Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, there is an issue relating to the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences which I would like to raise with the senior Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn]. As the Senator knows, I have advocated closing down the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences because I feel there are more cost-effective means of supplying our military with physicians. I have introduced legislation to close the school both in the 103rd Congress and in the 104th Congress. This Administration, and previous administrations, have advocated closing USUHS and legislation has passed in the other body to accomplish this purpose. During last year's consideration of the fiscal year 1995 Defense Authorization bill, I was prepared to offer an amendment, based on the legislation I have introduced, that would have phased-down USUHS. However, as the Senator from Georgia recalls, pursuant to an agreement with the distinguished Senator, as well as the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes], I instead agreed to a provision directing the General Accounting Office to review certain aspects of USUHS, and to report back by June 1, 1995, in time for this coming fiscal year's cycle of Defense authorization and appropriation bills. As the Senator knows, the GAO did not complete its work by the statutory deadline, and the resulting delay means that the USUHS study will not be finished in time for floor consideration of the fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization bill. Even though I am satisfied that there are more cost-effective alternatives to USUHS for our military's physicians, given the agreement we made last year, and the subsequent delay in the GAO's work, I am withholding offering an amendment with respect to the medical school at this time. However, I want to make it very clear that I believe it is critical that this issue be confronted by the Congress in the very near future. Given the pressure to achieve a balanced budget, programs like USUHS are increasingly difficult to justify. Year after year, USUHS appears on target lists for elimination for this very reason. In light of the fact that the GAO report is expected to be presented next month, there will be additional opportunities to revisit this issue before the end of the session. I hope the committee will joint me in pressing GAO to make sure there is no further delay in completion of its assignment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague from Wisconsin, and thank him for offering this amendment today. He has been a consistent vote for deficit reduction, and I compliment him for his leadership on this issue today. If any one amendment can highlight the absolute absurdity of the defense budget represented in this bill, this is it. Just 3 months ago, during consideration of the budget resolution in this Chamber, 60 of our colleagues--Democrats and Republicans together--voted against an amendment to increase spending above the President's request for $257 billion. The vote spoke to the overwhelming sentiment in this body that defense spending should not be increased at precisely the time several arms control treaties are coming into force, and we are drastically cutting valued and needed domestic programs. Nevertheless, the conference committee on the budget increased the allocation for defense spending by $7 billion. Does that mean that we are bound to spend the full $264.7 billion? Absolutely not. In fact, if we are to be consistent with what we voted in May, and if we are going to be consistent with all the rhetoric about deficit reduction, we should be authorizing, at most, the $257 billion we accepted just 3 months ago. This amendment forces us to be faithful to the principles we voted for earlier in the name of fiscal restraint. It would indeed be hypocritical to have supported that ceiling before, but now oppose the Kohl amendment. This $7 billion increase in this bill is especially distressing given where this money seems to be going. In December 1994, the President announced that he would propose an additional $25 billion for the defense budget over the next 5 years to cover the so-called readiness gap. Indeed, the committee report expresses deep concern for the shortfall readiness inherent in the administration's request, but then itself doesn't fund it. In effect, it continues the same irresponsible budgeting pattern it criticizes the administration for. So, we see that the excess budget isn't helping what some were crying wolf about last year. Instead, it seems to be going largely to homestate projects. This bill authorizes over $5 billion in unrequested weapons programs. According to an analysis by Council for A Livable World, a staggering 81 percent--or $4.1 billion--of that $5 billion plus goes to States whose Members serve on either the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations or the Armed Services Committee. For instance, the Pentagon's request for F-18 jets was fully doubled by the committee, as was the request for Aegis destroyers. In one case, the committee authorized a $1.3 billion ship for no strategic reason other than that it serves the hometown needs of its local representatives. These add-ons, in most cases, amount to robbery of the Federal Treasury. While I hardly endorse a philosophy that Congress should simply rubber-stamp the Pentagon's budget request, I find it hard to fathom that the Pentagon underestimated its requirements by a whopping $5 billion. In my opinion, it didn't. Instead, the committee plussed up the budget in order to please Senators who wanted to deliver money--any money--to their hometowns. If we are going to balance the Federal budget, Mr. President, we are all going to have to sacrifice. That is what we all committed ourselves to during the balanced budget amendment debate. But when it comes to actually resisting the excesses, I see little self-restraint. That is how we get a defense bill that is $7 billion above the level we approved 3 months ago. With the Kohl amendment we have the opportunity to correct that problem, and recommit ourselves to deficit reduction. I urge my colleagues to support the Kohl amendment. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am not suggesting that we should only fund weapons systems requested by the Pentagon, or that because the Pentagon has asked for something, that Congress should automatically vote to provide them with their wish list. What I am saying is that when Members of Congress start adding things to the Department of Defense spending list, we ought to give extra special scrutiny to those items that the administration never even requested. I think we ought to be looking carefully to make sure those additional items, in fact, are related to national security needs, not just a source of jobs back home. There are better ways to provide those jobs than building new weapons that we do not need, are not wanted by the military, and further drain our National Treasury. Mr. President, my sense of the Senate is simply intended to make a commonsense statement. We do not have to spend it all just because the budget allows it. Let us apply some fiscal discipline and restraint in all budget areas, including the Department of Defense. I do hope the amendment will be accepted, as has been indicated to me previously. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this is a simple sense-of-the-Senate amendment stating that Congress should exercise self-restraint in authorizing and appropriating funds for all Federal spending, including defense spending, especially in cases where the spending has not been requested by the applicable agency in the first place or is not directly related to national security needs. I will just speak very briefly, because I understand the managers intend to accept this, but I do want to make a brief point about it. I think every Member of this body is aware of the problem this sense- of-the Senate is intended to address. Congress passed a budget resolution a short time ago that called for increased defense spending over the next few years of more than $58 million. We ought to understand that just because there is room in the budget resolution to spend that extra money, it does not mean that Congress has to or is forced to spend it on projects that are either unnecessary or not directly related to national security interests. In recent weeks, the reports, Mr. President, have been increasing. Media reports have documented what they have called a business-as-usual attitude in Washington, DC, as many of these so-called reformers have gotten in line not to decrease but to add defense spending for weapons systems that our military people have not even asked for. Why? Because the weapons systems are built in their districts or their home States. That is the simple answer. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Monday, July 31, Washington Post, entitled ``Extra Pentagon Funds Benefit Senators' States,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield without losing my right to the floor. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes, I yield. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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. FEINGOLD. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator. Now we are asking the American public to allow the Senate to make its decision on this case behind closed doors, without public testimony. Little wonder that the public is so disillusioned about our political process. We are so concerned about protecting the image of this institution that we seem to forget one big thing, and that is that we are a public entity that is responsible to the American public. This is not a private club where the rules are made to please ourselves or to protect ourselves from public scorn. The charges are sexual misconduct. There is little doubt but for the nature of the charges, the public hearings would have been scheduled quickly. That has been the practice of the past. We do ourselves no great service by this debate. We should not seek to hide this matter behind closed doors. Public hearings should take place, and obviously the committee has the authority to close those portions of the hearings that would be prejudicial, or otherwise be appropriately closed. But to say that no public hearings at all should be held in this matter because of the nature of the charges is just plain unacceptable. Across America, countless women are watching how this institution handles this matter. What is the message we send to those women who have been subjected to sexual misconduct if we refuse to air those charges in a public format? What are we telling our daughters about what can happen if you are the victim of this kind of misconduct and bring charges against a powerful person? So, Mr. President, the Senate should go on record now, today, making it clear that this institution is prepared to hold its disciplinary process up to the plain light of day and to public scrutiny. I again thank my colleagues on the floor, and especially the Senator from California for her persistence in this matter. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I especially thank the Senator from California, Senator Boxer, for her courage and tremendous leadership on this issue, a painful issue but something that absolutely has to come before the Senate. Mr. President, let me say how much I admire the work of the Senator from California, the courage, really, in this case. This is a hard thing to do. It is a hard thing to have to come before this collegial body and force an issue about public hearings that I think just comports with the common sense of every American. As I look out at the room and see no one--no one--from the other side prepared to speak, I wonder if this is really a debate at all. Several of us have already spoken. The Senator from Maryland made a very eloquent, clear presentation; the Senator from Nevada; the Senator from California; others here are ready to speak. What I understood was that they were going to have a back-and-forth debate for the American people to see about whether or not we should have public hearings in this Packwood case. I recognize that this is a very emotional and painful matter for every Member of the U.S. Senate. These kinds of charges and the appropriate response by this institution is something that no one can enjoy considering. We are uncomfortable with the subject of the charges, with the task of judging one of our colleagues and with the taking of responsibility as a body with what is the proper format for dealing with this issue. For some, Mr. President, there is a tremendous desire to just let the Ethics Committee decide whether there should be public hearings. Some say let Senator Packwood make the decision. Some say let someone else take responsibility for this difficult question. Mr. President, as the Senator from California pointed out so well, this is really an abdication of our responsibility to the American people and to the countless number of women and, yes, men, who have been the victims of the kind of conduct which is alleged to have been committed in this case. The question before this body today is not whether Senator Packwood is guilty, not whether the punishment proposed fits the alleged misconduct; the question, rather, is whether those who have alleged that they have been the victims of misconduct should have the right to a public hearing in which they have the opportunity to present their evidence and be heard. I am pretty sure, Mr. President, if Senator Packwood had requested a public hearing to clear his name or his reputation, there is little question that these women would be required to present public testimony supporting their charges. There could be no doubt of that, as I know the Senator from Maryland is very aware. Yet, Mr. President, in this instance, it is apparent that the Ethics Committee intends to break with a longstanding tradition of holding public hearings when a case reaches this stage of the proceedings. Our current rules provide for a three-tiered process for examining allegations of misconduct. First, the preliminary inquiry; second, initial review; and, third, the investigative stage. A case reaches the investigative stage only if there is substantial, credible evidence that misconduct has occurred. Heretofore, when a case reached this stage, every time public hearings have taken place, even before the current system was adopted, public hearings have been held in cases involving serious allegations of misconduct. Yet, Mr. President, somehow, despite this history, the Ethics Committee is currently deadlocked on whether to order such hearings. Mr. President, the Senate has an obligation to make a decision on whether such hearings should be held. We should not try to hide behind the Ethics Committee for excuses that we should not interfere with its processes. The Senate, as a whole, is responsible for establishing what are fair procedures--fair to those directly involved and fair to the American public. So, Mr. President, as we look at this whole picture here, with all the Senators on this side ready to speak and debate, the Senators on the other side not even present, I ask, what is the image that is being presented in an institution that prefers to conduct its business behind closed doors, an institution that believes that scandalous charges should not be publicly discussed, even after its own factfinding body has determined that there is substantial, credible evidence to support those charges? Mr. President, let me repeat that phrase: Substantial, credible evidence to support the charges. This is not a request for a public hearing on every libelous or baseless charge made against any elected official. This is a request only for public hearings in a case which has advanced to the final stages.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I would clarify, upon the disposition of the unanimous- consent agreement, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for the purposes of offering an amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I would like to offer the amendment at some point, but if there is an agreement, I can hold off and offer this particular amendment later in the process.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield to the majority leader for purposes of making remarks without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I just have a little concern about the procedural step we started off with on the bill. At one point the manager of the bill on the majority side was properly recognized, as manager of the bill, for purposes of speaking. But during the process it appeared that the Senator sought to have another Senator recognized for purposes of offering an amendment. There was no unanimous consent requested for that purpose. I am sure this was inadvertent, but it becomes very, very difficult to have what we would like to call here a ``jump ball'' on recognition if one Senator can sort of call on another Senator, in effect. I again say I do not think that was the intent, but I am concerned about the way we got started on this. Mr. President, I therefore ask unanimous consent that upon the disposition of the Kyl amendment that I be recognized.

Mr. FEINGOLD. The Senator indicated he would not object to my simply taking the floor to make a unanimous-consent request of the type I indicated. That is all I am asking at this time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, does the Senator object to my unanimous-consent request? I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of his remarks I be recognized for purposes of making a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the Senator's remarks, I be recognized for the purposes of making an inquiry of the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, the Senator from Oklahoma indicated he had a statement. I merely ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for the purposes of that inquiry at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I made a unanimous-consent request.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the Senator's statement, I be permitted to make an inquiry of the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. If the Senator would yield for a moment, I did have an amendment that we are trying to work out. At this point, I reserve a spot, in case we do not work it out.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, the manager's amendment includes an amendment relating to funding for the Tennessee Valley Authority which I authored. I appreciate the willingness of Members concerned with the issue to work out an acceptable amendment. This amendment is simple, and structured in such a way to gain acceptance from the Senate, including those from the Tennessee Valley Region. It limits and targets funds for the Tennessee Valley Authority and moves TVA forward on a path of becoming less reliant upon appropriated funds. This amendment directs that no more than $25 million of the funds appropriated for TVA may be spent for TVA's Environmental Research Center in Muscle Shoals, Alabama. The House Energy and Water bill zeroes out funding for the Research Center. The Senate Report explains that the Committee restores funding for the Center, but proposes to reduce the Center's funds by 22 percent, from its current appropriations of $32 million to $25 million. My amendment would explicitly codify the Senate Report language and cap the amount that the Research Center could receive at $25 million. It provides that if less than $25 million is expended on the Center, the amount shall be returned to the Treasury and the TVA appropriation reduced accordingly. Senate Committee Report recommendations relative to transitioning the Environmental Research Center to dependence upon funds other than appropriated funds for the conduct of its research program. I was pleased to see that the Committee made such a recommendation, and I am moving forward with this amendment to ensure that the TVA receives explicit legislative direction to achieve such a transition. Finally, my amendment adds a new requirement for the Environmental Research Center. Consistent with the mandate to reduce dependence upon appropriated funds, the amendment directs TVA to report to Congress a plan for achieving a transition away from appropriated funds at the Environmental Research Center. That report should serve as a baseline for next year's fiscal year 1997 appropriations process and I am hopeful that the recommendations will clarify the source and type of funds that support the Environmental Research Center's program, and help TVA to plan for reductions in appropriated funds. Madam President, I recently met with the Director of the TVA Environmental Research Center. Ongoing work in poultry litter utilization, ozone mitigation, and agricultural pollution prevention all are important areas of investigation--and all affect my home State of Wisconsin. After my meeting, I did feel that the work in which the Center is engaged is valuable, but it raised two issues to me. First, I question, given the character of the Center's work, whether this work needs to be done within the regional context, especially if it has national implications. Second, was the question of whether the Center has a proper institutional fit within TVA. Certainly, this Center, given its capable staff, has the ability to attract and complete research projects that are reimbursable. Madam President, I understand the role that TVA has played in our history. I also know that we face an uncertain budget future. I believe that TVA discretionary funds should be on the table, and that the fiscal year 1996 funds should be structured and targeted to achieve further reductions in the future. I believe my amendment is a reasonable approach to address these concerns, and makes a logical compromise between the House and Senate approaches. I believe that the overall House level of funding for TVA, which amounts to a 25-percent cut in the TVA budget is appropriate in these tight budget times and I hope the conferees will accept that figure. However, I believe in making that cut, we should seek to direct an appropriate transition to non-federal funds. The amendment caps the Center's funds at $25 million, making the Senate Committee report suggestions hard numbers by codifying them. I believe that this is an amendment that can be supported by Senators interested in reducing federal spending, including those within the TVA area. Madam President, this amendment seeks to move TVA and its various projects closer toward reduced dependence on federal funding. In this time of severe pressure on the federal budget and the need to reduce the federal deficit, it is essential that some programs, like TVA, which have served an important purpose in the past, begin to transition away from reliance on federal funding. This transition should be done in a careful, planned manner, but the process toward transition off of reliance on federal funding must begin now. This amendment takes us a step further in that direction and I appreciate the support of the manager and interested Senators in reaching an agreement in the language of my amendment. tva's environmental research center