Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask the Helms amendment be temporarily laid aside so I can speak on the bill itself.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from North Carolina be recognized and that I follow him after his remarks.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to remember the The Reverend Leon Sullivan, a civil rights leader who spent his life breaking down the barriers of racial prejudice, and building in their place a more just world for all of us. Among his many accomplishments, Reverend Sullivan crafted the famous Sullivan Principles, which helped to topple Apartheid in South Africa, and he founded Opportunities Investment Centers, OICs, which have brought new hope and new job skills to the lives of people in my state of Wisconsin, and around the world. With everything he did, Reverend Sullivan was both an idealist and a pragmatist. He righted the wrong of prejudice not just by calling for change, but by charting the course by which that change could occur. Leon Sullivan was born in West Virginia in 1922, where his quest for racial justice began in early childhood. He desegregated a restaurant in his hometown at the age of ten, and worked his way through graduate school as the first African-American coin-box collector for the Bell Telephone Company. Later, as pastor of the Zion Baptist Church in Philadelphia, he and other African-American pastors started the highly successful Selective Patronage Program, which boycotted businesses that refused to hire minorities. Then, in 1964, Reverend Sullivan, as always, saw hope and possibility in an unlikely place: an old jailhouse in Philadelphia. In his eyes, the structure could be remade into a center for helping the unemployed reach their full potential. And so it was, through his characteristic hard work and determination. By 1969 about 20,000 minority workers were enrolled in OICs around the country. The OIC in Milwaukee, where I first had the honor of meeting Reverend Sullivan, is the world's largest OIC affiliate, and has helped thousands of people in that community achieve economic independence. The Opportunities Investment Center of Greater Milwaukee is a leader, not only in Milwaukee, but also nationally, in the provision of local employment, training and community development services. The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee established the Sullivan Professorship in 1979 to strengthen the ties between the university and the inner city. OICs are now located in South America, England, Poland and throughout Africa. In the creation of the OIC, and in his myriad other endeavors, Leon Sullivan was often in the forefront of social change. His name is also well known for the creation, in 1976, of the ``Sullivan Principles,'' which outlined a code of conduct by which U.S. corporations operating in apartheid-era South Africa could voluntarily choose to abide. As disinvestment pressures on U.S. companies increased, the Sullivan Principles helped push companies to support education and community development projects outside the workplace that could help improve the quality of life for black South Africans. Reverend Sullivan's legacy lives on in so many ways. In South Africa, thanks to the Sullivan Principles, U.S. companies operating in South Africa still make it a priority to devote significant resources to philanthropic programs, including job training and efforts to create partnerships with black-owned businesses. In Milwaukee, the OIC has succeeded because Reverend Sullivan believed that by empowering people with new skills, he could change lives, and change the world. And he did change the world, from an old jailhouse in Philadelphia, to a Saturday school in Johannesburg, to the Opportunities Investment Center in Milwaukee. Leon Sullivan made enormous contributions--to local communities throughout the United States, and to our global community as well. We remember him today as a great leader who believed in a more just world, and set out to build it. We are grateful that he did.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise with regret to oppose this conference report on the budget resolution. I regret this Congress appears willing to turn its back on 8 years of fiscal responsibility and prudent stewardship of our Nation's resources. The favorable surpluses that we enjoy today did not come quickly or easily. Many of our citizens experienced cuts in their benefits, and many Members of Congress took some hard votes to get there. Regrettably, this Congress seems all too willing hurriedly to dissipate that achievement. The fiscal responsibility over the last 8 years has allowed the Government to pay down hundreds of billions of dollars of Federal debt, and it has allowed interest rates to remain lower than they otherwise would have been, saving so many Americans billions of dollars on their mortgages, car loans, and student loans. We should continue to pay down the debt. Yes, taxpayers deserve tax relief. The surplus does give us a golden opportunity to cut taxes. I supported Senator Conrad's proposal to cut taxes by $745 billion over the next 10 years. With its associated interest costs, that package would have devoted roughly $900 billion to tax relief. The tax cut in this conference report is too large and not responsible. It seeks to devote $1.35 trillion to this one purpose. Interest costs could add another $400 billion to the cost. The budget resolution tax cut is thus almost twice the size of Senator Conrad's more measured approach. The budget resolution seeks to commit these resources all in one fell swoop before the projections of future surplus dollars have proved real, before we have ensured the long-term solvency of the vital Medicare system, before we have brought that program up-to-date with needed prescription drug and long-term-care benefits, and before we have done a single thing to prepare the vital Social Security safety net for the impending retirement of the baby boom generation. This budget resolution addresses the Nation's needs in exactly the wrong order. Some on the other side of the aisle have argued that we need to engage in this rush to cut taxes because if we don't, then Congress will simply spend the money. I share the concern of many of my Colleagues that the Government will spend more than it should. But it appears that this massive tax cut is by no means abating the Government's appetite for spending. Just last Tuesday, for example, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Pentagon wants $25 billion more a year for new weapons alone a whopping 42 percent jump in the Pentagon's procurement budget. And almost unbelievably, this budget resolution gives the Pentagon what amounts to a blank check to spend just what it wants. It contains a special reserve fund that allows for increases in military spending if the President's National Defense Review just asks for them. Some argue that this tax cut will prevent unconstrained government spending. I am concerned that we will end up with both. I share the unease expressed by Senator Sarbanes at a Budget Committee hearing earlier this year, when he said that the powers-that- be here in Washington appear to be taking the lid off of the punch bowl. Remembering the party that Washington had with the taxpayers' money in 1981, I am concerned about the hangover that will follow these festivities today. Recall that back in 1981, they had surplus projections, too. In President Reagan's first budget, incorporating his major tax cut, the administration projected a $28 billion surplus in the fifth year, 1986. In the actual event, the federal government ran up a $221 billion deficit in 1986. The Reagan budget was thus off by $249 billion in its fifth year alone. Over the 5 years covered by the Reagan budget, its projections were off by a total of $921 billion. Expressed relative to the government's total outlays, the first Reagan budget's surplus projection for 1986 was off by an amount equal to fully a quarter of all the government's spending. Expressed as a share of the gross domestic product, the first Reagan budget's surplus projection for 1986 was off by 5.6 percent of the economy. If this budget resolution conference report is off by the same share of the economy as President Reagan's budget was, it will miss the mark by $744 billion in the year 2006 alone and $2.9 trillion over 5 years. As both Senators Conrad and Byrd have ably pointed out, the people who make the surplus projections, the Congressional Budget Office, say in their own report that they regularly miss the mark in their projections. CBO says that over the history of their 5-year projections, they have been wrong in the fifth year by an average of more than 3 percent of the gross domestic product. Thus, CBO says right in their own report that just their average error in the past would lead you to expect that they will be off by $412 billion in 2006. We should not commit to massive tax cuts of the size in this conference report on the strength of these flimsy projections. Rather, we should enact a moderately-sized tax cut now, and revisit the possibility of additional tax cuts in a few years if the projected surpluses actually materialize. And this budget resolution conference report also puts the Nation's needs in the wrong order by committing to these massive tax cuts before we have updated and ensured the long-term solvency of the Medicare system. In their 2001 annual report, concluded under the Bush Administration, the Trustees of the Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund project that its costs will likely exceed projected revenues beginning in the year 2016. The Trustees say: ``Over the long range, the HI Trust Fund fails by a wide margin to meet our test of financial balance. The sooner reforms are made the smaller and less abrupt they will have to be in order to achieve solvency through 2075.'' This budget resolution conference report puts the Nation's needs in the wrong order by putting these massive tax cuts before extending the solvency of Social Security. Social Security's Trustees remind us again this year that when the baby-boom generation begins to retire around 2010, ``financial pressure on the Social Security trust funds will rise rapidly.'' The Trustees project that, as with Medicare, Social Security revenues will fall short of outlays beginning in 2016. The Trustees conclude: ``We should be prepared to take action to address the OASDI financial shortfall in a timely way because, as with Medicare, the sooner adjustments are made the smaller and less abrupt they will have to be.'' We know, these are not alarmist projections. These projections were signed by, among others, Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson. If the right hand of this Government knew what the left hand was saying about our future commitments, we would not be acting first to cut taxes and only later taking steps to extend the lives of Medicare and Social Security. This budget resolution addresses only one side of the Nation's needs. It is a lopsided budget. And we can do better. Let us not neglect our long-term commitments to Medicare and Social Security. Let us not squander years of efforts to balance the budget in one great fiscal jubilee. I urge my Colleagues to reject this conference report. And let us begin to address the long-term needs of our Nation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise to voice my objection to another blow committed by this majority against the Senate. I wish to express my dismay with the majority leader's decision, of which I first learned in Monday's Roll Call, summarily to fire the Senate Parliamentarian because of his advice on a number of budget-related issues. This action appears to be yet another unfortunate turn in the majority's heavy-handed efforts to transform the Senate into another House of Representatives. And I fear that the real victim of this latest purge will be the rules and traditions of this great body. Bob Dove has borne the brunt of the majority's latest outburst, but I fear that the Senate, too, will suffer. Let me begin by noting that I, as others, have had my share of disagreements with Bob Dove during his time as Parliamentarian. I suspect that most Senators who have devoted any time to learning the Senate's rules will find points on which they differ with the Parliamentarian. But in the practice of law that is Senate procedure, the Parliamentarian plays the role of the judge. It is before the Parliamentarian that staff and even Senators make their arguments and state their cases, much as advocates before a court. It is in the nature of judging that a judge cannot please all litigants, and it is in the nature of having a Parliamentarian that the Parliamentarian's advice to the Presiding Officer cannot always please all Senators. Were it not so, we would not have a Parliamentarian. If the Parliamentarian cannot advise the Chair what the Parliamentarian truly believes that the law and precedents of the Senate require, then the office of the Parliamentarian ceases to exist. If the Parliamentarian merely says what the majority leader wishes, then the majority leader has taken over the job. And in that case, the Senate has become less a body governed by rules and precedent and more a body that proceeds according to rule and precedent only when it pleases, in effect at the whim of the majority leader. That the Senate rules constrain the majority has been one of its strengths. It is oft-recounted lore that when Jefferson returned from France, he asked Washington why he had agreed that the Congress should have two chambers. ``Why,'' replied Washington to Jefferson, ``did you pour that coffee into your saucer?'' ``To cool it,'' said Jefferson. ``Even so,'' said Washington, ``we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.'' It is the Senate's rules that allow legislation to cool. It is the Senate's adherence to its precedents and not to a rule adopted for this day and this day only that distinguishes the Senate from the House of Representatives. The Parliamentarian is a vital link in that chain of precedents. It is the Parliamentarian's advice to the Chair that makes this a body governed by rules. The Senate has had an officer with the title of Parliamentarian since July 1, 1935, when the Senate changed the title of the journal clerk, Charles Watkins, to Parliamentarian and journal clerk. Since then, only four other men have occupied the office: Floyd Riddick, Murray Zweben, Bob Dove, and Alan Frumin. These five Parliamentarians held that office for an average of more than 12 years each. By comparison, during the same time, the Senate has had 14 different majority leaders. As Justices sit on the Supreme Court, though Presidents will come and go, so Parliamentarians have maintained the rule of precedent, through changes in political majority. Removing a Parliamentarian because a majority leader disagrees with a decision is akin to a President's attack on the Supreme Court. History has roundly decried President Franklin Roosevelt for seeking to pack the Court. I predict that history will also roundly decry the majority leader's man-handling of the Senate's rules. This majority has torn down another ancient landmark that our predecessors had set up. Once again, this majority has removed another boundary stone that once marked how far we could go. We are left today more bereft of rules, a body less governed by law, and unfortunately more governed by the wishes and ambitions of men and women. The new Parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, has, as I have said, served as Parliamentarian before. I hope this time he can serve for a good long time. I have always known Alan to be a man who calls them as he sees them. I hope that the majority leader will allow Alan to continue to do so. For only by allowing the Parliamentarian to follow his or her best judgment will the office of the Parliamentarian continue to be able to play its important role in preserving the Senate rules, and, thus, in preserving the Senate itself.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Public Safety Act. This bill will prohibit the placement of Federal prisoners in facilities run by private companies and deny specified Federal funds to State and local governments that contract with private companies to manage their prisons. Incarceration, or the deprivation of a person's liberty, is the penultimate control a State exercises over its citizens. That authority should not be delegated to any private, for- profit entity. We must restore responsibility for public safety and security to our Federal, state and local governments. As our nation has confronted prison overcrowding in recent years, private companies have stepped in to help communities address this issue by claiming they could alleviate bed shortages and manage prisons more cost effectively than governments. But private companies and governments do not share the same goals with respect to corrections. Federal, State and local governments are motivated by public safety and justice, while private companies are motivated by a desire to cut costs and make a profit. Today, some 120,000 of our nation's 2 million total jail and prison beds are provided by private for-profit companies. As reports of escapes, riots, prisoner violence, lack of adequate medical care and abuse by staff in private prisons abound, many have begun to question the wisdom and propriety of delegating this essential government function to private companies. At a prison in Youngstown, OH run by a private company, 20 inmates were stabbed, two fatally, within a ten month period shortly after the prison opened in May 1997. After the company claimed it had addressed the problem, six inmates, four of them murderers, cut a hole in a fence during recreation time and escaped in broad daylight. A report released in 1998 by the U.S. Department of Justice cited inexperienced and poorly trained officers and resulting excessive use of force at this Youngstown facility. The Justice Department also noted that the company failed to recognize its responsibilities as a correctional service provider and its reluctance to accept blame for the unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the prison. In 1999, the prison company paid $1.65 million to settle a class action lawsuit brought by inmates who complained that, among other things, the prison provided inadequate medical care and that guards were abusive. Unfortunately, the problems that plague the Youngstown facility are not unique. A private prison in Whiteville, TN, which houses many inmates from my home state of Wisconsin, has experienced a hostage situation, an assault of a guard, and a coverup to hide physical abuse of inmates by guards. A security inspection found that this facility, run by a private prison corporation, had unsecured razors, obstructed views into individual cells, and an unsupervised inmate using a computer lab labeled ``staff only.'' Proponents of prison privatization claim that private prison operators save taxpayers money. But this has never been confirmed. In fact, two government studies raise significant doubt about whether private prisons save money. One study conducted by the GAO stated that there is a lack of ``substantial evidence that savings have occurred'' due to prison privatization. A second study completed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons arrived at the same result: there is no strong evidence to show that States save money by using private prisons. Private prison companies are guided by the same business principles as other corporations. Their goal is to make a profit and, in turn, please officers and shareholders. This profit motive is inappropriate when the safety and security of guards and our communities are threatened by prison violence and escapees. Unfortunately, we have seen this cost-cutting turn into cutting corners on public safety. Cutting corners means hiring unqualified and untrained corrections personnel, as well as understaffing facilities. Furthermore, when prison riots break out or inmates escape, these costs are not cut but instead are shifted to the taxpayers, who must foot the bill for U.S. Marshals, sheriffs or local police or other officials to step in and clean up the mess. Private prison corporations make money when they house more inmates and provide fewer services. The result is that prisoners are deprived of the rehabilitation, education, and training that make it less likely that they will commit more crimes after they have served their time. This drive to keep ``beds filled'' is especially troubling because it adversely affects our nation's African American community, which is already over-represented in the prison system. The legislation I introduce today, The Public Safety Act, addresses these concerns. It prohibits the Federal government from delegating responsibility for incarceration of inmates to private entities. The bill also conditions Federal prison funds to states upon their agreement to retain responsibility for the incarceration of inmates and not contract out this solemn responsibility to private companies. Governments may contract with private vendors to provide auxiliary services such as food or clothing, but governments would be prohibited from contracting out the core correctional responsibility of housing, safeguarding, protecting or disciplining inmates. Correctional officers have joined together with other government employee groups and criminal justice activists to support this legislation. The bill's supporters include the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, the American Federation of Government Employees, AFGE, the International Union of Police Associations, the Fraternal Order of Police and the American Civil Liberties Union. Let us restore safety and security to the many Americans who work in prisons. Let us protect the communities that support prisons. And let us ensure the rehabilitation and safety of the individuals housed there so that they may return to society as productive law-abiding citizens. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Public Safety Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Public Safety Act. This bill will prohibit the placement of Federal prisoners in facilities run by private companies and deny specified Federal funds to State and local governments that contract with private companies to manage their prisons. Incarceration, or the deprivation of a person's liberty, is the penultimate control a State exercises over its citizens. That authority should not be delegated to any private, for- profit entity. We must restore responsibility for public safety and security to our Federal, state and local governments. As our nation has confronted prison overcrowding in recent years, private companies have stepped in to help communities address this issue by claiming they could alleviate bed shortages and manage prisons more cost effectively than governments. But private companies and governments do not share the same goals with respect to corrections. Federal, State and local governments are motivated by public safety and justice, while private companies are motivated by a desire to cut costs and make a profit. Today, some 120,000 of our nation's 2 million total jail and prison beds are provided by private for-profit companies. As reports of escapes, riots, prisoner violence, lack of adequate medical care and abuse by staff in private prisons abound, many have begun to question the wisdom and propriety of delegating this essential government function to private companies. At a prison in Youngstown, OH run by a private company, 20 inmates were stabbed, two fatally, within a ten month period shortly after the prison opened in May 1997. After the company claimed it had addressed the problem, six inmates, four of them murderers, cut a hole in a fence during recreation time and escaped in broad daylight. A report released in 1998 by the U.S. Department of Justice cited inexperienced and poorly trained officers and resulting excessive use of force at this Youngstown facility. The Justice Department also noted that the company failed to recognize its responsibilities as a correctional service provider and its reluctance to accept blame for the unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the prison. In 1999, the prison company paid $1.65 million to settle a class action lawsuit brought by inmates who complained that, among other things, the prison provided inadequate medical care and that guards were abusive. Unfortunately, the problems that plague the Youngstown facility are not unique. A private prison in Whiteville, TN, which houses many inmates from my home state of Wisconsin, has experienced a hostage situation, an assault of a guard, and a coverup to hide physical abuse of inmates by guards. A security inspection found that this facility, run by a private prison corporation, had unsecured razors, obstructed views into individual cells, and an unsupervised inmate using a computer lab labeled ``staff only.'' Proponents of prison privatization claim that private prison operators save taxpayers money. But this has never been confirmed. In fact, two government studies raise significant doubt about whether private prisons save money. One study conducted by the GAO stated that there is a lack of ``substantial evidence that savings have occurred'' due to prison privatization. A second study completed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons arrived at the same result: there is no strong evidence to show that States save money by using private prisons. Private prison companies are guided by the same business principles as other corporations. Their goal is to make a profit and, in turn, please officers and shareholders. This profit motive is inappropriate when the safety and security of guards and our communities are threatened by prison violence and escapees. Unfortunately, we have seen this cost-cutting turn into cutting corners on public safety. Cutting corners means hiring unqualified and untrained corrections personnel, as well as understaffing facilities. Furthermore, when prison riots break out or inmates escape, these costs are not cut but instead are shifted to the taxpayers, who must foot the bill for U.S. Marshals, sheriffs or local police or other officials to step in and clean up the mess. Private prison corporations make money when they house more inmates and provide fewer services. The result is that prisoners are deprived of the rehabilitation, education, and training that make it less likely that they will commit more crimes after they have served their time. This drive to keep ``beds filled'' is especially troubling because it adversely affects our nation's African American community, which is already over-represented in the prison system. The legislation I introduce today, The Public Safety Act, addresses these concerns. It prohibits the Federal government from delegating responsibility for incarceration of inmates to private entities. The bill also conditions Federal prison funds to states upon their agreement to retain responsibility for the incarceration of inmates and not contract out this solemn responsibility to private companies. Governments may contract with private vendors to provide auxiliary services such as food or clothing, but governments would be prohibited from contracting out the core correctional responsibility of housing, safeguarding, protecting or disciplining inmates. Correctional officers have joined together with other government employee groups and criminal justice activists to support this legislation. The bill's supporters include the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, the American Federation of Government Employees, AFGE, the International Union of Police Associations, the Fraternal Order of Police and the American Civil Liberties Union. Let us restore safety and security to the many Americans who work in prisons. Let us protect the communities that support prisons. And let us ensure the rehabilitation and safety of the individuals housed there so that they may return to society as productive law-abiding citizens. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Public Safety Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a report issued yesterday by the Joint Committee on Taxation and hearings that are being conducted today in the Finance Committee on the subject of tax simplification. Last week, on April 16, millions of Americans mailed their tax returns, completing the last step in a process that many found arduous, burdensome, and needlessly confusing. The tax code has become increasingly complex since its last major reform in 1986. Taxpayers grow increasingly frustrated filling out their returns or are forced to pay others to prepare their tax returns for them. The government has thus imposed a kind of tax on paying taxes. In response to this complexity, most people have apparently thrown up their hands and paid others to fill out their returns. The Internal Revenue Service recently estimated that through the first week of April, about 57 percent of all individual income-tax filers used paid preparers. That rate was up from 56 percent last year. Paid tax preparers report that they did a booming business this year. Through March 30, H&R Block's revenue for tax preparation services rose by more than 10 percent over last year, to $1.5 billion. Its average fee rose to about $109. Aside from using paid preparers, to avoid tax complexity, many Americans forgo tax benefits to which they are legally entitled. For example, many people use the standard deduction, even though they would save money by itemizing their deductions. The General Accounting Office recently estimated that on more than half a million returns for 1998, taxpayers did not itemize, even though mortgage interest payments alone would have reduced their taxes or increased their refunds. GAO estimated that the resulting overpayments may have totaled $311 million, or $610 per tax return. Earlier this year, the IRS's acting national taxpayer advocate issued a report to Congress in which he summed up: Complexity ``remains the No. 1 problem facing taxpayers, and is the root cause of many of the other problems on the Top 20 list.'' All this complexity comes with substantial costs to our economy. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said recently: ``The [tax] code today encompasses 9,500 pages of very small print. While every word in the code has some justification, in its entirety it is an abomination. It imposes $150 billion or more of annual cost on our society with no value creation.'' The difficulty of filling out the income tax form is undermining Americans' confidence in the system. When people's interaction with the Federal Government is dominated by complex and burdensome tax forms, it can impair the people's trust in government generally. We need tax reform and simplification. And now is the perfect time to do something about it. In a fine Brookings Institution Policy Brief issued this month, scholars Len Burman and Bill Gale write: Tax complexity is like the weather: everyone talks about it but nobody does anything about it. . . . Unlike the weather, though, policymakers can do something about complexity. And if they do not simplify the tax system now, when there are surplus funds to pay for simplification, they will have lost a golden opportunity. Burman and Gale are right. Tax simplification needs to be an important part of this year's tax policy debate. If Congress is to enact a greatly simplified tax code, it needs to have a thorough understanding of the problem as well as specific proposals to consider. Comprehensive studies of the issue can provide a needed impetus. The Report of Secretary of the Treasury Donald Regan, for example, laid the groundwork in substantial part for the 1986 reform. I chaired the Taxation Committee of the State Senate in Wisconsin when we reformed the tax code in the mid-1980s. Democrats controlled both houses of the Legislature, and we had a Democratic Governor, but we used the Regan tax reform proposal as the basis for much of our own tax reform. The result was a greatly simplified tax system. Following on that model, in last year's budget resolution, I offered an amendment calling for the Joint Committee on Taxation to conduct a study of means by which we might simplify taxes. The Senate Budget Committee adopted the amendment unanimously. And the budget resolution that Congress adopted on April 13 of last year included it as section 336. That section said, in relevant part: ``It is the sense of the Senate that . . . the Joint Committee on Taxation shall develop a report and alternative proposals on tax simplification by the end of the year. . . .'' The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, under the direction of Chief of Staff Lindy Paull, took this and other requests along these lines seriously. They consulted with academics, former chiefs of staff of the Committee, and former Commissioners of the IRS. Staff reviewed proposals that have been made, and considered particular issue areas. The resulting report, released yesterday, suggests ways to accomplish the same policy goals that underlie the current income tax code, but in less duplicative or less convoluted ways. I am glad to see that the Joint Committee has released its report. Similarly, I am gratified that Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley is holding a hearing today to receive the report and discuss this important subject. Although I do not agree with every suggestion put forth in the report, I am convinced that this report and these hearings are exactly the kind of institutional step that we need to take if we are to reform the tax code. Here are a just a few examples of areas where Congress could well simplify the tax code: The AMT: The complicated Alternative Minimum Tax is beginning to affect more and more middle-income taxpayers. It needs reform. Capital Gains: Ever since the 1997 law created differing capital gains rates for differing holding periods, the capital gains form has become very complicated. Some have proposed an exclusion from capital gains income for the first several hundred dollars of capital gains income, so that modest investors in mutual funds would not be subjected to filling out the capital gains schedule. The Earned Income Tax Credit: At the Finance Committee hearing today, Richard Lipton, head of the American Bar Association tax section, argues for simplifying the earned-income tax credit, designed to help low-income working families. In Mr. Lipton's words, ``In effect, Congress has given the poor a tax break with one hand and then taken it away with the other by making it too complex to understand.'' Child Credits: Robert Cherry and Max Sawicky of the Economic Policy Institute have proposed a universal unified child credit that combines the dependent care credit, the earned income tax credit, the child credit, and the additional child credit. Similar work has been advanced by David Ellwood and Jeff Liebman of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. Congress could well examine combining various child credits to make them fairer and easier to use. The Standard Deduction: We could expand the standard deduction so that fewer taxpayers needed to itemize their deductions. The Personal and Dependent Exemptions: Alternatively, we could expand the personal and dependent exemptions. The Nanny Tax: Congress has simplified the law by raising the threshold of wages paid for filing employer taxes and by incorporating the filing into the form 1040. The threshold could be further raised. Education Incentives: Today's code contains several different education incentive provisions, including tuition credits, like Lifetime Learning or the Hope Credit, Education IRAs, State deductible tuition programs, limited interest deductions, and employer provided assistance. These provisions contain numerous and differing eligibility requirements. Congress might work to harmonize these programs. A simplified tax code makes good economic policy sense. We would improve the economy's efficiency if we could minimize the impact of the tax code on the economic decisions of businesses and individuals. The tax code's complexity frustrates average households. This is a real issue with many people of fairly modest means. I hold listening sessions in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year, and I frequently hear of people's frustrations with the tax code's complexity. I am gratified to see that the Joint Committee on Taxation has addressed the budget resolution's request seriously, and has produced its extensive product. I commend the Joint Committee's efforts. We need to advance the process of simplification further. I look forward to working with colleagues in the Finance Committee and the Senate on ways to reform and simplify the tax code.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today marks the 86th anniversary of the beginning of one the great human tragedies of history, the Armenian genocide. Between 1915-1923 as many as 1.5 million Armenians were systematically murdered by the Ottoman Empire and hundreds of thousands more were forced to flee their homeland. These Armenians were victims of a policy intended to isolate, exile and even extinguish the Armenian population. Although nearly a century has passed since this tragedy occurred, we must not wipe it from our consciousness and let it become the forgotten past. Rather, we must continually learn from mistakes of the past so that they are not repeated again and again in the future. Recent history in Bosnia, Rwanda and Kosovo tells us that systematic brutality, that the attempt to wipe out an entire population because of its ethnicity, is still possible. The atrocities that took place in these countries remind us that we still have much to learn. The international community has made some progress, standing up for justice, holding those responsible for genocide and other serious violations of international humanitarian law accountable for their crimes. By establishing war crimes tribunals, like the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY, and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, ICTR, we have begun to send the clear message that such atrocious crimes will not go unpunished. I am pleased that the former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic, who has been wanted on international war crimes charges for his role in the campaign of violence and hate in the Balkans, has finally been arrested. I hope that his arrest marks the beginning of full justice being served with regard to him and others responsible for the unspeakable crimes committed in the Former Yugoslavia. Each day we continue to read about and witness ethnic violence and violations of human rights in countries across the globe. Sadly, in many places this is simply the norm. Clearly there is a great deal of work that still needs to be done to prevent human tragedy. So today as we commemorate the Armenian genocide, let us honor the men, women and children whose lives were lost between 1915-1923, as well as the other countless victims of violence throughout history, and recommit ourselves to efforts that foster acceptance of others, respect for human rights, democratic principles, and peaceful relations between people and nations at all levels.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Hutchinson and Lieberman in cosponsoring this bill. Our enactment of the 527 disclosure legislation last year was an important step toward breaking the logjam on campaign finance reform. It showed that we could come together to pass commonsense reforms that give the public more information about and more confidence in the political process. Since that law went into effect, we have heard legitimate complaints from state and local candidates and PACs, which are in fact exempt from taxation under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, about the burden of complying with the notification and reporting requirements of the law. Senator Hutchinson brought this issue to the fore by offering an amendment to the campaign finance bill that we passed on Monday. I very much appreciate her willingness to withdraw that amendment so we could work out the details together and avoid creating a blue-slip problem with the House that might delay the overall campaign finance bill. The challenge was to address the legitimate concerns raised by state candidates and PACs without opening new loopholes in the law so soon after its enactment. Particularly as we stand poised to enact even more far reaching reforms in the McCain-Feingold bill, it is extremely important that we not weaken existing law in a way that might be exploited by groups wanting to avoid the sunshine that the 527 disclosure law provided. I believe that the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Connecticut have successfully negotiated this difficult terrain. I am proud to support this bill, and I hope it will be quickly enacted.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and colleague from Maine to introduce the ``Teaching Children to Save Lives Act.'' This legislation will help schools in their efforts to provide students with chain of survival training, including training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, CPR, and in the use of Automated External Defibrillators, AEDs. It is vital that we support local and community based efforts to equip younger generations with the necessary skills to deal with life-threatening cardiac emergencies. Over two hundred twenty thousand Americans die each year of sudden cardiac arrest. About 50,000 of these victims lives could be saved each year if more people implemented the ``Chain of Survival,'' which includes an immediate call to 911, early CPR and defibrillation, and early advanced life support. The Teaching Children to Save Lives Act will help strengthen the second link in the Chain by providing grants to schools to implement CPR training programs and help some schools train their students in AED use. In Wisconsin, we've seen many examples where a school age child or teenager is the first witness to a heart attack. Unfortunately, most kids would not know what to do in the face of such an emergency. As a matter of fact, many adults wouldn't know what to do either. In response to this break in the chain of survival, a number of localities have pushed for increased CPR training and public access to defibrillation in schools. In my home state of Wisconsin, a broad coalition including the Children's Hospital of Wisconsin, the American Red Cross, the American Heart Association and the Children's Hospital Foundation created Project Adam in memory of a student who tragically collapsed and passed away while playing competitive sports. This legislation follows the lead of Project Adam, which fosters awareness of the potential for sudden cardiac arrest in the adolescent population and facilitates training of high school staff and students in CPR and in the use of AEDs. The Teaching Children to Save Lives Act builds on these efforts by providing funding to teach the basics of the chain of survival and provide funding for AED training devices. This legislation also has sufficient flexibility to allow States and communities the ability to address their local needs. For example, schools could either begin their efforts to teach the Chain of Survival by starting a CPR training program or build on existing efforts by applying for grants to train students to use automatic external defibrillators. As a result of Project Adam, at least one life has been saved so far and three other children have survived episodes because of early defibrillation. Many of our schools lack the resources they need for basic health educational programs. This legislation would follow the lead of local efforts such as Project Adam and demonstrate that the Federal government wants to be a partner in these lifesaving efforts. I want to especially thank my friend from Maine, Senator Collins, who has worked with me to improve the chain of survival across the United States. Without her leadership last year on our legislation to improve access to defibrillators in rural areas, we would not have been able to move forward with legislation that will improve cardiac survival rates across rural communities. I hope my colleagues will join us in our continued efforts to improve cardiac arrest rates by working with us to pass this important legislation to provide communities the support they need to effectively teach CPR in the schools.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Voinovich and Gregg, to offer this amendment to improve fiscal discipline. Our amendment would strengthen enforcement tools. The amendment would restate the procedure on emergency spending from last year's budget resolution, with one change. It would put emergency defense spending on exactly the same footing as emergency domestic spending. All emergency designations would thus be subject to a 60-vote point of order. As under current practice, if sustained, the point of order would strike the emergency designation, but leave the associated funding. If the funding, without the emergency designation attached, would push the total funding for the bill over its allocation, or over the total discretionary spending cap, another point of order could be raised. Our amendment would also close several budget loopholes. It would make out of order three separate devices used to evade budget discipline: changing the discretionary spending caps, waiving a sequester, and directing scorekeeping. Under current law, doing any of these three things is out of order on any bill not reported by the Budget Committee. Our amendment would extend that prohibition to all bills. This amendment will strengthen budget enforcement. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr President, as we welcome the blooms of spring this April, we should also take a moment to focus on the well-being of our most precious resource, our children. Since 1983, April has been nationally recognized as Child Abuse Prevention Month. Since then, organizations like Prevent Child Abuse America have been passionate advocates for our children and have raised awareness of this egregious problem. In my own state of Wisconsin, the local chapter of Prevent Child Abuse America in Madison has been an effective leader in the fight against child abuse. Child abuse is an urgent national problem. According to Prevent Child Abuse America, more than three million children were reported to child protective service agencies as alleged victims of child abuse or neglect in 1998, and about one million of these reports were confirmed. And these numbers just reflect those cases that were reported. Undoubtedly, many more cases go unreported. Child abuse is not only physical harm, but it can also include emotional abuse and mental damage resulting from physical abuse. The documented physical and emotional harm to children includes chronic health problems, low self-esteem, physical disabilities, and the inability to form healthy relationships with others. Protecting our children should be a national priority. I urge my colleagues and others to support child abuse prevention efforts to protect our nation's greatest resource, our children. Working together, we can help end child abuse.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to reflect on the road this legislation has traveled, and thank the many Members of this body, past and present, who have helped to bring us to this moment. It has been a long road to this moment, and we wouldn't even have begun this journey without the tenacity, dedication and the courage of my good friend from Arizona. He is a great legislator, a great leader, and, above all, a great friend. He and I have been in this fight for many years, and my respect for him has grown with every challenge we have faced together. We have gotten to this moment because of his leadership first and foremost, but also because of the leadership of so many distinguished colleagues who have given this bill their support along the way. I want to take a few moments to recognize some of the Members have contributed to this legislation. I want to thank our earliest supporters, who gave their support to the McCain-Feingold bill when it was first introduced in the 104th Congress, Senators such as John Glenn, Paul Simon, Nancy Kassebaum- Baker, and Alan Simpson, who gave us crucial bipartisan support when this effort was just getting off the ground. This kind of bipartisan bill wasn't totally unprecedented but it was pretty unusual, and the support of those distinguished Senators lent important credibility to our effort in its early days. I thank Senator Lieberman, who has been a steadfast supporter of reform, and who helped to build crucial momentum for this legislation with his leadership on the 527 disclosure bill in the last Congress. The success of that legislation was a great breakthrough after so many years when any reform effort was stonewalled by our opponents. The day that that bill passed the Senate, I remember thinking that enactment of the McCain-Feingold bill was not going to be far behind. And of course the great breakthrough at the beginning of this Congress was the day when Senator Thad Cochran joined us in introducing this bill. I have great respect for Senator Cochran, and his support on this issue has been invaluable. I cannot thank him enough for his commitment to this legislation. Once he joined our effort, he was with us with every ounce of determination and grace that he brings to all of his work here in the Senate. One of our newest Members, Senator Maria Cantwell also gave us important momentum when she made campaign finance reform a central issue in her campaign, and gave this bill her strong support. After her victory, the oft-repeated claim that no Senator has ever lost an election over this issue could simply no longer be made. Senator John Edwards and Senator Chuck Schumer have both been a terrific asset on this issue, especially right here on the Senate floor. Both of them have devoted a great deal of their time, and their skill as debaters, to this bill, and I am very grateful for their efforts. The efforts of Senator Olympia Snowe and Senator Jim Jeffords to craft the phony issue ad provision have been essential to this legislation. They worked tirelessly to put together a balanced provision that gets at the root of the issue ad problem, and I thank them for their tremendous contribution. The Snowe-Jeffords provision is an integral part of our bill, and their mastery of this topic was invaluable to us. I want to particularly thank Senator Carl Levin for his leadership and support, during the last 2 weeks, indeed during every debate we have had on this bill since 1996. His insight on the substance of the issue, and on the workings of this body have been absolutely crucial to the advancement of this legislation. Senator Levin is as tenacious and committed as any Member of this body. We truly would not be here today if he were not on this team. I am deeply grateful to Senator Fred Thompson for this longstanding and steadfast support of this bill, and for his great skill and fairness in negotiating an agreement on hard money limits that the vast majority of this body could support. Without that agreement, we would not be poised to pass this bill. I also want to pay special tribute to Senator Thompson for the work he did investigating the 1996 campaign finance scandals. I also thank our distinguished colleague Senator Susan Collins for her invaluable contributions to this effort. She came on board our bill as a freshman Senator in 1997, in spite of tremendous pressure from her caucus. Over the years, we have met together with many of our colleagues. She has been a tireless advocate for reform, a terrific ally in this fight, and I'm proud to call her a friend and a colleague. I thank Senator Chris Dodd for his tremendous work as floor manager on the Democratic side. He led us through these past 2 weeks with grace and humor and a fierce passion for reform that I deeply respect and for which I am deeply grateful. And finally, I thank the Democratic Leader, Senator Tom Daschle, for everything he has done to bring about the success of this legislation. In the fall of 1997, the entire Democratic Caucus united behind this legislation, and that unity has been crucial to our success. But when this debate began 2 weeks ago, a skeptical press corps wondered whether Democrats really wanted to pass reform. We are about to cast this vote on final passage because Tom Daschle was true to the principles of this party and led our caucus to follow through on the commitment we made to reform 3\1/2\ years ago. I am proud of the bipartisan effort we have made, but I am also proud to be a Democrat, and I deeply appreciate the solid support of my caucus on many crucial votes over the past two weeks. That is a long list of thank you's, but they are all well deserved. In closing, Mr. President, five and a half years after Senator McCain and I first introduced this bill, we are about to have the first up-or-down vote on final passage of this legislation. I have been so proud to be part of a bipartisan coalition of Senators who have brought this bill to this moment and, of course, I am especially proud to be associated with John McCain. I say to the Senator, this has been a heartening experience. With every test over the last 2 weeks, our coalition has grown stronger and more determined to end sham issue ads, improve disclosure, and, most of all, ban soft money which makes this Senate so vulnerable to the appearance of corruption. I urge each and every Member of this body to support this bill. It isn't comprehensive reform. It is a modest beginning, and I hope in the future we can do much more to improve the way we finance campaigns. But this bill, however modest, is also monumental. This is the best chance we have had in more than two decades to rebuild the election laws that have been nearly washed away by the influx of soft money. The system that came from the Federal Election Campaign Act, and was altered by the Buckley decision, has never been perfect, and I am sure it never will be. But the system once served the Nation well, and it can be reformed to serve the Nation well again if we pass the legislation before us. When we stand in this Chamber, we all know that what we say here, and how we choose to cast our votes, becomes a part of the record. All of us have that privilege, to be a part of that history, to add our own words to that indelible record of democracy. We have that privilege because the American people sent us here to be stewards of this system of government. The record is the testament to how well we fulfill that duty, and today I think the record will reflect that we served the people. In this moment, we can show the American people that we are the Senate they want us to be. We can pass this legislation and put our lasting mark on the record of democracy, for ourselves and, most of all, for the people we serve. Mr. President, this is a rare moment. I hope this body will seize this opportunity to enact real reform. My colleagues, I thank you for your support and for your work, and I especially thank the people of Wisconsin for supporting me throughout this effort. I thank my very able staff for their work. My colleagues, I ask all of you now to vote in favor of this bill, S. 27, on final passage. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we have had a full two week debate on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001. It has been a good debate, and the bill has been improved and perfected in many respects. Thirty- eight amendments were offered, and 17 were adopted. Our vote this evening will be the 27th roll call vote of the debate. All Senators have had an opportunity to make a mark on the bill, and I think the Senate and the country have benefitted from this full and fair debate. The sponsors and supporters of the bill have done everything we can to address legitimate concerns about its provisions. In some cases, amendments were offered and adopted, in others, sections of the bill were dropped. Still, this is a complex area of the law, and we know that questions remain about how certain provisions are intended to work. We want to try to answer as many of those questions as we can.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I join in the opposition to the Harkin amendment. There was a very good discussion yesterday about the rarity and lack of wisdom of the nonseverability provisions. To head in that direction, given the rarity of it, given the clear intention of the Senate yesterday, is unwise. We oppose this amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment is acceptable to those who support this bill because we agree with the Senator from Utah that questions about its constitutionality should be resolved promptly. A procedure similar to the one set up in this amendment was used when the 1974 act was challenged, and although not all of us agree with everything that the Supreme Court decided in the Buckley case, the process served the country relatively well. Let me make just a few points of clarification. First, the amendment makes no change in what would otherwise be the law on the issue of who has legal standing to sue. The text of the amendment is absolutely clear on that point. Second, as the Senator from Utah notes, the venue for actions challenging the constitutionality of the bill will be in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, with direct appeal to the United States Supreme Court. The district court will have the power to consolidate related challenges into a single case. Finally, and most importantly, although the amendment provides for the expedition of these cases to the greatest possible extent, we do not intend to suggest that the courts should not take the time necessary to develop the factual record and hear relevant testimony if necessary. And we do believe that the Court should allow interested parties to intervene, or become amici curiae as was done in the litigation that led to the Buckley decision. This case will be one of the most important that the Court has heard in decades, with ramifications for the future of our political system for years to come. By expediting the case, we in no way want to rush the Court into making its decision without the benefit of a full and adequate record and the opportunity for all interested parties to participate. With that understanding, I support the amendment and I commend the Senator from Utah for thinking ahead to the inevitable legal challenges that await this bill and coming up with a fair and expeditious procedure to handle them.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to support this amendment. It would replace section 214 of the McCain-Feingold bill concerning coordination. Section 214 was designed to override an FEC regulation issued in December 2000 and scheduled to become effective soon that many observers of campaigns who are concerned about evasions of the law think is far too narrow to cover what really goes on in campaigns. Senators McCain, Levin, Durbin, and I wrote the FEC during the rulemaking and expressed our concern about the overly narrow interpretation of the law that the FEC had accepted. But almost from the very first day we introduced the bill, we have heard from people about this provision, and what we have heard has not been pretty. It is clear that the provision was not well drafted. It caught what we wanted to catch--groups coordinating activities with candidates without a specific agreement concerning a specific ad or other communication, but it also caught much more, including perhaps legitimate conversations between Members of Congress and groups about legislation without touching on a campaign. I committed to these groups and to my colleagues who expressed concern we would address the problems with 214, and we have with this amendment. But this amendment simply defines ``coordination'' in a general way, using language from current law and language from the Supreme Court opinion in the Colorado Republican case that came down in 1996. Then the amendment instructs the FEC to do a new rulemaking, to interpret and enforce this new and admittedly general statutory provision. The amendment, therefore, gives some guidance to the FEC as to what issues it should address, without actually dictating the result. I think this is a reasonable solution to a difficult problem. I thank all the Senators and staff who have been involved in working out this amendment. There is one thing I want to make very clear and reiterate: While this amendment instructs the FEC to consider certain issues in the new rulemaking, it doesn't require the FEC to come out any certain way or come to any definite conclusion one way or another. Of course, I also want to note that the Senator from Kentucky has repeatedly said this change is being made at the behest of organized labor. That is not true. It is true that labor didn't like the original 214, but neither did a lot of other groups, including the Christian Coalition and the National Right to Life Committee. I ask unanimous consent that the letters from these groups that contacted us and criticized section 214 be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Corps of Engineers Reform Act of 2001. I am joined today in this effort by my colleague in the other body, Congressman Ron Kind. As I introduce this bill, I realize that it is a work in progress. Reforming the Corps of Engineers will be a difficult task for Congress. It involves restoring credibility and accountability to a federal agency rocked by recent scandals, and yet an agency that we in Wisconsin, and many states across the country, have come to rely upon. From the Great Lakes to the mighty Mississippi, the Corps is involved in providing aids to navigation, environmental remediation, water control and a variety of other services to my state. My office has strong working relationships with the Detroit, Rock Island, and St. Paul District Offices that service Wisconsin, and I want the cloud over the Corps to dissipate so that the Corps can continue to contribute to our environment and our economy. This legislation evolved from my experience in seeking to offer an amendment last year to the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to create independent review of Army Corps of Engineers' projects. My interest in an independent review amendment was shared by the Minority Leader, Mr. Daschle, and the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, and a number of taxpayer and environmental organizations including: the League of Conservation Voters, American Rivers, Coast Alliance, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, Izaak Walton League of America, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and Taxpayers for Common Sense. In response to my initiative, the bill's managers, Senator Smith and Senator Baucus, adopted an amendment as part of their Manager's Package which should help get the Authorizing Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, the additional information it needs to develop and refine legislation on this issue through a one year study by the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, on peer review. As part of the discussions with the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, and the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, over the amendment I intended to offer, they have agreed that as the NAS conducts its review, they will hold hearings on the issue of Corps reform and on this bill. It is my hope that through hearings the NAS study and my bill can dovetail nicely so that we have a fully vetted bill which can then be fine-tuned by the NAS recommendations. I feel that this body should pass a serious reform bill this year. The bill I introduce today addresses more than the issue of independent review of Corps Projects. The bill is a comprehensive revision of the project review and authorization procedures at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The aim is to increase transparency and accountability, to ensure fiscal responsibility, to balance economic and environmental interests, and to allow greater stakeholder involvement. The National Research Council recently completed a study of the Corps' analysis of a proposed extension of several locks on the Upper Mississippi River, Illinois Waterway after approximately $50 million was spent examining the feasibility of the proposed project. The National Research Council made several recommendations to revise the inland waterway and water resources system planning. And, as I mentioned, a second National Research Council study, required by the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, is now examining whether the Corps should establish a program of independent review of projects. This bill builds on the key recommendations of the National Research Council study: The Corps should have project review by an interdisciplinary group of experts outside the Corps of Engineers, The Corps should include a broader range of stakeholders in the planning process, The Corps should revise the water resources project planning framework in their internal planning documents (known as the Principles and Guidelines) so that ecological concerns are not considered secondary to economic benefits. The bill achieves this by creating both Stakeholder Advisory Committees and Independent Review Panels. Currently, the Corps goes through a multi-step process leading to project approval and construction. In the existing process, the public has limited involvement and environmental costs can be underestimated. Stakeholder Advisory Committees--comprised of a balance of local government, other federal agencies, interest groups reflecting social, economic, and environmental interests, and interested private citizens--are authorized to provide input in the planning process. The Corps is required to form a Committee under the bill upon receipt of a written request to the Corps by any person to do so. The Committee is comprised of volunteers, and is allowed to provide input to the Corps beginning in the early project stages, such as the drafting of a feasibility study for a project, and conclude at the release of a draft environmental impact statement when the broader public is brought into the project. The Corps is also restricted so that they can spend no more than on the staffing or operations of $250,000 a Committee. In addition, Committee meetings must meet the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA. Any Committee expenses are to be considered as part of the total costs of the project. The bill also provides a comprehensive review of water resources projects by a panel with expertise in biology, engineering and economics. The projects that will become subject to review include any projects, or significant modifications to existing projects: with an estimated cost of over $25 million (approximately 40 percent of the projects funded through the Water Resources Development Act), for which the Governor of an affected State requests independent review, that are determined to have significant adverse impacts on fish and wildlife after implementation of proposed mitigation plans by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, For which the head of another Federal Agency charged with reviewing the project determines that the project has a significant adverse impact on environmental, cultural, or other resources under their jurisdiction, or Determined by the Corps to be ``controversial'' in its scope, impact, or cost-benefit analysis. To address concerns that the Independent Review Panel needs to be truly independent, the Office of Independent Review is established within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works. This office, located in the Pentagon, provides the greatest amount of independence for the review process since the Office of the Assistant Secretary is separate from and above the Chief of Engineers who runs the Corps. Independent reviews are required to be completed in 180 days after they start. They are able to run concurrently with the Environmental Impact Statement Process under NEPA, and, ideally, will conform to that time frame. As with the Stakeholder Committees, the costs of these Panels are capped at no more than $500,000. Any panel expenses are to be considered as part of the total costs of the project and a Panel's product is required to be released to the public and to be submitted to Congress. It is my hope that this legislation will increase transparency of the Corps' decision-making process through greater accessibility by the public and interested stakeholder groups. While there are heartening signs of reform in the Corps Civil Works program, Congress should be working to create an independent process to help affirm when the Corps gets it right and help to provide a means for identifying problems before taxpayer funded construction investments are made. Today we begin that work in earnest. I feel that this bill is a practical first step down the road to a reformed Corps of Engineers. Independent review would catch mistakes by Corps planners, deter any potential bad behavior by Corps officials to justify questionable projects, and would provide planners desperately needed support against the never ending pressure of project boosters. Those boosters, Mr. President, include Congressional interests, which is why I believe that this body needs to champion reform--to end the perception that Corps projects are all pork and no substance. I wish it were the case, that I could argue that additional oversight were not needed, but unfortunately, I see that there is need for additional scrutiny. In the Upper Mississippi there is troubling evidence of abuse. There is troubling evidence from whistleblowers that senior Corps officials, under pressure from barge interests, ordered their subordinates to exaggerate demand for barges in order to justify new Mississippi River locks. This is a matter which is still under investigation, and I hope that no evidence of wrongdoing will ultimately be found. Adequate assessment of the environmental impacts of barges is also very important. I am also concerned that the Corps' assessment of the environmental impacts of additional barges does not adequately assess the impacts of barge movements on fish, backwaters and aquatic plants. We should not gamble with the environmental health of the river. If we allow more barges on the Mississippi, we must be sure the environmental impacts of those barges are fully mitigated. I am raising this issue principally because I believe that Congress should act to restore trust in the Corps if we are effectively going to address navigation and environmental needs. The first step in restoring that trust is restoring the credibility of the Corps' decision-making process. Unfortunately, Congress now finds itself having to reset the scales to make economic benefits and environmental restoration co-equal goals of project planning. Our rivers serve many masters, barge owners as well as bass fisherman, and the Corps' planning process should reflect the diverse demands we place on them. I want to make sure that future Corps projects no longer fail to produce predicted benefits, stop costing more than the Corps estimated, and do not have unanticipated environmental impacts. This bill will help us monitor the result of projects so that we can learn from our mistakes and, when possible, correct them. As a first step, I have committed myself to making Corps reform a priority in this Congress with this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. Not only is this amendment well-intentioned, but it is offered by somebody who anyone in the Senate knows is not only one of the most decent but one of the best Members of this body. Since I have been here, no one has been easier to work with and kinder to me than the Senator from New Mexico. I really appreciate the time which he had for me and Senator McCain. He has been a totally stalwart supporter of reform every year, and has been there on every key vote in this debate. I thank him also for the amendment which we adopted that requires disclosure of Presidential inaugural funds. That is exactly the kind of thing we are trying to accomplish in this effort so the public can be fully informed of what is going on with all of these venues where large amounts of money can have a negative impact on some of our most sacred public traditions. That was an important addition to the bill and will result in more information being available to the public of who is giving large sums of money to the inaugural events. Reluctantly, I will oppose this amendment. The bill addresses a number of problems with our system which the Senator from Connecticut correctly pointed out must be addressed. It is a problem that deserves more study. I don't think this particular approach is one that I am quite ready to accept. I am willing to look at it some more. So I will be taking the same position as the Senator from Arizona, but with a willingness and desire to continue to work on this issue and this idea in the future. Again, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for all of his support.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for ensuring that the Senate has a moment to reflect on the implications of this bill. I think it is very important that we pause to evaluate this legislation, and what it will mean for our parties, and for the voters. As my colleagues might imagine, I take a drastically different view on effects of this legislation than the Senator from Kentucky. I realize that change can be difficult, and even a little scary, but I think it is a mistake to try to scare Members out of voting for this bill. This reform is about increasing the public's faith in our work. This bill doesn't destroy the political parties; it strengthens them by ending their reliance on a handful of wealthy donors. Parties need money to operate, and under this reform, the national parties will be able to raise hard money, just as they have for many years. What they won't be able to do is raise the unlimited amounts of soft money. Just like the parties didn't have much, if any, soft money for much of the 1970s and 1980s. Soft money isn't some magic bullet that the parties need to increase voter turnout or voter participation in the democratic process. Throughout much of the 1970s and 1980s, soft money was mostly absent from party fundraising. The parties raised hard money, and ran their parties on hard money. It is easy to forget that when we look at fundraising today, I know, but it is important to remember as we consider this bill. We didn't need soft money then, and we don't need it now; that is a myth that has been perpetuated, frankly, on both sides of the aisle, and it is time to put that myth to rest once and for all. Neither party can thrive when they are beholden to the wealthy few. Soft money doesn't strengthen the parties, it undermines the spirit that keeps our parties strong. We all know that people, not soft money, are the heart and soul of our political parties. With the soft money system, the parties have been operating outside the spirit of the law, and outside the public trust, for too many years. With this bill, we can return the parties to the people who built them in the first place. Our democracy demands vibrant political parties. No one believes that more than I do. But soft money has, ironically, cheapened our parties. I feel that is true in my own party, and I am deeply saddened to have to say that. Last spring the Democratic Party held a fundraiser where soft money donors in the arena sat down to dinner at lavishly decorated tables, while those who could only afford a cheaper ticket actually sat in the bleachers and watched them enjoy their meal. Is that party-building? I think we all know that to say that kind of event strengthens the parties is just absurd. The parties aren't strengthened when people across the country, Republicans and Democrats, pick up the newspaper and read that their party is giving access and favors to the wealthy, while they struggle to pay for health care coverage, or they worry about how safe their drinking water is. They pick up the paper and see the parties take unlimited money from HMOs and big polluters, and they wonder how in the world could their party really stand up for them when they depend so completely on a wealthy few? The assumption that we can be bought, or that our parties can be bought, has completely permeated our culture. I'd guess that there are few if any Members of this body who haven't faced gone home to face the deep skepticism of their constituents on a given issue, when people felt like they or their party have been ``bought off'' by a wealthy interest. Soft money, like perhaps no other abuse of our system in history, creates an appearance of corruption. To demonstrate that, I want to put in the record two items of interest. The first are the results of a poll conducted just last week by ABC News and the Washington Post. This poll found that 74 percent of the public now support stricter laws controlling the way political campaigns raise and spend money. That is an 8 percent increase from just a year ago. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent. More important, however, the same poll found that 80 percent of the public thinks that politicians do special favors for people and groups who give them campaign contributions. And 67 percent consider this a big problem. Seventy-four percent of those who believe that politicians do special favors for donors said they think these favors are unethical. This is the appearance of corruption. The assumption that politicians are on the take, and that money purchases favors. The ``Coin-Operated Congress,'' as Pat Schroeder used to say. I have felt so strongly over the past few years that money is setting the agenda that began to speak on the Senate floor during debates on substantive legislation about the money flowing from companies and groups interested in that legislation. I have called this the ``Calling of the Bankroll,'' and since I started this practice in June of 1999, I have called the bankroll 30 times. I think it is important for us to acknowledge that millions of dollars are given in an attempt to influence what we do. The appearance of corruption is rampant in our system. I have called the bankroll on mining on public lands, the gun show loophole, the defense industry's support of the Super Hornet and the F- 22, the Y2 K Liability Act, the Passengers' Bill of Rights, MFN for China, PNTR for China, and the tobacco industry. I have talked about agriculture interests lobbying on an agriculture appropriations bill, telecommunications interests lobbying on a tower-siting bill, and railroad interests lobbying on a transportation appropriations bill. I've talked about contributions surrounding the Financial Services Modernization Act, nuclear waste policy, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and the ergonomics issue. I have also called the bankroll on the Patients' Bill of Rights, twice, the Africa trade bill, twice, the oil royalties amendment to the fiscal year 2000 Interior Appropriations bill, twice, and I have Called the Bankroll on three tax bills, and four separate times on bankruptcy reform legislation. I think it is safe to say that the public doesn't think much of the current system, and that soft money plays a big part in the public's lack of faith in us and the work we do. One of the most important ways I think this bill can change the fundraising culture is not just by stopping soft money fundraising, but by stopping soft money fundraising by Members of Congress. Soft money fundraising is something that many Members of this body find deeply troubling. How many of Members of the Senate enjoy picking up the phone and asking a donor for $100,000? How many Senators feel uncomfortable exerting pressure on wealthy interests to come through with big contributions to fuel the fundraising contest between the parties? I have said before that I have had Members tell me they felt like taking a shower after asking for a huge contribution. And I recently quoted Senator Miller's Washington Post op-ed, where he said that after raising soft money, he felt like ``a cheap prostitute who'd had a busy day.'' Haven't we had enough? I think we have. When this body voted 60 to 40 against the Hagel amendment, which would have put the Senate's stamp of approval on the soft money system, I think we really turned a corner in this debate. We joined the rest of the country in recognizing that this system puts our integrity at risk, and that soft money simply isn't worth that risk anymore. This bill will reinvigorate the political process, and it will renew faith in the parties, and in each and every one of us. With the passage of this bill, we won't have to face the accusations that our parties have been bought off by soft money. We won't have to read about million dollar donations or getaways for hundred thousand dollar donors with party leaders, and neither will our constituents. And that will do something to improve the public's attitude toward us, and I think it will improve our own feeling about the work that we do. All of us take pride in our work, and in this institution. But we all face nagging accusations that unlimited money plays a role in the legislative process in which all of us play a part. Today we have a rare chance to change that, and I believe we will. I stand here today before my colleagues to say that soft money isn't good for politics. It is time to stop protecting soft money, or defending it as something that strengthens our parties, or the political life of the nation. Soft money removes people of average means from the political process, and replaces them with a handful of wealthy interests. So to say that soft money is good for parties is to say that people, the party faithful who should be the lifeblood of a political party, don't really count anymore. That in the quest for unlimited contributions, the parties are willing to forgo the trust of the people they purport to serve. I don't accept that point of view. And I don't think that most of my colleagues do either. Soft money does a disservice to the work of this Senate, it does a disservice to our parties, and most of all, it does a grave disservice to the American people. So let us come together to end the soft money system, and dispel the tired myth that soft money is good for democracy once and for all. I ask unanimous consent that a chart detailing the times I have called the bankroll be included in the Record at this point.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator. I join with my colleague in thanking each and every Member of this body for the way this debate has been conducted. It has been a great example of the way this institution can work. The Senator from Arizona is also right about the ultimate point. This amendment is couched in rather technical terms--severability or nonseverability. But it truly is the whole issue. I said it time and again, but it is the most important thing to point out to people, and that is that we have never allowed unlimited campaign contributions from corporate treasuries to political parties since 1907. We have never allowed unions to do the same thing from their treasury since 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act. But now, in the 1990s, the early part of this century, Members of Congress are engaged in asking for $100,000, $500,000, and $1 million contributions. I say to you, Mr. President, if you told me even 10 years ago that such a practice could ever occur in this democracy, I would have been stunned. But it is standard procedure today. This vote on this amendment will decide whether this terribly unfortunate and corrupting system continues or not. This is the soft money vote. This is where the Senate takes its stand. This is the test. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally.