Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bill Parlett, a congressional fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill, S. 1745, and that immediately after the approval of this unanimous consent request we go back into a quorum call.

Mr. GREGG

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

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I again propound my unanimous consent request. I would be willing to proceed with this amendment after the regular order on the amendment, which is going to be voted on at 3:30, is pursued, so that the Senator from Maine and the Senator from New Mexico could proceed, with the understanding that I would bring the first amendment up at the conclusion of that regular order.

Mr. GREGG. At 3:25?

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator for his courtesy and ask the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. GREGG. More than 400 names, with FBI files, have been requested by the White House, pursuant to what appears to be the request of the director of the White House personnel security office. In this instance, this is clearly a violation of a proper handling of the most sensitive information about individuals who have worked for the Government or who may be politically active. It appears from all press reports that these files represented primarily Republican members or Republican individuals who identify themselves with the Republican Party. The fact is that has created a clear concern amongst not only those people whose files were requested, but I think amongst anyone who is interested in the proper functioning of a democratic Government. The issue here is, at what point can the police powers of the State be used for purposes of investigation which exceed the legitimate purposes of the White House or some other agency of the Government? The issue here involves the question of, when does the police power of the State, when abused, significantly abridge the rights of individuals and citizens of the country, because this information was collected under the authority of the police power, the FBI. But how information regarding 400 individuals, many of whom had not been involved in any form of White House access for years, could be legitimately requested by the White House raises very significant and serious questions. There is no doubt, really, that what happened here was some sort of, at the minimum, fishing expedition for information, and one suspects and is concerned that the goal and the purpose of that fishing expedition was not involved in the necessary function of access to the White House, because a large number of the people on this list involve people who had no active involvement with the White House and who, clearly, had no potential future active involvement with the White House. And, therefore, to obtain this sort of information on them makes no logical sense in relationship to the purpose of the security office of the White House. So what you have is a very serious issue of the proper usage of information, which had been developed by the FBI, or the police power of the State, in the functioning of the Government. It has become pretty obvious from this exercise that at least one individual is primarily culpable for this action--this action which is not defensible. In fact, the White House has said it was not defensible. In fact, the White House has used terms such as ``inexcusable.'' I believe the President has even used that term. Clearly, the Chief of Staff has used that term. But that individual continues to be paid by the taxpayers of this country. He was not asked to leave. He is on self-requested administrative leave, I believe. So your tax dollars, my tax dollars, the American people's tax dollars, and even the tax dollars of those 400 folks whose files have been gone through in this manner, are being used to fund the salary of this individual. That seems, to me, to be not only incredibly ironic, but extraordinarily inappropriate and inconsistent with the policy stated by the President when he was running for this office. When the President was running for office, if people will recall, there was an incident that occurred at the State Department that involved the review of the passport file of the then-candidate, Governor Clinton. At that time, he stated with considerable and, I think, appropriate outrage that had such an incident occurred, or should such an incident occur during his administration, that person would be--the person responsible for that action--quickly terminated. Well, not only has the person responsible not been quickly terminated, but the person responsible is now actually being paid by the taxpayers of this country his full salary. That is wrong. I think it is wrong on all sorts of levels, but it is wrong on the issue of logic. It is wrong on the issue of fairness to the people whose files were gone through, but, most importantly, it sends the wrong signal on a matter of this seriousness. He should have been fired outright, as I think the President suggested when he was running for office. There is no question about that. That would have been the proper course of action. But, at the minimum, he should not have been able to request administrative leave. He should have been put on leave by this White House, without pay. What has happened, however, is just the opposite. He was put on leave at his request, with pay, an action which one has to question rather significantly. Now, let us review again what happened. There were 400 names--maybe more, we are not absolutely sure yet--which were requested by the director of the office of White House personnel security. Now, the director of White House personnel security has the obligation, under the White House rules, to manage who has access to the White House. Traditionally, that post has been under the direction of career individuals, people who specialize, through their activities in the Government, in the management of security for the White House. That has been the traditional individual who has managed that office. However, with the ascension of President Clinton to this White House, there was an individual appointed as director of the office of personnel security named Mr. Livingstone. It has been reported, rather widely, that Mr. Livingstone's basic experience was as a political operative within the campaigns of several different candidates--the President's candidacy, obviously, but I believe even the Vice President's candidacy at one time, and I believe he also worked for former Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro. His basic purpose was to manage political affairs and security within the campaign structure. So he was moved into this position of director of the White House personnel. It has, again, been reported that, in that position, he reported to a series of people within the White House, many of whom also managed political activity within the White House. That, of course, raises the question of, what is the proper way to manage this office? But that is a secondary question. The primary question was, why would this individual have requested these 400 files on these 400 individuals, almost all of whom are Republicans? FBI files, by the way, are very unique files. They are not a credit union file. They are very serious reviews of a person's activities, going into all sorts of background checks that are extraordinarily substantive. The FBI, if nothing, is one of the most thorough investigative organizations in the country. They are not a credit union report. In fact, FBI files are so seriously viewed that when I, as a Member of the Senate, asked to look at an FBI file of a person nominated for a position, which is subject to senatorial review--for example, say, the Surgeon General--before I could look at that file, I have to request that file of the FBI, the FBI has to clear that request through the White House, and then a White House individual, who is designated by the FBI--and they may actually work for the FBI; I am not sure which, because sometimes I think it differentiates--in any event, a person from the White House physically comes to my office, or I go to their office, and sits with me while I review that file. And I am only allowed to review that file by myself. I am not allowed to make any copies of anything in that file. I am not allowed to in any way reproduce any part of that file. While I review that file, sitting directly across from the table is this handler of that file--usually a White House individual but I believe a detailee of the FBI at the White House. So it is not a casual event that somebody looks at an FBI file. It is not a casual event at all. It is a very seriously viewed event. It is that way because these files are so in depth and because they involve such a totality of information about the person whose name is in that file. These same types of files are no different from the one that I must sit in an office and review by myself with a member of either the FBI or the White House present. These same types of files are the exact types of files which were sent down to the White House en masse--400 of them approximately--and kept there under the auspices of the Director of White House Personnel for Security, Mr. Livingstone. You would ask: What would he do with those 400 files as security officer? Logically, if somebody was going to come into the White House, the White House has every right to say, ``We have to check out who that person is. We have to know who that person is. We have to know their background for security reasons.'' So they have every right to an FBI file on individuals who are seeking access to the White House. But these 400 names were not people who had asked to get into the White House. That is the point. They had not asked for it. They were not seeking access. Many of them never expected to return to the White House in their life even for a tour, I do not think. Some of these 400 people were just folks who had a job there when Ronald Reagan was President or when George Bush was President; did their job, and had gone home. Some of them were national figures of fairly significant notoriety. But the one thing they had in common was that almost all of them were not seeking access to the White House. In fact, one of the interesting questions here is, ``Well, where did the list of 400 names come from if they had not actually asked to get into the White House?'' Nobody appears quite clear on that. There was an indication, initially made by Mr. Livingstone, that the 400 names came off the list that he had been supplied by the Secret Service. But the manner in which these names were listed and the manner in which the files were requested is inconsistent with the Secret Service's filing system. They do not have a list of names which go from A to G--which are the names involved--that meets the identification or would be listed in the manner in which they are requested by the White House security. They do not have them in that form. So it was not the Secret Service which had brought the list of names forward. Rather, it was very clearly some other manner in which these names had evolved. So, as a practical matter, what we have is a situation where a group of names were requested, 400 names with their FBI files, and the responsibility for that request--which was totally inappropriate, which was out of the normal mode of operation of the White House security office, and which was inconsistent with the rights of these individuals whose names were in these files --was under the auspices and management of the Director of White House Personnel and Security, Mr. Livingstone. For the moment all roads, therefore, lead back for this rather incredible act of disregard for the constitutional rights of American citizens to Mr. Livingstone. And one must conclude that when the President said--or his spokesperson, Chief of Staff, Mr. Panetta, said--it was an inexcusable act, that it was just that and therefore it should not be excused. What do you do when you have an inexcusable act? You do not excuse it. You do not reward it. You do not say, ``Well, we are going to continue to pay you. You did an inexcusable act, and we are going to continue to pay you.'' No. You should fire the person, and you should terminate their pay. But in this instance that has not happened. So the taxpayers I believe have a right to ask: Why has this individual not been terminated? Why has his pay not been terminated? What is it that this individual has done which justifies him to continue to be paid by the taxpayers of this country? Even if you are not going to fire him, you should at least put him on leave without pay. I suppose by some contorted manner of logic you could argue that he should not be fired. It would be inconsistent with what President Clinton had originally suggested during his campaign for the Presidency. But let us assume that was the decision that was made. But clearly, if he is going to be put on leave, he should not be paid. I am not the only person that has reviewed this. In fact, I have sensed that on the other side of the aisle there is a fair amount of consternation about what has happened here, and I believe that is reasonable because there are good and decent people who are concerned about the status of the Constitution; many. All of us in this Chamber are. Some have reviewed and evaluated this situation and have said, ``Listen. This individual should be fired.'' I believe the Senator from Illinois has made that statement on occasion, and I believe the Senator from Vermont has also. So it is not a partisan position. It is simply a logical position that, if someone has acted in this manner, they should not be rewarded with taxpayer dollars. Do we have the capacity in this bill to terminate him? Do we have the capacity to fire him? Do we have the capacity to say he should not be paid as a matter of law? Well, we might, I suppose. But it would be very hard and complex, and it would be tortuous to do that. So rather than make it an amendment that would have the force of law, I have simply suggested that as a sense of the Senate we go on record and say that we feel that this individual should no longer be paid by the taxpayers of the United States. We are basically suggesting that what is right should be done. And it is not unreasonable to seek to do what is right. This is such an obvious point--that what is appropriate and right almost should go unsaid. It should not have to be said. There should not have to be a sense of the Senate on this point. The President should have just done it just like he suggested that he would during the campaign. But in this instance that has not occurred. So I believe it is appropriate that we take up this sense of the Senate. As a result, I have brought it forward at this time. I recognize the consternation this may create, and I certainly wish to apologize to the leader of the Armed Services bill, the Senator from South Carolina, who I greatly admire, and, as does everyone in this institution, hold in absolute esteem. But the vehicle to bring this up is the only vehicle that is on the floor. And if it were not brought up on this vehicle it would not be able to be brought up probably for weeks--certainly until after the Fourth of July recess, and maybe not even then. Thus, I feel that I should go forward at this time. And thus, I have. At this point I would ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, in order to move the process along, and in order to help the Senator from South Carolina, whom I greatly admire, I have decided at this time to withdraw my amendment. I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I do believe it is appropriate for us to discuss this issue at this time. It is very obvious, in my opinion, and I think the opinion of many in this Chamber, that something unusual and inappropriate and----

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

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I have an amendment which proposes that: the Union Members Protection Act. It essentially says that before union members' dues can be spent in the manner in which these $25 million to $35 million are going to be spent, the union member will have the right to affirmatively approve that or disapprove it. In the case of disapproving it, the money will not be spent. That will bring into the process at least the ability of the union members to avoid this tax if they decide to avoid this tax; in the process, to direct the funds in a manner which they feel is appropriate to their own political position, not to those of a few bosses here in Washington. That type of correction is not in this bill. Not only is it not in this bill, but were that amendment to be brought forward, this bill would be filibustered by the supporters of the bill, I suspect. Certainly, if there was a chance it was going to be passed, it would be filibustered by the proponents of this bill. Why? Political interests. So the credibility of this proposal, I think, is highly suspect, not only substantively on the grounds of constitutionality that was raised by Senator Gorton, but on the grounds of the politics of the bill, because when you leave this large a gap in the issue of how you are going to reform campaign financing, you basically are saying your intention is not to reform campaign financing; your intention is to tilt the playing field once again in favor of one political group which happens to have a significant amount of influence amongst the sponsors. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Kentucky. I also congratulate the Senator from Washington for his very thoughtful and concise discussion relative to this bill. I wanted to focus on a narrower issue which really plays out some of the points raised by the Senator from Washington. I heard a prior Senator's statement, ``This is a bill that levels the playing field.'' I only perceive this as leveling if you perceive the north slope of some mountain in the Himalayas, Mount Everest, for example, to be level. The fact is, this is not a leveling bill. The fact is, this bill, because it fails to address the independent expenditure issue, is a bill which, were this a teeter-totter, would have one side directly up in the air and the other side directly on the ground. We have to realize that under this bill one of the core elements of what I consider to be inappropriate activity in the political area, but which others would consider to be good politics, as they are supported by it, is not addressed at all. It was in March, for example, that the AFL-CIO held a rather unique convention here in Washington, where they voted, as an institution, to levy a special assessment on their membership, which assessment was meant to raise approximately $25 million of a $35 million goal dedicated to defeating Republicans. There was no other purpose. It was openly stated. They were going to spend $35 million for the purpose of defeating Republicans. So they had this special assessment of $25 million which went out against all their union membership. Someone took a poll of the union membership, and it turns out the union membership, at least 58 percent of the union membership, did not realize they were going to have to pay this mandatory fee; 62 percent of the union membership opposed this mandatory fee; 78 percent of the union membership did not know they had the right to get the fee back; 84 percent would support making union leaders here in Washington, the big bosses, disclose exactly what their money is spent for; and only 4 percent thought that engaging in political elections was the most important responsibility of major unions. So, what we have here is an instance where the AFL-CIO is going to go out, and they have the right to do this, and raise $25 to $35 million and spend it against people who they, the union bosses here in Washington, do not agree with. It happens that the rank and file membership, to a large degree, do agree with the agenda of the Republicans here in Washington. In fact, 87 percent of the union membership supports welfare reform and 82 percent of union membership supports the balanced budget amendment and 78 percent happens to support tax reductions and the $500-per-child tax credit, all of which happen to be Republican initiatives, all of which are opposed by President Clinton, all of which have been opposed by Democratic Members. But, once again, the big bosses here in the unions in Washington have decided to assess, essentially, a tax against the union membership, and that tax, raising $25 to $35 million, is going to be used to attack Republicans who happen to support philosophies which are supported by a majority of the union membership. Yet, this bill remains silent on this rather significant gap in the campaign election laws. If you were in the process of addressing campaign election laws, I think by the very fact it remains silent, you must ask: Why? Why would such a colossal amount of money that is going to be poured into the political system be ignored by a bill like this? Well, folks, I think it is called politics. I think it is called political influence. I think it is because the majority of the sponsors of this bill happen to be mostly related in their political philosophy to the bosses of the unions here in Washington. As a result, there is no desire to address something which might affront that group of political forces in this country, who are significant. They have always been significant in this country. They have a major role to play, and always should have a major role to play. But there is unquestionably a significant issue of credibility raised by the failure to address this issue. In fact, it is such a significant issue of credibility that I think it brings down the whole bill, because it draws the whole bill into question, as to its integrity, as to its purpose--not integrity, wrong word--as to its purpose, as to its legitimacy. It could be corrected rather easily, actually. You could simply put language in which would say union members shall have the affirmative right, which shall have to be confirmed or which shall have to be--let me restate that. Union members will have to approve how their dues will be spent when it comes to political actions and political activity.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to an outstanding group of Federal Aviation Administration officials--the air traffic controllers at Boston Center Local in Nashua, NH. This outstanding group of dedicated Federal employees has been awarded by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, the 1995 Federal Aviation Administration En Route Facility of the Year Award. Keeping our skyways safe for both national and international flights is what this group's work is all about. I applaud all of the hard work and dedication they have demonstrated in serving the public. I wish to extend my most sincere congratulations to the employees of the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center, in Nashua, NH. I am confident that this distinguished group of individuals will continue to enjoy continued success in the future. I ask that the attached commendation reflecting the sentiments of both the House of Representatives and the Senate be printed in the Record. The commendation follows: A Commendation--Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center: 1995 Federal Aviation Administration En Route Facility of the Year Whereas, The Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center, located in Nashua, New Hampshire, has been awarded the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration's 1995 En route Facility of the Year Award; and Wheres, The employees of the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center are recognized nationally for their exemplary service provided to the flying public of New Hampshire, New England, and worldwide; and Whereas, The employees of the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center have focused on being proactive in their mission to efficiently serve the public and on improving the total service to the aviation industry, flying public, local community, and Federal Government; and Whereas, Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center employees have made extensive contributions to our local communities and are actively involved in charitable organizations; and Whereas, the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center level of operations, employee activities, and special projects in 1995 were unprecedented; therefore be it Resolved, That the employees of the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center are commended by the 104th Congress of the United States for their service cited by this award.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to talk a little bit about Medicare, which I know has been discussed by other Members on the floor, and specifically about the Medicare trustees' report which I know has also received a fair amount of attention, as well it should. This Medicare trustees' report, remember, is the second --there have been a number of reports--second in a series of reports that have raised a very large red flag, which red flag essentially had printed on it ``The Medicare Trust Fund is Going Bankrupt.'' The Medicare trustees are independent in the sense that their job is to review what is happening with the Medicare system, do it in an analytical way, and issue a report. Even though three or four of the members are officially members of the administration, they have great credibility as to the integrity of this report. The first report that they initiated in this area that threw up the red flag in such a large way stated unequivocally--this was almost a year ago now--``We strongly recommend that the crisis presented by the financial position of Medicare trust fund be urgently addressed on a comprehensive basis, including a review of the program's financing method, benefit provisions, and delivery mechanisms.'' Well, the U.S. Congress--specifically the Republican leadership in the U.S. Congress--did address the Medicare trust fund and that specific direction from the trustees. We put forward a proposal which was included in the balanced budget, which unfortunately the President vetoed, that addressed the underlying problem of the Medicare trust fund. It did it by giving seniors an opportunity to have more choices as to the type of health care that they receive. Unfortunately, that proposal was vetoed. So we now have another report coming out which has said that the original report of a year ago grossly underestimated the problem. This chart sort of reflects the situation. I call this the plane crash chart, the nose dive chart, or whatever you want to call it. This is the blue line that shows what is happening in the Medicare trust fund in the original report that we most refer to around here of a year ago. This red line is the new timeframe for insolvency. It has been moved from the year 2002 to the year 2001. But actually that only tells a little bit of the story when you use those 2 years because of the insolvency which is being projected by the trustees. In the year 2001 they are talking about an insolvency or a deficit of $33 billion in the Medicare trust fund, part A. But in the year 2002, under this new report, they are talking about a deficit of over $100 billion--a massive deficit in the trust fund in the year 2002. What has the administration's response to this been? It has been to take their head and stick it as far down in the sand as they can and flap their wings in some demagogic manner about how the Republican proposals are going to slash Medicare when nothing could be less accurate or less truthful. The Republican proposal was that we should slow the rate of growth of Medicare from 10 percent annually down to 7 percent annually and that we should do that by, as I mentioned earlier, giving Medicare beneficiaries essentially the same type of choices that Members of Congress and the Federal employees have today. Today, unfortunately, a Medicare beneficiary has only one really viable choice. They have some experimental choice, and that is called ``fee for service.'' This is the type of health care delivery service we had in the 1950's and 1960's in this country; the type of health care service seniors grew up with and, therefore, are most comfortable with. It happens to be the most expensive type of health care delivery service. People who work in the private sector today, who work in a business place today, who have health insurance, know that there are very few fee-for-service programs, that for the most part we have what is known as mixed cost programs where you buy a health care delivery service that takes care of all your activities when you are an employee. It might be an HMO; it might be something called a PPO; it might be a group of doctors practicing together. There are a group of variables about how this is done. But today we have basically fixed-cost delivery systems. What we as Republicans said to the seniors was, all right, if you like fee-for-service, you can stay with it. We are not going to tell you that you have to change, but we are going to encourage you to look at some other services, HMO's, PPO's, groups of doctors practicing together, other types of insurance programs, and to the extent you choose one of these other programs which has to deliver at the minimum the same benefits you are now getting under your health care system, under health care services, to the extent you choose one of those that costs less, because many of them can cost less, then we in the Federal Government are going to give you an incentive to choose that less expensive system. You may say, well, how can there be a less expensive system that is going to give the same type of care to seniors? It is called the marketplace. It just happens in the marketplace there are a lot of health care providers that are willing to give the same or even better services for less than what Medicare today pays to the average senior for fee-for-service. That is because we pay so much for the average care for seniors. We pay about $4,800 a year. That is a lot of money for seniors. There are a lot of systems out there that could probably supply that care, and maybe more care--maybe eyeglass care, maybe pharmaceutical care--and do it for less than $4,800 a year. To the extent it was less, we were going to give our seniors the option to choose the least costly service which may be a better service. And the incentive we were going to give them to do it was to keep the difference. If their plan they choose were to cost $4,500, that today costs us $4,800 to pay for their fee- for-service, and the plan they choose was a fixed-cost system that cost $4,500, the senior would keep the $300 difference. That would create three events. No. 1, it would mean that seniors would have an incentive to go out and look for cost-effective health care. No. 2, it would mean the marketplace would respond with lots of different opportunities for quality health care. And No. 3, it would mean that the Federal Government would get a predictable rate of growth in health care. Instead of having a 10 percent rate of growth, we can conservatively estimate that the rate of growth would be about 7 percent. Why? Because in the private sector, which has done exactly this, which has gone to a variety of different health care programs, the cost of the premiums has actually dropped by about 50 percent. What we are talking about is getting a 30-percent drop in the cost of premiums, so we know if we use this opportunity we would have the opportunity to control costs especially in the outyears and therefore give us a better chance at maintaining the solvency of the Medicare trust fund. What was the response of President Clinton and his minions when we put this plan forward? The response--and we still hear it from Congressman Gephardt and his group--was, we are slashing Medicare. We are slashing Medicare. Well, we said, Mr. President, tell us what you are going to do then to get the system under control. He did not have an idea, did not have a proposal. He said, you are just slashing Medicare. Let me go scare some seniors and tell them that you are slashing Medicare. It was the most demagogic position taken by a President in a long time because it was dealing with such an important issue and they did it in such a purely partisan and political way, so demagogic, in fact, that even the Washington Post, which is the spokesman for basically the liberal agenda in this country, if you are going to be honest about it, in its editorial policy, said that what the President was discussing was ``medagoguery,'' coined a phrase ``medagoguery,'' a very appropriate word to add to our lexicon. And so now with the trustees' report coming forward and telling us that the situation has even gotten significantly worse, that the system now instead of going broke in the year 2002 is going to go broke in the year 2001, now we hear rumblings in the administration, murmuring from the administration, well, we have a program to save this, to push it out a few years. Let us look at what the administration is proposing because what they are proposing is a terribly crass act of intergenerational transfer of burden. What they are proposing essentially is to take a major part of the cost of the present Medicare system which is borne by the hospital trust fund and to shift that cost on to all Americans who pay taxes. The program that they are proposing is to take the home health care portion of the hospital trust fund, which represents about $55 billion, and transfer that out of the hospital trust fund, part A, into theoretically part B. But they do not put it in part B really. What they are doing is they are putting it on the backs of all the taxpayers in America. Today, of course, this item, $55 billion in home health care, is paid for out of the hospital trust fund. What does that mean? It means it is paid for by the taxes which go into the trust fund which are to accumulate for the purposes of buying insurance for seniors when you meet the age eligibility requirements. And so these costs of home health care are supported by the taxes paid to the trust fund. But what they are proposing is to take it out of that trust fund, and they put it in the part B trust fund and they have it paid for by the general taxpayers. In fact, they go so far in this exercise of political gamesmanship as to not only take it out of the hospital part A trust fund, but when they put it into the part B trust fund they do not even require that seniors pay what is the traditional percentage of the part B trust fund, which is 25 percent. Let me explain that because that is fairly complicated. Basically, the part B trust fund, as many people know, pays for things other than hospitalization, other than acute care. Under our system today, a senior citizen pays 25 percent of the costs of their nonacute care, nonhospitalization costs, and the general taxpayers, John and Mary Smith who are working down at the local restaurant or at the gas station or on an assembly line, they pay 75 percent of the senior citizens' costs for their nonhospitalization. That is the part B trust fund. Well, when they took the $55 billion out of the part A trust fund and put it into the part B, the administration at the same time said, no, seniors are not going to have to pay even the 25 percent. So the full $55 billion falls on Mary Smith and John Smith who are working at the local restaurant, the local gas station, or the local assembly line. And it is a clear transfer from one generation to the next generation of the costs of $55 billion. Does it do anything at all to address the underlying problem of the Medicare system, which is that it is growing at an annual rate of 10 percent? No, nothing. Absolutely nothing. It does not address the primary problem of the Medicare trust fund one iota. All it does is create a political benefit for this administration of being able to say to seniors, well, by taking $55 billion out of your obligation and putting it on your children's back, we have been able to extend the life of the trust fund by a couple of years. That is truly a crass and, I think, cynical approach to addressing what is a very core and significant problem. Because as I mentioned when I began the talk, the size of the Medicare problem in the part A trust fund is now estimated to be a $100 billion deficit in the year 2002. So through this little bit of gamesmanship, they may buy a year or two, but they do not do anything at all to address the underlying problem--nothing. All they did is create the ability to go into this election and say to seniors, listen, we corrected this problem. Of course, there is not going to be any asterisks by that which says to the seniors' kids, to the children and their grandchildren, oh, I am sorry; we just raised your taxes $55 billion--because that is all this is. This is a tax increase on the children of our seniors and their grandchildren who are working of $55 billion. Now, it is not unusual for this administration to resolve problems by raising taxes. They gave us the largest tax increase in the history of the country which was, under a 5-year budget, $265 billion or $285 billion, but actually now that we are funding under a 7-year budget it turns out it was a $550 billion tax. Now, on top of that tax increase of $550 billion, they want to hit working Americans with another $55 billion tax increase, while at the same time, and most amazingly with a straight face --and this is what I find rather ironic, they do this with a straight face--at the same time they say to our seniors, oh, we have taken care of the Medicare problem. They have not done a thing about the Medicare problem. There is no effort at all in the administration proposal to address the factors which are driving a 10-percent annual rate of growth in the trust fund. In fact, if anything they have aggravated it because they have taken the $55 billion and put it on the back of the average taxpayer in this country, John and Mary Jones, working someplace on Main Street. That means that we created a whole new burden on them, which is an entitlement, which they will have to pay taxes on and then expand the program as a result of lack of accountability, which is the way programs expand around here. They get created as entitlements and put in the general fund and then there is no way to control them at all. That is essentially what they are doing here. If you are going to address the Medicare issue, you have to look at the fundamental question, what is driving the rate of growth of inflation in Medicare costs? I have heard some pundits saying, ``It is demographics, it is people. It is all the new people coming in the system.'' That is not true at all, not during the timeframe we are talking about. Yes, it is true when the postwar baby boom people hit the system. When Bill Clinton's generation and mine hit the system it is. But between now and 2010 it is not a demographic issue, it is a generational issue. It is not a demographic issue. It is a function of the fact that the rate of inflation in health care costs in Medicare are dramatically exceeding the rate of inflation of health care costs in the private sector and in the costs of health care for people who are under the age of 60. Last year, the rate of growth in the premium costs of people under the age of 60 was flat, essentially no inflation. The rate of growth of Medicare was 10 percent. You can see that is what is driving the problem with the Medicare trust fund. So, until you address that rate of growth of costs of the health care in Medicare you are not going to be able to make the system solvent. So, when the Republicans came forward last year and put down a proposal which was aimed specifically at bringing market forces into play in the Medicare system, taking it out of the system which is a 1960's system designed for the health care delivery system of the 1950's, and moving it into the 1990's by bringing market forces into it--when we did that we put forward a proposal which was fundamentally sound and which was directed at the core problem, which was the fact that the rate of growth of health care costs was too great. Through the use of market forces we tried to control that. What we have here essentially, in the Medicare system, is a 1959 Chevrolet driving down a 1990's highway. It has not been repaired. The hubcaps have fallen off, it is running on three pistons, the exhaust system is spewing out pollution, and it cannot keep up to speed. What we suggested, as Republicans, is that we should put a new car on the 1990 highway, something that can keep up with the times and something that would actually give the seniors a better choice of options for health care delivery. What the White House suggested, what the administration suggested, was that we simply get more oil and more gas and pour it into the car, the 1959 Chevrolet, and we get that oil and gas from John and Mary Jones, who are working on Main Street. It was a cynical act, to say the least. Exceeded, of course, by their statements that our proposals were slashing and cutting Medicare. That was the most cynical act by this White House, but in the tradition of that, equally or competitively similar, to suggest we should make this type of a transfer. If we are going to resolve the Medicare problem, we are going to have to have a White House which thinks about something other than reelection; that thinks about substantive policy, that thinks about how you govern, not how you get reelected to govern. I have not seen any sense that that is the character of this White House, but there is still time. Republicans still have on the table a proposal which would substantively improve the Medicare system, and do it in a way that would lead to a real direction of solvency for the trust fund, rather than to a shell game of transferring burden from one generation to the next. I hope, if nothing else, the American public will see through the games that the White House has been playing on this and would put some pressure on the administration to begin to act responsibly in this area. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I introduce the Union Member Protection Act. As you may know, the unions are mounting an unprecedented campaign this year to defeat Republican Members of Congress. The main source of the money for this campaign comes from compulsory union dues levied upon rank-and-file union members, as well as nonunion members who work in union shops. This past March the AFL- CIO, at a unique convention in Washington, DC, voted to levy a special assessment on every dues payer of 15 cents monthly per person to raise $25 million of the $35 million goal. In a recent survey of 1,000 rank-and-file union members, commissioned by Americans for a balanced budget and conducted by the Luntz Research Cos. 58 percent of the union members were not aware that the national labor unions were using mandatory monthly dues on a $35 million campaign to defeat Republican Members of Congress. When told of this, 62 percent opposed the use of their union dues for this political effort. This is not surprising considering that nearly 40 percent of union members voted Republican in the 1994 elections. When discussing the pledge of $35 million from the unions for the purpose of unseating Republicans, Vice President Gore stated, ``One group with a conscience connected to working families can overpower hundreds of thousands of interests working against the interest of working families.'' Conscience? Washington union bosses are living extravagant lifestyles, financed from workers' paychecks and, yet, they would have people believe that Republicans are the ones out of touch with rank and file working families. Union bosses have spent $2.3 million on the AFL-CIO's private airplane, $1.9 million to decorate the personal home and conference center of a union boss, $250,000 for a Washington, DC, condominium, and more than $100,000 for a union boss' funeral. These very same union bosses are responsible for President Clinton exempting the labor unions' health care plans from his proposed Government takeover of the Nation's health care system, revoking President Bush's executive order requiring unions to notify their rank- and-file members of their right not to fund union political activities, and vetoing numerous bills opposed by the Washington union bosses, including a balanced budget, family tax cuts, and welfare reform. It's no wonder that 66 percent of union members prefer the leadership of their local chapters. My bill, the Union Member Protection Act, will allow no dues, fees, or other money required as a condition of employment to be collected from an individual for use in noncollective-bargaining activities unless the individual has given prior written consent. Noncollective- bargaining activities would include: First, nonpartisan registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns and second; the establishment, administration, and solicitation of contributions to a separate fund to be used for political purposes. The written consent could be revoked in writing at any time. Mr. President, when a meeting of union leaders in Washington, DC, can result in the bosses' effectively imposing a tax increase on the union workers across the country so that the union bosses can have millions of dollars at their disposal to pursue their personal political agendas, the collective-bargaining power that Congress granted the unions is being abused. When we know that nearly two-thirds of the union workers are not even aware they are being so taxed and disagree with the D.C. bosses' politicizing of their own dues in this manner, the abuse becomes so acute that it calls out for reform. My bill is a simple reform: It gives individual workers the direct right to say ``yes'' or ``no'' whenever union bosses ask them to finance activities that fall outside the scope of collective bargaining. If the union bosses here in Washington are so confident their workers agree with their politics, they should have no problem with this bill. We'll soon see how confident they are. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I introduce the Union Member Protection Act. As you may know, the unions are mounting an unprecedented campaign this year to defeat Republican Members of Congress. The main source of the money for this campaign comes from compulsory union dues levied upon rank-and-file union members, as well as nonunion members who work in union shops. This past March the AFL- CIO, at a unique convention in Washington, DC, voted to levy a special assessment on every dues payer of 15 cents monthly per person to raise $25 million of the $35 million goal. In a recent survey of 1,000 rank-and-file union members, commissioned by Americans for a balanced budget and conducted by the Luntz Research Cos. 58 percent of the union members were not aware that the national labor unions were using mandatory monthly dues on a $35 million campaign to defeat Republican Members of Congress. When told of this, 62 percent opposed the use of their union dues for this political effort. This is not surprising considering that nearly 40 percent of union members voted Republican in the 1994 elections. When discussing the pledge of $35 million from the unions for the purpose of unseating Republicans, Vice President Gore stated, ``One group with a conscience connected to working families can overpower hundreds of thousands of interests working against the interest of working families.'' Conscience? Washington union bosses are living extravagant lifestyles, financed from workers' paychecks and, yet, they would have people believe that Republicans are the ones out of touch with rank and file working families. Union bosses have spent $2.3 million on the AFL-CIO's private airplane, $1.9 million to decorate the personal home and conference center of a union boss, $250,000 for a Washington, DC, condominium, and more than $100,000 for a union boss' funeral. These very same union bosses are responsible for President Clinton exempting the labor unions' health care plans from his proposed Government takeover of the Nation's health care system, revoking President Bush's executive order requiring unions to notify their rank- and-file members of their right not to fund union political activities, and vetoing numerous bills opposed by the Washington union bosses, including a balanced budget, family tax cuts, and welfare reform. It's no wonder that 66 percent of union members prefer the leadership of their local chapters. My bill, the Union Member Protection Act, will allow no dues, fees, or other money required as a condition of employment to be collected from an individual for use in noncollective-bargaining activities unless the individual has given prior written consent. Noncollective- bargaining activities would include: First, nonpartisan registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns and second; the establishment, administration, and solicitation of contributions to a separate fund to be used for political purposes. The written consent could be revoked in writing at any time. Mr. President, when a meeting of union leaders in Washington, DC, can result in the bosses' effectively imposing a tax increase on the union workers across the country so that the union bosses can have millions of dollars at their disposal to pursue their personal political agendas, the collective-bargaining power that Congress granted the unions is being abused. When we know that nearly two-thirds of the union workers are not even aware they are being so taxed and disagree with the D.C. bosses' politicizing of their own dues in this manner, the abuse becomes so acute that it calls out for reform. My bill is a simple reform: It gives individual workers the direct right to say ``yes'' or ``no'' whenever union bosses ask them to finance activities that fall outside the scope of collective bargaining. If the union bosses here in Washington are so confident their workers agree with their politics, they should have no problem with this bill. We'll soon see how confident they are. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which is, unfortunately, a necessary measure. Even its name--the Congressional, Presidential, and Judicial Pension Forfeiture Act--does not give any of us a good feeling. However, I do not introduce this bill apologetically, because I believe there is a compelling need to enact these changes in order to regain public confidence and trust in elected officials and top federal appointees. I urge all of my distinguished colleagues to examine this bill and to ask themselves the same kinds of questions the American people have been asking for a long time. ``Why are Members of Congress not held accountable for their decisions, and more importantly for their wrongdoing? Why do they seem to think they are above the people who elected them, and even sometimes above the law?'' Recent events have only confirmed such cynicism. I'm sure none of us would like to be reminded of the embarrassment caused by these scandals, which are representative of an increasing trend of privilege abuse. Thirty-four Members have served felony prison sentences since 1900, 13 of those in the last decade. Perhaps we need a deterrent, a statutory deterrent--such as the Congressional, Presidential, and Judicial Pension Forfeiture Act--which would cause those who may be tempted to abuse the privileges of public service to think twice before exploiting those powers. More importantly, this bill is also aimed at establishing a commonsense approach to fair play in the use of taxpayers' money--an approach that the public understands instinctively but to which Congress has yet to conform. This bill would deny congressional pensions to any Members who commit specified felony crimes during their term in office. The crimes relate directly to the execution of congressional duties and were taken from a compilation of Federal ethics laws prepared by the Committee on Government Affairs. These crimes are acts which we all know are wrong, and for which any American citizen would pay dearly in a court of law. Yet we as, Members of Congress, were elected on the basis of integrity and character and, as such, we should hold ourselves to higher ethical standards than the average citizen. This is true in the military, whose officers, if convicted in a court-martial, lose their pensions for serious wrongdoing. We should ask ourselves if we, too, should submit to the kind of standards worthy of our offices. I think we should. Mr. President, the question here is accountability. How accountable do we perceive ourselves as being for the decisions we make? While we would never deny that we all make mistakes--and our constituents would never expect us to be perfect--the American people do have a right to expect that we serve them honorably, with a strong mind, and with a clear conscience. More specifically, they have a right to expect that we perform our duties free of corruption. Therefore, I strongly urge all of you to consider the source of public cynicism and the bad image which Government has recently acquired. Sixty-six percent of eligible American voters decide to stay home on election night, not because they would rather watch TV, but because they have lost faith in their elected officials--in us--and in the importance of their votes in a democratic system they no longer feel is responsive to them. And this time, it is not about issues; it is about accountability. None of us would claim here on the floor of the Senate that we do not hold ourselves accountable for our own actions. Hopefully, my colleagues will agree to support this bill as a step toward regaining the respect and the trust of the American people. Finally, I would like to thank Senators Reid and Nickles, who have been working independently on this issue and are joining me today in introducing this bill. Also, I would like to thank my colleagues who have come forward and have demonstrated their support for the bill by becoming original cosponsors. It is gratifying, and I am very honored, to have my distinguished colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, joining me on this issue.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which is, unfortunately, a necessary measure. Even its name--the Congressional, Presidential, and Judicial Pension Forfeiture Act--does not give any of us a good feeling. However, I do not introduce this bill apologetically, because I believe there is a compelling need to enact these changes in order to regain public confidence and trust in elected officials and top federal appointees. I urge all of my distinguished colleagues to examine this bill and to ask themselves the same kinds of questions the American people have been asking for a long time. ``Why are Members of Congress not held accountable for their decisions, and more importantly for their wrongdoing? Why do they seem to think they are above the people who elected them, and even sometimes above the law?'' Recent events have only confirmed such cynicism. I'm sure none of us would like to be reminded of the embarrassment caused by these scandals, which are representative of an increasing trend of privilege abuse. Thirty-four Members have served felony prison sentences since 1900, 13 of those in the last decade. Perhaps we need a deterrent, a statutory deterrent--such as the Congressional, Presidential, and Judicial Pension Forfeiture Act--which would cause those who may be tempted to abuse the privileges of public service to think twice before exploiting those powers. More importantly, this bill is also aimed at establishing a commonsense approach to fair play in the use of taxpayers' money--an approach that the public understands instinctively but to which Congress has yet to conform. This bill would deny congressional pensions to any Members who commit specified felony crimes during their term in office. The crimes relate directly to the execution of congressional duties and were taken from a compilation of Federal ethics laws prepared by the Committee on Government Affairs. These crimes are acts which we all know are wrong, and for which any American citizen would pay dearly in a court of law. Yet we as, Members of Congress, were elected on the basis of integrity and character and, as such, we should hold ourselves to higher ethical standards than the average citizen. This is true in the military, whose officers, if convicted in a court-martial, lose their pensions for serious wrongdoing. We should ask ourselves if we, too, should submit to the kind of standards worthy of our offices. I think we should. Mr. President, the question here is accountability. How accountable do we perceive ourselves as being for the decisions we make? While we would never deny that we all make mistakes--and our constituents would never expect us to be perfect--the American people do have a right to expect that we serve them honorably, with a strong mind, and with a clear conscience. More specifically, they have a right to expect that we perform our duties free of corruption. Therefore, I strongly urge all of you to consider the source of public cynicism and the bad image which Government has recently acquired. Sixty-six percent of eligible American voters decide to stay home on election night, not because they would rather watch TV, but because they have lost faith in their elected officials--in us--and in the importance of their votes in a democratic system they no longer feel is responsive to them. And this time, it is not about issues; it is about accountability. None of us would claim here on the floor of the Senate that we do not hold ourselves accountable for our own actions. Hopefully, my colleagues will agree to support this bill as a step toward regaining the respect and the trust of the American people. Finally, I would like to thank Senators Reid and Nickles, who have been working independently on this issue and are joining me today in introducing this bill. Also, I would like to thank my colleagues who have come forward and have demonstrated their support for the bill by becoming original cosponsors. It is gratifying, and I am very honored, to have my distinguished colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, joining me on this issue.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed immediately to the vote.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.