Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, most of us believe that a key factor in America's economic growth will be an increase of U.S. exports overseas, and accordingly, we have concentrated our efforts on overcoming obstacles which U.S. businesses face overseas. One of the real problems which has not received enough attention, though, is bribery and corruption. Bribery as a way of doing business is widespread. But it is inefficient: it skews international markets, it discriminates against the honest, and it taints the overall image of a company. No one benefits in the long-term from contracts based on bribery. U.S. business is prohibited from engaging in bribery under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act [FCPA]. I am proud of this law, and believe that it promotes good business. But, in a perverse irony, our businesses are disadvantaged in the international marketplace because they can't pay bribes. Some have suggested repealing the FCPA, which is very short-sighted. Rather, a more constructive alternative is to work for international acceptance of the principles of the FCPA. In light of the corruption scandals that have rocked Taiwan, France, and NATO, to name a few, there are serious moves afoot on the national level as well as among the grassroots to do so. This is a sensitive topic because it involves moral, financial, and intellectual concerns with, in many cases, our friends. But that sensitivity cannot deter us from addressing the subject seriously. U.S. businesses cannot afford their Government avoiding the issue. For these reasons, I am very pleased that the U.S. Trade Representative, Mickey Kantor, has made the countering of bribery and corruption a high priority in U.S. trade policy. Last week he gave an encouraging speech which identified bribery as the triple obstacle that it is: a barrier to U.S. exports; a burden to developed countries seeking to do business; and an obstacle to the establishment of sound governments in developing nations. The full remarks of Ambassador Kantor are unfortunately too extensive to include in the Record, so alternatively, I ask to have printed in the Record an editorial which appeared in Sunday's Washington Post applauding Ambassador Kantor's initiative, and encouraging the administration to maintain the pressure. The editorial follows: [From the Washington Post, Mar. 10, 1996] Trading on Bribes Ever since 1977, when the United States barred U.S. corporations from paying bribes overseas, U.S. executives have complained that enforced honesty was costing them business. European and Asian competitors were beating them out all over the world--and then going home and deducting the bribes from their taxes. How much of this lost business was real, and how much involved sour grapes, has never been clear. Some studies have shown only marginal losses to U.S. business. Some U.S. firms have found ways around the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, as the 1977 law is called, And many executives agree that the act has also helped them at times, by giving them an excuse not to pay costly bribes that might in any case bring small or no returns. Still, no one denies that the act can handicap U.S. firms. And with trade now accounting for 30 percent of our total economy and a sizable number of domestic jobs, any such impediment has to be taken seriously. U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor this week identified bribery and corruption in overseas business as significant and unfair barriers to trade. Rather than softening the U.S. law, he said, Washington will now press other nations to deal more honestly. Fat chance, you may say. And of course corruption will never be entirely uncoupled from international business, any more than the influence of money can be entirely leached out of politics. But in two areas a full-court press would not be entirely quixotic. The first is to press other developed countries to play more by our rules. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, which includes the nations of western Europe, North America and Japan, is moving toward adoption of a policy barring tax-deductibility of overseas bribes. That policy should be encouraged as a bare minimum, with criminalization of bribery to follow. The second goal is to persuade developing countries to adopt fair rules for government procurement contracts in telecommunications, energy and other, dollar-rich sectors. The more open such processes are, the less opportunity is provided for bribery. Such a campaign would be as much in the interest of the developing countries themselves as it would benefit U.S. firms. Widespread corruption usually enriches a small elite while discouraging foreign investment and impoverishing the economy as a whole. Even many of our competitors would welcome a clearer set of rules, if they knew everyone was playing by the same ones. Clinton administration officials have raised these issues before. This time they should maintain the pressure. Pushing for honest trade is not an unfair trade practice.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on February 5, Russia's Commission on Human Rights of the Russian Federation issued its report, ``On the Observance of the Rights of Man and the Citizen in the Russian Federation.'' The report covers the years 1994-1995 and its conclusion is troubling: ``the human rights situation in the Russian Federation has remained extremely unsatisfactory.'' The commission observed that constitutional guarantees for human rights and civil liberties ``remain largely rhetorical'' and that ``in many aspects of civil and political rights and liberties there has been a distinct retreat from democratic achievements.'' In support of its finding, the commission noted, inter alia: an increasing militarization of society; growth in the jurisdiction and powers of the security forces; the use of force to resolve domestic affairs, as in Chechnya; aggravation of racial and ethnic intolerance and discrimination; and the termination of state support for human rights organizations and offices. ``Political expediency,'' the commission charges, ``increasingly takes precedence over fundamental principles of law and respect for human rights and dignity,'' a cause ``for grave concern.'' Mr. President, only this past week the former head of the commission, Sergei Kovalev, was in Washington to testify before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe [CSCE], also known as the Helsinki Commission and on which I have recently been appointed to serve. Mr. Kovalev was president of Russia's Commission on Human Rights from its inception in October 1993 until he submitted his resignation on January 23 of this year. The commission's report bears his stamp. His resignation was in protest over the very matters I have just noted: the fear that Russia's leaders are paying only lip service to democratic and economic reform and contemplating a return to the worst features of Soviet-era authoritarian rule. Mr. Kovalev's testimony last week focused on the fighting in Chechnya, about which I will comment further below, but he has a long history of fighting for human rights, including as a political prisoner in the former Soviet Union. His voice is among the most respected in Russia; he maintained his seat in Russia's State Duma despite the resurgence of the Communists in December's parliamentary elections. In his letter of resignation to President Yeltsin, Mr. Kovalev wrote: Even though you continue to proclaim your undying devotion to democratic ideals, you have at first slowly, and then more and more abruptly, changed the course of your government policy. Now your government is trying to turn the country in a direction completely contrary to the one proclaimed in August 1991. He then goes on to analyze President Yeltsin's swing toward authoritarianism. Mr. Kovalev questions President Yeltsin's commitment to the basic hallmarks of democracy, when he has ``virtually halted judicial reform'', and thwarted transparency and accountability with the creation of secret institutions and constant issuing of secret decrees. Mr. President, in the past 6 years, we have witnessed amazing democratic and economic transformations in Russia. While these radical changes have borne some difficult and unfortunate challenges both in Russia and the international arena, Russia had been on a course of reform that we embraced. We counted on President Yeltsin, whose own personal metamorphosis had apparently paralleled his nation's, to lead Russia through these challenges. But now there are troubling signs of erosion of Yeltsin's genuine commitment to reform which, if continued, could have detrimental consequences for the U.S. national interest. Our interest lies in the continuation of reform in Russia--whether led by President Yeltsin or not. As we wait for more reform in Russia, President Yeltsin has tried to reassure the international community with positive words and uplifting promises. But some of the actions we have seen in recent weeks, including the sacking of his respected economic advisor and other Cabinet-level reformers, lend pause. The replacements have been Soviet- era hardliners resistant to reform and internationalism. Many people have voiced reservations about President Yeltsin's authoritarian tendencies, and hope that it may just be election year posturing, a response to the decidedly antireform results of last month's parliamentary elections in Russia. The question we must ask is how far on the slippery slope do we go with President Yeltsin? When do his attempts to appease hardline critics leave Russia in the same boat he claims to want to avoid? Mr. Kovalev testified about the excessive use of force in Chechnya and I join in his condemnation of practices repugnant to human dignity. It is clear that the fighting in Chechnya is war; the combatants on both sides are committed to a cause. But even in war, there are standards of respect for human rights and for civilized conduct. These have been violated on both sides of the conflict and both deserve condemnation. But Russia, as a sovereign state, and as a member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, has a special obligation to avoid civilian casualties during hostilities on its own territory. The practice of calling in indiscriminate airstrikes on Chechnyan villages must end, just as surely as the Chechnyan practice of terrorism must stop. The overall slowing and, in fact, apparent retreat by Russia's leadership in human rights and reform brings into question the future direction of United States-Russia relations, as well as Russia's place in post-cold war alliances, in doubt. President Clinton and Secretary Christopher are right to do all they can to work with the new Russian officials and offer constructive support wherever we can to advance the cause of reform. But we must keep our eye on the ball: our goal is reform--democratic, economic, and military reform--and support for President Yeltsin to the extent that he will deliver those reforms. I conclude by quoting from Mr. Kovalev's March 6 testimony to the CSCE in which he, in turn, drew on the wisdom of one of Russia's leading proponents of democracy and human rights, Andrei Sakharov: the West should have a two-track policy (towards Russia): assistance and pressure. Assist, and effectively assist--the growing civil society and democratic movement in (our) country. Exert pressure, and strong pressure--on those forces that oppose peace, human rights and progress.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, last week retired Army General Barry McCaffrey was confirmed by the U.S. Senate to be this Nation's fifth drug czar. Perhaps the biggest, and most important, challenge facing General McCaffrey is the emerging trend of increasing drug use among young people. A recent survey of students in the 8th, 10th and 12th grades yielded some troubling results. According to the annual Monitoring the Future survey, drug use among secondary school students, particularly marijuana, is on the increase. The nationwide study also found that the use of LSD, stimulants, inhalants and hallucinogens also increased, albeit not to the extent of marijuana use. As a parent, perhaps the most troubling of the study's findings was that which gauged the attitudes of young people regarding the risks of drug use. The proportion of secondary school students who see drug use as dangerous continued to decline in 1995. The significance of this should not be overlooked. In regard to the risk of drug use, the Department of Health and Human Services found that 9 out of 10 adult cocaine users started using drugs as a teenager. The potential problem increases when one considers that there are currently 39 million Americans under the age of 10. Given these demographics, the actual number of teens using drugs will increase when these children reach their late teens and twenties, even if the percentage of users remains the same as it is today. Failure to address these emerging attitudes, in addition to leading to increased youth drug use, may also lead to increased crime and violence which often accompanies drug abuse. In an effort to learn from the experiences of communities all across the Nation and raise awareness about youth drug use and the violence, President Clinton has invited concerned individuals from all across the Nation to a national summit which is taking place today in Greenbelt, MD. In addition several cities, including Milwaukee, will be joining the summit by video teleconference. Wisconsin will be well represented both in Greenbelt and Milwaukee. Among those representing Wisconsin in Greenbelt is Capt. Charles Tubbs of the Beloit Police Department. As head of the department's community relations division, Captain Tubbs has gained national recognition for his efforts in regard to gangs and school related violence. His leadership has led to the development of many community based initiatives which deal directly with the problems associated with young people. Coordinating the Milwaukee site will be James Mosely, director of the Milwaukee-based, Fighting Back Initiative. This program draws upon many resources from throughout the community to deal directly with the problems associated with drug and alcohol abuse in Milwaukee's north and southside communities. The national summit presents an opportunity to learn about these community based antidrug efforts as well as others from all across this Nation. A great deal can be learned from the people in our cities and towns who deal with these problems on a daily basis. A comprehensive antidrug policy must develop partnerships which build on the experiences and needs of local communities. One such partnership involving the Drug Enforcement Agency and law enforcement in northeastern Wisconsin recently resulted in a drug bust garnering 40 pounds of marijuana with an estimated street value of $250,000. The officers of the Brown County Sheriff's Department, as well as the DEA agents who lent a helping hand, deserve our respect and admiration for their willingness to identify a problem and work together to solve it. We should learn from their example, and seek more co-operative efforts of this nature. I am pleased that General McCaffrey has indicated that he intends to do just that. In closing, Mr. President, Capt. Tubbs and James Mosely are just a few examples of the hundreds of dedicated people all across our State who are committed to helping young people lead better lives and in the process, making our communities better places to live. There can be little doubt that drug use, particularly among our young people, presents a danger and that finding the solution will require the dedication of each of us. As General McCaffrey acknowledged, solving the drug problem will not occur overnight, it will take a determined and consistent effort over a number of years. Building on the good work and experiences of people like Charles Tubbs and James Mosely is a good place to start.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. I am moved by the remarks of the junior Senator from California. Let me follow with just a few remarks about recent events in the Middle East.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on February 24, the Cuban regime shot down and killed four men, American citizens, apparently flying over international waters, off the coast of Cuba. No matter how one judges the intent of these four Brothers to the Rescue--and some have pointed out that in the past Brothers to the Rescue violated Cuban airspace and went so far as to overfly Havana and drop anti-Castro leaflets over the Cuban capital--the fact is that they were flying in small, unarmed civilian aircraft. They certainly did not represent a real, physical threat to Cuban security. But the Castro government--no respecter of human rights, of international law, or of common decency--had its MiG fighters shoot down those two defenseless Cessnas. I join my colleagues, the U.S. Government, and the international community in deploring this act of brutality. As appalling as this act was, Mr. President, it should not surprise us. Castro is a dictator who, for 37 years, has ruthlessly trampled on the rights of the Cuban people. The State Department and all reputable human rights organizations point to the routine use of torture, beatings, economic coercion, and suppression of legitimate protest by the Castro regime. Only 2 weeks ago, a small pro-democracy group, the Concilio Cubano, was prevented from holding a meeting and two of its members were summarily thrown into prison after kangaroo court proceedings. That Castro would have his military lash out callously and viciously at a perceived threat, then, is pretty much what we could expect. What surprises me, Mr. President, is how a small, poor island like Cuba continues to elicit the most knee-jerk response from Washington. Certainly, the administration did the right thing in seeking an international condemnation of these intentional murders. I also support President Clinton's order requiring restitution by the Cuban Government--drawing on frozen Cuban assets--for the families of the victims, and the increased use of Radio Marti--and notably not that proven failure, TV Marti--to bring uncensored news and information to the Cuban people. The rush to punish, however, must stop at that point where ill-considered policies undermine U.S. national interest, or lead to a misguided and ineffective policy altogether. That's what this bill did before the shootdown, and what it's going to do regardless of the shootdown. In seeking to pound the final nail in Castro's coffin, H.R. 927 misses its target, causing pain for all but Castro. Very briefly, allow me to enumerate the most obvious flaws: Title I instructs the President to seek a mandatory international embargo against Cuba. This is untenable: The United States is regularly outvoted at the United Nations by margins along the lines of 140 to 2 when we seek to defend our unilateral trade embargo. It is all the less likely to pass given that our closest allies object vociferously to the other provisions of this bill. Title I also requires the President to make it clear to the Cuban Government that: The completion and operation of any nuclear power facility, or b) further political manipulation of the desire of Cubans to escape that results in mass migration to the United States, will be considered an act of aggression which will be met with an appropriate response. . . . What does this mean? Are we threatening, in fact, to bomb or disable a nuclear energy facility in Cuba? I should hope not, and suggesting it as a policy undermines U.S. credibility. Another fault of the bill is section 102, which codifies the trade embargo as law. By this provision, Congress deprives the executive branch of the right to modify, ease or even strengthen the embargo. It would restrict the President's ability to react quickly to events within Cuba or on the international scene as related to Cuba. Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of the Congress' constitutional prerogative to advise and consult closely with the White House on matters of foreign policy. But I do not support leaving Congress alone to legislate United States foreign policy, and in fact fear that we do a disservice to the country if we try. With title III, Mr. President, the bill steps beyond domestic politics and into offending accepted norms of international law. This section, which grants to persons, including those not U.S. citizens at the time of the alleged taking, a cause of action in U.S. Federal court against individuals and foreign entities trafficking in expropriated Cuban properties. This procedure not only threatens to clog U.S. courts, but also defies logic. Their cause of action is rightfully in some, future, Cuban court, not the United States judiciary. Furthermore, contrary to the assertions of supporters of this bill, an international claims settlement procedure already provides an effective mechanism for asserting claims, which is why most certified claimants oppose this bill. Moreover, this provision will not benefit the little guy who lost property in Cuba, since there is a threshold level of $50,000 in controversy, a tremendous amount in 1959 Cuba. Further, to mollify critics, a filing fee of perhaps $4,500 will be imposed. Of course, very few beyond corporate interests can afford to pursue such a costly litigation. If that was not bad enough, title IV of this conference report takes the extraordinary step of mandating the exclusion from the United States of third-party nationals who traffic in such property. Canadian and European business executives, and their governments, are understandably upset at the prospect of their citizens being kept out of the United States because they do business with Cuba. There is an international consensus that countries such as Iran pose a threat to global stability, and therefore travel by its officials should be limited. But people doing business in Cuba are not threats to our security, and accordingly should not categorically be denied access to the United States. Of course, most of our allies don't need visas and will enter anyway, undermining the force of the statute. But it looks tough --and is more or less pointless. Mr. President, this bill's myopic focus on Cuba is one that I find particularly disturbing. Cuba is not significant on the world scene; whatever geostrategic threat it may have posed disappeared 5 years ago, a fact our own military acknowledges. In China, by comparison, we find a country bordering on superpower status. The Chinese Government regularly takes steps which threaten international security in fact: Nuclear equipment sales to Pakistan; saber-rattling across the Taiwan strait; human rights violations on a very brutal scale. China's policies on intellectual property even violate major United States financial interests. Why are we not imposing sanctions on China? Sadly, I know that a bill proposing the same sanctions on China that we are today imposing against Cuba would fail--indicating that to the United States Congress fossilized cold war fantasies are more powerful than the real national security goals of 1996. Mr. President, Cuba is a pariah. Certainly we as a nation have the right to limit our relations, economic and otherwise. Although some might note that after 35 years of embargo, Castro remains entrenched and that the policy needs careful review, I am not advocating a loosening of the embargo. That cannot take place absent an improvement in the atrocious human rights situation in Cuba. But I think we should be consistent in our foreign policy. If we sanction Cuba, then why not those current and former Communists--including those which are actual threats to international security, such as China, or with whom we met in battle at the cost of 55,000 United States soldiers, such as Vietnam? If we choose, instead, to engage such countries in dialog and with economic relations to effect change, then why not Cuba? Instead, we shoot ourselves in the foot. This bill will not topple Castro; it will only give him cause to tighten his grip in the face of the Yanqui threat. It increases our isolation internationally and hobbles our ability to influence events in Cuba in a positive manner. It is an expensive resolution which will bring United States-Cuba politics into our courts. Helms-Burton damages the United States national interest and hurts innocent Cubans and I will vote against it.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. On September 13, 1993, the world watched with hope and fear when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn and began a new era in the Middle East. As much as we hoped there would be an end to terrorism, bloodshed, and occupation, I think just about everyone knew the road to peace would not be that simple. We had reason to cheer though because now the battle lines would be drawn differently. Rather than Arab versus Jew, the peace process created a new alliance, moderate versus extremism, where Israelis, Palestinians, and others were joined to pursue a peaceful and prosperous Middle East. While there were some very tenuous periods during 1994--continued terrorist attacks, such as the disastrous bombing in the center of Tel Aviv, and the bomb attack in Beit Leid where over 20 soldiers were killed, the massacre of 28 Palestinians in Hebron by an extremist Israeli named Baruch Goldstein--nonetheless, Mr. President, the peace process was progressing. By late 1995, in fact, it seemed relations between Arafat and Rabin were warming. Israelis themselves, Mr. President, were becoming more confident that this was the path to take. On November 4, 1995, 150,000 Israeli supporters attended a Tel Aviv peace rally to demonstrate their depth of commitment to the peace process. Then, of course, as we all sadly know, extremism struck again. This time a Jewish radical gunned down Prime Minister Rabin in an effort, of course, to kill the peace process. I think it is important to note that this, too, was a terrorist attack, an attack in the vein of a new Middle East where extremism and violence of any stripe lashes out against any sign of peace and tolerance. Of course, with the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin, the world lost one of its great leaders and great men. He possessed so many attributes that made him an extraordinary figure. As a soldier, he helped build Israel, and as Prime Minister, he paved the way for a peace that can only come from Israel's strengths. With this, he earned the trust and confidence of Israelis who knew that Rabin would not take risks for peace that outweighed the dangers of continued war. He recognized the day had passed when one people in the Middle East can really think seriously about dominating another people; when most Israelis, Palestinians, Jordanians, and others saw that they must co- exist if there is to be any security or prosperity in the region. Rabin put his full weight behind the peace process as the only way to protect Israel's security. His achievements were illustrated again, sadly, during the funeral, an event that in itself helped solidify the process the assassin had tried to stop. The huge United States delegation, which I was fortunate to be part of, testified to the depth of support that the United States has and will offer Israel. The fact that President Mubarak and King Hussein not only set foot in Jerusalem but also eulogized Prime Minister Rabin at his funeral spoke to the commitment for peace with a strong Israel. The more than 40 heads of State and representatives from over 80 countries who were there also signaled international investment in the peace process as well as the tremendous personal tribute to Rabin that it represented. I think Prime Minister Peres has been equally determined in this quest. He has continued implementation of the Oslo II Agreement, expanded relations with Jordan, pursued preliminary peace talks with Syria and he has also cemented ties with other countries. We had hoped that the extremists in the Middle East would have been weakened. But as their ranks have been withering, their hatred was intensifying. Israel, with some cooperation from Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, has continued its war against terrorism, and it is widely assumed that that led to the January assassination of the engineer, the so-called engineer, Yahyia Ayash, the Hamas technician who masterminded the bus explosions in Israel. Mr. President, in the last 9 days, we all know we have seen 4 devastating bombs, all delivered by fanatics on a suicide mission, explode during commuter rush hours in urban centers in Israel, murdering at least 59 people and injuring many more. The horrific images we see on television cannot even compare with the terror any Israeli must now feel when they get on a bus to go to work, pick up their shopping, send their kids to school. This is a real source of insecurity and pandemonium in Israel now. What makes this problem so challenging is how does Israel stop a suicide bomber? There are young Hamas supporters who are willing to blow themselves up as long as they can take a few Israelis with them. At first they said the attacks were in retaliation for the killing of the engineer. Now it is because of Israel's announced war on Hamas. It is really a war against any kind of Western or modern presence in the Middle East and against the peace process. Prime Minister Peres has responded forcefully and decisively. He has pledged that Israel will take all measures necessary to fight the war against terrorism. Last night, they arrested a man from Ramallah who they believe orchestrated three of the last four attacks. A strict closure, a drastic effort to fully separate Israelis and Palestinians, will be in effect, I expect, until the election at the end of May. I am also very proud of President Clinton's efforts and commitments to crack down on the supporters of terrorists. I feel confident the United States will continue to support Israel, be it through strict enforcement of the ban on contributions to Hamas or through more intelligence sharing with Israel to avert would-be attacks, or whatever. But the next steps are really with the Palestinians. The protest demonstration by tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza against the bombers who struck on Sunday in Jerusalem was exactly the kind of support the peace process needs. While moderate Palestinians may feel their lives are in danger by openly opposing Hamas, the peace process could potentially fail if they do not speak out against extremism and demonstrate their investment in the process. Mr. Arafat must do all he can in his power now to prevent further attacks. Political agreements, such as that which he made with Hamas 2 weeks ago, are simply and clearly insufficient. Hamas may now be splintered into several camps and Arafat must counter all of them. He must also recognize that merely arresting people, though a good first step, is hardly sufficient. There must be an aggressive policy of hot pursuit and follow-through in the Palestinian justice system if peace is to be sustained. Mr. President, it is with great disappointment that I say it may be unrealistic to think that Arafat can control the extremists in the Hamas, even if he puts all of his efforts into it. For that reason, it is time again Israel not only join with Arafat in the fight, but also pursue its own means where necessary to protect its citizens. The peace process is in danger. But, as Leah Rabin appealed to us yesterday, it is far from over. In the context of the bombings and atrocities of the last 9 days, there should be a suspension of implementation or further negotiations. Israel is in no position to be talking further peace when the current situation gives its citizens no security. But that is the genius of the Oslo process which Rabin left: Israel can go at its own speed, and it should focus on the fight against terrorism now. Mr. President, this has been a very difficult period and leaves the past and the future in a very confusing posture. But we do know that peace is the only alternative to this war and insecurity. I hope the forces of peace will prevail over the destructive and powerful--but minority--forces of hate. Israel and the Palestinians are too invested in the peace to throw it away now. Even more compelling is that if they did throw it away, war will continue in this and many other forms. For that reason, they must put all their efforts into fighting these forces. The United States also has a continued interest in Israel's security, and the world has a humanitarian interest in halting this mindless violence. I think and hope all parties will rise to the challenge. We must counter the horrific forces of extremism that took Prime Minister Rabin's life, and fight and extinguish the forces such as Hamas that undermine the future of the Middle East. In Rabin's vision of the Middle East, one nation will not stand in opposition to the rights and dignity of another. To achieve this, and to carry on Rabin's lifelong work, violent extremism, such as that which killed Rabin--and President Sadat before him--must be confronted, condemned, and stopped. That, indeed, will continue to be the biggest obstacle to peace. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today with deep sadness to pay tribute to the life of an outstanding educator and civil rights leader, Dr. Harry Hamilton, who died on Monday, February 5, after a battle with Alzheimer's disease. Dr. Hamilton was most recently Director of the Minority and Disadvantaged Student Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison College of Agricultural and Life Sciences where he had a positive impact on countless people. In this position, Dr. Hamilton helped to recruit minority students to the agricultural program at the University of Wisconsin. As a distinguished chemist, Dr. Hamilton was also editor of the Madison based Agronomy Journal. Dr. Hamilton's reputation was one of the reasons the University of Wisconsin is consistently recognized as one of the top public institutions of higher learning in the world. Not only was Harry Hamilton an exceptional educator, he was a leader in race relations in my State of Wisconsin. Dr. Hamilton was one of the founders of the Madison, WI, chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in the 1940's, and was also the chapter's president in the 1940's. As a prominent civil rights leader, Dr. Hamilton was also a member of the Mayor's Commission on Human Rights in the 1960's and was chairman, in 1963, of the local chapter of the United Negro College Fund. He was an active member in his church, the First Congregational United Church of Christ and was sent as an official delegate to the funeral of Martin Luther King in 1968. Dr. Hamilton was born in Talladega, AL, in 1907 where he went to college and later taught as a chemistry professor at Talladega College. Dr. Hamilton also attended the University of Wisconsin-Madison where he earned a master's degree in chemistry in 1935 and a Ph.D. in 1948. Yet, with all of these personal accomplishments, Dr. Hamilton's sense of civic responsibility increased. He was a tremendous role model for anyone who wants to make their community a better place to live. Dr. Hamilton is survived by his wife of 61 years, Velma, and three children, Harry Jr., Muriel, and Patricia, who, like Dr. Hamilton, have been recognized for their contributions to the community. Both Harry and Velma Hamilton were awarded the Alexander Company's Civic Leadership Award and have been recognized by the Madison Rotary Club with a Humanitarian Service Award for their efforts. The Van Hise Middle School in Madison, WI was renamed Hamilton Middle School in honor of Velma and the school's science lab was named for Harry Hamilton. The Hamilton family has earned each and every recognition they have received and should serve as a powerful example of true public service. The death of Dr. Harry Hamilton is a loss to all of us. Without his presence it is more important today that we focus our efforts on the things that Dr. Hamilton valued. His commitment to family, the students he taught and mentored, volunteerism, and the cause of civil rights must continue if we are to honor his memory. In this way, his legacy will live on for generations to come.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I voted against the farm bill today for a number of reasons. First, while I and other Senators from the Upper Midwest were successful in striking from the Leahy substitute the northeast interstate dairy compact, this bill contains no fundamental reform of Federal milk marketing orders so badly needed by Wisconsin dairy farmers. Attempts to reach a bipartisan agreement on a moderate order reform amendment were ended when regionalism overwhelmed reason. I found that very disappointing. I remain hopeful, however, that there will be an opportunity in the conference with the House farm bill to revisit these issues and get some changes that will help create a more level playing field for our dairy producers. Second, Mr. President, I was very disappointed at the process under which the debate over the farm bill took place in the Senate. This is an important bill that is considered every 5 years, and normally consumes several weeks of floor debate following extensive and open committee action. This year the bill was rammed through the Senate in 1 day under tight time controls that allowed little opportunity for Senators to scrutinize neither the underlying bill nor the amendments offered. Furthermore, with only one-half hour to debate each amendment, it was difficult for Members to fully analyze the impacts and implications of their votes. One amendment passed by the Senate was over 500 pages long and was the subject of absolutely no debate. Conducting business under those kinds of constraints is ultimately not good for farmers, consumers, or the taxpayers. We should take the time to debate publicly and examine thoroughly existing farm programs as well as the proposals to change them. At the same time, I recognize the urgency that many in this Chamber felt that some type of farm bill had to move forward quickly so that farmers who are putting seed in the ground right now would have some idea of what Federal policies would be in play for this growing season. But Congress should have begun this process a year ago to give farmers the assurances they need. The need for just any bill is no justification for voting for a bad bill. Ultimately, I voted against this bill because it failed to reform programs in a way which targets benefits to those family farmers most in need, it did little to limit Government payments to the Nation's largest and wealthiest farmers, it provides excessive guaranteed giveaway payments to landowners who never have to plant a crop, and did absolutely nothing to reform Federal milk marketing order to rectify the harms current law imposes on Wisconsin dairy farmers. This farm bill process was fiscally irresponsible policy making. From a deficit reduction perspective, this bill could have achieved far greater budget savings while still protecting family farms. It is my hope that the Senate never again engage in this process for major legislation that affects every farmer, consumer, and taxpayer in this country.

Mr. FEINGOLD. The New York Times editorial states: The price increase [provided in the Compact] would pump perhaps $50 million a year into the bank accounts of New England dairy farmers. But it would needlessly pummel poor parents by forcing them to spend up to 20 percent more to buy milk. The editorial provides some good advice to Senators who will soon vote on this measure--Senators ought to reject the compact because it needlessly harms children. I think that is pretty good advice, Mr. President. In addition to the ill effects on consumers, the compact erects barriers to keep milk from other States from flowing into the compact region. The Compact requires that lower cost milk produced in surrounding States must receive the higher compact price, through compensatory payments, even if producers in those other States can provide that milk at a lower cost to buyers. When you include transportation costs, any buyer of milk in the compact region would be foolish to acquire milk from outside the compact region. Any unwise buyer who did so would soon be put out of business by their competitors. That producers from noncompact States are free to sell into the compact region, as the supporters claim, is accurate. However, there would be no demand for that milk because of the disincentives the compact creates for its acquisition. While compact supporters claim that any producer in the country will be able to benefit from this, it is illogical to conclude that is true. If it were, the compact itself would be rendered ineffective because the compact region would be flooded with less expensive milk from surrounding States. Make no mistake, this compact is only supported by its sponsors because the walls it erects around the compact region are high and well-reinforced. Third, while milk from outside the compact region is prevented from entering, milk processors in the compact region who must pay the higher price for the raw product, may receive a subsidy to allow them to ship their products outside the compact region. The compact includes that trade subsidy because those compact region processors will be required to pay so much for milk that their products would be uncompetitive in other parts of the country where milk producers do not receive artificially inflated prices. For members who think the impacts of the compact are isolated to compact States, I suggest they take a careful look at this provision. The very export subsidies we have been trying to tear down in international trade through GATT and NAFTA will be imposed by the compact region States to the disadvantage of milk processors and producers in other States. In summary, Mr. President, this compact provides authority for six States--and potentially many more--to fix artificially high prices for milk at the expense of consumers. It erects barriers to any noncompact milk, and it subsidizes exports of compact region products. I've talked about the impacts on consumers. But what of the impact on dairy farmers throughout the country? The compact balkanizes the U.S. dairy industry by insulating the Northeast dairy industry from the market conditions that all other farmers in this country must face. And, Mr. President, there are dairy farmers in every State of this Nation that will be affected by this. That is because there is a national market for milk, not a regional one. A surplus in one region depresses prices for all farmers nationally, and a shortage in one region raises prices for all farmers. That is why there is a national system for the marketing and pricing of milk. However, with this compact, when national prices that farmers receive for milk plummet due to changing market conditions, the Northeast compact States will be completely isolated from those price fluctuations. When dairy farmers in Texas or New Mexico or Florida are responding to lower milk prices by reducing supply, the Northeast producers will continue to over-produce milk despite the market signals. And that, Mr. President, will exacerbate the excess supply situation depressing prices nationwide. Not only will the compact insulate Northeast producers from price shocks that all other farmers face, it will also have the effect of driving down prices for dairy farmers in other parts of the country even if supply and demand are in balance. It is a simple fact of economics that dairy farmers respond to higher prices with greater production. The exorbitant compact prices will surely increase production in the Northeast and yet the compact provides for no effective method of supply control. Those surpluses produced in the Northeast will drive down prices for farmers everywhere. In addition, without a market for that surplus milk in fluid form, it will go into secondary milk markets. It will be manufactured into cheese and butter and powdered milk. Those products, generated by excess production in the Northeast, will then compete on the national market alongside products produced in other States by producers receiving far lower milk prices. Not only will noncompact producers suffer from lower prices, but they would also lose markets for their products. Mr. President, not only does this compact fail to recognize the national nature of milk markets, but it builds additional regional biases into current law. The compact exacerbates current inequities of the Federal milk marketing order system that have discriminated against upper Midwest dairy producers for years. It is inherently market distorting and regionally discriminatory. I want to just reiterate, the Senator from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, indicated we will have a opportunity later in the day to vote on something to help the Midwest. That is not clear at all, unless there is an agreement between the parties. We are trying very hard, but if that is not achieved we will be ending up with current law in this area, so there is no real help for the rest of the country in that regard. In addition, this compact will also have a significant impact on the entire U.S. dairy industry. It insulates New England dairy producers from the market. Mr. President, I understand why the compact States want the consent of Congress for this compact. The Northeast is losing dairy farmers. But, Mr. President, the decline in dairy farmer numbers is a national trend and the pain is felt nationwide. Today there are 27,000 dairy farmers in my home State of Wisconsin, more than any other State in the Nation; 15 years ago, Mr. President, there were 45,000. Mr. President, our average herd size in Wisconsin is small--55 cows. These are small farmers who have experienced the same problems facing the Northeast--but far more acutely than any other region of the country and more than any other individual State. My State of Wisconsin, which until 1993 was the No. 1 milk producing State in the country, suffers from the loss of over 1,000 dairy farmers per year. We lose more farms per year than the current number of dairy farmers in five of the six compact States. A recent survey indicated that in the next 5 years 40 percent of our remaining farmers will go out of business. That is over 10,000 family dairy farmers. This trend is mirrored in other States throughout the upper Midwest. While we recognize that there are many reasons for this decline, the overwhelming message I hear from family dairy farmers in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and throughout the Midwest is that we need reform of outdated Federal milk marketing orders which provide artificial advantages to other regions of the country driving Wisconsin farmers out of business. So I understand the desire of the Northeast to remedy their local and regional problems in their dairy industry, however further regionalizing dairy policy is not the answer. Congressional changes to dairy policy must recognize the national nature of milk marketing as well as the comprehensive and interrelated nature of fluid and manufactured milk products. Wisconsin dairy farmers can no longer afford to help other regions at their own expense. The supporters of this legislation have tried to present this as a very simple idea--that of a simple interstate compact designed to help the struggling producers of that region in isolation from national markets and having no unintended effects on non-compact producers. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to recognize that simply is not the case. This compact is unprecedented and Members should not be surprised that approval of this package will result in additional request to approve price fixing compacts. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to strike the Northeast Dairy Compact from the bill. It is not market oriented. It is the antithesis of market orientation and its inclusion in this bill is completely inconsistent with the rhetoric of this Congress including many of the supporters of this compact. Providing congressional consent to this compact in a bill which purports to allow farmers to take their signals from the marketplace not the Government would be the ultimate irony of this farm bill. If we pass this compact today, I believe every Member will soon regret it. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to strike the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact from the farm bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senator Wellstone's amendment to strike the congressional approval to the Northeast Dairy Compact contained in this Leahy substitute. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of his amendment. Mr. President, there are so many things wrong with this Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, it is difficult to know where to begin. The greatest irony of the Northeast Dairy Compact's inclusion in freedom to farm is that the package, in the words of the Agriculture Committee Chairman Lugar, purports to be market oriented. He called this package a bold departure from current law. Well, he's right. The Northeast Compact is a bold departure from current law, but it is far, very far, from the goal of market orientation. Mr. President, the Northeast Dairy Compact is the antithesis of market orientation. It is exactly the type of program that reformers in this body have been targeting for 2 years. Many of those who support the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact have been among the most outspoken critics of farm programs which impose taxes on consumers to support agricultural producers--which is exactly what the Northeast Compact does. But it does far more than that, Mr. President. The compact allows six States with far more consumers than dairy producers, to artificially raise the price that consumers pay for fluid milk. It is a price fixing compact, pure and simple, Mr. President. And it is without precedent in our Nation's history. This is not about States rights. Never was the 10th amendment or the compact clause of our Constitution intended to allow several States to collude to fix prices for products produced in those States while simultaneously keeping products produced in other States out of the compact region. Mr. President, that would be a restraint of interstate commerce. Well, Mr. President, that is what this compact does--it restrains trade and it allows States to fix prices. And it has far- reaching consequences for the entire Nation. Who will pay for the generosity of these compact States to their dairy farmers? Consumers in the compact region and dairy farmers throughout the country. Since this bill has not been the subject of a single hearing in the Senate, and has never been marked up by the committee of jurisdiction, the Judiciary Committee, in the 104th Congress, I think it is important that we review what the compact actually does. First, it allows six States to enter into to a compact to fix prices for fluid milk at a level substantially higher than allowed under the current Federal milk marketing order system. It would also allow six additional States to enter the compact if they wish, along with any States contiguous to those additional six States. This is no small compact, Mr. President. If those additional States are added--and how could Congress justify denying those States if we approve the initial six?--the compact area would comprise 20 percent of national milk production. That is a significant level of production that would substantially disrupt national milk markets and ultimately depress prices for all dairy producers in this country--except those in the compact. Second, the compact would allow those States to set the price for fluid milk up to $17.40 per hundredweight--a full $1.35 above the current minimum fluid milk price in that region established by Federal orders. I would also caution my colleagues that the current fluid milk price for the Northeast is at one of its highest levels in years. What this means is that the $1.35 bonus for New England milk producers is likely the smallest that bonus will be for the 5-year period of this compact. That minimum bonus would translate into a minimum consumer- funded payment of $4,000 for a farmer with a 50-cow herd. Also keep in mind that the minimum price in the compact States is allowed to be adjusted by inflation using 1990 as a base year. By the year 2000 the cap on fluid milk prices could be well over $20 if inflation increases by 3 percent per year. That consumers will pay dearly for the privilege of supporting the New England dairy industry is proven by the provision in this bill that requires the compact States to reimburse the Women, Infants and Children's Supplemental Food Program for the increased cost of milk purchased under the program. However, taxpayers would not be reimbursed for the higher costs of mandatory nutrition programs such as national school lunch and breakfast programs, food stamps, and others. For a Congress so fervently promoting tax breaks for Americans, I am surprised to see this tax on consumers so heartily embraced by the compact supporters and the supporters of the Leahy substitute which contains the compact. I am sure the many consumers in the compact region would like a taxbreak of $4,000 or more each year. Instead they will receive a tax increase through their purchases of milk. I also urge my colleagues to keep in mind, that while in-region milk producers get to vote on whether or not they want the higher price for the compact milk, consumers are afforded no such voice. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the New York Times, entitled ``Milking Consumers,'' be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, only last week the Senate ratified the START II Treaty, putting us firmly back on the road to ending the threat of nuclear annihilation. The next step is to bring to reality the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which would serve to put an end to the practice of testing weaponry which--we pray and can increasingly say with confidence--will never be put to use. This effort was seriously undermined by the French tests, and it has caused other nations to question the point and sincerity of the CTBT. While I harbor deep regrets about the effect of France's unwarranted tests, I want to say now to President Chirac, ``welcome aboard.'' We look forward to close cooperation with France in reaching the goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons, and will work to ensure that its series of tests will be the last ever conducted on the globe.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in welcoming to the United States, the President of France, Jacques Chirac, who will address a joint session of the Congress this morning. I look forward to his remarks and observations, not only on historically close French-American bilateral relations, but on developments on the international scene. The political, economic, and cultural ties which link the French and American people go beyond mere trade of goods and ideas, however important those may be. Our relations with the French are almost as with brothers and sisters; more often than not, France and the United States have stood as allies in the struggle for freedom. The debt we owed France for its assistance during our Revolution, for example, was repaid on the beaches of Normandy. Though we may be friends, Mr. President, it is a strength and beauty of the relationship that permits us to air our differences over some fundamental questions. One of those issues has been the French program of testing nuclear devices in the South Pacific, a regrettable series of tests which, literally and figuratively, have served only to poison the environment and endangered U.S.-led efforts to conclude a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty this year. Since September 5, 1995, Mr. President, the Government of France has exploded six nuclear devices at underground testing sites in the South Pacific. The most recent explosion was made only 4 days ago and came despite French acknowledgement that there had been some leakage of radioactive material into the seabed around the Mururoa Atoll. The French Government ignored, as well, the vociferous protests of various governments of Pacific Rim nations, whose people would be affected by the potentially dangerous effects of leaked radiation. France justified this somewhat colonial action by claiming that its sovereign interest in assuring its security overrode the health and safety of those affected by these tests. These should never have happened. But I do believe, Mr. President, that we can take some satisfaction in President Chirac's January 28 announcement that the testing is now finally and forevermore at end. I salute, too, his claim that France will now seek a lead role in working for a comprehensive test ban. I also applaud President Clinton's leadership in seeking a true ``zero yield'' CTBT. On October 10, 1995, I wrote to the President expressing my concerns about U.S. involvement in the French nuclear weapons program. President Clinton responded with a statement of regret about France's decision on testing, and a pledge to continue to press for a CTBT. I ask that these letters be printed in the Record. The letters follow: U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, October 10, 1995. President Bill Clinton, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: We want to draw your attention to recent reports concerning close cooperation between the U.S. and France in developing the French nuclear weapons program. An article in the Washington Post September 19 suggests that a decades-long period of U.S. support for technical assistance to the French program not only continues, but may soon reach new, unprecedented levels of cooperation. Particularly disturbing are the reports that the U.S. and France are currently negotiating a pact by which the two sides will begin to share sensitive computer codes that describe how nuclear weapons behave when exploded. Further, it is reported that a senior-level American scientist will also help the French government in building and designating a new facility for weapons-related research. These reports are deeply troubling. They serve to undermine the strong political leadership you consistently exhibited in successfully urging the nations of the world to extend the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT) and in your continuing efforts to secure a comprehensive test ban treaty. It also seems to contradict the Administration's very public criticisms of recent French nuclear testing in the Pacific. Moreover, we can speculate that once the French government has access to computer code data generated by the U.S., and designs weapons with technical assistance provided by the U.S., it will seek to test the weapons in the Pacific which, it could be said, will have been god-fathered by the U.S. More troubling still is the possibility that the U.S. itself will share in the data generated by French tests. Cooperation with the French government on matters of mutual security is important. But in order to continue to lead with moral authority on the question of deterring nuclear non- proliferation and on ending unnecessary and harmful nuclear weapons testing, we urge you to carefully review these policies. We believe that taking measures which discourage-- rather than facilitate--nuclear weapons testing should remain the lodestar which guides Administration policy. We thank you for your efforts to date and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Russell D. Feingold. Daniel K. Akaka. Tom Harkin. Byron Dorgan.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a great American city, Milwaukee, WI, on its birthday. Yesterday, Milwaukee celebrated the 150th anniversary of its incorporation. The residents of that small trading center of 1846 would be astonished if they walked the streets of the lively, diverse city of more than 625,000 people today. Milwaukee was born as a city during a very important year in Wisconsin history. Congress passed enabling legislation admitting Wisconsin to the Union in 1846, and delegates gathered that year in Madison for the State's constitutional convention. Milwaukee sits astride the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers on Lake Michigan at the site of three former settlements-- Juneautown, Kilbourntown and Walker's Point--that themselves grew up in the area that had been camping grounds of the indigenous Native American population, including members of the Potawatomi, Ottawa, Chippewa, and Menomonee nations. French explorers, including, notably, Father Jacques Marquette, began visiting the area in the late 1600's, and by the mid-1700's, a trading post had been established. Mr. President, vigorous commerce has been central to Milwaukee's existence from its beginning. What was to become Milwaukee began as three competing commercial ventures by Byron Kilbourn, a surveyor; George Walker, a trader and land speculator; and a fur trader, Solomon Juneau, who brought along a partner, Morgan Martin. By the late 1830's, each venture had spawned individually incorporated settlements whose inhabitants competed fiercely, even coming to blows during local hostilities that flared up into the Great Bridge War of 1845. Realizing that conflict was not the handmaiden to progress, all three settlements eventually agreed to form one city, Milwaukee. Mr. President, Milwaukee, once incorporated, grew quickly; its population soaring from about 20,000 in 1850 to more than 285,000 by the turn of the century and to more than 575,000 by 1930. Immigrants came in several waves, each group establishing its unique imprimatur on the city. In the early 1800's, they were mostly New Englanders and New Yorkers whose roots reached back to England. The first African-American settler, a man named Joe Oliver, arrived in 1835 and worked for Solomon Juneau. By the middle of the 1840's, German immigrants were arriving at the rate of more than 1,000 per week. Irish immigrants arrived, too, settling largely in the city's third ward, on the southeast side of the downtown. The Polish community grew quickly in the late 19th century, giving the South Side its character. The city was eventually populated with settlers from Italy, Hungary, the Balkans, Mexico, nearly every point on the compass. In terms of the diversity of ethnic backgrounds of its residents, Milwaukee is as cosmopolitan a city as one can find. By the arrival of the Civil War, Milwaukee had become a busy center for the quintessential Midwestern hog and wheat industries. In 1868, an iron and steel mill was built south of the Milwaukee River, kicking off a vigorous industrialization. By 1890, the leading industry was the one for which Milwaukee is probably best-known throughout the world-- brewing. Nowadays, the city is the home to companies like Harley-Davidson, Miller Brewing, Master Lock and Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance. Area firms annually create goods with an aggregate value of approximately $19 billion. Mr. President, Milwaukee also has had a lively political history, not just limited to Democrats and Republicans. Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meier grew up and was educated in Milwaukee before leaving to later make her mark in history. From 1910 through 1960, several socialists were elected mayor, running the city for 38 of those 50 years. One of them, Frank Zeidler, was the city's chief executive from 1948 until 1960. Elected to office on a public enterprise program, he doubled the city's size from about 48 square miles to about 96 square miles with an energetic annexation program. Stability has been one hallmark of Milwaukee government, earning the city a reputation for efficiency, honesty and fiscal responsibility, traits that would serve any government well. Three men--Daniel Webster Hoan, Frank Zeidler, and Henry Maier --served as mayor for a total of 64 years. Milwaukee is the home of some wonderful architecture, from some of the impressive homes along Lake Drive to city hall. The city boasts an array of cultural opportunities, including its symphony, a zoological park, the Pabst Theatre and big-league basketball and baseball franchises, as well as other sports teams. Like all modern cities, Milwaukee faces challenges in a rapidly- changing, ever-more-complex world, but, given what I know of the character of the people who live there, I am confident Milwaukee will rise to those challenges. So, Mr. President, let me say, happy anniversary, Milwaukee, and my best wishes for many more.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference report on S. 652, the Telecommunications Act of 1996. I know, Mr. President, that the conferees have made a number of improvements to this legislation and that many of the stakeholders in this bill are pleased with the results. And it is with regret that I must oppose this bill. But I cannot in good conscience cast a vote for legislation that I believe violates our fundamental first amendment rights to freedom of expression. The Internet indecency provisions of S.652, as passed in the Senate, remain virtually intact in the conference report. I am referring to the sections of this bill which would subject to criminal penalties constitutionally protected speech via interactive telecommunications networks--the so-called Internet Indecency provisions. The sponsors of the Internet provisions have good intentions --to protect children from those who might use the Internet to harm them. Sadly, there are those who will use the Internet, as they will use any tool, to victimize children. The sponsors of the Internet provisions of this bill have pointed to the obscene materials and child pornography that can be accessed via the Internet. To be sure, Mr. President, it is out there. Unfortunately, the provisions in this bill will do very little, if anything to protect children. That is because much of what the proponents of this legislation wish to banish from cyberspace is already subject to criminal penalties--obscenity, child pornography and child exploitation via computer networks are already criminal acts. So, if that is the case, what exactly does the provision in the conference report cover? It covers ``indecent'' speech which is afforded far greater constitutional protection than obscenity which is not protected by the first amendment. What is indecent speech? Indecent speech may include mild profanity that children hear on the playground well before they read it on a computer screen. While that language may be offensive to some, it is protected by the first amendment. Mr. President, I have found the rhetoric of the Internet debate interesting. The terms obscenity and indecency have been used interchangeably even though they have very different meanings. I have heard parents voice legitimate concerns about the obscene materials available via computer networks. I have heard them express outrage that their children are solicited by adults for exploitative purposes. But I have never heard a parent say there is too much profanity on the Internet. And yet, that is precisely what this bill covers. Rather than addressing the enforcement needs of existing law, it adds unnecessary to provisions to criminal statutes. That is a fundamental flaw, Mr. President. The legislation does not address the problem it seeks to solve. This does nothing more than current law does to prevent obscenity on the Internet. Instead, this bill steps in and decides for parents which speech is appropriate for their children and which is not. I would contend, Mr. President, that is the role of parents, not the federal government, particularly given that technology exists for parents to block objectionable material. I think, Mr. President, this legislation will do more harm than good. Will parents become less observant of their childrens' use of the Internet now that they think the government has solved the problem? Will they fail to use the technology available to them to regulate their children's access to sites on the Internet? I fear that they will because the U.S. Congress has led them to believe that these new provisions protect children when in fact, they do not. This legislation which provides no additional protection for children comes at a great cost--our rights to free speech over the Internet. This legislation, when it becomes law, will establish different standards for the same speech appearing in different media. More protection will be afforded for profanity that appears in a library book than for the same text which appears on-line. Equally important, this legislation will require all adults to self censor the speech on public newsgroups on USENET to what is appropriate for children in the most conservative American communities. This legislation will bring about the immediate demise of many socially valuable forums on the Internet. It will likely happen as quickly as CompuServe dumped some 200 newsgroups from their network after a German prosecutor suggested they might violate German law. I have come to this floor many times to speak on this topic and I will not take the Senate's time to reiterate the many arguments against these provisions. I do think, Mr. President, that this is a sad day on the Senate floor. That the Internet indecency provisions have met with the barest resistance in this chamber, indicates how quickly this Congress is willing to abandon the United States Constitution in favor of political expediency. My hope, Mr. President, is that the expedited judicial review process provided for in this bill, will quickly lead to a judgment that the Internet indecency provisions are unconstitutional. In the meantime, Mr. President, I will work toward solutions that will protect children on the Internet without trampling on the first amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, 3 years after its signing by the United States and the Soviet Union, the second landmark Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty has finally come to the floor of the Senate for consideration. I want to join the overwhelming majority of my colleagues in strongly supporting the ratification of START II, and hope it will move quickly into force. Indeed, this treaty is key to our national and international security, and will help set the tone for what should be a more peaceful era. Mr. President, the risk of detonation of a nuclear device in Western Europe or the United States may have actually increased since the end of the Cold War. There are literally tens of thousands of weapons, and mass quantities of nuclear materials, in Russia's stockpile, and their safety and security are in question. Just one of those has to get into the hands of a rogue nation or a high-paying terrorist to threaten or destroy Washington, Bonn, London, or any other major metropolis. When START II goes into force, however, 8,000 strategic weapons-- 4,000 from both Russia and the United States--will be tabbed for destruction. This will include the abolition of the core of the Russian nuclear arsenal--the deadly SS-18--and the multiple independent re- entry vehicles [MIRV's], significantly reducing the likelihood of either side launching a nuclear first strike. START II, however, does leave intact our defensive, second strike capability. Implementation of START II, moreover--coupled with the Non- Proliferation Treaty the United States signed earlier this year--would reflect monumental reform of our nuclear posture. Not only will these two treaties help reduce the possibility of an accidental launch or the sabotage of nuclear weapons and materials, they will establish a new approach toward global non-proliferation. As the United States and Russia will downsize their stockpiles, other nuclear countries could proceed with reduction of their arsenals. This will bring us several steps closer to successful conclusion of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. Perhaps the most significant achievements of START II would be the consecration of an international alliance against the scourge of nuclear war, rather than continuation of the build-up by nations which could each independently threaten a nuclear explosion. Mr. President, the post-cold war era brings an opportunity to reshape U.S. defense posture and policy. No longer will we have to rely on the threat of nuclear weapons nor, I believe, permanently deploy United States combat forces abroad, except in limited and rare occasions, in order to protect our interests. While we can all agree on the need--indeed the moral imperative--of ending the threat of nuclear war, there is an equal need for debate on where we go from here. For example, the mission and, indeed, the necessity of alliances such as NATO--anchored in nuclear doctrine and massive retaliation--are only now being reconsidered. The Bosnia operation is the most recent example of an unfortunate tendency to address, by a rather ad hoc process, questions regarding our role, mission and methods in the new era. The Congress, and particularly the Senate, will play a pivotal role in that debate, Mr. President. I have made clear my view that it will be incumbent on this body to assert its constitutional prerogative in shaping the future of our national security posture. Ratifying the START II treaty will be an important step in accepting and asserting our responsibilities. Time is of the essence, Mr. President. The Russian Duma will not ratify the Treaty until the Senate does, and, as we saw in last month's parliamentary elections in Russia, the Duma could become more anti-Western and regressive. We must lock in these reductions, and begin implementation of START II as soon as possible. The Senate has dallied long enough on issues of paramount importance to national security. START II and the equally vital Chemical Weapons Convention have unfortunately been held hostage by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This has reflected badly on this Senate, and badly served US interests. Therefore, I am gratified that we are finally here today, debating START II, and would urge swift ratification of this treaty and the CWC. We must consolidate the gains the new era affords us, lest we revert back to the dangers and antiquated thinking of the cold war.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, of the many controversial issues in the continuing resolution we are considering today, few have been as contentious as the debate about international population programs in the foreign operations appropriations bill. Astoundingly, the entire foreign aid bill has been held up for months by several antichoice Members, mainly in the House, who have, illogically, sought to impose restrictions concerning abortion on international family planning assistance. These misguided provisions are not included in today's CR. Instead we are faced with provisions withholding population funds until July 1, unless there is an authorization, and then limiting funding for the program to 65 percent of today's levels. It is a victory for those of us who are prochoice on the question of abortion, but not very good news for those of us--presumably the vast majority of the Congress, and including most of the people who fought against the original Senate provisions--who support family planning. What a bizarre, if not ridiculous, situation we are in today. As my colleagues will remember, in the name, supposedly, of stopping abortion, the House sought to prohibit U.S. contributions to the United Nations Population Assistance Fund, and reimpose the regressive Mexico City policy on population. Of course, such propositions would not do anything to reduce incidents of abortion, but would actually harm efforts to increase family planning assistance--the best remedy, obviously, for avoiding abortion. Fortunately, these anti-abortion restrictions have all been stripped from the foreign ops bill, and population assistance will not be hindered by irrelevant but damaging restrictions. In that, we have succeeded, finally, in separating population assistance from abortion, and have scored a victory for family planning. The Mexico City policy has been rebuffed by the 104th Congress, and our support for the work of the UNFPA has been reaffirmed. But, Mr. President, the cause of curbing abortion will not be served well by the cuts in population assistance legislated in this bill. In fact, the only inroads the antifamily planning forces made today was in taking gratuitous and harassing shots at the budget for population. While other programs will be held to 75 percent of current funding levels, population programs will be funded at only 65 percent of today's budget. The money will not be distributed until July 1, and even then, it will be apportioned only on a month-to-month basis. Mr. President, this is nothing more than a formula for disarray, and will do nothing to achieve the goals of its sponsors. Who really believes that the rapid, exponential growth of the world's population--regardless of our positions on abortion--does not impact American interests? Population pressures are a linchpin of so many global concerns, such as economic development, health, food security, migration, environment, and improving the status of women. Through the U.S. bilateral population program, as well as our contribution to the UNFPA, we have affected significant successes in all those fields. It is beyond me--and saddens me--that these issues have been entangled in a debate about abortion. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding that family planning and abortion are not the same. Supporters of family planning have been subjected to charges and insinuations that we support China's appalling coercive abortion policy; that we want to fund lobbies that promote pro-abortion policies worldwide; and that we actually want to promote abortion as a method of family planning. All these propositions are untrue, and are in fact red herrings. I'm pleased that they have been recognized as such, and dropped in the final provisions of this bill. Unfortunately, however, the presumptions that underlie this thinking--that family planning is somehow not essential to curbing abortion--are prevailing in this bill. Population assistance should be treated just as any other foreign aid account, and by subjecting it to deeper cuts, and odd distribution guidelines, no one's goal is being reached.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I think we are all very much looking forward to hearing the President's State of the Union Address tonight. It is a great honor to be a Member of this body and a great honor to be able to sit in the room with our national leader and hear his thoughts about the future for this country. I recall just a year ago, when the President gave his first State of the Union Address, under the rule of a different political party in the Congress, that some of the pundits said one of the questions was whether President Clinton would be irrelevant to the process; he had to establish his relevance. That was an absurd proposition. Of course we found, during the past year, it is pretty tough to make any President irrelevant, given his powers and given the willingness of this President to use those powers this year to try to represent the reality of our Government. The reality of our Government in 1995, and now in 1996, is we have a split Government. One party is in the majority in the Congress and one party controls the Presidency. What I appreciated at the time, though, despite some of those press comments about the President's possible irrelevance, is that he came right out there and talked about many issues, and, in the midst of all this alleged irrelevance, he was willing to put on the table something that had been overlooked, perhaps forgotten, in the language of the Contract With America. That is, he brought us back to what I like to call--what many people in both parties like to call--the reform agenda, the political reform agenda. Those were issues across party lines that respond to the national feeling that maybe there is a little bit too much money in Washington that is expressed in too many ways and takes the elected representatives away from focusing on their constituents. So it was very helpful last year when the President in his State of the Union Address referred to the need for Members of Congress to give up the gifts, to have a gift ban. In fact, the President said something like, ``Why don't you just say no.'' Those words were helpful. And it came to pass, in part because of his leadership, in part because of the public's interest. The media helped by exposing the reality of the gift-giving practice. But what helped most of all, along with the President's words, was the fact that there was a bipartisan effort, a true bipartisan effort, first in the Senate and then in the House, to try to stop this ridiculous practice of allowing gifts to be given to Members of Congress. It went into effect on January 1. I do not think it got enough attention in the year-end analysis of what happened in the 104th Congress. There were a lot of bad things to talk about, a lot of failure to resolve, a lot of failure to cooperate between the parties. But on that issue, both Houses in the end responded overwhelmingly and very positively. Tonight is an opportunity for the President, President Clinton, to take us to round 2 of the political reform agenda. I refer to it as sort of the big daddy of political reform compared to the gift ban. That is the issue of real campaign finance reform. President Clinton is no newcomer to campaign finance reform. I remember, as a brandnew U.S. Senator, in January 1993, the President came to our Democratic conference in the Senate. He said he had three top priorities for his term. The first had to do with the deficit and the economy. Of course there has been progress. We are still struggling mightily to try to move forward even more in that area. Second, he talked about his desire to reform our health care system. We have not achieved our goals in that area. That has been an area of disappointment to which we must return. But the third item he mentioned and that not many people are aware that he stressed right from the beginning was his belief that we had to have campaign finance reform for congressional elections, to truly change the tenor of the debate and the policy outcomes in this country. So he did not miss any time. He referred to the unnecessary and extreme hold that powerful moneyed interests have in this town of Washington and he did so in his Inaugural Address. Last summer, when he had the chance to appear jointly with the Speaker of the other body, he was quick to emphasize the issue of campaign finance reform, and did the famous handshake where he indicated his willingness to work together with both parties to solve the problem. So President Clinton has been there whenever the call for political reform has gone out. He has always been supportive, as we try to solve these problems. So he has been a big help. But tonight we need more help. Tonight we need the President of the United States to specifically put his strength, and the strength of his office, and the strength of his resolve, behind a national effort to change our campaign laws so that the people of our country can feel for the first time in a long time that those elections belong to them, that their votes count, and that it is not just the power of big money and influences that they cannot see or hear that control those elections. Mr. President, let us build on the success this year when some Members of this body tried to change the system we have for financing our Presidential election. Let us build on that. We were able to defeat that. The Presidential election in 1992 actually involved less expenditures than the Presidential election in 1988. That is because of the national laws we have had in this area. That is lacking in the congressional area. We have a complete OK Corral situation where any amount of money can be spent, and there are no rules to speak of about how much is spent in these elections. So nothing would be more helpful than to have the President tonight mention the fact that he has been and continues to be very supportive of campaign finance reform. I think he knows there is a unique opportunity in the Congress this year. Working with Senator McCain of Arizona and others we have introduced the first bipartisan campaign finance reform bill in 10 years. It is a voluntary bill, as it must be under the Supreme Court rule in Buckley versus Valeo, but it addresses several of the major areas of concern. It addresses that there is too much money spent in individual elections. It addresses the fact that we would like to encourage candidates to get a majority of their campaign contributions from their own home States. It for the first time addresses the problem that too many people are spending their own personal fortunes to be elected. All of these things are addressed in the bill. I am hoping the President has been made aware of that and is supportive. What is even more exciting is, it is not only bipartisan but it is bicameral. In the House there was another bill being promoted that several of the House Members said, why do we not look at the Senate bill? They made their own version of the McCain-Feingold bill, and they have many supporters of both parties involved. People in the country have noticed. A bipartisan, bicameral bill endorsed by over 25 major newspapers in this country--Common Cause, Public Citizen, and many other groups. Mr. President, I think one of the reasons why it has received such reception from the public is that people know that it is not just a question of too much money being spent in elections. They know there is a connection between what is spent in Washington on campaigns, what is connected to things like why we cannot solve our budget problem, why there is too much money spent in Washington, even though the public is begging us to get our finances under control. In fact, I think there is a direct connection between campaign financing, overspending in campaigns, the drive to raise all the money you can, and the fact that we still have not resolved the deficit problem. The ability of many special interests to secure millions, and sometimes billions, of taxpayers' dollars in Federal contracts and subsidies and other spending programs relates directly to our current campaign finance system where candidates for public office must raise millions of dollars for their campaigns. A report was just issued by the Center for Responsive Politics entitled ``Cashing in From A to Z.'' It is a long report, but they list a few recent examples that I think the public can respond to. Cattle and sheep ranch interests contributed over $600,000 during the last election cycle while fighting to protect Federal grazing fee policies that give ranchers access to Federal lands at below-market prices. The mining industry spent over $1 million in 1993-94 on campaign contributions to Members of Congress so that they could try to prevent the reform of the 1872 mining law which allows people to pay a few thousand dollars for land that contains billions of dollars worth of gold and silver and other minerals. The oil and gas interests contributed over $6.1 million during the last election cycle to help back their hefty 1995 agenda, which included repeal of the alternative minimum tax. They do not even want to pay a minimum tax for all the profits they are making. Mr. President, in the 6 weeks following a close House vote on funding the B-2 bomber, opposed by even the Defense Department, contributions from defense contractor Northrop Grumman's PAC's to House Members who voted for the program totaled over $50,000, just from that one company for that one program that the Defense Department did not even want. Mr. President, obviously I could go on with these examples, but they show the fact it is not just a question of there being too much money in campaigns, but the connection between campaigns and the fact that we still have a terrible budget and deficit problem in this country. So, Mr. President, it has become clear to many of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, that their failed campaign finance system contributes to keeping many unnecessary Government subsidies flowing, and it helps explain why well-financed special interests were able to grab the legislative process by the scruff of the neck in the first place. Mr. President, it is my fond hope the President of the United States will use his bully pulpit and excellent intentions on this issue to give a strong push behind the bicameral, bipartisan effort to reform our campaign finance laws. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me first of all express my appreciation to the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from West Virginia who just spoke about the advertisement that I also saw this morning with regard to Mrs. Clinton and her health care financing proposals as opposed to those of the leadership in the Congress of this session. To suggest that the President's proposal last year was in any way the same in terms of cuts to Medicare and Medicaid is truly absurd. In fact, I want to emphasize that one of the very significant things that the President's plan would have done is provide for the first time a national home- and community-based long-term care program, to help people stay in the community, and I think save the country a lot of money in both the Medicare and Medicaid budget. To suggest that somehow Mrs. Clinton's proposal was in any way, shape or form like what we are seeing today with the slash-and-burn approach to Medicaid and Medicare is, to me, very unfortunate and very distorting and, again, suggests that there is no limit in reference to the actual facts in these situations. I don't know how the American people are supposed to know who to believe. That is the comment I get most often now at home. ``Who do you believe?'' And when you are willing to put an ad on the television that suggests that a program that was proposed by the President last year is essentially the same as the Medicare and Medicaid cuts proposed today, I just get the feeling that people will not have any idea who is telling the truth in Washington. I think we all suffer because of that.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on another matter, 2 weeks ago I came to the Senate floor to urge my colleagues who are telecommunications conferees not to adopt potentially unconstitutional legislation in our efforts to protect children on the Internet. I was concerned about the substantial chilling effect this legislation would have on constitutionally protected speech. The media had just reported recently an online service provider's censorship of the word ``breast'' because it was vulgar, supposedly, despite the fact that that term merely refers to a part of the anatomy. I was and remain concerned that this is the first word of many that will ultimately be censored if legislation criminalizing indecent speech is passed as part of the telecommunications legislation. It seems the conferees have agreed upon a variation of the Communications Decency Act for inclusion in the conference report for the telecommunications legislation. Mr. President, the language very simply would criminalize indecent speech via the Internet that is already today protected in other forms of the media. Vagueness associated with the definition of indecency undoubtedly, Mr. President, will lead to far more censorship than simply the word ``breast.'' Mr. President, these measures, although perhaps well-intended, are poorly targeted to the stated problem. And they will do very little to protect children. If signed into law however, it is very clear that this legislation will be very effective at censoring constitutionally protected speech on the Internet. As I pointed out before, I am extremely concerned about recent congressional focus on ``indecent speech.'' The promoters of this legislation contend they are trying to protect children from obscenity--not indecency but obscenity. The transmission of obscenity is already a violation of criminal law. Use of the word or definition for ``indecency'' makes this legislation overly broad, capturing speech that I do not think many Senators intend or wish to prohibit. Let me give my colleagues an example. The World Wide Web Page for HotWired, the online version of Wired magazine contains a strongly worded editorial about congressional action on the pending indecency legislation. The opinion piece contained at least three ``indecent'' words, based on FCC's current definition, and potentially more depending on the definition used by others. I am not going to say these words on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Mr. President, but this editorial is a political speech, with Members of Congress and Senators as its target. Are the words of this piece harsh? Yes, they are. Will some adults consider the words offensive? Yes, they will. Does the text contain words many of us would not want our children to read? Yes, it does. But does the text contain words that most children have not heard before in the school yard? No, it does not. It does not contain anything unusual in that regard. Is the language in this piece, this alleged profanity in this piece, protected by the first amendment? Yes, it is. You bet it is. But would the writers or transmitters of these words on the Internet be subject to criminal sanctions if the pending legislation passes? I am afraid, Mr. President, the answer is probably yes. Because even though the words do not fall under the definition of ``obscenity,'' and even though you may express these words in any other media and probably be safe from criminal prosecution, under this proposal in the telecommunications bill, these words would probably be defined as indecent and the person who communicates them may be subject to severe criminal penalties. I give this example to point out that the legislation considered by the telecommunications conference committee in its most recent incarnation is overly broad. It will result in censorship, either self- censorship driven out of the fear of criminal prosecution, or censorship by online providers themselves who must protect themselves from criminal liability. America Online's censorship of the word ``breast'', an anatomical reference, was only the beginning. Mr. President, either type of censorship is completely unacceptable and totally unnecessary. The Internet indecency legislation currently under consideration is overly broad, not just in the material covered by the proposed language, but also in the way that such materials are covered. The language would subject anyone who ``displays in a manner available'' to minors so-called indecent materials to criminal penalties. While the proponents of the language are intending to target those who directly provide such materials to minors, it captures a much larger group of people, Mr. President. The term ``available'' has an entirely different meaning in cyberspace than it does in other forms of media. That is because online communications are entirely different than communications over other media. The words ``displays in a manner available'' captures speech over public bulletin boards, USENET groups or World Wide Web Pages that are accessible to anyone with a modem, an Internet connection and the right software. There is no way to know, Mr. President, who will read the message you have posted on these forums or how old that person is, just like there is no way for HotWired to know who on my staff accessed the editorial on their Home Page or the age of that staff person. Simply posting a message which contains profanity on free public access Internet forums expose Internet users to criminal liability if a minor accesses those forums--even if the sender had no intention at all of providing these materials to minors. Let me provide my colleagues with some other examples of some of the socially valuable public forums that one can access on the Internet that may contain indecent speech under the definition in the telecommunications bill. One news group called ``news.newusers.questions'' had the following message posted by an individual: I need urgent information on the prevention of teenage pregnancy. Could someone please help me? There was no indication the sender of this message was a minor. The sender could be an educator, a parent or a social service provider. One reader responded electronically and suggested this individual access a news group called ``alt.parenting.solutions'' and ``alt.parents.teens,'' both of which address the issue in responsible ways. Another reader responded simply with the advice that teens should abstain from sex. Presumably, there will ultimately be a response from a reader that gives explicit rather than general advice. That advice could contain indecent language or explicit words describing preventive measures. Under this proposal in the telecommunications bill, that advice could land the giver of the advice in jail if a minor happens to read the message. Another news group called ``misc.kids.pregnancy'' contained a discussion about breastfeeding, pregnancy, and other adult topics relating to childbirth. Again, some of the language in these discussions was explicit but in no way irresponsible. There is a World Wide Web Page called ``Go Ask Alice'' which is a forum wherein participants ask questions about sexuality, including pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS, birth control, breast implants, rape, menopause and reproductive health. Many of these topics and questions are sexually explicit and contain graphic, but constitutionally protected, language. Another Web page is called ``Truth or Dare: Sex in the 90's.'' This Web page was a forum devoted almost entirely to the topic of ``safe sex.'' One topic discussed was the relationship between some sexually transmitted diseases and cervical cancer in women. Some of the information on this Web page, while it may be distasteful and offensive to some, it is important to many users of this forum. There is also a Web page devoted to prostate cancer--its symptoms, detection, and treatment. There is language on this page, Mr. President, that could be considered indecent. Recall that America Online censored the word ``breast'' because it was on a list of vulgar words, even though the word was used in the scientific context of breast cancer survivors forum. There are Web pages devoted to the detection and prevention of child abuse, including sexual assault. For example, the Sexual Assault Information Page includes a variety of information about abuse as well as access to other Web pages and Internet services dealing with child abuse and assault recovery, such as the Survivors and Victims Empowered Web Page. The SAVE Page is an online support service for victims of abuse, or the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network. There is also a USENET group, accessible to anyone, called ``alt.sexual.abuse'' which is a recovery support forum for those who were abused as children or adults. There may be so-called indecent speech in all of these forums which minors can access. Make no mistake about it, many of these forums contain adult topics of a mature nature. Some of the language is offensive. However, these forums do serve a valuable social function from the standpoint of public health and safety. Mr. President, the material on these forums is not what the congressional proponents of the indecency legislation are targeting, or at least I assume they are not. Proponents are targeting obscenity and pornography. Unfortunately, the legislation will capture speech on all the forums I have mentioned and thousands more like them. If the pending legislation passes, these forums may cease to exist because the users will fear criminal prosecution. Less Restrictive Means are Available to Protect Children There is a better way to protect children, Mr. President, that will not criminalize constitutionally protected speech. Currently there are many software programs available to parents, sometimes for no charge, which allow them to screen out or block their children's access to forums where explicit language is used, including profanity. ``Net Nanny'' prevents children from accessing areas on the Internet that the parents deem inappropriate, and also prevents kids from giving out their names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers or other information that could put them in harms way. Parents can screen out not only indecency but also Websites that include rap music, violent topics, hate speech, political topics, or other types of information that they don't want their children to see. Parents have the option of screening as much or as little as they want. ``Cybersitter'' allows parents to monitor what their children are accessing on the Internet and prevents children from downloading pictures or other graphic images. Mr. President, there are many other types of software available to parents that allow them to decide what is appropriate for their children, based on the characteristics of their family and the maturity of their children. That is the role of the parent, not of the Federal Government. Mr. President, I have spoken in opposition to unconstitutional restrictions on speech via the Internet. I have argued that the pending legislation is likely unconstitutional. I have argued that the legislation is impractical. I have argued that the legislation will not achieve its objective. And I have argued that the legislation will stifle the growth of online communications technology. But, Mr. President, I have received a lot of electronic mail on the legislation being considered by the conference committee in recent weeks from Wisconsinites, who do use the Internet daily. Rather than restate my arguments, I want to let my constituents speak for themselves on this issue. Here is what some of them have said: A photographer, historian and writer in Madison, WI, says: . . . I am deeply concerned that this legislation will overreach its intended purpose. Instead of simply protecting children, this legislation will be so restrictive of communication via e-mail, list service, the World Wide Web, etc, that it will prevent adults from conducting perfectly legitimate exchanges of information. . . . I conduct a great deal of business communication via the Internet and I am fearful about what this latest ill-conceived legislation will do. A father from Madison, WI writes: It concerns me that certain politicians may take advantage of fears held by the public to enact laws that limit our freedom of speech. I myself am a parent and am concerned about some of the trashier content that can be found on the internet. However, I feel that each of us has the right and the responsibility to discern good from bad in our own minds. I raise my son to make good choices in his life . . . I desire to protect him for harm but I would not insulate him from the world and lock him in ignorance . . . the government should never limit his access to the truth. An e-mail from a Milwaukee constituent stated: I strongly urge you to consider other less restrictive means for regulating access to objectionable material by minors such as placing the responsibility in the hands of the parents, where it belongs, not by forcing unconstitutional censorship on the medium. From Shorewood, WI, a parent writes: I am a voting, tax-paying adult U.S. citizen. I am also a church going parent. I feel that it is unacceptable that I could be convicted of a felony for sending a love-letter to my wife. I feel it equally unacceptable that an unenforceable legal regulation of morality infringes upon my right to govern what my daughter may or may not see based on some narrow-minded and likely unconstitutional definition of indecency, especially when technological means of controlling her access are available to me now. From Appleton, WI, an Internet-using constituent says: We all know that the best parental censor to TV is the on- off button. Well, I and many others have installed our own button on the computer. My choice is a program called KidSafe. This program identifies and shows how to lock out adult sites. Indeed a parent can lock out almost anything. . . . I want to tell you that this program is free. And there are all kinds of links to it all over the Web. The cost? A few minutes to download and install it. I count myself among the more conservative citizens. However, I believe some of my co-believers have gone too far. The attempt by any governmental or quasi-governmental body to come into the newsroom and rule on what shall and what shall not be printed in the paper would be shouted down by the populace as naked aggressive censorship. In this case, the computer replaces newsprint, ink and delivery system. Fundamentally though, it's no different. From Reedsburg, WI, an employee of an Internet access provider writes: To enact a law such as the one that just passed the House is paramount to going after manufacturers of baseball bats because someone decided to beat his next door neighbor . . . with one. The farmers in our community use the Internet to access the University of Wisconsin Ag Department . . . Many of our small businesses use it to communicate with customers around the world. Grocery stores and vendors are using the Web to e-mail product orders to vendors. The uses are growing. Please don't stifle growth. An Appleton resident suggested that: The pending legislation is akin to asking telephone companies to monitor all of their phone traffic in order to prevent obscene calls. From Fox Point WI, a constituent writes that: We are all familiar with government intervention and unintended consequences. In this instance, the consequences are clear and devastating to a free and open exchange. A university professor in Wausau, WI, e-mailed: Although the intent [of the computer indecency legislation] is a noble one, the consequences of the bill, if passed, could have a disastrous effect on the Internet as a viable medium for expression, education and commerce. Libraries will not be able to put their entire collections on line and people like me will risk massive fines and prison sentences for public discussions someone might consider indecent. A Hudson, WI, parent shared this advice for Congress and other parents: I've always believed that people should take responsibility for what their children view. This is why my children cannot access the Internet without my consent. They don't have the password. It's that simple. From Plymouth, WI, a pastor in a United Church of Christ Congregation writes: I am concerned about pornography and ``cybersex'' but this [legislation] isn't the direction we should be heading. Personal responsibility needs to be taken and how can that be legislated? Mr. President, there is a lot of wisdom coming from our constituents on this matter. These are people who are using the technology to contact their Senators and Representatives instead of pencil and paper. Unlike many of us here, they rely on cybercommunications in their daily lives. I think my colleagues would do well to listen to their advice. While, I recognize it is unlikely in these late stages of the telecommunications conference that conferees will change their direction on regulating cyberspace, I urge my colleagues to think carefully about this legislation. Including this language in a bill that purports to deregulate telecommunications markets is exactly the wrong direction to take. Mr. President, constituents in my State, parents and others are very concerned about the overbreadth of these provisions, the fact that it may inhibit their ability to communicate in their work or in their own private lives. I yield the floor. Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed that the conferees refused to follow the path of the bipartisan welfare reform bill that was passed by the Senate by a wide margin last September. Instead of following the bipartisan framework set out in the Senate bill, the conferees produced a bill that is punitive in nature and is likely to hurt innocent children, rather than help their families move off welfare into the work force. I will vote against it. Mr. President, when I voted for the Senate-passed welfare reform bill, I expressed my hope that the conferees would return a bill that tracked the Senate measure and avoided the kind of mean-spirited, destructive provisions proposed by the House. Instead, we have a final product that slashes funding for the child care that is essential if we want to avoid leaving young children unsupervised and unattended while their parents are at work, that allows States to immediately reduce their contributions by 25 percent, thereby rewarding States which already spend low levels of their own funds for families while States like Wisconsin which make substantial investments will bear the burden of potential welfare migration, and imposes punitive provisions denying benefits for newborn infants. It also adds harsh new provisions slashing assistance for families with disabled children and an important safety net for impoverished elderly. This is not meaningful welfare reform. It is an abandonment of the bipartisan agreement reached in the Senate-passed bill that has focused upon helping families escape the welfare cycle and gain self- sufficiency. I think the current system is broken and is badly in need of reform, but this is not the way to reform.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Government of China announced last week that it had ``tried'' and convicted Wei Jingsheng of the crime of subversion and had sentenced him to 14 years in prison. The Chinese regime also stripped Wei Jingsheng of his political rights for 3 years. I put quotation marks around the word ``tried,'' Mr. President, precisely because the action taken against Wei Jingsheng is a travesty and a mockery of the concept of due process of law. The 6-hour court proceeding clearly had a pre-ordained result: to severely punish Wei Jingsheng for daring to speak out--as he has since 1978--against the Chinese Government's repression of its own people. Wei Jinsheng is no stranger to harsh, unjust punishments; he has spent most of the past 16 years of his life in Chinese prisons. Yet, when he was released in 1993, he immediately resumed his efforts to shine a light on Chinese Government human rights abuses. Wei Jingsheng's tenacity as leader of China's small, albeit admirably tenacious democracy movement led again to his 20-month detention since April 1994. The abominable sentence handed down today is yet another attempt to muzzle a brave man and to warn any others against dissent. The administration issued a condemnation of the Chinese Government's action and called on it to exercise clemency. While I join in denouncing the sentence and in urging Wei Jingsheng's immediate release, it is also my view--repeated often and publicly--that administration policies toward China have helped pave the way for such cavalier abuse of basic human rights. In 1994, over the strenuous objections of those of us concerned over China's atrocious and repeated violations of international standards of human rights, the administration delinked granting of most-favored- nation trade status to China to improvements in its human rights record. The administration argued then that through ``constructive engagement'' on economic matters, as well as dialog on other issues, including human rights, the United States could better influence Chinese behavior. It was my view then--and it remains so today--that the correct way to influence the Chinese regime is by hitting them in the pocketbook. They want our trade and easy access to our markets. Their economic well- being depends on that access; if we condition our economic relations on their improvement of human rights conditions and movement toward real democratic change, I am convinced they will come around. Certainly, Mr. President, the callous disregard for human rights exhibited by today's action against Wei Jingsheng demonstrates that, after nearly 2 years, dialog and constructive engagement has made no impact on Chinese behavior. We should make it clear that human rights are of real--as opposed to rhetorical--concern to this country. Until such time as Wei Jingsheng and others committed to reform in China are allowed to speak freely their voice and work for change, American- Chinese relations should not be based on a business-as-usual basis. I hope the administration will take this latest sad episode to heart and modify current policy toward China.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, buried in the conference report on the Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1996 is a provision relating to the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, the Pentagon's medical school, that did not appear in either the version of the bill that passed the House or the version that passed the Senate. Though it has no force of law, the provision clearly was inserted by supporters of the university at this stage of the Defense authorization legislation in order to create the impression of support for the medical school. Mr. President, no one reading the record of this measure should be misled by the sense-of-the-Congress provision in Section 1071(c) of this bill. This language has been included at a stage of the legislative process when, barring re-referral of the entire bill, the provision effectively is untouchable. Mr. President, some may wonder why the supporters of the university felt it necessary to engage in this action. The answer, for those who have followed this issue, is undoubtedly to anticipate reaction to a recent report of the General Accounting Office reviewing the cost-effectiveness of the university and alternative sources of military physicians. That GAO report reaffirmed what other studies have found, namely that the university is the single most costly source of physicians for the military. The findings of the GAO, released after the Senate could amend the fiscal year 1996 Defense authorization bill, confirm previous analyses of the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Department of Defense itself, and are a powerful argument for the Pentagon to close the university, or dramatically change its mission. Last session, in assessing the 5-year budget impact of a plan to phase down the school, the Office of Management and Budget estimated $286.5 million in savings, including offsetting increases in the military's physician scholarship program--a less costly mechanism for obtaining military physicians. After the university is fully closed, the annual savings would be in excess of $80 million. Mr. President, as GAO has confirmed, the university is the single most expensive source of physicians for the military. As a practical matter, though, the military does not rely primarily on the university for its doctors. The Pentagon's medical school provides only about 1 of every 10 of the physicians for our military, while nearly three-fourths come from the scholarship program. Nor, evidently, has relying primarily on these other sources compromised the ability of military physicians to meet the needs of the Pentagon. According to the Office of Management and Budget, of the approximately 2,000 physicians serving in Desert Storm, only 103, about 5 percent, were USUHS trained. More generally, testimony by the Department of Defense before the Subcommittee on Force Requirements and Personnel suggested that, based upon a 1989 study, it needed to maintain a 10 percent of retention rate of physicians beyond 12 years, and that alternative sources like the scholarship program may already be meeting the retention needs of the services. Even if military planners decide this level of retention is insufficient, as the GAO report proposed, changes could be made to the scholarship program to address any perceived need for higher retention rates. The GAO report specifically cited a possible enrichment component for the scholarship program which would require a longer payback obligation for selected students in return for additional benefits, training, and military career opportunities. The GAO report also suggested that additional readiness training could be provided through a postgraduate period specifically designed to enhance the physician's preparation for the special needs of military medicine. Mr. President, this latest GAO report joins work done by the CBO, the Vice President's National Performance Review, the Grace Commission, and the Department of Defense itself in questioning whether the cost of maintaining an entire medical school for the Pentagon is justified. The sense-of-the-Congress provision slipped into this conference report cannot change these fundamental judgments. The overall DOD authorization bill is defective in many ways, especially in its failure to shoulder the kind of significant share of deficit reduction necessary to balance the Federal budget in 7 years. The sense-of-the-Congress provision relating to the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences is emblematic of that flaw, and I urge the President to veto this measure when it is presented to him, and push Congress to craft a more fiscally responsible measure.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, first of all, I would like to thank the Senator from North Dakota for his remarks. I think they very correctly set the tone, the tone that should have been established out here this evening, not the tone that we were treated to earlier in the evening. These remarks are not directed at the Chair. In fact, the Chair, the Senator from Utah, I thought very politely and effectively made an analogy to a musical, ``Annie,'' and brought the debate back to an exchange of respect in an attempt to point out the differences we have. What I heard earlier on the floor was just rank partisanship. It was very extreme. It was very harsh. It was very personal toward the President of the United States. When it comes to voting, I think people should do whatever they can to vote their principles, as a rule. Of course, there is such a thing as party loyalty, but you should vote your principles as much as possible. I think the thing that frustrates the American people more than any issue is their belief that this institution is just loaded with partisanship. You know what I tell them, Mr. President? I tell them that actually the U.S. Senate is not as partisan as it looks on television, that the interpersonal exchanges when the TV cameras are not on are really very civil, most of the time, and that they would be proud of it. But I think we went over that line tonight, and it troubles me because recently on a couple of occasions I have parted company with my President and my party and voted with the majority party here. This week I was the only Democrat Member of the Senate to vote against my President on the Bosnia action. I voted with mostly Republicans, because I do not think you should just use partisan consideration when you are doing something as significant as sending American men and women to a very dangerous situation in Bosnia. And more than that, on the issue before us tonight, the budget issue, I was one of only seven Democrats to say, when the Republicans proposed that the budget be balanced within 7 years, I voted, yes, that sounds reasonable. I disagree with the way the Republicans want to do it, but I thought it was reasonable to continue the Government with the agreement that we should balance it within 7 years according to Congressional Budget Office numbers. So I have been giving the Democrat President some heartache lately. I am sure I am not No. 1 on his Hit Parade, as some people say back home. And I regret it when I have to disagree with him. But I am very troubled by the personal attacks I heard on the floor tonight toward the President. I remember when I was a young teenager, the Vietnam war was on. My father and I had a strong disagreement about whether the Democratic President, President Johnson, was doing the right thing in Vietnam, and I said some things that were intemperate about the President. My dad said to me, ``Remember, at any one time you only have one President.'' And I have always remembered that as a basic statement about the responsibility of every American, and especially the Members of this body, about the personal way in which you refer to the President of the United States. The comments that he cannot keep a promise, and the other references seem to me undignified for this great body. In fact, I find it particularly odd that he would be criticized for not keeping a promise when in fact the very issues now that he is being asked to compromise on require him to move away from positions he has taken. The Senator from Pennsylvania said that the President promised a tax cut, middle-class tax cut, but he broke his promise. In fact, what the majority party is asking for is not simply a middle-class tax cut, but a tax cut that is heavily skewed toward not the middle class, but toward upper income people. So, in effect, he is being criticized for not keeping his promises and at the same time being told to break that promise and spend the money even more so on folks who make more. The fact is that this President is a doer. You may not like everything he is trying to do; he may change his mind sometimes and try one thing and then try another, but he is not a do nothing. He is a doer. And the people in my State are pretty positive toward him because they think more than anything else he is trying to solve the problems of this country. So let me put a word in of respect and admiration for that President who I have been forced, out of principle, to disagree with in the last 2 weeks. I do think some of the points that the Members of the other party made tonight about whether we should use Office of Management and Budget or CBO numbers are important issues. But those can be resolved. I think the American people should know tonight what the real roadblock is here on this budget. There is a real roadblock. And if we are going to have a Government shutdown in less than 4 hours, there is a reason why the Government will shut down. It is the same reason why we had the first shutdown. It is the reason we are going to have this shutdown. It is because there is one priority of the majority party here over everything else, one thing that is more important to them than anything else. It is what the Speaker of the other House has called the crown jewel of the Republican contract. Now, you may think, given all the rhetoric of the last few weeks, that crown jewel of the Republican contract would have been balancing the budget. But it is not. That is not the crown jewel of the Republican contract. Guess again. You may think it was passing the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That is not what has been referred to as the crown jewel of the Republican contract. Maybe you would have thought it was the flag burning amendment. Given the rhetoric this week on the floor of the Senate about that, you would have thought that would be what had been identified as the crown jewel of the Republican contract. But it was not. How about the line-item veto? If I had to pick something that was really popular out there in the 1994 elections, and I think was, in fact, one of the issues that drove the Republican victory, it was the desire to give the President the line-item veto. That cannot be the crown jewel, and I will tell you why. Because the House passed the line-item veto in February and we passed it in March in the Senate and guess what, the Republican leadership of this institution has not seen fit to resolve the differences and send it down to the President. They are just sitting on it. This President could have that line-item veto today and be vetoing stuff that he does not believe in. But that, obviously, is not the crown jewel of the Republican contract. The crown jewel is a tax cut. The crown jewel is a $245 billion--I guess it is now down to $242 billion--tax cut, 50 percent of which would go to people who make over $100,000 a year. That is the most important priority. Of course, it is completely and directly inconsistent with the priority of trying to balance the budget, which many of the Senators who spoke on the floor tonight would suggest is the real issue here. The Senator from Pennsylvania said this party, the Democratic Party, does not care about future generations. Does anyone believe that this tax cut is going to future generations? They talk about the $500 per family per kid tax cut. Obviously, as the Senator from North Dakota pointed out, it does not even go to all the families. This is not going into some kid's bank account. This is not going into a trust fund for their education. I hope the kids back home know that some people are trying to suggest that they are going to get that $500 and they get to spend it or their children get to spend it. It is not for that. The parents can take it and spend it on important family needs, but, if they want, they could go spend it at the casino. This debate isn't about money going to the kids and the grandchildren. It is about a tax cut. Of course, we all would like to be able to vote for a tax cut. Everyone would like to have a tax cut. If the money was not needed here to balance the budget, it would be a great idea, but it is not. What it really is is an obsession. The majority party here has an obsession with wanting a tax cut at a time when it obviously makes absolutely no sense. Just before Christmas, it reminds me a little bit of the way they used to do things in the State to the south of us in Chicago. It used to be tradition to hand out a turkey to everybody in the wards, to make sure everybody got a little something around Christmastime to remember who was running the show. How in the world can handing out a tax cut at this difficult time when we are talking about Medicare cuts and Medicaid cuts and student loan cuts and veterans cuts and agriculture cuts, how can it be a priority to hand out tax cuts, 50 percent of which go to people who make over $100,000 a year? How do we get to this point? It has taken about a year. The election was held a year ago November 8. The Contract With America called for this tax cut. But I believe that the top priority had to be, given the mood of the electorate and the rhetoric on the floor during the balanced budget debate, that we have to balance the budget first before we have a tax cut. But that is just the opposite of what is being proposed here. This tax cut would go into effect right away, right as the 7-year plan would begin. I have tried, I was the first Member of the entire U.S. Congress, almost a year ago today, to come out and say we just cannot afford this tax cut. And there are many other Members on the other side of the aisle who have told me personally they do not believe we can afford the tax cut. In fact, at one point, one of them was cosponsoring an amendment with me to eliminate the tax cut. He came over to me and said, ``I'm sorry, I can't stick with you on this anymore. We need our party discipline.'' The party discipline of the majority party here requires that this tax cut be delivered now, even though it flies directly in the face of the presumably principal goal of both parties, which is balancing the budget. So, Mr. President, the fact is, we can have a balanced budget by the year 2002 without a great deal of difficulty. We can have it today, Mr. President, not tomorrow, as the song from ``Annie'' suggests. We can have a balanced budget by the year 2002 without going to the extent of a $270 billion Medicare cut. We can have a balanced budget by the year 2002 without $170 billion in Medicaid cuts. We can have a balanced budget by the year 2002 without $10 billion taken out of student loans. We can have a balanced budget by the year 2002 without $8 billion taken out of veterans programs, including health programs. Mr. President, we can have a balanced budget on or before the year 2002 without shutting down the Government in a few hours. We can have a balanced budget without this acrimony. We can have a balanced budget without this partisanship, but it requires the elimination of this obsession with delivering a tax cut at the same time that you are trying to move right in the opposite direction and when those dollars are needed to balance the budget. I have the good fortune of having a few more words from the song I quoted. The words, I am told, are: When I'm stuck with a day that's gray and lonely, I just stick out my chin and grin and say, The Sun will come out tomorrow, bet your bottom dollar. That is the question. What will we do with our bottom dollar? Will the bottom dollar be used to balance the budget, or will that same dollar be used to give a tax cut to upper-income people? That is the choice before us, and until the people on both sides drop the tax cut, we cannot use that bottom dollar to achieve what I believe is the shared goal here: Balancing the budget by the year 2002. Let me conclude, Mr. President, by saying that we can also have a balanced budget without such rancor and without such disrespect for the Chief Executive of this country. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I begin by thanking Senator Hutchison and others who are leading the effort on the amendment regarding the disapproval of the deployment of United States ground troops to the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mr. President, on today's local NBC-TV news, it was just simply stated that there would be Senate debate today on Bosnia and that there would be a vote. But then the newscaster said, ``But the President does not need congressional approval. The troops are already committed.'' This statement was made as if it is a simple matter of fact. More accurately stated, as if it is an undisputed point of law rather than the subject of what I believe to be one of the oldest and most important debates in our country's history: The question of whether the President can deploy troops without congressional approval. I, and several other Members of the body, have said that we do not agree with this notion and that Congress must--must--approve such deployment, whether it be under article I of the Constitution's war- making powers or under the War Powers Resolution or under a more general notion of the checks and balances between the Congress and Executive. In any event, Mr. President, it is obvious that this institution, this Senate, does not have the will to challenge decades of executive aggrandizement of congressional war powers. This is only the last and most recent chapter of that syndrome. It is certainly not only the act of President Clinton. It has been the act of Presidents of both parties ever since World War II. So it is with disappointment in, what I consider to be, the falseness of this process that I rise to support the only amendment that allows some semblance of what I believe to be Congress' role in this process, and that is to approve or disapprove the sending of tens of thousands of troops into what is indisputably harm's way. This notion that Congress has to approve a deployment is not something in my imagination or just a relic of America's past. It is one of the most important opinions that has been expressed throughout American history. I first ran into it as a high school student, when we were involved--in fact, trapped--in the Vietnam war. During my undergraduate years, I followed the debate and passage of the War Powers Act which was designed because of that crisis. I remember well, when I was a little younger, hearing about the very few Senators--a precious few Senators--who stood up and questioned the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Of course, it was that resolution which let us slip into the quagmire that became known as Vietnam. But my views on this are not just a throwback to Vietnam or the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, although I think appropriate parallels can be made between how we got into Vietnam and what is happening here with regard to Bosnia. There are several recent serious efforts to look at the role of Congress vis-a-vis the Executive in deploying troops. I am specifically thinking of two which were published this year. In his 1995 book ``Presidential Power,'' Louis Fisher carefully documents the constitutional role of Congress. Mr. Fisher dedicates the book to the republican principle that warmaking is reserved for the legislature, and says ``this definition of Executive power''--meaning the prevailing view that seems to dominate our proceedings now--``this definition of Executive power, to send troops anywhere in the world whenever the President likes, would have astonished the framers of the Constitution.'' ``It would have astonished the framers of the Constitution.'' Mr. President, it astonishes me today. I fear it is completely out of sync with our national interests, our international interests, and our capacity to make decisions as a nation in this post-cold-war world. In another book published just this year entitled ``A Culture of Difference; Congress' Failure of Leadership in Foreign Policy'' by Stephen Weissman, it says: ``It is not too much to say that Congress has substantially ceded its fundamental constitutional role in foreign policy.'' As a Senator and as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as a believer in Congress' role in the constitutional system, it is painful to hear that kind of assessment in 1995. But even more painful is to see this acquiescence and timidity played out in the context of Bosnia. Late yesterday afternoon, the debate on various resolutions of support for and opposition to the deployment in Bosnia really began. Unfortunately, the resolution of authorization I would have hoped to have voted on will not be presented. In any case, the debate began yesterday afternoon and will conclude later today, with three votes, leaving essentially just 1 day of debate on a subject involving the sending of upward of 20,000 U.S. troops, or perhaps more, into harm's way. Earlier this year, we spent a month out here on the balanced budget amendment, and I think it was well worth the effort. But just 1 day or 1\1/2\ day on the commitment of U.S. ground troops seems to me to be insufficient. I have listened to just about all of the statements that several Senators have made since last night, either here or on the television. When I was listening, I heard mostly Republican Senators speaking in opposition to the deployment. And, although I do not agree with the conclusions, I was especially interested and impressed with the remarks of the Senator from Maine, Senator Cohen. I appreciated several things he said. The first point he made is that President Clinton is not doing this for political reasons; that President Clinton is sincere in his motives. I believe that, too. I believe he is doing this, not to get votes, but because he believes it is the right thing to do. It is essential that we say that because there are those--including people who agree with me on this issue--who have suggested otherwise. I strongly believe the President, in his heart, believes this is the right thing to do, and that's why he's doing it. I also appreciate what the Senator from Maine said, in candor, about the importance of the debate about constitutional power. He said it is important to resolve the issue of what is the role of Congress and what is the role of the Executive in deploying troops overseas. But then he quickly conceded that it is not going to be resolved on this one. Do you know what, Mr. President? I have been here 3 years and we have already struggled with troop deployments in Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, and Bosnia. That is an awful lot of intervention in just a few years when we do not even have an enemy like the Soviet Union threatening us. Yet on each occasion I have heard Senators say, ``We have to do something about this, but it is not going to be resolved on this one.'' To refer to Senator Cohen's statements again, I want to echo his observation that what is at stake here is not really just that the President has tried to assert warmaking powers. The fact is, Congress has not done its job of using our power either as an institution, as the U.S. Congress, to exert our war powers. In fact, Senator Cohen used the phrase from the law, ``possession is 90 percent of ownership,'' which, in effect, means you have to use the power or it goes away. I remember a scene from the television show ``Dallas,'' years ago, portraying a much more mundane expression of this same concept. It was the episode where the senior Ewing, Jock, was confronting his son, Bobby, who was complaining about his brother J.R. Ewing taking control of the oil company. Bobby said, ``Daddy, you gave me the oil company.'' But Jock said, ``Son, nobody can give you real power. You have to take it.'' That is what Congress must do with regard to the war power: it must take the powers that the framers intended for it and use them. Here we have allowed the President of the United States to commit 20,000 or 25,000 troops without even having a binding vote on it. What do the Members of the Senate who support the deployment say? They say, ``The President should not have done it, but it is too late. He is the President. War Powers Act does not work.'' Even more puzzling, I've heard, ``We have to get this thing done today because the peace treaty will be signed tomorrow.'' These are the excuses that are being used for not exercising our constitutional role of approving or disapproving this action. We have been presented a fait accompli, a done deal. As was said by several Republican members at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing last week, this is really a situation where we are being asked to participate in what is a pseudo-decisionmaking process, where the decision was already made a long time ago in the back rooms of the White House and within NATO, and maybe even in some of the back rooms of this building. That does not take away from the sincerity of the people who came to such understandings, but it does represent an affront to Congress. In effect, the Senate, in its constitutional role, is being co-opted here. The fix has been in for a long time. Again, it is not really just the President's fault. It is Congress' failure to challenge and insist on a procedure whereby there is a true, organized debate, involving public participation, and culminating in a vote that the public will understand to mean that if we say it is a good thing to do, it will happen, and if we say it is not a good thing to do, at least there will be a serious consideration on the part of the Executive that it should not go forward. But that is not what we have here. Senator Cohen pointed out, the Executive should seek a real vote on this mission, if for no other reason than the President and all of us may need--down the road as this operation goes forward and the going gets tough--we may need that understanding and public support which cannot be generated in this context. That is why I introduced, on October 20, Senate Resolution 187. It simply says, ``It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should vote on a measure regarding deployment of U.S. Armed Forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a part of the implementation force as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization prior to the United States entering into a commitment to carry out such deployment.'' That is the sort of resolution that I would have hoped would have gone through this body before the treaty was signed. Another step we should have taken was to lift the UN arms embargo against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I was the first Member of the 103d Congress, as a new freshman Senator, to introduce a resolution calling for lifting the arms embargo. I am certainly not the only one who has advocated that, but I was involved early on, and was pleased to work with Senator Dole who played a great leadership role later on. But I must say, for the leader of this body to suggest that the President failed to lift the arms embargo and that Congress did everything it could do is false. We voted to lift the arms embargo, on S. 21, on July 26, by a vote of 69 to 29; theoretically veto proof. I know the President might have called a few of us and tried to get his numbers up, but where was the attempt to override this veto on the floor of the Senate? Where was Congress in saying we will exert our role and--although we must defer to the President on foreign policy, in many cases--where were we to say that this one was different? Instead, I feel some of the leadership is trying to have it both ways, saying we do not want to confront the President, and that we support him; saying we support the troops, but we did not support the deployment. This is a masterful way to try to have it all ways. I think Senator Brown had it right last night. The more truthful characterization of what is going on here is we are ducking our responsibility. I am very concerned about the process. Mr. President, assuming the vote today really was going to decide whether these troops are going to go or not, I'd like to address the merits, briefly, because I know many other Senators wish to speak. I believe that the United States has a very important interest in Europe--very important. But I am not convinced that we need United States ground troops in Bosnia to protect those interests for us or for Europe. I think the European countries certainly could provide all the ground troops in this case. The list of issues and concerns about this operation are a mile long, whether it be the commitment of troops for just 1 year, or the challenges of the terrain, or to tie in the rationality of this approach with the discrepancy between the arms of the different sides. They are all important issues that have been raised. But, to me, to just come on the floor of the Senate and hear people say it is all about U.S. leadership or European stability, really does not tell me anything. I am not sure what those terms mean in the post-cold-war era. Why cannot the U.S. leadership in this context be defined as air power, naval power, intelligence, resources? Why does the definition inherently have to include the deployment of ground troops? I do not think ground force is inherent in the term ``leadership,'' especially for a country that has shown such leadership already and will continue to show leadership throughout the world. In my mind, ground troops indicate an ultimate physical threat to the United States. What is the ultimate physical threat to the United States that requires the sacrifice of American lives in this case? Is it a threat to Europe? Is it refugees on our doorstep? Is it just the pictures on CNN? I will show you pictures from Liberia, Angola, and East Timor and they are the same or worse. There is a very strong justification to stop the horror in those places as well with American troops. When we look to our European allies in this case, I am not sure whether this is a question of whether we are leading. I am not so sure we are not just being led when it comes to being forced to put our ground troops in to the tune of a third of the I-FoR forces. As far as I understand, the possibility of not committing U.S. troops was not even seriously discussed during the negotiations in Dayton. Again, we have to be cautious about analogies. People ask me if this is like the Persian Gulf or Vietnam. I want to be careful, but I guess I would have to say it is a lot more like Vietnam than the Persian Gulf. Senator Smith spoke last night, as a Vietnam veteran, about the justification for the process of the Vietnamization in Vietnam, and made the parallel that much of the language and things being discussed for the Bosnia mission are not unlike the extremely unsuccessful effort with the Vietnamization of South Vietnam during the Vietnam war. We must learn the lessons of history. I think there are very serious lessons from that quagmire. Also, how does this effort fit in with our main goal of this Congress to balance the budget? We are having a terrible time trying to prevent severe damage to our important domestic programs and to balance the budget. Yet we have already had a $7 billion expense on the Bosnia deal--$7 billion, I say, because the President was determined to veto the defense appropriations increase of $7 billion until this proposal came down the road. I call that $7 billion the opening ante in Bosnia. I think it is going to cost a lot more. Mr. President, I also worry about whether or not this intervention would have so much support if we still had the draft. I have always believed that it was good to have a volunteer Army, but I remember the Vietnam era, and I remember the people from all classes of society and all backgrounds who started to question the war because everybody's kid could possibly go to Vietnam. That is not what is going on here. Have we thought about the economic status, the racial status, the ethnic status of the people who are more likely than others to die in Bosnia? It worries me. It worries me that we are not learning these lessons of history from that period either. Finally, Mr. President, I think we have to ask the question in the post-cold-war era: What are the limits of American power? We are the most powerful country in the world, and we certainly want to stay there. But there are limits. I remember the discussion years ago of the danger that we may try to create or enforce a Pax Americana, as Rome tried to do with a Pax Romana. Rome became overextended and ultimately could not withstand the strain on their own internal well-being. I think this action--which, to me, is the first step toward our attempting to police the world--threatens our own national security. We need a new foreign policy that reflects post-cold-war realities, including our vital interests and our domestic needs. Mr. President, I finish by simply saying that in addition to the fact that we are not following a constitutional procedure which could strengthen us in this kind of commitment, by not avoiding the deployment of ground troops we also run the risk of sapping America's strength from within. So, regretfully, I have to oppose the President on this, which means I will support the Hutchison amendment, and oppose the Dole resolution in support of the deployment. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.