Russell Feingold

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, I rise today to introduce the Equal Access to Justice Reform Amendments of 2000. This legislation contains adjustments to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) that will streamline and improve the process of awarding attorney's fees to private parties who prevail in litigation against the Federal government. This is the third Congress in which I have introduced this legislation. I believe these reforms are an important step in reducing the burden of defending government litigation for many individuals and small businesses. I am very pleased to be joined in introducing this legislation this year by my friend from Arkansas, Sen. Tim Hutchinson. We hope that by working on a bipartisan basis on this important project we can improve the chances that it can become law. Over the years, and certainly now in this election year, members of Congress often speak of ``getting government off the backs of the American people.'' Sometimes we disagree about when government is a burden and when it is giving a helping hand. But all of us in the Senate want to reform government in ways that will improve the lives of people all across this nation. The legislation we are proposing today deals directly with a problem that affects everyday Americans who face legal battles with the federal government and prevail. Even if they win in court, they may still lose financially because of the expense of paying their attorneys. At the outset, it is important to understand what the Equal Access to Justice Act is, and why it exists. The premise of this statute is very simple. EAJA places individuals and small businesses who face the United States Government in litigation on more equal footing with the government by establishing guidelines for the award of attorney's fees when the individual or small business prevails. Quite simply, EAJA acknowledges that the resources available to the federal government in a legal dispute far outweigh those available to most Americans. This disparity is lessened by requiring the government in certain instances to pay the attorneys' fees of successful private parties. By giving successful parties the right to seek attorneys' fees from the United States, EAJA seeks to prevent small business owners and individuals from having to risk their companies or their family savings in order to seek justice. My interest in this issue predates my election to the Senate. It arises from my experience both as a private attorney and a Member of the state Senate in my home state of Wisconsin. While in private practice, I became aware of how the ability to recoup attorney's fees is a significant factor, and often one of the first considered, when deciding whether or not to seek redress in the courts or to defend a case. Upon entering the Wisconsin State Senate, I authored legislation modeled on the federal law, which had been championed by one of my predecessors in this body from Wisconsin, Senator Gaylord Nelson. Today, section 814.246 of the Wisconsin statutes contains provisions similar to the federal EAJA statute. It seemed to me then, as it does now, that we should do all that we can to help ease the financial burdens on people who need to have their claims reviewed and decided by impartial decision makers. To this end, I have reviewed the existing federal statutes with an eye toward improving them and making them work better. The bill Senator Hutchinson and I are introducing today does a number of things to make EAJA more effective for individuals and small business men and women all across this country. First and most important, this legislation eliminates the provision in current law that allows the government to avoid paying attorneys' fees when it loses a suit if it can show that its position was substantially justified. I believe that this high threshold for obtaining attorneys' fees is unfair. If an individual or small business battles the federal government in an adversarial proceeding and prevails, the government should simply pay the fees incurred. Imagine the scenario of a small business that spends time and money dueling with the government and wins, only to find out that it must now undertake the additional step of litigating the justification of government's litigation position. For the government, with its vast resources, this second litigation over fees poses little difficulty, but for the citizen or small business it may simply not be financially feasible. Not only is this additional step a financial burden on the private litigant, but a 1992 study also reveals that it is unnecessary and a waste of government resources. University of Virginia Professor Harold Krent on behalf of the Administrative Conference of the United States found that only a small percentage of EAJA awards were denied because of the substantial justification defense. While it is impossible to determine the exact cost of litigating the issue of subtantial justification, it is Prof. Krent's opinion, based upon review of cases in 1989 and 1990, that while the substantial justification defense may save some money, it was not enough to justify the cost of the additional litigation. In short, eliminating this often burdensome second step is a cost effective step which will streamline recovery under EAJA and may very well save the government money in the long run. The second part of this legislation that will streamline and improve EAJA is a provision designed to encourage settlement and avoid costly and protracted litigation. Under the bill, the government can make an offer of settlement after an application for fees and other expenses has been filed. If the government's offer is rejected and the prevailing party seeking recovery ultimately wins a smaller award, that party is not entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs incurred after the date of the government's offer. Again, this will encourage settlement, speed the claims process, and thereby reduce the time and expense of the litigation. The final improvement to EAJA included in this legislation is the removal of the carve out of cases where the prevailing party is eligible to get attorneys fees under section 7430 of the Internal Revenue Code. Under current law, EAJA is inapplicable in cases where a taxpayer prevails against the government. I was an original cosponsor of a bill that suggested a similar reform introduced by Senator Leahy of Vermont in the last Congress. This provision helps to level the playing field between the IRS and everyday citizens. There is no reason that taxpayers should be treated differently than any other party that prevails in a case against the government. They deserve to have their fees paid if they win. We all know that the American small business owner has a difficult road to make ends meet and that unnecessary or overly burdensome government regulation can be a formidable obstacle to doing business. It can be the difference between success or failure. The Equal Access to Justice Act was conceived and implemented to help balance the formidable power of the federal government. It has already helped many Americans. The legislation we are offering today will make EAJA more effective for more Americans while at the same time helping to deter the government from acting in an indefensible and unwarranted manner. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I was deeply saddened to hear of Paul Coverdell's untimely passing. Paul was a man of such energy and determination, it is difficult to imagine this body without him. Paul was a skilled legislator and one of the hardest working legislators among us. I had the highest admiration for the way he conducted himself here--how committed he was to the people of his state, and to his many duties here in the Senate. We did not agree on a lot of policy matters, but that couldn't be less important as I stand here today, Mr. President. We've all lost a colleague and a friend, who was taken from this earth far too soon. At 61, Paul had served his country in more ways than most Americans can hope to in a lifetime. From his service in the Armed Forces to the Peace Corps to the Foreign Relations Committee, where we served together, Paul had a keen understanding of foreign affairs. He was also a natural leader, despite his soft-spoken personality and his habit of avoiding the limelight. He served as the minority leader in the Georgia State Senate from 1974 to 1989, attaining that post just four years after he was elected to the State Senate in 1970. Paul and I were both first elected to the Senate in 1992, Mr. President. We arrived here at the same time, both former State Senators who had the honor of coming here and learning the ways of this Senate. And learn them Paul did. He quickly rose through the ranks to a top leadership post. And along the way he won the respect and admiration of all who knew him. The nation has lost a skilled leader, and all of us have lost an honorable colleague and friend. I join my colleagues in mourning his passing, and in paying tribute to his memory. To his wife Nancy, his family, his staff and his many friends, I offer my condolences and my deepest sympathies. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this conference report is evidence of a missed opportunity. It is, in fact, yet another in what is becoming a series of missed opportunities. Today, the majority is missing the opportunity to enact marriage penalty relief. The majority is missing that opportunity by insisting on its poorly- targeted, expensive tax breaks. It is missing that opportunity by rejecting the better-targeted, more responsible Democratic alternative. And it is missing that opportunity by rejecting President Clinton's offer to enact both marriage penalty relief and prescription drug benefits. Everyone in this chamber wants marriage penalty relief. The question now is how we transform that wish into law. By presenting the Senate with this conference report, the majority shows that it would rather have marriage penalty relief next year than this year. For now, they appear to prefer an old issue to a new law. The majority continues today to pass poorly-targeted, expensive tax breaks. Earlier this week, the Treasury Department released a study that analyzed all the major tax cuts that the majority has passed in this Congress this year to date. That study found that more than three-fourths of the benefits of the Republican tax bills would go to the best-off fifth of the population-- those making more than $82,000. The study found that those in the best-off fifth of the population would get an average tax cut of more than $2,000 a year, while those in the middle fifth would get less than $200. Republicans want to spend 10 times as much on the best-off than on middle-income families. The study found that almost half of the benefits of the Republican tax bills would go to the best-off 5 percent, those with incomes over $150,000. The study found that more than a quarter of the benefits of the Republican tax bills would go to the best-off one percent--those with incomes over $346,000--who would get an average tax cut of more than $15,000 a year. And as an op-ed piece in this morning's New York Times by Milwaukee director of administration David Riemer points out, the conference report before us today fails to solve the marriage penalty for working families who get the Earned Income Tax Credit. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this op-ed be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. And yesterday, the Joint Committee on Taxation released distribution tables on the conference report before us today. Those tables indicate that in 2004, nearly four-fifths of this conference report's benefits would go to those with incomes over $75,000. The conference report's benefits are thus more skewed to the better off than the Senate bill we considered earlier this week. In the Senate bill, 68 percent of benefits in 2004 would have gone to the best-off, while in the conference report, 79 percent would. And because the majority's bills are so poorly targeted, they cost more than they should. The conference report before us today would join the other bills passed to date, spending more than it should because it gives more to the very well-off than it should. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the conference report before us today would spend $34 billion more than the costly bill that the Senate considered earlier this week. Wednesday, the White House estimated that the tax bills considered by the House and Senate this year to date have already sought to spend roughly $700 billion over the next 10 years, a price tag that would increase to $850 billion when one accounts for financing costs on the debt. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the President's Chief of Staff on this subject be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. The majority continues today to reject the better-targeted, more responsible Democratic alternative. The Democratic alternative would have focused its relief on those who actually endure a marriage penalty. That is, after all, how the majority chose to name the bill before us. The Democratic alternative would have held the majority to its word. It was a truth-in-advertising amendment. The majority shows again today that they did not really want to cure the marriage penalty. That is not what most of this conference report does. Three-fifths of the benefits of this conference report go to people who do not experience marriage penalties. And that's another reason why this conference report costs more than it should. The majority shows again today that it does not really want to enact a law to relieve the marriage penalty. By moving this conference report, the majority rejects President Clinton's offer to work out an agreement that would allow enactment of both marriage penalty relief and needed coverage for prescription drugs on the other. That's what the majority could have done if it really wanted to enact marriage penalty relief this year. Sadly, by bringing this conference report before us today, the majority shows that what it really wants is something that the President will have to veto right before the Republican Convention. The enterprise upon which they have embarked has more of theater than of law about it. The President will veto this bill, and he should. The majority should pass better-targeted marriage penalty relief, but apparently they'd rather not. They miss another opportunity today. Mr. President, I hope they do not miss the next one. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial and letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Equal Access to Justice Reform Amendments of 2000. This legislation contains adjustments to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) that will streamline and improve the process of awarding attorney's fees to private parties who prevail in litigation against the Federal government. This is the third Congress in which I have introduced this legislation. I believe these reforms are an important step in reducing the burden of defending government litigation for many individuals and small businesses. I am very pleased to be joined in introducing this legislation this year by my friend from Arkansas, Sen. Tim Hutchinson. We hope that by working on a bipartisan basis on this important project we can improve the chances that it can become law. Over the years, and certainly now in this election year, members of Congress often speak of ``getting government off the backs of the American people.'' Sometimes we disagree about when government is a burden and when it is giving a helping hand. But all of us in the Senate want to reform government in ways that will improve the lives of people all across this nation. The legislation we are proposing today deals directly with a problem that affects everyday Americans who face legal battles with the federal government and prevail. Even if they win in court, they may still lose financially because of the expense of paying their attorneys. At the outset, it is important to understand what the Equal Access to Justice Act is, and why it exists. The premise of this statute is very simple. EAJA places individuals and small businesses who face the United States Government in litigation on more equal footing with the government by establishing guidelines for the award of attorney's fees when the individual or small business prevails. Quite simply, EAJA acknowledges that the resources available to the federal government in a legal dispute far outweigh those available to most Americans. This disparity is lessened by requiring the government in certain instances to pay the attorneys' fees of successful private parties. By giving successful parties the right to seek attorneys' fees from the United States, EAJA seeks to prevent small business owners and individuals from having to risk their companies or their family savings in order to seek justice. My interest in this issue predates my election to the Senate. It arises from my experience both as a private attorney and a Member of the state Senate in my home state of Wisconsin. While in private practice, I became aware of how the ability to recoup attorney's fees is a significant factor, and often one of the first considered, when deciding whether or not to seek redress in the courts or to defend a case. Upon entering the Wisconsin State Senate, I authored legislation modeled on the federal law, which had been championed by one of my predecessors in this body from Wisconsin, Senator Gaylord Nelson. Today, section 814.246 of the Wisconsin statutes contains provisions similar to the federal EAJA statute. It seemed to me then, as it does now, that we should do all that we can to help ease the financial burdens on people who need to have their claims reviewed and decided by impartial decision makers. To this end, I have reviewed the existing federal statutes with an eye toward improving them and making them work better. The bill Senator Hutchinson and I are introducing today does a number of things to make EAJA more effective for individuals and small business men and women all across this country. First and most important, this legislation eliminates the provision in current law that allows the government to avoid paying attorneys' fees when it loses a suit if it can show that its position was substantially justified. I believe that this high threshold for obtaining attorneys' fees is unfair. If an individual or small business battles the federal government in an adversarial proceeding and prevails, the government should simply pay the fees incurred. Imagine the scenario of a small business that spends time and money dueling with the government and wins, only to find out that it must now undertake the additional step of litigating the justification of government's litigation position. For the government, with its vast resources, this second litigation over fees poses little difficulty, but for the citizen or small business it may simply not be financially feasible. Not only is this additional step a financial burden on the private litigant, but a 1992 study also reveals that it is unnecessary and a waste of government resources. University of Virginia Professor Harold Krent on behalf of the Administrative Conference of the United States found that only a small percentage of EAJA awards were denied because of the substantial justification defense. While it is impossible to determine the exact cost of litigating the issue of subtantial justification, it is Prof. Krent's opinion, based upon review of cases in 1989 and 1990, that while the substantial justification defense may save some money, it was not enough to justify the cost of the additional litigation. In short, eliminating this often burdensome second step is a cost effective step which will streamline recovery under EAJA and may very well save the government money in the long run. The second part of this legislation that will streamline and improve EAJA is a provision designed to encourage settlement and avoid costly and protracted litigation. Under the bill, the government can make an offer of settlement after an application for fees and other expenses has been filed. If the government's offer is rejected and the prevailing party seeking recovery ultimately wins a smaller award, that party is not entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs incurred after the date of the government's offer. Again, this will encourage settlement, speed the claims process, and thereby reduce the time and expense of the litigation. The final improvement to EAJA included in this legislation is the removal of the carve out of cases where the prevailing party is eligible to get attorneys fees under section 7430 of the Internal Revenue Code. Under current law, EAJA is inapplicable in cases where a taxpayer prevails against the government. I was an original cosponsor of a bill that suggested a similar reform introduced by Senator Leahy of Vermont in the last Congress. This provision helps to level the playing field between the IRS and everyday citizens. There is no reason that taxpayers should be treated differently than any other party that prevails in a case against the government. They deserve to have their fees paid if they win. We all know that the American small business owner has a difficult road to make ends meet and that unnecessary or overly burdensome government regulation can be a formidable obstacle to doing business. It can be the difference between success or failure. The Equal Access to Justice Act was conceived and implemented to help balance the formidable power of the federal government. It has already helped many Americans. The legislation we are offering today will make EAJA more effective for more Americans while at the same time helping to deter the government from acting in an indefensible and unwarranted manner. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904(c) of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable section of that act for consideration of my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FEINGOLD. The vital program known as COBRA helps ensure that people who lose their jobs do not lose their health insurance at the same time. My amendment would expand access to affordable health insurance through COBRA in two ways. First, it would expand COBRA to cover retirees whose employer-sponsored coverage is terminated. Employers who promise retiree coverage and then drop it will have to allow early retirees to have COBRA-continued coverage until they qualify for Medicare. Second, it would create a 25-percent tax credit for COBRA premiums generally. This credit will improve access to and affordability of health insurance for this very vulnerable group. The amendment pays for this health coverage by eliminating an inequitable tax loophole: the percentage depletion allowance for hard rock minerals mined on Federal public lands. I thank the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. The vital program known as COBRA helps ensure that people who lose their jobs do not lose their health insurance at the same time.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment cuts taxes for 7 of 10 taxpayers who take a standard deduction and ensures that many working Americans would not owe any income taxes at all. It would increase the standard deduction for individuals by $250, and would also increase the standard deduction for heads of households. It would continue to increase the standard deduction for married couples to twice that of an individual. It is paid for by striking the provision in the bill that benefits only taxpayers in the top quarter of the income distribution by expanding tax brackets. My amendment better targets the marriage penalty relief and would simplify taxes and free many from paying income taxes altogether. The tradeoff is clear. Strike the new benefits for the best off quarter of taxpayers to fund benefits for 7 out of 10 taxpayers.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this motion requires we do first things first. It says we should pass marriage penalty relief, but it also says we should substantially extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare at the same time. By 2037, the Social Security trust fund will have consumed all of its assets. By 2025, the Medicare HI trust fund will have consumed all of its assets. To fix Social Security and Medicare, we can make small changes now or big changes later. That is why President Clinton was right when he said ``save Social Security first.'' It would be irresponsible to enact tax cuts this size before doing anything about Social Security and Medicare. Before the Senate passes tax cuts this size, the Finance Committee should report a plan to extend Social Security and Medicare. We should do first things first. That is what this motion requires.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my serious disappointment with the Fiscal Year 2001 Department of Defense Authorization bill, which passed the Senate earlier this week. I opposed a number of provisions in the bill, including language to restructure and rename the School of Americas. It is this issue which I would like to address today. Mr. President, it is clear that the Department of Defense recognizes there are serious problems with the School of the Americas, otherwise they would not have gone to the trouble of proposing to repackage it. But make no mistake, that is all that has happened. While the name may not remain the same, the School of the Americas still exists. Mr. President, I think a little history is in order here. The School of the Americas was founded in 1946, originally in the U.S.-controlled Panama Canal Zone. At that time, it was known as the Latin American Center-Ground Division. In 1963, the facility was renamed the School of the Americas, and in 1984, in compliance with the Panama Canal Treaty, the school was moved to Fort Benning, Georgia as part of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. SOA was charged with the mission of developing and conducting instruction for the armed forces of Latin America. Unfortunately, what SOA has produced are some of the most notorious dictators and human rights abusers from Latin America including El Salvador death squad leader Roberto D'Abuisson, Panamanian dictator and drug dealer Manuel Noriega, Argentinian dictators Leopold Galtieri and Roberto Viola, and Peruvian dictator Juan Velasco Alvarado. Mr. President, the list continues. SOA alumni include 48 of the 69 Salvadoran military members cited in the U.N. Truth Commission's report on El Salvador for involvement in human rights violations, including 19 of 27 military members implicated in the 1989 murder of six Jesuit priests. SOA alumni reportedly also include more than 100 Colombian military officers alleged to be responsible for human rights violations, and several Peruvian military officers linked to the July 1992 killings of nine students and a professor from Peru's La Cantutu University. SOA alumni include several Honduran officers linked to a clandestine military force known as Battalion 316 responsible for disappearances in the early 1980s. And, SOA graduates have led military coups and are responsible for massacres of hundreds of people, including the Uraba massacre in Colombia, the El Mozote massacre of 900 civilians in El Salvador, the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero, the torture and murder of a UN worker, and hundreds of other human rights abuses. Mr. President, it is not merely coincidence that SOA has such an egregious list of alumni. In September, 1996, the Department of Defense made available excerpts from seven Spanish-language training manuals used at SOA and it was revealed that those manuals included instruction in extortion, execution, and torture techniques that the Pentagon conceded were ``clearly objectionable and possibly illegal.'' Even today, the SOA legacy lives on. Just this past January, another SOA graduate, Guatemala Col. Byron Disrael Lima Estrada, was arrested for his involvement in the death of Guatemalan Bishop Juan Jose Gerardi in 1998. As CRS noted, Bishop Gerardi was murdered in April of 1998 just two days after he released a report accusing the Guatemalan military for most of the human rights abuses committed during the country's conflict. Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, while the Department of Defense will ostensibly close the School of the Americas, it is producing a clone in its place. The Department of Defense Authorization bill establishes the Western Hemisphere Institute for Professional Education and Training--an institution that appears in every way to be nothing more than a repackaged School of the Americas. To my knowledge, nothing has been done to ensure that a thorough evaluation of SOA is conducted before this new entity is operational. As SOA Watch has noted, there appears to be no critical assessment of the training, procedures, performance or consequences of the SOA training program this new entity copies. I regret the Pentagon has not taken more meaningful steps to address the horrifying legacy of SOA. I support closing SOA permanently, not merely changing its name. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of legislation introduced by the senior Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) that would terminate this program. But, Mr. President, even if there were any justification for continuing some portion of the School of the Americas, it should come only after a truly serious and independent review is made of the purpose, mission, curricula, administrative structure, and student selection of the new entity. Given the bloody heritage of SOA, the very least we owe the people of Latin America and the innocent who have been killed is such a review. Unfortunately, that is not what will happen. As a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, I am committed to promoting human rights throughout the world. While it may be appropriate for the United States military to train its colleagues from other nations, it is inexcusable that this training should take place at an institution with a reputation far beyond salvage. In my view, our government cannot continue to support the existence of a school or a simple repackaging of that school which has so many murderers among its alumni. Mr. President, I will be watching this new institution very closely, and so, I have no doubt, will many of my constituents. My concerns about accountability and transparency have not been sufficiently addressed, and I will continue to raise this issue until I am satisfied that the U.S. Government has finally and firmly brought an end to the shameful legacy of the School of Americas.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be temporarily laid aside.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the bill before us is a major tax bill. Because the bill sunsets in 2004 to comply with the Senate's Byrd Rule, the Joint Committee on Taxation's official estimate is that the bill would cost $55.5 billion. And in the likely circumstance that Congress fails to sunset the bill, it would cost nearly $250 billion over 10 years and $40 billion a year, or $400 billion a decade, when fully phased in. In a matter of this importance, it is appropriate to consider where the money goes. It is appropriate to consider whether we could make other, similar changes to the tax law that would benefit more Americans. This Senator believes that it is a priority to simplify taxes and free people from paying income taxes altogether. My amendment would accomplish both of these goals by expanding the standard deduction. The amendment would increase the standard deduction for individuals by $250, from $4,500 to $4,750. It would increase the standard deduction for heads of households, as well, from $6,650 to $7,500. And it would maintain the underlying bill's policy of increasing the standard deduction for married couples to twice that of an individual. Seven in 10 taxpayers take the standard deduction instead of itemizing. My amendment would benefit all of those 7 out of 10 taxpayers. It would reduce their taxable incomes by hundreds of dollars and thus make it so that many middle-income working Americans would not owe any income taxes at all. Expanding the standard deduction would also make it worthwhile for even more Americans to use that easier method of calculating their tax and avoid the difficult and cumbersome itemization forms. It would thus take one of the most concrete steps that we can take to simplify the unnecessarily complex income tax. My amendment is paid for, so that the total cost of the bill would be exactly the same over 5 years. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation certifying that fact be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank my colleagues for their patience on this. I look forward to the votes on these amendments. I thank the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to expand access to affordable health insurance through COBRA. It includes a 25 percent tax credit for COBRA premiums, plus an expansion of COBRA to cover retirees whose employer-sponsored coverage is terminated. It pays for this expansion by eliminating a tax break for mining companies. Since 1985, people who lose their jobs have been able to buy into their former employer's health insurance plan. This COBRA coverage has provided some continuity to workers between jobs, but for many Americans, COBRA is an empty promise. That is because under COBRA, people have to pay their own way. But many people who lose their jobs lose any hope of being able to afford health insurance on their own. Mr. President, employer coverage gets a tax break, but individual purchases do not. This amendment would rectify the situation in part by providing a 25 percent tax credit to individual COBRA premiums, giving a little support to people who would otherwise go without health coverage. But COBRA only applies for a brief time, generally eighteen months at most. After that, people must find another source of insurance, or be forced to join the growing legions of uninsured Americans. For older Americans before age 65, there is no other practical source of insurance. Individual plans for people at age 60 can be four times the amount that young Americans could pay. In many parts of the country, the market for individual coverage is not sufficiently developed to provide seniors any affordable health care option. That is why this amendment also extends COBRA for retirees whose employers discontinue their health coverage. Retirees would not lose access to COBRA after eighteen months, but could keep it until they turn 65 and qualify for Medicare. Imagine getting a letter from your former employer one day telling you that the retiree health coverage that you had been promised and that you had been counting on was going to be taken away from you. There would be nothing you could do about it. Only with approval of this amendment would you be guaranteed access to quality health care. To pay for expanding access to health care, this amendment would eliminate from the tax code the percentage depletion allowance for hardrock minerals mined on federal public lands. It retains the percentage depletion allowance for oil and gas extracted on public and private land, and also retains this deduction when hardrock minerals are mined on private land. Mineral producers are allowed to deduct a defined percentage of their profits from their income before computing income taxes. There is no restriction in the tax code to limit this deduction to the value of the property, and this deduction is in addition to standard cost depletion for capital equipment such as machinery and vehicles. As a result, companies may over time deduct more than the total value of the property. Today, the percentage depletion rate for most hardrock minerals is 22 percent, while others such as gold, silver, copper and iron ore are depleted at lower rates ranging from 5 percent to 15 percent. On public lands, where mining companies do not pay any return to the taxpayer for the value of the mineral resources they are depleting, and pay a very nominal patenting fee, this policy is very costly to the American taxpayer. So instead of providing this tax break to mining companies, let's instead offer a little help to people who lose their health insurance. Mr. President, 44 million Americans lack basic health insurance. This is a problem that demands attention. Let's build on a law that already works to help people, Americans who have not other health care choice. Let's expand COBRA for retirees to support their transition form work to Medicare. Let's help people afford to keep the health insurance they need. I ask my colleagues to support this sensible amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be temporarily laid aside.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent 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, this debate, like the debate on the estate tax that it follows, allows the Senate to talk about priorities. Yes, some sensible reforms are in order to eliminate the marriage penalty for middle-income Americans. But before we enact a major tax bill like this, we should consider whether the first and highest priority for using our surplus should not be extending the life of Social Security and Medicare. Yesterday, the Senate considered the Harkin-Feingold amendment that would have extended the life of Social Security. Some did not like the way that Senator Harkin and I proposed to extend the life of Social Security. But few will deny that we should do something to keep Social Security and Medicare solvent. As I noted yesterday, starting in 2015, the cost of Social Security benefits is projected to exceed payroll tax revenues. Under current projections, this annual cash deficit will grow so that by 2036, Social Security will pay out a trillion dollars more in benefits than it takes in in payroll taxes. By 2037, the Trust Fund will have consumed all of its assets. Similarly, this year, the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is taking in $21 billion more in income than it pays out in Medicare benefits, and its Trustees project that it will continue to do so for 17 years. But by 2025, they project that the Medicare Trust Fund will have consumed all of its assets. We as a Nation have made a promise to workers that Social Security and Medicare will be there for them when they retire. We should start planning for that future. The Social Security Trustees' actuarial report shows a Social Security trust fund shortfall of 1.89 percent of payroll. That is, to maintain solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund for 75 years, we need to take actions equivalent to raising payroll tax receipts by 1.89 percent of payroll or making equivalent cuts in benefits. Thus, we can fix the Social Security program so that it will remain solvent for 75 years if we make changes now in either taxes or benefits equivalent to less than 2 percent of our payroll taxes. But if we wait until 2037, we would need the equivalent of an increase in the payroll tax rate of 5.4 percentage points, to set the program right. The choice is clear: Small changes now or big changes later. That is why Social Security reform is important, and why it is important now. And that's why President Clinton was right when in his 1998 State of the Union Address, he said, ``What should we do with this projected surplus? I have a simple four-word answer: Save Social Security first.'' Beginning in 1999, the government began to run surpluses in the non- Social Security budget. If we continue current law and don't dissipate these surpluses, they will continue into the 2020s or beyond, according to Congressional Budget Office projections. But starting in 2015, Social Security will start redeeming the bonds that it holds, and the non-Social Security budget will have to start paying for those bonds from non-Social Security surpluses. The bottom line is that starting in 2015, the government will have to show restraint in the non-Social Security budget so that we can pay the Social Security benefits that people have earned. That is why it doesn't make sense to enact either tax cuts or spending measures that would spend the non-Social Security surplus before we've addressed Social Security and Medicare for the long run. Before we enter into new obligations, we need to make sure that we have the resources to meet the commitments we already have. Indeed, not spending the surplus has a positive benefit for addressing Social Security and Medicare. The government is spending $224 billion this year just to pay the interest on the Federal debt. That is 11.5 cents out of every tax dollar the government collects. If we don't use the surplus for tax cuts or spending, but instead pay down the debt, we reduce that annual interest cost. The President's latest budget proposal calls for paying down the entire publicly-held debt by 2012. Doing so would give us $224 billion a year more in resources than we have now with which to address our Social Security and Medicare obligations. The government is like a family with a mortgage on the house and young kids who will go to college in a few years. One way to prepare to be able to afford those college costs is to pay down the mortgage now. There are a variety of options for extending Social Security's solvency. A broad choice of options exist for how we might get where we need to go. Yesterday, we rejected one option. My motion simply says we should choose some option to extend the life of Social Security and Medicare. The marriage tax bill before us today would head in the opposite direction. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the committee-reported bill would cost $56 billion over the first 5 years. And it would cost about $250 billion, if the sunset provision in this bill is not maintained. This bill is just one in a long series of tax bills. It's no secret. The majority leader has essentially said as much. The majority intends to pass--in one bill after another--a massive tax cut plan reminiscent of the early 1980s. Both the Senate and House have already passed a number of costly tax cut bills this year. According to one estimate by the Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee made in mid-June, the Senate or the House have already passed tax cuts costing about $440 billion over the next 10 years. Slicing last year's vetoed tax bill into a series of salami slices does not change their irresponsibility. As well, it doesn't make sense to proceed on one expensive part of a legislative agenda before knowing what the others are. Democrats support targeted marriage penalty relief. It would be irresponsible to enact a tax cut of this size before doing anything about Social Security and Medicare. Before the Senate passes major tax cuts like the one pending today, the Finance Committee should consider the options for extending Social Security and Medicare. The Senate should do first things first. And that's all that this motion to recommit requires. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my motion be temporarily set aside.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk and ask that it be stated.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to waive the Budget Act be temporarily set aside.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Senator from California inquired of me about the intent of the amendment with regard to the carryover basis. Let me assure the Senator from California that it is the intent of the sponsors that for estates over $100 million in size the carryover basis provisions would not apply. Those estates would be able to benefit from the stepped-up basis provisions of current law. To the extent that my amendment is unclear on this matter, I would fight for changes in Conference that would make that entirely clear.