Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will once again oppose the Department of Defense authorization bill, as I have done each year I have been a Member of this body. As I stated earlier this year when the Senate passed the fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense appropriations bill, my opposition to this conference report should not be interpreted as a lack of support for our men and women in uniform. Rather, what I cannot support is the cold war mentality that continues to permeate the United States defense establishment. I strongly support our Armed Forces and the excellent work they are doing to combat the new threats of the 21st century and beyond. However, I am concerned that we are not giving our forces the tools they need to combat these emerging threats. Instead, this conference report, like the corresponding defense appropriations bill that has already been enacted, clings to the strategies and weapons that we used to fight--and win--the cold war. The cold war is over. It is past time that we undertake a comprehensive review of the threats currently facing the United States and formulate a strategy on how best to combat them before we continue to commit billions of dollars to programs that were created to fight an enemy that no longer exists. As we reexamine our defense priorities, we should assess the changing roles and missions of both our active duty and our reserve components. The National Guard and Reserve are integral parts of overseas missions, with recent and ongoing missions in places including Iraq and the Balkans. According to statements by Department of Defense officials, Guardsmen and Reservists will continue to play an increasingly important role in our national defense strategy as they are called upon to shoulder more of the burden of military operations both at home and abroad. The National Guard and Reserves deserve the full support they need to carry out their duties. One crucial part of that support is providing adequate compensation to these dedicated men and women. I am pleased that this conference report includes a modified version of an amendment I offered during Senate consideration of this bill which authorizes special duty assignment pay for members of the National Guard and Reserve not on active duty. This provision will provide a measure of pay equity to National Guard and Reserve personnel by making them eligible for special duty assignment pay for special duties performed during drill periods. The men and women who serve in the Guard and Reserves are cornerstones of our national defense and domestic infrastructure, and they deserve to be adequately and equitably compensated for their dedicated service to this country. This provision is a step in that direction. I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services for their cooperation and support on this important issue. On another matter, I am also delighted that this bill permanently extends the authority of the General Services Administration, GSA, to convey surplus property to local governments for law enforcement purposes. This provision builds on an amendment I offered when this measure was before the Senate, and I am pleased that the conferees have retained the language and expanded its scope. This section will help a number of communities across the country seeking to use surplus property to protect their citizens and provide safe, secure facilities for their police departments. Without this amendment, the authority to convey surplus property for law enforcement purposes would have expired this year. Communities that want to use the GSA process, and have counted upon doing so, to negotiate the use of property for law enforcement purposes at a reduced cost would have been shut out. In fact, I have just such a situation in my own home State. The city of Kewaunee, WI wants to acquire the city's Army Reserve Center, which is a former Federal armory building. The city intends to use the property as a municipal building in which they would house their police force and other municipal offices. Congress has specified a number of public purpose uses for which property can be transferred to local governments at a reduced cost. The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, FPASA, allows property to be transferred to public agencies and institutions at discounts of up to 100 percent of fair market value for a number of purposes: public health or educational uses, public parks or recreational areas, historic monuments, homeless assistance, correctional institutions, port facilities, public airports, wildlife conservation, and self-help housing. This type of transfer is called a public interest conveyance. I strongly believe that law enforcement is an important public purpose for which surplus property should be used. Moreover, in fairness to local communities with tight budgets, Congress today is acting to permanently preserve this option for communities that are counting on being able to use this authority. Mr. President, I again thank the bill's managers, the Senior Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] and the Senior Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], as well as the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Thompson], for assisting me in ensuring this provision becomes law. In closing, I reiterate my concern about the excessive spending contained in this conference report, including millions in taxpayers' dollars for planes, ships, and other equipment that the President did not request. We should reexamine our defense priorities, and we should do it as soon as possible. I thank the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Sense of the Congress amendment on contaminated sediments offered by the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer). I do so because I have concerns about the implications that the report language accompanying this bill may have for the remediation and restoration of the Fox River in my home state of Wisconsin. My staff has tried repeatedly over the last several days to clarify the report language with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and has been unable to do so. I had wanted a letter from the EPA explaining the impact of this language on the Fox clean-up. In fact, my office was told by the Office of General Counsel that the EPA could not state with certainty the effects of this language on the Fox River, because it was one of the clean-ups that they had identified which might be delayed by this report language. This leaves me with concern that the next few actions Wisconsin is about to take to clean up the Fox River may be delayed, and my concern is shared by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. As members of this body know, the Senate's version of the VA-HUD bill did not contain any report language on sediments. Only the version which passed the other body contained report language on this issue, and this language is retained and modified in the report accompanying this bill. Therefore, I also raise concerns, Mr. President, because my Wisconsin colleague in the House (Mr. Green), who represents the Fox Valley, tried to clarify the House report language in a floor colloquy when the measure was considered in the House of Representatives. This bill before us now changes the very language my colleague from Wisconsin specifically tried to clarify, and adds new and explicit time lines which do not mesh with the upcoming actions that will be taken to clean up the Fox River. As a Wisconsin Senator, I have no choice but to try to enhance the understanding of what this language would do, and I believe that the amendment by the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) makes it clear that Congress intends the EPA to move swiftly to clean up contaminated river and ocean sites. I want to explain the status of the Fox River clean-up. The Fox River is currently not a National Priority List (NPL) site, commonly known as Superfund site. Nonetheless, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is working to develop a final Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RIFS) and is expected to release that study in late December, 2000 or early January, 2001. The Wisconsin DNR intends to release the final RIFS jointly with the EPA, and the other trustees which include: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin. A final Record of Decision (ROD) could be reached between March and early June, 2001. If the National Academy study is not yet complete and ``properly considered'' by EPA before the final RIFS is issued, as the Conference Report language requires, the report language is unclear about whether public comment can be initiated on the final RIFS. The report language says that public comment can be taken on ``proposed'' or ``draft'' remediation plans but is unclear with respect to comment on a final RIFS. Further the language says that ``no plans are to be finalized until June 30, 2001 or until the Agency has properly considered the National Academy of Sciences report, whichever comes first.'' Potentially stalling comment on the final RIFS raises concerns, as the final RIFS will finally indicate a preferred alternative for cleaning-up the Fox, an alternative which was not indicated in the draft RIFS. Interests on all sides of this issue--the paper companies that are potentially responsible parties in the clean- up, local governments that are concerned about liability, and local citizens who have been waiting to see what will be done to address the contaminants in the river--deserve to know what the preferred alternative is and to express their views. Moreover, if the final ROD is issued before June 30, 2001, its implementation could also be delayed by this language. Though some may view this as simply a delay of a few weeks, I remind my colleagues that Wisconsin is a cold weather state. My State needs the certainty of being able to plan to contract to implement the remedy during the summer and early fall construction season. If not, we risk having to put off the clean up for another calendar year due to cold weather delays. Given these uncertainties, I support my colleague from California's (Mrs. Boxer) amendment. This report language may have consequences for my state which I simply feel must be addressed.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the alarming situation in the Ivory Coast. When General Robert Guei seized power in a coup last December, he indicated that he intended to hand over power to a civilian government quickly. Instead, and despite the urging of distinguished African heads of state from South Africa, Nigeria, and Senegal, Guei has chosen to run for President from his position of illegitimate authority, in which he can manipulate his own chances of electoral success. Last Friday, the Ivory Coast's Supreme Court issued a ruling barring all but five of twenty candidates seeking to run in Presidential elections slated for later this month. The ruling disqualified popular opposition leaders, most notably Former Prime Minister Alassane Ouattara, and the former ruling party's candidate, Emile Constant Bombey. Notably, Guei's former legal advisor is now serving as the court's chief. The upcoming elections are looking more and more like political farce, and General Guei's credibility is in tatters. Leading up to the Court's ruling, the General Guei's government took actions clearly intended to intimidate the opposition, instituting a state of emergency, banning opposition politicians from international travel, and executing sweeps to round up immigrants who have consistently supported elements of the opposition. The junta that claimed it stepped into power to save the country now appears committed to a course of destruction. One of Africa's most stable and important economies is threatened by the instability exacerbated by the junta's political machinations, and General Guei's attempts to rally popular support have been characterized by misguided, xenophobic rhetoric aimed at threatening foreigners in a country that depends upon an immigrant workforce. The people of the Ivory Coast deserve far better than this. At its core, democratic government is about trusting citizens to choose their own destiny, not about manipulating and restricting the choices available to them. The West African region, currently engaged in a struggle between the forces of democracy and those of thuggery, certainly does not need another thinly disguised dictatorship in its ranks. The only interests served by the junta's behavior are their own.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I join my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, in paying tribute to the life of our colleague, Congressman Bruce Vento. I learned of the Congressman's passing upon my return to Washington. I send my condolences to his wife Sue and his family, along with all of the people from the great state of Minnesota who mourn and who thank him for his many years of service in the House of Representatives. He is deserving of special praise in recognition of his tremendous efforts to use his status as a federal legislator to bring a voice to the voiceless and to defend such interests as environmental protection, human rights, working families and community building. Congressman Vento's career was a truly a remarkable one. He and I shared a profound affection for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, a place special to so many Wisconsinites and Minnesotans. Congressman Vento bravely agreed to chair the Ely field hearings on the creation of the Boundary Waters wilderness in 1977, a courageous decision for someone who was a Freshman member of the House at the time, and was a vocal champion of that wilderness throughout his career. As I work on wilderness issues, I am often reminded of Congressman Vento's comments on the House floor during consideration of the Boundary Waters bill. He said, ``there ought to be an opportunity where someone can go and have some solitude, where someone can go and have an experience that is different.'' Congressman Vento used his career to work to protect that ``different'' opportunity for all Americans in the Boundary Waters, the Arctic Refuge, Southern Utah and many other special wilderness areas. These places and the people who cherish them, myself included, owe him a great debt. I also had the privilege of working closely with Congressman Vento in this session of Congress on the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act which is now federal law. Congressman Vento was actively involved in getting that legislation through the House. I join with the Senate in letting Congressman Vento's family know how grateful we are for having known him, and how committed we are to ensuring that the causes to which he gave his heart and his career remain protected.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. After setting out a number of the difficulties of complying with this bill, Secretary Jon Litscher concludes the following: Given the complexity of administering this bill and pitting one state against another, I don't believe this legislation will enhance the criminal justice system. I believe that Mr. Litscher's view is shared by criminal justice professionals all over the country, along with Governors and other elected officials, all of whom are working just as hard to reduce violent crime as the sponsors of this bill. I cannot leave this topic of how this provision creates a ``race to the top'' in sentencing without commenting on how it will effect the death penalty. Currently, 38 states have the death penalty for some crimes. That is more than half the states. Now I am not sure how you calculate an average sentence when some jurisdictions use the death penalty. But there would certainly be a strong argument that the states that do not use the death penalty will risk losing federal law enforcement assistance funds if a convicted murderer is let out on parole and commits another serious crime. Basically, this policy could force states to either enact the death penalty or never release a person convicted of murder on parole. Now maybe that is what some people want. But I believe that whether to impose the ultimate penalty of death should be up to the states and their citizens. Federal coercion has no place in this question of conscience. A number of states, including my own, have long and proud histories of opposition to the death penalty. We should not use federal funds to force them to change their positions. If this bill had gone through the Judiciary Committee, some of the difficulties in interpreting and applying it might have been worked out. Here all the negotiating has gone on behind closed doors. This is what happens when the normal legislative process is circumvented as it has been so often this year. It's now the norm for the majority to look for conference reports as vehicles for bills that they want to enact without going through the legislative process. We used to have a rule, as my colleagues know, that prevented items from being added to a conference report that were beyond the scope of the conference. Last year, the minority leader offered an amendment to restore the rule, but it was voted down on a near party line vote. So now, anything goes in a conference, including adding provisions for purely political reasons that don't withstand even the most basic scrutiny of whether they will work, or can even be understood by the people or entities that are supposed to abide by them. I am sorry to say that Aimee's law is bad law. Perhaps well-intentioned, but bad law. I will support the Thompson point of order in order to state my objection to this provision. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 State of Wisconsin, Department of Corrections, Madison, WI, October 10, 2000. Hon. Russell D. Feingold, U.S. Senator, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Feingold: It has come to my attention that the provisions of H.R. 894 (Aimee's Law) have been attached to other legislation that may be considered by the United States Senate on Wednesday, October 11th. I am very concerned about the negative fiscal/policy ramifications on the Department of Corrections and the State of Wisconsin. Aimee's law provides that in any case in which a person is convicted of a dangerous sexual offense, murder or rape, and that person has been previously convicted of that offense in another state, the state of the prior conviction will incur fiscal liabilities. It will have deducted from its federal criminal justice funds the cost of apprehension, prosecution and incarceration of the offender. These funds will then be transferred to the state where the subsequent offense occurred. This legislation has a very confusing array of provisions. For example: 1. Retroactivity--While this bill has an effective date of January 1, 2002, it doesn't appear to have an applicability section that is normally drafted into bills introduced in the Wisconsin legislature. Many states have passed truth-in- sentencing laws that make them eligible for federal grant money. However, a state cannot change the sentencing structure for persons sentenced under a prior law. Wisconsin's truth-in-sentencing law (TIS) applies to persons who commit a felon on or after December 31, 1999 and inmates must serve 100% of the term of imprisonment imposed by the court. 2. Section (3)(a), ``the average term of imprisonment imposed by State . . .'' does not specify the term nor time period in which the averaging figure applies--does it apply at the time of sentencing for a similar crime across all states? Is the average for a specific time frame? Does the sentencing average only apply to cases sentenced to prison, or does it include persons sentenced to a jail term and probation? We don't know what the nationwide average is now and this figure will constantly be changing. 3. Determination of Comparable State Statutes--There is no uniform criminal code for all states. It will be very difficult to determine comparable state statutes to ``Dangerous Sexual Offense,'' ``Murder,'' and ``Rape.'' This will be subject to significant variation across the nation. This bill pits each state against the others. The costs associated with administration of the law, and the resulting ``loss'' of funds may be greater than the grant funds to which the state would otherwise be entitled. States may opt to not administer the law (not ``charge'' another state) so that another state will not charge them. Enforcement of this law will be dependent upon each state agreeing to fully implement its provisions. If the intent of the bill is to insure that each state has implemented TIS, retroactive application is unnecessary. You only need to apply the bill to states that haven't passed TIS and exempt those that have enacted laws that require at least 85% of a term of imprisonment to be served. Given the complexity of administering this bill and the pitting of one state against another, I don't believe this legislation will enhance the criminal justice system. Thank you for taking the time to consider my comments. Sincerely, Jon E. Litscher, Secretary.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to thank the Senator from Tennessee for having the courage to speak out against this ill-advised legislation known as Aimee's law. I say he has courage because there is a lot of emotion involved in any debate concerning serious violent crime such as murder, rape, or other sexual offenses. Some have said it is dangerous to vote against, much less speak against, any crime bill that is named after a real person. That is certainly the case here in this incredibly tragic case that underlies this legislation. I also know that anything goes in a conference, including adding provisions for political reasons that do not withstand even the most basic scrutiny of whether they will work or can even be understood by the people or the entities that are supposed to abide by them. I am sorry to say that Aimee's law is bad law--perhaps well intentioned--but bad law. I will support the Thompson point of order in order to state my objection to this provision. The young woman who inspired this bill was tragically raped and murdered in Pennsylvania. A shocking crime was committed against her, against her family, and, indeed against all of us. All of us in this body feel horrible about that crime and its consequences. But that does not absolve us of the duty to analyze legislation that comes before us, even if it bears the name of a child who was tragically killed. This legislation violates important principles of federalism. It will handcuff our states in their fights against violent crime. And most important, it just won't work. It won't accomplish what its sponsor and supporters say they want to accomplish. So I support Senator Thompson's point of order and hope my colleagues will as well. Before turning to the bill itself, let me again compliment the Senator from Tennessee. He has shown time and time again that his commitment to federalism is principled and real. He does not oppose federal intrusion into state affairs as a political tactic, as I fear so many of my colleagues do. He truly believes that our states deserve autonomy and is willing to stand up for them, even when it is politically unpopular, as it no doubt is here. I want the Senator from Tennessee to know that I respect his principles as well as support them. We miss his judgment and restraint, I must say, in the Judiciary Committee on which he served until the beginning of this Congress. Here, of course, we are not preparing to pass a new federal murder, rape, or sexual offense statute. But we might as well do that because in Aimee's Law we are forcing the states through the use of federal law enforcement assistance funds to increase their penalties for these offenses. Since when is it the province of the federal government to determine the sentences for state crimes? That is what we are doing here. Mr. President, in addition to furthering the federalization of the criminal law, this provision is very poorly thought out. As the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments and the Department of Justice have told us, it won't work. Even if states wish to comply with this law they won't be able to do. Here's why: Under this bill, if a person who has been convicted of a murder, rape or dangerous sexual offense is released from prison and commits a serious crime in another state, the original state becomes liable to the second state for all the costs of investigation, prosecution, and incarceration of the second crime. To avoid that liability, which the Attorney General must enforce through reallocation of the second states' federal law enforcement assistance funds, the second state must comply with two conditions. First, it must make sure that persons convicted of these serious offenses serve at least 85 percent of their sentences. So far, so good. States can comply with that federal sentencing requirement if they want to avoid risking their federal money. But the federal coercion doesn't stop there. The state must make sure that the average sentence for the original crime is greater than the average sentence for such crimes in all the states. This is a remarkable condition, Mr. President, that actually makes it impossible for all 50 states to be in compliance at any one time. Now Mr. President, think about this. Suppose a state determines that its average sentence for rape is 20 years, but the average for all states for that crime is 25 years. So the state raises its sentence to 26 years. That act will itself change the average sentence for all the states, possibly putting other states under the average and encouraging them to raise their sentences. The average sentence for all the states will therefore almost never be constant or predictable. Every time a state changes its sentencing guidelines to try to get above the average, the average will change and other states will be forced to revise their own sentences. We will have rolling averages and no certainty in sentencing or in the availability of federal money for important state law enforcement purposes. And that does not even take into account that the average sentence for an individual state will even sometimes change as different criminals are convicted and sentenced to slightly different terms. So the averages that states are supposed to keep track of in order to keep their law enforcement assistance funds will literally change day by day. This bill is an administrative nightmare for our states, even if they want to comply. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections in opposition to this bill be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I regret that I must oppose the Conference Report on H.R. 4475, the Transportation Appropriations Act, because it contains a number of provisions that I support. Others have noted the amount of special interest spending that was included in this bill. While I understand and share the desire of others to respond to particular local concerns, the level of such spending in this bill has become so great that it undercuts the efforts we made in the last Congress to bring more equity to the way transportation dollars are distributed. Mr. President, beyond that I am greatly disappointed that this measure also includes a provision that is effectively a mandate on States with respect to blood alcohol levels. This issue is classically a matter of State discretion, and the Federal government has no business engaging in what amounts to little more than extortion to impose a policy on States in an area that is so clearly a State matter. Mr. President, I have come to the floor before to talk about the disturbing trend toward the federalization of matters that should be left to state and local governments to decide. We have seen this in a number of policy areas, including our criminal justice system, but perhaps no area has been the subject of more inappropriate Federal intervention than transportation. From speed limits to seat belts, from helmets to blood alcohol levels, Congress effectively has usurped State authority to set public policy in this area. Mr. President, I was privileged to serve in the Wisconsin State Senate for ten years, and I can tell you that state legislators like to have something to do. State legislators and governors are fully capable of understanding the arguments made in favor of adopting the .08 standard, and the Congress should not interfere with a policy matter that is so clearly a State prerogative. Again, Mr. President, I regret I cannot support this measure. Adequate funding for the full spectrum of our transportation infrastructure is one of my highest budget priorities. But the inclusion of the blood alcohol standard puts that very needed funding at risk for states like Wisconsin that have a different policy. As with the special interest provisions that are included in this measure, it undermines the great strides that were made as part of TEA 21 to get Wisconsin a fairer portion of the revenue Wisconsin taxpayers contribute to the transportation fund.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am delighted that the conference report for Interior appropriations before this body today makes a significant investment in Wisconsin's only unit of the National Park System, the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. The Lakeshore recently celebrated its 30th anniversary on September 26, 2000, and I rise today to express my gratitude to the Senior Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) and the Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton) for working with me to ensure that some of the highest priority needs at the Lakeshore are met. I have been raising the need for these funds since 1998. On April 22 of that year, I introduced legislation, named for former Senator Gaylord Nelson who was the sponsor of the federal legislation that created the Lakeshore, to try to make sure that the Park Service has the funds included in this bill today. This bill helps to fund a wilderness suitability study of the Lakeshore as required by the Wilderness Act. Most of the Lakeshore is managed as wilderness, yet the required study has not yet been completed so that Congress can evaluate whether there is a need for a formal legal designation. This bill retains amendment language that I offered during the Senate consideration of Interior appropriations and provides $200,000 for that purpose. The bill also provides funds to the Park Service to protect the history Raspberry and Outer Island lighthouses which are threatened by erosion. The 21 islands of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore have six lighthouses, the greatest number of lighthouses on any property in federal ownership anywhere in the country. They are all at least 100 years old, and many of them are still used as aids to navigation and are in need of Federal help. By providing funds in this bill to ensure the success of the Lakeshore we contribute to another larger success--our efforts to clean and protect our environment and provide places for people to rest and refresh themselves. I have been very pleased in the willingness of the bill's managers to support my efforts to draw attention to this park. They have other, bigger parks that also have funding needs. But the managers understood my appeal on behalf of the people of Wisconsin with these funds. They know, as I do, that when the American people sit among the hemlocks on Outer Island, walk along the shore, travel to Devils Island, observe the waters of Lake Superior, they know protection of the Apostles is worth a federal investment. The investments in the Apostles are authorized investments, part of the requirements that we gave the Park Service when we created the Lakeshore. As delighted as I am that these funds have been included by the managers, I remain concerned about the fact that this bill provides funds and policy direction for unauthorized projects, authorizes new projects and continues to contain a number of policy riders that affect environmental protection. Because these riders remain, I will vote against the bill. I am concerned that this body is becoming habituated to the practice of environmental legislation by rider. This leaves Members of this body, like myself, who are very concerned about legislation which has the potential to adversely effect the implementation of environmental law, or change federal natural resource policy, with limited options. We must, by either striking the riders, or trying to modify their efforts, do the work of the authorizing committees on the floor of this body. With limited floor time on spending bills, and with the pressure to pass appropriations bills or risk shutting down or disrupting important Government programs, we do not do the best by the environment that we can and must do in our legislative efforts. I believe that the Senate should not include provisions in spending bills that weaken environmental laws or prevent potentially environmentally beneficial regulations from being promulgated by the federal agencies that enforce federal environmental law. For more than two decades, we have been a remarkable bipartisan consensus on protecting the environment through effective environmental legislation and regulation. I believe we have a responsibility to the American people to protect the quality of our public lands and resources. That responsibility requires that the Senate express its strong distaste for legislative efforts to include proposals in spending bills that weaken environmental laws or prevent potentially beneficial environmental regulations from being promulgated or enforced by the federal agencies that carry out Federal law. Every year I hold a town hall meeting in each one of Wisconsin's 72 counties. When I hold these meetings, the people of Wisconsin continue to express their grave concern that, when riders are placed in spending bills, major decisions regarding environmental protection are being made without the benefit of an up or down vote. When this bill passed the Senate initially on July 18, 2000, I was one of two Senators to vote against it because of legislative riders. I know that the bill managers worked long and hard to keep a number of the most controversial riders, many of which I was concerned about, off of this bill and I commend them for that. However, I am also concerned that there is a category of riders to which we have become habituated: riders on Alaska red cedar, riders on mining regulations, riders on grazing permits. There are also new authorizing provisions in this bill, such as developing forensic laboratory service fees for Fish and Wildlife investigations into wildlife mortality, and a new program to develop a reduced fee program for developing a reduced fee program to accommodate nonlocal travel through the National Park System. Why aren't these matters being discussed in the authorizing committees? These issues may have merit, but I think they should be handled by the committees of jurisdiction. We cannot continue to put the Appropriations Committee in the position of having to decide which of these riders are more or less important. These measures need to be referred to the authorizing committees, and we need to restore the trust of the American people that we are proceeding with the people's business in a fashion which allows for open debate and actual deliberation. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I was born in 1953, the same year that major league baseball made its way back to Milwaukee. I grew up with County Stadium and the countless memories it produced. When the stadium and I were just six years old, Milwaukee County bore witness to one of the most dramatic games in baseball history. Pittsburgh's Harvey Haddix, pitched 12 perfect innings and lost both the no-hitter and the game to Milwaukee in the 13th. When the stadium and I were eight years old, the legendary Warren Spahn had a spectacular year. He became the second oldest pitcher to throw a no-hitter and became only the 13th pitcher in history to win 300 games. When the stadium and I reached 20, the Green Bay Packers won their very first Monday Night Football game. Wisconsinites never forget the last game the Packers played at county stadium nearly six years ago today. On the year of our nation's bicentennial, when the stadium and I were 23, Hank Aaron hit his 775th and last career home run there. His home- run hitting presence and uncanny style added so much to County Stadium and the aura that surrounded him will never be forgotten. When the stadium and I reached the age of 45, it was at County Stadium that Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa both hit their 65th home runs. And finally, at our ripe age of 47, we must say farewell. Fortunately, its great and storied past will always be in our memories. I look forward to sharing with my family and Brewer fans across the state, the many new thrilling baseball moments that await us at Miller Park.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Senate has just concluded its fourth vote in favor of the bill expanding H-1B visas that America grants each year to people from other countries to work in certain specialty occupations. I supported the bill on each of these votes. But I rise today to express how strongly I oppose the manner in which the majority leader has sought to constrain this debate. I oppose the way in which the majority leader sought, on that bill, as with so many others, to prevent Senators from offering amendments. And I oppose the majority leader's effort to stifle debate by repeatedly filing cloture on the bill. Through his extreme use of cloture and of filling the amendment tree, I'm afraid the majority leader has reduced the Senate to a shadow of its proper self. And the result has been a Senate whose legislative accomplishments are as insubstantial as a shadow. This body cannot long exist as merely a shadow Senate. Yesterday, as he brushed aside calls that the Senate vote on minimum wage or a patient's bill of rights, the majority leader complained that the Senate had already voted on those matters. But the Senate has, as yet, failed to enact those matters, and the people who sent us here have a right to hold Senators accountable. And what's more, by blocking amendments, the majority leader has also blocked Senate consideration and votes on a number of issues that have been the subject of no votes in the Senate this year. Let me take a few moments to address two of them, the reform of soft money in political campaigns, and the indefensible practice of racial profiling. Let me begin my discussion of these two items that the Senate was not allowed to take up--campaign finance and racial profiling--by discussing how those matters relate to what the Senate did take up--the H-1B visa bill. The proponents of the H-1B bill characterize it as a necessity for our high tech future. It is both more and less than that. But in a sense, the high-tech industry is certainly a large part of the reason why the Senate considered H-1B legislation these past two weeks. I would assert, that there is a high degree of correlation between the items that come up on the floor of the United States Senate and the items advocated by the moneyed interests that make large contributions to political campaigns. American Business for Legal Immigration, a coalition which formed to fight for an increase in H-1B visas, offers a glimpse of the financial might behind proponents of H-1Bs. As I've said, I am not opposed to raising the level of H-1B visas. But I do think it's appropriate, from time to time, when the weight of campaign contributions appears to warp the legislative process, to Call the Bankroll to highlight what wealthy interests seeking to influence this debate have given to parties and candidates. ABLI is chock full of big political donors, Mr. President, and not just from one industry, but from several different industries that have an interest in bringing more high-tech workers into the U.S. I'll just give my colleagues a quick sampling of ABLI's membership and what they have given so far in this election cycle. All the donors I'm about to mention are companies that rank among the top employers of H-1B workers in the U.S., according to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. These figures are through at least the first 15 months of the election cycle, and in some cases include contributions given more recently in the cycle: Price Waterhouse Coopers, the accounting and consulting firm, has given more than $297,000 in soft money to the parties and more than $606,000 in PAC money candidates so far in this election cycle. Telecommunications giant Motorola and its executives have given more than $70,000 in soft money and more than $177,000 in PAC money during the period. And of course ABLI is comprised of giants in the software industry, who have also joined in the political money game. The software company Oracle and its executives have given more than $536,000 in soft money during the period, and its PAC has given $45,000 to federal candidates. Executives of Cisco Systems have given more than $372,000 in soft money since the beginning of this election cycle. And Microsoft gave very generously during the period, with more than $1.7 million in soft money and more than half a million in PAC money. But I should also point out, Mr. President, that the lobbying on this issue is hardly one sided. Many unions are lobbying against it, including the Communication Workers of America, which gave $1.9 million in soft money during the period, including two donations of a quarter of a million dollars last year. And CWA's PAC gave more than $960,000 to candidates during the period. The lobbying group Federation for American Immigration Reform, or ``FAIR,'' has lobbied furiously against this bill with a print, radio and television campaign, which has cost somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million, according to an estimate in Roll Call. This is standard procedure these days for wealthy interests--you have to pay to play on the field of politics. You have got to pony up for quarter-million dollar soft money contributions and half-million dollar issue ad campaigns, and anyone who cannot afford the price of admission is going to be left out in the cold. Thus, I believe that campaign finance is very much tied up in why the Senate considered the H-1B bill these past two weeks. I believe that campaign finance is very much tied up in why the Senate considered the H-1B bill under the tortured circumstances that it did. This is just another reason why I believe that this Senate must consider and vote on amendments that deal with campaign finance reform. The momentum is building on campaign finance reform. In recent days, more and more candidates have offered to swear off soft money and have called for commitments from their opponents to do without soft money in their campaigns. More and more candidates are coming to the realization that taking soft money is a political liability. The days of soft money are numbered, and this shadow Senate cannot long hide from the political reality. Beyond that subject, there are other important subjects that the majority leader is blocking with his heavy-handed tactics. The Senate may just have considered a bill dealing with immigrants, but the Senate has thus far failed to consider a discussion of a particular injustice that could well affect their lives, as well. The INS's May report showed that most of those for whom they approved H-1B visas during the period for which data were available came here from countries of the developing world. As a large number of those receiving H-1B visas are people of color, many could become subject to the indefensible practice of racial profiling. If this Senate can find the time to consider H-1B legislation, I believe that it should also find the time to consider an amendment that addresses the issue of racial profiling. Let me begin my discussion of racial profiling by acknowledging the leadership of Congressman John Conyers and our friend in this body, Senator Frank Lautenberg, the principal authors of the legislation to address this very real problem. The problem is this: Millions of African Americans, Hispanic Americans, immigrants, and other Americans of racial or ethnic minority backgrounds who drive on our Nation's streets and highways are subject to being stopped for no apparent reason other than the color of their skin. This practice, known as racial profiling, targets drivers for heightened scrutiny or harassment because of the color of their skin. Some call it ``DWB,'' ``Driving While Black,'' or ``Driving While Brown.'' Of course, not all or even most law enforcement officers engage in this terrible practice. The vast majority of our men and women in blue are honorable people who fulfill their duties without engaging in racial profiling, but the experience of many Americans of color has demonstrated that the practice is very real. There are some law enforcement agencies or officers in our country who have decided that if you are a person of color, you are more likely to be trafficking drugs or engaged in other illegal activities than a white person, despite statistical evidence to the contrary. In a May 1999 report, the American Civil Liberties Union reported that along I- 95 in Maryland, while only roughly 17 percent of the total drivers and traffic violators were African American, an astonishing 73 percent of the drivers searched were African American. The legislation that Senator Lautenberg and I have sponsored would allow us to get an even better picture. In America, all should have the right to travel from place to place free of this unjustified government harassment. None should have to endure this incredibly humiliating experience--and sometimes even a physically threatening one--on the roadsides or in the backseat of police cruisers. This practice also damages the trust between law enforcement and the community. Where can people of color turn for help when they believe that the men and women in uniform cannot be trusted? As one Hispanic- American testified earlier this year in Glencoe, IL, after his family experienced racial profiling, ``Who is there left to protect us? The police just violated us.'' Racial profiling chips away at the important trust that law enforcement agencies take great pains to develop with the community. When that trust is broken, it can lead to an escalation of tensions between the police and the community. It can lead to detrimental effects on our criminal justice system--like jury nullification and the failure to convict criminals at all--because some in the communities no longer believes the police officer on the witness stand. Racial profiling is bad policing, and it has a ripple effect whose consequences are only beginning to be felt. In just the last year and a half, since we introduced the traffic stops statistics study bill, we have already seen increased awareness of this problem in the law enforcement community, and an increased willingness to address it. A growing number of police departments are beginning to collect traffic stops data voluntarily. 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. This is tremendous progress from where we were when the bill was introduced. I applaud those states and I applaud law enforcement agencies that are collecting data on their own. But these State and local efforts underscore the need for a Federal role in collecting and analyzing traffic stops data to give Congress and the public a national picture of the extent of the racial profiling problem and lay the groundwork for national solutions to end this horrendous practice. While we can applaud individual states and law enforcement agencies for taking action, combating racial discrimination is one area where a Federal role is essential. Our citizens have a right to expect us to act. I am pleased to have joined my distinguished colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, in introducing S. 821, a companion bill to the bill introduced in the House by Representatives John Conyers and Robert Menendez. The bill 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 straightforward bill that requires only that the Attorney General 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. I cannot emphasize enough that this traffic stops study bill is a truly modest proposal. Some would even say it's a conservative proposal. The American people have become so much more aware of the issue over the last year, and so many law enforcement agencies and State governments have expressed interest in addressing the issue, that many people are now saying that a study bill does not go far enough. They argue that we have enough data; we know racial profiling exists; we do not need to study it more; let's just end it. I understand this sentiment. This is a modest, reasonable proposal that, I hope, will lay the groundwork for developing ways to end racial profiling once and for all. Only last month, the son of the great civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. led a march on the Lincoln Memorial to commemorate his father's legacy. His father inspired a nation 37 years ago when he said, in words that echoed throughout the world and have been etched in history, that he had a dream that one day racial justice would flow like a mighty river. Sadly, our Nation has not fulfilled that dream. As Martin Luther King III noted, racial profiling continues to harm Americans and erodes the important trust that should exist between law enforcement and the people they serve and protect. President Clinton has endorsed S. 821, and last June he directed federal law enforcement agencies to begin collecting and reporting data on the race, ethnicity and gender of the people they stop and search at our Nation's borders and airports. A coalition of civil rights and law enforcement organizations--including the ACLU, the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives--also support this legislation. I am pleased that 20 Senators have joined to cosponsor the bill, and I am hopeful that if allowed to come to a vote, my amendment would enjoy broad support. The House of Representatives passed a similar bill by voice vote in the 105th Congress, and this March, the House Judiciary Committee passed the bill again. It's time we passed it in the Senate, too. Racial profiling and soft money campaign finance reform are issues that deserve consideration in the Senate. Regrettably, the procedures that the majority leader employed to consider the H-1B bill and too many other bills have so far blocked their consideration. Before this Senate adjourns sine die, I hope that we will have an opportunity to address these, and many other issues that demand attention. If it fails to, this Senate's mark in history will be no more permanent than a shadow. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, there is a clear need for Independent Review of Army Corps of Engineers' projects. During debate on this bill I was prepared to offer an amendment on Independent Review. It was drawn from similar provisions in a larger piece of Corps Reform legislation sponsored by my Wisconsin colleague in the other body (Mr. Kind). 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. I believe that the Senate should act right now to require Independent Review in this Water Resources Development Act, but the Senate is apparently not ready to take that step. Nevertheless, in response to my initiative, the bill's managers (Senator Smith and Senator Baucus) have 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 a bill which I will introduce next Congress that will include Independent Review. I want to make certain that an NAS study does not become an excuse not to do anything on Corps reform for a year. Therefore, I have not opposed that study, and its completion will eliminate one argument against enacting serious Corps reform. The managers understand my concern in this regard, and are interested in moving forward on reforms, and have agreed to my request for hearings. 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 fined tuned by the NAS recommendations. The agreement we have made provides the best chance to pass a serious reform bill in the next year, rather than reach deadlock. I appreciate the efforts that the Managers of this bill have taken to bring this bill to the floor in the closing days of this Senate. I know that many of these Corps projects are extremely important to many of our constituents. However, Mr. President, in light of the attention and concern that the replacement of the Upper Mississippi locks has had in my own home state, I felt it that it was important that the issue of establishing additional oversight and review of Corps projects be raised in the context of this year's Water Resources bill, and that we begin down the road to passage of Corps reform legislation. Today we are closer to that goal than we were yesterday. As last week's five part series on the Corps of Engineers which ran in the Washington Post last week highlighted, the ongoing construction and maintenance of Corps dams, navigation channels, and flood control structures, and other water development projects dramatically alter the nation's landscapes. Michael Grunwald's Sunday, September 10, 2000 story made this point very clear that the debate over whether the Corps: . . . should grow or shrink, and how much it should shift its focus from construction projects to restoration project. . .may not be the sexiest of Beltway brawls, but it will have a dramatic effect on America. Corps levees and floodwalls protect millions of homes, farms and businesses. Its coastal ports and barge channels carry 2 billion tons of freight annually. Its dams generate one-fourth of America's hydroelectric power. Its water recreation sites attract more visitors than the National Park Service's. Its land holdings would cover Vermont and New Hampshire. But the Corps may have its greatest impact on nature . . . So the future direction of the Corps will help determine the future health of America's environment. Furthermore, this major government program costs federal taxpayers billions of dollars each year, and unfortunately, there have been times when economically unjustified activities have made it through to construction. 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. Mr. President, I feel that requiring independent review of large and controversial Corps projects 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. As Mike Grunwald's article on Monday, September 11, 2000 states: Water projects are a traditional coin of the realm on Capitol Hill, offering members of Congress jobs, contracts and other benefits for their constituents and campaign contributors --as well as ribbon cutting opportunities for themselves. In fact, the Corps budget consists almost entirely of projects requested by individual lawmakers, then approved by the Corps; the agency has almost no discretionary funds of its own. I wish it were the case, Mr. President, 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 going to complete an unbiased assessment of navigation needs. The first step in restoring that trust is restoring the credibility of the Corps' decision-making process. We must remove the cloud hanging over the Corps. There is a basic conflict of interest here, and Mike Grunwald's story on Wednesday, September 11, 2000, again in the Washington Post, makes this clear: The same agency that evaluates the proposed water projects gets to work on the ones it deems worthwhile. If the analysis concludes that the economic costs of a project outweigh its benefits, or that the ecological damage of a project is too extreme, then the Corps loses a potential job. Unfortunately, Mr. President, 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. In the future, we must monitor the result of projects so that we can learn from our mistakes and, when possible, correct them. We should impose a system of peer review as soon as possible and consider other comprehensive reforms. In a first step toward full evaluation of projects, I have committed myself to making Corps reform a priority in the next year and in the 107th Congress. The agreement we have reached today ensures that this Senate will also make it a priority.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my deep concern about a provision that is tucked into the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill. It came to light in a front page story last Thursday in the Washington Post. We have become accustomed in this body to hearing about outrageous special interest provisions finding their way into must-pass appropriations bills, but this one is really special. Section 305 of the bill that was reported by the Appropriations Committee exempts Federal judges from the ban on receiving cash honoraria contained in the Ethics in Government Act. If this provision becomes law, Federal judges will once again be able to accept cash compensation for speeches. There will be no limit on this additional compensation because the bill also provides that honoraria will not be considered outside income, which is subject under current law to a cap equal to 15 percent of the salary of a Level II executive employee, or about $22,000. With this change, Federal judges will be able to supplement their Federal salaries of over $140,000 per year with tens of thousands of dollars from speaking engagements. The Federal judiciary as a whole is widely respected, and deservedly so. But it has been a bad few months for the reputation of the judiciary. Even before this effort to lift the honoraria ban, there has been increasing attention to the practice of Federal judges traveling to posh resorts and dude ranches to attend seminars and conferences. These junkets are ``all-expenses paid,'' and the bill is often footed by legal foundations and industry groups with litigation interests before the very judges who attend the seminars. A recent report released by Community Rights Council found that at least 1,030 Federal judges took over 5,800 privately funded trips between 1992 and 1998. Some of these seminars are conducted at posh vacation resorts in locations such as Amelia Island, FL and Hilton Head, SC, and include ample time for expense-paid recreation. These kinds of education/vacation trips, which have been valued at over $7,000 in some cases, create an appearance that the judges who attend are profiting from their positions. More important, they create an appearance that is not consistent with the image of an impartial judiciary. That is the same image that is threatened by this proposed repeal of the honoraria ban. Who in this body believes that the powerful interests that seek our good will through campaign contributions would not try to curry favor with judges with generous honoraria? Have we learned nothing over the past two decades? In 1989, the Congress took a big step forward by increasing the salaries of federal employees and prohibiting honoraria. Perhaps we need to revisit the issue of the salaries of federal judges in light of current economic circumstances. But one thing I am absolutely certain we should not do is relax the ethical standards to which they are subject. The independence and impartiality of the judiciary are too important to our system of justice. This would truly be a case of cutting off our nose to spite our face. Now let me say a few words about the process by which this significant change in the ethical guidelines that apply to judges has come close to becoming law. The provision was included in the bill reported by the Appropriations Committee on July 18. It was very quietly added to that bill. It takes up only a page and a half of 126 pages of legislative language. And the committee report, which usually can be counted on to explain the bill says the following about section 305: * * * section 305 amends section 501 of 5 U.S.C. App. That is it. No explanation, no rationale, no argument for why this change should be made, or why it is being done in an appropriations bill instead of in substantive legislation that might be the subject-- which you might imagine we would like to have--of hearing and committee consideration. At any rate, the Commerce State Justice appropriations bill still has not yet come to the floor and now it appears very likely it will never come to the floor. That means that those of us who oppose the lifting of the honoraria ban, not to mention other troubling provisions in that bill, will never have a chance to offer an amendment to delete it from the bill. We will never have a chance to ask our colleagues to vote on this provision. We will never know whether the United States Senate supports what the Appropriations Committee has done. I think that is outrageous. We should be ashamed. This is a very important revision to the Ethics in Government Act. The Senate should be permitted to vote on it. But the Republican leadership will not let that happen. That means that the crucial decision will be made by the appropriators in their mock conference, and by the negotiators of a final omnibus spending bill. It appears that lifting the honoraria ban for judges in some of our colleagues' minds is just a first step to allowing other public officials to supplement their salaries with payments from special interests. The majority leader was quoted as saying that we'll probably need to get rid of the ban for Members of Congress as well. I urge the people who are crafting these bills to think twice before starting down this slippery slope. Let's keep the honoraria ban in place for judges and ensure that our judiciary maintains its integrity and the respect of the American people.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would put an end to automatic cost-of-living adjustments for Congressional pay. As my Colleagues are aware, it is an unusual thing to have the power to raise our own pay. Few people have that ability. Most of our constituents do not have that power. And that this power is so unusual is good reason for the Congress to exercise that power openly, and to exercise it subject to regular procedures that include debate, amendment, and a vote on the Record. Earlier today, the Senate voted down the conference report on the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. As I noted during the debate on that bill, by considering the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill as part of that conference report, shielded as it was from amendment, the Senate blocked any opportunity to force an open debate of a $3,800 pay raise next year for every Member of the Senate and the House of Representatives. This process of pay raises without accountability must end. The stealth pay raise technique being employed this year began with a change Congress enacted in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. In section 704 of that Act, Members of Congress voted to make themselves entitled to an annual raise equal to half a percentage point less than the employment cost index, one measure of inflation. Many times, Congress has voted to deny itself the raise, and Congress traditionally does that on the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. And by bringing the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill to the Senate floor for the first time this week in a conference report, without Senate floor consideration, the majority leadership prevented anyone from offering an amendment on that bill to block the pay raise. The majority leadership tried to make it impossible even to put Senators on record in an up-or-down vote directly for or against the pay raise. The majority nearly perfected the technique of the stealth pay raise. And the majority also made it impossible to link this Congressional pay raise directly to other pay issues of importance to the American people. The majority made it impossible to consider, among other things, an amendment that would have delayed the Congressional pay raise until working Americans get a much-needed raise in the minimum wage. The majority leadership thus appears to believe that cost-of-living adjustments make sense for Senators and Congressmen, but that cost-of- living adjustments do not make sense for working people making the minimum wage. The process that gives Senators and Congressmen an automatic cost-of- living adjustment makes it easier for the majority leadership to block the Senate from rectifying this injustice. If the Senate had to debate and vote on a bill to raise its pay, a Senator could offer an amendment that would point out inequities like this. The question of how and whether Members of Congress can raise their own pay was one that our Founders considered from the beginning of our Nation. In August of 1789, as part of the package of 12 amendments advocated by James Madison that included what has become our Bill of Rights, the House of Representatives passed an amendment to the Constitution providing that Congress could not raise its pay without an intervening election. Almost exactly 211 years ago, on September 9, 1789, the Senate passed that amendment. In late September of 1789, Congress submitted the amendments to the states. Although the amendment on pay raises languished for two centuries, in the 1980s, a campaign began to ratify it. While I was a member of the Wisconsin state Senate, I was proud to help ratify the amendment. Its approval by the Michigan legislature on May 7, 1992, gave it the needed approval by three-fourths of the states. The 27th Amendment to the Constitution now states: ``No law, varying the compensation for the services of the senators and representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.'' I try to honor that limitation in my own practices. In my own case, throughout my 6-year term, I accept only the rate of pay that Senators receive on the date on which I was sworn in as a Senator. And I return to the Treasury any additional income Senators get, whether from a cost-of-living adjustment or a pay raise we vote for ourselves. I don't take a raise until my boss, the people of Wisconsin, give me one at the ballot box. That is the spirit of the 27th Amendment. Now, this year's procedural device allowing another pay raise to go into effect without a recorded vote does not violate the letter of the Constitution. But stealth pay raises like the one that the Senate allowed this year certainly violate the spirit of that amendment. Mr. President, this practice must end. To address it, I am introducing this bill to end the automatic cost-of-living adjustment for Congressional pay. Senators and Congressmen should have to vote up- or-down to raise Congressional pay. The majority has sought to prevent votes on pay raises. My bill would simply require us to vote in the open. We owe our constituents no less. I urge my Colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the bill in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the tragic events that occurred over the weekend in the West African country of Guinea. West Africa is a very rough neighborhood, and for years Guinea has borne a heavy refugee burden, as Liberian and Sierra Leonean people have fled into its borders to escape violence in their home countries. In fact, Guinea hosts more refugees than any other country in Africa-- nearly half a million of them. The region's tensions have, unfortunately, spilled over to affect the welfare of refugees. Recently, a crisis erupted when a series of armed incursions into Guinea from Liberia and Sierra Leone provoked a violent reaction on the part of Guinean authorities who rounded up and arrested thousands of foreigners, including refugees, accusing them of aiding the attackers. On Sunday, in the town of Macenta, Mensah Kpognon, a Togolese employee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was killed, and another UNHCR worker from the Ivory Coast, Sapeu Laurence Djeya, was abducted by unidentified attackers. Reports indicate that dozens of civilians were also killed in the raid. This terrible tragedy marks the fourth murder of a UNHCR worker in less than two weeks. Three others, including an American citizen, Carlos Caceres, were murdered on September 6, 2000 in Atambua, West Timor by a militia mob while Indonesian armed forces and police failed to stop the violence. These terrible crimes, committed against individuals who dedicated their lives to helping others in need, must not continue. All responsible members of the international community must work together to provide security for the humanitarian workers laboring in difficult conditions around the globe. Governments in the region must ensure that those responsible for these acts must be held accountable for their actions. Cross-border raids into Guinea must be stopped. And most urgently, the governments of West Africa must work to find Sapeu Laurence Djeya and to ensure her safety and freedom.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I believe that will be sufficient. I will just proceed, if I may.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join the Senator from Maine in talking about the importance of eliminating the automatic 15-percent reduction in Medicare payments to home health agencies. It is currently scheduled for October 1, 2001. I am very pleased to be working with her on this because she is a tremendous leader on this issue. It is a very good example of the kind of bipartisanship that is essential for this body to function well. I am most pleased to be working with the Senator on this because it is so obvious she has taken a great deal of time to listen to her constituents about this very important issue. I have heard the same sad story in Wisconsin, and we hear a lot of very compelling human stories in this job. But I find this one impossible to ignore. I know the Senator from Maine feels the same way. The fact is, this system of home health care--at least in the State of the Senator from Maine and my State--was working. It is not as if it is something we are trying to create. It was working. Because of some poorly constructed policies, it is being harmed in a way that is truly harming older people in our country. The story the Senator from Maine gave is a very compelling example of a broader series of tragedies that are occurring, I think, on an almost daily basis in my State of Wisconsin, and in many other States. So, I thank her. I believe strongly that Congress must act to preserve access to home health care for seniors and others. That is why I have made the preservation of access to home health services one of my top priorities in the U.S. Senate. For seniors who are homebound and have skilled nursing needs, having access to home health services through the Medicare Program is the difference between staying in their own home and moving into a nursing home. The availability of home health services is integral to preserving independence, dignity, and hope for many beneficiaries. I feel strongly that where there is a choice, we should do our best to allow patients to choose home health care. I think seniors need and deserve that choice. Mr. President, as you know, and as many of our colleagues know, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 contained significant changes to the way that Medicare pays for home health services. Perhaps the most significant change was a switch from cost-based reimbursement to an interim payment system, or IPS. IPS was intended as a cost-saving transitional payment system to tide us over until the development and implementation of a prospective payment system or PPS, for home health payments under Medicare. Unfortunately, the cuts went deeper than anyone--including CBO forecasters--anticipated, leaving many Medicare beneficiaries without access to the services they need. These unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 have been severe indeed. Instead of the $100 billion in 5-year savings that we targeted, present projections indicate that actual Medicare reductions have been in the area of $200 billion. Home health care spending, which the Congressional Budget Office expected to rise by $2 billion in the last 2 years even after factoring in the Balanced Budget Act cuts, has instead fallen by nearly $8 billion, or 45 percent. These painful cuts have forced more than 40 home health care agencies in 22 Wisconsin counties to close their doors, in just 2 years. So, what do these changes mean for Medicare beneficiaries? Frankly, in many parts of Wisconsin, these changes mean that beneficiaries in certain areas or with certain diagnoses simply do not have access to home health care. I am concerned that a further 15-percent cut in home health care reimbursements will further jeopardize care and leave some of our frailest Medicare beneficiaries without the choice to receive care at home. Last year, I was proud to work with Senator Collins and others to delay the automatic 15-percent reduction in Medicare home health payments for one year. However, I believe this reduction must be eliminated in order to preserve access to home health care. I think seniors need and deserve the choice to stay in their homes, and I hope my colleagues will follow the leadership of Senator Collins and others by supporting the elimination of the 15-percent cut. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to oppose this conference report on the legislative branch appropriations bill. The reasons for my opposition have much to do with the process by which this conference report has come to us. As I said in my statement this May during debate on the motion to proceed to the foreign operations appropriations bill, the character of the Senate has been changing. This conference report is yet another example of that change. And the change has not been for the better. The Senate sent to conference a $2\1/2\ billion legislative branch appropriations bill. The House majority leadership took that conference on a relatively modest bill and shoveled into it a $55 billion tax cut and a $30 billion appropriations bill for the Treasury Department, the Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain independent agencies. This is an abuse of the powers of the majority. Mr. President, the Senate may be calloused to the accelerating number of abuses that we have witnessed in the past few years. And this growing indifference may have given some comfort to those who are spearheading this particular offensive. But, Mr. President, there is a facet to this latest effort that makes it especially worthy of opposition. For adopting this conference report, now shielded from amendment, removes the opportunity to force an open debate of a $3,800 pay raise for every Member of the Senate and the House of Representatives. By bringing the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill to the Senate floor for the first time in this conference report, without Senate floor consideration, the majority prevents anyone from offering an amendment on that bill to block the pay raise. The majority makes it impossible even to put Senators on record in an up-or-down vote directly for or against the pay raise. The majority has thus perfected the technique of the stealth pay raise. And the majority also makes it impossible to link this congressional pay raise directly to other pay issues of importance to the American people. With this abuse of the rules, the majority makes it impossible to consider, among other things, an amendment that would delay the congressional pay raise until working Americans get a much-needed raise in the minimum wage. The majority leadership thus appears to believe that cost-of-living adjustments make sense for Senators and Congressmen, but that cost-of- living adjustments do not make sense for working people making the minimum wage. The abuse of the process that brings us here today prevents the Senate from rectifying this injustice. If the Senate were considering the regular Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, a Senator could offer an amendment that would point out inequities like this. And that, in the end, might help explain why the majority is using this procedure today. That might explain why we are not considering the regular Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, but are considering an unamenable conference report. This unamendable conference report culminates the technique of the stealth pay raise. As my colleagues are aware, it is an unusual thing to have the power to raise our own pay. Few people have that ability. Most of our constituents do not have that power. And that this power is so unusual is good reason for the Congress to exercise that power openly, and to exercise it subject to regular procedures that include debate and amendment. The question of how and whether Members of Congress can raise their own pay was one that our Founders considered from the beginning of our Nation. In August of 1789, as part of the package of 12 amendments advocated by James Madison that included what has become our Bill of Rights, the House of Representatives passed an amendment to the Constitution providing that Congress could not raise its pay without an intervening election. Almost exactly 211 years ago, on September 9, 1789, the Senate passed that amendment. In late September of 1789, Congress submitted the amendments to the states. Although the amendment on pay raises languished for two centuries, in the 1980s, a campaign began to ratify it. While I was a member of the Wisconsin State Senate, I was proud to help ratify the amendment. Its approval by the Michigan legislature on May 7, 1992, gave it the needed approval by three-fourths of the states. The 27th amendment to the constitution now states: ``No law, varying the compensation for the services of the senators and representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.'' Now, today's action does not violate the letter of the Constitution, because it is the result of a 1989 law that provides for a regular cost-of-living adjustment for congressional pay. But stealth pay raises like the one that the Senate allows today certainly violate the spirit of that amendment. Mr. President, this practice must end. To address it, I intend to introduce legislation that ends the automatic cost-of-living adjustment for congressional pay. The conference report before us today took its final shape just before the August recess, during what were reported to be all-night, closed-door meetings. The House majority leadership then tried to muscle this conference report through the House on the day before the recess. The bill survived a procedural vote by just four votes, 214 to 210. with Representatives anxious to begin their August recess, the House leadership decided to postpone further action until this month. The conference report before us today includes the Treasury Postal bill. The Senate never had a chance to consider the Treasury Postal bill that is now part of this conference report. The Senate Appropriations Committee ordered the bill reported on July 20. It is available for Senate consideration as a separate bill. This conference report on an appropriations bill also includes a repeal of the telephone excise tax. Now repealing the telephone tax is probably the best tax cut idea that we will get in this Congress. I voted to repeal the telephone tax during consideration of the estate tax bill. But that was a tax bill. Today, we are being asked to enact that tax cut on an appropriations bill. A tax cut that will cost $55 billion over the next decade should not be added in the middle of the night in a conference on a $2\1/2\ billion appropriations bill. As well, the conference report also makes budget process law changes. Section 1002 of the conference report changes the limits on outlays set in the current budget resolution for defense and non-defense spending. It shifts $2 billion from non-defense spending to defense spending. Making this budget process change violates the rules. Section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act prohibits including budget process changes like this in a bill that is not a budget process bill. Some may argue that if we do not enact this conference report with this abuse of the process, then the leadership will confront us with an even greater abuse of process in the form of an even larger omnibus appropriations bill. Even were that so, my colleagues, we here cannot and must not give the leadership a blank check to include any matter that they choose. And we most certainly can demand that Congress do what we can to ensure that we get no pay raise until such time as Congress has enacted a raise in the minimum wage. This is a matter of principle, because this conference report does not honor the principles of debate and amendment that undergird the rules of this Senate. And this is a matter of fairness, because this conference report allows a $3,800 pay raise for Senators and Congressmen, before the Congress has enacted a $1,000 pay raise for working Americans making the minimum wage. The majority has sought to prevent votes on this pay raise. By preventing votes on amendments, they have made this final vote on this conference report the single vote that will allow the congressional pay raise to happen. A Member who wants to prevent a congressional pay raise before we have a raise in the minimum wage has this one opportunity to vote against it. It is for these reasons that I will vote against this conference report.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in recent days, Congress has held hearings and considered legislation on the terrible tragedy involving potentially defective tires manufactured by Bridgestone/Firestone and placed on certain vehicles sold by the Ford Motor Company. It has captured the nation's and the media's attention. And rightly so. I hope we are able to get to the bottom of who knew what, when, why and how. But while Congress demands accountability from these companies, as well as the Transportation Department, Congress should also demand accountability from the Justice Department. As the Senate Commerce Committee held hearings on the Firestone tire problem the other day, a few blocks down the road the Justice Department released a report that seriously calls into question the fairness of the federal death penalty system. The report documents apparent racial and geographic disparities in the administration of the federal death penalty. In other words, who lives and who dies, and who is charged, tried, convicted and sentenced to death in the federal system appears to relate arbitrarily to the color of one's skin or where one lives. The report can be read as a chilling indictment of our federal criminal justice system. I introduced legislation earlier this year calling for a national moratorium on executions and the creation of a commission to review the fairness of the administration of the death penalty at the state and federal levels. It is much-needed legislation that will begin to address the growing concerns of the American people with the fairness and accuracy of our nation's death penalty system. I am pleased that that bill, the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act, has the support of some of my colleagues, including Senators Levin, Wellstone, Durbin, and Boxer. But now, with the first federal execution in almost 40 years scheduled to take place in December, I urge my colleagues to take action in the remaining weeks of this session to restore justice and fairness to our federal criminal justice system. I rise today to introduce the Federal Death Penalty Moratorium Act. Like my earlier bill, this bill would suspend executions of federal death row inmates while an independent, blue ribbon commission thoroughly reviews the flaws in the federal death penalty system. The first federal execution in almost 40 years is scheduled to take place after this Congress has adjourned. But before we adjourn, we have an obligation--indeed, a solemn responsibility--to the American people to ensure that the federal criminal justice system is a fair one, particularly when it involves the ultimate punishment, death. Mr. President, some have argued that the flaws in the administration of the death penalty at the state level do not exist at the federal level. But now, with the release of the Justice Department report earlier this week, our suspicions have been heightened. We now know that the federal death penalty system has attributes of inequity and unfairness. The Justice Department report makes a number of troubling findings: Roughly 80 percent of defendants who were charged with death-eligible offenses under Federal law and whose cases were submitted by U.S. Attorneys under the Department's death penalty decision-making procedures were African American, Hispanic American or members of other minority groups; United States attorneys in 5 of the 94 federal districts--1 each in Virginia, Maryland, Puerto Rico and 2 in New York-- submit 40 percent of all cases in which the death penalty is considered; United States attorneys who have frequently recommended seeking the death penalty are often from states with a high number of executions, including Texas, Virginia and Missouri; and White defendants are more likely than black defendants to negotiate plea bargains, saving them from the death penalty in federal cases. What do these findings tell us? I think we can all agree that the report is deeply disturbing. There is a glaring lack of uniformity in the application of the federal death penalty. Whether you live or die appears to relate arbitrarily to the color of your skin or where you live. Why do these disparities exist? How can they be addressed? The Justice Department report doesn't have answers to these and other questions. I am pleased that the Attorney General has requested additional internal reviews. But with all respect to the Attorney General, that's simply not enough. The American people deserve more. Indeed, American ideals of justice demand much more. With the first federal execution since the Kennedy Administration only three months away, Congress should call for an independent review. Mr. President, if the Attorney General and the President won't act, then it is our solemn responsibility, as members of Congress, to protect the American people and ensure fairness and justice for all Americans. Congress should demand an answer to the troubling questions raised by the Justice Department report. And I believe we have a duty do so. After all, it was Congress that, beginning in 1988, enacted the laws providing for the death penalty for certain federal crimes. And I might add, the Justice Department has had more than enough time to right the wrong. As some of my colleagues may recall, concerns about racial disparities in the administration of the federal death penalty were hotly debated in 1994 during debate on the Racial Justice Act as the Congress decided whether to expand the federal death penalty. At that time, a House Judiciary Subcommittee report found that 89 percent of defendants against whom the federal government sought the death penalty under the 1988 Drug Kingpin Statute were African American or Hispanic Americans. In response to these concerns, the Attorney General centralized the process for U.S. attorneys requesting the Attorney General's authorization to seek the death penalty. The Attorney General's centralized review process has now been in operation for nearly 6 years. But we have not seen anything approaching rough consistency, let alone uniformity in the federal death penalty system. We are continuing to see egregious disparities. One of the greatest needs for additional data and analysis involves the question of how line prosecutors and U.S. attorneys are making decisions to take cases at the federal level and charge defendants with death-eligible offenses. But Congress and the American people should not wait for another report that fails to ask and answer this and other tough questions. Indeed, an agency that tries to review itself can't always be expected to be fully forthcoming or fully equipped to identify its own failings. That's why an independent, blue ribbon commission is the only appropriate response to the Justice Department report. And time is of the essence. It's not too late for Congress to act. We should demand full accountability. In fact, the American people are demanding accountability and fairness. In a poll released today by The Justice Project, 64 percent of registered voters support a suspension of executions while fairness questions are addressed, based on information that in several instances, criminals sentenced to be executed have been released based on new evidence or DNA testing. And this is not just a partisan issue, or shouldn't be. The poll, conducted by Democratic and Republican polling firms, found that 73 percent of Independents and 50 percent of Republicans, including 65 percent of non-conservative Republicans, support a suspension of executions. The American people get it. Something is terribly amiss in our administration of the ultimate punishment, death. And this is just as true at the federal level. So, as we approach the close of this 106th Congress, I urge my colleagues to support a moratorium on federal executions while we study the glaring flaws in the federal death penalty system through an independent, blue ribbon commission. It is disturbing enough that the ultimate punishment may be meted out unfairly at the state level. But it should be even more troubling for my colleagues when the federal government, which should be leading the states on matters of equality, justice and fairness, has a system that is unjust. We are at a defining moment in the history of our nation's administration of the death penalty. The time to do something is now.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I am prepared to yield back my remaining time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. It is my understanding that the Senator from Colorado has yielded time in opposition to my amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my amendment is eminently reasonable. This body is considering a bill that is very likely to become law. We have a responsibility to take that bill seriously, to actually examine its contents. All my amendment will do is, first, require the Congressional- Executive Commission to make recommendations in its report. Secondly, we would require the commission to report to the Senate as well as to the House. Currently, under the bill, the commission reports only to the House International Relations Committee. And third, it will create a mechanism whereby any Member of the Senate can call the commission recommendations up on the floor so that these issues are not the exclusive purview of certain committees. The amendment will not require the commission to affirmatively approve extension of PNTR. It will not infringe on any Member's right to amend legislation on the floor. I think it is difficult to argue that this amendment does not improve the commission and the bill. I urge my colleagues to take this process seriously. I urge them to support this amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield back the time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will briefly respond to the comments of the distinguished chairman. Yes, this amendment, in terms of the commission that was established in the House consideration of the bill, says there ought to be some recommendations coming out of this commission, there ought to be some reality. This is all we will have left of the opportunity to consider issues such as human rights in connection with China's trade status. Instead of just having a series of documents or volumes on a shelf gathering dust, we suggest there ought to at least be a requirement that there be recommendations coming forward. That seems to me to be very modest. This is not something that would in any way undercut the legislation or the purpose of the legislation. It would simply make sure that the work of the commission results in some recommendation. What strikes me as even more strange about opposition to this amendment is that the distinguished chairman would leave this commission to be only a commission that reports to the House of Representatives. He would prefer that a commission that apparently is a serious commission, one that the chairman will support, as he votes for final passage of the bill, should not report to this body. I would think his institutional concerns of having to do with proper referral to one committee or another in a revenue bill would also apply to the notion that a report should go to the Senate as well as to the House on something as significant and weighty as the question of human rights and other issues in connection with China's trade status. I find it baffling that the main proponent of this bill would not agree that this Senate should receive the report, as well as the House. The Senator makes the point, as well he should as chairman of the Finance Committee, that he believes there may be some concerns about proper jurisdiction in terms of committees. I am a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, so I definitely believe this should go to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But I have no problem with certainly inviting an amendment that calls for a joint reporting to both the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. It seems to me that would take care of that concern. I know of a number of cases in my brief time in the Senate where we have had these joint referrals, and that would take care of the chairman's concern. Not only is this amendment not threatening to the underlying purpose of this legislation, it is simply an amendment that balances the purpose of this commission so that it has some relationship to the structure of our Congress. It says there ought to be recommendations given and they should be reported to the Senate as well as to the House; that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should continue to consider these recommendations, as it has done in the past. I can't think of a more modest amendment one could raise with regard to this bill. It is based on a commission that was already approved overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives and supported by all of those who support this legislation. All we are trying to do is have a similar requirement with respect to a report in the Senate. It couldn't be more modest. It is a sign of how desperate the proponents of this legislation are to get this thing through without even the possibility of a modest, logical change such as having the Senate as well as the House receive a report. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield the remainder of my time if the opposition to the amendment will do the same?

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I voted in favor of the Smith amendment to H.R. 4444, the bill to extend permanent normal trade relations to the People's Republic of China. The Smith amendment would have extended the mandate of the Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China to include responsibility for monitoring and reporting on organ harvesting in China. For years, chilling reports have emerged out of China, detailing horrific scenarios in which organs are illicitly harvested for profit from executed prisoners. It is my understanding that the Chinese government has failed to take action to stop the criminal elements responsible for these abhorrent practices. Certainly careful monitoring and reporting on this issue is appropriate.