Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment is a result of a tragic accident in my home State of Rhode Island where a young worker on a farm was killed accidentally. The police came immediately and determined that there was no foul play and concluded their investigation. But the parents were deeply concerned because no one could explain to them what happened. As we looked into the matter for them, we discovered that for many years, because of a rider on this appropriations bill, OSHA has been prohibited from investigating deaths on farms that employ 10 or fewer workers. If this terrible, tragic accident had taken place in a McDonald's, OSHA would be there. There would be an investigation. They would discover the cause. They would suggest remedies. They would do what most Americans expect should be done when an accident takes place in the workplace. But because of this small farm rider, OSHA is powerless to investigate. I think it is wrong. I think it is wrong not only because these parents don't know what circumstances took the life of their child, but they also regret that it might happen again because there might be some type of systematic flaw or some type of problematic process on the farm that could also claim the life of another youngster.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me continue. My amendment would simply state that OSHA has the authority to conduct an inspection when a minor, someone under 18 years of age, is killed on a farm regardless of the size of the farm, but they would also be prevented from levying any type of fine or enforcement action. Their role would be very simple and very direct: Find the cause of the action; then, not with respect to that particular farm, not with respect to any particular sanction of penalty, generally, if they can learn something that would help protect the lives of others, they would incorporate that, of course, in their overall directions and regulations for farming and other activities. These goals are very simple and straightforward: Identify the cause of the accident so that the employer knows what steps are needed to prevent similar deaths, and make that information available so that other farmers can take steps to avert similar tragedies. This is not an academic or arcane issue because there are numerous youngsters working on farms. There are also in the United States about 500 work-related deaths reported each year. Moreover, although only 8 percent of all workers under the age of 18 are employed in agriculture, more than 40 percent of the work-related deaths among young people occur in the agricultural industry. So this is an issue of importance. Let me stress something else. This particular amendment would only apply if the individual youngster was, in fact, an employee of the farm. This would not affect a situation where a son or daughter are doing chores around the farm. This is a situation when someone is hired to work on the farm, and that person is involved in a fatal accident. I think it is only fair because I believe the parents in America, when they send their children into the workplace--be it a supermarket or McDonald's or a farm, large or small--expect their children will at least have the coverage of many of the safety laws we have in place; but failing that, at least we will have the power, the authority, the ability to determine what happened in the case of a fatal accident. This proposal is not unique to the situation I found in Rhode Island. The National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Science, issued a report entitled ``Protecting Youth at Work,'' and among the recommendations: To ensure the equal protection of children and adolescents from health and safety hazards in agriculture, Congress should take an examination of the effects and feasibility of extending all relevant Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations to agricultural workers, including subjecting small farms to the same level of OSHA enforcement as that apply to other small businesses. My proposal goes not to that great length, not to that extreme. It is much more constrained and limited. It simply says when there is a fatality involving an employee under 18 years of age on a farm--small or large--OSHA can conduct an inspection to determine the cause and perhaps propose remedial actions but cannot invoke any type of sanction or fine. That is the height of reasonableness, given the experiences we have seen, given the report of the National Academy of Science, given all of these factors. I believe this should be done. In fact, it is long overdue. It is simple justice, not only for the families of those youngsters who are fatally injured on these small farms, but also it will give us the impetus to save lives in the future. Some have criticized this amendment as potentially imposing an undue burden on small farms. This is erroneous criticism. There is no burden here other than facing up to the facts and finding out what happened. Indeed, I believe knowledge is power; if we know what caused these accidents, we can prevent them and, even, I hope, make the operators of these farms more conscious of what they are doing, particularly as they employ youngsters. This is an amendment I believe is important; it is critical. I offered a variation on this amendment in the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions when we were considering the SAFE Act. We had a vigorous debate but, I will admit, it met resistance. I believe passionately we can do something and we must do something. I also recognize this process will not end today, that in the last few hours or moments of this debate it is unlikely this amendment will pass. I will, as I indicated to the Senator from Pennsylvania, withdraw the amendment. Such withdrawal does not signify retreat by me on this issue. I will continue to look for ways in which we can have investigations of fatalities on small farms, not because of any animus toward large or small farms but because when someone loses a child, I believe they deserve an answer. What happened? How did it happen? How can other children be spared from such a fatality? In that spirit, I will continue to advance this issue and look for additional ways we can get an investigation. Again, the emphasis is not on being punitive; the emphasis is on being, first of all, fair to the family; and second, of being remedial so we can address problems that may be systematic and prevalent not just on the site of the particular fatality but endemic and systematic throughout the farming community. Amendment No. 1866, Withdrawn With that, I yield back my time, and I ask unanimous consent the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to propose an amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization bill because our nation has experienced an explosion in air travel this past decade. Air transportation is now as much a means of mass transit as automobiles and trains. Indeed, our economic good fortune and increased competition from air carriers has led to a buyer's market for passengers looking for affordable fares to countless destinations. While we are all amazed by the dramatic growth in the airline industry, we must also consider the ramifications that increased flights and aircraft noise have on the communities surrounding airport facilities. In my home state of Rhode Island, T.F. Green State Airport, our state's only major airport, has experienced tremendous expansion over the past several years. With more than 4 million passengers flying into and out of Rhode Island each year, representing a 100 percent increase over three years ago, the number of take offs and landings has likewise climbed. This has led to intolerable noise pollution for the airport's neighbors. Of course, this problem is not isolated to Rhode Island. In fact, cities and towns across the country are dealing with similar growing pains. While T.F. Green and numerous airport authorities in our nation are taking steps to insulate homes and other structures from the effects of aircraft noise, the problem cannot be eliminated entirely. And, we must not forget that there is only so much we can do on the ground to reduce noise. We must also deal with noise at its point of origin by researching and developing quieter jet engine technology. On December 31 of this year, the FAA will require that all civil aircraft comply with Stage 3 noise regulations. This requires that jet engines emit less noise through hushkit adaptations on older, noisier engines, or that air carriers invest in new and quieter Stage 3 compliant engines. While this is a big step in the right direction, the deadline for compliance with Stage 3 must not end progress toward quieter jet engines, but mark the beginning of Stage 4 research. Currently, the FAA is working in cooperation and consultation with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to define Stage 4 noise levels and reach an agreement with ICAO member states on a plan for implementation of Stage 4 regulations. While this research is in its preliminary stages, our nation's aviation infrastructure must be ready to adopt Stage 4 rules to ensure quieter communities in which residents can enjoy their open spaces and where learning at schools is not interrupted every several minutes to defer to the roar of passing planes. Mr. President, my amendment would direct the Secretary of Transportation to report to Congress no later than December 31, 2002 the findings of a study on aircraft noise problems in the United States, the status of negotiations between the FAA and ICAO on Stage 4 noise levels, and the feasibility of proceeding with development and implementation of a timetable for air carrier compliance with Stage 4 noise requirements. This amendment will ensure that both airport authorities and air carriers are aware of developments regarding Stage 4 activities, and that we move in an expeditious and deliberate manner to maintain the momentum we have gained toward making quieter both jet engines and the communities over which they fly.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to address an issue of great importance for our Nation's environment and economic security. Today the Senate will pass the fiscal year 2000 Transportation Appropriations bill. In that bill, for the fifth year in a row, is a House-passed rider that would block the Department of Transportation from conducting a legislatively-mandated study of Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. The current CAFE standard for passenger cars is 27.5 miles per gallon, while the standard for so-called ``light trucks'', including SUVs and minivans, remains at just 20.7 miles per gallon. Today, with SUVs and minivans accounting for almost half of all new cars sold in the United States, we need to give serious consideration to improving fuel economy standards for these vehicles. By doing so, we could cut harmful air pollution, help curb global warming, and reduce the amount of gasoline we consume. The existing CAFE standards save more than 3 million barrels of oil every day. Improving these standards, particularly for light trucks, is especially important when our nation is importing increasing amounts of oil every year. For the past four years, Congress has denied the American people access to existing technologies that could save them thousands of dollars at the gas pump, technologies that the auto industry could implement with no reduction in safety, power, or performance. The House rider blocking consideration of improved CAFE standards was attached to the DOT spending bill without any hearings or debate. While I will not object to passage of this important appropriations measure today, I want to state in the strongest terms my disappointment, shared by many of my colleagues, that the statutory requirement to study ways to improve fuel efficiency standards is being blocked. We should lift this gag order and give the Department of Transportation the opportunity to consider this important issue.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island's celebration of October as Polish American Heritage Month. Famous leaders, musicians and scientists of Polish descent have made numerous contributions to society. Pope John II, of Wadowice, Poland was the first non-Italian Pope chosen by the Roman Catholic Church in more than 400 years. Fryderyk Chopin of Zelazowa Wola, Poland is remembered for his unique approach to the piano and is considered one of the greatest composers of all time. Marie Curie, of Warsaw, Poland was awarded a Nobel Prize for physics in 1903 and in 1911, a second Nobel Prize for chemistry. Madame Curie is still the only woman in history to be awarded two Nobel Prizes. The Polish heritage is so alive today because Polish Americans play an active role in their cities, towns and communities. Millions of Polish immigrants have settled in cities like Pawtucket all across America. The Polish people brought their traditions, faith and pride to communities across the country and established schools, churches and organizations to help celebrate their heritage in America. With over 47,000 people of Polish descent in Rhode Island alone, one cannot talk about the history of Rhode Island or the history of America without recognizing the contributions of people of Polish descent. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join with the Polish community of Pawtucket in celebrating the city's Polish American Heritage Month.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Murray's amendment to provide funding for the class size reduction initiative. Last year, the Congress, on a bipartisan basis, made a down payment to help communities hire 100,000 teachers so they could reduce class sizes to an average of 18. As Tennessee's efforts with class size reduction show, qualified teachers in small classes can provide students with more individualized attention, spend more time on instruction and less on other tasks, and cover more material effectively, and are better able to work with parents to further their children's education. The class size reduction initiative is flexible, and communities are using innovative locally-designed approaches to give children the individual attention they need. Every state is using the funds, and every state that needed a waiver to tailor the class size reduction program to its specific needs or to expand class size reduction to other grades, received one. 1.7 million children are benefitting from smaller classes this year. 29,000 teachers have been hired with FY99 Class Size Reduction funds. 1,247 (43 percent) are teaching in the first grade, reducing class sizes from 23 to 17. 6,670 (23 percent) are teaching in the second grade, reducing class size from 23 to 18. 6,960 (24 percent) are teaching in the third grade, reducing class size from 24 to 18. 2,900 (10 percent) are in kindergarten and grades 4-12. 290 special education teachers were hired. On average, 7 percent of the funds are being used for professional development. Mr. President, the debate is not a simple either/or proposition on class size versus teacher quality. We need to do both. That is why last year on an overwhelming bipartisan vote we passed a new teacher quality grants program as part of the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998. Indeed, those who claim they support improvements in teacher quality have a clear chance to do so when Senator Kennedy and I offer an amendment to fully fund the teacher quality grants at $300 million. We must continue to meet the bipartisan commitment we made on class size reduction. I urge my colleagues to support the Murray amendment to do just that and reject the Gorton amendment which could result in children being forced to return to larger classes and the firing of 29,000 newly hired teachers.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Again, this is an example of a program that has great potential. I think it would be unfortunate to eliminate it in its first year of operation. Let us step back objectively and review it, look at it, and make a judgment. I think that judgment, based on what I am hearing from my home State of Rhode Island, would be a very favorable one. So I urge reconsideration of this program to go forward. Again, I thank Senator Kerry for his leadership on this issue of Section 8. I recognize the difficulty both Senators Bond and Mikulski face, but this might be an issue, when it comes to section 8-- particularly if we move forward boldly to serve the people who sent us here--we will find the means to do that. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senator Kerry's amendment. Also, I recognize the very thoughtful analysis that Chairman Bond has done about the budget problems that face this committee as it struggles to fill many different needs in the area of housing. All this discussion underscores a very fundamental question that transcends all of our considerations in the Senate and that is, we have many unfulfilled obligations in the country which make us very wary of significant reductions in our revenues and significant changes in policy until we address these very fundamental concerns: How would we provide going forward with resources so every American can have a safe, decent, affordable home? I also agree with Senator Bond that we have to do a lot more in terms of construction policies, in terms of encouraging the creation of housing units. But the section 8 program is particularly critical to so many people throughout this country. I think it is also very important to note that this is one of those very significant and very efficient combinations of public purpose and private enterprise because we are not, in most cases, operating at public facilities these housing units. They are private housing units which are receiving, through the section 8 subsidies, supports which are available to low-income people--again, a very efficient, very effective way to use very scarce Federal resources to allow individual Americans access to safe and decent housing. I think we have to, in this situation--even recognizing the significant budgetary constraints--move forward because this is one of those situations where if we make the commitment we will find a way to fund it. I think the essence of Senator Kerry's amendment is: Let's make this commitment. Let's make this commitment this year again to expand the section 8 voucher program so we can offer the real possibility of safe, decent, affordable housing to more citizens of this country. I, too, agree with Senator Bond's analysis, which I have been listening to intently over the last several days, about the need to go deeper with our targeting for the low-income housing tax credit program, to support the HOME program, to support the CDBG program. All of these contribute to the housing market, to the availability of adequate, decent housing for all of our citizens. All of them will contribute to the solution of the dilemma facing us all: How do we provide affordable, decent, safe housing for all of our citizens? I support very strongly Senator Kerry's amendment and commend him for doing this. I also commend, as I have said before, both Senators Bond and Mikulski for their great efforts to try to work through this very difficult thicket. Let me, before I conclude, also raise another topic which I have addressed previously on the floor; that is, the staffing level within the Department of HUD, but in particular the HUD Community Builders Fellowship. I must confess I did not know too much about this particular program until we began this debate. But it has come to my knowledge this is an innovative program which is essentially selecting through some very rigorous means professionals in the area of urban policy planning, housing policy, to spend 2 years as a fellow at the Department of HUD after training at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, to try to create an entrepreneurial spirit in HUD, to go beyond the box to create new opportunities in housing. Then these individuals, having served their fellowship, have the opportunity to go back to their communities and take these skills, this training, and their expertise and again contribute to their communities. I think it is a worthwhile program. But I am prompted to speak not so much because of what I have heard on this floor but because of what I am hearing back in Rhode Island as a result of the success of this program. Stephen O'Rourke is the executive director of the Providence Housing Authority. He is a tough-minded administrator who stepped into a difficult situation decades ago in a housing authority that was crumbling, both physically and in terms of its management style, a housing authority that was beset with all the problems of urban cities--crime, drug use, violence, dilapidated units--and he has done a remarkable job. He has done it by being hard-nosed, aggressive. I suspect people would probably characterize his approach as ``tough love.'' And it has worked. He has seen every fad and fancy in housing in the last two decades. He has taken it upon himself to communicate with the regional HUD office, commending the Community Builders Fellowship Program. In fact, in his words: I find their enthusiasm and ``can-do'' attitude infectious. They constitute a new, special breed of government workers. When I start hearing about that kind of performance from a local official, I think there is something here we cannot discard totally. In Rhode Island, this program is working to do things that people have wanted to do for years. But they have never been able to think outside the box or cross the bureaucratic lines of organization to get the job done. These fellows are doing that. They started a statewide ownership center so we can do what I think we all want to see--get people into their own homes. They are working with the Welfare-to-Work Program to develop an innovative program where a housing authority is sponsoring a microbusiness, a van service, that not only employs individuals but contributes to one of the most significant issues facing people making the transfer from welfare to work--how do you physically get to work? This van service helps that. These are the types of out-of-the-box, innovative, entrepreneurial solutions we should encourage and not discourage. There have been several preliminary assessments of the program. Anderson Consulting company has looked at the program and has concluded that it has a positive effect on the ability of HUD customers to conduct their business and get the job done. Ernst & Young has interviewed many people involved in this program. They, too, are convinced. These are their words: They consider Community Builders to be responsive to their concerns and timely in addressing them. Finally, the individuals at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government who were training these professionals believe the program is worthwhile. So I think at this juncture, after barely a year of experience, to totally eliminate the program is the wrong approach. The other aspect we should know is that HUD has already seen significant reductions in its personnel rolls from 13,000 to 9,300. In fact, both GAO and the HUD IG are arguing that perhaps they have reached the limits of cuts that can be made reasonably. There is no way we can demand a new reformed, reinvigorated, entrepreneurial HUD if they do not have physically the men and women to hold the jobs and to do the jobs. If this program is eliminated totally, as proposed in this appropriation, 81 communities throughout the country will be affected, including Providence, RI, and others. In fact, for the sheer lack of personnel, many significant functions of HUD will be lost if this program is abandoned. If we are asking HUD to be more efficient, more effective, more customer conscious, I do not think at this juncture we should eliminate a program that shows promise. There also has been a suggestion on the floor that there are some internal criticisms. There was reference, I think, to the Commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration, of Mr. Apgar's criticism. He, in fact, indicates there is potential for this program. At this juncture, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Mr. Apgar.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk which I ask be called up.

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

Mr. REED. I again thank the chairman and the ranking member and yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague, Senator Feingold from Wisconsin, who was here before but graciously allowed me to go ahead to introduce this amendment. Also, having come to the floor earlier today and not only commended Chairman Bond and ranking member Mikulski for their valiant efforts to reach priorities in very limited financial circumstances, I will announce up front I am going to propose this amendment which would increase lead funding as a means to talk about the issue, but I will withdraw the amendment in recognition of not only the serious efforts the chairman and ranking member have made, but also in recognition that last year when I came to the floor, both Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski were instrumental in increasing the appropriation by $20 million and, indeed, holding that appropriation at conference. So I am very confident, with their efforts, they will continue to work hard to make sure this remains a critical priority. The problem of lead exposure to children in the United States is something that I believe is critical, one that we must address. I have been supported in that opinion by many of my colleagues. Earlier this year, 14 of my colleagues joined me in a letter urging the chairman and the ranking member to do all they can to increase appropriations for lead abatement in this appropriations bill. Those colleagues include Senators Jeffords, Specter, Leahy, Lautenberg, Chafee--my colleague from Rhode Island--Schumer, Dodd, Lieberman, Kerry, Boxer, Kohl, Snowe, Torricelli, and Durbin. All of them from across this country recognize the critical need to eliminate lead exposure, particularly with respect to children. But there are two of my colleagues who deserve particular praise. Senator Collins and Senator Torricelli are cosponsors of this amendment. Senator Collins has been a strong and very effective advocate for this program of lead abatement. I was pleased to join her in Providence, RI, several weeks ago for a hearing of the Public Health Subcommittee, where we looked at lead paint exposure to children in Rhode Island. It was a very good hearing. I am pleased to say I will be able to join Senator Collins in Maine in a few weeks to have a similar hearing. Senator Torricelli and myself have been very active not only with respect to this issue but also with respect to the issue of appropriate screening and treatment for children who have elevated levels of lead in their blood systems. I admit that over the last 20 years we have made significant progress in our society with respect to exposure to lead principally because we have banned lead paint, we have banned lead solder in food cans, and we have deleaded gasoline. This has resulted in significant reductions. But, nevertheless, nearly a million children enter kindergarten each year with elevated levels of lead in their blood. This is a preventable problem. This is a problem, if it is not prevented, that causes serious cognitive development problems with children. This is also a problem that is not exclusive to one part of the country. In fact, if you look at cities across the country, you will see there are elevated blood lead levels in children. In Baltimore, for example, there is a lead poisoning rate of 27.9 percent. Almost 30 percent of the children who are tested have elevated lead levels. In Milwaukee, 22.5 percent; St. Louis, 23 percent; Chicago, 20.6 percent; Philadelphia, 38 percent; and Memphis, 12.1 percent. This is a nationwide problem. The major cause of this exposure is lead paint in the homes of these children. Indeed, children who are in low-income circumstances, particularly children who are living in housing that was constructed before 1974, are significantly vulnerable to lead exposure and lead poisoning. More than half the U.S. housing stock was built prior to 1978, so as a result we have thousands and thousands of units that still contain lead paint which is the source of contamination for these young children. In fact, it has been estimated that 20 million housing units throughout the United States contain hazardous levels of lead paint. In my home State of Rhode Island, it is estimated that about 90,000 units present moderate to high lead paint exposure risks to children who live there. This is a very difficult and expensive problem to deal with. It has been estimated that to modify and to remediate all these homes in my own home State, it would cost about $300 million. To deal with every seriously contaminated residential unit in the United States would cost something on the order of $500 billion. But those costs also must be measured against the cost of doing nothing, the cost of allowing children to be exposed to lead paint, and those costs are dramatic and severe. Many educators point to lead paint exposure as one of the reasons why special education costs are so high. In fact, it has been estimated that children with elevated levels of lead in their blood are seven times more likely to drop out of school before finishing high school. These costs are significant and severe. I think we have the obligation to try to remedy this problem before these children are exposed, before their academic, intellectual, and emotional development is impaired by exposure to lead. Since 1992, the Office of Lead Hazard Control in HUD has been dealing with this issue, principally through their Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program. They have been able, since 1993, to provide $435 million to the States--31 States and the District of Columbia--to deal with this issue. These States have used the money for testing young people for exposure, inspecting and testing homes, modifying homes; in fact, to even relocate children who are exposed and the home cannot be modified. I have seen the results in Rhode Island. Since 1993, in Rhode Island, we have been able to perform lead abatement in more than 500 homes. But it costs money, the kind of resources that we need to incorporate in this bill, the kind of resources that are necessary to address a problem that spans this Nation. My amendment would propose an increase of $20 million for the Office of Lead Hazard Control. It would be offset by an across-the-board cut in salaries, expenses, and other program management budget items in the HUD budget. Amendment No. 1778, Withdrawn Recognizing the severe constraints that the chairman and the ranking member are laboring under, recognizing the fact they are already demonstrating a commitment to provide for these resources, I withdraw this amendment in the hopes that as we go to conference, under the leadership of Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski, we can find additional resources to address this extremely important and critical issue that affects the health and welfare of our children.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Sarbanes, and commend both Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski for their extraordinary work in trying to fashion an appropriations bill under very difficult fiscal constraints and to meet the demands for so many different programs. I, too, am concerned that the amount of resources devoted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development is not sufficient to meet the demands for all Americans for adequate and safe housing. I am also concerned that some of the reductions in staffing may impair the operations of HUD in the delivery of effective services to Americans throughout the country. Again, I recognize the extraordinary conflicting demands that both Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski faced and the remarkable job they have done in fashioning the bill to date. It is my hope that as we go into conference, we can find additional resources to address two critical issues. First and foremost is access to affordable housing for all of our citizens. There is, in fact, an affordable housing crisis throughout this country. The second issue, as I mentioned before, is related to the issue of staffing at HUD. Let me talk about the crisis that many Americans face with regard to affordable housing. As Senator Sarbanes articulated, there is a request within the President's budget for 100,000 new vouchers that will allow individuals to move into adequate, decent, and safe housing. It is estimated that there are 5.3 million households in the United States that suffer from worst-case housing needs. These needs, as has previously been explained, are either the fact that the family is paying more than 50 percent of their income for housing or that they are living in very substandard housing. This is not an academic problem anywhere in the United States; it is a real problem. In Rhode Island, for example, it is estimated that there are 23,000 families suffering worst-case housing needs. They are spending a huge amount of their income simply to find a place to live. Sometimes these places are inadequate. Others are in places in which, frankly, we would not live, nor would we want to see anyone else live. So we do have a problem. This problem is worsening. We used to build affordable housing units at a fairly substantial rate. Between 1979 and 1980, we built a significant number of houses. That was a trend that had begun all through the 1970s. In the 1980s, we essentially stopped building affordable housing throughout this country. In 1995, the Government went further and stopped issuing any additional rental vouchers for needy Americans. So as a result, predictably and understandably, we have a shortage of decent, affordable housing throughout the United States. This problem of a lack of supply has been further exacerbated by a booming economy that is driving up the price of everything, including the price of houses. So we have limited housing stock and increased demands. We have accelerating prices. We have families that are in crisis. Last year we authorized 100,000 new vouchers--I commend the leadership for doing that--but still there are more than 1 million Americans on waiting lists for public housing or for section 8 vouchers. They are not waiting for days or weeks; the average waiting time for section 8 vouchers in our country is 28 months. In most large cities, the waiting time is much longer. For example, in Philadelphia, the waiting time is 11 years. In Cincinnati, it is 10 years. In Los Angeles, it is 8 years. In my own home State of Rhode Island, the average waiting time for public housing is not quite that severe, but it is still 7 months. That is a long time for a family to wait to get into public housing. In addition, there is a long waiting list and waiting period for section 8 vouchers. That is estimated to be months and months, if not years. So we have a problem we have to address. In light of this great problem, we should this year, once again, authorize at a minimum 100,000 new rental assistance vouchers. We haven't done that. We haven't been able to do that in this particular appropriations bill. I hope in the conference we can, in fact, achieve that objective. Even if we do that, we will not be totally satisfying the tremendous housing needs of the American people, but at least it will be another forward step in that appropriate march to a goal of adequate, safe, decent, and affordable housing for all of our citizens. The second issue I will mention is the issue of staffing in the Department of HUD; in particular, the Community Builders Program. My colleague, Senator Sarbanes, mentioned the concerns that I, too, share. This is a program which is now, under this legislation, scheduled to be eliminated. It has only been in operation for about a year. We haven't given it a chance to operate. If, in fact, we eliminate this program, not only will we miss the opportunity to truly and effectively evaluate this program, we will also take away many of the workers who are doing all the work in some of the regional and district offices of HUD. We will effectively impair the ability of HUD to deliver their services, and that is not something we want to do. There are reports already that the cuts HUD has made in their staffing--and they have been significant over the last several years-- have reached a point where both GAO and the IG at HUD are questioning whether or not HUD has reduced too many employees. In this context, where they have already made significant reductions and where we have a new program that shows some promise, although there has been some criticism, I think it is premature to eliminate the Community Builders Program. I hope we will study it carefully, evaluate it objectively, make changes, if necessary, but certainly not at this juncture eliminate a program that deserves, I think, additional time to prove its worth and merit. Let me conclude by thanking Senators Bond and Mikulski for their extraordinary work. Also, I will work with them over the next several weeks and months in conference to see if we can find and dedicate these resources to addressing many of the issues I have raised. I yield the floor. Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded so I can speak on the pending amendment.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Gorton- Bryan-Feinstein-Reed sense-of-the-Senate resolution that is being considered today. As my colleagues have stated, our resolution calls on the House of Representatives to drop a rider which they have incorporated in the Transportation appropriations bill that effectively blocks the Department of Transportation from studying ways to improve the corporate average fuel economy standards for vehicles in the United States. These standards are currently referred to as the CAFE standards. The current CAFE standard for passenger cars is 27.5 miles per gallon, while the standard for the so-called light trucks is just 20.7 miles per gallon. A few years ago, this lower standard for trucks might have been less critical, but what we have seen over the last several years has been an explosion in the popularity of SUVs, sport utility vehicles. They are seen in places that are more akin to shopping malls than the rugged terrain for which originally they were designed. SUVs and minivans are everywhere. As a result, we have to take a serious look at whether this light truck exemption makes sense, given the current marketplace. Their impact--these SUVs and minivans--on the air we breathe and on the amount of gasoline we consume, including increasing amounts of imported gasoline, cannot be ignored. We know this is a simple law of supply and demand. When you have many more vehicles subject to lower CAFE standards on the road, the demand for gasoline goes up, the price of gasoline goes up, and the amount of gasoline that is consumed goes up, all of which ultimately affects our atmosphere. In my State of Rhode Island alone, it is estimated that consumers face about $39 million in excess annual fuel costs because of this light truck loophole. Nevertheless, the CAFE freeze rider has been inserted into the House DOT spending bill every year for the past 4 years. Each time that happens, Congress denies the American people the benefits of fuel-saving technologies that already exist, technologies that the auto industry could implement with no reduction in safety, power, or performance. The existing CAFE standards save more than 3 million barrels of oil every day. If we did not have these standards, we would be paying much more for oil and strategically we would be much more vulnerable in terms of our oil supply from around the world. Each year, these CAFE standards reduce pollution by keeping millions of tons of carbon dioxide out of our atmosphere. Shouldn't we at least give the Department of Transportation the chance to study this issue? That is at the essence of our request--not that we should move immediately or precipitously to the adoption of new standards but at least give the Department of Transportation the opportunity to study particularly this light truck loophole. The House version wrongly precludes any consideration, study, or analysis. That, to me, is the wrong way to approach a public policy issue. Let's at least study it. It is time we lift this somewhat gag order that has been placed on our ability to consider the costs and benefits of higher CAFE standards. I believe, by readjusting the CAFE standards particularly in terms of these light trucks we can make significant progress in terms of fuel oil economy and also environmental quality. But at least we have to begin this analysis. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. I commend the sponsors for their work and hope it will be incorporated in this legislation. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bennett-Jeffords- Reed amendment. For the past 34 years, the National Endowment for the Arts has served the public good by nurturing the expression of human creativity, supporting the cultivation of community spirit, improving our children's education, and fostering the recognition and appreciation of our nation's artistic accomplishments. The arts and humanities have an immense positive impact on the lives of all Americans. Children and adolescents in particular benefit tremendously from artistic expression. Studies show again and again that comprehensive arts education programs in schools with at-risk student populations improve academic achievement; student self- assurance; creative and critical thinking skills; attendance; as well as student and parent attitudes about school. And yet, we as a society have consistently underfunded arts education and community arts programs at the local, state and federal level. In recent years, Congress has exacerbated this situation by dramatically reducing funding to the National Endowment for the Arts. The NEA has not seen a budget increase in 8 years--not since 1992, when the agency had a budget of $175.9 million. In 1996, the NEA's budget was slashed by 40% to $99 million, and it has remained near that level ever since. This year, the President requested an increase of $52 million for the NEA, nearly all of which would have been used to pay for a major new initiative called Challenge America. A priority of Challenge America would be to get NEA funds to areas of the country that have not received sufficient funds in the past. Challenge America would focus on outreach projects for education, after-school programs using the arts, historic preservation, and upgrading the arts infrastructure in our communities. In effect, Challenge America would put the arts at the center of family and community life. Mr. President, by reaching out to new communities and new regions of the country, the Challenge America program would directly address the concerns that members of this body have expressed with regard to the distribution of NEA funds. Unfortunately, the Interior spending bill before us contains no funding for the Challenge America initiative. The Appropriations Committee's report indicates, however, that the lack of funds for Challenge America ``should not be interpreted as a lack of support by the Committee for the Endowment's proposal.'' The problem, of course, is the budget. The distinguished Interior Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Member have done an outstanding job to report a bill within the tight allocations provided to them. I commend them for their effort and fully appreciate the constraints within which they operate. However, I believe we can, and should, find the money to make the Challenge America program a reality and to allow the NEA to do what so many members of this body want it to do. At a time when we are considering an $800 billion tax cut, I think it is not unreasonable to provide a small increase to an agency that has such a meaningful impact in communities across the country. This amendment, which would provide $4 million in additional funding to the NEA in fiscal year 2000, would permit the NEA to get the Challenge America initiative off the ground. Every dime of additional money would be used for project grants--mostly the small, expedited grants that will get funding to previously underserved areas of the country. Mr. President, the NEA is under new management. Chairman Bill Ivey has worked hard to reform the Endowment's operations and to respond to the concerns expressed by members of Congress in recent years. It is time we gave the NEA a chance to show that it has changed. Let's give it the opportunity to do what we've asked it to do--to get more grants to new rural and urban areas, to do more in the area of arts education, and to help us rebuild our cities and make them more attractive places for people to live and work. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the legislation introduced by my colleague, Senator Feingold of Wisconsin. I do so because of the gravity of the situation and also because of the fact that just 2 weeks ago I had the opportunity to travel, along with Senator Harkin of Iowa and Congressman McGovern of Massachusetts, to East Timor. We visited the town of Dili, the capital. Then we went into the countryside. We saw the bravery and courage of people who are willing, quite literally, to risk their lives to vote to determine their own future. We went to a town called Suai, which was a small village in the western part of East Timor. There we found 2,000 displaced persons huddled in the shadow of a half built Catholic church being protected from roving bands of militia, basically armed thugs, supported, encouraged, and, at times, directed by the Indonesian military authority. They were there not only for protection but also because they wanted to vote. They knew if they went back into the countryside, they might lose their chance to physically be present to vote. As I stood before those thousands of poor people who have been denied water and food by the authorities, who literally were being starved away from their right to vote, I told them that the vote is more powerful than the army. They believed that. A few days later, with great courage, they went to the polls, and, in overwhelming numbers, they voted overwhelmingly for independence. That vote now is being undermined systematically and deliberately by the military authority within Indonesia. Regretfully, we have just learned that the priest, Father Hilario, who was providing sanctuary in Swai, has been reported to have been killed by those violent militia bands. This is an issue that should trouble every person of conscience throughout the world. It should particularly trouble the United States, because for many years we have maintained a relationship with the Government of Indonesia in an attempt to provide the kind of support that would allow them to evolve into a democratic country that would fulfill its promises. The Government of Indonesia has pretensions of being a great power, but a great power keeps its word. The Government of Indonesia has not kept its word. It promised the United Nations that it would provide security and protection for the election. It promised it would respect the results of the election. It promised it would protect the lives and the property of the people of East Timor, and it has failed utterly and miserably in doing that. The military of Indonesia has pretensions of being a professional military force, but a professional military force always follows legitimate orders of its civilian and military commanders. This army is failing miserably in doing that. There is only one choice. They must either restore order, stability, and safety in East Timor, allow people to live freely and safely, respect the results of the election, or cooperate with the introduction of international peacekeepers. At the heart of the bill Senator Feingold, myself, and Senator Leahy are introducing is a very clear message to the government and the military of Indonesia: Unless you restore order immediately or allow international peacekeepers to enter East Timor, we will cut off all multilateral assistance. We will cut off all bilateral assistance. We will cut off all military cooperation. Essentially, the future relationship of Indonesia with the world community depends fundamentally on whether or not they will respect their own agreement to provide safety and security for the people of East Timor and respect the results of this election. I hope they do. If there is cooperation, if a United Nations peacekeeping force can enter that country, it is fortunate that our allies, the Australians and other countries, are ready, willing, and able at this moment to send personnel forward in this peacekeeping force. We should be able to assist this force with some of the unique capacities and capabilities we have: intelligence capabilities, satellite observation, air lifts, sea lift. I don't think it is necessary to commit our forces on the ground, but we should be part of this effort to secure the peace and stability and reaffirm the validity of this election. While we were in East Timor, we had occasion to visit with Bishop Belo, the Nobel prize winner. We had supper with him, very humble fare from a very humble and saintly person. His house has already been destroyed by roving mobs. East Timorese who took sanctuary there have been scattered and slaughtered. Mercifully, Bishop Belo has been able to escape to Australia. These scenes of carnage and mayhem and madness are convulsing East Timor. It is the responsibility of the Government of Indonesia to stop the violence or to allow international forces to enter at the soonest possible time to stop this violence. As I indicated initially, this referendum was not foisted upon the Government of Indonesia. It was agreed to by the Government of Indonesia. They made solemn pledges to the United Nations to respect the results of the vote, to conduct the vote fairly without intimidation. Now they must live up to their word or allow the United Nations and the world community to see that this vote is respected. A final image I have of our time in East Timor is going to a polling place. This was days before the election. We were talking to these very brave international volunteers from many nations who have risked their lives, literally, to be in these small towns to take the registration. There was a young man who had come to make sure his name was on the rolls so he could vote. We spoke with him. We asked him if he was afraid. He said: Yes, very much so, but I will vote. My friends will vote. We want to determine the future of our country. We want to determine the future of our families and our communities. They did that. We have to respect that courage and that faith in democracy and the power of the vote. We have to, internationally and individually as a nation, prove that the vote is more powerful than the army. I am pleased and proud to join my colleagues in this resolution. I urge its speedy consideration and passage. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the legislation introduced by my colleague, Senator Feingold of Wisconsin. I do so because of the gravity of the situation and also because of the fact that just 2 weeks ago I had the opportunity to travel, along with Senator Harkin of Iowa and Congressman McGovern of Massachusetts, to East Timor. We visited the town of Dili, the capital. Then we went into the countryside. We saw the bravery and courage of people who are willing, quite literally, to risk their lives to vote to determine their own future. We went to a town called Suai, which was a small village in the western part of East Timor. There we found 2,000 displaced persons huddled in the shadow of a half built Catholic church being protected from roving bands of militia, basically armed thugs, supported, encouraged, and, at times, directed by the Indonesian military authority. They were there not only for protection but also because they wanted to vote. They knew if they went back into the countryside, they might lose their chance to physically be present to vote. As I stood before those thousands of poor people who have been denied water and food by the authorities, who literally were being starved away from their right to vote, I told them that the vote is more powerful than the army. They believed that. A few days later, with great courage, they went to the polls, and, in overwhelming numbers, they voted overwhelmingly for independence. That vote now is being undermined systematically and deliberately by the military authority within Indonesia. Regretfully, we have just learned that the priest, Father Hilario, who was providing sanctuary in Swai, has been reported to have been killed by those violent militia bands. This is an issue that should trouble every person of conscience throughout the world. It should particularly trouble the United States, because for many years we have maintained a relationship with the Government of Indonesia in an attempt to provide the kind of support that would allow them to evolve into a democratic country that would fulfill its promises. The Government of Indonesia has pretensions of being a great power, but a great power keeps its word. The Government of Indonesia has not kept its word. It promised the United Nations that it would provide security and protection for the election. It promised it would respect the results of the election. It promised it would protect the lives and the property of the people of East Timor, and it has failed utterly and miserably in doing that. The military of Indonesia has pretensions of being a professional military force, but a professional military force always follows legitimate orders of its civilian and military commanders. This army is failing miserably in doing that. There is only one choice. They must either restore order, stability, and safety in East Timor, allow people to live freely and safely, respect the results of the election, or cooperate with the introduction of international peacekeepers. At the heart of the bill Senator Feingold, myself, and Senator Leahy are introducing is a very clear message to the government and the military of Indonesia: Unless you restore order immediately or allow international peacekeepers to enter East Timor, we will cut off all multilateral assistance. We will cut off all bilateral assistance. We will cut off all military cooperation. Essentially, the future relationship of Indonesia with the world community depends fundamentally on whether or not they will respect their own agreement to provide safety and security for the people of East Timor and respect the results of this election. I hope they do. If there is cooperation, if a United Nations peacekeeping force can enter that country, it is fortunate that our allies, the Australians and other countries, are ready, willing, and able at this moment to send personnel forward in this peacekeeping force. We should be able to assist this force with some of the unique capacities and capabilities we have: intelligence capabilities, satellite observation, air lifts, sea lift. I don't think it is necessary to commit our forces on the ground, but we should be part of this effort to secure the peace and stability and reaffirm the validity of this election. While we were in East Timor, we had occasion to visit with Bishop Belo, the Nobel prize winner. We had supper with him, very humble fare from a very humble and saintly person. His house has already been destroyed by roving mobs. East Timorese who took sanctuary there have been scattered and slaughtered. Mercifully, Bishop Belo has been able to escape to Australia. These scenes of carnage and mayhem and madness are convulsing East Timor. It is the responsibility of the Government of Indonesia to stop the violence or to allow international forces to enter at the soonest possible time to stop this violence. As I indicated initially, this referendum was not foisted upon the Government of Indonesia. It was agreed to by the Government of Indonesia. They made solemn pledges to the United Nations to respect the results of the vote, to conduct the vote fairly without intimidation. Now they must live up to their word or allow the United Nations and the world community to see that this vote is respected. A final image I have of our time in East Timor is going to a polling place. This was days before the election. We were talking to these very brave international volunteers from many nations who have risked their lives, literally, to be in these small towns to take the registration. There was a young man who had come to make sure his name was on the rolls so he could vote. We spoke with him. We asked him if he was afraid. He said: Yes, very much so, but I will vote. My friends will vote. We want to determine the future of our country. We want to determine the future of our families and our communities. They did that. We have to respect that courage and that faith in democracy and the power of the vote. We have to, internationally and individually as a nation, prove that the vote is more powerful than the army. I am pleased and proud to join my colleagues in this resolution. I urge its speedy consideration and passage. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, here we are again, debating a conference report on a ten year, $800 billion tax cut. This tax cut works on the assumption of a budget surplus that has not been realized yet--a surplus that is generated in no small part by already unattainable budget caps which will lead to a significant, 23% to 38% reduction in essential programs, including Pell Grants, special education, community policing, and drug enforcement. In my home state of Rhode Island, my constituents stand to lose $15.9 million in Title I education funding and $11 million in Special Education funding. In addition, more than 17,000 Rhode Island students would be denied Pell Grants, and more than 2,000 children would be cut from Head Start programs. At a time when one in five children lives in poverty, can we really bear cuts of this magnitude? At a time when we are asking the government to respond quicker and perform better, particularly with respect to domestic and international crises, we are considering legislation that trades away the essential services that the American people count on in exchange for speculative tax cuts whose benefit will be fleeting. This legislation is also a threat to the future of Medicare. Indeed, at the point that Medicare teeters at the brink of insolvency in the next ten to twenty years, the cost of this tax cut could balloon to $2 trillion. We know that we must take steps as soon as possible to shore up Medicare and Social Security. A responsible use of the surplus would be to make a reasonable allowance for essential programs, address the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare, and pay down the federal debt. Then, we should consider a targeted reductions for America's working families. Of course, everyone realizes that we cannot continue to live under the spending caps. In May, a group of eight House Republicans wrote the President, stating, ``A rational compromise is needed to adjust the caps and maintain them for future years at achievable levels.'' If the most ardent architects of the caps are now having second thoughts, there is little reason to expect they can be observed in the future. But, we are already breaking the caps with ``emergency'' appropriations--appropriations that do not count against the caps. What is an ``emergency'' appropriation exactly? Apparently, it is anything the Majority wants it to be. Just the other day, the House passed legislation designating part of the funding for the 2000 Census an ``emergency''. As conservative columnist George Will noted, we have known about next year's Census since 1790. How could it be an ``emergency''? Mr. President, since the end of fiscal year 1998, Congress has approved approximately $35 billion in ``emergency'' spending. One wonders how many other ``emergencies'' like the decennial census are looming. Beyond the massive cuts to essential domestic initiatives, this tax bill depends on the performance of the economy. But, Mr. President, after the longest peacetime economic expansion in history, can we continue to count on a robust economy for another year, for another five years, for another ten years? The bill before us depends on this sort of gamble. Ironically, this tax cut could be just the thing that stalls our economic growth. Recently, fifty economists, including 6 Nobel Laureates, wrote that this tax bill will stimulate the economy at precisely the wrong time. Even Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, usually a strong supporter of tax cuts, has taken a cautionary view toward these tax reductions. The New York Times reported of his testimony on the Hill last week. The subject [of tax cuts] came up several times, and Mr. Greenspan's message was stern: Don't do it. ``I'm saying hold off for a while,'' Mr. Greenspan said . . . ``And I'm saying that because the timing is not right.'' Mr. Greenspan urged Congress to pay down the debt and delay any tax cut until the economy begins to turn down. ``The business cycle is not dead,'' he warned, telling lawmakers that whenever an economic slowdown hits, ``a significant tax cut'' may be needed to ward off recession. In all respects, this legislation lacks proportionality. Fortunately, this bill, even if it passes the Senate and is sent on to the President, will be vetoed. It is regrettable that we have wasted so much time on this bill, when, instead, we could have focused on truly important issues like preserving Social Security and Medicare. Now that the political play has been made, I hope that we can return to substantive work on issues that really matter to the American people.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise tonight to express my regret that I am unable to sign the conference repot on the Fiscal Year 2000 Department of Defense Authorization Act. This was my first year as a member of the Armed Service Committee. I want to commend Chairman Warner and Senator Levin for their leadership and commitment to our nation's defense. The committee provided ample opportunity for me to learn about the issues, participate in the discussion, and express my views. I believe that the process which created this bill was, overall, thoughtful and fair. This bill has many excellent provisions. It provides for a significant increase in defense spending but allocates the funds wisely. In creases funds for research and development which we must invest in if we are to remain the world's finest fighting force. It adds additional funds to the service's operation and maintenance accounts which should ease the strain of keeping our bases and equipment in good condition. The bill also funds many of the Service Chief's unfunded requirements, items, that are not flashy but are vital to military readiness. Certainly the most important parts of this bill are those that address the issue of recruitment and retention. This bill provides for a pay increase, restoration of retirement benefits, and special incentive pays. The bill also begins to address some of the problems identified in the military healthcare system. Our men and women in uniform work tirelessly every day to defend the principles of this country and they deserve the benefits that are included in this legislation. I have grave concerns, however, over the sections of this bill which affect the Department of Energy. A reorganization of the agency which manages our nation's nuclear arsenal should not be undertaken quickly or haphazardly. Yet this conference report contains language which was not considered by any committee or debated on the floor of either the House or the Senate. The ramifications of these provisions are unclear. Regrettably, I am unable to support a report which contains such provisions until I have had the opportunity to study them further. I hope that further analysis reveals that this reorganization is workable and that ultimately, I am able to vote in favor of this report. However, at this time, I am reserving my judgment and will not sign the conference report.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss legislation I am introducing, the Campaign Spending Control Act of 1999. I introduced similar legislation in 1997. Unfortunately, in the last two years we have only seen the financial excesses of our campaign system grow, further disenfranchising and disillusioning voters. If our government is to regain the confidence and participation of the electorate, enactment of this legislation is more necessary today than it was two years ago. Mr. President, two independent public policy groups recently released surveys gauging the public's opinion of their federal government. The news, once again, was not good for our democracy. Earlier this month the Council for Excellence in Government released a nonpartisan poll, conducted by respected pollsters Peter Hart and Robert Teeter, which demonstrated that less than four in ten Americans now believe that President Lincoln's refrain, that our government is ``of, by, and for the people'' is accurate. While past disillusionment with government was directed at so-called ``unaccountable bureaucrats,'' today most Americans blame the moneyed special interests and the politicians and their political parties for the fact that government is not accountable to the average citizen. Patricia McGinnis, the Council's President, characterized the poll as demonstrating that ``we have an anemic democracy, badly in need of involvement and ownership by its citizens.'' Back in January of this year the Center on Policy Attitudes, released a nonpartisan poll which showed continued record high public dissatisfaction with government. This finding is disconcerting given that our nation is experiencing an unprecedented economic boom coupled with military security. Nonetheless, the Center's study showed that less than one in three Americans ``trust the government in Washington to do what is right'' most of the time. The study concludes that ``[t]he public's dissatisfaction with the US government is largely due to the perception that elected officials, acting in their self- interest, give priority to special interests and partisan agendas, over the interests of the public as a whole.'' Specifically, the survey found that three in four Americans believe that the government is ``run for the benefit of a few big interests.'' Mr. President, I believe that the biggest culprit fueling the public perception that politicians, political parties, and representational government is beholden to special interests, not the needs of the average citizen, is our campaign financing system. When politicians depend upon wealthy special interests, which represent less than one percent of the citizenry, for the political contributions that fuel campaigns the public is left to conclude that its voice will not, cannot, be heard, never mind addressed. The 1996 elections produced record spending: over 2.7 billion dollars, or approximately 28 dollars per voter. All this money produced record-low voter participation. These two tragic facts are inextricably linked. Most Americans believe our current campaign system is tainted by a flood of special interest money, drowning out their voice, making their participation meaningless, and leaving their concerns unaddressed. Mr. President, unfortunately, the excesses of 1996 were only multiplied in 1998. Funded by unregulated, unlimited ``soft money'' contributions, the use of unaccountable ``issue ads'' tripled. Without the ability to check either the facts or the sponsors of these ads, Americans became more cynical and less likely to participate. Candidates, on the other hand, are forced to raise money to not only match the resources and the advertising, of their opponent, but also outside groups that are running ``issue ads.'' Those challenging sitting Members of Congress are most disadvantaged by our financing system: in 1998 almost half of the House of Representatives faced opponents with little or no funding. The money chase saps a candidate's time, limiting the ability and incentive to debate, attend forums, and otherwise engage voters. Even the donors dislike the current system: with many corporate leaders announcing their opposition to, and unwillingness to participate in, the current system. We are trapped in a system that no one, not the voters, not the candidates, not the donors, thinks proper. The roots of this abysmal situation can be traced to a misguided Supreme Court decision. In Buckley v. Valeo, a 1976 case which challenged the 1974 campaign reform legislation, the Court held that, in order to avoid corruption, or its appearance, political contributions could be limited. However, the Court invalidated campaign expenditure limits. The Court surmised that, given the contribution limit reforms, expenditure limits were not only unnecessary but would stifle unlimited and in-depth debate stimulated by greater campaign spending. This conjecture has been proven absolutely false by over twenty years of practical experience. The single most important step to reform elections and revitalize our democracy is to reverse the Buckley decision by limiting the amount of money that a candidate or his allies can spend. For this reason Senator Johnson and I are introducing legislation which directly challenges the Buckley decision and places mandatory limits on all campaign expenditures. These limits do not favor incumbents. Historically, these limits would have restricted almost four out of five incumbents, while impacting only a handful of challengers. Additionally, this legislation would fully ban corporate contributions, as well as unlimited and unregulated contributions by wealthy individuals and organizations. Further, our bill would limit campaign expenditures by supposedly, neutral, independent groups, and restrict corporations, labor unions, and other organizations from influencing campaigns under the guise of issue advocacy. The end result of this legislation would be to eliminate over a half-billion dollars from the system, encourage challenges to incumbents, and further promote debate among both candidates and the electorate. What effect would these limits have on political debate? Contrary to the Supreme Court, I believe such limits would increase dialogue. Candidates would be free from the burdens of unending fundraising and thus be available to participate in debates, forums, and interviews. With greater access to candidates and less reason to believe that candidates were captives of their contributors, voters might well be more prepared to invest the time needed to be informed on issues of concern and ask candidates to address them. Some of the most extreme defenders of our current campaign financing system will argue that this legislation impinges upon freedom of speech. In analyzing this criticism it is important to remember that the vast majority of Americans, ninety-six percent, have never made a political contribution. The bill will marginally restrict the rights of a few to contribute and spend money--not speak--so that the majority of voters might restore their faith in the process. Campaign finances will be restricted no more than necessary to fulfill several compelling interests, the most important of which is the people's faith in their government. Such a restriction conforms with Constitutional jurisprudence and has been demonstrated as necessary by history. The fact is all democratic debates are restricted by rules. My legislation would simply reinstall some rules into our political campaigns while directly impacting very few Americans. Another criticism of this bill will be that it goes too far. Many reform proponents argue that we should concentrate on more modest gains. It is irrefutable that today, Congress struggles to consider even the most modest of reforms, such as banning so called soft money: unlimited donations by corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals to political party committees. Unfortunately the debate in Congress has regressed terribly from the original McCain-Feingold bill, which addressed runaway campaign expenditures with voluntary spending limits. Yet, there are also reasons to be optimistic about implementation of substantial campaign reform. Reform has broad public support and has grown into a major grass- roots initiative outside of Washington, DC. Elected officials from thirty-three states have urged that the Buckley decision be revisited and limits implemented. Legislative bodies in Ohio and Vermont have implemented sweeping reform by enacting mandatory caps on candidate expenditures. Other states, such as my own, have embraced public financing as a more modest, but significant, means of reform. On election day in 1998 voters in Arizona and Massachusetts approved significant reforms, both of which would ban so called ``soft money'' as well as encourage contribution and spending limits through voluntary public financing. Currently, campaign finance reform is enacted or being pursued in more than forty states. While significant reform may be a major step for Congress; our constituents and their state and local representatives are implementing important reform throughout the nation. Unfortunately, because of the overly restrictive and confused jurisprudence flowing from the Buckley decision, many of these popular initiatives face years of special interest challenge in court. Indeed, the most effective reforms will, most likely, be struck down by trial courts. While I enthusiastically support any substantive reform, if we are to address the underlying cancer which has disintegrated voter trust and participation, the problem of unlimited expenditures must be directly confronted. As I have already stated, this is a step that one municipality and two states have embraced. Many more state officials as well as prominent constitutional law scholars have urged such a course. Expenditure limitations have been proposed by Congressional reformers in the past, and it is time to rededicate ourselves to this goal. The largest impediment to such reform is the Supreme Court, and I believe that there is, again, reason to be optimistic that the Court will accommodate such reform in the near future. Currently, the Court has before it a case which challenges the Buckley decision. In Buckley, the Court upheld against First Amendment challenge the $1,000 federal contribution limit passed by Congress. In Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Adams, the case currently under review by the Supreme Court, the Eighth Circuit struck down as unconstitutional Missouri's virtually identical state-wide contribution limit of $1,075, holding that only proof of corruption can justify contribution limits. I have led several members of Congress in an amicus brief to the Court. Mr. President, our brief makes two arguments. First, it demonstrates that the Eighth Circuit's decision is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley and should be reversed on that ground alone. Second, it contends that the Court should give legislatures the leeway to pass reforms that will respond meaningfully to the erosion of public confidence in the government created by the current campaign financing system. This leeway can be provided in two ways. First, the Court should review campaign finance reforms under a deferential standard of review--``intermediate'' scrutiny rather than ``strict'' scrutiny--as long as the legislature does not justify the reforms on the communicative impact of the speech at issue. Second, the Court should recognize the institutional competence uniquely possessed by legislatures both to identify threats to the integrity of the electoral system and to implement corresponding reforms. The amicus brief does not advocate any particular type of reform, but rather urges the Court to provide leeway for legislatures to enact necessary reforms. It is my hope that this case, while not changing the fundamental holding of Buckley, will stimulate the Court to provide greater deference to legislatures that seek to address the threat that campaign financing, and the cynicism it creates, poses to our democracy. Once such leeway has been provided, the Court will be forced to revisit its holding that spending money is the functional equivalent to speaking. Experience since this 1976 decision should force the Court to realize that while money fuels speech, at some point, financial expenditures only increase a speaker's volume. Spending has now reached a shrill pitch that the vast majority of Americans want addressed. Elected representatives in thirty three states and countless grassroots officials agree with this sentiment. The legislation I have introduced today will implement such reform, restoring rules to our political debate, encouraging public participation, and thus stimulating faith in our democracy. I thank Senator Johnson for his support in this endeavor. Mr. President, I would ask that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few comments concerning legislation which I am introducing to deal with the problem of slamming. Telephone ``slamming'' is the illegal practice of switching a consumer's long distance service without the individual's consent. This problem has increased dramatically over the last several years, as competition between long distance carriers has risen, and slamming is the top consumer complaint lodged at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), with 11,278 reported complaints in 1995, and 16,500 in 1996. In both 1997 and 1998, more than 20,000 complaints were filed. It is very clear that this problem is on the rise, and unfortunately, this represents only the tip of the iceberg because most consumers never report violations to the FCC. One regional Bell company estimates that 1 in every 20 switches is fraudulent. Media reports indicate that as many as 1 million illegal transfers occur annually. Thus, slamming threatens to rob consumers of the benefit of a competitive market, which is now composed of over 500 companies which generate $72.5 billion in revenues. As a result of slamming, consumers face not only higher phone bills, but also the significant expenditure of time and energy in attempting to identify and reverse the fraud. The results of slamming are clear: higher phone bills and immense consumer frustration. Mr. President, we are all aware of the stiff competition which occurs for customers in the long distance telephone service industry. The goal of deregulating the telecommunications industry was to allow consumers to easily avail themselves of lower prices and better service. Hopefully, this option will soon be presented to consumers for in-state calls and local phone service. Indeed, better service at lower cost is a main objective of those who seek to deregulate the utility industry. Unfortunately, fraud threatens to rob many consumers of the benefits of a competitive industry. Telemarketing is one of the least expensive and most effective forms of marketing, and it has exponentially expanded in recent years. By statute, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulates most telemarketing, prohibiting deceptive or abusive sales calls, requiring that homes not be called at certain times, and that companies honor a consumer's request not to be called again. The law mandates that records concerning sales be maintained for two years. While the FTC is charged with primary enforcement, the law allows consumers, or state Attorneys General on their behalf, to bring legal action against violators. Yet, phone companies are exempt from these regulations, since they are subject to FCC regulation. While the FCC has brought action against twenty-two of the industry's largest and smallest firms for slamming violations with penalties totaling over $1.8 million, this represents a minute fraction of the violations. FCC prosecution does not effectively address or deter this serious fraud. State officials have become more aggressive in pursuing violators. The California Public Utility Commission fined a company $2 million in 1997 after 56,000 complaints were filed against it. Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Vermont, and Wisconsin have all pursued litigation against slammers. Public officials of twenty-five states asked the FCC to adopt tougher rules against slammers. As directed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC has moved to close several loopholes which have allowed slamming to continue unabated. Most important, the FCC has proposed to eliminate the financial incentive which encourages many companies to slam by mandating that customers who are slammed do not have to pay fees to slammers for the first thirty days after the switch occurred. At present, a slammer can retain the profits generated from an illegal switch. Additionally, the FCC has proposed regulations which would require that a carrier confirm all switches generated by telemarketing through either (1) a letter of agency, known as a LOA, from the consumer; (2) a recording of the consumer verifying his or her choice on a toll-free line provided by the carrier; or (3) a record of verification by an appropriately qualified and independent third party. The regulations, which were recently finalized by the FCC, unfortunately have been blocked by court order until long distance carriers have time to analyze the implications of the rules. If and when these rules are finalized, I still believe that these remedies will be wholly inadequate to address the ever-increasing problem of slamming. The problem is that slammed consumers would still be left without conclusive proof that their consent was properly obtained and verified. My legislation encompasses a three-part approach to stop slamming by strengthening the procedures used to verify consent obtained by marketers; increasing enforcement procedures by allowing citizens or their representatives to pursue slammers in court with the evidence necessary to win; and encouraging all stakeholders to use emerging technology to prevent fraud. Mr. President, let me also thank the National Association of Attorneys General, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners which through both their national offices and individual members provided extensive recommendations to improve this bill. Additionally, I have found extremely helpful the input of several groups which advocate on behalf of consumers. I was particularly pleased to work with the Consumer Federation of America to address concerns which its members expressed. Mr. President, let me take a few minutes to outline the specific provisions of my bill. My legislation requires that a consumer's consent to change service is verified so that discrepancies can be adjudicated quickly and efficiently. Like the 1996 Act, my bill requires a legal switch to include verification. However, my legislation enumerates the necessary elements of a valid verification. First, the bill requires verification to be maintained by the provider, either in the form of a letter from the consumer or by recording verification of the consumer's consent via the phone. The length that the verification must be maintained is to be determined by the FCC. Second, the bill stipulates the form that verification must take. Written verification remains the same as current regulations. Oral verification must include the voice of the subscriber affirmatively demonstrating that she wants her long distance provider to be changed; is authorized to make the change; and is currently verifying an imminent switch. The bill mandates oral verification to be conducted in a separate call from that of the telemarketer, by an independent, disinterested party. This verifying call must promptly disclose the nature and purpose of the call. Third, after a change has been executed, the new service provider must send a letter to the consumer, within five business days of the change in service, informing the consumer that the change, which he requested and verified, has been effected. Fourth, the bill mandates that a copy of verification be provided to the consumer upon request. Finally, the bill requires the FCC to finalize rules implementing these mandates within nine months of enactment of the bill. These procedures should help ensure that consumers can efficiently avail themselves of the phone service they seek, without being exposed to random and undetectable fraudulent switches. If an individual is switched without his or her consent, the mandate of recorded, maintained verification will provide the consumer with the proof necessary to prove that the switch was illegal. The second main provision of my legislation would provide consumers, or their public representatives, a legal right to pursue violators in court. Following the model of Senator Hollings' 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act, my bill provides aggrieved consumers with a private right of action in any state court which allows, under specific slamming laws or more general consumer protection statutes such an action. The 1991 Act has been adjudicated to withstand constitutional challenges on both equal protection and tenth amendment claims. Thus, the bill has the benefit of specifying one forum in which to resolve illegal switches of all types of service: long distance, in-state, and local service. Realizing that many individuals will not have the time, resources, or inclination to pursue a civil action, my bill also allows state Attorneys Generals, or other officials authorized by state law, to bring an action on behalf of citizens. Like the private right of action in suits brought by public officials damages are statutorily set at $1,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater. Treble damages are awarded in cases of knowing or willful violations. In addition to monetary awards, states are entitled to seek relief in the form of writs of mandamus, injunction, or similar relief. To ensure a proper role for the FCC, state actions must be brought in a federal district court where the victim or defendant resides. Additionally, state actions must be certified with the Commission, which maintains a right to intervening in an action. The bill makes express the fact that it has no impact on state authority to investigate consumer fraud or bring legal action under any state law. Finally, Mr. President, my legislation recognizes that neither legislators nor regulators can solve tomorrow's problems with today's technology. Therefore, my bill mandates that the FCC provide Congress with a report on other, less burdensome but more secure means of obtaining and recording consumer consent. Such methods might include utilization of Internet technology or issuing PIN numbers or customer codes to be used before carrier changes are authorized. The bill requires that the FCC report to Congress on such methodology not later than 180 days after enactment of this bill. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss my initiative to stop slamming. Last year we came close to passing significant anti-slamming legislation. I hope that this issue can be addressed quickly this Congress. As a result, I would urge all my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Parental Accountability, Recruitment, and Education National Training (PARENT) Act of 1999, which seeks to increase parental involvement in the educational lives of their children. Mr. President, research, experience, and reason tell us that providing parents with opportunities to play active roles in their children's schools empowers them to help their children excel. When parents are actively involved in their child's education, not only do their own children go further, but their child's school also improves to the benefit of all students. And, as I have witnessed in Rhode Island, and I am sure my colleagues can attest to this in their home states, our best schools are not simply those with the finest teachers and principals, but those which strive to engage parents in the education of their children. A recent National PTA survey revealed that 91% of parents recognize the importance of involvement in their children's schools. Unfortunately, even as we extol the virtue of parental involvement, we must recognize that reality falls far short of the goal. The National PTA survey also found that roughly half the parents surveyed felt they were inadequately informed about ways in which they could participate in schools, or even gain access to basic information about their children's studies and their children's teachers. There are also other obstacles to greater parental involvement, such as working parents who find it difficult to get to schools and be involved or parents who have had negative schooling experiences and are wary of entering schools to participate in their children's education. With 73% of parents favoring a federal effort to help schools get parents more involved with their children's education, the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) provides an opportunity to help bring schools and parents together, and to ensure parents have the tools to meaningfully and effectively get involved in their children's education. While the ESEA currently contains parental involvement provisions, they mainly apply to Title I schools and students, and have not been fully implemented. That is why I am pleased to be joined by Senators Murray, Kennedy, Harkin, and Bingaman and Representative Lynn Woolsey in the other body in introducing the PARENT Act. This legislation would amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to bolster existing and add new parental involvement provisions. The PARENT Act requires that all schools implement effective, research-based parental involvement best practices. It also seeks to improve parental access to information about their children's education and the school's parental involvement policies; ensure that professional development activities provide training to teachers and administrators on how to foster relationships with parents and encourage parental involvement; utilize technology to expand efforts to connect schools and teachers with parents; and promote parental involvement in drug and violence prevention programs. In addition, the PARENT Act requires any state seeking funding under ESEA to describe, implement, and evaluate parental involvement policies and practices. To succeed in the endeavor of increasing parental involvement, we must depend on parents, teachers, and school administrators throughout the country to work collaboratively to implement effective programs. However, federal leadership is needed to provide schools, teachers, and parents with the tools adequate to this task. Mr. President, the bottom line of federal support for education is to increase student achievement. Parental involvement is an essential component to ensuring that our students succeed. This legislation is strongly supported by the National PTA, and I urge my colleagues to join Senators Murray, Kennedy, Harkin, Bingaman, and me in supporting the PARENT Act, and working for its inclusion in the ESEA reauthorization. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record. The being no objection, bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss legislation I am introducing, the Campaign Spending Control Act of 1999. I introduced similar legislation in 1997. Unfortunately, in the last two years we have only seen the financial excesses of our campaign system grow, further disenfranchising and disillusioning voters. If our government is to regain the confidence and participation of the electorate, enactment of this legislation is more necessary today than it was two years ago. Mr. President, two independent public policy groups recently released surveys gauging the public's opinion of their federal government. The news, once again, was not good for our democracy. Earlier this month the Council for Excellence in Government released a nonpartisan poll, conducted by respected pollsters Peter Hart and Robert Teeter, which demonstrated that less than four in ten Americans now believe that President Lincoln's refrain, that our government is ``of, by, and for the people'' is accurate. While past disillusionment with government was directed at so-called ``unaccountable bureaucrats,'' today most Americans blame the moneyed special interests and the politicians and their political parties for the fact that government is not accountable to the average citizen. Patricia McGinnis, the Council's President, characterized the poll as demonstrating that ``we have an anemic democracy, badly in need of involvement and ownership by its citizens.'' Back in January of this year the Center on Policy Attitudes, released a nonpartisan poll which showed continued record high public dissatisfaction with government. This finding is disconcerting given that our nation is experiencing an unprecedented economic boom coupled with military security. Nonetheless, the Center's study showed that less than one in three Americans ``trust the government in Washington to do what is right'' most of the time. The study concludes that ``[t]he public's dissatisfaction with the US government is largely due to the perception that elected officials, acting in their self- interest, give priority to special interests and partisan agendas, over the interests of the public as a whole.'' Specifically, the survey found that three in four Americans believe that the government is ``run for the benefit of a few big interests.'' Mr. President, I believe that the biggest culprit fueling the public perception that politicians, political parties, and representational government is beholden to special interests, not the needs of the average citizen, is our campaign financing system. When politicians depend upon wealthy special interests, which represent less than one percent of the citizenry, for the political contributions that fuel campaigns the public is left to conclude that its voice will not, cannot, be heard, never mind addressed. The 1996 elections produced record spending: over 2.7 billion dollars, or approximately 28 dollars per voter. All this money produced record-low voter participation. These two tragic facts are inextricably linked. Most Americans believe our current campaign system is tainted by a flood of special interest money, drowning out their voice, making their participation meaningless, and leaving their concerns unaddressed. Mr. President, unfortunately, the excesses of 1996 were only multiplied in 1998. Funded by unregulated, unlimited ``soft money'' contributions, the use of unaccountable ``issue ads'' tripled. Without the ability to check either the facts or the sponsors of these ads, Americans became more cynical and less likely to participate. Candidates, on the other hand, are forced to raise money to not only match the resources and the advertising, of their opponent, but also outside groups that are running ``issue ads.'' Those challenging sitting Members of Congress are most disadvantaged by our financing system: in 1998 almost half of the House of Representatives faced opponents with little or no funding. The money chase saps a candidate's time, limiting the ability and incentive to debate, attend forums, and otherwise engage voters. Even the donors dislike the current system: with many corporate leaders announcing their opposition to, and unwillingness to participate in, the current system. We are trapped in a system that no one, not the voters, not the candidates, not the donors, thinks proper. The roots of this abysmal situation can be traced to a misguided Supreme Court decision. In Buckley v. Valeo, a 1976 case which challenged the 1974 campaign reform legislation, the Court held that, in order to avoid corruption, or its appearance, political contributions could be limited. However, the Court invalidated campaign expenditure limits. The Court surmised that, given the contribution limit reforms, expenditure limits were not only unnecessary but would stifle unlimited and in-depth debate stimulated by greater campaign spending. This conjecture has been proven absolutely false by over twenty years of practical experience. The single most important step to reform elections and revitalize our democracy is to reverse the Buckley decision by limiting the amount of money that a candidate or his allies can spend. For this reason Senator Johnson and I are introducing legislation which directly challenges the Buckley decision and places mandatory limits on all campaign expenditures. These limits do not favor incumbents. Historically, these limits would have restricted almost four out of five incumbents, while impacting only a handful of challengers. Additionally, this legislation would fully ban corporate contributions, as well as unlimited and unregulated contributions by wealthy individuals and organizations. Further, our bill would limit campaign expenditures by supposedly, neutral, independent groups, and restrict corporations, labor unions, and other organizations from influencing campaigns under the guise of issue advocacy. The end result of this legislation would be to eliminate over a half-billion dollars from the system, encourage challenges to incumbents, and further promote debate among both candidates and the electorate. What effect would these limits have on political debate? Contrary to the Supreme Court, I believe such limits would increase dialogue. Candidates would be free from the burdens of unending fundraising and thus be available to participate in debates, forums, and interviews. With greater access to candidates and less reason to believe that candidates were captives of their contributors, voters might well be more prepared to invest the time needed to be informed on issues of concern and ask candidates to address them. Some of the most extreme defenders of our current campaign financing system will argue that this legislation impinges upon freedom of speech. In analyzing this criticism it is important to remember that the vast majority of Americans, ninety-six percent, have never made a political contribution. The bill will marginally restrict the rights of a few to contribute and spend money--not speak--so that the majority of voters might restore their faith in the process. Campaign finances will be restricted no more than necessary to fulfill several compelling interests, the most important of which is the people's faith in their government. Such a restriction conforms with Constitutional jurisprudence and has been demonstrated as necessary by history. The fact is all democratic debates are restricted by rules. My legislation would simply reinstall some rules into our political campaigns while directly impacting very few Americans. Another criticism of this bill will be that it goes too far. Many reform proponents argue that we should concentrate on more modest gains. It is irrefutable that today, Congress struggles to consider even the most modest of reforms, such as banning so called soft money: unlimited donations by corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals to political party committees. Unfortunately the debate in Congress has regressed terribly from the original McCain-Feingold bill, which addressed runaway campaign expenditures with voluntary spending limits. Yet, there are also reasons to be optimistic about implementation of substantial campaign reform. Reform has broad public support and has grown into a major grass- roots initiative outside of Washington, DC. Elected officials from thirty-three states have urged that the Buckley decision be revisited and limits implemented. Legislative bodies in Ohio and Vermont have implemented sweeping reform by enacting mandatory caps on candidate expenditures. Other states, such as my own, have embraced public financing as a more modest, but significant, means of reform. On election day in 1998 voters in Arizona and Massachusetts approved significant reforms, both of which would ban so called ``soft money'' as well as encourage contribution and spending limits through voluntary public financing. Currently, campaign finance reform is enacted or being pursued in more than forty states. While significant reform may be a major step for Congress; our constituents and their state and local representatives are implementing important reform throughout the nation. Unfortunately, because of the overly restrictive and confused jurisprudence flowing from the Buckley decision, many of these popular initiatives face years of special interest challenge in court. Indeed, the most effective reforms will, most likely, be struck down by trial courts. While I enthusiastically support any substantive reform, if we are to address the underlying cancer which has disintegrated voter trust and participation, the problem of unlimited expenditures must be directly confronted. As I have already stated, this is a step that one municipality and two states have embraced. Many more state officials as well as prominent constitutional law scholars have urged such a course. Expenditure limitations have been proposed by Congressional reformers in the past, and it is time to rededicate ourselves to this goal. The largest impediment to such reform is the Supreme Court, and I believe that there is, again, reason to be optimistic that the Court will accommodate such reform in the near future. Currently, the Court has before it a case which challenges the Buckley decision. In Buckley, the Court upheld against First Amendment challenge the $1,000 federal contribution limit passed by Congress. In Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Adams, the case currently under review by the Supreme Court, the Eighth Circuit struck down as unconstitutional Missouri's virtually identical state-wide contribution limit of $1,075, holding that only proof of corruption can justify contribution limits. I have led several members of Congress in an amicus brief to the Court. Mr. President, our brief makes two arguments. First, it demonstrates that the Eighth Circuit's decision is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley and should be reversed on that ground alone. Second, it contends that the Court should give legislatures the leeway to pass reforms that will respond meaningfully to the erosion of public confidence in the government created by the current campaign financing system. This leeway can be provided in two ways. First, the Court should review campaign finance reforms under a deferential standard of review--``intermediate'' scrutiny rather than ``strict'' scrutiny--as long as the legislature does not justify the reforms on the communicative impact of the speech at issue. Second, the Court should recognize the institutional competence uniquely possessed by legislatures both to identify threats to the integrity of the electoral system and to implement corresponding reforms. The amicus brief does not advocate any particular type of reform, but rather urges the Court to provide leeway for legislatures to enact necessary reforms. It is my hope that this case, while not changing the fundamental holding of Buckley, will stimulate the Court to provide greater deference to legislatures that seek to address the threat that campaign financing, and the cynicism it creates, poses to our democracy. Once such leeway has been provided, the Court will be forced to revisit its holding that spending money is the functional equivalent to speaking. Experience since this 1976 decision should force the Court to realize that while money fuels speech, at some point, financial expenditures only increase a speaker's volume. Spending has now reached a shrill pitch that the vast majority of Americans want addressed. Elected representatives in thirty three states and countless grassroots officials agree with this sentiment. The legislation I have introduced today will implement such reform, restoring rules to our political debate, encouraging public participation, and thus stimulating faith in our democracy. I thank Senator Johnson for his support in this endeavor. Mr. President, I would ask that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few comments concerning legislation which I am introducing to deal with the problem of slamming. Telephone ``slamming'' is the illegal practice of switching a consumer's long distance service without the individual's consent. This problem has increased dramatically over the last several years, as competition between long distance carriers has risen, and slamming is the top consumer complaint lodged at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), with 11,278 reported complaints in 1995, and 16,500 in 1996. In both 1997 and 1998, more than 20,000 complaints were filed. It is very clear that this problem is on the rise, and unfortunately, this represents only the tip of the iceberg because most consumers never report violations to the FCC. One regional Bell company estimates that 1 in every 20 switches is fraudulent. Media reports indicate that as many as 1 million illegal transfers occur annually. Thus, slamming threatens to rob consumers of the benefit of a competitive market, which is now composed of over 500 companies which generate $72.5 billion in revenues. As a result of slamming, consumers face not only higher phone bills, but also the significant expenditure of time and energy in attempting to identify and reverse the fraud. The results of slamming are clear: higher phone bills and immense consumer frustration. Mr. President, we are all aware of the stiff competition which occurs for customers in the long distance telephone service industry. The goal of deregulating the telecommunications industry was to allow consumers to easily avail themselves of lower prices and better service. Hopefully, this option will soon be presented to consumers for in-state calls and local phone service. Indeed, better service at lower cost is a main objective of those who seek to deregulate the utility industry. Unfortunately, fraud threatens to rob many consumers of the benefits of a competitive industry. Telemarketing is one of the least expensive and most effective forms of marketing, and it has exponentially expanded in recent years. By statute, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulates most telemarketing, prohibiting deceptive or abusive sales calls, requiring that homes not be called at certain times, and that companies honor a consumer's request not to be called again. The law mandates that records concerning sales be maintained for two years. While the FTC is charged with primary enforcement, the law allows consumers, or state Attorneys General on their behalf, to bring legal action against violators. Yet, phone companies are exempt from these regulations, since they are subject to FCC regulation. While the FCC has brought action against twenty-two of the industry's largest and smallest firms for slamming violations with penalties totaling over $1.8 million, this represents a minute fraction of the violations. FCC prosecution does not effectively address or deter this serious fraud. State officials have become more aggressive in pursuing violators. The California Public Utility Commission fined a company $2 million in 1997 after 56,000 complaints were filed against it. Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Vermont, and Wisconsin have all pursued litigation against slammers. Public officials of twenty-five states asked the FCC to adopt tougher rules against slammers. As directed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC has moved to close several loopholes which have allowed slamming to continue unabated. Most important, the FCC has proposed to eliminate the financial incentive which encourages many companies to slam by mandating that customers who are slammed do not have to pay fees to slammers for the first thirty days after the switch occurred. At present, a slammer can retain the profits generated from an illegal switch. Additionally, the FCC has proposed regulations which would require that a carrier confirm all switches generated by telemarketing through either (1) a letter of agency, known as a LOA, from the consumer; (2) a recording of the consumer verifying his or her choice on a toll-free line provided by the carrier; or (3) a record of verification by an appropriately qualified and independent third party. The regulations, which were recently finalized by the FCC, unfortunately have been blocked by court order until long distance carriers have time to analyze the implications of the rules. If and when these rules are finalized, I still believe that these remedies will be wholly inadequate to address the ever-increasing problem of slamming. The problem is that slammed consumers would still be left without conclusive proof that their consent was properly obtained and verified. My legislation encompasses a three-part approach to stop slamming by strengthening the procedures used to verify consent obtained by marketers; increasing enforcement procedures by allowing citizens or their representatives to pursue slammers in court with the evidence necessary to win; and encouraging all stakeholders to use emerging technology to prevent fraud. Mr. President, let me also thank the National Association of Attorneys General, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners which through both their national offices and individual members provided extensive recommendations to improve this bill. Additionally, I have found extremely helpful the input of several groups which advocate on behalf of consumers. I was particularly pleased to work with the Consumer Federation of America to address concerns which its members expressed. Mr. President, let me take a few minutes to outline the specific provisions of my bill. My legislation requires that a consumer's consent to change service is verified so that discrepancies can be adjudicated quickly and efficiently. Like the 1996 Act, my bill requires a legal switch to include verification. However, my legislation enumerates the necessary elements of a valid verification. First, the bill requires verification to be maintained by the provider, either in the form of a letter from the consumer or by recording verification of the consumer's consent via the phone. The length that the verification must be maintained is to be determined by the FCC. Second, the bill stipulates the form that verification must take. Written verification remains the same as current regulations. Oral verification must include the voice of the subscriber affirmatively demonstrating that she wants her long distance provider to be changed; is authorized to make the change; and is currently verifying an imminent switch. The bill mandates oral verification to be conducted in a separate call from that of the telemarketer, by an independent, disinterested party. This verifying call must promptly disclose the nature and purpose of the call. Third, after a change has been executed, the new service provider must send a letter to the consumer, within five business days of the change in service, informing the consumer that the change, which he requested and verified, has been effected. Fourth, the bill mandates that a copy of verification be provided to the consumer upon request. Finally, the bill requires the FCC to finalize rules implementing these mandates within nine months of enactment of the bill. These procedures should help ensure that consumers can efficiently avail themselves of the phone service they seek, without being exposed to random and undetectable fraudulent switches. If an individual is switched without his or her consent, the mandate of recorded, maintained verification will provide the consumer with the proof necessary to prove that the switch was illegal. The second main provision of my legislation would provide consumers, or their public representatives, a legal right to pursue violators in court. Following the model of Senator Hollings' 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act, my bill provides aggrieved consumers with a private right of action in any state court which allows, under specific slamming laws or more general consumer protection statutes such an action. The 1991 Act has been adjudicated to withstand constitutional challenges on both equal protection and tenth amendment claims. Thus, the bill has the benefit of specifying one forum in which to resolve illegal switches of all types of service: long distance, in-state, and local service. Realizing that many individuals will not have the time, resources, or inclination to pursue a civil action, my bill also allows state Attorneys Generals, or other officials authorized by state law, to bring an action on behalf of citizens. Like the private right of action in suits brought by public officials damages are statutorily set at $1,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater. Treble damages are awarded in cases of knowing or willful violations. In addition to monetary awards, states are entitled to seek relief in the form of writs of mandamus, injunction, or similar relief. To ensure a proper role for the FCC, state actions must be brought in a federal district court where the victim or defendant resides. Additionally, state actions must be certified with the Commission, which maintains a right to intervening in an action. The bill makes express the fact that it has no impact on state authority to investigate consumer fraud or bring legal action under any state law. Finally, Mr. President, my legislation recognizes that neither legislators nor regulators can solve tomorrow's problems with today's technology. Therefore, my bill mandates that the FCC provide Congress with a report on other, less burdensome but more secure means of obtaining and recording consumer consent. Such methods might include utilization of Internet technology or issuing PIN numbers or customer codes to be used before carrier changes are authorized. The bill requires that the FCC report to Congress on such methodology not later than 180 days after enactment of this bill. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss my initiative to stop slamming. Last year we came close to passing significant anti-slamming legislation. I hope that this issue can be addressed quickly this Congress. As a result, I would urge all my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.