Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I also rise to support this amendment. I offered a similar version of the right-to-know amendment, the glidepath amendment, in the proceedings in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I thought it was the best discussion we had in the committee after a couple of days of discussion. I thought the discussion on the right-to- know amendment was really the most thoughtful and the one that really crystallized the issue. In at least two important ways, this is the truth amendment. First, in one sense the amendment is a truth test. If the supporters of this constitutional amendment are serious about balancing the budget, this amendment is the one that really provides that opportunity. The central concern I have had with the proposed balanced budget amendment is that it will actually undercut our efforts to reduce the deficit and balance the budget by just providing political cover for those who are unwilling to make these really tough decisions. Having voted for the balanced budget amendment, I fear Members will feel free to duck the real work of actually identifying and voting for real spending cuts and they will be able to continue to do this ducking of the issue as the States go through the rather laborious process of trying to see if they are going to ratify this thing in the next year or 2 or 7 years. Of course, supporters of the constitutional amendment deny this assertion. They proclaim loudly they will seek specific cuts and we just have to wait and see what they might be. This amendment to the balanced budget amendment, this right-to-know amendment, provides those who are genuinely interested in ensuring the Congress does its job with the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to real deficit reduction. It does what the proponents of a balanced budget amendment contend they want to do. This amendment forces Congress to get the job done. It forces Congress to lay out over the next 5 or 6 or 7 years, exactly how we are going to accomplish this. Except, Mr. President, the good thing about this amendment that cannot be said about the balanced budget amendment is that the right- to-know amendment does not allow delay and evasion. It does not let the 104th Congress off the hook by simply passing an amendment, a balanced budget amendment, that does not lay out a single spending cut. The last Congress made substantial progress in reducing the budget deficits that have been generated by the budget policies of the 1980's. That progress was made because the 103d Congress was willing to lay out and have a very difficult process of discussing specific items to reduce the deficit. It was not easy. It was not always popular. But it was specific and it worked and the economy is sound and ultimately the efforts of the President and the majority at that time have been accepted by the American people. Now there is a new majority, a new leadership in Congress. As is so often the case when there is a change in the ruling party, that new majority promises great change. On the first bill we considered in this Congress we were told very bluntly there would be no necessary, because, in the words of the new majority and in the words of one Senator, it was because this is about who runs this place. But when is the majority going to show us how they plan to reduce the deficit? In other words, when are they going to show us how they are going to run the place when it comes to balancing the budget? That is part of running the place. Why is it the new Congress, from which all things are supposedly possible, is apparently incapable of providing us with a plan to reduce the deficit? Mr. President, a majority of those supporters of this proposed amendment who were here in 1993--and I am referring to the balanced budget amendment--refused to support the deficit reduction package that was passed and that has resulted in progress. I remember the discussion in the Judiciary Committee of the Senator from Wyoming, Senator Simpson, who referred to past votes when the Republicans were in the majority, which he called times when the rubber hit the road. He said the Democrats were not there to help. In 1993, the rubber hit the road here; $500 billion in deficit reduction was proposed and passed, and not one single Republican in either House chose to vote for those specific spending cuts. That is, unfortunately, the only way this can be accomplished, identifying what has to be cut and actually doing it. So I understand that nobody necessarily has to assign any particular plan. But if you are going to propose a balanced budget amendment I think you have a special burden to at least show us some plan with regard to how it is going to be accomplished. Mr. President, I said there were two ways this was a truth amendment. The other is that this is the truth-in-packaging measure. The voters, local government, and the State legislatures that are asked to ratify this amendment are all entitled to know what supporters of the constitutional amendment mean to do before they modify the Constitution of the United States. Looking at the Presiding Officer, one of leaders in this body of concern with State and local governments, this is exactly the kind of thing that this Senator has talked about--the fact that these folks have a right to know what we are up to out here, and that we do not lay an unreasonable burden on them in the form of the balanced budget amendment. Unfortunately, though, the supporters of the balanced budget amendment have been very reluctant to provide that kind of information. They maintain that to reveal the whole horrible truth to the Congress and the public would make it impossible to pass the balanced budget amendment. Mr. President, I find that kind of reasoning to be a gross underestimate of the American people. And it is amazing. It even reveals a little bit of an antidemocratic philosophy, and is a little bit insulting to the American people. This is a critical point. I think, in contrast, supporters of this proposal, instead of giving the information, want to alter one of the greatest testaments to democracy in history, our Constitution, and they want to do it in a way, they freely admit, they say would be opposed by the people if they knew what was proposed. The obvious irony of this is also a form of hypocrisy. Mr. President, though I oppose the proposed constitutional amendment, I am convinced that the failure of the supporters to provide a specific proposal and glidepath will actually undermine the efforts to have the amendment ratified. Even worse, it may jeopardize the real world, the real effort that is required to reduce the deficit. Without a broad- based consensus, no significant deficit reduction plan would stand. Any plan which would generate the opposition that the proponents so obviously fear would be overturned, and rightly so, in a democracy. So, Mr. President, we will not achieve the broad-based consensus that we need by dealing dishonestly with the American people. We have made progress on the deficit. I for one believe the American people are ready to sacrifice and do more, if they are treated with respect, with honesty, and with open Government. I have seen this consistently over the last 2 years and when I was running for the Senate. I see it in each of the 72 counties of our State, where I hold a listening session in each county every year. Most recently, I have seen it in the willingness of so many of my constituents. The vast majority of my constituents say to me, ``Don't take a tax cut and give it to the American people.'' They say, ``Just reduce spending to reduce the deficit.'' This is the way the people are talking. They are ready to handle this problem, if we are open about it. Mr. President, the people of this country are willing to make sacrifices to help clean up the mess that was not of their making. The very least we can do is to deal honestly with them. That is what this amendment does. It provides an honest approach. To conclude, Mr. President, the Constitution of the United States is still our great national contract. Before we ask people to accept a change in that contract, they are entitled to read the fine print. So I urge my colleagues on this important vote later today to support the Senator from South Dakota and provide the American people the information they need so they can go forward with some confidence on this issue. I thank the Chair. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that I also introduced in the 103d Congress. This bill mirrors a House bill introduced last year by Representatives Patricia Schroeder, Edward Markey, and Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky as companion legislation to my original bill, S. 2012, the Protection From Coercive Employment Agreements Act of 1994. employment relations--the practice of requiring employees to submit claims of discrimination or harassment to arbitration as a term or condition of employment or advancement, and prohibiting the employee from resolving their claim in a court of law. This bill amends seven specific civil rights statutes to make clear that the powers and procedures provided under those laws are the exclusive ones that apply when a claim arises. The legislation would invalidate existing agreements between employers and employees that require the employment discrimination claims to be submitted to mandatory arbitration. The statutes this will would amend are title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans With Disabilities Act, section 1977 of the Revised Statutes, the Equal Pay Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Federal Arbitration Act [FAA]. The amendment to the FAA extends the protections of the bill to claims of unlawful discrimination that arise under State or local law, and other Federal laws that prohibit job discrimination. Mr. President, I want to reiterate that this legislation, as in the case of S. 2012, is in no way intended to bar the use of voluntary arbitration, conciliation, mediation or other informal quasi-judicial methods of dispute resolution. In fact, I strongly support the use of voluntary alternative dispute resolution methods as a way of reducing the caseloads of civil and criminal courts where appropriate. This bill closes a widening loophole in the enforcement of civil rights laws in our Nation. An entire industry--Wall Street--and a growing number of companies and firms in many other industries have been able to circumvent formal legal challenges to their unlawful employment practices in court--a right intended to be protected by the statutes this bill amends. Employers can tell current and prospective employees, ``if you want to work for us, you'll have to check your rights as an American citizen at the door.'' Mr. President, this practice should be stopped now. It is simply unfair to require an employee to waive, in advance, his or her statutory right to seek remedy in a court of law, in exchange for employment or a promotion. This bill will restore integrity in the relations between employees and employers. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, yesterday all Senate offices received a copy of a new report entitled ``Green Scissors,'' written by Friends of the Earth and the National Taxpayers Union and supported by 23 other environmental and consumer groups. The premise of the report is that there are a number of subsidies and projects, totalling $33 billion in all, that could be cut to both reduce the deficit and benefit the environment. This report coalesces what I and many others in the Senate have long known, we must be diligent in eliminating practices that can no longer be justified in light of our enormous annual deficit and national debt. I am pleased today to reintroduce two related pieces of legislation that I introduced in the 103d Congress aimed at reducing water subsidies that cost the Federal taxpayers millions of dollars each year. This legislation was profiled in the ``Green Scissors'' report, and the high cost of these subsidies was highlighted in yesterday's Washington Post, New York Times, and USA Today. These are part of a series of subsidy reducing measures that I will propose in the 104th Congress. The first bill, amends the Agricultural Act of 1949 to require agricultural producers that grow a crop for which an acreage limitation program is in effect to pay the full cost of water provided by the Federal Government. The second bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to submit a plan to Congress to continue these savings by highlighting ways to eliminate water subsidies for agricultural producers growing crops that do not fall under the commodity program. Mr. President, the first bill eliminates multiple subsidies codified in our Federal law which provides dual payments to agricultural producers--one as a direct payment to limit production of certain surplus crops and the other as a discount, undercharging for federally subsidized water to produce these crops. Its premise is simple. If an agricultural producer is receiving Federal payments under a Federal acreage limitation program--payments designed to discourage production of a particular crop--that producer is not eligible to receive below- cost water from the Federal Government to produce the crop which the Federal Government is paying the producer not to grow. In other words, the Federal taxpayers should not be asked on the one hand to provide payments to discourage production of a crop while at the same time paying for the delivery of below-cost water for that same crop. It has been estimated that the cost of providing below-cost water to agriculture producers in the acreage limitation program costs the Federal Government between $66 and $830 million each year. The Department of Agriculture pays farmers approximately $500 million not to grow these same crops. Mr. President, these double payments cannot continue. Elimination of western water subsidies, and a wide range of reclamation subsidies, should be pursued as legitimate deficit reduction opportunities. It is clear that the conflicting policies of the Federal Government in this area are examples of Federal waste and abuse. institutional obligation to review agricultural water subsidy practices, and provides Congress with important information necessary to proceeding along a path of reducing burdens on the Federal budget. I am proud to be joined by my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, introducing this measure. The Bureau of Reclamation will be required to develop a plan for charging accurate water prices no later than September 1995 and to report that plan to Congress. At that time I will ask my colleagues to think aggressively about new legislative changes that may be needed to bring market prices to irrigation water provided by the Federal Government. In conclusion, Mr. President, I am pleased that these bills will be among the first of major efforts by this Senate to seek opportunities to reduce the deficit by reforming subsidy practices. I will continue to remain committed to that goal. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the proposed balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I also rise as a person who I hope can be described as one of the strongest advocates of actually balancing the Federal budget. I believe the American people really want a balanced budget more than they want a balanced budget amendment. Although this may seem strange to a lot of people--and it is going to be very important to make this point both here and across America as we have this debate--I think passing the balanced budget amendment will make it less likely rather than more likely we will actually achieve a balanced budget in the next few years. A number of respected authorities have raised a variety of significant points of concern with regard to the amendment itself. Some say the problems related to the role of the courts and the power it might confer on unelected judges to set our national budget policy is a reason not to vote for this. Some talk of the damage the proposal could do to Social Security unless some changes are made to the current draft. I think that is a very, very important issue. Others say there will be unintended changes to the Presidential impoundment authority. That is something we have to look at. And still others say that unnecessary and possibly dislocating restrictions on our ability to establish capital or investment budgets will be a problem, producing the very surprising result that the Federal Government could end up being the only government anywhere that we know of that does not have a distinction between a capital and operating budget. These are all very serious concerns and there are other ones as well that are being discussed and will be discussed in the coming weeks as we consider the balanced budget amendment. My principal objection to the proposed balanced budget amendment is that it will most likely damage our efforts to reduce and eliminate the Federal deficit. I believe strongly in eliminating the Federal deficit. Along with health care reform, that was the issue on which I focused my campaign for the U.S. Senate, and it is the issue on which I focused the greatest amount of my time during the 2 years I have been here. But there is evidence that suggests strongly that this proposed constitutional amendment will only undercut the work I have had a chance to do, the work that others have done to bring down the deficit and clean up the mess that was created throughout the 1980's. First, consider the basic argument of those who support the proposed amendment. The essence of the arguments made by supporters of the amendment is the assertion that a constitutional amendment is absolutely necessary in order to spur lawmakers into making the tough decisions they are otherwise unwilling to make. The amendment's supporters maintain that once the constitutional requirement is in place, lawmakers will suddenly make the tough decisions because they will be able to say this to their angry constituents: I am sorry I cut your program, but the Constitution made me do it. I find it hard to believe that kind of conversation is going to really occur, but that is in effect what is being suggested, that Members of Congress will suddenly do what they must do and should have done a long time ago because they will be able to say, ``My hands are tied. I am going to have to hurt you by cutting this program.'' The notion that lawmakers require the Constitution of the United States to provide political cover is the defining rationale for the supporters of this proposed amendment. After all, if a constitutional refuge were not required, then the need for this amendment would vanish. This assessment of our political process, I believe, ignores a basic political reality, that those who require political cover in order to make tough decisions under our current rules may end up being the very same people who will find a way not to make the tough decisions even if the balanced budget amendment is passed by this Senate and even if it does become a part of our Constitution. As the distinguished economist Herbert Stein noted in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee: Objection to a balanced budget amendment is not an objection to balancing the budget. It is, instead, objection to using an appeal to a traditional symbol as a smokescreen behind which to hide unwillingness to face our real problems. The only way we can balance the Federal budget is by enacting specific legislation that spells out a series of individual spending cuts that add up to sufficient cuts to eliminate that deficit. But the proposed constitutional amendment does not contain one single spending cut. The sponsors of it do not have to put their name on the line for any cut in order to go about their States and say: I fought to balance the budget. I am not sure the people of the country realize this. I think what they are saying is: Balance the budget. I think many folks think the balanced budget amendment will also include the identification and, in fact, requirement of a series of cuts to achieve that. But there is nowhere in the balanced budget amendment where any of the courage that is required to identify specific It is just the reverse. In fact, in many ways, it is the easiest vote in the world. Mr. President, this raises a second point. Many of the supporters of the proposed constitutional amendment are unwilling to outline those spending cuts they would pursue in order to balance the budget. The majority leader of the other House, Richard Armey, a strong proponent of the constitutional amendment, has been quoted as saying that if Members of Congress knew what it took to comply with the proposal ``their knees would buckle.'' That is a candid statement, but a very disturbing one. Majority Leader Armey is also reported as saying that: Putting together a detailed list beforehand would make passing the balanced budget amendment virtually impossible. Mr. President, this second point is a natural outflow of the underlying political view held by the amendment's supporters. That view I think is based on cynical assumptions about the American public and our democratic process. It implies that, if the people realized what it would take to balance the budget, they would just refuse to support such action. Let us consider for a minute what this reasoning suggests. I think it assumes a very low opinion of the American people, the electorate. Supporters suggest that, rather than deal honestly with the people, we should evade, delay and dissemble. Mr. President, in my view that perception of the American people is a good example of the politics as usual that got us into this mess in the first place, and which I believe voters have been rejecting, not just on November 8 of last year but for the past several years where we have had two monumental elections. Mr. President, I mentioned that I ran on the issue of deficit reduction in 1992, and, as a matter of fact, so did all of my three opponents in that race. I strongly believe that one of the reasons for my victory was that I spoke specifically with the voters about the deficit issue. While others supported the balanced budget amendment, they generally refused to specify how they would reduce the deficit. I opposed the balanced budget amendment but presented a specific 82-point plan--that has grown since--that pointed to exactly all the different ways we could cut the Federal budget which would add up to the elimination of the Federal deficit over 5 years. Mr. President, despite the statements that nothing has been done here in the last couple of years, and that this institution is incapable of cutting spending without a balanced budget amendment, I can tell you that during the past couple of years many of those specific cuts that I had identified--and that many others had identified--were included in the President's deficit reduction package in 1993, passed, and became law. Why did the balanced budget amendment advocates refuse to even take seriously the progress that has been made in reducing the deficit during the past 2 years? Well, maybe it is not good politics. But it is unfair to the American people to continue to tell them that nothing has been done, that no effort has been made, that no progress has been made, and that no tough votes have been taken, because they have. I regret that no Member of what is now the majority party chose to participate in either the other House or this House in trying to help us make those specific cuts. But that does not take away from the fact that those cuts were made. Why are we not out here telling the folks across America that, for example, we significantly cut hundreds of millions of dollars out of overseas broadcasting, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty? Why are not we telling the American people that we finally had the guts to get rid of the superconducting super collider, and the wool and mohair subsidy? My constituents say, ``These agriculture programs are eating us alive.'' The truth is we eliminated a program like that. It was not always fun for me with several thousand wool farmers in Wisconsin. But that was done here in this body in the last 2 years, and we are not telling the American people something that they need to hear. This week I was informed that one of the cuts that we achieved, one of the changes we made, is actually working out better than the CBO estimated. I believe the estimates were that the FCC spectrum auction would achieve $7 billion. I hear now it may end up being $10 billion that we are now able, through a more sensible proposal, to use and to help reduce the Federal deficit. That story is not being told out here because, if that story were being told out here, the advocates of the balanced budget amendment would have an awful hard time saying what they always say; that is, there is no way to reduce the deficit and balance the budget without a balanced budget amendment. I find it amazing that this is glossed over. And I believe that it is our obligation, as we go through this debate of the balanced budget amendment, to say that during the past 2 years--although certainly I would not describe it as the Camelot of deficit reduction--it was a very good start, and it helped our economy. And it reduced the deficit significantly. Now it just a question of finishing the job, and we have the power to do that today. And that is what we should be focusing on, not a balanced budget amendment that simply gives political cover. So, Mr. President, I think it is interesting to realize that the ratification of the proposed constitutional amendment itself may be threatened by the failure of its supporters to be specific and direct to the American people about how it is going to be achieved. More importantly, even if the proposed amendment is ratified, the cause of fiscal prudence and deficit reduction could be severely jeopardized if we do not have the broad-based support of the Nation and of the people of this country. In the end without that support, without the support of the American people, an unpopular plan would be overturned, and we would be left with the balanced budget amendment that only serves to degrade and undermine the authority of our laws, and even worse the authority of our Constitution. Mr. President, it should be reiterated that a majority of those supporters of the proposed amendment who were here in 1993 opposed the President's deficit reduction package. That package included many difficult provisions, including significant cuts to very popular programs. But this is precisely the kind of specific reduction package that will have to pass in this body, if we are ever going to really have a balanced budget, not a balanced budget amendment. (Mr. COATS assumed the chair.) Of course, if we are going to have what the American people really want, which is a balanced budget, I think one certainly can favor reducing the deficit but oppose a specific plan. But, Mr. President, many of the supporters of the proposed balanced budget amendment oppose any specific plan. In their best of all worlds, you do not propose a plan and identify the cuts, but you say that you supported the balanced budget amendment and you have done your job. You can go home and start focusing on other issues. On another matter, some supporters of the proposed constitutional amendment promised to offer a specific plan of action but they promised to do it only after the joint resolution is adopted by both Houses of Congress after it is sent out to the States but before it is ratified by the States. But, if we apply those folks' own test, this would doom the proposed constitutional change because what it means is, even though it may have passed the House and the Senate and it is sent out to the States, the plan would be revealed before ratification. The specifics would come out, those same specifics that would make our knees buckle and that would make it impossible to pass the proposed amendment in Congress presumably would be so terrible and so upsetting to the States that they would not pass the balanced budget amendment. Perhaps the supporters of the constitutional change would just keep the specifics secret throughout the whole ratification process. Taking this argument to its logical conclusion--the argument that we should not lay out the plan as we passed this amendment--the reasoning of the supporters of the proposed constitutional amendment dictate that a specific plan apparently could not be offered until after the States had ratified the amendment. In fact, under this argument, no plan could be offered until the first year the article was to take effect which, of not until the constitutional mandate is in force would the needed political cover be in place to protect those lawmakers that amendment supporters maintain are too hesitant to act without that protection. Is this what the balanced budget amendment supporters want? Is that what they are saying? We are going to keep a tight lip in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, and then suddenly in the year 2002 we are going to magically present this plan that will eliminate the Federal deficit, at which point, I assure you if we do this, will dwarf the deficit that we have now? Political cover will have made sure that this institution did not have to act during that time period, and it will not act. It will simply stand back and wait for the States to decide whether to pass this amendment. This reasoning produces the absurd result that Congress would be paralyzed to act to reduce the deficit until the first balanced budget is required, which again is fiscal year 2002 at the earliest. Mr. President, we know any delay in acting to eliminate the deficit only makes future action that much more difficult and politically distasteful. Waiting clearly makes it harder. In the world depicted by the amendments supporters, delay could be fatal for efforts to balance the budget as legislators would be confronted with an increasingly more difficult task and increasingly more difficult choices. Thus, Mr. President, even using the reasoning of the balanced budget amendment supporters, adoption of the amendment would make it more difficult to actually balance the budget. I think that kind of delay is a tremendous disservice to our economy, and especially to our children and our grandchildren. As a result of this action by the Congress, the States will end up with a bigger debt and a bigger deficit. The specific plan to reduce the deficit must be passed before a constitutional amendment is sent to the States for ratification. A budget plan is not only a safeguard against later inaction, it ensures that Congress deals with the American people honestly. I know I have not been the only Member of the Senate to propose a specific plan. I believe my colleague on the other side, the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown], has put together a similar kind of specific plan to eliminate the Federal deficit. I was delighted to work with him during the past 2 years on a bipartisan basis, and with Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, to craft that kind of a proposal. We signed onto it and we signed onto the specifics. No, we did not succeed in the vote on the floor, but we worked together to identify the cuts. That kind of approach is the only way we are going to reduce the deficits, not by letting Members of the Senate off the hook by providing them with the political cover of adopting a constitutional amendment that does not say one single thing about what should be cut and when and who should get hurt. Professor Stein, in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, commented on this very point. He testified: I believe it is basically improper and unfair to propose a balanced-budget amendment without revealing how the balance would, or might, be achieved--by what combination of expenditure cuts and tax increases. I do not think the American people should be asked to commit themselves to a constitutional limit on their future decisions without knowing what would be involved. Mr. President, a specific plan of deficit reduction is the only way the budget will be balanced. Passing a specific plan before the proposed amendment is sent to the States helps preclude delay and evasion. Without it, Congress could adopt the proposed amendment, declare victory, and do absolutely nothing. It is a great formula for politicians who have to run for reelection. They can sit back and say: Let the States do it; it is not my problem. I voted for the balanced budget amendment. It is up to the States now to worry about the Federal deficit. That is what might be called a free pass. In fact, I think it is the equivalent of a politician winning the lottery. To not even have to talk about what cuts, to be able to say for the next 7 years it is up to the States to ratify the constitutional amendment, is like the political jackpot, because you do not have to say where the cuts should come from. That is what is going on here. It is punting to the States. It is leaving it up to the elected State legislatures instead of the people sent here, who took an oath to solve the Nation's problems themselves. That is what this balanced budget amendment is about. Mr. President, equally as important, before the voters and local governments and State legislatures are asked to ratify the amendment, I think they are entitled to know what the supporters of the balanced budget amendment mean to do, before they modify the Constitution of the United States to endorse that action. I believe the Constitution is our great national contract. Before the people are asked to support a change in that contract, they are entitled to read the fine print. Mr. President, there is at least one other issue that should raise serious doubts in the minds of Members. That is this clamor for a middle-class tax cut or an across-the-board tax cut by many of the same people who are saying they are dedicated to a balanced budget amendment and to the balanced budget. I think it is obvious to almost any American that this makes no fiscal sense. To give a big tax cut now, either to the middle class or across the board, and to maintain you can have a balanced budget amendment in the coming years is flim-flam, voodoo mathematics. The American people do not believe that we can have a tax cut and balance the budget. I will have more to say on this subject later in the debate. For now, I only want Members to note this obvious inconsistency and to consider that the two apparently contradictory positions really share one thing in common: They both flow from the politics of the free lunch. In closing, let me add a brief personal note about one of the principal sponsors of the amendment, the senior Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon]. Unlike many who support the proposed amendment, he has consistently fought for deficit reduction and has taken tough stands in that effort, including voting for the President's deficit reduction bill. That vote, obviously, was essential, as was the vote of every Senator who voted for it, including, of course, the Vice President of the United States. Senator Simon has joined with a number of us who are questioning the wisdom of the tax cut bidding war that has started. So I want to say, out of great respect for the Senator from Illinois, that the supporters of the proposed amendment could have no greater champion than Senator Simon. Though he and I differ on this issue, I regret very much his decision not to seek reelection. I yield the floor. The Taxpayers Deserve a Balanced Budget Amendment

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I rise today to join with my good friend, the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, to discuss the measure we recently introduced, the Emergency Spending Control Act of 1995. I want to just first relate how Senator McCain and I came to work together on this. After the election, of course, the results were not particularly happy for those of us in the minority party at this point, but the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], even though he is now in the majority, was kind enough to call and say he wanted to work together on a number of reform items during the 104th Congress and that he wanted to do so on a bipartisan basis. We talked about the revolving door issue, the issue of Members of Congress and staff leaving this institution and going to work for some of the interests that they have worked with and regulated in the past. We talked about the gift ban legislation. We also talked about the issue of what happens sometimes when we have a piece of emergency spending, a disaster bill, that comes before us and sometimes things are added to those bills that have very little to do with the disaster and sometimes have very little at all to do with what is being addressed. So the Senator from Arizona and I decided to join together and introduce a piece of legislation that would limit the abuse of the emergency legislation. I am happy to say we also have some good bipartisan support in the form of cosponsorship by the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum]; the Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein]; and the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell]. The goal of our bill is simple. It is to limit the consideration of nonemergency matters in emergency legislation. Mr. President, I think this is the right time for this legislation for many reasons but especially for two. The first is, of course, that once again we have the tragic reality of yet another disaster in this country, in particular in the State of California. This time it is floods, and there is a possibility of another bill arising out of the sympathy and concern and need to help the people of California. Let me be clear. Even though this legislation is about preventing abuses on these disaster bills, my feelings and concerns for those who have suffered from that disaster are very real, and I know that is true of the Senator from Arizona and everyone who is involved in this legislation. California earthquakes, floods in the Midwest, hurricanes, fires, droughts, you name it. We have had a terrible rash of these disasters in this country so there could, unfortunately, be more vehicles coming through the Congress that would allow the attachment of extraneous matter to this must-pass type of legislation. So that is one reason. The other is, this is a very good time to bring this up because what we are discussing here in the Chamber, is the balanced budget amendment, the fact that we have got to find a way, whether we agree with the balanced budget amendment or not we have got to find a way to clean up our budget process here. And the balanced budget amendment is one approach. There are other examples of where the American people have seen what they believe to be an abuse of process, the insertion of pork items into pieces of legislation. That means money being spent that probably would not have been approved by the majority of Members if they were subjected to a separate vote and held up to the plain light of day. So I think it is very important, in looking at the need to achieve a balanced budget and ways to do this, we find a way to stop this practice of funding some of these questionable items. Whether it be the Lawrence Welk thing or the tea-tasting board, these are the things that, even though they might not amount to a whole lot of money, stick in the craw of the American people as symbols of perhaps a fear that the folks out here are not always keeping their eye on the ball and worrying about the tax dollars they have to work so hard to raise and send to the Federal Government. It is these types of things that wind up on the prime time type of shows, these types of things that cause other pieces of legislation that would otherwise be worthy types of legislation to get names like ``Christmas trees'' or ``gravy train,'' and this becomes particularly unpleasant when the purpose of legislation is to show the compassion of the Federal Government, in particular the American people, for those who have suffered horrible unnatural disasters in their States. So these are good reasons to bring this legislation forward at this time. The provisions of the bill limit emergency spending solely to emergencies by establishing a new point of order. The point of order lies against nonemergency matters if they are not rescissions of budget authority or reductions in direct spending. A point of order would apply to any emergency bill that contains a non-emergency measure or any amendment to an emergency measure or a conference report that adds nonemergency matters to the emergency measure. Mr. President, there are also additional enforcement mechanisms. We prohibit the Office of Management and Budget from adjusting the caps on discretionary spending or from adjusting the sequester process for direct spending for any emergency appropriations bill if that bill includes the type of extraneous items that we have been discussing. Mr. President, those are the main provisions of the Emergency Spending Act. I think they are timely also because of the progress that has been made in the last couple of years in reducing the Federal deficit by almost half, by almost $100 billion. It is encouraging but unfinished progress that has been made that has come from a willingness to identify and follow through on making specific spending cuts and certain revenue increases. I realize that simply creating a point of order is not going to be sufficient to help us make the hard choices out here that we have to make in order to balance the budget. I would say, though, Mr. President, that those points of order and the other rules we have and the rules that we have imposed upon ourselves in terms of caps are some of the effective things that buttress the efforts to identify specific spending cuts. In terms of the progress in the last 2 years, I think we can very honestly say that we made a downpayment on reducing the Federal deficit, but we have a lot more ground to cover. The rules do help stop it, but no particular procedure, statute or even a constitutional amendment can replace specific policy action, making the hard choices that we must. I think this new point of order can assist us, at least, when it comes to emergency legislation. The reason I rise on this issue and on this particular bill is that it is these exceptions that cause the people to feel we are not serious about everything we do here. I am also worried that if we do not go forward with cleaning up the process by which emergency legislation is considered, in the end it is possible people will not look kindly on the idea of having emergency legislation at all--just let people fend for themselves in these places if there is a possibility this will be used to circumvent the fiscal discipline that is needed. What I do suggest is emergency legislation that has to recognize the urgency but not allow the circumventing of the normal budget process. There are two ways that this process has been circumvented in the past. One way is to declare something an emergency and then have it attached to the emergency bill. That is possible. You do not have to have it be the same set of circumstances or the same natural disaster. If an emergency designation is made, these bills can be put together. The other possibility is the adding of explicit nonemergency items to emergency legislation to get expedited consideration. Mr. President, our bill does not take care of the first problem. It does not take care of the problem where somebody has actually declared an emergency that may not, in fact, be a real emergency. And I think that is something we have to look at in the future. Last year, on the California earthquake bill, I recall the Department of Defense managed to call an emergency a $1.2 million expenditure that was supposed to be for peacekeeping operations, ongoing, continuing peacekeeping operations that we knew about for the operations in Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq, and Haiti. Unfortunately, in my view, that was designated an emergency and suddenly attached to the California earthquake bill. And even though I tried to stop it with an amendment, that amendment was rejected, in part, out of fear that somehow this would derail the California earthquake bill. So I think this is a problem. I think it needs to be addressed. But at this point the problem that I think we can actually address correctly is to establish new rules when it comes to attaching specifically nonemergency items to emergency legislation. Mr. President, let us look at the California earthquake bill. What was it originally set up to do? Well, it had $7.8 billion for the L.A. earthquake. It had $1.2 billion for the peacekeeping missions which I just mentioned and which I think should not have been in there. It had $436 million for the Midwest floods and $315 million as a result of the continuing problems from the 1989 California earthquake. Mr. President, that was the status as the bill came into the Congress. But by the time it left, these additional extraneous items had been tossed on to the California earthquake bill: A $1.4 million expenditure to fight potato fungus, a $2.3 million item to give the FDA people pay raises, $14.4 million for the National Park Service, $12.4 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, $10 million for a new Amtrak station in New York, $20 million for a fingerprinting lab, $500,000 for the U.S. Trade Representative's travel office, and finally $5.2 million for the Bureau of Public Debt. All of this was thrown onto and became part of the gravy train pulled by the California earthquake bill. Under current law, if these nonemergency items are on a bill and they are still under the spending caps, then the legislation can go forward. And that is exactly what happened. In the case of the California earthquake bill, the caps had actually been reached but the rescissions had been used, a group of rescissions had been used essentially to offset the cost of these additional items. That, I suppose you could say, is paying for what you want to do. But, the fact is, those rescissions could have been much better used to reduce our Federal deficit, to do a little bit about the problem we are going to be talking about so much here in the next couple of weeks on the floor of the Senate. How do we specifically find ways to eliminate the Federal deficit? So this process was an unfortunate one. separately in an appropriate appropriations bill and in a more honest and direct manner. So this issue of emergency spending and preventing nonemergency items from being attached to emergency spending is part and parcel of the overall goal of budgetary sanity and the goal of stopping the abuse that so many Americans like to call putting pork into bills. I think it could also help make sure that our bills that have to do with disasters have some credibility as they go through the process. They should not be the subject of laughter or derision or prime time shows. The disaster bills should be the expressions of the American people's compassion for those who have been unlucky and subject to disasters that they had nothing to do with creating. This identical legislation passed the House, the other House, last session, the 103d Congress, on a bipartisan vote as a substitute amendment, 322 to 99, and then finally, as amended, 406 to 6. I now urge my colleagues to join me and the Senator from Arizona, in supporting this measure. As we engage in this very intense debate on the balanced budget amendment, let us at least join together on a bipartisan basis to get rid of the abuses that have to do with emergency legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an editorial from The Washington Post dated August 22, 1994, on this type of legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as if in morning business.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I will see if I can do 22 years in 1 minute. First, there were 12 years of Republican Presidents who said they were going to provide a balanced budget. Instead, they brought us up to the biggest deficit and debt in the history of this country. Then there was a 4-year period which we are in the middle of now where a Democratic President provided the kind of glidepath and direction that the Senator from South Carolina is talking about. What happened? The deficit, for the first time since Harry Truman, went down for 3 years in a row. Those are the facts. Not a single Republican in either House of this institution voted to help us on these specifics. Now we go to the third stage, a 7-year period when the States will get to decide whether or not they want to have a balanced budget amendment, as the majority party in both Houses here increases taxes for everybody in the country to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars and increases the defense budget and tries to tell you that is going to balance the Federal budget. The fact is that the President is going to give his speech tonight. He is the only President who has provided a true, specific path and true progress in the direction of deficit reduction, and no matter how much the Republicans say that is not the case, it is a fact.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise very briefly to praise and thank the Senator from California for her leadership on this issue. I am very, very pleased to be a cosponsor of the resolution and the amendment which is very straightforward. I appreciate the language. It expresses the sense of the Senate that the Attorney General should take strong action to protect reproductive health care clinics. There is really nothing else to be said, other than that the Senate should pass the resolution authored by the Senator from California. This must be done immediately, and if this Federal Government does not express that view, it is a sign of a Government that no longer can really protect the people of this country. I think that this demands swift action in this body. There are many issues that can be disputed; some obviously should be ones we ought to take a lot of time on. I think we have a couple of them right now. The unfunded mandates bill is very complicated; the balanced budget amendment, amending the Constitution. These require the deliberative skills of the U.S. Senate, but this does not. I cannot believe there is any Member of this body on either side of the aisles who believes the Federal Government should do anything but be very aggressive in stopping this violence. Just this past August, during debate over the VA-HUD appropriations bill, Senator Lautenberg offered, and I cosponsored, a similar amendment in the wake of the shooting of a clinic doctor and his escort in Pensacola, FL. However, at that time as now, I believe that the resolve of the Senate in the matter of clinic violence is clear. Ninety-eight Members of the Senate voted to condemn the shootings in Pensacola last August, and indeed, to condemn the use of deadly force as a means of protest. That is why I ask all of my colleagues to show their strong and united support today and lift any objections to the unanimous consent that this item come up at this time. There are two reasons that I would like to add. The first is that the type of violence that is involved in these incidents is not truly random violence. It is random, perhaps, as to where it occurs and at what time, but it is not just one troubled individual for whatever personal reason who decides they want to kill somebody. This is the type of violence that is driven by an organized effort to deprive people of their reproductive rights and to intimidate them from exercising those rights. That is very different. The tactics of some individuals who oppose abortion access have escalated. As Ellen Goodman, a syndicated columnist who lives in Boston said in her column, the literal ``line of fire" is coming closer to home. She writes, ``First doctors, then escorts, now receptionists. First Wichita, then Pensacola, now Brookline.'' in this country and in particular every women in this country. And it is a situation where the Federal Government, not just local governments, has to take the lead. The other reason I wanted to add very briefly is that I have heard a great deal of very appropriate talk in this body in the last 2 years about the victims of crime. They are people that have been forgotten in this society. But when it comes to clinic violence, there is quite a range of victims. First of all, of course, the tragic deaths and injuries that have occurred directly to the people who have been shot or injured, but also, I think, the health care professionals that are involved and the people involved in the clinics, the receptionists, the nurses and the doctors, some of whom, in my home State of Wisconsin, have taken to wearing bulletproof vests to go to their clinics and do their work. Three very poignant examples of threats to health care professionals were reported by the Milwaukee Journal and the Wisconsin State Journal. Bullets were fired into one clinic on four separate occasions. One Wisconsin doctor is continually stalked. She reported that her car is always covered with anti- choice and threatening propaganda when she parks it--even at the supermarket. The remarks are frighteningly direct and personal. On her last trip she received a note on her windshield upon her return asking ``How was your trip to Washington?'' Another Wisconsin doctor received a letter saying that the anonymous writer would ``hunt you down like any other wild beast and kill you.'' They did not sign up for that kind of detail when they went to medical school or trained to be nurses. They wanted to help people make a difficult decision and they wanted to be medical professionals who were caring and compassionate. This is a terrible thing to do to these people. But, most of all, the victims are all the young women in this country who already, in situations like this, are confronted with a very, very difficult personal decision. They want counseling and, if they make a particular decision, they want good medical attention. I want to remind all in this body, Mr. President, that when Mr. Salvi walked into the first clinic on Beacon Street on Friday, December 30 and started shooting, he was standing in a facility that not only performs abortions but also conducts Pap smears and routine gynecological examinations. Each time an abortion clinic is threatened with violence not only are those who seek abortion services in peril, but those who use a wide range of reproductive health service are as well. These people are the true victims, the ultimate victims, who are intimidated from exercising their rights as Americans to make those decisions for themselves. And so, Mr. President, I rarely ask this body to move immediately. It is not a body that is set up for that purpose. But there are exceptions and I think Senator Boxer has identified such an exception. The Senate should pass this resolution without delay. Condemning clinic violence should not be a partisan issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am introducing the Dairy Promotion Program Improvement Act, legislation which improves the accountability of the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board. The bill also eliminates some of the inequities in the current program that can no longer be tolerated in light of the recent passage of the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kohl today on this very important legislation. This bill is not about whether the Dairy Promotion Program works or whether it should be continued. That is an issue to be left to the producers who fund the program. This legislation is designed to provide producers with a greater voice in the program which they fund and to make sure that all those who benefit from the program also pay into it. If passed, this bill will result in a dairy board that is stronger, more effective and more responsive to dairy farmers. The Dairy Promotion Program Improvement Act eliminates the inappropriate practice of cooperative bloc voting in producer referendum on the National Dairy Board, requires periodic referenda so that producers have an opportunity to review their program on a regular basis, and requires importers to contribute to the program since they benefit from it. The National Dairy Promotion and Research Program collects roughly $225 million every year from dairy farmers each paying a mandatory 15 cents for every 100 pounds of milk they produce. The program is designed to promote dairy products to consumers and to conduct research relating to milk production, processing, and marketing. While 15 cents may appear to be a small amount of money, multiplied by all the milk marketed in this country, it adds up to thousands of dollars each year for the average producer. Also consider that the amount of money collected under this program annually--$225 million--is just slightly less than the cost of the entire Diary Price Support Program in recent years. Given the magnitude of this program, it is critical that Congress take seriously the concerns producers have about their promotion program. Since participation in the checkoff is mandatory and producers are not allowed refunds, Congress required that producers vote in a referendum to approve the program after it was authorized. The problem is that Congress didn't provide for a fair and equitable voting process in the original act and it's time to correct our mistake. My bill does that by eliminating a process known as bloc voting by milk marketing cooperatives. Under current law, dairy cooperatives are allowed to cast votes in producer referenda for all of their farmer-members, either in favor of or against continuation of the National Dairy Board. While individual dissenters from the co-op position are allowed to vote individually, many farmers and producer groups claim the process stacks the deck against those seeking reform of the program. Mr. President, the problem bloc voting creates is best illustrated by the results of the August 1993 producer referendum on continuation of the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board, called for by a petition of 16,000 dairy farmers. In that referendum, 59 dairy cooperatives voting en bloc, cast 49,000 votes in favor of the program. 7,000 producers from those cooperatives went against co-op policy and voted individually against continuing the program. While virtually all of the votes in favor of the program were cast by cooperative bloc vote, nearly 100 percent of the votes in opposition were cast by individuals. Bloc voting allows cooperatives to cast votes for every indifferent or ambivalent producer in their membership, drowning out the voices of dissenting producers. It biases the referendum in favor of the Dairy Board's supporters, whose votes should not have greater weight than the dissenters. Bloc voting may be appropriate for referenda on Federal milk marketing order decisions, for which the practice is also allowed. The complex Federal order system and its associated rules and regulations directly affect the ability of the cooperative to act as the marketing agent for their members. The authority for co-ops to bloc vote in that circumstance is not affected by my bill. However, bloc voting for matters beyond marketing orders is far less appropriate. In the 103d Congress, I called for a hearing in the Senate Agriculture Committee to address this very issue. As a supporter of agricultural cooperatives, I was concerned about how eliminating bloc voting might affect them. Mr. President, there was no information provided in that hearing that has persuaded me that bloc voting in Dairy Board referenda is a critical authority for cooperatives. There was no evidence presented that eliminating that authority would handicap a cooperative's efforts to market dairy products. It seems clear that generic promotion programs focused on long-term research and market development, such as the National Dairy Promotion and Research, do not affect the day-to-day marketing abilities of a cooperative. In fact, the vague nature of the arguments in support of bloc voting has further convinced me that there is little justification for the practice. The inappropriate nature of bloc voting in Dairy Board referendum is even clearer given that none of our 16 commodity promotion programs, other than dairy, allow cooperatives to bloc vote despite the existence of marketing cooperatives for those commodities. Were bloc voting in producer referenda fundamental to cooperative theory, one would expect to see this authority provided in other programs. referenda on continuation of the Dairy Promotion Program in order to provide producers with an opportunity to review their program. The National Dairy Research and Promotion Board continues into perpetuity with no sunset date and no system for regular review by producers. By requiring regular referenda, my bill will increase the accountability of the Dairy Board to their producer. It is critical that a program of this magnitude be regularly reassessed and reaffirmed by those who foot the bill. Lastly, Mr. President, my bill provides equity to domestic producers who have been paying into the Promotion Program for over 10 years while importers have gotten a free ride. Since the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board conducts only generic promotion and general product research, domestic farmers and importers alike benefit from these actions. The Dairy Promotion Program Improvement Act requires that all dairy product importers contribute to the program. This provision is particularly important in light of the recent passage of the GATT which will result in greater imports. We have put our own producers at a competitive disadvantage for far too long. It's high time importers paid for their fair share of the program. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record letters of support for my bill from the Farmers Union Milk Marketing Cooperative and the National Farmers Union. I am also pleased to be an original cosponsor of the National Dairy Promotion Board Reform Act introduced today by Senator Kohl. That bill further enhances producer representation on the National Dairy Board by providing for the direct election of National Dairy Board members, rather than appointment by the Secretary. That process will allow producers to elect members to the Board that represent their views on promotion and eliminates the divisive impact of the political appointment process on the Dairy Board. Direct producer election of board members should also increase the accountability to their fellow dairy farmers. I believe that these two bills together comprise a sound reform package for the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board by providing a stronger voice to dairy farmers. These reforms will create a stronger, more effective and more representative Dairy Board. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and several letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I introduce with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, a bill designed to proscribe the use of community development block grant, and other HUD funds for assisting businesses in moving jobs from one State to another. This measure is similar to a bill I introduced in the 103d Congress, the Prohibition of Incentives for Relocation Act of 1994, and is based upon legislation authored during the 103d Congress by U.S. House Representatives, Gerry Kleczka and Tom Barrett of Wisconsin, which was approved in the House- passed HUD reauthorization legislation, H.R. 3838. Mr. President, the importance of this issue remains a critical one to this day for Wisconsin's economic future, as well as the future of other States like ours that possess labor intensive industries. Our concern was generated by an announcement made in 1994 by a major employer in Wisconsin, Briggs and Stratton, that a Milwaukee plant would be closed, and 2,000 workers would be permanently displaced. The actual economic impact upon this community is even greater since it is estimated that 1.24 related jobs will be lost for every one of the 2,000 Briggs jobs affected. The devastating news was compounded by the subsequent discovery that many of these jobs were being transferred to plants, which were being expanded in two other States, and that Federal community development block grant [CDBG] funds were being used to facilitate the transfer of these jobs from one State to another. This is a totally inappropriate use of Federal funds, which this legislation is designed to end. The CDBG Program is designed to foster community and economic development; not to help move jobs around the country. Obviously, during a period of permanent economic restructuring, which results in plant closing, downsizing of Federal programs and defense industry conversion, there is tremendous competition between communities for new plants and other business expansions to offset other job losses. State and local communities are doing everything they can to attract new business and retain existing businesses. But it is simply wrong to use Federal dollars to help one community raid jobs from another State. There is no way to justify to the taxpayers in my State that they are sending their money to Washington to be distributed to other States to be used to attract jobs out of our State, leaving behind communities whose economic stability has been destroyed. Thousands of people whose jobs are directly, or indirectly lost as a result of the transfer of these jobs out of our State are justifiably outraged by this misuse of funds. Mr. President, this legislation is very similar to a provision of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, which prohibited urban development action grants [UDAG] from being used for projects intended to move jobs from one community to another. Section 5318(h) of Title 42 of the United States Code prohibits the use of UDAG if the funds are, ``intended to facilitate the relocation of industrial or commercial plants or facilities from one area to another,'' unless it is determined that the relocation does not significantly and adversely affect the unemployment or economic base of the area from which the industrial or commercial plant or facility is to be relocated.'' Similarly, this legislation provides that no assistance through CDBG and other related HUD programs shall be used for any activity that is intended, or is likely to facilitate the closing of an industrial or commercial plant, or the substantial reduction of operations of a plant; and result in the relocation or expansion of a plant from one area to another area. Similar antipiracy provisions are included in SBA programs, Economic Development Administration programs and the Economic Dislocated Workers Adjustment Act. Mr. President, this is an issue of fundamental fairness, and sound public policy. Federal funding for economic development projects should be directed toward projects that expand employment opportunities and economic growth, not simply move jobs from one community to another. This legislation is designed to ensure that community development funds are appropriately used for that purpose. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to commend the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Senator Ford, for his efforts in raising this issue and shedding some light on an inappropriate practice in which some elected officials have apparently been engaged. Quite honestly, in my 2 years as a Member of the U.S. Senate, I do not believe we have had a vote that should be so straightforward for Senators to case as the vote on this amendment. In fact, this issue and this amendment can be summed up with one question: Should federally elected officials, who are well-compensated and receive ample health, retirement, and other such benefits, be allowed to take free frequent flyer trips at taxpayer expense? Some might suggest that I have just oversimplified what this issue is about. But I'm not oversimplifying the issue--it is that simple. Mr. President, I am not aware of any public polling on this frequent flyer issue. But I am going to make a bold prediction here. Let's say you posed the following choice to 1,000 randomly selected individuals: If federally elected officials earn frequent flyer awards from travel that is paid for with taxpayer dollars, they should use the free travel award to: One, take a vacation; or two, save taxpayer dollars by using the award for future official travel expenses. I am willing to predict the vast majority would pick number two. Last night, during debate on this amendment, the distinguished Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] argued that we should not dictate to the House of Representatives what their rules should be. The Senator from Iowa went on to say that we shouldn't worry about the House because they were on the verge of making this rule change last August and will deal with the issue again. I would like to share the Senator's confidence in the House leaders on this particular issue, but I am afraid I cannot. The Senator from Iowa is quite correct when he states that the House came close to changing this rule last August. But it is my understanding that effort, led by a freshman Representative, was derailed with the help of the then-minority whip, Mr. Gingrich. If it was possible to prevent this measure from passing last year while in the minority party, how are we to expect Mr. Gingrich to raise this issue in his new position as Speaker of The House? In fact, I recall speaker Gingrich's comments on a Sunday morning television program just a few short weeks ago. When pressed on the issue of the frequent flyer perk, Mr. Gingrich responded by asserting something to the effect that if Congress was able to balance the budget, fight crime and reform the welfare system, then people did not care about issues such as the frequent flyer perk. Though I certainly share the Speaker's concern that we must address issues such as reducing the Federal budget deficit, I strongly disagree with his view that the American people do not care about reforming the Congress and changing the way Washington, DC, does business. People do care about the many perks Members of Congress receive, whether it is the free meals, travel and other gifts that are showered upon Members by the lobbying community, or the practice of converting these frequent flyer miles earned while traveling on official matters to free vacation trips. The underlying bill, which I support, is an attempt to make Congress live under the same rules as our constituents do. But our constituents do not receive free meals and gifts from lobbyists, and when they go on vacation or travel on a personal matter, they pay for it. These are the rules by which elected officials should abide. And if these rules are right for those in the private sector, and are right for the executive branch, and are right for the U.S. Senate, then they should be right for the House of Representatives. Mr. President, let me just conclude by saying that I am sensing another partisan vote on this amendment, similar to the vote last week on the gift ban amendment, and that is truly unfortunate. This is certainly not a partisan issue. The underlying bill will pass this Chamber with strong bipartisan support, and I am disappointed that further efforts to enact swift passage of critical reforms of our political system, such as banning gifts and changing the frequent flyer rule for elected officials, has fallen victim to the same partisan wrangling that has prevented such reforms from passing in previous years. Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, thank you. I certainly appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Minnesota on this issue. Listening to them talk about this so early in the session gives me heart that we are going to get going on a reform agenda that is so important right away in the 104th Congress. Let me also say I enjoyed listening to so many new Senators today give their first speeches on this important piece of legislation. Just 2 years ago, I had the honor and pleasure to give such a speech. I just want to take this chance to wish each of the 11 new Senators well, and I look forward to working with them. Mr. President, as the first week of the 104th Congress, this is also a time when I think it is natural and appropriate for us to try to interpret what the elections were all about on November 8. That is something that all of us have been doing for the last couple of months, trying to draw some lessons from those elections. It is an appropriate thing to do because, of course, we are here to exercise in part our own judgment, but most importantly, we are here to reflect the goals and aspirations of the people who elected us. So when we come here in the first week, there are a lot of theories about what happened. Some people say this was an election where people just decided they wanted to have the country run by Republicans. That is not a completely irrational interpretation of the election results. Others would say they want conservatives to run the country rather than liberals. Some just think it is an anti-incumbent feeling, that it is just time to have different people in there, they just want change and maybe they will do the same thing in 2 years. Others take a look at the election results and suggest some very specific legislative policies were endorsed by the people, best symbolized by the Republican contract, which I do not happen to think was endorsed by the American people. I am not sure they were aware of it. Certainly, that is one thing people are suggesting--welfare reform, term limits, school prayer. Others say that the people called for a middle-class tax cut. I strongly disagree with that. I do not think the people wanted that at all. But these are among the things being debated, and they are fair grounds for debate. The one thing I am pretty confident we can almost all agree upon is that the people of this country think that Congress itself needs some reform. We may disagree on the kinds of specific reform, but the one message that I think was loud and clear is that this institution needs some changes before the American people can feel very good about it again. In fact, that is why I am very pleased and I give the new majority a lot of credit for leading with this bill, and I think many Democrats helped initiate the idea of congressional compliance; that we should not be able to live by different rules than the ones we have made for everybody else. I hold many town meetings back in my home State, and this one is just an obvious one. People constantly say, ``Why in the world don't you live by the same rules you make for us?'' Unfortunately, what it is for many people is a feeling that maybe we are being hypocritical by passing these laws and finding some reasons why they should not apply to us but apply to all their employers. There are other obvious reforms: Revolving door legislation, the frequent flier legislation discussed, I think campaign finance reform is something that almost all Americans realize needs to happen, lobbying disclosure, and the like. To me and so many of my constituents, one of the most important, easily the most obvious, reform is the reason I rise today, and that is as a cosponsor of the amendment by the Senator from Michigan, the Senator from Minnesota, the Senator from New Jersey, the Senator from Ohio and I am delighted to see the Senator from Arizona of the other party joining as a cosponsor on that issue. That issue, the subject of this amendment, is to finally get a gift ban for Members of Congress. I heard the comment made a lot last year, and even this year, even this week when we know this is a time of reform, that nobody cares about this issue. Some even say the election was proof that this is not an issue. The argument goes something like this: ``The Democrats didn't win and because the Democrats brought this issue forward, it couldn't have been much of an issue.'' But as the Senator from Minnesota pointed out very well, at least at one point in the process last year, this was not just a Democratic issue, it was overwhelmingly endorsed by Senators of both parties and overwhelmingly endorsed by the House of Representatives. In fact, one could also argue that it was the failure to pass the gift ban that hurt the Democrats. I do not think that is fair, but people may have perceived it as an example of the gridlock that they somehow interpreted as having something to do with the Democratic majority. We know very well that this gift ban was merely a victim, a sacrificial lamb in a mass bill-killing at the end of the session. But who knows, it may have been one of those factors that led people to want to switch teams, and that is exactly what they did. There is one thing I am very confident of, and that is if the people of this country knew what happened after the gift ban was killed here in this room and just outside this room, they would have been very, very upset. There was a very loud cheer that rose up in that room out there we call the lobby. The lobbyists cheered very, very loudly because this bill had been killed. What more symbolizes business as usual in Washington than the loud cheers that came in that hall when this very simple proposition could not pass after it passed overwhelmingly in the U.S. Senate? So whatever the role this issue played in the election, I firmly believe that the practice of this gift-giving is a significant part of the feeling of the Washington. I believe it is that feeling, that there is something rotten in Washington, that had more to do with the results of this election than anything else. I think that is what it was about, and I think that is why this gift ban, although it may look like a little thing, really is part of a much bigger and much more serious issue, and that issue is, do the people have faith in their Government anymore? It is not much to ask the Senate and the other body to come together to do something about it. In fact, it is my own personal observation, after having held over 100 town meetings in my State over the last 2 years, that people actually feel insulted and disgusted by the fact that this practice exists. I start talking about it and I cannot even get a sentence out about the practice before the whole crowd breaks out in spontaneous applause at the idea of this gift ban. Believe me, they do not applaud that way for everything I say. This one always elicits a very powerful reaction of revulsion that this practice is permitted in Washington. Now, maybe that happens in Wisconsin because we are awfully proud that for 20 years we have had this rule in our State legislature, a rule that applied to me for my 10 years as a State senator. It has worked very well. Members of our State senate and the assembly are not even allowed to take a cup of coffee from a lobbyist. It has been no problem for 20 years. So maybe it is just that. Maybe it is just the people in Wisconsin cannot understand why Washington cannot do it if we can do it. But I think it is more than that. I think it just does not fit with what people believe the Senate should be engaged in. Mr. President, others say that whatever the public's view may be, this is not a good thing to be talking about; that it is just a form of self-flagellation; that it is trivial. And the more serious Senators say that bringing this up, that talking about it hurts this institution; that it hurts the Senate to talk about it; that it demeans the Senate. Mr. President, it is my belief that it is not talking about the gift ban that hurts the Senate. It is the practice of allowing gift giving. It is the spectacle of having to turn on television in prime time and seeing the elaborate portrayals of the tennis and golf tournaments. It is the spectacle of, in our office, having received 800 gifts in the short 2 years that I have been here. Now, our policy does not allow us to keep them, but we have logged them, from a bottle of cognac, to a 6- inch Waterford crystal, to an alarm clock, and recently I am told, although I was back home, a Christmas tree for every office. I do not know if it was for the House as well but certainly for the Senate. Let us assume for a moment that this is all pure generosity and it is well intended. I think it looks silly. I think it is demeaning to the Senate. It hurts the dignity of the Senate because it does not show us following rules as strictly as the American people believe should be observed by their very highest officials. But let me just in the last moment, Mr. President, take this one step further. It is my view that even if this is just something that looks bad and even if it makes us just look silly, if I did not think this was a bad practice on the merits itself, then I do not think I would have supported this effort to try to attach this to one of the very first bills in the 104th Congress. But I do think it is a bad practice. I do think it plays its role in changing the outcome of what happens in this town. I am afraid, Mr. President, I have reached the conclusion that this gift-giving is part of a closed circle of special interests in this town that does play its role in blocking meaningful change, whether it be trying to bring down the deficit, whether it be trying to achieve health care for all Americans, or whether it be trying to protect our environment. I will say I respect all my colleagues. I do not think it has anything to do with the value of these gifts. It is because these gifts and this practice is part of a culture of special interest money and influence which includes campaign finance abuses and revolving doors for staff members and Members, and this is a culture that is a barrier between the Members of Congress and the people they represent. Mr. President, I think it makes the beltway look like more than a road. I think it makes the beltway look like a boundary that too many Americans believe separates America from another country or another province and that would be something they tend to perceive as the kingdom of special interest influence known as Washington, DC. Let me just conclude by saying that although there were many moments that troubled me during the debate last year, the moment that made me realize just how important this legislation was, was when the last- ditch argument was made that we could not do this because a number of important Washington, DC, restaurants would lose a lot of business. Now, if a lot of Washington, DC, restaurants are going to have trouble surviving, that means it is an awfully significant practice. And if we have come to that, where something that troubles the American people and offends them is less important than making sure that some restaurants here have enough lobbyists buying meals for Members of Congress, we have really gone too far. So that in the first week of the 104th Congress I do not think there is any more appropriate amendment than the one we are bringing forward today to this bill, and I again thank my colleagues, especially the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Minnesota, for all their hard work on this issue. I yield the floor. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as the bipartisan stampede for tax cuts begins here in the 104th Congress, I would like to raise a dissenting voice. Like every other elected official, I would really like to be able to support a tax cut for middle-class Americans. In fact, it would be great to be able to support a tax cut for all Americans. That is usually a very pleasant opportunity for an elected official to vote for that kind of tax cut. I think it is the wrong thing to do right now, when we have just begun to make headway on reducing the Federal deficit. This new tax cut fever is just the most recent example of how far we seem to be straying in the path toward economic stability. We started moving in the right direction with deficit reduction in 1993, but I think in 1994, we started to stray from the path a little. Now, there are just far too many signs that not only are we straying from the path, but that we are about to make a complete U-turn and head back toward soaring deficits, a mounting national debt, and putting off until tomorrow the fiscal housecleaning that is so desperately needed today. Let me just tick off very quickly some of the bad signs that we are about to move in the wrong direction. One is that the Republican Contract With America, frankly, lays out what I think is an irresponsible plan that proposes a balanced Federal budget and, at the same time, says we are going to have major tax cuts and a significant increase in military spending. This is a proposal that Nixon's economic adviser, Herbert Stein, labeled hypocritical. So that is one sign--the Republican contract. The second sign is that some folks are also saying we should use something called dynamic scoring techniques. I think this dynamic scoring technique is a bit of fiscal hocus-pocus. Business Week described it this way: * * * as the most dangerous thing to hit Washington since politicians discovered how to print money. Dynamic scoring would abandon the tough pay-as-you-go budget rules that we have used in the past several years to bring down the Federal deficit. So I think that is a bad idea. In fact, we have seen voodoo economics in the past. I see this as voodoo mathematics. Just so it is clear this is not just a partisan statement by any means, there is a third sign that we are moving in the wrong direction, and that is that President Clinton himself has proposed a $25 billion increase in spending for a military budget that, in my view, is already bloated with obsolete, cold-war-era weapons systems. Another sign: Members of both parties in this Senate just voted to waive the budget rules for the GATT implementing legislation. There are many other merits to it, but the fact is the measure does not offset the cost of the loss of tariffs of some $40 billion over the next 10 years. So much of the progress we made on reducing the deficit could be lost because of the failure to pay for the GATT agreement. The same goes, finally, for the proposal, the reaction to the Kerrey- Danforth Commission. People essentially ignore the important message that all things have to be on the table. Both discretionary spending and entitlements have to be on the table. You cannot have it only defense spending, only discretionary spending, or only entitlements if we are going to attack the deficit. But perhaps the greatest risk to our efforts on the Federal deficit is the latest effort to try to come up with these tax cuts. That frenzy of tax cuts, particularly creating the tax breaks for special interests, gave us the biggest deficit in our history, a deficit that we have just begun to cut, with considerable pain and sacrifice for Americans. I do not think our economy can sustain another round of this political self-indulgence. anticipated and pushes interest rates up again, the economy could very well go through the windshield, and right now the President's proposed tax credit for families with incomes up to $75,000 will cost $90 billion over 10 years, and if you throw in the tax cuts he has proposed, the bill reaches $174 billion. The Republican proposal to give tax credits for families earning up to $200,000 will cost, Mr. President, $244 billion over 10 years, and altogether the Republican contract, I am told, would cost a whopping $712 billion over the next 10 years. So, Mr. President, I think the conventional wisdom about tax cuts is something that has to be challenged. I realize not many people are doing it at this time. What I am noticing is that my constituents can smell a rat when someone suggests that a tax cut is just what the Nation needs right now. It was not that long ago that I had a chance, as a candidate for U.S. Senate, to oppose a middle-class tax cut in a campaign. My opponents in the general election spent a lot of time and money making sure everybody in the State knew I was against the middle-class tax cut. But the voters realized that what they would get back in lower taxes, a meaningful amount to many people, was simply not worth it because of the devastation it would cause to our Federal budget. Let me bring it right up to today. In my office, since the President made his speech, phone calls and letters have been running about 10 to 1 in favor of reducing the deficit rather than using spending cuts to cut taxes. For example, a gentleman from Birnamwood, WI, wrote to me and said: By all means, cut Government spending but use that savings to eliminate the deficit and pay down the debt that threatens to overwhelm us. He said that is the only responsible thing to do. A woman from Cornucopia, WI, the most northern point in Wisconsin, wrote: I can't figure out why this is happening, this race to cut taxes, when the majority of people, according to all I have seen, heard, and read, don't care. She says: We wanted the deficit cut and we wanted our money spent more wisely. A gentleman from Waupaca, a very Republican town in Wisconsin, wrote this to me. He said recently: I want you to know that I strongly support your position against the proposed tax cuts. With an income of $50,000, I guess I would benefit from most of the tax cut plans, but I feel the benefit would be short lived and would be clearly detrimental to the country. I hope that you will continue to oppose these tax-cut plans that are clearly nothing more than attempts to buy votes. My office, Mr. President, has received hundreds of calls and letters that are similar to these. And I think that view is shared not just in Wisconsin. A USA Today-CNN poll published on December 20, 1994, found that 70 percent of those polled said if Congress is able to cut spending, then reducing the deficit--reducing the deficit--is a higher priority than just giving out tax cuts. So, Mr. President, to conclude, it is a little frustrating to hear constituents who could certainly use the money urge Congress to make deficit reduction a higher priority than tax cuts and then see this institution rush to see who can give the bigger tax cut. I hope the media and the political commentators will look closely at the campaign rhetoric of those who just recently pledged to fight to reduce the Federal deficit and compare that rhetoric to today's eagerness to join the bandwagon on tax cuts. I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today as an original co-sponsor of the Dole-Lieberman bill to terminate the U.S. arms embargo against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. By introducing this bill on the first day of the 104th Congress, we are signalling that we will do all we can to pursue a just and moral policy toward Bosnia, and are designating it a top foreign policy priority. Of course, the partition of a member state of the United Nations should be of utmost concern to every member of the international community, but I also believe that this debate is about how our post-World War II structures and cold war principles respond in practice to post-cold war crises. This feels a bit like deja vu. When I came to the Senate 2 years ago, the war in Bosnia was already raging. The Bosnian Serbs, egged on by Serbia, were fighting to create a greater Serbia at the expense of a sovereign nation, and at any cost to humanity and international law. We were horrified by evidence of ethnic cleansing of non-Serbs by Serbian forces; of systematic rape of Bosnian women by Serb military; and of naked aggression against a member state of the United Nations. Informed by resolutions after the Holocaust in 1945 that ``never again'' would we ``bear witness'' to such atrocities, we debated whether to lift the U.N. arms embargo against Bosnia, and permit the Bosnian Government to exercise its guaranteed right of self-defense. In March 1993 I introduced the first resolution urging the United States to work with the United Nations to lift the embargo, and then I joined Senators Dole, Lieberman, and others in offering several floor amendments to lift the U.S. embargo unilaterally. In the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on the floor of the Senate, and in conference on major foreign policy bills during the 103d Congress we voted repeatedly on the question of whether to lift the arms embargo against Bosnia, either multilaterally or unilaterally. I and others argued that as a sovereign nation, Bosnia was entitled to exercise its right of self-defense, and that since the negotiating strength of each party is dependent to would meet success unless Bosnia had an opportunity to counter Serbian aggression on its own. There was overwhelming majority support to lift the embargo, though the Senate was closely divided on any given day about whether the United States should proceed unilaterally or only in concert with the United Nations. Finally, in response to congressional direction, President Clinton announced on November 12 that the United States would no longer enforce the embargo. This is a welcome step, but falls short of the imperative to terminate the embargo altogether. I maintain that the United States is authorized to lift the embargo unilaterally because it contravenes Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and is therefore non-binding. Article 51 protects the inherent right of individuals and states to self-defense ``until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.'' Clearly, the United Nations has yet to take measures which do that. As a substitute, the United Nations has passed resolutions to restrain the Serb advances; deployed an international peacekeeping force to deliver humanitarian aid to starving Bosnians; and sponsored a series of failed and misguided peace plans. NATO has also threatened air attacks, obliquely coordinated with the United Nations in certain cases. The promises to be a surrogate protector were all supposed to compensate Bosnia for the denial of its self-defense by the international community. But, while some of these measures may have saved lives, there is no substitute for self-defense, Mr. President. In fact, these policies have subverted the rules of international law and order, and have made the United Nations and NATO, through inaction, false fatalism, and now appeasement, party to the aggression they were created after World War II to combat. Mr. President, after taking responsibility for Bosnia's security, the member nations of the U.N. Security Council through the Contact Group are selling out Bosnia and presiding over the dismemberment of a sovereign state of the United Nations. The administration, perhaps tired of a difficult situation, has apparently decided to appease the Bosnian Serbs by concessions instead of sanctions, implying that the war is over and that the Serbs have won because they have demonstrated the most force, fought the most viciously, and in the end occupy the most land. This is hardly a formula for peace. As we learned in World War II, and even during the Persian Gulf crisis, appeasement does not work; rewarding aggression does not work. Through the latest Contact Group plan, and the apparent shift in United States policy, Serbian belligerence and nationalism have only been emboldened. U.N. Security Council resolutions, along with NATO threats of force, have not been enforced and have been proven hollow: in fact, the United Nations has so little leverage in the region, Bosnian Serbs are even kidnapping U.N. peacekeepers with impunity. Each act of appeasement has only whetted their appetite for more, and threatens exactly the wider war the administration and NATO say they want to contain. Given this situation, I am skeptical that the 4-month ceasefire signed this weekend--and, at Serbian insistence, explicitly without any linkage to peace talks--will hold: after all, with everything to gain for violating it, what incentive do the Serbs have to honor it? There may be little the world can do to stop further carnage in Bosnia. However, we have an option to pursue justice in Bosnia, an option far better than appeasement, an option that would create a level playing field: lift the arms embargo against Bosnia, either with or without our NATO allies or U.N. approval. The embargo has not contained violence in the former Yugoslavia, but rather has helped to victimize further Bosnia; it has, as President Izetbegovic said at the United Nations in September, ``turned justice into injustice.'' If the Contact Group wishes to succeed, then any settlement it negotiates will have to include a lifting of the embargo--not just because it will restore dignity to the people of Bosnia, but also because it is the only type of pressure which may ensure that the Serbs abide by the agreement and do not seek additional concessions as time goes on. Lifting the embargo may mean the departure of U.N. peacekeepers in Bosnia. If it is done in connection with a peace agreement, this may be warranted, and perhaps even U.N. weapons in the region can be transferred to the Bosnian army. If the U.N. presence continues to be the only reason not to lift the embargo, then I would submit that the United Nations is standing in the way of a just settlement, and its purpose in the region should be re-thought. Though I firmly believe legally the United States can send weapons to the Bosnians, I think the administration would be well-served politically if it continued to work to lift the arms embargo multilaterally. In October the U.S. presented a resolution to the Security Council to lift the embargo, but has never moved it. At a minimum, the United States should call for a vote on the resolution, and then work to round up multinational support for it similar to what the administration did for its invasion into Haiti. We might lose, but at least we would have tried to cooperate with our allies. At least we would not be relegating Bosnia to the lowest level of importance in our international relationships, or behaving as if we cannot influence what the United Nations does. I would also urge the administration to continue its efforts to negotiate a comprehensive solution to the Balkan war. The Contact Group plan addresses only Bosnia, yet Bosnia is just one component of Serbian aggression. The Serbs have grabbed about one-third of Croatian territory, and the United Nations has not implemented its resolutions to cut off those areas. The Croatian-Muslim federation has been one of the most positive developments this year, and every step should be taken to strengthen this union: indeed, both countries depend on each other for survival. Therefore, provided that Croatia continues to contribute to an overall peaceful resolution in the Balkans, I would be inclined to lift the embargo against Croatia as well. We must remember that if there is an agreement between Bosnia and the Serbs, the region will quickly erupt again if Croatia's grievances are not addressed as well. The Balkan war is complex, ugly, and terrifying. The risks and potential for further violence are mind-boggling. But, it is also a test for the international community to define its interests, philosophies, and methods in the post-cold war world. So far, it has failed deplorably in principle and practice, and it won't get it right until the arms embargo is lifted.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator McCain, in introducing this legislation that will strengthen our current laws that restrict certain movements between public and private sector employment--the so-called revolving door. The Senator from Arizona has been a strong and consistent voice on efforts to reform our government and I know that his expertise on this issue in particular during the 103d Congress was critical to efforts to move forward in this area. The proposal that we are offering today is yet another attempt to improve the standing of Congress and the federal government with our constituents. We know, as reflected by the last two election cycles, that voters are fed up with a political system that seems to encourage personal gain and profit rather than what is in the best interests of the American people. The time has come for a bit of self-examination, and for us as representatives of the people to identify why the public has grown so disenchanted with their government. There was a time, Mr. President, when those in public service were looked upon with high admiration and esteem. Politics was once, as Robert Kennedy called it, an honorable profession. But the admiration and esteem has been replaced with perceptions of an institution that meets the concerns and demands of special interests to the exclusion of the interests of the American people. Mr. President, one can read many messages coming from the electorate during the 1992 and 1994 elections. Some might argue that those elections were calls for fiscal responsibility, or for ensuring that our communities are safer and our families healthier. We can have an endless discussion about those issues. But I do not think there could have been a clearer message from the last two elections than the message that the American people are not necessarily fed up with Republicans or Democrats, but that they are fed up with a system here in Washington that both parties are forced to operate within. The revolving door between public and private employment has generated much of this anger and cynicism. But by putting a lock on this door for meaningful periods of time, we can send a message that those entering government employment should view public service as an honor and a privilege--not as another rung on the ladder to personal gain and profit. Some may suggest that we are seeking to alleviate meritless concerns of an overreacting public. But the facts show that on this issue the public is right on target. For example, since 1974 according to the Center for Public Integrity, 47 percent of all former senior U.S. trade officials have registered with the Justice Department as lobbyists for foreign agents. In other words, nearly half of our former high-ranking trade representatives, who played active roles in our trade negotiations and have direct knowledge of confidential information of U.S. trade and business interests, are now lobbying on behalf of foreign agents. In many cases, these individuals are representing these foreign interests at the negotiating table opposite of the United States. Whether you supported or opposed recent trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, one can only speculate as to how such revolving door practices influenced the outcome of those negotiations. And that is just our trade officials. Such revolving door problems are just as prevalent in the legislative branch. Former members of Congress who once chaired or served on committees with jurisdiction over particular industries or special interests, are now lobbying their former colleagues on behalf of those industries or special interests. Former committee staff directors are using their contacts and knowledge of their former committees to secure lucrative positions in lobbying firms and associations with interests related to those committees. How can we blame our constituents for looking upon this institution with cynicism and disdain when they hear about a former member lobbyist on behalf of a foreign country? How can we ensure that the trade agreements we enter into are indeed fair when individuals who have recently represented the United States are now on the other side of the bargaining table? Or how about the former chairman of the House subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Rural Electrification Administration retiring last year to head the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. Are our constituents to believe that this former chairman has no special access or influence with his former committee that may benefit his new employer? It seems that since the election last November that the print media has been filled with announcements of government officials leaving the public sector to work for lobbying firms. One recent article announced that a staff assistant leaving her position on the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power will be working for the government relations, i.e. lobbying, department of the American Public Power Association. Another one announced that a recently retired former member of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures is joining a Washington lobbying firm. According to this announcement, he will specialize in tax policy. Mr. President, the problem of revolving door lobbying is quite clear, and in our review, so is the solution. The bill we are introducing today will strengthen the post-employment restrictions that are already in place. There is currently a one year ban on former members of Congress lobbying the entire Congress as well as senior congressional staff lobbying their former employing entity. Members and senior staff are also prohibited from lobbying on behalf of a foreign entity for one year. Our bill will prohibit members of Congress and senior staff from lobbying the entire Congress for two years, and their former committees and employing entities for five years. The one year ban on lobbying on behalf of a foreign entity will become a lifetime ban. In early 1993, President Clinton issued a strong executive order which bars senior executive branch officials from lobbying their former agencies for five years, and prohibits employees of the Executive Office of the President from lobbying on a matter they had substantial involvement in for five years. It also includes a lifetime ban on lobbying on behalf of a foreign entity. Our bill codifies these regulations for the executive branch, and also imposes a two year ban on political appointees and senior executive branch staff from lobbying other executive branch officials. Finally, our bill will impose a lifetime ban on our senior trade officials either lobbying on behalf of a foreign entity, or advising for compensation a foreign entity on how best to lobby the U.S. government. This bill is targeted in two ways: First, it only affects legislative and executive branch staff members who earn over 80,000 dollars a year--in other words, senior level employees who are most heavily recruited by Washington lobbying firms. Second, our bill has a longer ban on a former senior level official or staffer lobbying their former agency or employing entity. This five-year ban is necessary because as we all know, and exhibited by the examples I just cited, the Washington lobbying firms thrive on hiring former officials to lobby their former employer. That is exactly why a lobbying firm that specializes in taxes hires a former member of the Ways and Means Committee. And finally, the bill's toughest provisions focus on former U.S. trade officials who decide to switch sides and negotiate for our competitors, as well as on those who wish to lobby on behalf of foreign entities. These provisions, in my view, need no explanation. Now some might argue that we are inhibiting these talented individuals from pursuing careers in policy matters that they have become extremely proficient. These critics ask why a former high-level staffer on the Senate Subcommittee on Communications cannot accept employment with a telecommunications company? After all, they argue, this person has accumulated years of knowledge of our communication laws and technology. Why should this individual be prevented from accepting private sector employment in the communications field? But that is not what our amendment prevents. They can take the job with the telecommunications company, but what they cannot do is lobby their former subcommittee for five years, and they cannot lobby the rest of Congress for two years. We are only limiting an individual's employment opportunity if they are seeking to use their past employment with the federal government to gain special access or influence with the government in return for personal gain. Mr. President, we are not here to outlaw the profession of lobbying. Not only would that be unconstitutional, but I do not think it would be addressing the true flaws of our political system. Lobbying is merely an attempt to present the views and concerns of a particular group and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. In fact, lobbyists, whether they are representing Common Cause or Wall Street, can present important information to public representatives that may not otherwise be available. But there are important steps that we should take to ensure that lobbyists do not hold any special advantage or influence with the officials they are lobbying. We should improve our lobbying disclosure laws so that our constituents have accurate and available information as to who is lobbying us and who they represent. We should make sure that lobbyists are no longer able to buy Members of Congress expensive meals and all-expense paid vacation trips. We came close to passing strong gift ban legislation last year, and I hope that we can address that issue as soon as possible. But there is another very important step that this Congress needs to take if we are to recapture the trust of the American electorate and extinguish the firestorm of cynicism and skepticism with which the public views their government. We must clamp down on the widespread custom of entering public service and then trading knowledge and influence gained during that service for personal wealth and gain. Mr. President, there are those who will argue that our proposal will make it more difficult for the federal government to recruit and attract quality employees. These critics ask, why should a well- educated and knowledgeable individual enter government service if that individual will have difficulty using that service to attain prosperous employment after they leave the federal government? And this question, Mr. President, brings us to the heart of this debate. I believe that this debate, more than anything else, is what we as individual Senators believe the meaning of public service should be. Quite frankly, I find this sort of suggestion, that we almost need to ``bribe'' or ``lure'' people into public service, a telling example of why the American people have lost faith in us. It is also an insult to the thousands of government employees who are in public service for the right reasons. The principal reason why an individual would accept employment as a United States Senator, as an assistant secretary in the Commerce Department or as a negotiator in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, should not be to use that service as a stepping stone to personal wealth and gain. The principal reason should be a wish to represent the citizens of your state, or to improve our economic base or to pry open foreign markets for our domestic products. It is essential that we and those considering entering government service recognize that public service is a good within itself. Such service and participation is a cornerstone of our representative form of government, and the fact that our constituents so negatively perceive public service compels us to take forceful action to recapture the prestige that government service once carried. I am reminded of our former majority leader, Senator Mitchell, who characterized the meaning of government service at a reception that was given in his honor last fall. Senator Mitchell said: ``Public service gives work a value and a meaning greater than mere personal ambition and private goals. Public service must be, and is, its own reward. For it does not guarantee wealth, or popularity or respect. It's difficult and often frustrating. But when you do something that will worth all of the difficulty and all of the frustration.'' In conclusion, Mr. President, I would like to again commend Senator McCain for his leadership on this issue. I strongly believe that there is no more noble endeavor than to serve in government. But we need to take immediate action to restore the public's confidence in their government, and to rebuild the lost trust between members of Congress and the electorate. Passing this legislation and curbing the practice of revolving door lobbying is a forceful first step in this much-needed direction. We need to enact legislation that will finally reform the way we finance congressional campaigns and that will level the playing field between incumbents and challengers. We need to enact comprehensive lobbying reform legislation, so that our constituents know exactly whose interests are being represented. And long overdue, Mr. President, is the need to act on legislation that will reform the way Congress deals with the thousands and thousands of gifts and other perks that are offered to Members each year from individuals, lobbyists and associations that seek special access and influence on Capitol Hill. The notion of public service has been battered and tarnished in recent years. Serving in government is an honorable profession and it deserves to be perceived as such by the people we represent.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation today to eliminate the current mandate on States to place liens on the homes and estates of older medicaid beneficiaries receiving home and community-based long-term care services, and to provide more than adequate funding for that change by establishing a certificate of need process to regulate the growth of federally funded nursing home beds. This legislation was made necessary by an interpretation being made by the Health Care Financing Administration [HCFA] of language included in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 [OBRA 93]. Specifically, language payments from the estates of beneficiaries, for certain services to people over age 55. HCFA has interpreted OBRA 93 to mandate the recovery of, among other things, home and community-based long-term care services. Unless changed, States will have to implement the mandate. This legislation modifies the estate recovery provisions of OBRA 93 to clarify that States may pursue recovery of the cost of Medicaid home and community-based long-term care services from the estates of beneficiaries, but that States are not required to do so. Mr. President, in the past, States have had the option of recovering payments for those services from the estates of beneficiaries, but in some cases, at least, have chosen not to do so. In Wisconsin, estate recovery for home and community-based long-term care services was implemented briefly in 1991, but was terminated because of the significant problems experienced with the home and community-based Medicaid waiver programs. Many cases were documented where individuals needing long-term care refused community-based care because of their fear of estate recovery or the placement of a lien on their homes. One case in southwestern Wisconsin involved an older woman who was suffering from Congestive Heart Failure, phlebitis, severe arthritis, and who had difficulty just being able to move. She was being screened for the Medicaid version of Wisconsin's model home and community-based long-term care program, the Community Options Program, when the caseworker told her of the new law, and that a lien would be put on the estate of the program's clients. The caseworker reported that the older woman began to sob, and told the caseworker that she had worked hard all her life and paid taxes and could not understand why the things she had worked for so hard would be taken from her family after her death. When asked if she would like to receive services, the client refused. As frail as this client was, the social worker noted that she preferred to chance being on her own rather than endanger her meager estate by using Medicaid funded services. In northeastern Wisconsin, a 96 year old woman was being cared for by her 73 year old widowed daughter in their home. The family was receiving some Medicaid long-term care services, including respite services for the elderly caregiver daughter, but the family discontinued all services when they heard of the new law because the older daughter needed to count on the home for security in her own old age. A 72 year old man, who had 4 by-pass surgeries and was paralyzed on one side, and his 66 year old wife, who had 3 by-pass surgeries and rheumatoid arthritis, both needed some assistance to be able to live together at home. But when Medicaid was suggested, they refused because of the new law. Mr. President, these examples are not unusual. Nor were many of the individuals and families who refused help protecting vast estates. For many, the estates being put at risk were modest at best. A couple in the Green Bay area of Wisconsin who lived in a mobile home and had less than $20,000 in life savings told the local Benefit Specialist that they would refuse Medicaid funded services rather than risk not leaving their small estate to their family members. Leaving even a small bequest to a loved-one is a fundamental and deeply felt need of many seniors. Even the most modest home can represent a lifetime's work, and many are willing to forego medical care they know they need to be able to leave a small legacy. The prospect of estate recovery requirements is not a happy one for program administrators either. State, counties, and non-profit agencies, administrators of Medicaid services, are ill-equipped to be real estate agents. Divestment concerns in the Medicaid program, already a problem, could continue to grow as pressure to utilize existing loopholes increases with estate recovery mandated in this way. Worse, as the Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups has pointed out, children who feel ``entitled to inheritance'' might force transfers, constituting elder abuse in some cases. Too, Mr. President, there is a very real question of age discrimination with the estate recovery provisions of OBRA 93. Only individuals over age 55 are subject to estate recovery. Such age-based distinctions border on age discrimination and ought to be minimized. Mr. President, I strongly believe we must be prudent in estimating the costs of legislative proposals, and to that end it is vital that we accept the cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] for purposes of assessing the budgetary impact of legislation and how those impacts are to be offset. For those reasons, I have included provisions in this measure that are scored by CBO to more than offset the officially estimated loss in savings from the estate recovery mandate. But, Mr. President, I also believe that the expected savings from this mandate are questionable. Prior to enacting estate recovery in Wisconsin, officials estimated $13.4 million a year could be recovered by the liens. Real collections fell far short. For fiscal year 1992, the State only realized a reported $1 million in collections. And for the period of January to July of 1993, even after officials lowered their estimates, only $2.2 million was realized of an expected $3.8 million in collections. In addition to lower than expected collections, the refusal to accept home and community-based long-term care because of the prospect of a lien on the estate could lead to the earlier and more costly need for institutional care. Such a result would not only undercut the questionable savings from the program, but would be directly contrary to the Medicaid home and community-based waiver program, which is intended precisely to keep people out of institutions and in their own homes and communities. The brief experience we had in Wisconsin led the State to limit estate recovery to nursing home care and related services, where, as a practical matter, the potential for estate recovery and liens on homes are much less of a barrier to services. Indeed, just as we should provide financial incentives to individuals to use more cost-effective care, so too should we consider financial disincentives for more costly alternatives. A recent study in Wisconsin showed that two Medicaid waiver programs saved $17.6 million in 1992 by providing home and community-based alternatives to institutional care. In that context, including the more expensive institutional care alternatives in the estate recovery mandate makes good sense, and my legislation would not change that portion of the law. But it does not make sense to jeopardize a program that has produced many more times the savings in lowered institutional costs than even the overly optimistic estimates suggest could be recovered from the estates of those receiving home and community-based long-term care. All in all, the estate recovery provisions of OBRA 93, as interpreted by HCFA, will generate little additional revenue, are likely to produce more expensive utilization of Medicaid services, may cause an administrative nightmare for state and local government, could aggravate the divestment problem, may result in increased elder abuse, and could well constitute age discrimination. Though many long-term care experts maintain that mandating estate recovery for home and community-based long-term care services will only lead to increased utilization of more expensive institutional alternatives, and thus increased cost to Federal taxpayers, the CBO estimated a revenue loss of $20 million in the first year and $260 million over five years for this proposal. As I noted above, it is important to act responsibly to fund that formal cost estimate with offsetting spending cuts. The additional savings I firmly believe will be generated beyond the scored amounts would then help reduce our Federal budget deficit. This measure includes a provision that more than offsets the official scored revenue loss from eliminating the estate recovery mandate. That provision regulates the growth in the number of nursing home beds eligible for Federal funding through Medicaid, Medicare, or other Federal programs [CON] to operate additional beds. For any specified area, States would issue a CON only if the ratio of the number of nursing home beds to the population that is likely to need them falls below guidelines set by the State and subject to Federal approval. This approach allows new nursing home beds to operate where there is a demonstrated need, while limiting the potential burden on the taxpayer where no such need has been established. Slowing the growth of nursing home beds is critical to reforming the current long-term care system. In Wisconsin, limiting nursing home bed growth has been part of the success of the long-term care reforms initiated in the early 1980s. While the rest of the country experienced a 24 percent increase in Medicaid nursing home bed use during the 1980s, Wisconsin saw Medicaid nursing home bed use decline by 19 percent. The certificate of need provision is far more modest than the absolute cap on nursing home beds adopted in Wisconsin, and recognizes that there needs to be some flexibility to recognize the differences of long-term care services among States. It is also consistent with the kind of long-term care reform I will be proposing as separate legislation, as well as the reforms included in several of the major health care reform proposals of last session. Certainly, our ability to reform long-term care will depend not only on establishing a consumer-oriented, consumer-driven home and community-based benefit that is available to the severely disabled of all ages, but also on establishing a more balanced and cost-effective allocation of public support of long-term care services by eliminating the current bias toward institutional care. As I noted above, an analysis by the CBO estimated the lost revenue from eliminating the State mandate on home and community-based services at $20 million in the first year, and $260 million over 5 years. However, in their spending and revenue options document for 1994, CBO estimates that the proposed regulation of nursing home bed growth would generate savings of $35 million in the first year, and $625 million over 5 years. The combined effect of this proposal, then, would be to generate about $15 million in savings in the first year, and $365 million over 5 years. Mr. President, taken together, the change in the estate recovery provisions and the slowing of nursing home bed growth, these two provisions will help shift the current distorted Federal long-term care policy away from the institutional bias that currently exists and toward a more balanced approach that emphasizes home and community- based services. This is the direction that we will need to take if we are to achieve significant long-term care reform. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today on this first day of the 104th Congress to introduce legislation designed to fundamentally change the way we finance elections for the United States Senate. Over the last several years, there have been a host of campaign finance reform bills introduced in the Senate, different in scope, complexity and vision. Although most legislators agree that there is a dire need of campaign finance reform, we have been unable to reach agreement on the avenue that will best produce fair and competitive elections. This is regrettable. I fear that this lack of progress is in part due to the fact that many Members of Congress have lulled themselves into the belief that the public doesn't care about this issue. In fact, it seems possible that efforts to enact comprehensive campaign finance reform will be less of a priority in the 104th Congress, than it was in the 103d Congress. Many Americans, however, are appalled and outraged at the big money or bought and sold images of our campaign financing system, whether it be a $44 million U.S. Senate campaign in California or the ugly spectacle of excessive contributions timed to coincide with key votes on major issues. Given the new political landscape in the U.S. Congress and the continuing failure to reform the system, this bill is a new attempt to forge a bipartisan consensus on the issue, in the hopes that real reform will be one of the great achievements of the 104th Congress. Failure to act in a bipartisan manner on this issue will surely deepen the disillusionment of the American people at the flaws in our current system, where big money plays such a dominate role in too many elections. Mr. President, perhaps the finest feature of our political system is that our form of government allows individuals from all walks of life to run for public office and represent their communities. Admittedly, it took our Nation some time to recognize the importance of expanding the ability of all individuals to participate fully in our democratic form of government. But over the years, a multitude of barriers including race and gender have been lifted and the result has been a system that can be fairly characterized as a representative democracy. I suspect few, if any, would argue that encouraging participation has been anything but tremendously beneficial to our political system. Unfortunately, at least one very ominous barrier remains, a barrier that has prevented too many qualified and competent individuals from seeking elected office and that barrier is the power of money. This is often true when a political challenger is discouraged by the financial advantage of an incumbent. Holding elected office has several reasons. It facilitates the ability to raise large amounts of money, be it from large contributors or political action committees, or from other such sources. Members of Congress also have other advantages, such as the ability to use the franking privilege to send free mass mailings to their constituents in the midst of a reelection campaign. Yet, this same type of advantage arises when an individual with large personal wealth enters a race for an open seat or a primary election. It is the ability to pour large sums of money into an election, whether it is the power of big money derived from the benefits of incumbency or the financial advantages of a wealthy candidate running for an open seat, that distorts our current electoral process. The unfortunate result is that we have a system that discourages individuals without access to large sums of money from running for elected office. I know this all too well because as I prepared to run for the United States Senate, I was constantly told that I was well qualified to be a candidate, but that I shouldn't run because I didn't have the financial resources to win such a race. Too few people have the ability to do what the current system requires of them to run an effective, competitive campaign--raise and spend millions of dollars. If you are a powerful member of the Senate Appropriations Committee as was my opponent in my 1992 election, and you have the ability to raise the nearly $6 million that he accumulated for that campaign, then the current system accommodates you. If you are independently wealthy and decide you would like to use your wealth to run for elected office, as the current trend seems to be, then the current system accommodates you. But if you are a schoolteacher, and serve part-time on your city council, or a State legislator and a bricklayer by trade, and decide that you would like to run for the United States Senate, then the current system tells you that based on your income level, employment status and other such factors, you are automatically a longshot to beat the incumbent Senator. Your positions on the issues? Not a factor. Your experience as a teacher or a bricklayer and your record on the city council or the State legislature? Irrelevant. Why? Because your inability to raise large amounts of money will in all likelihood inhibit you from getting your message to a state-wide electorate. This, Mr. President, must change. But there is more to this problem than simply the need to stop discouraging worthy candidates from running for Federal office. At times, I have believed that assisting challengers was the most compelling reason for reforming the campaign finance system. I assumed that incumbents were fairly content with the current system as it enabled incumbents to raise large amounts of money. But I have come to learn that there is another trait of our current campaign finance system that is antithetical to our political system, and that is the amount of time Members of Congress, that is, incumbents themselves, must spend raising funds for their reelection campaigns. If I have been struck by any single factor since become a Member of the Senate, it is the time and study that must go into work here, whether it is meeting with constituents, questioning witnesses or hearing testimony in our committees, or simply reviewing and examining the many proposals and bills that are considered in this chamber. And yet on top of all this work, Members of Congress are told by their advisers that they must raise money at a feverish pace for their reelection efforts, beginning the day after they are elected to a new 6-year term. It has been estimated that the average cost to run for reelection to the United States Senate is some 4 million dollars. That means that during a 6 year Senate term, one would have to raise, on average, over 13,000 dollars a week or nearly 1,800 dollars a day to finance a reelection effort. The problem with this is, how can Members of Congress be expected to fulfill their legislative duties when so much time is required to raise this kind of money? We should be Senators first, and we should not have a system that forces a Member of Congress to forego certain legislative duties in favor of political fundraising. I have heard stories of Members missing late Friday night votes because of prior commitments to attend fundraisers. I do not believe that these votes would have been missed had our current system not placed such a heavy emphasis on the importance of raising money for reelection campaigns. There is another issue here that we should address. Many incumbent Members of Congress focus their fundraising efforts on large individual contributors or Political Action Committees, or PAC's, often from outside of their home states. This is, after all, where the big money is, and these sources are eager to contribute to Members who may protect or advance their interests. But we should ask ourselves if it is good for our political system to have legislators devoting so much of their time raising funds from large contributors and special interest groups from other States, rather than maintaining contact with their own constituents? Most of our constituents cannot afford to give $500 or $1,000 to a candidate, and few have the clout and influence possessed by those that control a PAC. By primarily focusing fundraising efforts on large contributors and special interests, Members of Congress are sending a message--hopefully a false message-- to the American people that these groups have special access to and influence with an elected representative. Such perceptions are the offspring of this dependence on special interest money and have fueled the public's growing disenchantment with our political system. It is little wonder under our current campaign financing system that the American people increasingly view Congress as an institution that is dominated and controlled by special interests. Another aspect that permeates the current system is the presumption that a campaign contribution entitles the giver to some form of repayment by the recipient. I remember one individual who gave a contribution, then hinted if I won the election and hired his nephew, there might be more contributions. Since my election, some individuals have called my office and indicated they could no longer support me financially if I could not get them tickets for a tour of the White House. One restaurant-owner questioned contributing to my campaign again because he claimed I did not patronize his restaurant enough, saying that ``I don't make a profit on you.'' We must recognize that it is our current campaign finance system that has fostered this you scratch my back mentality. The most comprehensive reform of our campaign system that will solve these problems is full public financing of campaigns, giving challengers a legitimate opportunity to run a competitive campaign and allowing incumbents to focus on their legislative obligations rather than criss-crossing the country to raise money. This kind of reform would help extinguish public perceptions that the legislative branch of Government is run by special interests. Mr. President, I recognize there has been much criticism directed at public financing in the past. Critics contend that it is an incumbent- protection program and that the taxpayers would never stand for such a system. Yet, the only current public financing system we have for federal elections, the presidential system, has been a good model for reform. In the nearly 20 years of this system's existence, I have not heard it criticized for being unfair to challengers, unfair to either party, or dominated by special interests. In fact, there are Members of Congress, some who have heavily criticized the concept of public financing for congressional elections, who have accepted public funds in their campaigns for the presidency. Had it not been for the availability of those funds, I suspect many of these members would not have been able to attempt such an election bid. And that is exactly the dilemma faced by many qualified individuals who are interested in elected office. Public financing has been a success for presidential elections and there is no reason why it would not be equally successful for congressional elections. The task of mending our current campaign finance system is immense, but the bill I am introducing today will make significant progress towards addressing the flaws of our current system that I have just discussed. This bill will establish voluntary spending population. With the cooperation of the candidates, this will finally curtail the skyrocketing spending that has plagued political campaigns in recent years. Just as important, these spending limits will allow members of Congress to focus on their duties and responsibilities as elected officials rather than spending substantial amounts of time raising money. For those candidates that do abide by the spending limits, there will be matching funds in the primary election for contributions under $250, once a candidate has raised 10 percent of that State's spending limit in contributions of $250 or less, half of which must come from within the candidate's State. There will be a 100 percent match for contributions under $100, and a 50 percent match for contributions between $101 and $250. These provisions, along with only providing matching funds for in-state contributions, will encourage candidates to focus on smaller contributions from their home states. I believe this focus upon raising money within our home States is critical--so critical that I have already pledged to do so for my own fundraising. The bill will also provide 90% public funding for general elections, again, once a threshold has been met. This funding will be in the form of direct payments, as well as discounted postage and discounted broadcast media rates. This bill will also ban contributions from political action committees, with a backup provision that will severely limit their influence if the Supreme Court rules such a ban unconstitutional. The bill will require greater disclosure of so-called ``soft money'', that is, the unregulated money that finds its way into campaigns which affect Federal elections. The bill will include several other provisions as well. It will prohibit an incumbent from sending out a franked mass mailing during the year of that Senator's election. It addresses lobbyists by prohibiting them from contributing to Senators that they lobby and from lobbying those they contribute to in the 12 months before an election. 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. Mr. President, there are certainly other reforms that have been proposed by various individuals in recent years and I welcome additional suggestions and ideas. The elements addressed in this measure, however, are designed to focus upon the major problems that should be addressed in Senate campaigns. The bill does not include provisions relating primarily to House elections or changes in the presidential campaign system but certainly additional proposals in these areas would not be inconsistent with the measures emphasized in this legislation. Mr. President, obviously there are various ways to approach campaign finance reform, but I want to highlight the fact that my bill has a special focus on two essential elements of campaign finance reform-- voluntary spending limits and an emphasis upon raising a majority of funds within your home State rather than from special interests in Washington, D.C. I believe that these two reforms can provide the central core of a meaningful campaign finance reform bill that can be enacted in this Congress. In the past, many Democrats have pushed hard for spending limits while many Republicans have been at the forefront of efforts to restrict out-of-state contributions. I hope that a bipartisan consensus can emerge for legislation that contains these two core elements of reform because they focus on what are central problems that need to be addressed--the obscene amount of money being spent on political campaigns and the fact that so much of the money being raised to run these expensive campaigns comes not from the people who will be represented by the winner of the contest, but from wealthy individuals and special interests outside the State where the election is being conducted. During my 1992 campaign for the United States Senate, I pledged to raise a majority of my campaign funds from within the State of Wisconsin because I found it to be fundamentally wrong for candidates for public office to be focusing most of their campaign efforts on contributors from outside the districts they were seeking to represent. Some will argue that candidates should be allowed to raise funds from family, friends and supporters outside of their home States. My bill does not prevent this--it merely restricts access to public assistance only to those candidates who agree to raise the majority of funds from within their home State. As I have indicated, limiting out-of-state contributions is a broadly supported concept that has transcended party lines in the past. Such limits were not only included in campaign finance bills introduced in the last Congress by Democrats, but also in reform bills offered by Republicans. Senators Domenici and Packwood included out-of-state contribution limits in their respective bills, as did Senators Dole and McConnell in their bill which was cosponsored by 24 Republican Senators. Similar restrictions have been included in reforms proposed by the Republican leader in the House of Representatives in the 103d Congress, Bob Michel. The out-of-state fundraising limits included in this bill would be an important step towards making candidates for elected office more accountable to the voters in their home States. To fund the public benefits included in this bill, the legislation would create a new checkoff box on all income tax forms that will allow individuals to contribute an additional $5 on their tax bill, which will go to a Senate Election Campaign Fund that will be the source of public benefits. It may be argued that this funding mechanism is inadequate, that the American people will never voluntarily pay an additional $5 in taxes for a welfare program for Senators. But I disagree. I firmly believe that if we provide true leadership on this issue and inform the public of what that checkoff box would really mean, that we will have more than adequate funds to publicly finance Senate elections. That box would represent a contract with the American people. We are saying that if you want a campaign system that is fair to both parties, would allow elected officials to focus on their legislative responsibilities, and would free our political system from the grip that special interests have had for so many years, then it is worth it to you to give 5 dollars a year to this system. If such a system does not appeal to you, simply do not check the box. But I have faith in the American people, Mr. President, and I am convinced that if we offer them the true reforms that they have been demanding for so many years, they will support a system that merits such a modest donation. Mr. President, we have a system that is virtually out of control. During the 1994 elections, congressional candidates spent close to $600 million--an 18 percent increase from the 1992 spending level and a 50 percent increase from the 1990 level. Every campaign season, millions and millions of dollars are spent on political campaigns and the result has been an election system that is tailored almost exclusively for candidates that are well-financed or well-connected. The public benefits included in my bill will provide candidates who agree to limit their expenditures more than enough financing to adequately get their message out to the electorate. They will be able to purchase television, radio and print advertising. They will be able to send out mass mailings. We do not dictate to these candidates what they can say or how they say it--we only provide them with the means to inform voters of their ideas, their positions and their vision. But most importantly, this bill will return our campaign system to the people we represent. If individuals want to participate financially, they do not have to write a check for $100, $500 or $1,000. They can give 5 dollars when they pay their taxes and know that they are supporting a fair and equitable election process. If they want to run for office, they will have the financial opportunity if they can meet a threshold, thus proving that their ideas and viewpoints represent a broad base of support and deserve recognition. And if we reverse the perceptions of a Congress dominated by special interests and convince the American people that their voice means something, perhaps we can change the very troubling voter turnout figures that we have seen in recent elections. favors either challengers or incumbents, wealthy individuals or those from limited means, candidates who are rank and file workers or those from the side of management. We should have a system that provides all qualified candidates an equal and fair opportunity to run for public office. The bill I have introduced today represents the comprehensive reform that the American people have asked for. I am hopeful that the Members of this body understand how important this problem is to our constituents, and how fundamental it is to our political system. We need to enact campaign finance reform legislation this year, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in passing a bill that truly addresses the flaws and inadequacies of the current system. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce S. 43, legislation that phases out funding for the Tennessee Valley Authority, and reduces the deficit by about $600 million over 5 years. The Tennessee Valley Authority [TVA], a federally owned and chartered corporation created in 1933, is one of the largest electric utilities in the country, supplying power to an 80,000 square mile, 125 county, 7 State region. In addition to providing power, however, the TVA operates several other programs. Federal appropriations to the TVA support programs concerning nonpoint-source water pollution; economic development; a stewardship program that maintains a system of dams, reservoirs, and manages 300,000 acres of public land; recreational programs including the Land Between the Lakes region in the western part of Tennessee and Kentucky; a fertilizer research center, recently renamed the Environmental Research Center; and other programs. Mr. President, this legislation phases out Federal funding for TVA over 2 years. Funding for the fertilizer research center is eliminated beginning in fiscal year 1996 and funding for other activities is phased out by fiscal year 1997. The legislation directs the Office of Management and Budget to submit a plan to Congress by no later than January 1, 1996, outlining which programs the TVA will continue and how they will be funded, and which programs will be turned over to other entities. Mr. President, Federal law requires the TVA's electric power program to be financially self-supporting, and the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has noted, in its March 1994, report ``Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options,'' that ``because many of TVA's stewardship activities are necessary to maintain its power system, their costs would more appropriately be borne by users of the power,'' rather than the Federal taxpayer. In its 1992 study of energy subsidies, the Department of Energy reported that the TVA power operation benefits from a significant subsidy already, the ability to borrow capital at much lower interest rates than paid by investor-owned utilities, an advantage the Department said was worth $231 million in fiscal year 1990. Federal taxpayers should not be expected to pay the additional subsidy of supporting power-related stewardship activities. The CBO report also stated that other activities could be discontinued, or their costs could be recovered from State and local governments and others who more directly benefit from those activities, or through TVA's power rates. Mr. President, this makes sense, especially at a time of on-going Federal budget deficits when we have asked farmers, veterans, retirees, and small businesses to sacrifice in order to address those deficits. Similarly, the National Environmental Research Center, which costs Federal taxpayers $35 million annually, could be more appropriately funded by the private sector beneficiaries of its work, or by competing for research grants as other research institutions already do. In assessing the savings generated by their similar proposal, the CBO estimated that eliminating many of the activities supported by appropriations and increasing the funding from non-Federal sources could save $610 million over 5 years. Mr. President, in the middle of the Great Depression there may have been good reasons to create a Federal agency charged with broad powers over a diverse set of missions for a specific region. Today, with a national and regional economy in much better shape than it was 60 years ago, and with other Federal, State, and local agencies overseeing these same missions, the special reasons that may have justified creation of the TVA no longer exist. Indeed, some have criticized the structure of TVA, not because it duplicates many services that could be provided by other public and private entities, but because it is not accountable to local residents. Mr. President, for some, at least, the price of Federal funding has been the lack of local control. Beyond the savings that this measure can produce for deficit reduction, it can also restore local control for some of the activities now overseen by a Board of Directors that is appointed by the President. Let me add that this is certainly not a criticism of the dedicated individuals who have served in the TVA now or in past years. But a structure that relies on a distanced appointment process can not be as truly responsive to the needs and preferences of local residents as one which is more directly beholden to those residents. At the same time, given the singular nature of TVA and its special history, many residents and State and local governments may feel it is appropriate for TVA to continue some activities. And to the extent that Federal taxpayers are not asked to subsidize them, this legislation would not restrict the ability of TVA to continue operating those programs, consistent with the plan that the Office of Management and Budget will submit to Congress. Mr. President, the Tennessee Valley Authority was born in the New Deal and at that time it may well have been the appropriate model to address the many problems facing the region it serves. But we need to reassess that model, redistribute the burden of some activities to those who benefit from them, allocate other activities to private or public entities where appropriate, and help reduce the Federal deficit. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation for myself and Senator Kohl which we offered during the 103d Congress to terminate the Extremely Low Frequency Communications System, located in Clam Lake, WI., and Republic, MI. This project has been opposed by residents of Wisconsin since its inception, but for years, we were told that the national security considerations of the cold war outweighed our concerns about this installation in our State. This year, as the Department of Defense is scrambling to meet a tighter budget, and with the Base Closure Commission making its final recommendations, Project ELF should be closed down. If enacted, my bill would save $9 to $20 million a year. Project ELF was developed in the late 1970's as an added protection against the Soviet naval nuclear deployment. It is an electromagnetic messenger system--otherwise known as a bell ringer--which only tells a deeply submerged Trident submarine that it needs to come to shallow water to retrieve a message. Because it communicates through very primitive pulses, called phonetic-letter-spelled-out [PLSO] messages, ELF's radiowaves cannot transmit any messages themselves. Thus, in the case of a nuclear attack, ELF is not useful because during a nuclear attack a Trident would not surface at all. And, in the absence of a Soviet naval nuclear threat from which to hide, its usefulness is even more difficult to justify. Since its major justification has apparently disappeared, Project ELF itself becomes hard to justify. Trident submarines no longer need to take that extra precaution against Soviet nuclear forces. They can now surface on a regular basis with less danger of detection or attack. They can also receive more complicated messages through very low frequency [VLF] radiowaves, or lengthier messages through satellite systems, if it can be done more cheaply. Not only do many Wisconsinites think the mission of Project ELF is unnecessary and anachronistic, but they are also concerned about possible environmental and public health hazards associated with it. While I have heard some ELF supporters say there is no apparent environmental impact of Project ELF, we can only conclude that we do not know that: in fact, we do not know much about its affects at all. The Navy itself has yet to conclude definitively that operating Project ELF is safe for the residents living near the site. If you are a resident in Clam Lake, that is unsettling news. In 1982, the Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute undertook a study of ELF's health effects. The results have thus far proven inconclusive, and are still being reviewed and analyzed by the National Academy of Sciences. After the NAS reviews the data, it will, at my request, be forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Technology Assessment. We also know that other studies give Wisconsinites reason to be concerned. In 1992, a Swedish study found that children exposed to relatively weak magnetic fields from powerlines develop leukemia at almost four times the expected rate. We also know that in 1984, a U.S. district court ruling on State of Wisconsin versus Weinberger ordered Project ELF to be shut down because the Navy paid inadequate attention to the system's possible health effects, and violated the National Environmental Policy Act. That decision was overturned on appeal, however, in a ruling that claimed national security interests at the time prevailed over environmental concerns. I would hope that in post- cold-war 1995 that conclusion would be reconsidered. Last session, I worked with the Senator from Georgia [Senator Nunn] to include an amendment in the National a report by the Secretary of Defense on the benefits and costs of continued operation of Project ELF. The report issued by DOD was particularly disappointing because it basically argued that because Project ELF may have had a purpose during the cold war, it should continue to operate after the cold war as part of the complete complement of command and control links configured for the cold war. I am hoping that OTA will also issue an independent assessment of the strategic capabilities of Project ELF, as described in the Senate- passed amendment in 1993. I have also proposed that the Base Closure Commission [BRAC] look at Project ELF this year. I understand that in addition to military value, the BRAC will consider recommendations according to four other criteria: return on investment; the economic impact on the community; the ability of both the existing and potential receiving communities' infrastructure to support forces, missions and personnel; and environmental impact. On all these grounds, ELF qualifies as a candidate for closure. Did Project ELF play a role in helping to minimize the Soviet threat? Perhaps. Did it do so at risk to the community? Perhaps. Does it continue to play a vital security role to the Nation? No. Most of us in Wisconsin don't want it anymore. Many of my constituents have opposed Project ELF since its inception, and my constituent mail today runs 8-1 against it. Congressman David Obey has consistently sought to terminate Project ELF, and in fact, we have him to thank in part for getting ELF scaled down from the large-scale project first conceived by the Carter administration. I look forward to continue working with him on this issue when he introduces a similar measure in the House this year. As the Department of Defense and the Armed Services Committee consider what they say are very tight defense budgets for fiscal year 1996, I hope they will zero out the ELF transmitter system, as I propose in this bill, and save the taxpayer $9 to $20 million a year. Given both its apparently diminished strategic value and the potential environmental and public health hazards, Project ELF is a perfect target for termination. I can only echo the words of an October 2 editorial in the Wausau Daily Herald: ``ELF isn't needed. It isn't wanted. It's an unwarranted expense.'' I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am today reintroducing legislation terminating the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences [USUHS]. This is a measure I introduced in the 103d Congress and is part of my 82-point plan to reduce the Federal deficit which I proposed when I ran for the U.S. Senate in 1992. USUHS is a medical school run by the Department of Defense [DOD]. Along with the Armed Forces Health Professionals Scholarship Program [AFHPSP] and other sources, including volunteers, it provides physicians for the military. Created in 1972, USUHS was intended to supply the bulk of the military's physician requirements. Today, USUHS only accounts for a fraction of the Department's needs--less than 9 percent in 1991 according to the Congressional Budget Office [CBO]. The other body has voted to terminate this program on several occasions, and last year, the Vice President's national performance review joined others, ranging from the Grace Commission to the CBO, in raising the question of whether this medical school, which graduated its first class in 1980, should be closed in light of the high cost of providing military physicians under this program in contrast to other, less costly sources. Last session, in assessing the 5-year budget impact of a plan to phase-down the school, the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] estimated $286.5 million in savings, including offsetting increases in the AFHPSP--a less costly mechanism for obtaining military physicians. After USUHS is fully closed, the annual savings would be in excess of $80 million. Mr. President, according to the Pentagon, USUHS is the single most expensive source of military physicians. It costs the Government more than four times as much to acquire a doctor from USUHS as it does to acquire one through the scholarship program. Even taking into account the longer service obligation of USUHS graduates, the CBO reports that accession costs are still three times those of AFHPSP physicians. As a practical matter, though, the military does not rely primarily on USUHS for its doctors. USUHS provides only about 1 of every 10 of the physicians for our military, while nearly three-fourths come from the scholarship program. Nor, evidently, has relying primarily on these other sources compromised the ability of military physicians to meet the needs of the Pentagon. According to OMB, of the approximately 2,000 physicians serving in Desert Storm, only 103, about 5 percent, were USUHS trained. Mr. President, though I am persuaded that there is sufficient reason to begin phasing out USUHS, there are a variety of questions that have arisen about the school that should be explored. Last session I authored an amendment to the fiscal year 1995 Defense authorization bill directing the General Accounting Office [GAO] to examine some of those issues. That amendment resulted from negotiations between myself and other Senators concerned with the future of USUHS, the senior Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] and the senior Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes], and was aimed at having GAO examine some critical issues relating to USUHS. Among those matters are whether USUHS is fulfilling its statutory mandate. A 1990 report of the DOD's inspector general noted that although there have been three studies on the cost effectiveness of USUHS, there had been no evaluation of how well USUHS meets DOD objectives, nor had there been an evaluation of the quality of the medical education. Mr. President, this lack of evaluation is particularly troubling as the inspector general's report noted that questions have been raised as to whether the style of education provided at USUHS--``. . . may be in danger of inhibiting the students from developing those critical abilities considered essential for innovation and/or ready adaptation to expected changes in biomedical technology anticipated during the military/civilian careers of the students.'' Mr. President, another area of concern is how USUHS is meeting the needs of today's military structure. The proponents of USUHS frequently cite the higher retention rates of USUHS graduates over physicians obtained from other sources as a justification for continuation of this program. And there may be evidence that a greater percentage of USUHS trained physicians may remain in the military longer than those from other sources. But there does not appear to be a good understanding of what factors might contribute to longer retention rates. The body of students entering USUHS, for example, is disproportionately made up of members of the military, an aspect of USUHS grads that may have a large impact on their retention rates, and a feature that could be built into the military's alternative physician sources if needed. Nor is there any systematic analysis of how retention rates compare to the needs of the services for military physicians during a period of downsizing. This issue may be of particular relevance given the downsizing of our force levels. Testimony by the Department of Defense before the Subcommittee on Force Requirements and Personnel suggested that, based upon a 1989 study, it needed to maintain a 10 percent of retention rate of physicians beyond 12 years, and that alternative sources like the AFHPSP may already be meeting the retention needs of the services. That prompted the chairman of the Armed Service Committee, the senior Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], to question, during hearings held in the 103d Congress, whether these figures meant that we are retaining a more senior force than we need, a crucial consideration in determining the role of USUHS. This is a question GAO is addressing in its review. Mr. President, another question that can be raised is what other options are available to provide the unique contribution of USUHS. Suggestions have been made that civilian medical schools could provide the basic medical education with USUHS taking over a greater role in graduate and specialized military medical education. Since 90 percent of the military physicians come from sources other than USUHS, it is fair to ask whether all military physicians should receive some specialized training along the lines offered at this facility, rather than limiting it to a tiny percentage of military physicians. Perhaps the mission of USUHS should be refocused in this direction. Mr. President, these are all important matters that certainly merit examination, and I look forward to reviewing the work that the GAO will be doing in its study. I expect GAO to have much of its work done in time for consideration of the future of USUHS, and the legislation I am introducing today, during the authorization and appropriations bills. Mr. President, in conclusion, let me say that I fully recognize that USUHS has some dedicated supporters in the U.S. Senate, and I realize that there are legitimate arguments that those supporters have made in defense of this institution. The problem, however, is that the Federal Government can no longer afford to continue every program that provides some useful function. In the face of our staggering national debt and annual deficits, we must prioritize and eliminate programs that can no longer be sustained with limited Federal dollars, or where a more cost-effective means of fulfilling those functions can be substituted. The future of USUHS continues to be debated precisely because in these times of budget restraint it does not appear to pass the higher threshold tests which must be applied to all Federal spending programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, in again introducing a bill to complete some unfinished business the Federal Government began in our State in 1962, a public works project on the Kickapoo River that left a community expecting Federal flood control relief in a state of economic devastation. Identical legislation is being introduced today in the other Chamber by our colleagues from Wisconsin, Representatives Gunderson and Petri. Senator Kohl and I brought this measure before the Senate in the 103d Congress, and although it was passed by the other Chamber in the omnibus Water Resources Development Act [WRDA] we were not able to complete action on that measure in the Senate in the closing days of the 103d Congress. It is tenacity and enduring spirit of the people in this area, and their desire to turn away from the past, that brings us again to the floor on their behalf. It is also our responsibility, not only as members of the Wisconsin delegation, but also as Senators to seek to correct Federal actions when they adversely affect local areas. This legislation presents this body with such an opportunity. Mr. President, the story of the LaFarge Dam remains the same. More than 30 years ago, the U.S. Army Crops of Engineers planned to build a dam across the Kickapoo River, near the village of LaFarge, WI, which is located in southwest portion of my State. The dam was supposed to provide flood control in an often flooded valley. In addition, local residents were told of the economic benefits in tourism dollars that the planned lake and other improvements would bring to the area. Federal legislation authorizing the LaFarge Dam passed in 1962, and construction began in 1971. Despite the best of intentions, the project was never completed. Construction ended in 1975, leaving the proposed dam only 61 present complete, while 80 percent of the land needed to build the dam had been acquired by the Federal Government, including the private homes and farms of 140 families who were evicted in order to begin the project. The area, already struggling economically prior to the dam's development, was devastated. By 1990, it was estimated that annual losses resulting from the cessation of family farm operations and the unrealized tourism benefits that had been promised with the dam totaled more 300 jobs and $8 million for the local economy per year. In fact, the only remaining legacy of the project is a fragmented landscape. It is dotted with scattered remains of former farm homes, and a 103-foot tall, concrete shell of the dam that stands like an eerie sentinel, with the Kickapoo River flowing unimpeded through a 1000 foot gap. The most important benefit of the dam, its flood control protection, as never realized. The area continues to experience frequent floods today. The legislation we are introducing will being this chapter of the history of LaFarge to a close, but not by completing construction of the dam. Local residents who were once convinced that completion of the dam was the only ways out of their plight have now reached consensus the project should not continue. Instead, Mr. President, for the past 4 years, members of the local community, the Army Corps of Engineers, University of Wisconsin-- Extension, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Wisconsin State Historic Society, the Governor's office, State legislators, Wisconsin environmental groups, and the members of the congressional delegation who join in introducing this legislation, have collaborated together to develop a plan to reclaim the dam area and manage it under a combination of State and local control. This legislation is the embodiment of that consensus. It contains several simple components. First, it deauthorizes the dam and accompanying 8,569 acres of federally-owned land and turns the land over to the State of Wisconsin. The Wisconsin State Legislature passed legislation last year to take over management of the Kickapoo Valley lands in preparation for Federal action. It provides that the deauthorized land will be managed as a reserve under the auspices of the newly created Kickapoo Valley Governing Board. The board is required, by Wisconsin State law, to preserve and enhance the unique environmental, scenic, and cultural features of the Kickapoo Valley, to provide facilities for the use and enjoyment of visitors to the area and to promote the area as a destination for vacationing and recreation. Strong environmental protection provisions are included in the State law including limits on development and an outright ban on any mining activities. In addition the board is required to consult with the State historical society and Wisconsin Indian tribes in managing the historical and cultural content of the lands. The Kickapoo Valley is truly a beautiful area of the State, filled with unique natural features such as sandstone cliffs, hearty forest lands, and scenic valleys. It is home to many rare plants and several State threatened and endangered animals, as well as more than 400 archeological sites. It is these very attributes which contributed to the demise of dam plans, and which were long regarded to be standing in the way of progress. Now, the local community has embraced protection of these natural treasures as a means to revitalize the region. Second, Mr. President, the legislation that I am introducing maintains and slightly modifies authorization for improvement projects which were included in the original designs. These improvements include renovation of three roads, and construction of an education and interpretation complex that includes buildings, parking areas, recreational trails, and canoe facilities. The legislation also provides for environmental cleanup and site restoration of abandoned wells and farm sites in the area. These projects provide hope for the area and fulfillment of Federal promises made long ago. When the 140 families were forced to leave their homes in the 1960's, many of them left the region entirely. As I mentioned, many of those who stayed in the area lost income and the land they once owned was removed from the local tax base. Local businesses which once relied on these customers, suffered, and the school system lost property tax funding along with approximately one- third of its students. Today, the median income is only slightly above half of the State average. And the heartfelt bitterness toward what is widely considered an irresponsible Federal boondoggle has been tempered only recently with plans for Federal deauthorization. Mr. President, that is why I am convinced the legislation we offer today is the best option. It is based on consensus, allows for responsible local and State control, and fulfills the Federal Government's responsibility to this area. It is not often that we are able to consider truly beneficial proposals that local communities want and need. As many in this Chamber know, I am concerned about the fiscal implications of all legislation that I bring before this body. The Army Corps of Engineers estimates that if the LaFarge Dam were to be completed today, the total cost would be $102 million of which only $18.6 million has already been expended. The legislation we offer completes the promised improvements to the area at a cost of $17 million--a substantial savings of $66.4 million over costs for dam completion. In closing, Mr. President, I would like to extend my thanks to my colleagues who join me in introducing this legislation today. I also want to acknowledge the support and hard work of the people of the Kickapoo Valley in bringing this legislation to fruition. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce S. 45, the Helium Reform and Deficit Reduction Act of 1995, legislation to phase out the Federal Helium Program. The measure is based on the excellent legislation introduced in the other body during the 103d Congress by Representatives Cox and Frank, and a similar bill introduced by Representatives Lehman, Vucanovich, and Miller. The legislation will produce real savings both in the near term, as operations are phased out, and over the long run, as the stockpile of helium is sold off. Analysis by the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] of similar legislation last year estimated that, under that bill, income to the Federal Treasury from the helium program would eventually double to $16 million annually over the estimated CBO baseline of $8 million. These savings do not include revenues that will go to the Treasury from the sale of facilities and equipment of the helium program, nor do they include the value to the Treasury of the bulk of the helium stockpile that will remain well after the 5-year budget window--valued at a reported $1.6 billion at today's helium prices. Mr. President, the Helium Act of 1925 was initiated in large part because of the potential military importance of blimps. It authorized the Bureau of Mines to build and operate a helium extraction and purification plant, which went into operation in Amarillo, TX in 1929. According to the General Accounting Office, a nominal private helium industry existed in the United States before 1937, but between 1937 and 1960, the Bureau of Mines was the only domestic helium producer, selling most of what it produced to other Federal agencies, but also supplying some to private firms. With the advent of space exploration and the growth of defense programs, the Federal Government's demand for helium was expected to grow dramatically, and in 1960, Congress amended the Helium Act to provide incentives for stripping natural gas of its helium, for purchase of the separated helium by the Government, and for its long- term storage in the Cliffside Reservoir near Amarillo. Today, helium is used in large quantities in space, defense, an advanced energy systems. Its major uses include cryogenics in medical and superconductivity applications, cover gas in welding, and for pressurizing and purging fuel tanks and vessels in the space program. It is also used in breathing gas mixtures for deep sea diving, controlled atmospheres for growing crystals for transistors, heat transfer mediums for nuclear power generators, leak detection, chromatography, and as a lifting gas for blimps. As a result of the 1960 Act, four private natural gas producing companies built five helium extraction facilities and entered into 22- year contracts with the Bureau of Mines. However, instead of appropriating funds for the helium program, the 1960 act authorized the Secretary of the Interior to borrow from the Treasury up to $47.5 million per year, at compound interest, to purchase helium. The act stipulated that the Bureau of Mines set prices that would cover all of the program's costs, including debt and interest, and provided a period of 25 years to pay back the debt, subsequently extended to 1995. In addition, Federal agencies and contractors were required to buy helium from the Bureau of Mines. Mr. President, to a certain extent, the 1960 changes to program have succeeded, in so far as they helped create private helium operations. Prior to the 1960 act, the Federal Government owned the only helium extraction plants in the world. Today, 90 percent of the helium produced in this country comes from private operations. Unfortunately, the 1960 act also led to a growing Government-run operation. The borrowing done to pay for helium purchases has not been paid back, with the program now having accumulated a debt of approximately $1.4 billion to the treasury, and a stockpile of helium that some have suggested could supply the Government's needs for the next 80 to 100 years. Mr. President, the measure I have introduced directs the Secretary of the Interior to cease producing, refining, and marketing refined helium 1 year after the effective date. It also directs the Secretary to dispose of all facilities and equipment used for the purpose of producing, refining, and marketing refined helium, consistent with Federal laws governing the disposal of surplus properties. The measure directs the Secretary to begin selling off the helium reserves owned by the Government. The sale of the helium reserves would be done over time to ensure that taxpayers will receive a fair price for the helium they have financed, and to minimize disruption of the private helium market. This legislation freezes the current debt owned by the helium program to the treasury, and dedicates the revenues from the sale of the facilities, equipment, and helium reserves to the repayment of that debt. Finally, the measure that annual financial statements be prepared describing the financial position of the helium operations, including a statement of what the interest payments on the outstanding repayable amounts would have been under the arrangements initiated in the 1960 act. Mr. President, as I noted earlier, the CBO analyzed similar legislation last year, and estimated that under that measure income to the Federal treasury from the helium program would roughly double as the changes are phased in, with income exceeding expenses by about $16 million annually in fiscal year 1999 under the legislation, compared with $8 million annually estimated for CBO baseline calculations. Though these are very real savings, there will be additional savings for the treasury as well under this legislation, including additional revenues that would accrue to the treasury from the sale of facilities and equipment, and the value to the treasury of the bulk of the helium stockpile that will remain well after the 5-year budget window. Though the helium stockpile is valued at $373 million in the Helium Fund Budget, the Congressional Research Service reports that the value of the crude helium in the Government's Cliffside Reservoir could be worth about $1 billion if it were sold at rates ranging from $25 to $35 per thousand cubic feet, and a reported $1.6 billion if it were sold at today's prices. Mr. President, supporters of the helium program argue that the roughly $1.4 billion in debt it has accumulated should be disregarded. They maintain that since the debt is owed by one agency of the Government to another, it is only a bookkeeping dispute. That is not an acceptable description of the matter. First, though it is true that, in a sense, the Government owes the money to itself, those who would defend the helium program cannot selectively pick and choose those program costs to be included and those that are not to be included in assessing the program's efficiency. The growing debt was created because of borrowing by the program from the Federal treasury, borrowing that was used to fund the significant assets of the program, including the massive helium stockpile. It is deceptive to suggest that the overall productivity of the program should be measured without taking into account the borrowed capital which produced the giant stockpile of helium on which the program is drawing. Second, and just as important, the funding provided for this enterprise came at the cost of other governmental activities and an increased Federal deficit. The funds borrowed over the years could have been used for education, health care programs, national defense, small business programs, lower income taxes, or a lower Federal budget deficit. The debt that has been accumulating is a measure of the opportunity cost of that decision, and will be a measure of the opportunity cost to continue the helium operation should this legislation not pass. that the program is as efficient as private sector helium producers and that the program produces helium at competitive rates. They maintain that their revenues exceed their cost of operation, if one excludes the debt payments they owe the Federal treasury. But, Mr. President, the facts do not bear this out. In part due to outdated plant and equipment, the Federal Helium Program is much less efficient than private sector helium refineries, producing one-third as much with more than four times the number of employees. Further, the Helium Advisory Council suggests that the Federal program understates the true costs of its helium production, in part because they do not include the cost of the crude helium purchased with the very funds borrowed from the taxpayers. The Council also notes that royalty payments to the Bureau of Mines for helium extracted by private companies from Federal land are used to subsidize the costs of the refining operation. Mr. President, though I dispute the contention that the Federal Helium Program is an efficient and competitive producer of helium, I want to stress that even if the Government was doing a competent job of producing helium, that is not a sufficient argument for the continuation of a program that is no longer needed. Though at one time there may have been an appropriate role for a Government-run helium program, there is now a sufficiently mature private helium industry to which the Government can turn for its helium needs. Mr. President, the time has come for the Federal Government to get out of the helium business. The Federal Helium Program is no longer needed, and we should begin to dismantle this operation as soon as possible in the most cost effective manner. This legislation does precisely that. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce S. 85, the Long-Term Care Reform and Deficit Reduction Act of 1995, legislation to reform fundamentally the way we provide long-term care in this country. Though Congress failed to pass comprehensive health care reform last year, we must not wait to renew our efforts. We should begin now, and universal coverage should again be our goal. The legislation I am introducing today does not attempt to reform our health care system in any comprehensive way, but it does serve to resume the debate, and can be a first step in the effort to pursue universal coverage. The bill establishes a system of consumer-oriented, consumer-directed home and community-based long-term care services for individuals with disabilities of any age. It is based on Wisconsin's home and community-based long-term care program, the Community Options Program [COP], which has been a national model of reform. COP was the keystone of Wisconsin's long-term care reforms that have saved Wisconsin taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. The legislation is also similar, in large part, to the excellent long-term care proposal included in President Clinton's health care reform bill last year, as well as to the provisions establishing home and community long-term care benefits in the versions of the President's bill that came out of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources and the Senate Committee on Finance. Unlike so many other aspects of health care reform, the long-term care provisions that came out of the two Senate Committees, that were included in the Mitchell compromise measure, and that were part of the proposals produced by the standing committees in the other body, received bipartisan support. It is somewhat remarkable that when there was so much controversy over so many issues relating to health care reform that there was so much agreement over the need to include long- term care reform. Mr. President, the measure also provides for a hospital-long-term care link program, identical to legislation I introduced, S.52, on the first day for introduction of bills in the 103d Congress. The hospital link program is based on our experiences in Wisconsin where such an initiative has helped direct individuals needing long- term care services out of hospitals, and back to their own homes and communities. The hospital discharge is a critical point of embarkation into the long-term care system for many, and this program helps ensure that those who leave a hospital in need of long-term care can receive needed services where they prefer them--in their own homes. Mr. President, though I am convinced that long-term care reform can result in substantial savings to taxpayers--and this has been our experience in Wisconsin--this measure does not depend on hypothetical savings for funding. This measure includes funding provisions consisting of specific cuts within the health care system, scored by the Congressional Budget Office to reduce federal spending under Medicare. Included in these proposed spending cuts is a provision that reduces the through the Part B premium. The provision would peg the Part B premium to income, reducing the taxpayer subsidy for individuals with income over $100,000 and couples with income over $125,000. The subsidy would be completely phased-out for individuals with income over $125,000, and couples with income over $150,000. Other savings are generated from a 10 percent home health copayment applied to individuals with incomes over 150 percent of poverty--still only half the copayment charged on other Medicare services; modifying the routine cost limits for home health services; correcting an anomaly in the formula for certain outpatient services; and, continuing the reduction in the inpatient hospital capital reimbursement formula. Based on the estimates of the provisions in this legislation generated by the CBO for 5 fiscal years, the measure actually generates savings in each of those years, and produces a total of $6.1 billion in deficit reduction over that time. This must be the approach we adopt, even for those proposals which experience shows will result in savings. By including funding provisions in this long-term care reform measure, we ensure that any additional savings produced by these reforms will only further reduce the budget deficit. Mr. President, though long-term care reform may serve to move us toward truly comprehensive health care reform, it is very much needed in its own right. While the population of those needing long-term care is growing much faster than those providing indirect support as taxpayers, informal care, which is largely provided by families, has been stretched to the limit by the economics of health care and the increasing age of the caregivers themselves. The default system of formal long-term care, currently funded through the Medicaid Program, requires that individuals impoverish themselves before they can receive needed care, and it largely limits care to expensive institutional settings. Failure to reform long-term care will inevitably lead to increased use of the Medicaid system--the most expensive long-term care alternative for taxpayers, and the least desirable for consumers. Mr. President, there are few statistical forecasts as accurate as those dealing with our population, and estimates show that the population needing long-term care will explode during the next few decades. The elderly are the fastest growing segment of our population, with those over age 85--individuals most in need of long-term care--the fastest growing segment of the elderly. The over 85 population will triple in size between 1980 and 2030, and will be nearly seven times larger in 2050 than in 1980. The growth in the population of elderly needing some assistance is expected to be equally dramatic. Activities of daily living, or ADL's, are a common measure of need for long-term care services. These activities include eating, transferring in and out of bed, toileting, dressing, and bathing. In 1988, approximately 6.9 million elderly could not perform all of these activities. By 2000, this population is expected to increase to 9 million, and by 2040 to 18 million. Mr. President, that we have been able to stave off a long-term care crisis to date is due in large part to the direct caregiving provided by millions of families for their elderly and disabled family members. But here, also, we see that the demographic changes of the next several decades will result in increased strain on the current system. While the number of people in need of care is increasing rapidly, the population supporting those individuals, either through direct caregiving, or indirectly through their taxes, is growing much more slowly, and thus is shrinking in comparison. In 1900, there were about 7 elderly individuals for every 100 people of working age. As of 1990, the ratio was about 20 elderly for every 100, by 2020 the ratio will be 29 per 100, and after that it will rise to 38 per 100 by 2030. These population differences will be further aggravated by the changing nature of the family and the work force. As the Alzheimer's Association has noted smaller families, delayed childbearing, more women in the work force, higher divorce rates, and increased mobility all mean there will be fewer primary caregivers available, and far less informal support for those who do continue to provide care to family members in need of long-term care services. Mr. President, while some elderly are relatively well off, thanks in part to programs like Social Security and Medicare that have kept many out of poverty, it is also true that too many seniors still find themselves living near or below the poverty line. This is especially true for those needing long-term care, who, on average, are poorer than those who do not need long-term care. In 1990, about 27 percent of people needing help with some activity of daily living survived on incomes below the poverty level, compared with 17 percent of all older people. About half of impaired elderly have income under 150 percent of poverty, compared with 35 percent of all elderly, and, according to Families USA, while 20 percent of the population as a whole had annual family income under $15,685 in 1992, nearly half of the disabled population had income under that level. Further aggravating the problem is that informal family member caregivers are getting older. These caregivers are already an average of 57, with 36 percent of caregivers 65 or older. As the population ages, so will the average age of caregivers, and as the population of caregivers increases, their ability to provide adequate informal care diminishes. Mr. President, all in all our country faces a rapidly growing population needing long-term care services, a population which is disproportionately poor. At the same time, the group of family caregivers, that has kept most of the population needing long-term care out of government programs like Medicaid, is shrinking relative to those in need of services, and is becoming progressively older. The inescapable result of these trends is substantial pressure on government provided long-term care services--services that are inadequate in several fundamental ways. First, with some exceptions, the current system fails to build effectively on the informal care provided by families. Mr. President, most people with disabilities, even with severe disabilities, rely on care in their home from family and friends. The Alzheimer's Association estimates that families provide between 80 and 90 percent of all care at home, willingly and without pay. The Association estimates that this informal off-budget care would cost $54 billion to replace. This last figure can be only an estimate, not because it doesn't fairly represent the services currently being provided by family members, but because comparable services are largely unavailable from the long-term care system. The variety of home and community-based services provided by family members simply do not exist in many areas. Mr. President, the prevalence of family-provided caregiving affirms that, in reforming our long-term care system, it is vital that we build on top of the existing informal care that is being provided, not try to substitute for that care by imposing a new system. The goal of long- term care reform is first to enable family caregivers to continue to provide the care they currently give and that their family members prefer. Mr. President, another weakness of the current long-term care system is the lack of a home and community service capacity. This is due in part to the inadequacies of the Medicaid Program. Enacted in 1965, Medicaid was primarily a response to the acute care needs of the poor. Though Congress did not envision Medicaid as a long-term care program, it quickly became the primary source of Government funds for long-term care services. For many years, those long-term services provided under Medicaid were almost exclusively institutionally based. Not until institutional services, such as nursing homes, had become well established were community and home-based services funded. The result of the head start given institutional long-term care services has been a continuing bias toward institutions in our long- term care programs. The rate of nursing home use by the elderly since the advent of Medicare and alternatives to institutional care are considered exceptions to institutional care. A State must get a waiver from the Federal Government in order to qualify for community and home-based nonmedical service alternatives under Medicaid, and in many cases, an individual must otherwise be headed to an institution in order to qualify for those Medicaid-funded community and home-based alternative programs. More significantly, there remains an absolute entitlement to institutional care that does not exist for the home and community- based waiver alternatives. Mr. President, many families have been able to provide long-term care services themselves to their elderly and disabled family members, but the lack of even partial support services makes it increasingly difficult for families to choose to keep their family members at home. According to 1991 Alzheimer's Association study, the family caregiving alternative to Government-funded long-term care is likely to disappear not because of the increasing impairment of the long-term care consumer, but because of the physical, emotional, or financial exhaustion of the caregiver: Family caregivers suffer more stress-related illness, resulting from exhaustion, lowered immune functions, and injuries, than the general population . . . Depression among caregivers of the frail elderly is as high as 43 to 46 percent, nearly three times the norm. . . . The likelihood of health problems is heightened by the relatively high age of caregivers: the average is 57. Thirty-six percent of caregivers are 65 or older. Mr. President, the impact on the economy of the family caregiver is also significant. Beyond the obvious strain on the personal economy of those families with members needing long-term care services, there is also a significant effect on employers. One quarter of American workers over the age of 30 care for an elderly parent, and this percentage is expected to increase with 40 percent of workers expected to be caring for aging parents in the next 5 years. There are impressive statistics when one considers that caregivers report missing a week and a half of work each year in order to provide care, and nearly one-third of working caregivers have either quit their job or reduced their work hours because of their caregiving responsibilities. For those working 20 hours or fewer a week, over half have reduced their work hours because of caregiving responsibilities. Mr. President, long-term care is very much a women's issue. Women live longer than men, and make up a greater portion of the population needing care. And women are much more likely to be the family member that is providing care to a loved one who needs long-term care. One in five women have a parent living in their home, and nearly half of adult daughters who are caregivers are unemployed. Over a quarter of these women said they either quit their jobs or retired early just to provide care for an older person. In addition to the impact on caregivers as employees, workers, and family breadwinners, there is also a measurable impact on their personal health. As the Alzheimer's Association study noted, caregivers are more likely to be in poor health than the general population, and are three times more likely to suffer from depression, a condition that raises the risk of other ailments such as exhaustion, lowered immune function, stress-related illness, and injury related to their caregiving responsibilities. Compounding both the work-related and health-related problems, the burden of this kind of caregiving can increase over time. The Alzheimer's Association study noted that unlike caring for a child, which diminishes over time as the child matures and becomes more independent, caregiving responsibilities for an aging parent often increase as they become more dependent and require more care. Mr. President, failure to reform long-term care will also lead to cost-shifting and will undermine our efforts both to contain acute care costs and further reduce the deficit. Thanks in large part to the lack of universal coverage and the attendant shared responsibility, the health care system has become expert at shifting costs. Federal and State policymakers, in attempting to control costs, have often only created bigger incentives to shift costs as they try to clamp down in one area only to see utilization jump in another. All too often, no real savings are achieved in the end. This was seen, for example, when the Federal Government changed several aspects of Medicare reimbursements. Patients were discharged from hospitals quicker and sicker than they had been before with a resulting increase in utilization in other areas, including long-term care services such as skilled nursing facilities. This example is particularly appropriate. As efforts are made to limit costs in the acute care system, it is precisely this kind of shifting, from the acute care side to the long-term care side, that will occur unless long-term care reforms are pursued. A grandmother who is discharged from a hospital by an HMO seeking to lower its costs, may have little alternative but to enter a nursing home. Long-term care reform could provide her family with sufficient additional supports to be able to care for that grandmother in her own home, and at significantly lower cost to the family and the system as a whole. But, Mr. President, as important as it is to gain control of our health care costs, long-term care reform is needed first and foremost as a matter of humanity. In my own State of Wisconsin, long-term care has been the focus of significant reforms since the early 1980s. One long-term care administrator, Chuck McGlaughlin of Black River Falls, WI, testified before a field hearing of the Senate Aging Committee in the 103d Congress that prior to those reforms, he saw an almost complete absence of community or home-based long-term care services for people in need of support. This was especially visible for older disabled individuals. Except for those seniors with sufficient resources to create their own system of in-home supports, he saw many forced to enter nursing homes who would have liked to have remained in their own home or community. McLaughlin noted that though some eventually adjusted to leaving their home and entering the nursing home, others never did. I saw people who simply willed their own death because they saw no reason to continue living. These were people who were literally torn from familiar places and familiar people. People who had lost the continuity of their lives and the history that so richly made them into who they were now. People who had nurtured and sustained their communities which in turn provided them with positive status in that community. These people were truly uprooted and adrift in an alien environment lacking familiar sights, sounds, and smells. Many of them simply chose not to live any longer. While the medical care they received was excellent, they were more than just their physical bodies. Modern medicine has no treatment for a broken spirit. Mr. President, for many, the current long-term care system continues to be so inflexible as to be inhumane. Mr. President, there are many reasons for pursing long-term care reform--certainly more than are addressed here. But the one which may be the most meaningful for those actually needing long-term care is the ability to make their own choice about what kinds of services they will receive. In particular, this will mean the chance to remain as independent as possible, living at home or in the community or, if they choose, in an institution. Survey after survey reveal the overwhelming preference for home-based care, and these findings are consistent with the anecdotal evidence available from just about every family facing some kind of long-term care need. Ann Hauser, a 74-year-old woman who retired after 30 years as a ward clerk in a Milwaukee hospital, offered testimony at a May 9, 1994 field hearing of the Senate Special Committee on Aging that is typical of what many have said over the years. Now living at home with help from Wisconsin's home and community- based long-term care program, the Community Options Program [COP], Ms. Hauser related a number of problems she had experienced while in different nursing homes. While at this nursing home and the others, I was to continue on IV antibiotics and needed some, but not total assistance for chair assisted in moving around so seldom that I lost muscle tone. Within 5 months, I became bedridden. The Heuer lift became a cop-out, and I learned that I was better to refuse it so that I would keep the use of some of my muscles. The less active I became, the more depressed I became. I was going downhill fast. How could I be happy in places that allowed the aids to switch the TV station on my television to their favorite soap operas (when I don't even like shows like that)? Furthermore, when I would remind them that I was at their mercy to finish my bed bath as they stopped to watch ``just one more minute,'' they would take away my remote control while I shivered and waited. The particulars of Ms. Hauser's experience are less important than the overall loss of control and independence that she experienced, something that is common for many in nursing homes. As Ms. Hauser noted: How could I thrive in an environment that counted on my remaining inactive when I had been so active until now? Dorothy Freund, a nursing home resident who also gave testimony at the May 9 field hearing. Ms. Freund, who received her BA from Ohio State University, majored in English, and later received an additional degree from Maclean College of Drama, Speech, and Voice in Chicago. After a brief stay in a hospital for treatment to her ankle, she came to a nursing home for further treatment. She gave up her apartment, because it was not designed for maneuvering in a wheelchair, and she has been on the COP waiting list for a year and a half. Ms. Freund testified that she enjoys helping people, and this was obvious to those at the hearing as she related her efforts to tutor a nursing assistant who had worked at the nursing home. The aid decided that she would like to become a nurse, to get her LPN, but needed to get her high school diploma. Ms. Freund helped her with English, geometry, government, and geography, and, thanks in large part to Ms. Freund's efforts, the nursing assistant did receive her high school diploma. Ms. Freund spoke about her experience and her thoughts on living in a nursing home: Then why not stay at the nursing home and help others in the same way? It is not an atmosphere of peace and quiet for any length of time. I'm not deprecating the nursing home and its quality of care. They are always looking for ways to improve situations and to solve problems that arise. Nor am I downgrading those who are trying their best to give that care. But when the shouting, moaning, screaming, and babbling all go on at the same time it can be bedlam. It may erupt at any moment. The frustrations of being stuffed in a nursing home, the struggle to ride out the storms, and keep one's head above the turbulent waters, can seem overwhelming when there's not even a gleam at the end of the tunnel. But I just can't resign myself to a life of Bingo and Roll-a-ball. ``Don't give up; there must be a way.'' I keep telling myself. Ms. Freund's testimony, again, is typical of the experiences of many needing long-term care. And it bears emphasizing that the desire to live in one's own home, and to be able to function as independently as possible, exists despite the high quality of care that is provided in most nursing homes. Mr. President, this should come as no surprise in a society that values independence so highly. We cannot expect an individual's value system to change the instant they require some long-term care, though this is precisely how our current long-term care system is structured. If for no other reason, we need to reform our long-term care system to reflect the values we cherish as a Nation, to live, as we wish, independently, in our own homes and communities. Mr. President, last year I issued a report reviewing the long-term care provisions in President Clinton's health care reform legislation and offering some modifications to those provisions based on our experience in Wisconsin. In that report, I noted that Chuck McLaughlin's eloquent comments on the importance of community were not only relevant, even central, to the discussion of long-term care, but that community must also be the focus of our efforts in many other areas of our lives as Americans and citizens of the world. More often than not, the critical problems we face stem from a failure of community or a lack of adequate community-based supports-- for example jobs and economic development, housing, crime, and education. These and other important issues are usually confronted by policymakers at a distance--from Washington, DC, or from state capitals--essentially from the top down. Too often we have tried to solve these challenges, including the challenge of long-term care, by imposing a superior vision from above. This approach has led to inflexible systems that cannot react to individual needs, but rather end up trying to fit the problem to their own structure. This fundamental weakness is often enough to undermine even the sometimes huge amounts of money that we send along to implement the problem solving. It also limits the kinds of creative approaches those who are on the ground may see as useful and necessary. Mr. President, just as we have a need to reinvent Government to respond more efficiently to our country's needs and our national deficit, we need also to reinvent community to allow flexible approaches to problems, and to allow those in the community to exercise their judgment as to how best solve problems. A great strength of the Wisconsin long-term care reforms, and especially the home and community-based benefit on which this legislation is based, is that it is focused on the needs of the individual. Eligibility is based on disability, not age, and services are centered around the particular needs of a individual rather than the perceived needs of a group. The approach this legislation takes is not only appropriate, but integral to the nature of long-term care. Mr. President, the population needing long-term care services is a diverse group with widely differing needs. Of the many misconceptions about long-term care, and about programs providing long-term care services, the most common may be that long- term care is purely an elderly issue. Though it is true that the elderly make up the largest part of the population needing long-term cares services, long-term care is an issue facing millions of younger Americans. Approximately 1 million children have severe disabilities that require long-term care services. Beyond the wide difference in the ages of those needing long-term care services, there is a diversity of needs, including the needs of the caregiving family members who may need a variety of different long- term care services. From individuals with cerebral palsy to families that have a loved one afflicted with Alzheimer's disease, however well intentioned, no one set of services will address the individual needs of long-term care consumers. Rather than trying to fit all of those needing long-term care services into one set of services, this legislation lets case managers, working with long-term care consumers and their families, determine just what services are needed and preferred. Mr. President, the failure to enact comprehensive reform will not interrupt my own efforts to advocate and push individual reforms that respond to the needs of people and that can help save our health care system money. In home and community-based long-term care reform, we can achieve both. For taxpayers in Wisconsin, COP has saved hundreds of millions of dollars that would otherwise have been spent on more expensive institutional care. During the 1980's, while the rest of the country was experiencing a 24-percent increase in Medicaid nursing home bed use, in Wisconsin, thanks to COP and other long-term care reforms, Medicaid nursing home bed use actually dropped by 19 percent. In a recent talk, Gov. Tommy Thompson noted that COP saves Wisconsin taxpayers about $25 million every year. At the same time, COP has provided an alternative that allows the consumer to participate in determining the plan of care and in the execution of that plan. But, Mr. President, at the Federal level we are behind Wisconsin and other States in reforming long-term care. Despite the creation of community-based Medicaid waiver programs, consumers are, for the most part, faced with few alternatives. disabled prior to the establishment of COP in Wisconsin, Chuck McLaughlin testified before our field hearing that he recalled thinking that when he went to a grocery store there was incredible choice. He noted that there was an entire aisle for various types of pet food. But when elderly people encountered frailty and the loss of independence, there were basically no choices for them. It seemed a sad reality that society was doing a much better job at providing meal diversity to cats and dogs than we were doing at offering choices to humans facing frailty. Mr. President, that is the plight of many needing long-term care today. The disabled of all ages have few options. And those that they do have are expensive for them, for their families, and for taxpayers. This proposal will begin to provide the flexibility that State and local government needs to provide consumer-oriented and consumer- directed services. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the measure, followed by the complete text of the legislation, be printed in the Record.