Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment will increase the strength and the relevance of the Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China. It is no secret that I oppose H.R. 4444, the bill extending permanent normal trade relations to China. I believe it is a mistake to institutionalize a separation between our trading relationship with China and our concerns regarding the deteriorating human rights situation in China. I believe this compartmentalization of American interests makes for policy that is confused, contradictory, and ultimately ineffective. I am not blind to the numbers; I am not blind to the likely votes. This bill stands an excellent chance of passing the Senate, and we are dealing with legislation likely to become law. So I choose to take seriously the efforts made in the other body to somehow integrate human rights concerns into this legislation. Perhaps I am supposed to assume those efforts are simply window dressing, mere political cover for those who feel obligated to address human rights issues but who are also disinclined to impede this trade initiative with inconvenient complications. But I reject that assumption. If this bill passes, as it probably will, the Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China will be important both in substance and as a symbol. It may well be the only remaining bridge in our China policy between this country's highest values and the pursuit of profit for the few. It will be the watchdog, in a sense, responsible for ensuring that our trade policy undermines neither our national values nor our national character. Its structure and its mandate will carry this burden. So I do think this commission deserves our serious consideration. As currently constructed, the commission would produce an annual report. But it would not be required to include policy recommendations in this report, and neither the House nor the Senate would actually be required to debate the report or to hold any kind of vote on it. In short, the commission would be extremely weak and then, of course, could be easily be marginalized. My amendment would strengthen the commission in several ways. First, it would require that the commission's report contain recommendations for legislative and/or executive action, rather than simply permitting such recommendations. As the debate on this bill has shown, we do not lack for reports of gross human rights violations in China. But simply stating the facts is not enough; our actions must reflect acknowledgement of those facts. Thick reports and handwringing in and of themselves do not serve U.S. interests. Policy recommendations have to be an explicit part of the commission's mandate. In addition, this amendment would require that legislative proposals contained in the report be considered by both the House International Relations Committee and by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As it now stands, this commission reports only to the House. I urge my colleagues in this body, the Senate, to recognize that the Senate needs to consider this report and its recommendations as well. We cannot leave this important work solely to our House colleagues and, in effect, wash our hands of it. We must protect the Senate's prerogatives and ensure that both Chambers of this Congress engage with this important commission. Finally, this amendment lays out a procedure by which this commission's recommendations could be considered by this body rather than simply gathering dust and assuaging consciences on our office shelves. It would establish a procedure, one that is not unfamiliar or unprecedented, whereby commission recommendations, in the form of a resolution, would be considered by the appropriate committees. These committees would then hold hearings to review these recommendations, allowing for public comment and opening up this process to democratic participation and actual debate. Critically, after committee consideration, any Member of the House or Senate would have the right to call up the resolution on the floor. This amendment ensures that the crucially important issues covered by the commission can be considered by any Member, not only the members of certain committees. As it now stands, only members of the House International Relations Committee would have the power to consider and weigh the commission report. That seems very odd to me for a bicameral legislature. This amendment provides a mechanism for moving the substance of commission recommendations onto the floor and into the realm of full congressional consideration. This is hardly an extreme proposition. My amendment would give this commission greater relevance, rather than relegating it to bureaucratic limbo. Relevance seems like an eminently reasonable goal for a body charged with the critically important work of reconciling U.S. support for human rights with the U.S. trade policy toward China. Those toiling in forced labor camps are relevant. This body ought to behave as if they are relevant. The Tibetan and Chinese people, fighting every day for religious freedom, are relevant. Victims of torture are relevant. The Congressional Executive-Commission on the People's Republic of China is where these people will now have to find their place in U.S. policy. I urge my colleagues to take this seriously and give it the strength it needs to be meaningful. I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside so I may offer an amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in recent months, our Nation has begun to question the fairness of the death penalty with greater urgency. Now, with details of the Justice Department report being released, we have learned that just as we feared, the same serious flaws in the administration of the death penalty that have plagued the states also afflict the federal death penalty. The report documents apparent racial and regional disparities in the administration of the federal death penalty. All Americans agree that whether you die for committing a federal crime should not depend arbitrarily on the color of your skin or randomly on where you live. When 5 of our 93 United States Attorneys account for 40 percent of the cases where the death penalty is sought; when 75 percent of federal death penalty cases involve a minority defendant, something may be awry and it's time to stop and take a sober look at the system that imposes the ultimate punishment in our names. I first urged the President to suspend federal executions to allow time for a thorough review of the death penalty on February 2 of this year. I repeat that request today, more strongly than ever. While I understand the Attorney General plans further studies of some of the issues raised by the report, additional internal reviews alone will not satisfy public concern about our system. With the solemn responsibility that our government has to the American people to ensure the utmost fairness and justice in the administration of the ultimate punishment, and with the first federal execution since 1963 scheduled to take place before the end of the year, a credible, comprehensive review can be conducted only by an independent commission. This is what Governor Ryan decided in Illinois. He created an independent, blue ribbon commission to review the criminal justice system in his state, while suspending executions. The wisdom of that bold stroke by Governor Ryan is clear, both to supporters and opponents of capital punishment. The federal government must do the same. The President should appoint a blue ribbon federal commission of prosecutors, judges, law enforcement officials, and other distinguished Americans to address the questions that are raised by the Justice Department report and propose solutions that will ensure fairness in the administration of the federal death penalty. I urge the President to suspend all federal executions while an independent commission undertakes a thorough review. That is the right thing to do, given the troubling racial and regional disparities in the administration of the federal death penalty. Indeed, it is the only fair and rational response to these disturbing questions. Let's take the time to be sure we are being fair. Let's temporarily suspend federal executions and let a thoughtfully chosen commission examine the system. American ideals of justice demand that much.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleagues, Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy, as an original cosponsor of the Older Workers Rights Restoration Act of 2000. With advances in medicine and science, Americans are living longer than ever before. This means that older Americans are also working longer than ever before. We should ensure that those Americans who work well into the golden years of their lives--including state employees-- can do so without fear of being denied a job, fired or overlooked for a promotion based on their age. Since enactment of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act in 1967, our Nation has come a long way in eliminating age discrimination in the workplace. But the Supreme Court's decision earlier this year in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents threatens to turn back the clock on the progress we've made. Under that decision, a state employee who has a claim of employment discrimination based on age cannot bring a private lawsuit against a state government under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The state government is immune from such suits. The individual's only legal recourse is to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and hope that the EEOC takes the case. But the EEOC has limited resources and only pursues a fraction of the cases filed. Mr. President, this result is unacceptable. Older American workers make important contributions to their employers--both businesses and governments, at the state and federal levels. Older Americans should be able to work free of even a hint of discrimination. And older Americans employed by state governments deserve the same protections against discrimination on the job that other older Americans employed by private businesses or the federal government enjoy. This bill that we introduce today would do just that. It ensures that state employees in federally assisted programs or activities have the same rights and remedies for practices violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act as are available to other employees under that act and that were available to state employees prior to the Supreme Court's Kimel decision. Mr. President, I have had a longstanding commitment to aging issues, both as a U.S. Senator and, previously, as a Wisconsin State Senator. In the U.S. Senate, I have served on the Special Committee on Aging. In the Wisconsin state senate, I served for ten years as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Aging. In fact, the first legislation I introduced as a state senator was a bill to eliminate mandatory retirement. That bill passed and was signed into law. As a result, older Wisconsin residents have the right to work without being forced to retire at a certain age. I look forward to working with Senator Jeffords to move this important legislation through the Senate. I urge my colleagues to join us in taking this step toward restoring protections for state employees against age discrimination. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a package of legislation (S. 3005 and S. Res. 348) that addresses the increased amount of smuggled and mis-labeled ginseng entering this country. This legislation provides for some common sense reforms that would require country-of-origin labeling for ginseng products, and express the Sense of the Senate that customs should put a stop to the flow of smuggled ginseng into the United States. My legislation will push for stricter enforcement of ginseng importation and allow consumers the information they need to determine the origin of the ginseng they buy. smuggling-labeling problem Mr. President, Chinese and Native American cultures have used ginseng for thousands of years for herbal and medicinal purposes. In America, ginseng is experiencing a newfound popularity, and I am proud to say that my home state of Wisconsin is playing a central role in ginseng's resurgence. Wisconsin produces 97 percent of the ginseng grown in the United States, and 85 percent of the country's ginseng is grown in Marathon County. The ginseng industry is an economic boon to Marathon County, as well as an example of the high quality for which Wisconsin's agriculture industry is known. Wisconsin ginseng commands a premium price in world markets because it is considered to be of the highest quality and because it has a lower pesticide and chemical content. With a huge market for this high-quality ginseng overseas, and growing popularity for the ancient root here at home, Wisconsin's ginseng industry should have a prosperous future ahead. Unfortunately, the outlook for ginseng farmers is marred by a serious problem--smuggled and mislabeled ginseng. Wisconsin ginseng is considered so superior to ginseng grown abroad that smugglers will go to great lengths to label ginseng grown in Canada or Asia as ``Wisconsin-grown.'' Here's how the switch takes place: Smugglers take Asian or Canadian- grown ginseng and ship it to plants in China, allegedly to have the ginseng sorted into various grades. While the sorting process is itself a legitimate part of distributing ginseng, smugglers often use it as a ruse to switch Wisconsin ginseng with the Asian or Canadian ginseng considered inferior by consumers. The smugglers know that while Chinese-grown ginseng has a retail value of about $5-$6 per pound, while Wisconsin-grown ginseng is valued at roughly $16-$20 per pound. To make matters even tougher for Wisconsin's ginseng farmers, there is no accurate way of testing ginseng to determine where it was grown, other than testing for pesticides that are legal in Canada and China but are banned in the United States. And in some cases, smugglers can even find ways around the pesticide tests. A recent ConsumerLab.com study confirmed that much of the ginseng sold in the U.S. contained harmful chemicals and metals, such as lead and arsenic. And that's because the majority of Ginseng sold in the U.S. originates from countries with lower pesticide standards, so it's vitally important that consumers know which ginseng is really grown in Wisconsin consumer/producer impact For the sake of ginseng farmers and consumers, the U.S. Senate must crack down on smuggled and mislabeled ginseng. Without adequate labeling, consumers have no way of knowing the most basic information about the ginseng they purchase--where it was grown, what quality or grade it is, or whether it contains dangerous pesticides. The country of origin labeling is a simple but effective way to enable consumers to make an informed decision. And putting the U.S. Senate on record in support of cracking down on ginseng smuggling is an important first step toward putting an end to the illegal ginseng trade. The lax enforcement of smuggled ginseng also puts our producers on an unfair playing field. The mixing of superior Wisconsin ginseng with lower quality foreign ginseng root penalizes the grower and eliminates the incentive to provide the consumer with a superior product. Mr. President, we must give ginseng growers the support they deserve by implementing country-of-origin labeling that lets consumers make in formed choices about the ginseng that they consume. We must ensure when ginseng consumers reach for a quality ginseng product--such as Wisconsin grown ginseng--that they are getting the real thing, not a cheap imitation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleagues, Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy, as an original cosponsor of the Older Workers Rights Restoration Act of 2000. With advances in medicine and science, Americans are living longer than ever before. This means that older Americans are also working longer than ever before. We should ensure that those Americans who work well into the golden years of their lives--including state employees-- can do so without fear of being denied a job, fired or overlooked for a promotion based on their age. Since enactment of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act in 1967, our Nation has come a long way in eliminating age discrimination in the workplace. But the Supreme Court's decision earlier this year in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents threatens to turn back the clock on the progress we've made. Under that decision, a state employee who has a claim of employment discrimination based on age cannot bring a private lawsuit against a state government under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The state government is immune from such suits. The individual's only legal recourse is to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and hope that the EEOC takes the case. But the EEOC has limited resources and only pursues a fraction of the cases filed. Mr. President, this result is unacceptable. Older American workers make important contributions to their employers--both businesses and governments, at the state and federal levels. Older Americans should be able to work free of even a hint of discrimination. And older Americans employed by state governments deserve the same protections against discrimination on the job that other older Americans employed by private businesses or the federal government enjoy. This bill that we introduce today would do just that. It ensures that state employees in federally assisted programs or activities have the same rights and remedies for practices violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act as are available to other employees under that act and that were available to state employees prior to the Supreme Court's Kimel decision. Mr. President, I have had a longstanding commitment to aging issues, both as a U.S. Senator and, previously, as a Wisconsin State Senator. In the U.S. Senate, I have served on the Special Committee on Aging. In the Wisconsin state senate, I served for ten years as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Aging. In fact, the first legislation I introduced as a state senator was a bill to eliminate mandatory retirement. That bill passed and was signed into law. As a result, older Wisconsin residents have the right to work without being forced to retire at a certain age. I look forward to working with Senator Jeffords to move this important legislation through the Senate. I urge my colleagues to join us in taking this step toward restoring protections for state employees against age discrimination. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a package of legislation (S. 3005 and S. Res. 348) that addresses the increased amount of smuggled and mis-labeled ginseng entering this country. This legislation provides for some common sense reforms that would require country-of-origin labeling for ginseng products, and express the Sense of the Senate that customs should put a stop to the flow of smuggled ginseng into the United States. My legislation will push for stricter enforcement of ginseng importation and allow consumers the information they need to determine the origin of the ginseng they buy. smuggling-labeling problem Mr. President, Chinese and Native American cultures have used ginseng for thousands of years for herbal and medicinal purposes. In America, ginseng is experiencing a newfound popularity, and I am proud to say that my home state of Wisconsin is playing a central role in ginseng's resurgence. Wisconsin produces 97 percent of the ginseng grown in the United States, and 85 percent of the country's ginseng is grown in Marathon County. The ginseng industry is an economic boon to Marathon County, as well as an example of the high quality for which Wisconsin's agriculture industry is known. Wisconsin ginseng commands a premium price in world markets because it is considered to be of the highest quality and because it has a lower pesticide and chemical content. With a huge market for this high-quality ginseng overseas, and growing popularity for the ancient root here at home, Wisconsin's ginseng industry should have a prosperous future ahead. Unfortunately, the outlook for ginseng farmers is marred by a serious problem--smuggled and mislabeled ginseng. Wisconsin ginseng is considered so superior to ginseng grown abroad that smugglers will go to great lengths to label ginseng grown in Canada or Asia as ``Wisconsin-grown.'' Here's how the switch takes place: Smugglers take Asian or Canadian- grown ginseng and ship it to plants in China, allegedly to have the ginseng sorted into various grades. While the sorting process is itself a legitimate part of distributing ginseng, smugglers often use it as a ruse to switch Wisconsin ginseng with the Asian or Canadian ginseng considered inferior by consumers. The smugglers know that while Chinese-grown ginseng has a retail value of about $5-$6 per pound, while Wisconsin-grown ginseng is valued at roughly $16-$20 per pound. To make matters even tougher for Wisconsin's ginseng farmers, there is no accurate way of testing ginseng to determine where it was grown, other than testing for pesticides that are legal in Canada and China but are banned in the United States. And in some cases, smugglers can even find ways around the pesticide tests. A recent ConsumerLab.com study confirmed that much of the ginseng sold in the U.S. contained harmful chemicals and metals, such as lead and arsenic. And that's because the majority of Ginseng sold in the U.S. originates from countries with lower pesticide standards, so it's vitally important that consumers know which ginseng is really grown in Wisconsin consumer/producer impact For the sake of ginseng farmers and consumers, the U.S. Senate must crack down on smuggled and mislabeled ginseng. Without adequate labeling, consumers have no way of knowing the most basic information about the ginseng they purchase--where it was grown, what quality or grade it is, or whether it contains dangerous pesticides. The country of origin labeling is a simple but effective way to enable consumers to make an informed decision. And putting the U.S. Senate on record in support of cracking down on ginseng smuggling is an important first step toward putting an end to the illegal ginseng trade. The lax enforcement of smuggled ginseng also puts our producers on an unfair playing field. The mixing of superior Wisconsin ginseng with lower quality foreign ginseng root penalizes the grower and eliminates the incentive to provide the consumer with a superior product. Mr. President, we must give ginseng growers the support they deserve by implementing country-of-origin labeling that lets consumers make in formed choices about the ginseng that they consume. We must ensure when ginseng consumers reach for a quality ginseng product--such as Wisconsin grown ginseng--that they are getting the real thing, not a cheap imitation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I rise today, Mr. President, to express my opposition to granting permanent normal trade relations to the People's Republic of China. The recent history of U.S.-China relations has been a study in self- delusion. The administration and this Congress do not lack for evidence or information about the nature of the Chinese government. But I am afraid the siren song of vast Chinese markets has deafened too many ears to the news of oppression and abuse inside China. Too often, the U.S. has chosen to ignore the realities before us and, as in this trade debate, has engaged in political and intellectual contortions to compartmentalize and seal off a host of important issues so that the promise of vast profits can stand alone and unencumbered. But I urge my colleagues to remember today--the mythological sirens' song served to lure sailors onto the rocks that crushed their ships. And refusing to look at the whole picture of U.S.-China relations in the single-minded pursuit of trade is, I submit, both foolish and dangerous. I fear that this country will find its policy in shambles unless we force ourselves to see the facts before us. The fact is that China continues to be one of the most oppressive states in the world. The State Department acknowledges that the human rights situation in China has deteriorated over the past year--a year in which the U.S. has extended normal trade relations with China, casting doubt on the claims that trade will lead to greater openness and therefore greater civil and political rights in China. The list of abuses committed by the Chinese government is so lengthy, so encompassing, as to be numbing. Thousands of political prisoners remain in prison--many sentenced after unfair trials or no trial at all. Torture is regularly used to extract ``confessions'' from detainees. Authorities continue to use the brutal laogai system of ``reeducation through labor'' to detain dissidents and others deemed dangerous to this paranoid state. Religious freedom does not exist in China; from global faiths like Catholicism to more obscure sects, the leadership in Beijing has sought to force its will and its agenda on spirituality. Nowhere is this more egregious than in Tibet, where thousands of monks and nuns still are arbitrarily detained, where something termed ``patriotic education'' is forced on Tibetans at their monasteries, where individuals have been arrested and sentenced to imprisonment for activities such as displaying the banned Tibetan flag, where an entire culture is at risk. And forced abortion and forced sterilization are realities in the PRC. The Chinese government has waged a campaign to destroy all sources of dissent. Leading members of the China Democracy Party have been sentenced to lengthy prison terms for ``conspiring to subvert state power.'' Activists in Xinjiang have been the target of a campaign of arrests, substandard trials, and executions. Leaders of laborers and peasants daring to call for worker's rights are detained. Expression, in virtually all of its forms, is restricted. The government of China has zealously launched into a campaign to monitor and control content on the internet. According to Human Rights Watch, ``last fall, local newspapers and magazines were put under Communist Party control. And the State Press and Publications Administration banned foreign investment in wholesale book publication and distribution, and limited the right to distribute textbooks, political documents, and the writing of China's leaders to a handful of enterprises.'' My colleagues, this is the state that seems so promising to the supporters of PNTR. This is the China with which we are urged to engage. This is to be our full partner. That very abbreviated list of abuses sounds awfully bad, doesn't it? But the Administration's material on PNTR sounds so good. It is full of promises and optimism. How, I wonder, do they imagine getting from here to there--to that promised land in which our relationship with China is all about good news and profits? I would suggest that the influence of money in politics goes a long way toward explaining the peculiar nature of this debate and U.S. policy toward China more broadly. The push for PNTR legislation is one of the most expensive lobbying campaigns in history. Business interests are pitted against labor unions, as they make PAC and soft money contributions, and wage huge lobbying campaigns on television and in the halls of Congress. So before we go any further with this legislation, I would like to Call the Bankroll on the PNTR issue, to give my colleagues and the public an idea of the spending spree that has gone on to lobby us on this bill. Labor unions have donated heavily to the parties as they have fought against Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. The Center for Responsive Politics estimates labor's overall soft money, PAC and individual contributions at roughly $31 million so far in this election cycle in a May 24th report. In particular, the AFL-CIO and its affiliates, which have campaigned hard against PNTR, have given $60,000 in soft money through the first 15 months of this election cycle. And then there's the other side of the debate. On the side of PNTR we find corporate America, which, according to a New York Times report, engaged in its ``costliest legislative campaign ever'' to win this fight--including an $8 million advertising campaign. The ``costliest legislative campaign ever'' by corporate America--now that's saying something. As we know, corporations typically spend the most in the political money game, and often win as a result. And it looks like PNTR will be no exception, Mr. President. For example, take the Business Roundtable, a well-known business coalition eager to get this bill passed. The Center for Responsive Politics' May 24th report put the collective contributions of Business Roundtable members at $58 million in soft money, PAC money and individual contributions so far in the election cycle. And that is in addition to the Roundtable's $10 million dollar advertising campaign to push PNTR, according to the Center. Business Roundtable members are corporations like Boeing, Philip Morris, UPS and Citigroup. These are heavy hitters who regularly write checks to the political parties for $50,000, $100,000, even a quarter million dollars. These companies have to ante up to stay in the game, Mr. President--PNTR is a high stakes game, and the ante is bigger than ever. I will quickly run down the soft money contributions of these companies, Mr. President. These are huge numbers, and they are just through the first 15 months of this election cycle: Boeing has given more than $465,000 in soft money through the first 15 months of the election cycle, including 10 contributions of $25,000 or more. UPS, its subsidiaries and executives have given more than $960,000 in soft money through March 31st of the current cycle. That includes two contributions of a quarter million dollars. Citigroup, its subsidiaries and executives gave more than one million dollars in soft money through the first 15 months of this election cycle, including six contributions of $50,000 or more. And of course who could forget Philip Morris, Mr. President? Long known as the granddaddy of political donors, Philip Morris and its subsidiaries have given more than $1.2 million in soft money through March 31st of the election cycle, including more than eight donations of $100,000 or more. Since I've mentioned Philip Morris' contributions here, let me take a moment to discuss the impact of contributions of large multinational corporations with many legislative interests. Some might argue that is unfair to mention Philip Morris in this calling of the bankroll because its main interest is tobacco legislation. That is exactly the beauty of soft money contributions from the point of view of the corporate donor. They buy access for the company that makes them. They aren't payment for a particular piece of legislation. No, they are more powerful than that because they are so large, and so sought after by the parties. They further the interests of that company on all pieces of legislation. There can be no doubt that Philip Morris has an interest in PNTR. China is a huge untapped market for cigarettes. So Philip Morris's soft money contributions open the doors for its lobbyists on this issue, just as they open the doors for its anti-tobacco control arguments. Everyone knows that PNTR is the very top legislative priority for the business community in this country. There is absolutely no dispute about that. The lobbying effort has been extraordinary. And Philip Morris's legislative and lobbying muscle, supported by their huge campaign contributions, have been put at the service of that priority, as well as of its own particular interest in tobacco legislation. Mr. President, corporations such as Philip Morris, and the other members of the Business Roundtable pay to play--they get visibility in the debate, and they get their voices heard loud and clear. The shape of the PNTR debate so far is exactly what we should expect from a campaign finance system that is rigged to value money above all else. So it is clear that some people do stand to gain from PNTR and China's accession to the World Trade Organization. But I think that camp has vastly overstated its case. These forces, which have paid to pipe the siren song into the halls of the Senate for months now, claim, for example, that America's farmers will benefit greatly from PNTR for China. They wave impressive graphs, they promise access to vast markets. But I for one, as a Senator from a very important agriculture state, am not convinced that those claims are more than just empty promises. China's Vice Minister of Trade has already noted publicly that market-opening promises for U.S. wheat exporters are only a theoretical opportunity--not an actual one. The fact is that China's promises to import more agricultural products conflict with internal Chinese political and cultural dynamics--dynamics that are affected by longstanding fears about dependence on foreign food and by employment- creation imperatives. China has produced a glut of agricultural goods for years. Beijing now has massive stockpiles and a three-to-one ratio of exports to imports. Chinese prices will likely continue to be lower than American ones for years. I am not convinced that there is a big pay-off in store for American agriculture. Ask Wisconsin's ginseng growers about the Chinese commitment to rule- governed trade. They will tell you that the Chinese have continued to mislabel their ginseng as ``Wisconsin-grown ginseng.'' As a result of this misleading practice, the price paid to actual American ginseng farmers has steadily declined. Recent press reports even suggest that the Chinese are now smuggling ginseng containing dangerously high levels of harmful pesticides and chemicals into U.S.--again inaccurately labeled as Wisconsin ginseng. I concede, Mr. President, that profits are within the reach of some. And I recognize that the business community is responsible to its shareholders. Seeking profitable opportunities is their very purpose, and there is nothing wrong with that. But this Senate is responsible to all of the citizens of the United States, to the core values of this country, and to future generations of Americans. And the United States of America does not stand only for profit. Even if I were convinced that Permanent Normal Trade relations with China and Beijing's accession to the WTO would bring significant new economic opportunities to a large number of Americans--and I am not convinced of this fact--I still believe it is my responsibility to weigh that factor against others--including the fact that the Chinese government's human rights record is unquestionably appalling. I still believe that certain economic gains are not worth their moral price. I still believe that the prosperity we all seek for our great country should never be a prosperity that also brings shame. But de-linking trade from human rights and prohibiting an annual debate on this issue suggests that I do not have the right to weigh these factors, that I cannot consider the totality of U.S.-Chinese bilateral relations when matters of trade arise. Apparently, we are all simply supposed to follow the music. I argue that to compartmentalize our national values is to cordon off our national identity, to subordinate what we stand for so completely that it no longer affects how we behave. That is dangerous. I think it is an abdication of the responsibility I accepted when I took this office. So apart from the question--and it is a good question, a question not answered nearly so easily as the Administration would like--of whether or not a significant number of Americans will reap economic benefits from PNTR for China--and apart from legitimate questions grounded in the historical record about whether or not China will stick to its trade-related commitments--apart from these issues, we are debating whether or not to draw a sharp, impenetrable division between one of our interests--economic gain--and what we believe and who we are. That is the question that has been evaded in the mountains of pro-PNTR literature and the countless pro-PNTR briefings that have become a fixture on Capitol Hill in recent months. I cannot support such a division. I will not abdicate my responsibilities in the hopes of avoiding tough choices and decisions. I cannot support this bill. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Department of Defense appropriations conference report that the Senate will pass today does not reflect the realities of the post-Cold War world in which our men and women in uniform serve this country. I want to state very clearly, Mr. President, that my opposition to this bill 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 bill clings to the strategies and weapons that we used to fight--and win--the Cold War. I say again today what I have said so many times before. The Cold War is over, Mr. President. It is time we stopped fighting it. For example, as my colleagues know, I strongly support terminating production under the Navy's Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile program. During the recent consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2001, I offered an amendment that would have terminated production of this Cold War-era weapon, which was designed specifically to be a first-strike strategic missile that would attack targets inside the Soviet Union from waters off the continental United States. I deeply regret that the Senate did not adopt this amendment, and that production of the Trident II missile will continue for at least one more year. This conference report includes more than $433 million to purchase 12 more of these missiles, as well as another $9.5 million in advanced procurement funds for additional missiles the Navy hopes to buy in future years. It is beyond my comprehension why the Navy needs more of these missiles when it already has 372 in its arsenal. Despite the fact that it already has ten submarines that are fully equipped with this devastating weapon, the Navy wants to backfit four of its older Trident I submarines with these newer weapons. To achieve this, the Navy wants to have a total of 425 of these missiles, so the President continues to request them in his budget. And the Congress continues to spend the taxpayers' money on acquiring more Trident II missiles even as the United States negotiates further arms reductions with Russia. I also continue to be deeply concerned about the Pentagon's procurement strategy for tactical aircraft. This conference report includes nearly $2.8 billion for the multi-year procurement of 42 of the Navy's FA-18E/F aircraft. My opinion on this program is well known. I have not been shy about highlighting the program's myriad flaws, not least of which is its inflated cost compared to the marginal at best improvement over the FA-18C/D aircraft. I am troubled that the Department of Defense and the Congress are committing $2.8 billion in taxpayer money to purchase 42 of these aircraft when there are still so many design problems that need to be overcome. And this is just the first installment for the taxpayers. The Navy hopes to eventually have a fleet of 548 of these aircraft. The General Accounting Office concluded in a report issued in May 2000 that the noise and vibration problems with the aircraft's wings, which the Navy has known about since September 1997 but has not corrected, are sufficient cause to delay multi-year procurement of the FA-18E/F. GAO argued that if this problem is not corrected before full- rate production, costly retrofitting and redesign of the wings will likely be necessary later. The GAO report also outlined serious problems with the plane's engine. Despite GAO's recommendation, and despite the fact that, in a February 2000 report, the Department of Defense's own Commander of the Operational Test and Evaluation Force found that there are 27 major and 88 minor deficiencies in the aircraft, and that five of the major deficiencies concern its aerodynamic performance, the Pentagon has chosen to move forward with this costly multi-year procurement. In my view, Mr. President, the Department of Defense should have been absolutely sure this aircraft's design problems were addressed before beginning a multi-year procurement process. I continue to have serious concerns with the safety, effectiveness, and cost of this plane. I will continue monitor closely this procurement, including attempts to resolve the problems outlined by GAO, and I will continue to scrutinize future appropriations requests for this program. The Cold War-era Trident II missile and the new FA-18E/F aircraft are just two of the many examples of questionable spending in this bloated Defense Appropriations bill. Mr. President, this debate is really one about priorities. Of course all of the members of this body would agree that we must maintain a strong national defense. Our debate should be about how we can best maintain a strong defense, modernize our forces to respond to the new threats of the 21st century, adequately compensate our men and women in uniform, and reign in the out of control defense spending that continues to line the pockets of contractors around this country. And it is high time that the Pentagon rethink its priorities. I am utterly appalled that at a time when members of our Armed Forces are on food stamps that this body tabled, by a 65-32 vote, an amendment offered by the Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] to strike a provision in the Senate version of this bill which would allow the Secretaries of the Army and the Navy to spend taxpayers' money to lease nine so-called ``operational support aircraft.'' These aircraft are actually luxury jets that are used to transport high-level military officers. This provision, which was included in the pending conference report, will allow nine more of these jets to be leased, three each for the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. The General Accounting Office has argued that such a lease is costly and unnecessary. Mr. President, this bill exceeds the fiscal year 2000 level by nearly $20 billion. The Congress has given the Pentagon $3.3 billion more than it says it needs to defend this country. The Congress has added aircraft and ships that the Pentagon did not request, and added spending in other areas, and somehow has not yet managed to fully fund the National Guard. Mr. President, as I have said time and time again, there are millions upon millions of dollars in this bill that are being spent on out-dated or questionable or unwanted programs. This money would be better spent on programs that truly improve our readiness and modernize our Armed Forces instead of on programs that continue to defend us against the hammer and sickle that no longer looms across the ocean. This money also would be better spent on efforts to improve the morale of our forces, such fully manning and adequately compensating our National Guard; ensuring that all of our men and women in uniform have a decent standard of living; or providing better housing for our Armed Forces and their families. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, at the very foundation of our system of justice is the notion that judges will be fair and impartial. Strict ethical guidelines have been in effect for years to remove even the hint of impropriety from the conduct of those we entrust with the responsibility of adjudicating disputes and applying the law. In recent years, there have been disturbing reports of judges participating in legal education seminars sponsored and paid for by organizations that simultaneously fund federal court litigation on the same topics that are covered by the seminars. Some of these seminars have a clearly biased agenda in favor a certain legal philosophy. A recent report released by Community Rights Counsel found that at least 1,030 federal judges took over 5,800 privately funded trips between 1992 and 1998. The appearance created by these seminars is not consistent with the image of an impartial judiciary. Some of these seminars are conducted at posh vacation resorts in locations such as Amelia Island, Florida and Hilton Head, South Carolina, 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. Again, this is an appearance that is at odds with the traditions of our judiciary. One-sided seminars given in wealthy resorts funded by wealthy corporate interests to ``educate'' our judges in a particular view of the law cannot help but undermine public confidence in the decisions that judges who attend the seminars ultimately make. I am pleased, therefore, to join with my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, to introduce the Judicial Education Reform Act of 2000. Our bill instructs the judicial conference to issue guidelines prohibiting judges from attending privately funded education seminars. The bill also authorizes $2 million per year over five years so that the Federal Judicial Center, FJC, can reimburse judges for seminars they wish to attend, as long as those seminars are approved by the FJC under guidelines that will ensure that the seminars are balanced and will maintain public confidence in the judiciary. And the bill makes clear that the FJC cannot reimburse judges for the expense of recreational activities at the seminars. Mr. President, I have expressed concern throughout my time in the Congress about the improper influence of campaign contributions and gifts on members of Congress and the executive branch. Community Rights Counsel's report has turned the spotlight on the judicial branch and what it reveals is not at all comforting. The influence of powerful interests on judicial decision-making through these education seminars should concern everyone who believes in the rule of law in this country. If judges are seen to be under the influence of the wealthy and powerful in our society, ``equal justice under law'' will become an empty platitude rather than a powerful aspiration for the greatest judicial system on earth. I believe this bill will help us fulfill the promise of that great aspiration, and I hope my colleagues will join Senator Kerry and me in supporting it. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, at the very foundation of our system of justice is the notion that judges will be fair and impartial. Strict ethical guidelines have been in effect for years to remove even the hint of impropriety from the conduct of those we entrust with the responsibility of adjudicating disputes and applying the law. In recent years, there have been disturbing reports of judges participating in legal education seminars sponsored and paid for by organizations that simultaneously fund federal court litigation on the same topics that are covered by the seminars. Some of these seminars have a clearly biased agenda in favor a certain legal philosophy. A recent report released by Community Rights Counsel found that at least 1,030 federal judges took over 5,800 privately funded trips between 1992 and 1998. The appearance created by these seminars is not consistent with the image of an impartial judiciary. Some of these seminars are conducted at posh vacation resorts in locations such as Amelia Island, Florida and Hilton Head, South Carolina, 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. Again, this is an appearance that is at odds with the traditions of our judiciary. One-sided seminars given in wealthy resorts funded by wealthy corporate interests to ``educate'' our judges in a particular view of the law cannot help but undermine public confidence in the decisions that judges who attend the seminars ultimately make. I am pleased, therefore, to join with my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, to introduce the Judicial Education Reform Act of 2000. Our bill instructs the judicial conference to issue guidelines prohibiting judges from attending privately funded education seminars. The bill also authorizes $2 million per year over five years so that the Federal Judicial Center, FJC, can reimburse judges for seminars they wish to attend, as long as those seminars are approved by the FJC under guidelines that will ensure that the seminars are balanced and will maintain public confidence in the judiciary. And the bill makes clear that the FJC cannot reimburse judges for the expense of recreational activities at the seminars. Mr. President, I have expressed concern throughout my time in the Congress about the improper influence of campaign contributions and gifts on members of Congress and the executive branch. Community Rights Counsel's report has turned the spotlight on the judicial branch and what it reveals is not at all comforting. The influence of powerful interests on judicial decision-making through these education seminars should concern everyone who believes in the rule of law in this country. If judges are seen to be under the influence of the wealthy and powerful in our society, ``equal justice under law'' will become an empty platitude rather than a powerful aspiration for the greatest judicial system on earth. I believe this bill will help us fulfill the promise of that great aspiration, and I hope my colleagues will join Senator Kerry and me in supporting it. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the continuing crisis in Indonesia and East Timor. Earlier this week, a peacekeeper from New Zealand, Leonard William Manning, was killed while tracking a group of men whom senior officials in Timor have identified as militia members who had crossed into East Timor from Indonesia. Private Manning was serving the cause of peace, his death is tragic, and I want to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to his family. In the wake of this incident, the United Nations Security Council and the ASEAN Regional Forum have called on Indonesia to disband and disarm the militias operating in the refugee camps of West Timor, and to stop the militias' cross-border incursions into East Timor. But Mr. President, this call has echoed around the world for months now. It is a call that has gone unheeded. The activities of Indonesian militias threaten the stability of Indonesia, the safety of peacekeepers and humanitarian workers, and the basic human rights of Indonesians and East Timorese. It was the militia, Mr. President, that waged a brutal campaign of violence and destruction immediately after East Timor's vote for independence last year. It was the militia that enjoyed the direct support of the Indonesian military throughout that operation. And it is the militia that continues to operate in the refugee camps of West Timor, where the most vulnerable East Timorese are subjected to threats and intimidation. It is the militia that has forced UNHCR to suspend operations in West Timor after a series of violent assaults on its staff. I believe that many in the Indonesian government, including President Wahid, want to stop the militia violence and to end the intimidation in the refugee camps. But they are unable to make this happen, because too many people in powerful positions in Indonesia remain unwilling to make it happen. And that, Mr. President, is all that this country needs to know when the question of resuming military relations with Indonesia comes up. Ominous reports of a deeply disturbing relationship between the Indonesian military and the militias continue to pour out of the region. Peacekeepers on the ground in East Timor have noted that the group that attacked Private Manning appeared to have benefitted from serious and significant military training. At one point recently, UNHCR personnel witnessed militiamen beat a refugee from East Timor and rob several others while a 70-strong Indonesian military detachment witnessed the incident but did not intervene. And it's not just Timor, Mr. President. In the Moluccas, where sectarian violence has risen to such alarming levels that many have pondered international intervention, reliable reports indicate the Indonesian military has been complicit in the conflict, and has even provided support to certain factions. In Papua, or Irian Jaya, militia groups have already taken violent action against community leaders. The simple and unfortunate facts, Mr. President, are that a power struggle continues in Indonesia, between those committed to a responsible and professional military operating under civilian control, and those who would cling to the abusive patterns of the past. I have introduced a bill, the East Timor Repatriation and Security Act of 2000, which would codify a suspension of military and security relations with and assistance to Indonesia until certain conditions are met. This legislation would permit military and security programs from J-CETS to military sales to resume only when the President determines and submits a report to the appropriate congressional committees that the Government of Indonesia and the Indonesian Armed Forces are doing the following-- Taking effective measures to bring to justice members of the armed forces and militia groups against whom there is credible evidence of human rights violations; Taking effective measures to bring to justice members of the armed forces against whom there is credible evidence of aiding or abetting militia groups; Allowing displaced persons and refugees to return home to East Timor, including providing safe passage for refugees returning from West Timor; Not impeding the activities of the United Nations Transitional Authority in East Timor; Demonstrating a commitment to preventing incursions into East Timor by members of militia groups in West Timor; and Demonstrating a commitment to accountability by cooperating with investigations and prosecutions of members of the Indonesian Armed Forces and military groups responsible for human rights violations in Indonesia and East Timor. These certainly are not unreasonable conditions. They work in favor of the forces of reform within Indonesia. And by linking military and security assistance to these benchmarks, Congress will ensure that the U.S. relationship with Jakarta avoids the mistakes of the past, and that U.S. foreign policy comes closer to reflecting our core national values. But recent events make it crystal clear that these conditions have not yet been met. Mr. President, the U.S. must continue to insist on them. In the pursuit of justice, in the pursuit of stability, and in support of the forces of reform, this country cannot send a signal that where we are today is somehow good enough. Again, Mr. President, I add my voice to the chorus, because U.S., Indonesian, and Timorese interests all demand that the militias be stopped and that the military must be united in the pursuit of professionalism, accountability, and civilian control.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the leader.

Mr. FEINGOLD. No cloture motion filed during the first week?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I want to clarify one point. What I understood from our agreement, what I believe was said was that there would be no cloture motion filed during the first week we are back on China PNTR; is that correct?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to express my concern and the concerns of my constituents regarding Section 204 of the FY 2001 Energy and Water Appropriations legislation now before us, the provision which affects the conservation of the silvery minnow. News of the showdown between federal and state agencies over the conservation of this fish on the Rio Grande has reached my state. My constituents are now concerned, Mr. President, about the impact this language will have on the future survival of this species, as well as the precedent that language of this type will have on the implementation of the Endangered Species Act in Wisconsin and across the country. They are so concerned, that on July 22, 2000 a constituent drove from Madison to a fair in Waukesha to speak to me about this matter and missed me by minutes. When constituents are that concerned, I have to bring it to the attention of other members of this body. The White House on Friday threatened to veto the Energy and Water Development bill, in part because of this provision that could prevent protection of the endangered Rio Grande silvery minnow. I am concerned, Mr. President, that we would be seeking to take this action in this bill because, while we are here in Washington, in Albuquerque, federal, state, and environmental lawyers are continuing a federal court-ordered mediation. This mediation is seeking something much more important than legislative ink on the page, Mr. President, rather it seeks river water for the minnow before its critical habitat runs dry--unfortunately it could run dry potentially as soon as next week. The Department of Interior, through its U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation, is trying to keep the minnow from oblivion. Let me explain my concerns, Mr. President. They are concerned that Section 204 would prevent the Bureau of Reclamation from using any funds to open irrigation dams. It is the opening of those dams that would provide direct river flow to sustain the minnow. I understand that earlier this month, the Bureau of Reclamation caused concern within the irrigation district with its legal opinion that the government owns the dams. I understand that legal ownership and contractual and other water rights issues in the West are extremely contentious. I am grateful to come from a riparian water rights state, and to avoid these kinds of disputes in Wisconsin. But, I'll tell you, Mr. President, Wisconsinites expect that Congress will stay out of this legal wrangling when a species' survival is at stake. These dams help divert the flow of the river to some 10,000 farmers of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District. The conservancy district holds long-standing rights to the water under state law, which does not recognize in-stream flow for fish as a beneficial use. But the Bureau of Reclamation has told the conservancy district that the dams must be operated so an in-stream flow of at least 300 cubic feet per second can sustain a ``last stand'' surviving population of minnows downstream. The White House has said ``the Administration strongly objects to provisions included in the Senate bill'' that would ``severly constrain'' the government's efforts to protect and sustain the minnow. Moreover the Office of Management and Budget has said that ``adequate flows'' must be ensured on the Rio Grande and warned that a ``failure to protect the minnow this year could lead to its extinction.'' Mr. President, my constituents want the water managers and environmentalists to continue the court ordered mediation they have begun. The parties to the mediation are environmental groups; the conservancy district; the Bureau of Reclamation; the state water engineer; and the city of Albuquerque. The Rio Grande silvery minnow occurs only in the middle Rio Grande. Threats to the species include dewatering, channelization and regulation of river flow to provide water for irrigation; diminished water quality caused by municipal, industrial, and agricultural discharges; and competition or predation by introduced non-native fish species. Currently, the species occupies about five percent of its known historic range. This species was historically one of the most abundant and widespread fishes in the Rio Grande basin, occurring from New Mexico, to the Gulf of Mexico. It was also found in the Pecos River, a major tributary of the Rio Grande, from Santa Rosa, New Mexico, downstream to its confluence with the Rio Grande in south Texas. It is now completely extinct in the Pecos River and its numbers have severely declined within the Rio Grande. Decline of the species in the Rio Grande probably began as early as the beginning of the 20th century when water manipulation began along the Rio Grande. Elephant Butte was the first of five major dams constructed within the silvery minnow's habitat. These dams allow the flow of the river to be manipulated and diverted for the benefit of agriculture. As times this manipulation resulted in the dewatering of some river reaches and elimination of all fish. Concurrent with construction of these dams, there was an increase in the abundance of non-native and exotic fish species, as these species were stocked into the reservoirs created by the dams. Once established, these species often out competed the native fish. The only existing population of minnow continues to be threatened by annual dewatering of a large percentage of its habiat. My constituents want to be assured that their future survival is not threatened by legislative action. That is why I have strong concerns about this provision and would like to see that it is removed from the bill. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Global AIDS and Tuberculosis Relief Act of 2000. This bill recognizes the awesome and terrible scope of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and responds with what is truly required to address it--a program far more comprehensive and substantial than what is entailed in the status quo. The numbers one must use to describe the crisis are numbing. More than 70 percent of all people living with AIDS live in sub-Saharan Africa, and as the ranking member of the Senate Subcommittee on Africa, I have seen firsthand the devastating toll that the disease has taken in the region. In Africa alone, 15,900,000 people have died because of AIDS, and the World Bank has identified the disease as the fastest- growing threat to development in the region. Life expectancies are dropping dramatically, and the social fall- out from this horrific upheaval has forced us to confront the disease not just as an epidemiological threat, but as a security threat as well. Nearly 4,500,000 children have HIV and more are being infected at the rate of one child every minute. According to UNAIDS, by the end of 1999, AIDS had left 13,200,000 orphaned children in its wake. This bill is a serious effort to confront this monstrous crisis. It will provide hundreds of millions of dollars in assistance to strengthen prevention efforts, to combat mother-to-child transmission, to improve access to testing, counseling, and care, and to assist the orphans left in the wake of the disease. Through a new AIDS trust fund, it will leverage U.S. assistance with a multilateral approach and through innovative partnerships with the private sector. The bill provides support to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations and to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, so that even as we address the urgent needs of the present, we work toward a solution in the future. The bill insists that AIDS education be provided to troops trained under the auspices of the African Crisis Response Initiative. It recognizes the inextricable link between HIV/AIDS and the resurgence of tuberculosis. It goes beyond the President's request and beyond anything that this Congress has contemplated since the epidemic began. The bill is not perfect, of course. The needs are great and the problem multi-faceted. I would still like to see this Congress address the important issue of access to pharmaceuticals, and to put strong language into statute that would prohibit the executive branch from pressuring countries in crisis to revoke or change laws aimed at increasing access to HIV/AIDS drugs, so long as the laws in question adhere to existing international regulations governing trade. This bill does not absolve this Senate of a continued responsibility to address the global AIDS crisis. But it is remarkable, all the same. This bill has the unanimous support of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senators Helms, Boxer, Frist, Kerry, and Biden have worked on it tirelessly. It includes provisions originally drafted in the Mother-to-Child HIV Prevention Act, a bill authored by Senator Moynihan of which I was proud to be an original co-sponsor. It reflects the admirable work of the House and in particular of Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congressman Leach, and it should reach the President's desk quite quickly. Rarely does such a substantive, ground-breaking bill enjoy this degree of bipartisan consensus. It is a tribute to my colleagues and a testimony to the undeniable magnitude and urgency of the crisis that the Senate stands ready to pass this legislation today. Just days ago, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. When he was speaking about the AIDS crisis, he spoke of its impact and of the place the epidemic has already taken in history, and said, ``All of us will have to ask ourselves, when our careers are done, did we address this problem?'' This bill is an important part of the answer to that question.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, sending inmates to prisons built and run by prviate companies has become a popular way to deal with overcrowded prisons, but in recent years this practice has been appropriately criticized. As reports of escapes, riots, prisoner violence, and abuse by staff in private prisons increase, many have questioned the wisdom and propriety of private companies carrying out this essential state function. After considering safety, cost, and accountability issues, it is clear that private companies should not be doing this public work. Government and only government, whether it's federal, state, or local, should operate prisons. That is why I rise today to introduce a bill that will restore responsibility for housing prisoners to the state and federal government, where it belongs. An identical bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Ted Strickland, where it has received broad bi-partisan support and currently has 141 cosponsors. Private prison companies, and proponents of their use, claim that they save taxpayers money. They claim private companies can do the government's business more efficiently, but this has never been confirmed. In fact, two government studies show that it is far from clear whether private prisons save taxpayer money. One study, completed by the GAO, stated that it could not conclude whether or not privatization saved money. The second study, completed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons in 1998, concluded that there is no strong evidence to show states save money by using private prisons. More importantly, private prison companies are motivated by one goal: making a profit. Decisions by these companies are driven by the desire to make a profit and, in turn, please officers and shareholders. This profit motive in the context of housing criminals is wrong. It is at cross-purposes with the government's goal of punishing and rehabilitating criminals. So what happens when a private company runs a prison? The prisons have promised to save taxpayers money, so they cut costs. This invariably results in unqualified, low paid employees, poor facilities and living conditions, and an inadequate number of educational and rehabilitative programs. Recent episodes of escape, violence, and prisoner abuse demonstrate what happens when corners are cut. At the Northeast Ohio Correctional facility, a private prison in Youngstown, Ohio, 20 inmates were stabbed, two of them fatally, within a 10-month period. After management claimed they had addressed the problems, six inmates, four convicted of homicide, escaped by cutting through two razor wire fences in the middle of the afternoon. At a private prison in Whiteville, Tennessee, which houses many inmates from my home state of Wisconsin, there has been a hostage situation, an assault of a guard, and a coverup to hide physical abuse of inmates by prison guards. A security report at the same Tennessee prison found unsecured razors, inmates obstructing views into their cells by covering up windows, and an inmate using a computer lab strictly labeled, ``staff only'' without any supervision. At a private prison in Sayre, Oklahoma, a dangerous inmate uprising jeopardized the security and control of the facility. As a result, the state of Oklahoma removed all its inmates from the facility and questioned its safety. Because the prison gets paid based on the number of inmates, however, the prison continued to request, and other states sent, hundreds of inmates to be housed there. Earlier this year the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, the second largest private prison company in the United States, charging that in one of its juvenile prisons, conditions were ``dangerous and life threatening.'' A group of experts who toured the prison reported that many of the juveniles were short of food, had lost weight, and did not have shoes or blankets. The Department of Justice lawsuit also alleges that inmates did not receive adequate mental health care or educational programming. In addition to the poor conditions and lack of training, the guards physically abused the boys and threw gas grenades into their barracks. Some juvenile inmates even tried to commit suicide or deliberately injure themselves so they would be sent to the infirmary to avoid abuse by the guards. Mr. President, the profit motive clearly has a dangerous and harmful effect on the security of private prisons, but the profit motive also shortchanges inmates of the rehabilitation, education, and training that they need. Private prisons get paid based on the number of inmates they house. This means the more inmates they accept and the fewer services they provide, the more money they make. A high crime rate means more business and eliminates any motivation to provide job training, education, and other rehabilitative programs. These allegations of abuse and the negative effects of the profit motive are especially troubling because they have a disparate impact on the minority community, which has been incarcerated disproportionately in recent years particularly with the rise of mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. Another issue of concern is accountability for dispensing one of the strongest punishments our society can impose. Incarceration requires a government to exercise its coercive police powers over individuals, including the authority to take away a person's freedom and to use force. This authority to use force should not be delegated to a private company that is not accountable to the people. This premise was reinforced by the Supreme Court in Richardson v. McKnight, which held that private prison personnel are not covered by the qualified immunity that shields state and local correctional officers. This means that a state or local government could be held liable for the actions of a private corporation. Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today, the Public Safety Act, addresses these concerns. It restores control and management of prisons to the government. It makes federal grants under Title II of the Crime Control Act of 1994 contingent upon states agreeing not to contract with any private companies to provide core correctional services related to transportation or incarceration of inmates. The legislation was carefully crafted to apply only to core correctional services meaning that private companies can still provide auxiliary services such as food or clothing. Mr. President, let us restore safety and security to the many Americans who work in prisons. Let us protect the communities that support prisons. And let us ensure rehabilitation and safety for the individuals, including young boys and girls, who are housed there. This bill returns to the government the function of being the sole administrator of incarceration as punishment in our society. I urge my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of the Public Safety Act. I ask that the text of the bill be placed in the Record following this statement.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the big lie led to the transformation of our two great political parties into soft money machines. And what was the effect of this explosion of soft money, other than the millions of dollars available for ads supporting presidential candidates who had agreed to run their campaigns on equal and limited grants from the federal taxpayers? Soft money is raised primarily from corporate interests who have a legislative axe to grind. And so the explosion of soft money brought an explosion of influence and access in this Congress and in the Administration. Here are some of the companies in this exclusive group. We know they have a big interest in what the Congress does--Philip Morris, Joseph Seagram & Sons, RJR Nabisco, Walt Disney, Atlantic Richfield, AT&T, Federal Express, MCI, the Association of Trial Lawyers, the NEA, Lazard Freres & Co., Anheuser Busch, Eli Lilly, Time Warner, Chevron Corp., Archer Daniel's Midland, NYNEX, Textron Inc., Northwest Airlines. It's a who's who of corporate America, Mr. President. They are investors in the United States Congress and no one can convince the American people that these companies get no return on their investment. They have a say, much too big a say, in what we do. It's that simple, and it's that disturbing. That's why our priorities are so out of whack, Mr. President. We should be going to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, and that's why I support the motion to proceed, despite the fact that I may vote against it when all is said and done. I recognize we have to focus on what people want, not what wealthy interests want. As I said when I first began Calling the Bankroll last year, we know, if we are honest with ourselves, that campaign contributions are involved in virtually everything that this body does. Campaign money is the 800-pound gorilla in this chamber every day that nobody talks about, but that cannot be ignored. All around us, and all across the country, people notice the gorilla. Studies come out on a weekly basis from a variety of research organizations and groups that lobby for campaign finance reform that show what we all know: The agenda of the Congress seems to be influenced by campaign money. But in our debates here, we are silent about that influence, and how it corrodes our system of government. I have chosen not to remain silent, but I know there are those who wish that I would stop putting the spotlight on facts that reflect poorly on our system, and in turn on the Senate, and on both the major political parties. I wish our campaign finance system wasn't such an embarrassment. I wish wealthy interests with business before this body didn't have unlimited ability to give money to our political parties through the soft money loophole, but they do. I wish these big donors weren't able to buy special access to our political leaders through meetings and weekend retreats set up by the parties, but they can. I wish fundraising skills and personal wealth weren't some of the most sought-after qualities in a candidate for Congress today, but everyone knows that they are. Most of all I wish that these facts didn't paint a picture of Government so corrupt and so awash in the influence of money that the American people, especially young people, have turned away from their government in disgust, but every one of us knows that they have. It is our unwillingness to discuss it or even acknowledge the influence of this money in this body that makes it even worse. It goes on and on, and it just gets worse. Last year was another record-breaker in the annals of soft money fundraising--the national political party committees raised a record $107.2 million during the 1999 calendar year--81 percent more than they raised during the last comparable presidential election period in 1995, according to Common Cause. An 81 percent increase is astounding, especially considering that the year it's compared with--1995, the last off-election year preceding a presidential election--which was itself a record-breaking year for soft money fundraising. This year one of the most notable fundraising trends hits very close to home, or to the dome, as the case may be: Congressional campaign committees raised more than three times as much soft money during 1999 as they raised during 1995--$62 million compared to $19.4 million. That is a huge increase, Mr. President. Three times as much soft money--much of it raised by members of Congress. Now the latest news reports show record-breaking soft money figures for the first quarter of this year as well. How should the public view this? What can we expect them to think as Members of Congress ask for these unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals, and then turn around and vote on legislation that directly affects those donors that they just asked for all this money? Frankly, it is all the more reason for Americans to question our integrity, whether those donations have an impact on our decisions or not. They question our integrity, and we give them reason. Why aren't we getting their business done? I say let's get the business done--let's agree to move to Treasury-Postal, whether we'll support that bill in the end or not. And then let's move on to the other pressing issues before us--not tax cuts for the wealthy, but real priorities like campaign finance reform. Let's put a stop to the soft money arms race that escalates every day, and involves more and more Members of Congress. I do not know how many of my colleagues are actually picking up the phones across the street in our party committee headquarters to ask corporate CEOs for soft money contributions. But no one here can deny that our parties are asking us to do this. It is now part of the parties' expectations that a United States Senator will be a big solicitor of soft money. Consider the soft money raised in recent off-year elections. In 1994, the parties raised a total of $101.7 million. Only about $18.5 million of that amount was raised by the congressional and senatorial campaign committees. In 1998, the most recent election, soft money fundraising more than doubled to $224.4 million. And $107 million of that total was raised by the congressional and senatorial campaign committees. That's nearly half of the total soft money raised by the parties. Half the soft money that the parties raised in the last election went to the campaign committees for members of Congress, as opposed to the national party committees. And I and many of my colleagues know from painful experience that much of that money ended up being spent on phony issue ads in Senate races. The corporate money that has been banned in federal elections since 1907 is being raised by Senators and spent to try to influence the election of Senators. This has to stop. The growth of soft money has made a mockery of our campaign finance laws. It has turned Senators into panhandlers for huge contributions from corporate patrons. And it has multiplied the number of corporate interests who have a claim on the attention of members and the work of this institution. I truly believe that we must do much more than ban soft money to fix our campaign finance system. But if there is one thing more than any other that must be done now it is to ban soft money. Otherwise the soft money loophole will completely obliterate the Presidential public funding system, and lead to scandals that will make what we saw in 1996 seem quaint. Virtually no one in this body has stepped up to defend soft money. So let's get rid of it once and for all. Now is the time. Let's move to the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill, vote yes or no, and then let's do what we have to get done. When we define what we need to get done this year, let's get serious. It is not the estate tax, and it's not the H-1B bill. It's banning soft money. Now there is more support for banning soft money than ever before. I think it is important to talk on this floor about just who those Americans are who want to clean up this campaign finance system, because today calls for reform are coming from an incredible range of people in this country, including some very unlikely places. One of the most interesting places you can find demands for reform is corporate America, where one group of corporate executives, tired of being shaken down for bigger and bigger contributions, has said enough is enough. This organization, called the Committee for Economic Development, issued a report and proposal urging reform, including the elimination of soft money. One might guess that this group of people, who are in the position to use the soft money system to their advantage, would not dream of calling for reform. But the soft money system cuts both ways--it not only allows for legalized bribery of the political parties, it also allows legalized extortion of soft money donors, who are being asked to give more and more money every election cycle to fuel the parties' bottomless appetite for soft money. But it isn't just weariness at being shaken down that led CED members to call for reform of our broken campaign finance system. Let me quote from the CED report, which stated their concern so well: Given the size and source of most soft money contributions, the public cannot help but believe that these donors enjoy special influence and receive special favors. The suspicion of corruption diminishes public confidence in government. The bigger soft money contributions get--and the amounts are truly skyrocketing--the more damaging the effect on the public's perception of our democracy. I applaud CED for its commitment to restoring the public's faith in government by calling for a soft money ban. And CED is just one part of a growing movement to call on this body to clean up our campaign finance system. One of the most inspiring leaders of the movement for reform is not any business leader, or political figure for that matter. She is a great grandmother from Dublin, New Hampshire named Doris Haddock. Doris, known affectionately as Granny D, walked clear across the United States at age 90 to insist that Congress pay attention to reform issues. She walked across mountains and desert, in sweltering heat and freezing cold, to make her point. And along the way she inspired thousands of others to speak up about the corrupting influence of money in politics, and demand action from Congress. I was proud to have her support for the McCain-Feingold bill, and I am thrilled to have such a devoted ally on this issue. The fight for reform is also gaining tremendous strength from religious organizations that are reaching out to educate and mobilize their congregations about the issue. Support from religious organizations includes: The Episcopal Church, Church Women United, the Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the Church of the Brethren's Washington Office, the Mennonite Central Committee's Washington Office, the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the United Church of Christ's Office for Church in Society, the United Methodist Church's General Board of Church and Society, and NETWORK--a national Catholic social justice lobby. Reform has the vital support of environmental groups like the Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth and The Sierra Club, and the backing of seniors groups like AARP and the Gray Panthers. The support for reform in this country is strong, it is vocal, and is truly broad-based. We also have the support of consumer watchdogs like the Consumer Federation of America, health organizations like the American Heart Association, children's groups such as the Children's Defense Fund, and of course the support of groups like Common Cause and Public Citizen, which have been fighting a terrific fight against the undue influence of money in politics for decades. And I could go on. We are talking about people from every walk of life, every income level and every political affiliation. But they all have one simple thing in common: They are demanding an end to the soft money system that has made a mockery of our campaign finance laws, has deepened public cynicism about this body, and darkened the public perception of our democracy. The public is watching us right now. That is why I want us to move to the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill, whether we support it or not-- so that they can have faith that we are doing what we should be doing. Not serving wealthy interests, but doing their business, and doing it responsibly. And being responsible means acting on campaign finance reform. That is what people want--their voices can be heard loud and clear in polls on the campaign finance issue: Two out of three Americans think money has an ``excessive influence'' on elections and government policy, according to Committee for Economic Development's March 1999 report on campaign finance reform. Another CED poll question revealed that two-thirds of the public think ``their own representative in Congress would listen to the views of outsiders who made large political contributions before a constituent's views''; 74.5 percent of respondents believe the Government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, according to a poll from the Center for Policy Attitudes; 78 percent of respondents believe ``the current set of laws that control congressional campaign funding needs reform,'' in a Hotline poll. These numbers are even more disturbing than the numbers of the soft money donations themselves. These numbers tell us that it's a given today that people think the worst of us and the work we do--they believe that we are on the take, and who could possibly blame them? What is it that they do not understand, that they are misinterpreting about this system and how it affects us? Nothing; the public has not missed a thing. The public has got it exactly right. It is this body that has it wrong every time a minority of my colleagues block the majority of the Senate and will of the American people by trying to kill reform. The public deserves a Congress that can respond to the concerns of all Americans, not a wealthy few. The public deserves a responsible Congress that does its job by moving to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, whether we choose to vote yes or no, and the same goes for the other remaining approps bills that deserve our attention. Most of all, the public deserves a Congress that can set priorities that represent the concerns of the American people, and not just soft money donors, not just those who can afford to attend weekend getaways with party leadership, and not just those who have estates of more than $100 million dollars. That is our challenge. Let's address the people's real priorities. Let's do the people's business, and let's get started right now. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss moving to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. I agree with the Majority Leader and others who have come to the floor this year to insist that we do the people's business, and that the people's business means completing all of the appropriations bills. There are several very important amendments that will be proposed to this legislation, and we must give them the time and consideration they deserve. I may well vote against the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill in the end, but I recognize the importance of taking it up, considering it, and getting it done. We have got to take care of the unfinished business. We have more appropriations bills to consider, and we have other business as well, as my colleagues are well aware. I find it interesting to look at some of the other measures we have considered, and still might consider, this year. I am talking about priorities--what we get done on this floor, and what gets ignored. As I said, it is essential that we pass these appropriations bills-- they are the core of the people's business, because they keep the government up and running. But beyond bills like Treasury-Postal, what are we choosing to do? Recently, we chose to consider a repeal of the estate tax. As I said during that debate, the estate tax affects only the wealthiest property-holders. In 1997, only 42,901 estates paid the tax. That's the wealthiest 1.9 percent. People are already exempt from the tax in 98 out of 100 cases. Let me repeat that: Already, under current law, 98 out of 100 do not pay any estate tax. The Republican estate tax repeal would give the wealthiest 2,400 estates--the ones that pay now half the estate tax--an average tax cut of $3.4 million each. And remember, 98 out of 100 people would get zero, nothing, from this estate tax cut. Now, this doesn't sound like something most Americans are clamoring for. It is of no use to most Americans, in fact. But it is of use to a very small--but wealthy--group of people. Those who are wealthy enough to be subject to estate taxes have great political power. They can make unlimited political contributions, and they are represented in Washington by influential lobbyists that have pushed hard to get the estate tax bill to the floor. The estate tax is one of those issues where political money seems to have an impact on the legislative outcome. That's why I recently Called the Bankroll on some of the interests behind that bill, to give my colleagues and the public a sense of the huge amount of money at stake--not taxes, but political contributions. We considered that bill not because it affected the vast majority of Americans, but because it directly affected the pocketbooks of a wealthy few. A similar point can be made about another piece of legislation, the H-1B bill. We haven't considered it yet, but we may well yet, and so far a terrific effort has been made by both sides to see it taken up. Why? Why, when we have more appropriations bills to consider, when we have the real people's business to do, are we pushing so hard to take up H-1B? Because the high-tech industry wants this bill to get done. In the case of H-1B, I'm not addressing the merits of the legislation-- I am not necessarily opposed to raising the level of H-1B visas. Instead I want to point out what is on our agenda and why? Why is it that we have this set of legislation as part of our agenda? The high tech industry wants to get this bill passed, and they have the political contributions to back it up. 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. ABLI is chock full of big political donors, 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. Price Waterhouse Coopers, pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly, telecommunications giant and former Baby Bell BellSouth, and software company Oracle, to name just a few. All have given hundreds of thousands of dollars in this election cycle alone, and they want us to pass H-1B. We all know this. This is standard procedure these days for wealthy interests --you have got to pay to play on the field of politics. You've got to pony up for quarter-million dollar soft money contributions and half-million dollar issue ad campaigns, and anyone who can't afford the price of admission is going to be left out in the cold. I Call the Bankroll to point out what goes on behind the scenes on various bills--the millions in PAC and soft money that wealthy donors give, and what they expect to get in return. And yet we don't do anything about it. We took a small but important step toward better disclosure of the activity of wealthy donors earlier this summer when we passed the 527 disclosure bill. But there is a great deal more to do. We are going to keep pushing until we address the other gaping loopholes in the campaign finance law. Right now, wealthy interests have the power to help set the political agenda. Wealthy interests spend unlimited amounts of money to push for bills which serve the interests of the wealthy few at the expense of most Americans. We have got to question why consider some bills on this floor while we ignore so many crucial issues the American people care about--like increasing the minimum wage and supporting working families. But instead we are left with an agenda that looks like wealthy America's ``to do'' list. How does it happen, Mr. President?--It's all about access, and access is all about money. Both parties openly promise, and even advertise, that big donors get big access to party leaders. Weekend retreats and other ``special events'' where wealthy individuals have the chance to talk about what they want done--whether that might be a repeal of the estate tax, or that their company wants to see the H-1B bill passed this year. Needless to say, that is the kind of access most Americans can't even dream of. And I have to wonder why we aren't doing anything about that. I am all for the doing people's business, and right now the people's business should be the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill, and that's why I support the motion to proceed, even though I may well vote against the underlying bill in the end. But I don't think that an issue like the repeal of the estate tax is the people's business--not 98 out of every hundred people, anyway. We need to get at the heart of what is wrong here. Our priorities are warped by the undue influence of money in this chamber. We have got to change our priorities, and do it now, by putting campaign finance reform back on the agenda. Because the best way to loosen the grip of wealthy interests is to close the loophole that swallowed the law: soft money. Soft money has exploded over the past few years. Soft money is the culprit that brought us the scandals of 1996--the selling of access and influence in the White House and to the Congress. The auction of the Lincoln Bedroom, of Air Force One. The White House coffees. All of this came from soft money because without soft money, the parties would not have to come up with ever more enticing offers to get the big contributors to open their checkbooks. Soft money also brings us, time and time again, questions about the integrity and the impartiality of the legislative process. Everything we do is under scrutiny and subject to question because major industries and labor organizations are giving our political parties such large amounts of money. Whether it is telecommunications legislation, the bankruptcy bill, defense spending, or health care, someone out there is telling the public, often with justification in my view, that the Congress cannot be trusted to do what is best for the public interest because the major affected industries are giving us money. For more than a year now, I have highlighted the influence of money on the legislative process through the Calling of the Bankroll. And the really big money, that many believe has a really big influence here, is soft money. We have to clean our campaign finance house and the best place to start is by getting rid of soft money. Let's play by the rules again in this country. With soft money there are no rules, no limits. But we can restore some sanity to our campaign finance system. When I came to the Senate, I will confess, I didn't even really know what soft money was. After a tough race against a very well financed opponent who spent twice as much as I did, I was mostly concerned with the difficulties that people who are not wealthy have in running for office. My interest in campaign finance reform derived from that experience. Soft money has exploded since I arrived here, with far reaching consequences for our elections and the functioning of the Congress. Now I truly believe that if we can do nothing else on campaign finance reform, we must stop this cancerous growth of soft money before it consumes us. I will take a few minutes to describe to my colleagues the growth of soft money in recent years. It is a frightening story. Soft money first arrived on the scene of our national elections in the 1980 elections, after a 1978 FEC ruling opened the door for parties to accept contributions from corporations and unions, who are barred from contributing to federal elections. The best available estimate is that the parties raised under $20 million in soft money in that cycle. By the 1992 election, the year I was elected to this body, soft money fundraising by the two major parties had risen to $86 million. Eighty- six million dollars is clearly a lot of money; it was nearly as much as the $110 million that the two presidential candidates were given in 1992 in public financing from the U.S. Treasury. And there was real concern about how that money was spent. Despite the FEC's decision that soft money could be used for activities such as get out the vote and voter registration campaigns without violating the federal election law's prohibition on corporate and union contributions in connection with federal elections, the parties sent much of their soft money to be spent in states where the Presidential election between George Bush and Bill Clinton was close, or where there were key contested Senate races. Still, even then, even with that tremendous increase in the use of soft money, soft money was far from the central issue in our debate over campaign finance reform in 1993 and 1994. In 1995, when Senator McCain and I first introduced the McCain-Feingold bill, our bill included a ban on soft money, but it was not particularly controversial and no one paid that much attention to it at that time. Then came the 1996 election, and the enormous explosion of soft money, fueled by the parties' decision to use the money on phony issue ads supporting their presidential candidates. Remember those ads that everyone thought were Clinton and Dole ads but were actually run by the parties? That was the public debut of soft money on the national scene. The total soft money fundraising skyrocketed as a result. Three times as much soft money was raised in 1996 as in 1992. Let me say that again--soft money tripled in one election cycle. The reason was the insatiable desire of the parties for money to run phony issue ads, and that desire has only increased since 1996. Both political parties are raising unprecedented amounts of soft money for ad campaigns that are already underway this year. Soft money is financing our presidential campaigns, and this Congress stands by doing nothing about it. Fred Wertheimer, a long time advocate of campaign finance reform said it well in an op-ed in the Washington Post on Monday: He wrote, Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush and their presidential campaigns are living a lie. The lie is this: that the TV ads now being run in presidential battleground states across America are political party ``issue ads.'' In fact, everyone--and I mean everyone--knows that these ads are presidential campaign ads being run for the unequivocal purpose of directly influencing the presidential election. Wertheimer goes on to say: The ``issue ad'' campaigns now underway blatantly promote and feature Gore and Bush, are designed and controlled by the Gore and Bush presidential campaigns and are targeted to run in key battleground states. The political parties are merely conduits for the scheme and cover for the lie. He continues: What's the significance of all of this? Well, for starters we are living this lie in the election for the most important office in the world's oldest democracy. The lie will result in some $100 million or more in huge corrupting contributions being illegally used by Gore and Bush in the 2000 presidential election. (Many millions more will be illegally used in the 2000 congressional races.) Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of Mr. Wertheimer's article, ``Gore, Bush, and the Big Lie'' be printed in the Record.