Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. Among its health provisions, this bill also includes spending legislation to restore health care cuts made in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I strongly oppose the provisions in the Medicare provider payment restoration bill that disproportionately allocate scarce Medicare resources towards Medicare health maintenance organizations-- HMOs--and away from beneficiary and health care provider needs. The Medicare HMO program already treats our Wisconsin seniors unfairly. I cannot support increasing payments to a system that treats Wisconsin's seniors like second class citizens. Not only are these increased payments unjustifiable, they would raise payments without any accountability provisions that would ensure there is actually planned participation in States like Wisconsin. Congress should not dedicate over one-third of its Medicare spending to Medicare HMOs, when only 15 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in HMOs. Instead of supporting HMOs, I strongly favor provisions that would support Wisconsin's seniors by preserving care through hospitals, home health care agencies, hospices, and other providers. The home health care provisions--I know firsthand from many conversations around the state--are especially inadequate, and do little to address the needs of rural beneficiaries and the most medically complex patients. Let me turn now to the pension provisions, which, at $64 billion, make up the next largest part of the bill. The official estimates of the costs of these provisions are large, but they understate what will be the true costs of the bill. That is because the bill's so-called Roth IRA provisions, which allow taxpayers to pay some taxes now to avoid paying more taxes later, bring funds into the Treasury in the early years at the expense of the outyears. The bill's costs will thus likely expand when fully phased in, and will likely grow particularly in just those years when the baby boom generation is retiring and we most need the resources to actually keep Social Security and Medicare solvent. The bill's pension provisions expand individual retirement accounts or IRAs. Among other things, it raises the amount that individuals may contribute to IRAs, raises the maximum income for those who may contribute to an IRA, raises the maximum income for those who may convert a traditional IRA into a Roth IRA, and allows individuals over age 50 to make larger catchup contributions. The bill makes similar changes in 401(k) plans, raising the amount that individuals may contribute to 401(k)s, allowing deferral of 401(k) tax treatment as with a Roth IRA, and allowing individuals over age 50 to make larger catchup 401(k) contributions. Taken as a whole, these changes that I just listed would manifestly benefit the bestoff among us. A recent Treasury study found that just four percent of eligible taxpayers--largely the most affluent people eligible--make the maximum $2,000 contribution to IRAs under the existing law. By definition, these would be the only people within current income limits who would benefit from raising the contribution limit. And by definition, only those above current income limits would benefit from lifting the income limits. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy analysis, more than three-fourths of the benefits of the bill's pension and IRA provisions would go to the fifth of the population with the highest incomes. The bill's proponents claim that the bill would also increase savings. But this claim is almost Orwellian. Lifting these limits would actually decrease saving, for three reasons. First, by making it easier for wealthy business owners to do tax- favored saving as individuals, the bill would decrease their incentives to set up business-wide, business-wide 401(k) or pension plans to get those tax benefits. As a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury testified: Currently, a small business owner who wants to save $5,000 or more for retirement on a tax-favored basis generally would choose to adopt an employer plan. However, if the IRA limit were raised to $5,000, the owner could save that amount--or jointly with the owner's spouse, $10,000--on a tax-preferred basis without adopting a plan for employees. Therefore, higher IRA limits could reduce interest in employer retirement plans, particularly among owners of small businesses. If this happens, higher IRA limits would work at cross purposes with other proposals that attempt to increase coverage among employees of small businesses. That is what the former Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy said. By depriving lower- and moderate-income employees of opportunities for tax-favored saving, the higher IRA limits would thus decrease saving by those employees. Second, the savings contributed by high-income savers would tend to be money that they would have saved anyway. Rather than cause new saving among higher-income savers, the higher limits would merely substitute tax-favored saving for fully-taxed saving. Rather than increase saving among this group, the bill would thus just cut taxes for these higher-income savers. And third, because the bill is not paid for and therefore spends surplus money, it reduces the surplus and thus reduces the amount by which the Government pays down the debt. When the Government pays down debt, it contributes to national savings. And thus by reducing the amount by which the Government pays down debt, the bill will worsen national savings. When the Finance Committee considered a pension bill earlier this year, it did include a provision that might have helped increase saving, Mr. President. That section, championed by Democratic Members of the Finance Committee, would have actually provided a matching credit, a matching credit, for saving by low- and moderate-income savers making up to $50,000 for a couple. The provision was still deeply flawed, in my view, because it was not refundable, and therefore it was of no use to families of four making up to $32,000. But if Government action is to encourage increased private saving, it needs to be directed--as that credit was--to low- and moderate-income people, who are not saving now. What has the majority done? The majority has stripped this bill of that proposal. The majority has deleted from the bill that section most likely to increase private saving. As well, the bill includes many offensive individual pension provisions. Current law imposes additional requirements on plans that primarily benefit an employer's key employees, what are called ``top-heavy plans.'' These additional requirements provide more rapid vesting and minimum employer contributions for plan participants who are not key employees. The bill would relax these rules for top heavy plans in a number of ways. For example, fewer family members would be counted for the determination of whether a plan was top-heavy. This change in the bill would allow plans to provide greater benefits to owners and their families without providing minimum benefits and more-rapid vesting to rank-and-file workers. The bill raises the limit on the amount of income that may be considered compensation for purposes of contributions to 401(k) accounts. This change would allow an employer who wanted to save a fixed amount each year to reduce the percentage contribution that all employees could make to their 401(k)s. As I noted at the outset, the bill's Roth IRAs shift tax receipts from the distant future into the near future. They are thus fiscally very risky, as they drain tax revenues from the Government during the retirement years of the baby-boom generation, while giving us a false sense of additional revenues now. And they also benefit the very wealthiest among us. Thus, the pension provisions of this bill would particularly benefit the very wealthiest. And I would assert that it is not a coincidence--I am afraid it is not a coincidence--that some of the most powerful wealthy interests in our campaign finance system are today pushing for this so-called pension ``reform.'' I would like to take a moment to direct my colleagues' attention to these big donors. It is time again to ``call the bankroll.'' As I have said, this legislation doesn't benefit average working Americans who are counting on their pension when they retire, so exactly whom does it benefit? I think ``calling the bankroll'' could answer this. I would like to do a truly comprehensive ``calling of the bankroll'' here, but that would be almost impossible. There are just too many wealthy interests behind this tax bill: financial interests, insurance companies, and labor unions, just to name a few. We could be here all day, or all week, if I tried to cover all those contributions. So in the interest of time, I will just review the unlimited soft money contributions of some of the interests pushing for this bill. The figures I am about to cite come from the Center for Responsive Politics. They include contributions through the first 15 months of the election cycle, and in some cases include contributions given more recently in the cycle. Some of the biggest investment and finance firms are supporting passage of this bill. For example, Merrill Lynch, its executives and subsidiaries, have given more than $915,000 in soft money, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's just one company. Mr. President, I have other examples I will cite regarding the ``calling of the bankroll.'' American Express, its executives and subsidiaries have given more than $312,000 in soft money so far in this election cycle. And Fidelity Investments and its executives have given at least $258,000 in soft money to date. The American Benefits Council, which is strongly supporting this bill, sent around a list of supporters of provisions of the legislation. That list includes still more big donors. The American Council of Life Insurers and its executives have given more than $260,000 to the parties' soft money warchests during the period. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and affiliated chambers of commerce have given more than $110,000 in soft money during the period. The list also included many of the nation's labor unions, which are also pushing for some of the provisions of this bill, including: American Federation of Teachers, which has given at least $820,000 so far during this election cycle; and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which has given more than $853,000 in soft money during the period. Regrettably, many of these institutions will see a return on their campaign finance investment in the pension provisions of this bill. More regrettably still, the working family is not likely to see much of any benefit at all. Mr. President, I am troubled, as well, that the school construction projects in this bill--being paid for, in part, with Federal tax credits for the bondholders--will not be subject to the Davis-Bacon Act. The Davis-Bacon Act ensures that construction workers on Federal construction sites get paid a fair wage for a days' work by requiring that those workers be paid the local prevailing wage. The worker protections embodied in the Davis-Bacon Act are essential, and one specific set of Federal construction projects--and the workers who build them--should not be deprived of these protections. I am deeply concerned that some in this body are attempting to alter the protections under the Davis-Bacon Act without a substantive debate. Yes, Mr. President, this bill does include a long-overdue increase in the minimum wage. I have long supported that increase. Congress should have passed it two years ago, and we should have passed it in a straightforward bill, clean of tax give-aways. Sadly, it has become the habit of this majority to extract a series of tax subsidies in exchange for a minimum wage increase. And what is worse is that the cost of these subsidies is increasing. In 1996, the Congress had to pass $20 billion in tax cuts to get an increase in the minimum wage. Sadly, the cost of that minimum wage increase in terms of tax subsidies extracted has grown exponentially. Another section of this bill would reinstate and expand the Foreign Sales Corporation--or FSC--export tax subsidy. We ought to be skeptical of subsidies, whether provided through the tax code, through appropriated programs, or through entitlements. In general, the best policy is to let free markets work. The FSC export tax subsidy does not do that. While the FSC export tax subsidy may provide a very small benefit to certain firms that produce exports or that produce goods abroad, it also triggers increases in U.S. imports, so that its net effect on our balance of trade is probably negligible. As the Congressional Research Service explains, the FSC tax subsidy increases foreign purchases of U.S. exports, but to buy the U.S. products, foreigners require more dollars. That, in turn, increases demand for U.S. dollars, driving up the price of the dollar in foreign exchange markets and making U.S. exports more expensive. This partly offsets the effect of the FSC in increasing U.S. exports. This effect also makes imports to the United States cheaper, which causes U.S. imports to increase. The bottom line, Mr. President, is that while some firms may enjoy increased export sales, other firms will lose business and jobs because of increased imports. This special tax subsidy thus has benefits and costs. The firms that qualify for this export subsidy gain a benefit, of course, but so too do foreign consumers. CRS notes that the FSC tax subsidy produces a transfer of economic welfare from the United States to consumers abroad when part of the tax benefit is passed on to foreign consumers as reduced prices for U.S. goods. U.S. taxpayers are paying to keep these exports cheap for foreign consumers. But there are other costs, as well. First, and perhaps most obviously, the billions of dollars we spend through the FSC export tax subsidy could otherwise be used to lower the tax burden on businesses and individuals, or to lower the level of our massive national debt. And as with other special tax breaks, the FSC export tax subsidy distorts the marketplace, and makes our economy less efficient. There is also an additional and potentially huge cost that may be imposed on American firms and workers because of this FSC subsidy: what amounts to a possible multi-billion dollar tax imposed by the World Trade Organization on American products that are purchased in European Union countries that could mean lost business and jobs. I am no fan of the World Trade Organization. I opposed the 1994 legislation that implemented the most recent General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT, in large part because it created this undemocratic, unaccountable, often secretive international organization known as the World Trade Organization or WTO. As my colleagues know, the reason we are considering changes to the FSC export tax subsidy is because of a WTO ruling that this tax break is an illegal subsidy. If we fail to change our tax laws to comply with this ruling, we can expect billions in punitive tariffs to be levied against American goods exported to the European Union. While the FSC tax subsidy may be bad tax policy, it is our tax policy--a policy arrived at through the elected representatives of the people of this Nation. The ability of some international bureaucracy to effectively impose punitive taxes or tariffs on American goods should offend us all. Unfortunately, that is what we face because of the action Congress took in 1994 to ratify the GATT, and unless we eliminate the FSC export tax subsidy, American firms and American workers are at risk. Regrettably, the proposed expansion of the FSC may not remove this threat. Mr. President, I have grave concerns that the WTO will see this expanded tax break as little more than a reconfiguration of the existing tax subsidy for exports. At a briefing for Senate staff on this issue, the Treasury Department conceded that not a single business currently able to use this export subsidy will lose its tax break. Indeed, the export tax subsidy has been expanded to provide an even larger subsidy for foreign military sales. If the WTO rules that this change does not comply with its previous ruling, our businesses and workers will face billions in punitive tariffs on the goods they produce. That is what is at stake here. The proponents of this legislation are willing to risk billions in tariffs on American goods rather than eliminate this questionable tax expenditure. It would be better economic policy and better fiscal policy simply to repeal the FSC altogether. I am particularly troubled, Mr. President, by the provision of the FSC export tax subsidy section of this bill that would actually double the current tax benefit for arms sales. That is right, Mr. President, this bill would double the tax benefit currently enjoyed by U.S. companies that sell weapons abroad. Had the Senate been able to consider this bill under the Senate's regular procedures, I would have joined in an amendment by the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, that would have sought to correct this problem by reinstating the current tax benefit for arms sales. United States arms manufacturers continue to lead the world in conventional arms sales to developing countries, both in terms of arms transfer agreements and in terms of arms delivered to the countries of the developing world. Conventional arms sales include such items as aircraft, tanks, complete weapons systems, spare parts, upgrades for previously purchased items, and munitions; as well as training and support services for the items purchased. This August, the Congressional Research Service released its annual report, Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations. This 79-page report details the worldwide arms transfer business conducted with developing nations from 1992 through 1999. During that eight-year period, the United States entered into arms-transfer agreements with developing nations worth in excess of $62.7 billion. Our nearest competitor, France, entered into agreements with developing nations worth just about half of that total, $31.6 billion. During that same eight-year period, the United States delivered arms worth in excess of $84 billion to the countries of the developing world. The United Kingdom ranked a distant second with deliveries totaling $37.7 billion--less than half the value of the arms delivered by the United States. And those numbers represent only the arms agreements and deliveries with the countries of the developing world. When we add in the arms agreements and deliveries to our worldwide customers, the numbers rise even higher. During the same period, the United States also ranked first in worldwide arms transfer agreements with an astonishing $104 billion dollars worth of agreements. Russia comes in a distant second with $31.2 billion in worldwide arms transfer agreements. And during those eight years, the United States delivered a total of more than $124 billion worth of arms worldwide. Russia again came in second with $21.6 billion in deliveries. In both instances--arms transfer agreements and arms actually delivered--the vast majority of United States arms transactions were conducted with the countries of the developing world. As you can see from these numbers, Mr. President, the United States has no real competitors in the arms transfer business. And the United States will continue to lead the world in arms sales into the foreseeable future, because those who would buy arms want to buy them from American manufacturers. It is that simple. These companies are already making millions and millions of dollars from these sales each year. And they are already receiving substantial tax benefits. There is no need to double that benefit. In fact, as I noted earlier with regard to the entire FSC export tax subsidy, I would argue that we should actually be talking about eliminating this benefit entirely. At the very least, we should maintain the current level--we should not double this subsidy. This 100 percent increase in the tax benefit for arms sales is opposed by such groups as the Council for a Liveable World Education Fund, the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, the Justice and Witness Ministries of the United Church of Christ, NETWORK, the Church of the Brethren, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, the Mennonite Central Committee, and the Maryknoll Mission Association of the Faithful. The world is already a very dangerous place. The Congress should not be increasing the subsidy for U.S. companies to sell weapons abroad. Make no mistake about the importance of this piece of legislation to arms manufacturers and other business interests who would benefit from the various tax subsidies contained in this bill. As you know, wealthy interests don't just sit idly by on the sidelines waiting for us to act on this kind of legislation. They lobby to insert favorable provisions into a bill, and once they secure a special deal, they lobby to keep it in the bill. And when I say ``lobbying,'' I mean more than a visit or a phone call to staff--I mean campaign contributions, Mr. President, millions upon millions of dollars worth. As we discuss the legislation before us, we cannot ignore the presence of powerful monied interests. I have often likened campaign contributions to an 800-pound gorilla that's in this chamber every day--nobody talks about him, but he cannot be ignored. On this issue as well, I refuse to ignore the 800 pound gorilla who's throwing his weight around in our political process. Instead I choose to Call the Bankroll, to inform my colleagues and the public of the contributions made by wealthy interests seeking to influence what we do here on this floor. On this provision of the bill, I feel it is once again very important to take a moment to review the campaign contributions of the defense industry. As I have said, this bill would double the tax benefit currently enjoyed by U.S. companies that sell weapons abroad. This bill means a huge bonanza for arms manufacturers. It is only appropriate to take a look at the bonanza of contributions they have provided to the political parties. Many members of the Business Roundtable, an organization which has urged the passage of this legislation, are some of the biggest arms manufacturers in the U.S., and some of the biggest political donors. I'd like to review the contributions of some of these companies. These figures are for contributions through at least the first 15 months of the election cycle, and in some cases include contributions given more recently in the cycle. Lockheed Martin, its executives and subsidiaries have given more than $861,000 in soft money, and more than $881,000 in PAC money so far during this election cycle. United Technologies and its subsidiaries have given more than $293,000 in soft money and more than $240,000 in PAC money during the period. During that period, Raytheon has given more than $251,000 in soft money to the parties and more than $397,000 in PAC money to Federal candidates. Textron has contributed more than $173,000 in soft money and more than $205,000 in PAC money. And last but not least, Boeing has given more than $583,000 in soft money since the election cycle began, and more than $593,000 in PAC contributions. Mr. President, these defense companies are getting a one hundred percent increase in an already unnecessary tax break, and frankly I wonder why. I wonder why we would double a tax break for the defense industry, when we haven't passed a Patient's Bill of Rights, when we haven't provided Medicare coverage for prescription drugs, and when we haven't passed so many other important measures that Americans really care about. Sadly, it appears that there is a pretty simple way to figure out why we dole out corporate tax breaks while we neglect the priorities of the American people. All you have to do is follow the dollar. Mr. President, this bill thus amply proves the adage that ``a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.'' We should revise the procedures that allow such a monstrosity to be loaded into a conference report on an unrelated matter. And we should reject this bill, whose rotten provisions outnumber its sound ones. Exhibit 1 [From The Washington Post, Oct. 26, 2000] Say Goodbye to the Surplus Congressional Republican reached agreement yesterday on the contents of the tax cut bill they intend to send the president before adjourning. They suggest it's a relatively minor measure, but it's not. If it becomes law atop all the spending increases also agreed to in this session, Congress and the president will have used up, before the election, well over a third of the projected budget surplus--the $2.2 trillion over 10 years in other than Social Security funds-- that the presidential candidates are so busily distending on the campaign trail. It's an astonishing display of lack of discipline and misplaced priorities. The president sent a letter implying that he might sign the tax bill even while objecting to major parts. He ought instead to veto it if congressional Democrats won't block it first. As with the other Republican tax cuts he vetoed earlier in the year, this would cost too much--an estimated quarter-trillion dollars over the 10 years--and too much of the money would go to the part of the population least in need. In the name of increasing access to health care, the legislation would grant a new tax deduction to people who buy their own insurance. The deduction would mainly benefit those in the top tax brackets who tend already to be insured. The president observed that, far from increasing access, it would have the perverse effect of inducing employers to drop insurance they now maintain for their employees. Among much else, the bill would also increase the amounts that can be contributed annually to tax-favored retirement accounts, a step that by definition benefits only those who can afford to save the maximum now. The health insurance deduction was part of the Republicans' price for the $1-an-hour increase in the minimum wage that the bill also contains. The price is too high. Also in the bill will be so-called Medicare givebacks, increases in payments to providers that the president earlier objected were tilted in favor of managed care companies already overpaid. This is on balance a bad bill dusted with confectioner's sugar and offered up at year's end on a take- it-or-leave-it basis. The right response would be to vote it down.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. And now, let me take a few moments to address particular sections of the bill. And let me begin with the health care provisions of this bill, which, at $88 billion for the tax provisions alone, account for what is actually the largest component of this bill. We can all agree that health care should be a priority. But the health tax provisions of this bill are structured so that the vast majority of middle-income Americans will not be able to benefit from them. This is so because the health tax provisions in this bill operate exclusively through the mechanism of tax deductions, instead of tax credits. Thus, Mr. President, it would provide no benefit for families of four making up to $32,000, and actually provide precious little benefit for families making up to $50,000. Those at the top of the income scale are not those who are having the most difficulty getting health insurance or paying for long-term care. Indeed, the health care insurance deduction in this bill could actually reduce health care coverage. That is because the presence of the deduction might encourage private employers to drop health care coverage at the workplace. Mr. President, I'd like to ask unanimous consent that an executive summary of a policy paper on this point prepared by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities entitled ``Health Insurance Deduction of Little Help to the Uninsured'' be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. The full text of this policy paper can be found at http://www.cbpp.org/8-30-00tax2.htm

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. Beyond that, Mr. President, this bill is also blighted by its lack of fairness. As have so many of the other fruits of this majority, this tax bill would disproportionately favor the very wealthy. When we as Senators decide on tax policy, we must ask ourselves: With a limited amount of surplus available, whose taxes should we cut first? Should tax relief go first to the wealthiest among us? The majority answers ``yes'' every time. Instead of the Robin-Hood-in-reverse priorities of the majority, we should instead be seeking to direct tax relief first to those who need it most: the hard-working American middle-income family. According to an analysis prepared by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, 64 percent of the benefits of this tax bill would go to the top one-fifth of the income distribution. And less than a fifth of the benefits of this tax bill would go to the bottom 60 percent of the population--one-fifth of the benefit to three-fifths of the people. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an executive summary of a policy paper on this bill prepared by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities entitled ``Leadership's Tax Plan Reinforces Inequities in Health and Pension Coverage'' be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. The entire text of this policy paper can be found at http://www.cbpp.org/10-26-00tax.htm

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise now to oppose yet another monstrous product that this majority has loosed on the Senate, this one an omnibus tax bill. In a number of speeches this year, as early as this May, I have tried to raise objections to the procedures that the majority is employing in this session of the Senate. It is proverbial that ``a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.'' If any more proof were needed that these procedures are bad, the fruit of this tax bill provides it. Let me begin by recounting how bad the tree is that bore this bill. The procedures that the majority has employed to bring this bill to the floor are egregious. And when the majority employs the procedures that it has on this bill, it is not surprising that they yield such an unattractive outcome. What has happened? A small number of Senators and Congressmen, all from one party, have cooked up this bill behind closed doors. Of the bill's major provisions, none has enjoyed consideration on the Senate floor. The majority leadership has then shoveled the contents of this back-room agreement into a conference on a comparatively minor Small Business Administration loan measure. When the fruit of such a process has, as this bill has, experienced no discussion, no vetting, and no amendment, it cannot help but have some rotten parts to it. And there is much that is rotten about this bill. It would spend, Mr. President, a significant amount of the surplus--about a quarter of a trillion dollars--before, before having taken any steps to save Social Security, or to reform Medicare, or to lock away on-budget surpluses to pay down the debt. Now, Mr. President, there are of course some provisions in this bill that I would support. But first and foremost, it is irresponsible to spend this much of the projected surpluses before having taken a single step to address our long-term fiscal responsibilities. And so, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial on this point that appeared in the Washington Post entitled ``Say Goodbye to the Surplus'' be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the last time the Federal Government executed someone was in 1963. That year, the Federal Government executed Victor Feguer, who had kidnapped and killed a young doctor. At 5:30 in the morning of February 15, 1963, at Fort Madison, IA, a Federal hangman tied a noose around Feguer's neck and put him to death. Feguer's execution was the first and last Federal execution of the 1960s. In fact, the Federal Government has carried out executions fairly infrequently during the entire twentieth century. Only 24 Federal executions took place between 1927 and 1963. One-third of those were for wartime espionage or sabotage. But, Mr. President, all of that is about to change. In the next 2 months, two inmates on Federal death row could become the first to be executed by the Federal Government in nearly forty years. Their names are David Hammer and Juan Garza. As many of my colleagues recall, Congress modernized the federal death penalty in 1988 and then significantly expanded it in 1994. Those votes are about to have very real consequences. Like it or not, the national debate over the death penalty is actually intensifying and will build further next month, the months after that, and in the year to come. And we should have this debate. We should have this debate, because the Federal Government is heading in a different direction from the rest of the country. The States have learned some serious lessons about the administration of capital punishment, and the Federal Government, above all, should learn from them. After the Supreme Court's 1976 decision reinstating the death penalty, most States swept the cobwebs off their electric chairs and resumed executions. And most of these states have not looked back since. Just last year, the United States set the record for the number of executions in one year in this modern death penalty period: 98 executions. And already this year, there have been 70 executions in the United States. But recently, in States all across America, awareness has been growing that the death penalty system has serious flaws and that its administration has sometimes been far from fair. From Illinois to Texas to North Carolina to Pennsylvania, I believe that a consensus is building that there is a problem. Since the 1970s, 89 people--Mr. President, 89 people--who had been sent to death row were later proven innocent. Nine of these 89 were exonerated on the basis of modern DNA testing of biological evidence. Defendants have sometimes been represented by lawyers who slept during trial, were drunk during trial, or who were so incompetent that they were later suspended or disbarred. Prosecutorial and police misconduct sometimes have led to faulty convictions. The death penalty has been applied disproportionately to African Americans and the poor. The revelations of problems with the system mount. These are very real, serious problems that fail to live up to the fundamental principles of fairness and justice on which our criminal justice system is based. Just last month, the Justice Department released data on Federal death penalty prosecutions. That Justice study showed racial and geographic disparities in the administration of the Federal death penalty. The study found that whether the Federal Government seeks the death penalty appears to relate to the color of the defendant's skin or the Federal district in which the defendant is prosecuted. Both the President and the Attorney General have acknowledged--they have acknowledged--that this data paints a disturbing picture of the Federal death penalty system. The Attorney General admits that she does not have answers to the questions raised by the DOJ report. My colleagues may believe that the system is flawed, but some of them seem to fear that the people will object to efforts simply to address these inequities. The American people, however, are in fact ahead of the politicians on this, as they are on so many issues. A majority of the American people are troubled. They are troubled by these flaws in the death penalty system that they support a moratorium on executions. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken this past July found that 63 percent of Americans supported a suspension of executions while questions of fairness are reviewed. And in a bipartisan poll released just this last month, 64 percent of Americans supported a suspension of executions while questions of fairness are reviewed. Mr. President, as you have said and others have said, the Federal Government can often learn from the States. Let's apply that to the administration of the death penalty. With so many nagging questions raised and still unanswered, how can the Federal Government go forward--how can the Federal Government go forward with its first execution in almost 40 years? I believe it is unconscionable for the Federal Government to resume executions under these circumstances. Earlier this year, I introduced two bills that would suspend executions while an independent, blue ribbon commission simply reviews the death penalty system. The National Death Penalty Moratorium Act would suspend executions at the state and federal levels. The Federal Death Penalty Moratorium Act would suspend executions at the Federal level. And I am pleased that Senators Levin, Wellstone, Durbin and Boxer have joined me on one or both of these bills. The five of us may not--in fact, do not--agree on whether the death penalty is a proper punishment, but we are united in our belief that our nation should pause and thoroughly review the system that has sent many who were later proven innocent to death row. Addressing flaws in the death penalty system is, Mr. President, unfortunately, yet another chapter of the unfinished business of this Congress. With two executions scheduled for after adjournment, I must urge President Clinton to suspend Federal executions and order a comprehensive review of the Federal death penalty system. Next Congress, when we return, I intend to reintroduce my legislation. I shall keep pushing forward on this issue. We have made progress this year, but we still have a long way to go toward restoring the integrity of our criminal justice system. I look forward to working with my colleagues toward that goal in the year to come.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask if I could have unanimous consent to speak for 30 minutes after the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the career of Connie Mack as he retires from the Senate. Senator Mack has served the people of Florida with distinction during his two terms in the Senate, as well as during his three terms in the House of Representatives. Throughout his career in public service, Senator Mack has been willing to address complex issues and help move the debate forward. On matters of fiscal policy, Senator Mack and I have not often agreed, but I have admired his willingness to engage these issues in a serious way that fosters the kind of discussion we need in the Senate to deliberate on the difficult questions before us. Senator Mack has been a steadfast advocate for increased NIH funding, and I have been proud to support his efforts, including his proposal, passed as an amendment to the fiscal year 1998 budget resolution, to double funding for NIH over the next five years. I share his belief that increasing funding for biomedical research is one of the most important ways we can improve the quality of life for America's families. Groundbreaking research, development of drug therapies and new medical procedures, all of these steps move us closer to life- saving medical breakthroughs that can detect, prevent, and eliminate life-threatening disease. I have also been pleased to support Senator Mack's effort, along with Senator Graham, to restore the Everglades. His work to preserve and restore this unique and beautiful area, home to fragile habitats and many endangered species, will undoubtedly be one of his greatest legacies. It has been a pleasure to serve with Senator Mack over the last seven years. As he leaves the Senate, I wish him all the best and thank him for his many years of distinguished public service.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as this Congress draws to a close, I want to take a moment to thank my friend Frank Lautenberg for his 18 years of service in the body. The people of New Jersey are losing a skilled legislator and a gifted advocate. Whether he is fighting racial profiling or taking on the tobacco industry, Frank Lautenberg has consistently fought for a healthier, safer, more just world for all of us. After a successful career in the private sector, Frank ran for the U.S. Senate motivated to give something back to his state and the nation. And never has he had greater success than during his 18 years in public service. It has been a pleasure to serve with Senator Lautenberg on the Budget Committee, where he has provided outstanding leadership as the committee's ranking member. Senator Lautenberg played a crucial role in crafting the bipartisan budget agreement of 1997 which led to the balanced budget, and putting this body back on the road to fiscal responsibility. I stood side by side with Senator Lautenberg in the fight to implement the gift ban in 1995. And I've been especially proud to work with him to end racial profiling--the abhorrent law enforcement practice that targets African Americans, Hispanic Americans and other minorities for traffic stops based on the color of their skin. Together Senator Lautenberg and I introduced S. 821, the Traffic Stops Study Act, to require the Attorney General to conduct an initial analysis of existing data on racial profiling and then design a study to gather data from a nationwide sampling of jurisdictions. We've worked together on this issue for more than two years, and I believe our legislation will prevail, if not in this Congress, then in the next one. I will proudly continue the fight to pass the Traffic Stops Study Act in the next Congress, but I will miss greatly Frank's leadership on this issue. When we do finally pass this simple bill to get an accurate picture of racial profiling on our nation's roadways, we'll owe a big part of that victory to Senator Lautenberg. Today I thank Frank Lautenberg for his leadership on racial profiling and so many other issues that matter to the people of this nation. I wish him and his family all the best in his retirement, and thank him for his many contributions to the U.S. Senate, and to the American people.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, when I first heard that Bob Kerrey had decided not to run again, I knew the Senate was losing a true American original, and a big part of what makes the Senate special. From my first moments in the Senate back in 1993, there was one thing I could tell right away--Bob Kerrey is a true leader. In an age of poll-driven politics, Bob Kerrey isn't afraid to ruffle a few feathers to raise the level of debate and work for the greater good. He has sparked debate on the big issues: saving Social Security, controlling federal spending, guaranteeing the right to health insurance, and helping the poor, just to name a few. I was proud to work with him on the bipartisan deficit reduction package he spearheaded with former Senator Hank Brown of Colorado, and I'm proud to have a colleague with such a sincere commitment to fiscal responsibility. He fought to balance the federal budget when others said it could not be done. As Chair of the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform, Bob Kerrey directed our attention to the long-term challenges that we need to heed. Bob Kerrey is a pleasure to work with, but he is also a courageous public servant who is willing to stand alone when it is necessary. In addition to his heroic record of public service, he is a hero who served his country valiantly in the Vietnam War. Bob Kerrey brings great honor to the Senate as only the fifth Medal on Honor winner to serve in this body, and while he never makes a big deal about the honors he has received, every day he has served in the U.S. Senate, Bob Kerrey has exhibited the strength of character that befit those tributes. And while all those things are important, it is also essential to have a sense of humor, and we all know that Bob possesses that quality in spades. He is a pleasure to be around, and a good friend. I wish him all the best as he moves on to head the New School, and in everything he does.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to one of the greatest public servants among us: Daniel Patrick Moynihan. For 24 years he has lent us the wisdom of his experience, the insights of his keen mind, and above all, the honor of his friendship. Senator Moynihan reminds all of us what a Senator was intended to be. He is a leader who not only addresses the needs of his state, but who wrestles with the challenges facing the nation. Senator Moynihan has been a great servant to the people of New York, but the legacy of accomplishments he leaves reach beyond New York's borders to touch the lives of every American. With a brilliant intellect and an unwavering dedication, Daniel Patrick Moynihan has helped us think through some of the toughest issues before this body, from welfare reform to taxation policy. He has worked to return secrecy to its limited but necessary role in government, an effort which I applaud. And he has lent his support to ``The Fisc,'' the annual compilation of the balance of payments between the states and the federal government, which brings needed attention to the ``donor'' status of New York, Wisconsin and other states. He has done a great service to our understanding of federal spending with his longtime support of this effort. Recently, I was proud to work with Senator Moynihan on the Mother-to- Child HIV Prevention Act of 2000, S. 2032, the substance of which was incorporated into the Global AIDS and Tuberculosis Relief Act of 2000, and signed into law in August. It was an honor to work with him to get this legislation to the President's desk. Senator Moynihan's keen grasp of foreign affairs, as well as his mastery of domestic and urban issues, will be missed as he retires from the Senate. Senator Moynihan's lifetime of public service, his wisdom and experience, have been a wonderful gift to this body. I know my colleagues join me in my admiration for Senator Moynihan as a public servant, my respect for him as a colleague, and my appreciation for him as a friend. It has been a distinct honor for me to serve with Senator Moynihan since I came to this body in 1993. Pat, I wish you all the best as you retire from the U.S. Senate, and I look forward to your continued contributions to the nation as one of the greatest political thinkers of our age.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. My amendment is supported by the administration because it improves the bill. It actually makes the bill comply with Federal reclamation and environmental laws. It makes it clear that only the features of the latest version of the Animas-La Plata Project will be constructed, and the result of that, my colleagues, will be a better return for the taxpayers than the underlying measure. This is important. The Ute and Navajo tribes will have their claims settled and paid for, even under my substitute, 100 percent by the Federal Government, but the nontribal water recipients will have to repay their share of the construction, fish and wildlife mitigation, and recreation costs. That kind of repayment is only fair. It is what other water users and other projects such as the California central valley and central Utah have to pay. If my colleagues will look at the fact, this is not unprecedented. This is actually the way other water projects are handled now. The water users have to pay these fair costs. This amendment not only does not kill the bill, it just makes sure there is a fair opportunity for court review. The bill does not undercut; the non-Native American users actually pay their fair share. Most importantly, this greatly expanded project that has now been scaled down to a reasonable level does not somehow get put back into this large wasteful project. It is both strong in terms of environmental concern and very strong in terms of the taxpayers. I hope by supporting this, my colleagues, the Senator from Colorado could have this water project that he has worked on for so long, but that it be done in a responsible way which the administration supports.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the conference report on the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. I reluctantly voted against that conference report, because it contained a provision dramatically increasing the budget caps, effectively throwing fiscal discipline to the wind. But I want to go on record indicating that, if the amendment busting the budget caps had not been included in the bill, my vote would have been an enthusiastic yes. Substantively, this is a remarkably good bill, and I commend the managers, Chairman McConnell and the ranking member, Senator Leahy, as well as Chairman Callahan and Congresswoman Pelosi for their excellent work. An unprecedented commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS abroad and full funding of the Administration's request for debt relief initiatives are among the many laudable provisions in the bill that complement this year's authorizing work of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The conference report contains significant assistance for important family planning work, which can help to bring better health and economic development to families and especially to women around the world. Moreover, I am pleased to see that the bill does not contain restrictive, so-called ``Mexico City'' language designed to limit what private organizations can do with funds raised from non-U.S. government sources. During the debate on the Senate's version of this bill earlier this year, I asked for, and received, the commitment of Senators McConnell and Leahy to pursue full funding for flood recovery assistance in Mozambique and southern Africa, a region of the world utterly devastated by a series of cyclones earlier this year. This was especially tragic, because prior to the flooding, Mozambique had been making progress toward climbing out of poverty, enjoying economic growth rates of 10 percent per year. I want to thank both Senators for keeping their word. This conference report contains $135 million in flood recovery assistance for the region. This is the right thing to do. I took a particular interest in the southern Africa issue, in part because I serve as the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on African Affairs. In that same capacity, I have joined with a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to insist that the Administration make accountability a top priority in the context of our policy towards Sierra Leone. I am gratified to note that the statement of the managers accompanying the conference report includes language urging the State Department to provide support for the Special War Crimes Court for Sierra Leone. The support of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee for this key Congressional priority in West Africa should not be overlooked. In another area of interest, I note that the conference report retains language suspending certain types of military and security assistance to Indonesia until a set of conditions relating to the disarmament and disbanding of militia forces and accountability for gross human rights abuses have been met. At the same time, it maintains an appropriate level of assistance for the people of East Timor, who are seeking to rebuild their communities and to fully realize their independence each day. Finally, the conference report provides strong support for the Peace Corps and for important development assistance accounts which, when responsibly administered and monitored, can serve U.S. interests in building a more stable, prosperous, and democratic world. All of these sound provisions make it all the more unfortunate that the bill has been tainted with the budget-busting amendment, so that my vote would have been an accurate reflection of my support for this bill. Too often in the past, the Congress has failed to understand the critical link between U.S. engagement with the rest of the world and our national interests--our security, our health, our economic stability, and even our national values. This bill recognizes those links and moves in the right direction. It's a shame that a bill that makes such sensible policy choices, so casually busts the budget caps that we rely upon to ensure fiscal responsibility.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado. Pursuant to the previous order, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I respect the Senator's time, and I want to keep my promise. I want to be absolutely clear in the Record. There is absolutely nothing in the amendment I am proposing that in any way breaks the promise to the Utes and others who will certainly benefit from this project. We are very careful about that. But it talks about the size of the project. It is a project that the Senator from Colorado has agreed to as a scaled-down project. But surely he is not suggesting that he is breaking a promise to anybody with that proposal; therefore, neither am I by suggesting it be that size. I just want to be sure that somehow we do not end up with a wholly larger project later on, which the Senator from Colorado has agreed to leave aside, and certainly make sure that various reimbursements become, under law, a standard practice in these kinds of situations. Certainly, that is not a breach of a promise. This is the law of the land and the way we do these things at this point to protect our taxpayers. Surely, it is not a breach of a promise to suggest that there ought to be a chance for the kind of judicial review that should occur in situations such as this. In fact, I would suggest to the Senator--because I think we work together well on this--that I promised months ago that my goal here was not to put a hold on the bill so it could never come up. All I said was I would like an opportunity to offer some amendment. We worked together. I agreed to a time limit, which is exactly what is happening here. The promise was kept in that regard as well. I am trying to be constructive and improve this bill. And the administration agrees. Even though they agreed fundamentally with the legislation, they also agree that my amendment is not harmful, but is, in fact, beneficial in making the bill better in the context of keeping our promises. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am not talking about something that is actually discriminatory. It is simply inconsistent with the law and the policy with regard to how these projects should be handled today to protect taxpayers--not in 1956. Second, the Senator from Colorado talked about the fact that, yes, our bill does try to make sure that this project, since it has been scaled down--and I give the Senator credit for that--in fact, that is what we authorized. We don't leave the door open for sort of behind- the-scenes reauthorization of this. He does point out clearly that in certain contexts it would be necessary to actually formally reauthorize the project for additional aspects of the project. But my understanding is--and the reason we offered this is--if this current scaled-down project is not built, there would not be a requirement of a new authorization; that the situation would revert back without the need for more authorization for the much larger project. I believe it was something like $750 million. It is not that the Senator is wrong about the fact that there are some situations where there might be the requirement for an authorization in the future. But if it isn't built--the Senator has alluded to the possibility it wouldn't happen--if, in fact, his central complaint is that it hasn't happened, and if it doesn't happen, we don't go back to an open process to figure out what this ought to be. It automatically gets reauthorized. That is what troubles me. That is what I want to nail down. I want to make sure this project actually fits the size it needs to be and the people who need the help will get the help they deserve. Finally, the Senator spoke about the third part of our amendment. In fact, in our amendment we want to make sure there is the opportunity for the full judicial review that is appropriate in situations such as this. The Senator says the bill does nothing to undo the possibility of additional review. But I have raised the concern about some of the findings that are placed in the bill and why those findings would be there if they were not in some way to influence the court. I accept his statement. That is not his intent. All we are trying to do is have some language, which I read into the Record. It is very simple. It states clearly that the information and findings should not be used in a way that would preclude the court from using the current laws that apply to this situation. That is all. It certainly does no harm to the Senator's position-- unless, in fact, there is something in the bill that is intended to prevent the courts from having the full opportunity to review that they now are required to do under current law. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me briefly respond to my colleague's remarks. Let me, first, indicate not only am I not insensitive to the needs of Colorado, my mother is a native of Colorado, who did not come to Wisconsin until she came to college. I have great affection for the State and certainly respect the water needs that are so central to the State and to Western States. Let me respond to the specific points because I think we have worked together well to try to narrow our differences and to come up with this agreement in a way to try to have these matters discussed on the Senate floor in an expeditious way and to have a vote and to have the matter go forward as appropriate. The first point the Senator seemed to put his greatest emphasis on was whether or not the non-Native American users of the water should somehow be put in the same position of others who were the beneficiaries of the previous projects that were based in 1956. He suggested that somehow it would be discriminatory for these individuals and families to have to pay certain costs that the others did not have to pay in the past. I suppose that is one way to look at it, but I really look at it a different way. I don't see the people who have benefited from some of these water projects in the past as really the relevant group. The relevant people now are those of us here today, both those who need the help of the water, the Native Americans and others, but also the taxpayers today. To not alter the repayment system for this is to ignore the reforms that have occurred since 1956. There has been an effort and success in legislating a different way to handle this, to make sure that some of these expenses are reimbursed. I understand there may be those in this situation who may believe it is unfair that they are not put in the same position as those in the past, but I don't really understand how that is as important or relevant as making sure the taxpayers of today are not unfairly being discriminated against by having to pay more than they should for this project. The Senator from Colorado even alluded in his initial remarks to the fact that he could at least understand the criticism of some of the past water projects. I think that same argument holds for some of the failure to reimburse on some of the past water projects. This is not just my idea. I want to assure you that the OMB in this matter in their report on the Animas La-Plata project indicated this kind of reimbursement is entirely appropriate. I will ask to have printed in the Record a statement of administration policy in support of my amendment. It reads in part: The administration understands that Senator Feingold is proposing to offer a floor amendment to S. 2508. The amendment would provide additional safeguards concerning existing environmental laws, a more explicit deauthorization of unplanned project features, additional safeguarding of proposed taxpayer investment in this project, and would update the project's cost-sharing-- I emphasize ``cost sharing''-- to reflect current Administration policy for fish and wildlife mitigation and recreation costs. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. As I understand, I have 8 minutes remaining.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the substitute offered by my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Campbell. I do so fully acknowledging that the Animas-La Plata project, as outlined by the Senator from Colorado's substitute amendment, has undergone a significant modification from its original configuration. What was a more than $750 million dam, reservoir, pumping plant, and associated pipelines and irrigation components, is now proposed to be a much smaller and less costly reservoir project to satisfy the Ute and Navajo claims and provide water delivery to the Navajo Reservation. The scaled-down project is now a $278 million project to build a reservoir and pipeline according to the administration's Record of Decision released on September 25, 2000. The Senator from Colorado and I have shared an interest in settling the Utes' claims for many years. We agree that those claims must be settled and that construction of a reservoir is an acceptable way to achieve that goal. Moreover, he has worked to accomplish that objective. In passing his substitute, Congress will be seeking to downsize the project to effectuate a settlement that satisfies the tribes water needs at 100 percent Federal cost, which is appropriate. However, and I want to make this clear to colleagues, the sized-down project also provides a significant new water supply for non-tribal municipal and industrial use. The Senator from Colorado's substitute amendment guarantees that about 35 percent of the water held in the reservoir would be stored for use by non-tribal interests: 10,400 acre feet for the San Juan Water Commission; 2,600 acre feet for the Animas- La Plata Conservancy District; 5,230 acre feet for the State of Colorado; and 780 acre feet to the La Plata Conservancy District of New Mexico. So this legislation is not solely an Indian water rights settlement. The Senator from Colorado and I differ in our opinions as to how the nontribal entities should be treated in this legislation, and that is why I am offering my amendment today. I want to make sure that the outcome Congress is ``seeking'' to implement through this legislation is one that it actually finds. I have three reasons for offering this amendment, which I will describe in a little bit of detail. First, I remain concerned that the substitute only does half the job with respect to making sure that the taxpayers are off the hook for the original full-scale project. Those who support the construction of the Animas-La Plata project now want to proceed with an alternative which they believe to be a cheaper and scaled-down version of the original project. They want to do so, however, without expressly deauthorizing the original project. It appear to me that proponents won't give up the authorization for the original project because it provides them with the ultimate insurance. Should this alternative be infeasible, retaining the original authorization would allow a fallback position for proceeding with the old project. My amendment makes it absolutely clear that Congress is granting its approval only for the scaled-back year 2000 version of the project and not the original 1956 version of the project. By deauthorizing all additional features of the old project, Congress would ensure that no such project features or components could be built without a demonstration by the project proponents that such features meet specific economic and engineering standards designed to protect the Federal Treasury, public safety and welfare. The Reclamation Project Act of 1939 requires engineering feasibility reports, cost estimates and economic analyses for a ``new project, new division of a project, or new supplemental works on a project * * *'' A project which is not authorized would be considered a ``new project, new division of a project, or new supplemental works on a project'' and be subject to the planning and reporting requirements. The substitute of the Senator from Colorado allows a future Congress to give its approval for a project or part of a project which has previously been authorized as part of the Animas-La Plata project as described in the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956. So, what it comes down to without my amendment, it is not clear that the additional construction would be subject to any feasibility requirements. I think taxpayers have a right to know that information. Moreover, newly authorized projects are also subject to the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Land Resources Implementation Studies--known as ``Principles and Guidelines''--promulgated pursuant to the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965. The Principles and Guidelines are the seminal policy statement requiring Bureau projects to integrate full economic cost recovery, financial and economic feasibility principles, and protection of the environment into planning for water resource projects. The Principles and Guidelines are the bridge between the old era of costly and economically ruinous Bureau projects and a new era of careful, resource protective planning. Many Members of this body fought hard to ensure these reforms would move forward. The old full-size Animas-La Plata project has not been analyzed under the Principles and Guidelines. One of the key criticisms of the old project has been the Bureau of Reclamation's failure to utilize the current discount rate, the cost of any electric power revenues produced by the project, and other economic variables in its studies. So if my amendment becomes law, any future features would be subject to the planning requirements of the Principles and Guidelines. The second point of my amendment is that it requires that nontribal water users actually pay recreation and fish and wildlife costs. The nontribal project proponents have argued that because section 8 of the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 makes recreational and fish and wildlife costs nonreimbursable for the projects it authorized, they should not have to repay such costs. ALP in its original, 1956, design, with no Indian water rights purposes or beneficiaries, was authorized by CRSP. I believe that the nontribal water users should pay these costs for a couple of reasons. First, the administration's Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for ALP takes the position that the version of the ALP project now being proposed for construction is so significantly different in size, features and purposes that the limitation in section 8 of CRSP does not apply. Page 5, Section 1.8 of that appendix states: A contemporary determination of reimbursable and non- reimbursable project costs is justifiable based on the significant re-defining of the current project's purpose and limitation of water use as well as current Administration policies. Second, as the just-quoted language implies, the policy of the current administration, as well as the policy of preceding administrations throughout the 1980s and 1990s, has been to seek reimbursement of recreation and fish and wildlife mitigation costs of Federal water projects. There are numerous examples, such as the Garrison project, Central Utah Project, and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. Many Members of this body worked hard to enact these reforms. In fact, obtaining reimbursement for recreation and fish and wildlife mitigation costs has been an element of Federal policy dating back to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1946, Federal Water Project Recreation Acts of 1965 and 1974, and various Water Resource Development Acts, most notably WRDA 1986. Obtaining reimbursement for fish and wildlife and recreation costs is far from unprecedented, and, in fact, is consistent both with contemporary policy and with the actual practice of recent years. We are authorizing a smaller project today, and that smaller project should be held to year 2000 reimbursement standards. In addition to making clear the intent of Congress to require the repayment of fish and wildlife costs, my amendment further clarifies the amount of construction costs that the nontribal water users have to repay to the Federal Government. The substitute of the Senator from Colorado gives the nontribal water users the right to prepay for construction. At the end of the construction they are given the choice of electing whether to make a second payment to settle their account with the Federal Government. If they choose to enter into a new contract, under the terms of the substitute, they are required to only repay construction costs that are ``reasonable and unforeseen.'' I think that allowing a second bite at the apple by giving water users the option of not making the second payment is a big enough gift from the taxpayers. I have repeatedly opposed prepayment because I believe and feel that the taxpayers often get stuck for contract delays and cost overruns. I am concerned that the substitute opens the door to allowing the definition of ``reasonable and unforseen'' to be argued in court. My amendment makes it clear that, when the final tally is levied, even though that is a practice I find questionable, it should include all of the costs--all the costs--the Federal Government has incurred. Third, and finally, I remain concerned that the findings in section 1(b) of the substitute may have the unintended effect of influencing a court's review of the sufficiency of agency compliance with Federal environmental laws applicable to the Animas-La Plata project. My amendment adds language to the bill to make sure that tampering with court review does not occur. Colleagues may say, well, these are only findings in the bill. What effect could they possibly have on a court? I would ask my colleagues to first ask themselves what other purpose these findings could possible have in this bill that is not to have influence on a court. Second, these finds are a compromise from the prior version of S. 2508, which included explicit determinations by Congress entitled ``compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act'' and ``compliance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973'' and which relied in part upon the findings. These sections have been deleted from the substitute, but the findings remain as determinations by Congress that could be used to attempt to influence judicial review of compliance with environmental laws. For example, the finding in section 1(b)(5) states in effect that the passage of S. 2508 is ``in order to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act.'' The finding that Congress has reviewed all of the environmental studies--section 1(b)(8)--in combination with the finding that Congress has decided to enact S. 2508 to implement the Record of Decision that resulted from those environmental studies-- section 1(b)(10)--would have the effect, I am afraid, of influencing a court's review of a challenge to the adequacy of the studies or the soundness of the decision contained in the Record of Decision. Indications of Congress's substantive views about a proposed project, as expressed in the legislation authorizing the project, have been used by the federal courts in evaluating whether the project complies with applicable federal environmental laws. Because the findings in S. 2508 appear to be designed to influence judicial review, as explained above, and because the precise intent of the findings is open to interpretation, a reviewing court could ascribe little weight, extreme weight, or no weight at all to these findings during the course of ruling upon a citizen suit. To neutralize this potential impact upon a reviewing court in a subsequent citizen challenge to environmental compliance, I propose to add language, so that section 2(a)(1)(B) will read: Nothing in this Act shall be construed to predetermine or otherwise affect the outcome of any analysis conducted by the Secretary or any other federal official under applicable laws, to restrict the availability or scope of judicial review, or to in any way affect the outcome of judicial review of any decision based on such analysis. I believe overall that this amendment in all its parts will make this bill better. It commits the Federal Government solely to the construction of a reservoir and protects the taxpayer. It preserves the right of courts to review the project's environmental compliance and it ensures that the nontribal water recipients pay their fair share. So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Wartime Violation of Italian American Civil Liberties Act. While the American people generally know about the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, they are largely unaware of the U.S. government's mistreatment of people of other ethnic backgrounds during this difficult time in our nation's history. I believe we need a complete and thorough review of our government's mistreatment of Americans during World War II. Mr. President, S. 2442 is a worthy bill. I had some reservations about this bill because it is not as inclusive as it might have been. The U.S. should fully assess its treatment of all Americans of European descent during World War II, including Italian and German Americans, as well as European refugees fleeing persecution, to acknowledge those whose lives were unjustly disrupted and whose freedoms were violated and to discourage the future occurrence of similar injustices. I recognize, however, that time is short in this session of Congress. So, I will not object to H.R. 2442 going forward at this time. But I want my colleagues to know that by withholding an objection at this time, I am not abandoning my effort to make sure that the mistreatment of other Americans during World War II, including German Americans, and European refugees are also properly recognized and reviewed. I look forward to working with Senator Hatch and my colleagues on this issue next year.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to speak for a few moments about the subject of race in America. I want to speak today about how sometimes it seems that whites and African-Americans are living in different Americas. And I want to speak about how we still need to do more to see that we become one America. There is a movie playing now in the theaters called Remember the Titans. That movie depicts how there were two Americas, not that far from here, not that long ago. It depicts the great civil rights struggle of school integration, through the lens of a high school football team in 1971, at T.C. Williams High School, just across the river from here in Alexandria, Virginia. The film stars Denzel Washington as Herman Boom, who became head football coach at all-white T.C. Williams High School, when it was just beginning to integrate. Although some in the white community in Alexandria did not welcome integration, in the film, Coach Boom steps into this tempest, and teaches the players and coaches to overcome racial prejudice. He teaches the players to respect each other and to work together as a team, regardless of the color of their skin. In the end, the team conquers racial barriers and goes on to win the state championship. Titans teaches us that we must be willing to confront our prejudices, so that we can build a better America, together. Since 1971, we have made significant progress in public education. But we still have a long way to go. And we are still failing in other areas, like the treatment of African Americans and Latino Americans by law enforcement agencies. They have become the targets of racial profiling. It is time for us to confront our prejudices, to address racial profiling. White Americans have not had similar experiences. We live in a different America. We won't be stopped on the side of the road, at the airport, or while walking through our neighborhoods, based on the color of our skin. We live in an America where we are free to move about. But African Americans, Latino Americans and Americans of other racial or ethnic groups do not live in this same America. They live in an America where they do not have freedom of movement. When it comes to the enforcement of our laws, they surely live in a completely different America. Mr. President, racial profiling is a terrible practice. It's unfair, unjust and un-American. It should be thoroughly reviewed, so that we can determine how to end it. Mr. President, racial profiling casts its net so far and wide that its victims include Americans regardless of their education, wealth, or status. Just last month, that net caught Bob Nash and his wife Janis Kearney, both very high-level officials at the White House. Montgomery County police in suburban Washington pulled over Mr. Nash and his wife, who are both African American. The officers drew their guns. The officers asked them to step out of their car. And the officers handcuffed them. Why? Well, as far as I can see, the only thing that they were guilty of doing was ``Driving While Black.'' They were stopped, questioned and handcuffed for no apparent reason other than the color of their skin. This is an outrage for Mr. Nash, Ms. Kearney, and all Americans who live in a nation that guarantees liberty and justice for all. At the end of last month, the San Diego police department released a study of traffic stops that found its officers are more likely to stop and search African and Hispanic Americans than whites and Asian Americans. And earlier this month, according to a story that appeared on the front page of the New York Times, a Federal investigation of the New York Police Department's Street Crime Unit determined that its officers engaged in racial profiling in recent years as they conducted their aggressive campaign of street searches in New York. More and more the evidence mounts. African Americans and other minority Americans have been on the receiving end again and again, of this horrendous practice. It is intolerable. And it screams out for action by the Federal Government. The Senate should take the first step toward ending this terrible practice by passing S. 821, the Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act. This bill was introduced in the House by Representative John Conyers and in the Senate by my distinguished colleague and friend from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg. I commend them for their leadership on this issue, and I am proud to have been able to join them in this effort. The Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act would require the Attorney General to conduct an initial analysis of existing data on racial profiling and then design a study to gather data from a nationwide sampling of jurisdictions. This is a reasonable bill. It simply requires the Attorney General to conduct a study. It doesn't tell police officers how to do their jobs. And it doesn't mandate data collection by police departments. The Attorney General's sampling study would be based on data collected from police departments that voluntarily agree to participate in the Justice Department study. In fact, since our traffic stops study bill was introduced in April 1999, we have already seen significant, increased recognition in the law enforcement community of the need for and value of collecting traffic stops data. Over 100 law enforcement agencies nationwide-- including state police agencies like the Michigan State Police--have now decided to collect data voluntarily. Eleven state legislatures have passed data collection bills in the last year or so. So this is tremendous progress from where we were when the bill was introduced. I applaud those states and law enforcement agencies that are collecting data on their own. But more can be done. And more should be done. Indeed, the state and local efforts in this area underscore the need for Federal action. Not all states and law enforcement agencies have undertake data collection efforts. A Federal role is critical for Congress and the American people to understand the extent of problem nationwide. This effort can lay the groundwork for national solutions to end this horrendous practice. Mr. President, I certainly believe this is not a Republican or Democratic issue. Governor George W. Bush supports data collection. During the second presidential debate, he said, ``we ought to do everything we can to end racial profiling.'' He also said, ``we need to find out where racial profiling occurs.'' His own Department of Public Safety in Texas has begun collecting data. And Vice President Gore, as well, has been a forceful leader on the issue. All Americans can agree that racial profiling is unfair and unjust and that we need to better understand the scope of the problem. Our Nation has come a long way in the struggle to live up to its highest ideals of liberty, justice, and equality for all. Congress, historically, has played a critical role in addressing racial discrimination, through legislation that grappled with civil rights issues like voting rights and employment discrimination. Americans are once again calling on the Congress to combat racial discrimination. With this legislation, we can take a step in the right direction, a step closer to becoming truly one America. I urge my colleagues to support the Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act, and to back its enactment this session.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to offer my sincere condolences to the families of the U.S. Navy personnel killed in what appears to have been a terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole, and to express my outrage at this cowardly act of murder. This deplorable incident is a tragic reminder of the risk and sacrifice assumed by all of our men and women in uniform, and by their families. I know that the administration will be using all of the resources at its disposal to discern who is responsible for the attack, and that the U.S. will resolutely take appropriate action in response to this incident. My certainty about that last point is based on a simple and irrefutable truth. No country would stand by while its soldiers and sailors are targeted and killed. The U.S. will certainly not stand for it and will not be intimidated in the wake of the cowardly attack on the Cole. By the same token, it should surprise no one that Israel retaliated in response to the brutal murder of Israeli soldiers at the hands of a mob in Ramallah. But as difficult as it is, as raw as emotions are right now, we cannot afford to lose sight of one fundamental fact. All of us--we Americans, the rest of the international community, the Israelis and the Palestinians--know that there is no military solution to the terribly difficult issues that have made the Middle East a region of tension and violence for far too long. In recent days the promise of peace has been obscured by terrible violence in Jerusalem and elsewhere. Nearly 100 lives have been lost, including the lives of children. For the Israeli and Palestinian children who remain, in the name of providing them a future free from these horrors, I hope that the Israeli and Palestinian people will find the courage and the strength to stop the violence, and that they will find their way back on a path toward peace. situation in israel