Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I believe the Senator has shared that with me before, but it is a horrifying number for any State, let alone a State the size of Nevada.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Grassley in introducing the Medicare Home Health Refinement Act of 2000. This legislation will provide a measure of financial relief for cost efficient home health agencies that are making the transition from the Interim Payment System to the soon to be implemented Prospective Payment System. Since the enactment of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, many cost- effective home health agencies have experienced financial hardship, which has forced agencies to divert funds away from patient care. We must ensure that home health care agencies can continue to provide their invaluable service to the elderly and the disabled. As I travel to each of Wisconsin's 72 counties each year, I have heard countless stories from home health agencies that a number of burdensome new regulations imposed by the Health Care Financing Administration have hindered their ability to do what they do best-- provide quality care. Our legislation addresses many of these concerns. In fact, a number of the provisions come directly from the providers in Wisconsin. Our bill offers a combination of emergency cash flow assistance, reimbursement for transition costs, and a system to separate medical supply costs from other home health expenses as home health agencies switch to a new payment system. Home health care provides compassionate, at-home care to seniors and people with disabilities in cities and towns throughout Wisconsin. Without it, many patients have no choice but to go to a nursing home, or even an emergency room, to get the care they need. For too many home health patients in Wisconsin, that day has arrived. Home health agencies around my state have closed their doors due to massive changes in Medicare, and seniors and the disabled have been forced to go elsewhere for care. The Balanced Budget Act As my colleagues know, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 contained a number of measures that were intended to slow home health care spending. Congress targeted home health spending due to the fact that prior to the Balanced Budget Act, home health care had become the fastest growing component of Medicare spending. Unfortunately, the cuts went deeper than anyone anticipated, and have left many Medicare beneficiaries without access to the services they need. These unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 have been severe indeed. Instead of the $100 billion in five-year savings that we targeted, present projections indicate that actual Medicare reductions have been in the area of $200 billion. Home health care spending, which the Congressional Budget Office expected to rise by $2 billion in the last two years even after factoring in the Balanced Budget Act cuts, has instead fallen by nearly 8 billion, or 45 percent. These painful cuts have forced more than 40 home health care agencies in 22 Wisconsin counties to close their doors, in just two years. Mr. President, I stand by my vote in favor of the Balanced Budget Act. And, like many of my colleagues, I believe that it contained meaningful provisions to balance the budget. I want to emphasize that the goal was to balance the budget--it was not to punish home health agencies, and certainly not to deny Medicare beneficiaries access to the home health services they need. The Balanced Budget Act also included a number of burdensome administration changes, and a new reimbursement system for home health care agencies. It required the creation of a Prospective Payment System, and, until that system was developed an interim payment system. These new rules are forcing agencies to overhaul their computer systems, purchase new software, and fill out more and more forms. Many of these agencies already face major cash-flow problems, and are rightly concerned that any delays in payments could hurt their ability to properly care for beneficiaries. With all of the changes, Congress must ensure that these home health agencies, which have already been hit hard by payment cuts, have the resources they need to provide quality home care to the American public in a cost-effective manner. rdf's home health care legislation My legislation provides for some common sense provisions to ease the transition to the new PPS system. Under the first provision, the Health Care Financing Administration would be able to provide one-time advance payments to home health agencies which have been experiencing cash-flow problems. These payments are temporary: agencies would be required to repay them within twelve months. It also provides some relief to agencies for their compliance with the new regulations and rules. Across the country, home health agencies have had to spend millions of dollars buying new computers and software which can handle the new PPS. This provision also targets those small agencies with a lesser cash flow and are relatively more affected by the burdensome regulations. My bill also includes compensation for agencies who must perform patient outcome assessments under the new rules. We should recognize that physicians' time is precious, and that we cannot expect them to provide accurate, helpful data if every hour they spend filling out forms is an hour less treatment that the agency can afford to provide. Finally, the bill carves out funding for non-routine medical supplies from the PPS, so that agencies who treat patients with complex medical needs are not punished with low payments. We must ensure that all beneficiaries have the choice to receive care at home, and not be turned down or shut out of the market because agencies are afraid that they'll be too costly to assist. These are sensible changes which go a long way to alleviate the burden that the change to the Prospective Payment System has imposed on the agencies. These changes will allow agencies to focus their care on Medicare beneficiaries, and reduce their burden as they transition to PPS. access to care In Wisconsin, over 46 Medicare home health providers have shut down since the implementation of Interim Payment System. Still more have shrunken their service areas, stopped accepting Medicare patients, or refused assignment for high cost patients because the payments are simply too low. So, what do these changes mean for Medicare beneficiaries? Well, quite frankly, in many parts of Wisconsin, beneficiaries in certain areas or with certain diagnoses simply don't have access to home health care. The Interim Payment System has created disincentives to treat patients with expensive medical diagnoses. Few agencies, if any, can afford to care for patients with expensive medical diagnosis. conclusion I believe that Congress must take a serious look at what refinements need to occur to ensure that our home bound elderly and disabled constituents--among the frailest and most vulnerable people we serve-- can receive the services they need. Without that fine-tuning, I am quite certain that more home health agencies in Wisconsin and across our country will close, leaving some of our frailest Medicare beneficiaries without the choice to receive care at home. Again, I think Seniors need and deserve that choice, and I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Grassley in introducing the Medicare Home Health Refinement Act of 2000. This legislation will provide a measure of financial relief for cost efficient home health agencies that are making the transition from the Interim Payment System to the soon to be implemented Prospective Payment System. Since the enactment of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, many cost- effective home health agencies have experienced financial hardship, which has forced agencies to divert funds away from patient care. We must ensure that home health care agencies can continue to provide their invaluable service to the elderly and the disabled. As I travel to each of Wisconsin's 72 counties each year, I have heard countless stories from home health agencies that a number of burdensome new regulations imposed by the Health Care Financing Administration have hindered their ability to do what they do best-- provide quality care. Our legislation addresses many of these concerns. In fact, a number of the provisions come directly from the providers in Wisconsin. Our bill offers a combination of emergency cash flow assistance, reimbursement for transition costs, and a system to separate medical supply costs from other home health expenses as home health agencies switch to a new payment system. Home health care provides compassionate, at-home care to seniors and people with disabilities in cities and towns throughout Wisconsin. Without it, many patients have no choice but to go to a nursing home, or even an emergency room, to get the care they need. For too many home health patients in Wisconsin, that day has arrived. Home health agencies around my state have closed their doors due to massive changes in Medicare, and seniors and the disabled have been forced to go elsewhere for care. The Balanced Budget Act As my colleagues know, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 contained a number of measures that were intended to slow home health care spending. Congress targeted home health spending due to the fact that prior to the Balanced Budget Act, home health care had become the fastest growing component of Medicare spending. Unfortunately, the cuts went deeper than anyone anticipated, and have left many Medicare beneficiaries without access to the services they need. These unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 have been severe indeed. Instead of the $100 billion in five-year savings that we targeted, present projections indicate that actual Medicare reductions have been in the area of $200 billion. Home health care spending, which the Congressional Budget Office expected to rise by $2 billion in the last two years even after factoring in the Balanced Budget Act cuts, has instead fallen by nearly 8 billion, or 45 percent. These painful cuts have forced more than 40 home health care agencies in 22 Wisconsin counties to close their doors, in just two years. Mr. President, I stand by my vote in favor of the Balanced Budget Act. And, like many of my colleagues, I believe that it contained meaningful provisions to balance the budget. I want to emphasize that the goal was to balance the budget--it was not to punish home health agencies, and certainly not to deny Medicare beneficiaries access to the home health services they need. The Balanced Budget Act also included a number of burdensome administration changes, and a new reimbursement system for home health care agencies. It required the creation of a Prospective Payment System, and, until that system was developed an interim payment system. These new rules are forcing agencies to overhaul their computer systems, purchase new software, and fill out more and more forms. Many of these agencies already face major cash-flow problems, and are rightly concerned that any delays in payments could hurt their ability to properly care for beneficiaries. With all of the changes, Congress must ensure that these home health agencies, which have already been hit hard by payment cuts, have the resources they need to provide quality home care to the American public in a cost-effective manner. rdf's home health care legislation My legislation provides for some common sense provisions to ease the transition to the new PPS system. Under the first provision, the Health Care Financing Administration would be able to provide one-time advance payments to home health agencies which have been experiencing cash-flow problems. These payments are temporary: agencies would be required to repay them within twelve months. It also provides some relief to agencies for their compliance with the new regulations and rules. Across the country, home health agencies have had to spend millions of dollars buying new computers and software which can handle the new PPS. This provision also targets those small agencies with a lesser cash flow and are relatively more affected by the burdensome regulations. My bill also includes compensation for agencies who must perform patient outcome assessments under the new rules. We should recognize that physicians' time is precious, and that we cannot expect them to provide accurate, helpful data if every hour they spend filling out forms is an hour less treatment that the agency can afford to provide. Finally, the bill carves out funding for non-routine medical supplies from the PPS, so that agencies who treat patients with complex medical needs are not punished with low payments. We must ensure that all beneficiaries have the choice to receive care at home, and not be turned down or shut out of the market because agencies are afraid that they'll be too costly to assist. These are sensible changes which go a long way to alleviate the burden that the change to the Prospective Payment System has imposed on the agencies. These changes will allow agencies to focus their care on Medicare beneficiaries, and reduce their burden as they transition to PPS. access to care In Wisconsin, over 46 Medicare home health providers have shut down since the implementation of Interim Payment System. Still more have shrunken their service areas, stopped accepting Medicare patients, or refused assignment for high cost patients because the payments are simply too low. So, what do these changes mean for Medicare beneficiaries? Well, quite frankly, in many parts of Wisconsin, beneficiaries in certain areas or with certain diagnoses simply don't have access to home health care. The Interim Payment System has created disincentives to treat patients with expensive medical diagnoses. Few agencies, if any, can afford to care for patients with expensive medical diagnosis. conclusion I believe that Congress must take a serious look at what refinements need to occur to ensure that our home bound elderly and disabled constituents--among the frailest and most vulnerable people we serve-- can receive the services they need. Without that fine-tuning, I am quite certain that more home health agencies in Wisconsin and across our country will close, leaving some of our frailest Medicare beneficiaries without the choice to receive care at home. Again, I think Seniors need and deserve that choice, and I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the people of Zimbabwe on their participation in the historic elections that took place over the weekend. So often, events in Africa are only mentioned on this floor and in the press only in the event of crisis or tragedy. But only days ago, the people of Zimbabwe seized control of their collective destiny and gave the international community a reason to celebrate rather than lament conditions in Africa. For twenty years, politics in Zimbabwe had been dominated by one party and indeed one man. President Mugabe had the support of all but three members of the 150-seat Parliament. Changes to Zimbabwe's constitution, even when rejected by voters as they were in February, could still be passed through this compliant legislature, enabling the executive to continue to shore up power and ignore the growing chorus of protest from citizens disgusted by corruption and distressed by mismanagement. But this week, the tide turned in Zimbabwe. Without access to the state-run media and without significant financing, opposition candidates still managed to win fifty-eight parliamentary seats and end the ruling party's stranglehold on the state. Mr. President, the world's attention was focused on Zimbabwe over the weekend because of the disturbing events that led up to the balloting. Opposition candidates and supporters have been intimidated, beaten, and even, in more than 25 cases, killed. International assessment teams have indicated that given this violent preface, these elections were not free and fair. But as we acknowledge these flaws, even as we recognize the poisoned environment in which citizens of Zimbabwe were called upon to make their choice, we must also appreciate the courage of the voters and the historic changes they have brought to their country. Zimbabwe is still, without question, a country in crisis. But the people of Zimbabwe themselves have taken a decisive step toward resolving that crisis. In the face of violence and intimidation, a remarkable number of voters chose a peaceful and rule-governed expression of their will, and the power in their statement has fundamentally changed the nature of governance in Zimbabwe and silenced the pessimists who claimed that Zimbabwe was already hopeless and lost. In the wake of these elections, many challenges remain in Zimbabwe. The next round of presidential elections must be conducted in a free, fair, and democratic manner. Genuine, rule-governed land reform must move forward. The economy must be repaired, step by step. Zimbabwe, along with the other African states that have troops in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, must extricate itself from the costly conflict. And perhaps most importantly, government and civil society alike must address the devastating AIDS crisis head-on. International support and assistance will be critical to these efforts. The Zimbabwe Democracy Act, a bill introduced by Senator Frist and of which I was an original co-sponsor, recognizes both the obvious need for more progress toward democracy and the rule of law in Zimbabwe, and the need for international support. I hope that the conditions laid out in that bill for resumption of a complete program of bilateral assistance will be met expeditiously. And I am glad that, in the meantime, the bill ensures that U.S. assistance will continue to bolster democratic governance and the rule of law, humanitarian efforts, and land reform programs being conducted outside the auspices of the government of Zimbabwe. This bill has passed the Senate, and I hope that the House will pass it soon, as it contains particularly timely provisions which will assist individuals and institutions who accrue costs of penalties in the pursuit of elective office or democratic reforms. So again, I extend my congratulations to the people of Zimbabwe on their historic vote, and I urge my colleagues to take note of the potential for real change and real progress that exists within Zimbabwean society and indeed within many of the countries of Africa. Africa is not a hopeless continent. One cannot paint the entire region in the same depressing and fatalistic shades. And Mr. President, I intend to come to this floor to highlight the promise and the achievements of the diverse region in the remaining weeks of this session, in an effort to counter the lazy, misguided analysis that suggests we should wash our hands of engagement with this remarkable part of the world.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you. I would also like to stress that these grants are intended for community partnerships in rural areas, as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This amendment has been endorsed by both the American Heart Association and the American Red Cross as a means of expanding access to these lifesaving devices across rural America, and I join my colleague from Maine in thanking the managers of the bill for their cooperation and support. amendment no. 3703 (Purpose: To support medication management for seniors) On page 43, line 9, before the colon, insert the following: ``, of which $5,000,000 shall be available for activities regarding medication management, screening, and education to prevent incorrect medication and adverse drug reactions''.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you. I would like to commend my friend and colleague from Maine for her leadership in passing this amendment that will help improve cardiac arrest survival rates across rural America by making AEDs more accessible. I recently visited DeForest, Wisconsin, where the area's citizens and businesses recently finished a fund- raising effort that resulted in the purchase of three new defibrillators. When I visited with the DeForest police department, they provided a real life example of why we must increase the availability of defibrillators: since they were purchased just three months ago, two people have been saved by these devices. They helped show me that cardiac arrest victims are in a race against time, and unfortunately, for those in many rural areas, Emergency Medical Services have simply too far to go to reach people in need, and time runs out for victims of cardiac arrest. It is simply not possible to have EMS units next to every farm and small town across the nation. This amendment will begin to address this problem. Just so my colleagues are aware, I would like to ask my friend from Maine to describe how these grants will be made.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my friend from Vermont to introduce the Miranda Reaffirmation Act, a bill that repeals two sections of the United States Criminal Code because they directly conflict with the constitutional rule set forth by the United States Supreme court in the 1966 landmark decision of Miranda v. Arizona. This week, nearing the conclusion of a busy term, the United States Supreme Court handed down several very important decisions. In one of the more highly anticipated rulings, Dickerson v. United States, the Court held by a 7-2 majority that the rule announced in Miranda is still the supreme law of this land. As we are all aware, the Miranda rule instructs all law enforcement officers that prior to an in-custody interrogation they must inform suspects of several important constitutional rights: the right to remain silent, the right to counsel, and the right to have counsel appointed if they cannot afford one. As the Court noted, ``Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warning have become part of our national culture.'' Millions of American children have first learned about their constitutional rights by watching police dramas on television and hearing the famous Miranda warnings given to criminal suspects. Mr. President, the Supreme Court's reaffirmation of the Miranda rule was extremely important. In the Dickerson case, a private legal foundation and a law professor intervened in a criminal case and questioned whether Miranda warnings are constitutionally required. Relying on 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3501, they argued that law enforcement officers should not have to inform suspects of their basic constitutional rights before proceeding with in-custody interrogations as long as any confessions obtained were determined to be voluntary. While every administration since the law was passed in 1968 has refused to make this argument, a lower court in the Dickerson case agreed with it. Section 3501 was enacted in 1968, just two years after the original Miranda decision. It was a clear attempt by Congress to overturn the constitutional rule laid down in that case. It is a strange quirk of history that the validity of Sec. 3501 and Congress's attempt to overrule Miranda was addressed for the first time by the Supreme Court in the Dickerson case. The reason is that a series of Departments of Justice, under both Republican and Democratic Presidents assumed that the statute was unconstitutional and refused to proceed under it. In Dickerson, the Supreme Court agreed with that view. Writing for a seven justice majority, Chief Justice Rehnquist pointed out that ``because of the obvious conflict between our decision in Miranda and Sec. 3501 we must address whether Congress has the constitutional authority to thus supercede Miranda.'' Second, the Chief Justice reiterated the established principle that ``Congress may not legislatively supercede our decision[s] interpreting and applying the constitution,'' and he concluded by ruling that ``Miranda announced a constitutional rule that Congress may not supercede legislatively.'' Justice Scalia, in dissent, disagreed vehemently with the majority's analysis. In a somewhat curious declaration of defiance he wrote: ``[U]ntil Sec. 3501 is repealed, [I] will continue to apply it in all cases where there has been a sustainable finding that the defendant's confession was voluntary.'' Mr. President, as a result of the Court's unequivocal ruling in Dickerson, we now have a law on the books that the Court has ruled is inconsistent with what the Constitution requires with respect to constitutional in-custody interrogations. That may seem to be a matter of little consequence, but the statement of Justice Scalia that he will continue to apply it in future cases shows that it is not. The bill that we are introducing today eliminates this potential problem by removing the unconstitutional provision from the criminal code. This repeal will accomplish two things. It will bring our criminal code into line with what the Supreme Court has now firmly established as the law of the land, and it will remove from the books an ineffective law that Justice Rehnquist considered ``more difficult than Miranda for law enforcement officers to conform to, and for courts to apply in a consistent manner.'' The prophylactic rule established by Miranda has worked well and stood the test of time. Law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys have found that it is a far better way to protect the constitutional rights of those accused of crimes than the ``voluntariness'' standard that was in place before Miranda and that Sec. 3501 attempted to keep in place. Mr. President, it is simply not appropriate for the existing criminal code to conflict with what the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution requires. It is our duty to act to repeal a provision that the Department of Justice has refused to apply and that the Supreme Court has held, in any event, cannot be enforced. As the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am proud to join the ranking member of the full Committee, Senator Leahy, in offering this straightforward and commonsense measure.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate National Dairy Month, and the wonderful history of our nation's dairy industry. During June Dairy Month we in Wisconsin take a special opportunity to celebrate Wisconsin dairy's proud tradition and heritage of quality. This month provides an opportunity for all Wisconsinites--both those on and off the farm--a special time to reflect on the historical importance, and future of America's dairy industry. This month is especially important to my home state of Wisconsin, America's Dairyland. What many of my colleagues may not know is that Wisconsin became a leader in the dairy industry well before the 1930's when it was officially nicknamed America's Dairyland. It was soon after the first dairy cow came to Wisconsin in the 1800's that we began to take the dairy industry by storm. In fact, before Wisconsin was even a state, Ms. Anne Pickett established Wisconsin's first cheese factory when she combined milk from her cows with milk from her neighbor's cows and made it into cheese. Over the past month, Wisconsinites have recognized this proud tradition by holding over 100 dairy celebrations across our state, including dairy breakfasts, ice cream socials, cooking demonstrations, festivals and other events. These functions help to reinforce the consumer's awareness of the quality variety and great taste of Wisconsin's dairy products and to honor the producers who make it possible. Unfortunately, the picture for producers has not been that bright. Dairy prices for this year's National Dairy Month, along with most of the first half of this year, have reached all times lows. Low milk prices--the lowest since 1978--are wreaking havoc on Wisconsin's rural communities. In addition to these low prices, dairy farmers are also facing month to month price fluctuations of up to 40 percent. What is so troublesome is that farmers are experiencing these low prices while the retail price continues to increase. In fact, thanks to a 20 percent jump last year in the retail price, the farm retail price spread for dairy products has more than doubled since the early 1980s. Because of this concern, earlier this year, Senator Leahy and I asked the General Accounting Office to conduct a thorough investigation into the increasing disparity between the prices dairy farmers receive for their milk, and the price retail stores charge for milk. In the study, GAO will focus its attention on the impact of market concentration in the retail, milk processing, procurement and handling industries and describe the potential risks of any such concentration for dairy farmers and federal nutrition programs. Specifically, we asked the GAO to identify the factors that are depressing the price farmers receive for their milk, and why this trend has persisted while retail prices continue to rise. After all, this trend defies economic expectations, and frustrates the aspirations of hardworking farmers, with no apparent benefit to consumers. During June Dairy Month, the dairy industry also called for mandatory price reporting for manufactured products. In early June, the sudden discovery of 24 million pounds of butter shined the spotlight on the need for an effective reporting system for storable dairy products . The Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), which tracks domestic butter stocks, discovered a new warehouse that hadn't been reporting its butter inventory. When this huge quantity of butter was finally reported, prices went down sharply, and so did the dairy industry's faith in the reporting system for storable dairy products. Wall Street would never put up with this kind of reporting errors in its markets, and neither should the agriculture industry. Regardless of where the dairy industry chooses to get its information, through the National Agricultural Statistics Service or the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, that information must be accurate. These costly mistakes happen because the current reporting system is voluntary, leaving room for serious errors. To address this growing concern, Senator Craig and I introduced the Dairy Market Enhancement Act of 2000, which takes the next step toward fair and accurate reporting. It would mandate reporting by dairy product manufacturing plants, would subject that reporting to independent verification, and would require the USDA to ensure compliance with the mandatory reporting and verification requirements. Our bill also would direct the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to conduct a study on the reporting practices at the CME and report its findings to Congress. We must also ensure that America's dairy farmers are put on a level playing field in the world economy. As I travel to each county in Wisconsin, I hear a growing concern over efforts to change the natural cheese standard to allow dry ultra-filtered milk in natural cheese. Our dairy farmers have invested heavily in processes that make the best quality cheese ingredients, and I am concerned about recent efforts to change the law that would penalize them for those efforts by allowing lower quality ingredients to flood the U.S. market. Senator Jeffords and I introduced the Quality Cheese Act of 2000 to respond to the call of our nation's dairy farmers. Our legislation would disallow the use of so called ``dry'' ultra- filtered milk--milk protein concentrate and casein--in natural cheese products, and require USDA to consider the impact on the producer before any other changes may be made to the natural cheese standard. I recognize that these efforts are only a step in the right direction. In addition to addressing the increased market concentration, enacting mandatary price reporting, and protecting the natural cheese standard, Congress must also provide America's dairy farmers with a fair and truly national dairy policy and one that puts them all on a level playing field, from coast to coast.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to describe why I opposed the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, to this legislation on the issue of schools and libraries blocking children's access to certain materials on the Internet, and supported the alternative amendment on this topic offered by Senator Santorum. The McCain amendment prohibits schools and libraries from receiving federal funds under the E-Rate program if they do not install software to block children's access to two specific kinds of information: materials that are obscene and materials that constitute child pornography. The Santorum amendment contains a similar prohibition on funding, but gives the local community the flexibility to decide what materials are inappropriate for children's viewing and to implement a comprehensive policy on minors' Internet use if they want to continue to receive the E-Rate. I feel that local communities, not the federal government, should decide what materials are suitable for children's viewing. Wisconsin communities may want to address or restrict whether children have access to adult chat rooms even though the chat may not be about child pornography or may not contain technically obscene topics of conversation. They also may want to restrict whether they post identifying information or photographs of students on school sponsored web sites. I simply feel that these decisions are best made locally. Second, I am concerned that the McCain amendment imposes an additional cost to obtain filtering software upon schools and libraries without adequate input from those institutions. The McCain amendment relies upon the technical fix of filtering and imposes filtering software on all computers in a facility. The Santorum amendment allows a school or library to determine which computers are available for student access and then install blocking software upon those computers. Software licensing costs are not inexpensive, and requiring that software be installed on every machine may be financially difficult for small communities. Finally, though I am concerned about protecting children on the Internet, I am also concerned about the constitutionality of blocking material on the Internet for adult computer users. The Santorum amendment allows communities to develop common sense solutions to protect the rights of adults to access information over the Internet in a place like a public library. A Wisconsin community could decide, under the Santorum amendment, for example, that it wanted to have a locked room in its public library with computers in it that only adults could use to access the Internet and not install blocking software on those machines. There are ways to block children's access to computers that are structural, Mr. President, like a locked door, that would still protect the First Amendment right of adults. These options are not available under the McCain amendment. I appreciate the Senate's interest in protecting children from inappropriate material on the Internet, but I feel that the McCain amendment does not go far enough to ensure that local governments, libraries, schools, and individuals rights are protected.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. That is correct. We want to allow the Internal Revenue Service to enforce these disclosure rules with the assistance and cooperation of the Federal Election Commission.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, despite the claims in the press by some opponents of this measure, this bill is fair and evenhanded. It affects groups on both sides of the political spectrum. It is not aimed at any particular group or players in the elections. It is aimed at getting rid of secrecy. It is not an attempt to silence anyone. It is an attempt to give the American people information. They are entitled to have this information about the groups who flood the airwaves with negative ads during an election campaign. I thank all my colleagues who supported the McCain-Feingold-Lieberman amendment on the Department of Defense bill. They can be proud of what they did. With that vote, they have started in motion a process that has brought us to this day, when we will quickly pass and send to the President for his signature a good, fair, bipartisan bill that does the right thing for the American people.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky said that nearly every 527 publicly discloses their contributors and expenditures. I don't know how the Senator from Kentucky can make that claim because he doesn't know. No one knows how many 527 organizations there are. They currently don't file any reports whatsoever, so we can't know that. They currently don't even notify the IRS that they exist. That is exactly what this bill will change. I now yield 2 minutes to one of our strongest allies on this issue and on the entire issue of campaign finance reform, the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me note that there is no constitutional argument against this bill because these organizations receive a tax exemption. The public is entitled to this information in exchange for the substantial tax benefit these groups receive. I am so pleased this matter will be demonstrated in the courts because this bill is going to actually become law. I would like to use the remaining time to remind my colleagues and the public of the scope of the loophole we are about to get rid of. This has been called the ``mother of all loopholes.'' If left unchecked, literally millions upon millions of dollars originating from foreign governments, foreign companies, and even, theoretically, organized crime could be spent in our elections without a single solitary bit of reporting and accountability--totally secret money in unlimited amounts, and no one would know where the money was coming from. It is hard to imagine anything that would be worse for the health of our democracy. We have a chart here containing, word for word, what is essentially an advertisement by one of these groups. It is as plain as day. This group solicits contributions from extremely wealthy individuals and groups. Contributions, it says, can be given in unlimited amounts. They can be from any source. They are not political contributions and are not a matter of public record. They are not reported to the FEC, to any State agency, or to the IRS. Today, we are wiping out what might be the most important part of this advertisement, that the contributions are not a matter of public record. From now on, these groups will disclose their contribution to the IRS. The public will be able to see where their money is coming from and understand what is behind the message. I do want to mention a number of people who have been central to this effort. Of course, my friend and colleague, Senator McCain, deserves a huge amount of the credit for putting forward our original amendment to the DOD bill and tenaciously continuing to push until it became law. Senators Lieberman and Levin developed the original bill on 527s, recognizing the huge threat these stealth PACs posed. Their work over the past few weeks to make sure we finish the job has been extraordinary. Senator Snowe, who has long been concerned about getting disclosure of phony issue ads run in the last days before an election, was a key supporter, as was Senator Schumer and many others. On the House side, Representative Shays, who is in the Chamber now, as well as Representatives Meehan, Houghton, Castle, Doggett, and Moore were crucial to getting the bill passed there, over the strong opposition of the House leadership. I am proud of how we worked in a bipartisan and bicameral fashion to get the bill done and close this loophole. This effort bodes well for the future of campaign finance reform. This is my final point, Mr. President. This is not the end of the fight, as we have said. It is just the beginning. Now that we have cracked the wall of resistance to any reform at all, I think we are ready to move forward on truly cleaning up the corrupt campaign finance system. Now that we have disclosure of the unlimited amounts that are going to outside groups, I think we are ready to address the unlimited contributions from corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals that the soft money loophole permits to be given to the political parties. Mr. President, I should have also mentioned Senator Jeffords, who is present in the Chamber, for his help on this issue. I know that many of my colleagues want to clean up this system and are willing to work in good faith to find a way that we can do that. In the few seconds I have remaining, I thank a number of staff for their incredibly hard work and dedication to the campaign finance issue and to this 527 disclosure will. We have not had many wins, and they are the ones responsible for keeping us in this fight. Mark Buse, Ann Choinere, Lloyd Ator of Senator McCain's staff, Laurie Rubenstein of Senator Lieberman's staff, Linda Gustitus with Senator Levin, Jane Calderwood and John Richter from Senator Snowe's staff, Andrea LaRue with Senator Daschle, and Bob Schiff of my own staff worked very long hours to make sure that we got to this point, and we appreciate all of their efforts and look forward to future victories together. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for everything he has done on this matter. I ask the Chair how much time remains on our side.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes of our time to the other co-initiator of this issue, Senator Levin.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to our fearless leader on this issue, the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased we have reached an agreement to consider and almost certainly pass H.R. 4762, which passed the House last night by an overwhelming vote of 385-39. Tomorrow will be a historic day. For the first time since 1979, the Congress is going to pass a campaign finance reform bill. The bill we are going to pass is by no means a solution to all the problems of our campaign finance system, but it is a start--and an important start--because it will close the loophole that was opened at the intersection of the tax laws and election laws that allows unlimited amounts of completely secret contributions to flow into our campaign finance system and influence our elections. I yield 3 minutes to the initial leader on this issue, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish to voice my concern about the deteriorating human rights situation in Russia. A decade after the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russia still faces enormous obstacles to becoming a stable and prosperous nation. Russia's GDP is less than half of what it was before the break-up, with much of its population impoverished and uncertain about its future. Russia's medical system is in near collapse, and both life expectancy birthrates have declined sharply. Crime is escalating, and corruption is widespread. This is a scenario that would challenge any government. It will require great leadership to turn things around in order to move Russia towards greater freedom and prosperity. But recent events have made me fearful that, rather than leading Russia forward, President Putin and his government are leading their country back into the regrettable past. The apparently baseless arrest of Vladimir Gusinsky raises new concerns about President Putin's commitment to an independent media, particularly in light of his government's abuse of Radio Liberty journalist Andrey Babitsky in retaliation for critical reporting from Chechnya. The Russian government has not heeded international calls for an independent investigation into reports of escalating human rights abuses allegedly committed by Russian troops against Chechen civilians. The reported harassment by the Putin government against some religious minorities, including pressure placed on a prominent Jewish group, is also extremely troubling. Mr. President, a Russia that is democratic and free and follows the rule of law will be a strong and prosperity country, a source of pride to its people, and an ally respected by all nations. I call on Congress and the Administration to do all that is possible to ensure that President Putin moves his country towards this goal.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again introduce a bill to deal with the all too common problem of interference with residential home electronic equipment caused by unlawful use of citizens band, or CB, radios. This is the third Congress in which I have offered this legislation. In 1998, it was nearly enacted as part of an anti-slamming bill. I hope that this year, we can finally put this common sense bill into law. The problem of CB radio interference can be extremely distressing for residents who cannot have a telephone conversation, watch television, or listen to the radio without being interrupted by a neighbor's illegal use of a CB radio. Unfortunately, under the current law, those residents have little recourse. The bill I am introducing today will provide those residents with a practical solution to this problem. Until recently, the FCC enforced its rules outlining what equipment may or may not be used for CB radio transmissions, how long transmissions may be broadcast, what channels may be used, as well as many other technical requirements. The FCC also used to investigate neighbor's complaints that a CB radio enthusiast's transmissions interfered with their use of home electronic and telephone equipment. The FCC receives thousands of such complaints annually. For the past five years, I have worked on behalf of constituents bothered by persistent interference of nearby CB radio transmissions, in some cases caused by unlawful use of radio equipment. In each case, the constituents have sought my help in securing an FCC investigation of the complaint. And in each case, the FCC indicated that due to a lack of resources, they no longer investigate radio frequency interference complaints. Instead of investigation and enforcement, the FCC only provides self-help information which the consumer may use to limit the interference on their own. This situation is understandable given the rising number of complaints for things like slamming. The resources of the FCC are limited, and there is only so much they can do to address complaints of radio interference. Nonetheless, this problem is extremely annoying and frustrating to those who experience radio interference. Many residents implement the self-help measures recommended by FCC such as installing filtering devices to prevent the unwanted interference, working with their telephone company, or attempting to work with the neighbor they believe is causing the interference. In many cases these self-help measures are effective. However, in some cases filters and other technical solutions fail to solve the problem because the interference is caused by the unlawful use of CB radio equipment such as unauthorized linear amplifiers. Municipal residents, after being denied an investigation or enforcement from the FCC, frequently contact their city or town government and ask them to police the interference. However, the Communications Act of 1934 provides exclusive authority to the Federal Government for the regulation of radio. This preempts municipal ordinances or State laws that regulate radio frequency interference caused by unlawful use of CB radio equipment. This situation creates an interesting dilemma for municipal governments. They can neither pass their own ordinances to control CB radio interference, nor can they rely on the agency with exclusive jurisdiction over interference to enforce the very Federal law which preempts them. Let me give an example of the kind of frustrations people have experienced in attempting to deal with these problems. Shannon Ladwig, a resident of Beloit, WI is fighting to end CB interference with her home electronic equipment that has plagued her family for many years. Shannon worked within the existing system by asking for an FCC investigation, installing filtering equipment on her telephone, attempting to work with the neighbor causing the interference, and so on. Nothing has been effective. Here are some of the annoyances Shannon has experienced. Her answering machine picks up calls for which there is no audible ring, and at times records ghost messages. Often, she cannot get a dial tone when she or her family members wish to place an outgoing call. During telephone conversations, the content of the nearby CB transmission can frequently be heard and on occasion, her phone conversations are inexplicably cut off. Ms. Ladwig's TV transmits audio from the CB transmission rather than the television program her family is watching. Shannon never knows if the TV program she taped with her VCR will actually record the intended program or whether it will contain profanity from nearby CB radio conversation. Shannon did everything she could to solve the problem and years later she still feels like a prisoner in her home, unable to escape the broadcasting whims of a CB operator using illegal equipment with impunity. Shannon even went to her city council to demand action. The Beloit City Council responded by passing an ordinance allowing local law enforcement to enforce FCC regulations--an ordinance the council knows is preempted by Federal law. The bill I am introducing today would allow Beloit's ordinance to stand. The problems experienced by Beloit residents are by no means isolated incidents. I have received very similar complaints from at least 10 other Wisconsin communities in the last several years in which whole neighborhoods are experiencing persistent radio frequency interference. Since I have begun working on this issue, my staff has also been contacted by a number of other congressional offices who are also looking for a solution to the problem of radio frequency interference in their States or districts caused by unlawful CB use. The city of Grand Rapids, Michigan, in particular, has contacted me about this legislation because they face a persistent interference problem very similar to that in Beloit. I am pleased that Senators Levin and Abraham join me today in cosponsoring this legislation. In all, the FCC receives more than 30,000 radio frequency interference complaints annually--most of which are caused by CB radios. Unfortunately, the FCC no longer has the staff, resources, or the field capability to investigate these complaints and localities are blocked from exercising any jurisdiction to provide relief to their residents. My bill resolves this Catch-22, by allowing states and localities to enforce statutes or ordinances prohibiting selected violations of the FCC regulations. This gives local law enforcement the ability to enforce existing FCC regulations regarding unauthorized CB equipment and frequencies while maintaining exclusive Federal jurisdiction over the regulation of radio services. It is a commonsense solution to a very frustrating and real problem which cannot be addressed under existing law. Residents should not be held hostage to a Federal law which purports to protect them but cannot be enforced. Now this amendment is by no means a panacea for the problem of radio frequency interference. It is intended only to help localities solve the most egregious and persistent problems of interference--those caused by unauthorized use of CB radio equipment and frequencies. In cases where interference is caused by the legal and licensed operation of any radio service, residents will need to resolve the interference using the FCC self-help measures that I mentioned earlier. In many cases, interference can result from inadequate home electronic equipment immunity from radio frequency interference. Those problems can only be resolved by installing filtering equipment and by improving the manufacturing standards of home telecommunications equipment. The electronic equipment manufacturing industry, represented by the Telecommunications Industry Association and the Electronics Industry Association, working with the Federal Communications Commission, has adopted voluntary standards to improve the immunity of telephones from interference. Those standards were adopted by the American National Standards Institute last year. Manufacturers of electronic equipment should be encouraged to adopt these new ANSI standards. Consumers have a right to expect that the telephones they purchase will operate as expected without excessive levels of interference from legal radio transmissions. Of course, Mr. President, these standards assume legal operation of radio equipment and cannot protect residents from interference from illegal operation of CB equipment. This bill also does not address interference caused by other radio services, such as commercial stations or amateur stations. I have worked with the American Radio Relay League (ARRL), an organization representing amateur radio operators, frequently referred to as ``ham'' operators, to address a number of concerns that they raised about the original versions of my bill. ARRL was concerned that while the bill was intended to cover only illegal use of CB equipment, FCC-licensed amateur radio operators might inadvertently be targeted and prosecuted by local government and law enforcement. ARRL also expressed concern that local law enforcement might not have the technical abilities to distinguish between ham stations and CB stations and might not be able to determine what CB equipment was FCC-authorized and what equipment is illegal. I have worked with the ARRL and amateur operators from Wisconsin to address these concerns. As a result of those discussions, this amendment incorporates a number of provisions suggested by the league. First, the amendment makes clear that the limited authority provided to localities in no way diminishes or affects the FCC's exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of radio. Second, the amendment clarifies that possession of a FCC license to operate a radio service for the operation at issue, such as an amateur station, is a complete protection against any local government action authorized by this amendment. Unlike CB operators, amateur radio enthusiasts are not only individually licensed by the FCC but they also self-regulate. The ARRL is very involved in resolving interference concerns both among their own members and between ham operators and residents experiencing problems. Third, the bill also provides for a FCC appeal process by any radio operator who is adversely affected by a local government action under this amendment. The FCC will make determinations as to whether the locality acted properly within the limited jursidiction this legislation provides and the FCC will have the power to reverse the action if they acted improperly. And fourth, my legislation requires the FCC to provide States and localities with technical guidance on how to determine whether a CB operator is acting within the law. In addition, the bill has been modified to address concerns raised by truckers, who feared that local law enforcement would use reports of CB interference to indiscriminately stop and search trucks in the area. The bill now provides specifically that local governments may not seek to enforce the FCC regulations with respect to a CB radio on board a commercial motor vehicle unless there is probable cause to believe that someone in the vehicle is operating a CB radio in violation of the regulations. This provision should ensure that this new authority is not used as a pretext to harass truckers. Again, Mr. President, my bill is narrowly targeted to resolve persistent interference with home electronic equipment caused by illegal CB operation. Under my bill, localities cannot establish their own regulations on CB use outside of the already existing FCC regulations. This bill will not resolve all interference problems and it is not intended to do so. Some interference problems require continued attentions from the FCC, the telecommunications manufacturing industry, and radio service operators. This bill merely provides localities with the tools they need to protect their residents while preserving the FCC's exclusive regulatory jurisdiction over the regulation of radio services. I ask that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again introduce a bill to deal with the all too common problem of interference with residential home electronic equipment caused by unlawful use of citizens band, or CB, radios. This is the third Congress in which I have offered this legislation. In 1998, it was nearly enacted as part of an anti-slamming bill. I hope that this year, we can finally put this common sense bill into law. The problem of CB radio interference can be extremely distressing for residents who cannot have a telephone conversation, watch television, or listen to the radio without being interrupted by a neighbor's illegal use of a CB radio. Unfortunately, under the current law, those residents have little recourse. The bill I am introducing today will provide those residents with a practical solution to this problem. Until recently, the FCC enforced its rules outlining what equipment may or may not be used for CB radio transmissions, how long transmissions may be broadcast, what channels may be used, as well as many other technical requirements. The FCC also used to investigate neighbor's complaints that a CB radio enthusiast's transmissions interfered with their use of home electronic and telephone equipment. The FCC receives thousands of such complaints annually. For the past five years, I have worked on behalf of constituents bothered by persistent interference of nearby CB radio transmissions, in some cases caused by unlawful use of radio equipment. In each case, the constituents have sought my help in securing an FCC investigation of the complaint. And in each case, the FCC indicated that due to a lack of resources, they no longer investigate radio frequency interference complaints. Instead of investigation and enforcement, the FCC only provides self-help information which the consumer may use to limit the interference on their own. This situation is understandable given the rising number of complaints for things like slamming. The resources of the FCC are limited, and there is only so much they can do to address complaints of radio interference. Nonetheless, this problem is extremely annoying and frustrating to those who experience radio interference. Many residents implement the self-help measures recommended by FCC such as installing filtering devices to prevent the unwanted interference, working with their telephone company, or attempting to work with the neighbor they believe is causing the interference. In many cases these self-help measures are effective. However, in some cases filters and other technical solutions fail to solve the problem because the interference is caused by the unlawful use of CB radio equipment such as unauthorized linear amplifiers. Municipal residents, after being denied an investigation or enforcement from the FCC, frequently contact their city or town government and ask them to police the interference. However, the Communications Act of 1934 provides exclusive authority to the Federal Government for the regulation of radio. This preempts municipal ordinances or State laws that regulate radio frequency interference caused by unlawful use of CB radio equipment. This situation creates an interesting dilemma for municipal governments. They can neither pass their own ordinances to control CB radio interference, nor can they rely on the agency with exclusive jurisdiction over interference to enforce the very Federal law which preempts them. Let me give an example of the kind of frustrations people have experienced in attempting to deal with these problems. Shannon Ladwig, a resident of Beloit, WI is fighting to end CB interference with her home electronic equipment that has plagued her family for many years. Shannon worked within the existing system by asking for an FCC investigation, installing filtering equipment on her telephone, attempting to work with the neighbor causing the interference, and so on. Nothing has been effective. Here are some of the annoyances Shannon has experienced. Her answering machine picks up calls for which there is no audible ring, and at times records ghost messages. Often, she cannot get a dial tone when she or her family members wish to place an outgoing call. During telephone conversations, the content of the nearby CB transmission can frequently be heard and on occasion, her phone conversations are inexplicably cut off. Ms. Ladwig's TV transmits audio from the CB transmission rather than the television program her family is watching. Shannon never knows if the TV program she taped with her VCR will actually record the intended program or whether it will contain profanity from nearby CB radio conversation. Shannon did everything she could to solve the problem and years later she still feels like a prisoner in her home, unable to escape the broadcasting whims of a CB operator using illegal equipment with impunity. Shannon even went to her city council to demand action. The Beloit City Council responded by passing an ordinance allowing local law enforcement to enforce FCC regulations--an ordinance the council knows is preempted by Federal law. The bill I am introducing today would allow Beloit's ordinance to stand. The problems experienced by Beloit residents are by no means isolated incidents. I have received very similar complaints from at least 10 other Wisconsin communities in the last several years in which whole neighborhoods are experiencing persistent radio frequency interference. Since I have begun working on this issue, my staff has also been contacted by a number of other congressional offices who are also looking for a solution to the problem of radio frequency interference in their States or districts caused by unlawful CB use. The city of Grand Rapids, Michigan, in particular, has contacted me about this legislation because they face a persistent interference problem very similar to that in Beloit. I am pleased that Senators Levin and Abraham join me today in cosponsoring this legislation. In all, the FCC receives more than 30,000 radio frequency interference complaints annually--most of which are caused by CB radios. Unfortunately, the FCC no longer has the staff, resources, or the field capability to investigate these complaints and localities are blocked from exercising any jurisdiction to provide relief to their residents. My bill resolves this Catch-22, by allowing states and localities to enforce statutes or ordinances prohibiting selected violations of the FCC regulations. This gives local law enforcement the ability to enforce existing FCC regulations regarding unauthorized CB equipment and frequencies while maintaining exclusive Federal jurisdiction over the regulation of radio services. It is a commonsense solution to a very frustrating and real problem which cannot be addressed under existing law. Residents should not be held hostage to a Federal law which purports to protect them but cannot be enforced. Now this amendment is by no means a panacea for the problem of radio frequency interference. It is intended only to help localities solve the most egregious and persistent problems of interference--those caused by unauthorized use of CB radio equipment and frequencies. In cases where interference is caused by the legal and licensed operation of any radio service, residents will need to resolve the interference using the FCC self-help measures that I mentioned earlier. In many cases, interference can result from inadequate home electronic equipment immunity from radio frequency interference. Those problems can only be resolved by installing filtering equipment and by improving the manufacturing standards of home telecommunications equipment. The electronic equipment manufacturing industry, represented by the Telecommunications Industry Association and the Electronics Industry Association, working with the Federal Communications Commission, has adopted voluntary standards to improve the immunity of telephones from interference. Those standards were adopted by the American National Standards Institute last year. Manufacturers of electronic equipment should be encouraged to adopt these new ANSI standards. Consumers have a right to expect that the telephones they purchase will operate as expected without excessive levels of interference from legal radio transmissions. Of course, Mr. President, these standards assume legal operation of radio equipment and cannot protect residents from interference from illegal operation of CB equipment. This bill also does not address interference caused by other radio services, such as commercial stations or amateur stations. I have worked with the American Radio Relay League (ARRL), an organization representing amateur radio operators, frequently referred to as ``ham'' operators, to address a number of concerns that they raised about the original versions of my bill. ARRL was concerned that while the bill was intended to cover only illegal use of CB equipment, FCC-licensed amateur radio operators might inadvertently be targeted and prosecuted by local government and law enforcement. ARRL also expressed concern that local law enforcement might not have the technical abilities to distinguish between ham stations and CB stations and might not be able to determine what CB equipment was FCC-authorized and what equipment is illegal. I have worked with the ARRL and amateur operators from Wisconsin to address these concerns. As a result of those discussions, this amendment incorporates a number of provisions suggested by the league. First, the amendment makes clear that the limited authority provided to localities in no way diminishes or affects the FCC's exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of radio. Second, the amendment clarifies that possession of a FCC license to operate a radio service for the operation at issue, such as an amateur station, is a complete protection against any local government action authorized by this amendment. Unlike CB operators, amateur radio enthusiasts are not only individually licensed by the FCC but they also self-regulate. The ARRL is very involved in resolving interference concerns both among their own members and between ham operators and residents experiencing problems. Third, the bill also provides for a FCC appeal process by any radio operator who is adversely affected by a local government action under this amendment. The FCC will make determinations as to whether the locality acted properly within the limited jursidiction this legislation provides and the FCC will have the power to reverse the action if they acted improperly. And fourth, my legislation requires the FCC to provide States and localities with technical guidance on how to determine whether a CB operator is acting within the law. In addition, the bill has been modified to address concerns raised by truckers, who feared that local law enforcement would use reports of CB interference to indiscriminately stop and search trucks in the area. The bill now provides specifically that local governments may not seek to enforce the FCC regulations with respect to a CB radio on board a commercial motor vehicle unless there is probable cause to believe that someone in the vehicle is operating a CB radio in violation of the regulations. This provision should ensure that this new authority is not used as a pretext to harass truckers. Again, Mr. President, my bill is narrowly targeted to resolve persistent interference with home electronic equipment caused by illegal CB operation. Under my bill, localities cannot establish their own regulations on CB use outside of the already existing FCC regulations. This bill will not resolve all interference problems and it is not intended to do so. Some interference problems require continued attentions from the FCC, the telecommunications manufacturing industry, and radio service operators. This bill merely provides localities with the tools they need to protect their residents while preserving the FCC's exclusive regulatory jurisdiction over the regulation of radio services. I ask that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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 to modify my amendment, and I send the modification to the desk.

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