million from fiscal year 1995. Compared to just 2 years ago, the funding for the Special Research Grants Program alone is down by $18 million. Congress can no longer afford to operate the way we have for the last 25 years. It is time to open up the Special Research Grants Program to competition and peer review. While this programming accounts for only 5 percent of the budget, it accounts for about one-third of the nonformula research grants made by the agency, so it is pretty substantial. It is a critical component of this Nation's research agenda for agriculture. So to conclude, let me be clear. My amendment does not cut any funding for the Special Research Grants Program. It does not, as was stated earlier in the Chamber, strike any of that funding. It merely imposes a process whereby research grants will be directed towards the most relevant research in the most cost beneficial manner. I think we owe it to taxpayers and consumers and farmers and others in the area of agriculture to adopt this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

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

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, thank you. Amendment No. 2697 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of appropriated funds for the special research grants program that are not subject to a competitive approval process)

Mr. FEINGOLD. That is agreeable.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased that this amendment offered by my colleague from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] is being accepted, and am proud to join him as an original co-sponsor. I believe that this amendment clarifies the bill to specifically exclude one-time capital improvement payments for home weatherization or repair or replacement of unsafe and inoperative heating and cooling equipment from counting as income when figuring food stamp benefits. Under the Dole proposal as originally drafted there may have been ambiguity as to whether LIHEAP moneys received by individuals for one- time capital improvements count as income when figuring food stamp benefits. With this amendment, it is clear that this bill does not intend to affect such payments. LIHEAP is perhaps best known as the program that assists eligible individuals by subsidizing a portion of the costs of their home utility bills. However, as many in this body whose States have active LIHEAP programs are aware, LIHEAP moneys are also used by States, such as my home State of Wisconsin, in emergency situations to purchase new home heating and cooling devices and to weatherize homes. My State is involved in two capital improvement programs funded by LIHEAP. Participants in these two programs would have been dramatically affected by the underlying bill if it were not amended. About $5.9 million of the LIHEAP grant funds received by my State of Wisconsin, about 15 percent of the total received, are combined with State funds and other Federal funds from the Department of Energy's weatherization program into a pool to conduct audits of eligible homes for one-time weatherization improvements, such as window replacement and weather stripping. At the same time these home weatherization audits are being undertaken, the State might also act to replace or repair a furnace which is found to be in disrepair. In fiscal year 1994, the last full year for which data are available, 5,800 homes were audited in Wisconsin, and of those 1,600 had their heating systems replaced. In addition, the LIHEAP program in my State keeps $1 million in reserve, which it matches with oil overcharge funds, to conduct emergency activities in homes that it has not audited under its more routine audit program. In fiscal year 1994, 1,440 dangerous or inoperative furnaces were repaired or replaced on an emergency basis. This past summer, Mr. President, it was this program that responded to the blistering heat in the upper Midwest that claimed the lives of so many this summer. This amendment is very simple, and I believe it makes a substantive improvement in the underlying proposal. Someone should not become ineligible for food stamps in a given program year, Mr. President, because their furnace breaks and the price of a new furnace, paid for by the LIHEAP program, would push them out of the eligible income bracket. Furnaces are extremely costly purchases for anyone, Mr. President. Even an average middle class Wisconsin family would have to budget in order to afford to replace one. Last year, the average cost of a new furnace provided by the LIHEAP program was $2,000. This expense could bump people on the margins out of the program, while their living standard, except for the fact that they may have averted both a house fire and personal injury by replacing their furnace, does not change at all. I joined with my colleague from Minnesota because I am concerned that the counting of one-time LIHEAP payments as income may create a disincentive among food stamp recipients to undertake needed emergency repair activities. Some have argued throughout the debate on welfare reform that individuals receiving food stamp, AFDC, and other benefits make behavioral decisions that affect their benefit level. By their nature, Mr. President, these capital improvements are often unplanned and unpredictable. Every Senator in this body should be sensitive to the fact that sometimes the furnace just stops working, and these families, as hard as they might be working and trying to comply with the program as proposed, simply would not have the extra funds on hand to cover the repair. We should be very mindful of that fact that as individuals begin to move from welfare to work, as proposed by the measure before us, they are generating the primary support for them and their families--not savings. Without LIHEAP support there may be no other source of funds to act in these emergency situations. While I am concerned about including LIHEAP utility bill subsidies as additions to income, I understand that excluding these rate subsidy payments would be a very controversial proposal. In my State, as in many others, LIHEAP never pays the whole heating bill. The amount of the bill paid ranges from 18.5 to 72 percent of the total, the individual always has the responsibility to pay a portion of the bill. Because they pay a portion, recipients are encouraged to conserve and to maintain a responsible payment schedule. As it is, Mr. President, in my home State of Wisconsin, the average LIHEAP household heating fuel cost is 10.6 percent of the recipient's total income, and after receiving assistance it is 5.7 percent of income; the average Wisconsin citizen's household heating fuel cost is 2.6 percent of their income. [[Page S 13575]] To address the concerns that some have about the LIHEAP utility bill subsidy, however, this amendment is narrowly crafted to just address the issue of one-time LIHEAP payments. I believe that for safety reasons this amendment is also justified. As my colleagues know, old furnaces are extremely dangerous, as are the alternatives, such as space heaters. In crisis situations, my State LIHEAP program informs me, individuals resort to a whole host of heating techniques, including using charcoal grills indoors and relying on an electric or gas stove as a primary heat source. Despite the fact that this is 1995, Mr. President, 4 percent of Wisconsin LIHEAP program homes, or 5,720 households, are still wood heated, and 10 percent are trailer housing dependent upon propane tanks for their heat, another 14,300 households. Additionally, there is the concern of in-home carbon monoxide poisoning which, according to an article in the New York Times on May 14, 1995, sends 5,000 people each year to the emergency room with nonfatal illnesses and claims the lives of 250 people annually. I think, Mr. President, that just as some in this body believe it would be a failed reform of the welfare system to continue to encourage people on the margins to engage in certain behaviors to increase their benefits, it would also be a failed reform if we were to encourage unsafe behavior by individuals for fear of losing benefits. This amendment avoids the classic heat or eat dilemma by clarifying that the Senate does not intend for one-time energy improvement payments to count as income, and I am pleased that it will be added to the underlying measure.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I especially want to thank the Senator from Arizona. I am pleased to be a part of this effort, to be one of two authors in the McCain-Feingold bill, and am pleased to hear that Senator Thompson has joined us. I have worked with the Senator from Arizona already this year on a number of issues and on a bipartisan basis about our concern about the revolving door. Members of Congress and staff sometimes move rather quickly over to lobbying ventures. We are trying to do something about that. We worked hard together to try to do something about the great public frustration about pork items being placed on appropriations bills, and are trying to respond in another piece of legislation that is attached to the line-item veto, a bill that could do something about putting extraneous material on emergency spending bills. I, of course, feel particular good about our recent effort and success on the gift ban which this body enacted just prior to the recess that we just had. I have to tell you, back home the response to the gift ban was a lot more intense than I expected. People are looking for any sign of hope that things can change here in Washington. Even though the gift ban itself is not something that changes the world or solves all of our problems by any means, there was a feeling I got that people took some heart from that. Our effort today in introducing this campaign finance reform bill is all about building on that initial success and doing it in an area that is even far more important; as the Senator from Arizona has said, the changing of the way we finance our campaigns. I am very optimistic that a number of Members from both sides of the aisle will join us in this effort soon. That is the indication I am getting from our conversations. [[Page S 12833]] The Senator from Arizona said this is, will be, and will continue to be a bipartisan effort. Senator McCain is speaking to Democrats and I am speaking to Republicans about this. We are not dividing up the Senate because this has to be a product of the Senate. What we are really asking here is for both political parties to, in effect, sort of mutually disarm this money race in politics and to have a consensus that the Senate and the Congress in this country will all be better off if we stop this horrible trend for outrageous spending in campaigns. I agree with the Senator from Arizona that this is not the perfect bill or the ideal bill, if there is one. I believe in complete public financing of campaigns. I think it would be better if we did not have any campaign contributions, if it was illegal to ask for campaign contributions. I think everybody would be better off. I suppose that is my ideal world. But I know that cannot pass here. I introduced my own bill earlier this year, S. 46. I thought it was a good bill but it involved public financing. There are difficulties in getting a majority on that issue. But because campaign finance reform is such an overwhelming priority, I was not only pleased to see some of the ideas of the Senator from Arizona, but I was very surprised to see how far he would come to try to reach a consensus, to try to have a bipartisan bill to solve this problem. I believe it is one of the biggest problems we have in this country. I say the biggest problem we have in terms of our day-to-day operations in trying to solve a particular problem is balancing the Federal budget. That is No. 1. But if we want to talk about the procedure, if we want to talk about the way this Government is run and why people feel it does not run right, I think the most important issue is changing the way campaigns are financed. I say this from the point of view of maybe three different groups. The first group, the most important group, is the public at large. The Senator from Arizona says one of the reasons he thinks the Republicans won on November 8 is this issue. I think he is right. I think it is one of the reasons Bill Clinton and some of us won in 1992. It does not mean we earned that support if we do not do campaign finance reform. But I think it is one of the reasons. I think it has been a little bit surprising to people that in a reform Congress that this issue of campaign finance reform has not really come to the fore. So from the point of view of the public, when they see the hundreds of thousands of dollars poured into the telecommunications bill or the regulatory reform bill, you name it, this is all happening in this Congress, the money race, the big contributions continue, and it makes people feel that they are disconnected from their elected representatives, that something is going on here, that after the election somebody comes here and they are distracted or disconnected from them, and that the big money in campaigns has a lot to do with it. So from the point of view of the public, we need this legislation. We also need this legislation from the point of view of people who are challengers. We were all new candidates once for the Senate. We all had to face the reality that people would come to us and say, ``Well, you may be qualified, but where are you going to get the money?'' That ended up being the first question I was asked any time I went anywhere in Wisconsin or other places trying to figure out if I could run a credible race. How are you going to get the money? Well, that has to change. Some of us were fortunate enough to win, maybe even without a great deal of money. But I cannot even imagine the thousands and thousands of Americans, good Americans, people who would have been wonderful Senators who did not even consider running because they believe this has become a game for either the wealthy or the well connected. Finally, there is a third group that this should have great appeal for, and that is the 100 Members of this body. Ask any Senator what they do not like about their job. Most are so delighted to be here and consider it a great honor. The one thing that is the bane of any Senator's existence, if there is one, is this necessity of raising money. For many it is a demeaning process, to be told that if you do not raise $10,000 a week, you are not going to have a chance and you are going to have more opponents. It takes away from time with your family; it takes away from time with your constituents; it takes away from time to actually do the job here in Washington, to understand the issues, to talk to other Senators and to work out solutions. So from the point of view of the Senate and those who seek the Senate and those who elect us, it is time to come together, compromise if necessary, and have a real campaign finance reform bill. The Senator from Arizona has outlined already the major provisions. Let me just highlight what I consider to be the three core provisions that I think make this bill very unique and not only strong but balanced from a partisan point of view. And these are the three provisions that all have to do with what happens if somebody complies with the incentives and with the limits in the bill in order to get various incentives. First of all, there is a provision that might be called the more Democrat-supported provision. It was the one in S. 3 last year, the one that passed the Democratic Senate, and that is the voluntary limit. We would place a voluntary limit based on the size of the population in a State of how much can be spent in total in a U.S. Senate election from about $1.5 million in the smaller States to a maximum of about $7 million to $8 million in California. And we know even though that sounds like a lot of money, it does not even compare to the $50 million that was spent in a Senate race in California this past year. So we provide a voluntary limit, and if you abide by the limit, you get benefits such as reduced television time and an opportunity to mail on a reduced basis to the constituents in your State. The second idea is what I would call a more Republican idea, an idea that I have always liked, one idea I campaigned on and I believe in it, and that is that you should have to get a majority of your campaign contributions from individuals from your own home State--not from PAC's, not from out-of-State interests, but a majority of the money has to come from the folks for whom you work, the boss--in my case, the 5 million people who live in Wisconsin. I think that is a very important provision to return us to the grassroots politics it has been. The third major provision has to do with a rising trend that we have all noticed and are all concerned about which makes the public terribly cynical, and that is the proliferation of big money being spent by very wealthy individuals to finance their own campaigns. This bill produces a voluntary limit of approximately $250,000, depending on the size of your State, saying that if you spend over that of your own money, your opponent gets some advantages in terms of raising funds to make it more competitive. So this combination, doing something about the overall amount that is spent, doing something about obtaining funds from outside of your own home State, and doing something about the unfairness of the system that allows only the very wealthy to be able to just get right in the middle of an election, buy recognition and win an election, these three things I think make for the core of a very effective bill. There are other provisions that are important, but I think these three are the ones that will make this bill work and make the bill pass. In addition, if a complying candidate is faced by an opponent that is pouring millions of dollars of their own money into their campaign, the complying candidate is granted the ability to raise additional campaign funds beyond the limits under current law. I support that principle--that is, the idea that we should provide incentives for candidates to limit their personal funding, and the idea that if one candidate is facing someone with such vast resources, the candidate without personal wealth should have access to resources of equal value. I do have concerns about this particular provision that raises the individual contribution limits and allows the complying candidate to raise hundreds of thousands of extra dollars. I am not sure that furthers the goal of bringing down the overall costs of Senate campaigns--in fact, it may only [[Page S 12834]] add fuel to the fire. Providing the complying candidate with greater benefits may be a better alternative to raising the contribution limits. But again I support the principle of finding a way to encourage candidates to voluntarily limit their personal spending. There are other important provisions in this legislation as well. We eliminate a traditional incumbent advantage--franked mass mailings, in the calendar year of an election. The bill contains another provision I have concerns about, a ban on political action committee contributions including the so-called leadership PAC's. If such a ban is ruled unlawful, PAC contributions will be limited to no more than 20 percent of a candidate's campaign funds collected and the contribution levels for PAC's will be lowered from 5,000 dollars to whatever the applicable individual contribution limits are. Some view a PAC ban as a cure-all to our campaign finance problems. I am not so sure of this. First, according to figures released by the Federal Election Commission, PAC contributions have remained at fairly equal levels over the past few election cycles. Aggregate PAC contributions totaled $149 million in 1990, rose to $178 million in 1992 and remained at $178 million in 1994. During the same period, overall campaign spending has risen from $446 million in 1990 to $724 million in 1994--a 62-percent increase. So even though overall campaign costs have skyrocketed in recent years, the level of PAC contributions has remained relatively constant. That is why I have very serious doubts that banning political action committees will be very helpful in getting a grip on the rapidly rising levels of overall campaign spending. The Senator from Arizona does however make a compelling point that incumbents by and large are most likely to benefit from PAC's as illustrated by the shift in PAC contributions from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party following the 1994 elections. Though I question the legality and rationale in banning PAC contributions, I think it is entirely appropriate to limit the amount of PAC contributions a candidate may accept as a percentage of overall fundraising. The backup provision in this bill--the 20 percent aggregate limit on PAC contributions, as well as lowering PAC contribution limits so they are equal to individual contribution limits--is a good idea, and I would actually support lowering that aggregate threshold, perhaps 10 percent. The bill also places new disclosure requirements and limits on the tremendous amounts of soft money, that is, the unregulated campaign funds that are poured into Federal campaigns including Presidential elections. Soft money represents a real problem in our political system and this is clearly one obstacle that Republicans and Democrats should be working together to eliminate. The amount of soft money raised just this year--numbering in the tens of millions of dollars--stands to undermine the reforms of the Presidential Election System that have worked so well for over 20 years now. Let me say that I was disappointed in the Democratic National Committee's recent fundraising effort that literally sought to sell access to the President in exchange for campaign contributions. I am very pleased that President Clinton, a longtime supporter of campaign finance reform, denounced this effort and distanced himself from it. This sort of fundraising has occurred while the White House was in control of Democrats and Republicans alike--and let me be clear here-- both parties are guilty of this kind of fundraising tactic that only underscores the need for comprehensive reform that includes soft money limits and disclosure. Finally, the bill will codify a recent ruling by the Federal Election Commission that bars candidates from using campaign funds for personal purposes, such as mortgage payments, country club memberships and vacations. Most of these provisions were included in S. 46, the campaign finance reform legislation I introduced on the first day of the 104th Congress, and I am delighted that Senator McCain and I were able to come together, roll up our sleeves and produce a comprehensive reform bill that is fair to Democrats and Republicans alike. The fact is, I do not support everything in this bill. There are provisions I would like to see modified. The legislation I introduced in January called for full public financing for candidates that agree to limit there overall campaign spending. I continue to believe that public financing is the best way to reform a system that has created dramatically unfair elections and caused Members of Congress to spend increasingly more time hosting fundraisers and less time fulfilling their legislative responsibilities. However, if campaign finance reform is to pass with bipartisan support, a vehicle for such reform must be found that can be supported by Members from both parties and from across political ideologies. I believe that this bill provides that vehicle. Having a fair and competitive election system is not a Democratic or Republican issue. How we elect our Representatives is a cornerstone of our Democratic political system. As a Nation, we have always put a tremendous value on participation in our Democratic process. We have repeatedly passed laws, even constitutional amendments, to expand the rights of our citizens to vote and express political viewpoints. Yet here we are with a campaign system in which the average cost of running for a seat in the U.S. Senate is estimated at $4 million. Four million dollars. That is just the average. In 1994, nearly $35 million was spent between the two general election candidates in California alone. Nearly $27 million was spent by the candidates in the Virginia Senate race. So unless you win the Powerball drawing, or strike oil in your backyard or are an incumbent Member of Congress, you are an automatic longshot to be even considered a credible candidate for the United States Senate. That is not expanding participation. That is not encouraging democracy. That is sending out a clear message that unless you are well-financed or well-connected, you should not be running for the United States Senate. Finally, the time consumed raising contributions for reelection efforts is time taken away from legislative responsibilities of incumbents. Members of Congress should not have to chose between those responsibilities or making phone calls to potential contributors. What we need to do is to return to a simple proposition: That is, money should not determine the outcome of elections. Elections should be decided by issues and ideas, not checkbooks and campaign coffers. That does not mean that campaign contributions have no place in our election system. It simply means that all candidates should have a legitimate and reasonable opportunity to get their message out to the electorate in their States. I have reached that conclusion, the Senator from Arizona has reached that conclusion and the majority of this body has reached that conclusion. Mr. President, we all know that Congress is not held in very high regard by the American people. They are angry, they are cynical and to a large extent they have lost faith in their Government. All of these feelings have sprung from a common belief that is shared by so many of our constituents--a belief that I find deeply troubling--that the Congress simply does not represent them anymore. They see the television news accounts of Members of Congress relaxing on a beach vacation paid for by lobbyists. They find out that their Representatives are receiving tens of thousands of dollars from this interest group or that interest group, and they have begun to wonder if the average American really has any sort of voice in Washington DC. They feel alienated, they feel disconnected and soon they become distrustful. A few weeks ago, thousands of Americans who have been frustrated by both parties' inability to produce meaningful political reform met at the United We Stand America Convention in Dallas. Politician after politician, from both parties, ranging from the distinguished Senate majority leader to the general chairman of the Democratic National Committee, stood at the lectern in Dallas and railed for campaign finance reform. Why? As one attendee at this convention framed it: [[Page S 12835]] When I look at a politician, I wonder who really owns him. I do not see them as people with their own ideas. I think the people who are financing them tell them what to think. That viewpoint, Mr. President--one that I believe is shared by millions and millions of other Americans--is precisely why we are in such need of immediate and meaningful campaign finance reform. Whether it is showering Members of Congress with free gifts, meals or vacation trips, or funneling huge campaign contributions to incumbent Members, it has become clear in the minds of the American people--and justifiably so--that the key to gaining access and influence on Capitol Hill is money. And that is what our election system has become all about--money. Candidates are judged first and foremost not on their positions on the issues, not by their experience or capabilities but by their ability to raise the millions of dollars that are needed in today's climate to run an effective congressional campaign. The bill we are introducing today will return our campaign system to the people we represent. If an individual wants to run for the United States Senate and can prove that their ideas and viewpoints represent a broad base of support, they will have the opportunity to do so. I have said many times that we should not have a campaign finance system that favors challengers or incumbents, or candidates from either party. The bill we are introducing today represents the comprehensive, bipartisan reform that the American people have been demanding for years. This bill represents a compromise that can be supported by Senators from across the ideological spectrum. It is not perfect and it includes provisions which I and others might not support standing alone. Each of us has swallowed hard in some areas to put together a responsible, bipartisan proposal. Taken as a whole and on balance, it is a vast improvement over our current system which can be described as unfair at best and chaotic at worst. Finally and very briefly, the question I am getting is: Why do you think this is going to succeed? This has been tried time and again. Well, I can understand that sentiment. Campaign finance reform is not even mentioned in the Republican Contract With America. It is not even there. But there is still a strong feeling that this should be done. Even though there is a disconnect between what the Senator from Arizona has said when he points out people believe this should be done but they do not think it can be done, it will not happen, I think there are signs it will happen. First, this is the first bipartisan effort of its kind for 10 years. That is very important. Second, I think the gift ban effort showed that there is a willingness on reform issues to cross party lines, to sometimes not agree with the leadership, and to move on a bipartisan basis to change the system. Third, you cannot help but notice that at the conference in Dallas run by Mr. Perot, even though it may not have been expected, one of the leading topics was the need for campaign finance reform. And in the first speech given at that conference by our former colleague, Senator Boren said that the conference should go on record in favor of the McCain-Feingold bill. I also noticed that even before we introduced the bill today, we have already had editorial endorsements across the country. It is rare to receive editorial endorsements on a piece of legislation before you even introduce it, but this bill has already merited it. We also understand that at least a notice will go out today that a couple of our colleagues in the House on a bipartisan basis will introduce this same bill in the House. So there is reason to believe that it will not just be an effort in the Senate. Let me finally say I think the most telling proof that this thing can work is the vote we took in July. I came to the floor of the Senate and simply brought up a sense-of-the-Senate resolution along with Senator McCain that said we ought to consider campaign finance reform during the 104th Congress. I expected that this would just be accepted, that people would say, ``Fine. Let's deal with that later.'' But the majority leader, a person who has enormous respect in this body from every Member, came down to the floor and indicated that he was not sure there could be a bipartisan effort, and he moved to table my amendment to not have campaign finance reform put on the agenda. Mr. President, he lost that vote. He almost never loses a vote out here. He has a tremendously high success record. But 13 Republicans joined with various Democrats to say on a 57-41 vote that, yes, during the 104th Congress we have to clean up this money mess that is in Washington. We have to stop this race to raise all this money out here that takes us away from our constituents. I think that is a good sign. It is a sign that both parties want to work together. And all I can say in conclusion is the thing I especially like about working with the Senator from Arizona is he does not just like introducing bills; he likes to win. This is an effort to pass a bill--not talk about it, pass a bill--send it to the President, and to have by January 1, 1997, a whole different way of electing Senators. So I thank the Senator from Arizona very much, and I look forward to this effort. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. I send my second amendment to the desk.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment be set aside so I may offer my second amendment.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. As I said, I expect both of these ultimately to be accepted, and to expedite consideration I now send the first amendment to the desk.

Mr. FEINGOLD. The first relates to a study of the impact of changes on the child care food program on program participation and family day care providers. I have worked with the majority and minority on the Agriculture Committee on the language of the amendment, and I expect it will be accepted by the floor managers. Mr. President, This amendment is very simple and it addresses an issue of great concern raised by my constituents in Wisconsin. A few months ago, the House of Representatives repealed the entitlement status for the Child and Adult Care Food Program and placed its funding in a block grant of other child nutrition programs. The 10,000 family day care home sponsors in the United States worried the program would be swallowed up by the larger, more well-known programs such as the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children. The Family Day Home sponsors, who administer aspects of the CACFP knew the House proposal effectively meant the end of this very important program. Mr. President, the CACFP is a relatively small program that affects a very large number of children in this country. In addition to providing reimbursements to providers for meals served to low-income children in child care centers, it provides a blended reimbursement for meals served in all participating family day care homes--those with six children or fewer. Most children in the United States that currently receive day care are cared for in small family day care homes. Even more significantly, according to Congress's Select Panel for the Promotion of Child Health, pre-school age children receive about three-quarters of their nutritional intake from their day care providers. Those two facts emphasize the importance of ensuring children receive nutritious meals while they under the supervision of a family day care home provider. Early this year, the operator of Wisconsin's smallest non-profit sponsor in my State, Linda Leindecker of Horizon's Unlimited in Green Bay, met with me to discuss her specific concerns about the proposals to modify the program she helps deliver. The CACFP, she pointed out, has greater benefits than might meet the eye. While the clear goal of the program is to enhance the nutritional status of children receiving care by family day care homes, it has many less obvious benefits. Linda pointed out that the program provides a strong incentive for small family day care homes to become licensed by the State. A recent survey of over 1,200 day care homes in Wisconsin found that over 70 percent of those surveyed became licensed because of CACFP benefits. That means children are more likely to be in day care homes that provide a safe and more healthy environment with more nutritious meals than unregulated day care homes. These so-called ``underground'' homes are not only operating without health or safety standards, but they are also better able to evade compliance with income tax laws as well. Not only must family day care homes participating in the CACFP comply with State regulations, they are also subject to random inspections of all their homes by the CACFP sponsors. CACFP care providers must also undergo extensive nutrition education and training programs conducted by sponsors to ensure that the children in participating homes are eating nutritious meals as required by the program. In total, Wisconsin family day care providers are serving nearly 12.5 million healthy breakfasts, lunches, suppers and snacks annually. Mr. President, the message I have heard loud and clear from Linda and other Family Day Care Home sponsors in Wisconsin is that while the primary benefit of the family day care home portion of the CACFP is the enhanced nutritional status of children in small day care homes, the second most important benefit is the role of this program in creating more licensed and regulated family day care homes. That benefits parents, taxpayers, and children alike. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate Agriculture Committee did not take the drastic approach endorsed by the House. In particular, I am pleased that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar] and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] recognized how important CACFP is to this Nation's children by maintaining the identity and entitlement status of the program in S. 904 as approved by the Agriculture Committee However, the legislation before us, which incorporates the Agriculture Committee's bill S. 904, does make some fundamental changes to the reimbursement structure for family day care homes. The bill establishes an area-wide means test for full reimbursement, tier I, of meals served in family day care and provides a much smaller reimbursement for meals served in homes that do not fall within a qualifying geographic area, tier II. The Democratic alternative to the majority leader's bill also provides for geographic based means testing for CACFP but provides a slightly higher second tier reimbursement. Wisconsin's day care home sponsors are alarmed by the small tier II home reimbursement and worry that this lower level of reimbursement will eliminate the incentive for family day care homes to become licensed and approved by the State. As some homes drop out of the program and operate underground, even fewer will enter the program at all, making regulated day care less accessible and less affordable to parents of young children. Sponsors are also worried that the nutritional quality of meals served in tier II homes will decline as well. Fifteen cents, they point out, doesn't buy much of a healthy mid- day snack. I share those concerns, Mr. President. I am concerned that the marginal benefit of day care home participation may no longer justify the cost of being regulated or licensed by the State. If that is the case, I am concerned that not only the quality of day care will decline, but that the quantity of affordable day care will fall as well. While we are debating a bill that proposes to send more low- income parents to work, it is important that there be an adequate supply of safe and affordable day care for their children. Mr. President, my amendment tries to address those concerns by requiring USDA to study the impact of the changes to CACFP made in this bill on program participation, family day care home licensing and the nutritional quality of meals served in family day care homes. Since the impact of these changes will likely be felt within the first year or two following enactment, my amendment calls for a one-time study of this matter, rather than an annual review. I think it is critical that Congress have access to the information they need to conduct proper oversight of Federal programs. While the changes made to the CACFP in S. 1120 are intended to maintain program integrity while achieving fiscal responsibility, it is important that Congress find out whether the legislation actually achieves those goals. That is the intent of my amendment. It is simple and straightforward but it is important. The second amendment, Mr. President, relates to authority to allow a housing project in Madison, Wisconsin to conduct a demonstration project that waives the current take-one, take-all section 8 requirement that requires a project which accepts a single section 8 resident to take any other section 8 applicant. [[Page S 12829]] The unfortunate result of this policy, Mr. President, is that sometimes it is meant that a project will not accept any section 8 residents at all. This demonstration program would not entail any Federal cost. I understand that neither the administration nor the authorizing committee has any objection to this amendment and that they support moving in this direction in order to provide greater flexibility for these types of housing programs. I offer this amendment along with my senior colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl. The amendment would provide an opportunity for Madison, WI, to demonstrate an innovative and emerging strategy in the operation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development assisted housing program by eliminating the take-one, take-all requirement. That provision requires the manager or owner of multifamily rental housing to make all units available to residents who qualify for section 8 certificates or vouchers under the National Housing Act as long as at least one unit is made available to those residents under the terms of the long-term, 20-year section 8 renter contracts. The availability of low-income housing is being seriously threatened across this Nation. This is especially true when private property owners are considered who are increasingly choosing to opt out of the HUD section 8 program for a variety of reasons, as their long-term contracts expire. The situation in this case in Madison is typical of these problems that are being experienced nationwide. HUD itself recognizes this and has actually proposed, Mr. President, that we eliminate the take-one, take-all language. They project an elimination of the requirement will provide an incentive to attract new multifamily low-income housing developer owners and also retain existing ones. Local government officials, private institutions, residents and apartment owners in Madison in this case, Mr. President, have agreed to a plan for the Summer Society Circle Apartments that will reduce the concentration of low-income families and densely populated in circumscribed areas. They believe it will reduce crime and drug and gang activity and stabilize development in neighborhoods by encouraging a mix of low- and moderate-income families. We believe the amendment provides an opportunity to demonstrate that public-private collaborative planning can result in increased, Mr. President, increased availability of quality housing for low- and moderate-income families. Accordingly, we urge the support of the body. There is no additional cost associated with this demonstration project, which simply allows this community to have greater flexibility in operating in housing projects which meet the needs of the communities. As I understand the parliamentary situation, it is the desire of the managers to have as many of these amendments offered tonight as possible, and they will be disposed of in due course. Amendment No. 2480 (Purpose: To study the impact of amendments to the child and adult care food program on program participation and family day care licensing)

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment temporarily be set aside so I can offer two amendments which I expect will be ultimately accepted.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I pay tribute today to Kenneth Bick, the former principal of Janesville Craig High School and a man who represented the values and character of that community. Mr. Bick, who served the Janesville schools for 40 years, from 1929 to 1969, passed away Monday, August 7, at the age of 91 from complications arising from a head injury suffered in an automobile accident last month. Mr. President, I am one of thousands of men and women who mourn his passing. Mr. Bick was a strand who found his way through every part of the fabric of the community where he and I both grew up. In addition to serving as teacher and principal in the Janesville schools, he was active in numerous community organizations, from the YMCA to the Sportsmen's Club to the Rotary. He helped lead bond drives during World War II. In the 1960's, he headed Janesville's fundraising drive for the United Negro College Fund. He presided over Industries International, a corporation organized to promote contacts between foreign students studying in the United States and American industries interested in establishing a presence overseas. A basketball player in his younger days, was active in the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association and the Big Eight Conference. As an educator, he would not allow himself to grow distant from his students; he was happy to lead cheers at the homecoming rally, dressed in bright red longjohns. If one of his charges, even years after graduation, was mentioned in a newspaper, any newspaper, sooner or later the clip would show up in the mailbox, with a congratulatory note from Mr. Bick. Along the way, he collected allocades from several quarters, and the Kenneth Bick Scholarship Fund was established in 1984. He also collected the respect and affection of his entire community, even as its members spread across the country. In many ways, Mr. President, Mr. Bick defined the idea of community in Janesville. He was kind, funny, attentive and he never forgot you. When he thought it necessary, he herded you back into line if you strayed. He lived as well as taught the values and ideals I associate with my hometown. Like a lot of people, I will always recall Ken Bick leading those homecoming rallies, a sexagenarian in red longjohns. Like a lot of people, I counted Ken Bick among my friends long after he was my principal at Janesville Craig. Like a lot of people, I will miss him sorely.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, This amendment, for myself and Senator Kohl, will terminate a military program in our own state. I understand the amendment will be accepted by the managers and I appreciate their cooperation on this matter. The amendment involves Project ELF, the Navy's Extremely Low Frequency communications project located in Clam Lake, Wisconsin, and Republic, Michigan. This is a program that is ineffective, out of date, and unwanted by most residents in my state, even though it does employ Wisconsinites. The members of the Wisconsin delegation have fought hard for years to close down Project ELF; I have introduced legislation three times to terminate it; and I have recommended it for closure to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. This time, I am offering an amendment which would limit funds appropriated in this bill to termination costs to mothball Project ELF. The Navy has estimated that it will cost $12.2 million to shut down and deactivate the ELF system. For a Congress supposedly in hot pursuit of spending cuts, one would think Project ELF could be eliminated. Instead, as if it were some kind of pet project of a home state Senator, it lingers like a blot in our budget. Description of ELF Project ELF is a one-way, primitive messenger system designed to signal to--not communicate with--deeply submerged Trident submarines. It is a ``bell ringer,'' a pricey ``beeper'' system, used to tell the submarine when to rise to the surface to get a more detailed message through real communications systems. It was designed at a [[Page S 12190]] time when the threat of detection to our submarines was real. But ELF was never developed to an effective capacity, and the demise of the Soviet threat has certainly rendered it unnecessary. The concept of extremely low frequency was first introduced when submarines started going so far beneath the surface ordinary radios could not reach them. In its first incarnation, in the mid-1960's, Project ELF was Project Sanguine: an elaborate--and vulnerable--network of 6200 miles of cable and over 100 ELF transmitter towers spread over 40 percent of northern Wisconsin. It was abandoned when it proved too expensive, too susceptible, and too controversial in the community. Years later, after much debate, false starts, budget constrictions, and resident antagonism, Project ELF was whittled down to a total of 84 miles of cable and two transmitters over two states. It was hoped that once it was started, it could grow: a typical bureaucratic ``let's-get- our-foot-in-the-door'' program. Strategic argument But the project has had a hard time gaining momentum exactly because it is impractical. Even in its optimum construction, it has no nuclear survivability or dependability, and therefore little wartime efficacy. In 1979, the General Accounting Office had recommended ``that the Secretary of Defense terminate any plans to construct an extremely low frequency transmitter system * * * since it is not needed * * * [the system] enhances communications capability only marginally at best.'' In 1980, the Navy agreed, stating that there was no threat that required the development of ELF. It was only in 1981, when Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger overruled the Navy and declared that Project ELF should proceed. It was a bad plan then, and an obsolete one today. The Navy's recent brief on ELF also acknowledges that there is no current threat precipitating ELF's continuation: it says, ``Even though our submarines are currently, to the best of our knowledge, virtually invulnerable to the present anti-submarine threat, the ELF system is a hedge against future developments by our potential enemies.'' That is, Mr. President, ELF is only operating in case of a future development, but not for current protection. That is why my amendment provides for the mothballing of project ELF. For example, in the unlikely event that a threat emerges in 5 years, we could restart ELF, but have saved the $60 million plus in the interim in which it was unnecessary. ELF is inefficient In actuality, if ELF served a strategic purpose, this would not be a burdensome investment. But Project ELF does not serve such a strategic purpose. Even at its best, ELF has been a weapon in search of a mission at the right time--but that time has yet to come. Health and environment Finally, Mr. President, let me add a word about the health and environmental effects of ELF as well, because if you are a resident of northern Wisconsin, this is something which has been of concern. The Navy continues to insist that there are no environmental effect or health hazards associated with the electromagnetic fields ELF emits: it's just that after $25 million of study, there has been no conclusive evidence one way or the other. I certainly understand any fears the Wisconsin residents must have. In fact, in 1984 a U.S. District Court, ruling on State of Wisconsin vs. Weinberger ordered Project ELF closed because the Navy paid inadequate attention to ELF's possible health effects and violated the National Environmental Policy Act. Interestingly, an appeals court threw out the ruling arguing that the national security threat from the Soviets at the time was more important. The premise of that ruling today is obviously outdated. It should be reconsidered in light of realities in 1995. Conclusion ELF is not worth any money because it doesn't have a mission. If it is a first-strike weapon, then it is de-stabilizing and threatening, which hardly increases our security. If it is merely a communications system, it is inadequate. A weapon or a communications device designed to keep deeply submerged submarines submerged is no longer necessary. It is not protecting us against any capable enemy, but it is using money that could be. As columnist Jack Anderson noted earlier this year, this is an exemple of a cut that the delegation wants the Congress to make. We are asking the Congress to take our program. We came very close to it earlier this year with the rescissions bill. The Senate Appropriations Committee had recommended it for a cut, and the full Senate had agreed. During conference, there seemed to be a concern that the Navy had come up with a newly invented ``highly classified'' justification for ELF. There appears to have been some confusion about this project and I have been told there is no new justification for ELF. So, I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and fund ELF's termination this year, not its continuation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair, and I especially thank the senior Senator from New York. He has showed unparalleled leadership and wisdom on this particular issue and many other issues. Clearly, we have come to rue the day that we did not listen to the senior Senator from New York on this issue. I say to the Chair and all my colleagues, [[Page S 11821]] we will come to rue this day as well if we do not listen to the senior Senator from New York on this issue that he has more understanding of than any Member in this body. Mr. President, I rise today to support real reform of our Nation's welfare system. I rise in support of genuine reform that focuses on temporary and transitional assistance to families, work and work preparation, guaranteed child care, positive family development, vigorous child support enforcement, the prevention of teen pregnancy, and teen and adult parental responsibility. Simply put, I strongly support the Work First plan which was recently introduced by the distinguished Democratic leader. The Work First plan, Mr. President, actually ends welfare as we know it and presents a clear contrast to the bill before the Senate, which I think is largely business as usual. Work First fundamentally changes the structure of welfare by creating a new, conditional entitlement for a limited time. The Republican plan merely repackages the Federal AFDC and jobs program into State entitlement block grants with cap funding that does not consider economic variability. Work First emphasizes and requires actual work in order to receive a benefit. The Republican plan has no real work requirements and provides no incentives for people to get or keep jobs. It merely measures participation in jobs or other bureaucratic programs in order for States to be able to qualify for future funding. In addition, Mr. President, Work First protects kids with a safety net of services if parents fail to participate and guarantees child care assistance for parents who do work. The Republican plan limits assistance for child care, has no safety net, and leaves families at the mercy of future economic downturns and the State and local responses to them. Mr. President, Work First requires States to invest in getting welfare recipients to work by maintaining a State match while creating savings from the existing welfare program. The Republican plan requires no State match and dramatically cuts welfare to finance a Federal tax cut for the rich, while virtually ensuring an increased tax burden on State and local governments when the robust economic conditions change. Mr. President, the distinctions between the two plans are very clear: Either we want to practice what we preach by providing temporary assistance while moving people into work, or we want to just talk a good game of State flexibility while at the same time reducing the State's ability and capacity or incentive to truly end welfare as we know it. As the senior Senator from New York pointed out, my own State of Wisconsin, which has been in the spotlight as a leader in welfare reform, actually provides a model of two conclusions about this issue. Wisconsin provides both a good example of the types of initiatives that Work First can inspire, but frankly it also provides a clear warning that good PR is a poor substitute for demonstrable results for families and for the States. In other words, all that glitters is not gold when we look at the Wisconsin model. There is good and there is bad. We want to make sure that this body knows the difference. First, we will talk about what has been very good. The New Hope project in Milwaukee, WI, demonstrates that the principles of Work First are a proven and effective alternative to the Republican proposed welfare program. New Hope began in 1992 as a demonstration project with 51 participating families. Now it has been expanded just in the last 3 years to 600 families. Its funds were secured through Federal, State and private sources. The projects targeted families receiving welfare and the working poor who qualified for some public assistance like food stamps and Medicaid. New Hope requires participants to work. It provides access to private-sector jobs, community service jobs if no job can be found in the private sector. Mr. President, it provides wage subsidies if necessary to bring a family's income above the poverty line. And, Mr. President, very importantly, it provides health and child care subsidies for families with up to 200 percent of poverty. While the project shares the goals of self-sufficiency with existing efforts, it goes way beyond this in three ways. First, the project guarantees access to a job. Second, it removes categorization of those who are poor and thereby removes some of the disincentive to participate in the current system. Third, it links subsidies to income level rather than creating sudden-death scenarios for participants when arbitrarily established time limits are reached. Mr. President, let me just say that New Hope speaks for itself in its results. There has been an 86 percent increase in the proportion of the participants who work. There has been a 75 percent decrease in the proportion of participants who are unemployed. The employed no longer require AFDC, and 25 percent of them no longer require Medicaid. Let me talk about the other example. Turning to the much-touted welfare reform initiatives in the State of Wisconsin championed by Governor Thompson, let me first commend Governor Thompson for his activism in the welfare debate. It is substantial. It is a credit to the skilled people working in the State's bureaucracy that as many innovations have been carefully implemented in the past 8 years, and our State has earned its reputation on this issue. Mr. President, I think it is important for people to know, since I served in the State Senate through many of the years this began, that the jury is still really out on the actual cause of the results Wisconsin has experienced--in other words, Mr. President, the sharp decrease in the welfare caseload, which has been impressive. We have had a 22.5-percent decrease in welfare from 1986 to 1994. But, Mr. President, the information we have is that this is probably not directly attributable in large part to the Thompson innovations but more likely to be attributed to unrelated aspects. Similarly, while the Republican bill before the Senate seeks to reform welfare by slashing funding to the States, the one thing that we are pretty clear that Wisconsin does demonstrate is that significant investment is necessary in order to realize even the slightest measure of success in preparing people for and getting them to work. Wisconsin's well-developed employment and training system, which features 30 one-stop-shopping job centers, is evidence of the investment that is really needed to get these kind of results. Mr. President, there is also recent empirical evidence that the cause of Wisconsin's success is most likely the function of factors not very easily replicated in other States, simply through the implementation of program policies. Michael Wiseman of the University of Wisconsin's Institute for Research on Poverty and the Robert M. LaFollette Institute of Public Affairs released a study in June 1955 entitled ``State Strategies for Welfare Reform: The Wisconsin Story.'' Wiseman traces the short history of Wisconsin's welfare reform efforts beginning with the Thompson administration's first waiver initiative in 1987. He analyzes caseload data, unemployment rates, manufacturing employment, and benefit and eligibility levels in the context of each policy initiative requiring a waiver in order to test a variety of reform experiments. We have had many of these experiments. Let me just mention the variety. These experiments include: Learnfare, which requires teenage children of AFDC recipients and teen parents to regularly attend school or the family losses benefits; JOBS 20-hour requirement, which allows the State to require more than 20 hours of JOBS participation for mothers with preschool children; Allowing lower benefits to be paid in the first 4 months after a job is taken; Continuation of Medicaid benefits for 1 year; Suspension of the 100-hour rule, which denies benefits if the principal earner works more than 100 hours in a month; Bridefare, which allows welfare applicants under age 20, if they live together, to enjoy liberalized benefit and eligibility standards, but reduces benefits if a second child is born; So-called two-tier benefits allow the State to pay the benefit level of the [[Page S 11822]] sending State for new residents--I would add, this is currently being challenged in the Federal courts as unconstitutional; Prohibit ownership of a vehicle valued at more than $2,500; allow recipients to save up to $10,000 for education/training; A program called Work, not Welfare, which provides intensive job preparaton before requiring the recipient to work within 2 years or lose all benefits; Family Caps, which denies additional benefits for additional children; Work First, which requires participation in job search/preparation for 30 days before benefits can be received; and Pay for Performance, which reduces the JOBS benefit for every hour of JOBS participation not completed. The Wiseman study points out that Wisconsin's welfare caseload declined by 22.5 percent between December 1986 and December 1994. The study states that the decline is primarily associated with restrictions in eligibility and benefits, a strong State economy. Our State unemployment rate still hovers between 4 and 4.5 percent. And finally this is mostly correlated with large expenditures on welfare to work programs. Wiseman goes on to state that continued reduction of welfare utilization is jeopardized by proposed changes in Federal cost sharing because the Republican plan requires no State match. Wiseman concludes that the special circumstances enjoyed by Wisconsin are unlike to be duplicated elsewhere. He cautions that other States and the Federal Government should not assume that expanded State discretion alone will produce comparable gains unless accompanied by major outlays for employment and training programs, reductions in benefits, and tightening of eligibility requirements. He further cautions that the first policy is expensive to taxpayers, the second and third policies harm recipients. Finally, just this past Thursday Governor Thompson unveiled a new statewide welfare program that replaces AFDC. This follows the recent State budget action, which transfers responsibility for administering welfare programs to the State's labor department. The new ``W-2'' Program places participants into four categories depending on their job readiness. Those with the highest job skills will receive assistance from program staff to obtain full time private sector jobs. Those participants would also continue to receive food stamps and the EITC. Second, participants with less proficient job skills will be placed in full-time private sector jobs on a trial basis, on-the-job training subsidized by the State, with food stamp and EITC eligibility. Third, those who cannot secure private sector jobs or placed in trial jobs must perform community service for less than minimum wage with food stamp eligibility. Finally, the fourth category would be for people who are unable to obtain or hold a job, and who would be required to work in sheltered workshops, volunteer and participate in job preparation programs. What comes through with this latest proposal is the notion of high level investment throughout the Wisconsin plan. The notion that work comes first is another key element. It is sounding more and more like Governor Thompson is adopting the Work First strategy put forward in the minority leader's plan. In conclusion, Mr. President, Work First will be effective, because it adopts an attitude of uplift rather than put down, it requires investment by the States, not the cut and run strategy of the Republican plan. It develops and preserves families, rather than providing incentives to disintegrate them. It aggressively addresses teen pregnancy first through prevention, and by requiring teens to live in supportive home, or second chance home environments. So there is a very viable plan before us. It is a plan that brings together the best lessons we have learned in Wisconsin and that can actually be transferred to many other States. In that spirit I again thank the senior Senator from New York and yield the floor. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my good friend, the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], along with the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum], and the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams], in offering an amendment to reduce the number of political employees who are appointed by the President. I understand the amendment will be accepted by the manager. Specifically, the amendment caps the number of political appointees at 2,000, down from an estimated average of 2,800. CBO estimates that this measure will save $363 million over the next 5 years. Mr. President, as the cosponsorship of this amendment attests, this is a bipartisan proposal. It has been endorsed by Citizens Against Government Waste, and it is similar to one of the assumptions the Budget Committee of the other body made in developing their concurrent budget resolution. It is also consistent with the recommendations of the Vice President's National Performance Review, which called for reductions in the number of Federal managers and supervisors, arguing that ``over-control and micromanagement'' not only ``stifle the creativity of line managers and workers, they consume billions per year in salary, benefits, and administrative costs.'' Mr. President, that assessment is especially appropriate with respect to political appointees. Between 1980 and 1992, the number of political appointees grew by more than 17 percent, over three times as fast as the total number of executive branch employees. And since 1960, political appointees have grown by a startling 430 percent. Mr. President, the exploding number of political appointees was a target of the 1989 National Commission on the Public Service, chaired by former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker. As the Commission noted, Presidents must have the flexibility to appoint staff that are ideologically compatible. Political appointees can be important sources of fresh ideas, and can bring important experience from the private sector into an administration. Equally as important, political appointees help ensure that Government responds to the policy priorities mandated by the electorate at the ballot box. But, as the Volcker Commission found, far from enhancing responsiveness, the growing number of Presidential appointees ``actually undermine effective presidential control of the executive branch.'' The Commission noted that the large number of Presidential appointees simply cannot be managed effectively by any President or White House. Altogether, the Volcker Commission argued that this lack of control and political focus ``may actually dilute the President's ability to develop and enforce a coherent, coordinated program and to hold cabinet secretaries accountable.'' The Commission found that the excessive number of appointees are a barrier to critical expertise, distancing the President and his principal assistants both from the most experienced career officials and the front line workers, often the best positioned to make critical assessments of Government policies. Mr. President, the problem of distancing that was raised by the Volcker Commission has been chronicled by Paul Light in his book, ``Thickening Government.'' Light found that the increasing number of political appointees are arrayed in layer upon layer of management, layers that did not exist 30 years ago. He found that in 1960 there were 17 layers of management at the very top of Government, but by 1992, there were 32 layers. Compounding the problem, Mr. President, Light notes that these 32 layers do not stack neatly one on top of the other in a unified chain of command. Some layers come into play on some issues but not on others. Light asserts that ``* * * As this sediment has thickened over the decades, presidents have grown increasingly distant from the lines of government, and the front lines from them.'' He adds that ``Presidential leadership, therefore, may reside in stripping government of the barriers to doing its job effectively * * *'' Mr. President, many will recall the difficulties the current administration has had in filling even some of the more visible political appointments. A story in the National Journal in November 1993, focusing upon the delays in the Clinton administration in filling political positions, noted that in Great Britain, the transition to a new government if finished a week after it begins. A speedy transition is possible because British Government runs on a handful of political appointees. According to Paul Light, they have about one-tenth as many career executives and only five layers of management between the Minister and the British equivalent of the Deputy Assistant Secretary, compared to more than 16 layers here. By contrast, the transition of U.S. administrations over the past 35 years has seen increasing delays and logjams, and perfectly illustrate another reason why the number of positions should be cut back. The average length of time from inauguration to confirmation of top level executive positions has steadily risen from 2.4 months under President Kennedy, to 5.3 months under President Reagan, to 8.1 months under President Bush, to 8.5 months under President Clinton. The consequences of having so many critical positions unfilled when an administration changes can be serious. In the first 2 years of the Clinton administration, there were a number of stories of problems created by delays in making these appointments. From strained relationships with foreign allies over failures to make ambassadorship appointments to the 2-year vacancy at the top of the National Archives, the record is replete with examples of agencies left drifting while a political appointment was delayed. Obviously, there are a number of situations were the delays were caused by circumstances beyond control of the administration. The case involving the position of Surgeon General of the United States is a clear example. Nonetheless, it is clear that with a reduced number of political appointments to fill, the process of selecting and appointing individuals to key positions in a new administration is likely to be enhanced. Mr. President, let me also stress that the problem is not simply the initial filling of a political appointment, but keeping someone in that position over time. Between 1970 and 1986, the tenure of a political appointee was 20 months, even shorter for schedule C employees. And in a report released last year, the General Accounting Office reviewed a portion of these positions for the period of 1981 to 1991, and found high levels of turnover--seven appointees in 10 years for one position--as well as delays, usually of months but sometimes years, in filling vacancies. Mr. President, as I have noted before on this floor, this legislative proposal may not be popular with many people, both within this Administration and perhaps among member of the other party who hope to win back the White House in the next election. I want to stress that I do not view efforts to reduce the number of political appointees to be a partisan issue. In making its recommendations, the nonpartisan Volcker Commission included the very proposal embodied in this amendment--capping political appointees at 2,000. And, as I noted earlier, I am pleased that this amendment has bipartisan sponsorship. Indeed, I think it adds to the credibility and merits of this proposal that a Democratic Senator is proposing to cut back these appointments at a time when there is a Democratic administration in place. The amendment requires this President to reduce the number of political appointees, and would obviously apply to any further administration as well. Mr. President, the sacrifices that deficit reduction efforts require must be spread among all of us. This measure requires us to bite the bullet and impose limitations upon political appointments that both parties may well wish to retain. The test of commitment to deficit reduction, however, is not simply to propose measure that impact someone else. Mr. President, as we move forward to implement the NPR recommendations to reduce the number of Government employees, streamline agencies, and make government more responsive, we should also right size the number of political appointees, ensuring a sufficient number to implement the policies of any administration without burdening the Federal budget with unnecessary, possibly counterproductive political jobs. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have an amendment on behalf of myself, Senator McCain, and others at the desk. I understand it will be accepted by the managers, and I ask that it be in order for me to call up the amendment. Vote on Committee Amendment on Page 2, Beginning on Line 14, As Amended

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending committee amendment be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland. I also rise in strong opposition to restricting Federal employees from receiving abortion services as part of their health care plan. The Federal employee health benefits plan is a network of insurance plans that cover approximately 9 million Federal employees and their dependents and including, I remind my colleagues, all of our staff members. The Federal employees health benefits plan is made up of more than 370 different health plans. When selecting coverage, women who work for the Federal Government now have a choice about whether they want to select a provider that does or does not perform abortions. In short, they can now choose a plan with coverage, a coverage that best fits their needs. I note that one-quarter of all Federal employees earn less than $25,000. This is a fairly respectable wage in many parts of Wisconsin where the cost of living is lower. But for a single parent with dependent children in a higher-cost area in the country, it can be difficult to make ends meet on that amount of money. In fact, I am sorry to say that nearly 18,000 Federal employees have incomes hovering right around the Federal poverty level. So let us not make any mistake about who might be included in this category of people who are affected by this amendment. There are those who may say this is a good amendment because of the opportunity for deficit reduction. In fact, this is grossly untrue. If Senators are truly interested in addressing the root causes of the escalation of health care costs, then we should publicly commit to address comprehensive health care reform. Abortion is a deeply divisive issue and there are strongly held views on all sides, but that does not justify a political football game with the contents of a health care package. So, Mr. President, I think this amendment should be soundly defeated. The right to choose should be about allowing women options. Prohibiting a woman from choosing health care coverage she feels is appropriate for her just because she works for you, Mr. President, or me or for the executive branch or for the Postal Service, in my view, is unjust. So I hope my colleagues will join me and many other Senators who have spoken on this in rejecting this amendment. I thank the Chair.