Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Nation has been engaged in a raging debate in recent days on whether Gary Graham should be executed in Texas. Supporters of the death penalty, including Governor Bush, have said there is no conclusive proof that Texas or any State has killed an innocent person. But apparently Gary Graham, who had the courthouse doors slammed shut on his claim of innocence, won't have a chance to prove that he is innocent. I understand, at this moment, that all appeals have now been denied. Mr. Graham is scheduled to be executed before midnight tonight. Mr. President, Mr. Graham's plight symbolizes some of the most serious concerns with the fairness and accuracy in the administration of the death penalty. Don't get me wrong, Mr. Graham is not a good guy. He is a criminal, and, in fact, a very serious offender who deserves very serious punishment. But we need to realize what is about to happen. He is still a human being who is about to be executed at the hands of the State of Texas. This is a capital matter. Mr. Graham may not have committed a murder for which he is about to be executed. This case raised very serious issues of woefully incompetent trial counsel, eyewitness testimony that has never been heard by a jury, a conviction based on the sole testimony of just one eyewitness, and exculpatory ballistic testing data that was not shown to the jury. Despite the claims of those who would support the death penalty, Gary Graham is not alone. There are other examples of people--in places like Virginia, Florida and even Texas--who have been put to death in the face of grave doubt about their guilt. We don't have absolute proof of their innocence. But some day soon, if we continue to let this system run amok, there will be a case where an irrefutably innocent person is executed. One Governor got it right. Governor Ryan of Illinois called a halt to executions in his State and appointed a blue ribbon commission to study whether the system could be fixed. Some say, I think essentially with no basis, that, yes, that was the right thing to do in Illinois but that Illinois is an aberration. Mr. President, I don't believe for a minute that Illinois is an aberration when it comes to the problems with the administration of the death penalty in this country. Governor Ryan was right when he said that he wanted absolute certainty that the person scheduled to die is guilty. The same certainty should apply to the State of Texas this very evening. A recent study by Columbia University documented that 52 percent of death penalty cases in Texas were overturned on appeal during the time period for which the study was done. Nationwide, the Columbia study found an average reversal rate of nearly 7 out of 10 capital cases. What does the Governor of Texas say? He says he is certain that every single one of the over 100 people executed under his watch as Governor was guilty. I have heard him say this many times. He only considers two factors: Whether the person is guilty, and whether he or she had full access to the courts. This is a matter of life and death. They found out in Illinois that it is not that simple. It is not just whether the person is guilty and whether they had full access to the courts. I have no doubt that the intense media and public scrutiny of Texas and Governor Bush's leadership is warranted in this case. The same kind of problems are arising in Texas that were discovered in Illinois and that forced Governor Ryan to take the action he did. In Illinois, it was not the criminal justice system that discovered its defects, it was undergraduate journalism students at Northwestern University who uncovered some of the cases of actual innocence. One person was on death row 2 days from his execution and ultimately the students were able to prove he was actually innocent. The Chicago Tribune, a newspaper in Illinois, was responsible for some of the other proof of innocent individuals on death row, some 13 in Illinois. It was college students. It was the press. They were parties outside the criminal justice system who had to point out the defects in the system. Now the same thing is happening in Texas tonight. The discussion should not end with media attention to this case. In fact, I was appalled this morning. I watch the Today Show every morning as I am getting up and reading the Washington Post. I felt I was watching the trial of a human being, a person who was about to be put to death, on a national television show in a brief segment between advertisements. This cannot be the way we administer justice in this country. In fact, I am very concerned about the way in which this is becoming almost a sideshow, somehow connected with the Presidential election. In fairness to the Governor of Texas and in fairness to Vice President Al Gore, this should not be on their head as the Presidential election goes forward. They should not be put in the position of having to make these decisions as this country comes to the conclusion as to who will be the next President. It is a very unseemly environment in which to decide whether people should live or die. We have a special problem, and it happens that the State with the most executions occurring, the State with many of the executions coming up, happens to be the State of the presumptive Republican nominee for President. It is a very uncomfortable situation when at the same time all of these questions about the death penalty are being raised. No one can say that this was somehow a partisan attempt to raise the issue because the person who really got this issue going, who really raised the question, is the Governor of Illinois, the chairman of Governor George Bush's campaign in Illinois. I plead that we get this issue away from the Presidential election. The only way we can do that is to have a credible and honest review of the fairness and justice in the system by which our Nation imposes the sentence of death. We should do exactly what Governor Ryan did in Illinois throughout this country: have a moratorium, a pause, during which a blue ribbon panel of pro and anti-death penalty people and other experts examine the issue. We need a temporary halt to executions throughout America. Support for this is growing. California, more than any other State, including Texas, has the most inmates sitting on death row awaiting execution. In a poll of California residents released just today, almost two-thirds of Californians continue to support the use of capital punishment. But by a margin of nearly 4-1, the poll found that Californians favor a halt to executions while the death penalty is studied. I think that is very interesting. The vast majority still support the death penalty, but they do know that something is wrong and we need a pause. I urge my colleagues to lead the American people and join me as cosponsors of legislation that would put a temporary halt to executions and establish the National Commission on the Death Penalty, the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act. This rush to judgment concerning Gary Graham is not in keeping with American traditions and values of fairness and justice. I ask my colleagues to join in urging a pause before an innocent person is executed. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I think people had assumed there would have to be a vote. It is my understanding that the managers have no objection, and I suggest it be accepted at this point.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this bill for working with me to reach agreement on this modification. I thank them for cosponsoring it. I thank Senator Frist for joining me in offering it. This amendment expresses the sense of Congress that the administration's request for flood recovery in southern Africa, and particularly in the Republic of Mozambique, should be fully funded. Right now the foreign operations bill falls far short of fulfilling the administration's request for flood relief in southern Africa. The floods that took so many lives there, and destroyed so many farms, businesses, schools, and hospitals there, have faded from our television screens. But Mr. President, the terrible destruction of these floods has not receded in Mozambique. On the contrary, the longer Mozambique waits for additional flood relief, the more severe the long- term damage of this disaster will become. In February and March Mozambique was in the news because it was devastated by flooding. But before that Mozambique made headlines with the highest economic growth rate in the world. The people of Mozambique have proven that they are fighters, who worked their way back from a terrible civil war to achieve impressive economic and social progress. But today the people of Mozambique are in a fight that they can't win without the help of their African neighbors, and the help of the United States. It was not long ago that Americans saw dramatic images of daring rescues and remarkable perseverance in Mozambique. Massive rainstorms and furious cyclones inundated the low lands of Mozambique and flooded the rivers that meander through southeastern Africa. The region was ravage by not one, not two, but three cyclones. As we stand here, thousands of miles away on the floor of the Senate, it's hard to comprehend the human cost of this disaster. But these floods claimed the lives of 640 people, and displaced or trapped 491,000 others. Schools, business, and clinics were destroyed, and, in a devastating blow to rescue efforts and to prospects for economic recovery, hundreds of miles of the transportation system were destroyed. The floods washed away roads, contaminated water supplies, and forced whole families onto rooftops--even into trees--for days on end. The people of Mozambique have seen their crops flooded, their homes destroyed, and their loved ones drowned by the worst flooding southern Africa has seen in the last 100 years. Yet, alongside these tragedies, we saw vivid images of hope as fellow African nations rose up to help their neighbors--most notably South Africa with its courageous helicopter pilots, but also Malawi and even tiny Lesotho, which helped to get supplies to those in need as quickly as possible. I was proud of the U.S. involvement in these efforts, and I know that many of my constituents shared that pride. It is my intent, with this amendment, to ensure that the people of southern Africa are not forgotten in this bill. The administration asked for $193 million to assist the flood- ravaged countries of southern Africa. This bill provides for only $25 million. That, Mr. President, is simply not good enough. I urge my colleagues to remember that these floods are particularly tragic because the country most seriously affected by them, Mozambique, has made significant strides toward recovery from its long and brutal civil war. Though the country is still affected by extreme poverty, in recent years Mozambique has enjoyed exceptional rates of economic growth, and while more needs to be done, the country has improved its record with regard to basic human rights. It has been making great strides ever since the end of a civil war that ended in the early 1990's. Up until the flood, Mozambique was registering economic growth at a rate of 10 percent a year. That's an incredible achievement for any nation, Mr. President, and it deserves special recognition as a nation of sub-Saharan Africa, where some of its neighbors have struggled to achieve growth rates a fraction of that size. The people of Mozambique have been working hard for a better future-- too hard to see that future swept away by the floodwaters that have already destroyed so much. They need our help. Recovery assistance is critically needed to help the people of Mozambique to hold on to the opportunities that lay before them before the waters rose. The World Bank estimates that the cost of reconstruction in Mozambique alone will be $430 million. The floodwaters washed landmines into new, unmarked locations, and infectious diseases spread quickly in the wake of the disaster. In Mozambique, forecasts suggest that the floods have led to grain production shortfalls of more than 15 percent. And the outlook for the future could be even worse if we don't act. Without repaired roads, farmers and small businesses will be unable to function. Without working railroad lines, lost revenues will total an estimated $35 million per year. And without working hospitals and sanitation facilities, Mozambique will suffer further outbreaks of disease. If we don't reach out to help Mozambique now, it won't be long until were read about this nation again in headlines, as the people of Mozambique suffer the consequences of these floods alone without help, Mozambique may never be able to regain its footing on the road to stability and prosperity. I am pleased that both Senators Leahy and McConnell intend to work to address this issue in conference. I thank them for their cosponsorship, their attention to this, and their assistance with this amendment. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the managers intend to accept this amendment. With that understanding, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join a number of our colleagues in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi]. I strongly support the efforts of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to promulgate fair and responsible ergonomics standards and regulations. I believe that such standards are instrumental in helping to reduce the occurrence of preventable workplace injuries. More than 600,000 American workers suffer from workplace injuries caused by repetitive motions including typing, heavy lifting, and sewing. These injuries have an impact on every sector of our economy, and are particularly prevalent among women because many of the jobs held predominately by women require repetitive motions or heavy lifting. And these preventable injuries, including the painful and often debilitating carpal tunnel syndrome, cost more than $60 billion annually, $20 billion of which is from workers' compensation costs. I want to say this again, Mr. President, repetitive stress injuries are particularly prevalent among women. According to the Department of Labor, almost 230,000 women miss at least some time at work each year because of ergonomics injuries related to their jobs. To further emphasize the impact that these injuries have on women, let me cite the following statistics from the Department of Labor: In 1997, women experienced 33 percent of all serious workplace injuries that required time off from work; But women experienced 63 percent of all repetitive motion injuries, including 91 percent of injuries cause by repetitive typing or keying and 61 percent from repetitive placing; These injuries include 62 percent of all work-related tendinitis cases and 70 percent of carpal tunnel syndrome cases; and Recuperation from carpal tunnel syndrome, an often debilitating condition, requires an average of 25 days away from work. The proponents of this amendment argue that further study is required before OSHA can promulgate its final ergonomics standard. I disagree. It is clear that more needs to be done to prevent these needless injuries, and that there is already a significant body of research outlining the need for national ergonomics standards from sources including the National Academy of Sciences, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the General Accounting Office. And further proof can be found in the existing ergonomics programs. Companies across the country have reduced the instances of preventable workplace injuries by designing and implementing their own ergonomics programs. In my home state of Wisconsin, the popular maker of children's clothing, OshKosh B'Gosh, redesigned its workstations. This common sense action cut the company's workers' compensation costs by one-third, which resulted in a savings of approximately $2.7 million. Another Wisconsin company, Harley-Davidson, cut workplace ergonomics injuries by more than half after implementing an ergonomics program. An employee of a health care facility in my hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, said the following about the joint efforts between her management and fellow employees to design a program to combat injuries that are all too common among health care workers: Quote--``I am here today to tell OSHA that working in a nursing home is demanding and hazardous work. Those hazards include back injuries as well as problems in the hands, arms, shoulders, and other parts of the body. . . . I am also here to testify that the injuries and pain do not have to be part of the job . . . Together [management and labor] have identified jobs where there are risks of back injuries. After getting input from employees, the employer has selected equipment that has improved the comfort [and] the safety of patients as well as the employees. . . . What we are doing at the [nursing home] is proof that it is possible to prevent injuries with a commitment from management and the involvement of employees. Our injury prevention program is win-win for everybody: Management, labor, the patients, and their families. I urge OSHA to issue an ergonomics rule so that nursing home workers across the country will have the same protection that we have at the health care center.''--End of quote. And there are many other success stories in Wisconsin and around the United States. I commend the efforts of those companies which have proven that responsible ergonomics programs can--and do--prevent injuries resulting from repetitive motions. Unfortunately, not all American workers are protected by ergonomics programs like those I have described. For example, one of my constituents who testified at an ergonomics event in my state has endured three surgeries over a ten year period to repair damage to his spine caused by repetitive motions at his job. In his testimony, this man said, quote--``Pain is my constant companion and I still need pain medication to get through the day. It is an effort just to put my socks on in the morning. I will never be healthy and pain free.''--End of quote. Another one of my constituents described the impact that an injury he sustained at work while lifting a 60-80 pound basket of auto parts has had on his once active lifestyle. Quote--``This pain has limited me in many ways. . . . I used to teach soccer to kids. Now I can't walk more than half an hour without pain in my legs and spine. I have to prepare myself for fifteen minutes in the morning just to get out of bed.''-- End of quote. Mr. President, injuries such as those suffered by my constituents-- and indeed by workers in each one of our states--can be prevented through sensible and responsible national ergonomics standards. Repetitive stress injuries are costing American businesses millions of dollars and are costing American workers their health and, in some cases, their mobility. This means that some workers will lose the ability to do certain activities--activities ranging from simple tasks like fastening buttons to more meaningful things including picking up a child or participating in sports. These are real people, Mr. President. They are our constituents, our family, our friends, our neighbors. We should not block a regulation that will help to stop these preventable injuries from forever changing the lives of countless Americans who are working to provide their families and themselves with a decent standard of living. I recognize that some industries and small businesses are concerned about the impact, financial and otherwise, that this proposed standard will have on them. I have written to OSHA on behalf of a number of my constituents to communicate their concerns. I hope that the public comment and hearing phases of this rule-making process have adequately brought these concerns to light. I also hope that OSHA will take these concerns into account as that agency continues the process of finalizing this important rule, taking seriously the concerns of employers who fear the new rule will be too burdensome. We need a new rule that protects workers and is fair to all. Mr. President, repetitive motion injuries can and should be prevented. And I strongly believe that we should have a national standard that affords all workers the same protections from these debilitating injuries. We should not delay these efforts. The health and mobility of countless American workers is at stake. I again urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and allow OSHA to move forward in its efforts to promulgate fair and responsible ergonomics standards. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, will the majority leader simply have that reflected in the agreement?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to further clarify that there would be no prohibition in this unanimous consent agreement if it would be necessary to withdraw the amendment which I propose.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my serious concerns about the foreign operations bill that is before us. I am concerned, and I believe that many of my colleagues will be concerned, about what is in this bill. And I am even more concerned about what is not in it. What is here in this bill, is an extremely expensive package of support to the Colombian military, designated, of course, as emergency spending. I recognize that Colombia is a country in crisis. I believe that it is in the national interest of the United States to help Colombia emerge from that crisis and into an era in which basic human rights and the rule of law are firmly entrenched in the fabric of Colombian society. I recognize that we all share an interest in fighting the terrible impact that illegal drugs have on our own society and in our own communities. So I have made a very serious effort to evaluate this initiative over a number of months. I have heard the perspectives of my constituents, of the business community, of human rights activists, and of the administration. I have also heard from Colombian civic groups and labor unions and from the Colombian government itself. In the end, I remain deeply skeptical about the wisdom of this undertaking. My primary concerns about the proposed package of assistance to Colombia are two-fold. First, I am concerned about the degree to which this package involves the United States in a counter-insurgency campaign in Colombia. The aim of our assistance to the Colombian military would be to combat narcotics traffickers, I have no doubt--but its primary use would be to wage war against the rebels who control the south. Our country's history teaches us something about how easy it is to get stuck in such situations, about how seductive arguments to increase our involvement might become after we invest massive resources in this phase of the counter-insurgency campaign. It troubles me that, because of the drug-related elements of the Colombia issue, we in this body are not, perhaps, walking into this scheme with our eyes wide open to these dangers. But my primary concern, Mr. President, is the impact that Plan Colombia could have on the human rights of Colombians. The Colombian military, which this package of assistance would directly support, has been involved in serious human rights abuses and has a record of collaborating with the murderous paramilitary forces that terrorize Colombian citizens. The package in the foreign operations appropriations bill seems, in the words of the Economist magazine, to ``merely bolt three shiny new antidrugs battalions on to an abusive and unreformed military force.'' That action would escalate a war in which civilians bear the brunt of the violence. I know that Senator Leahy has worked hard to establish human rights conditions for the use of this assistance. But I am not at all certain that it is appropriate for the United States to engage the Colombian military to this degree at this time. I note that the Senator from Vermont has a point when he questions the emergency designation for this spending package. Colombia has been in crisis for some time. But of course, the emergency designation frees this body from fiscal discipline--discipline, Mr. President, that we badly need. In contrast, for a genuine emergency, for the devastating flooding in southern Africa, this bill provides only one-eighth, one eighth, of the administration's request. It was not so long ago, that the entire country was moved by video and photographs of the people of southeastern Africa, clinging to life in trees and rooftops as flood waters rushed past them. These floods were particularly tragic because the country most seriously affected by them, Mozambique, has made significant strides toward recovery from its long and brutal civil war. Though the country is still affected by extreme poverty, in recent years Mozambique has enjoyed exceptional rates of economic growth. While more needs to be done, the country has improved its record with regard to basic human rights. Mr. President, the people of Mozambique have been fighting for a better future. This kind of disaster comes at a terrible time, and it will require the assistance of the international community to help the people of Mozambique to hold to the opportunities that lay before them before the waters rose. And an appropriate level of funding for the communities ravaged by flooding in southern Africa is just the beginning. Even a cursory glance will indicate that there is a great deal that is not in this appropriations bill. The news is not entirely bad. I applaud the increased funding levels to combat the global HIV/AIDS crisis, which I believe is one of the most important international issues that this country faces in this new millennium, although I would still like to see that level increase. And I am pleased to see provisions linking the resumption of certain military and security assistance programs for Indonesia to key conditions--conditions which bolster the position of reformers in the new government by requiring real accountability for human rights abuses and real cooperation with the international community on matters relating to East Timorese refugees. On this note, I would point out to my colleagues the fact that UNHCR personnel recently suspended activities in three refugee camps in West Timor because the security situation in these camps, where military-backed militias continue their campaign of intimidation and destabilization, has made it impossible to for humanitarian workers to continue to do their jobs. Provisions like those included in this bill are still critically important as are the more comprehensive provisions of a bill that I have introduced, S. 2621, the East Timor Repatriation and Security Act of 2000. Despite the laudable elements, this bill funds only $75 million of the administration's $262 million debt relief request--and that's excluding the $210 million supplemental request, which also goes unfunded. This bill barely addresses the crushing debt burden that stands as an obstacle to growth and development throughout much of the developing world. This bill allocates only $85 million for peacekeeping operations. That is a sizable cut. It is likely to threaten one of the most logical and far-sighted initiatives that we have in this area, Mr. President, the African Crisis Response Initiative, or ACRI, which trains African militaries to help them to become more effective in working to secure stability and share the global burden of peacekeeping. This bill cuts two of the most important accounts for international development aid, the ESF account and the World Bank IDA account, below fiscal year 2000 levels. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has found that the U.S., when compared to twenty other donor nations worldwide devotes the smallest portion of its national resources to development aid--the smallest portion by far. The typical donor country in the study contributed more than three times the share of national resources that the U.S. contributes. In fact, the U.S. fails--and fails miserably--to contribute the U.N. target level of even point-seven-percent--not seven percent, but seven-tenths of one percent--in aid to the developing world. The Center found that, using a number of different sources, the level of U.S. development aid in fiscal year 2001 would be equal to its lowest level since the end of World War II, measured as a share of the economy. That conclusion refers to the Administration's request, a request that this bill falls $1.7 billion below the President's request. I believe that we must exercise more foresight and that we must re-think our priorities to make more room for the world around us and for the global context in which our great nation will operate in this new century. I believe strongly in fiscal discipline. I believe in governing within our means. I know that means tough choices. But I also know some of the appropriations bills we have just passed and no doubt will see more of the same as we consider spending in fiscal year 2001. Yet we continue the disturbing trend, a trend that I believe runs counter to our national interest and counter to our national identity, of turning our back on the rest of the world. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask the majority leader, with regard to the amendment I intend to offer, I hope the agreement contemplates the possibility that we can work out something on the amendment so a vote would not be required.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I support the Senate motion to instruct the Conferees on fuel economy standards. This issue has been controversial in my state, and I believe its effect on automobile fuel economy standards is not well understood. My vote today is about Congress getting out of the way and letting a federal agency meet the requirements of federal law originally imposed by Congress. I support this motion because I am concerned that Congress has for more than 5 years blocked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), part of the federal Department of Transportation (DOT), from meeting its legal duty to evaluate whether there is a need to modify fuel economy standards by legislative rider since Fiscal Year 1996. The motion instructs the Conferees not recede to Section 318 of the House bill. As I made clear last year, I have made no determination about what fuel economy standards should be. NHTSA is not required under the law to increase fuel economy standards, but it is required to examine on a regular basis whether there is a need for changes to fuel economy standards. NHTSA has the authority to set new standards for a given model year taking into account several factors: technological feasibility, economic practicability, other vehicle standards such as those for safety and environmental performance, and the need to conserve energy. I want NHTSA to fully and fairly evaluate all the criteria, and then make an objective recommendation on the basis of those facts. After NHTSA makes a recommendation, if it does so, I will then consult with all interested parties--unions, environmental interests, auto manufacturers, and other interested Wisconsin citizens about their perspectives on NHTSA's recommendation. However, just as the outcome of NHTSA's assessment should not be pre- judged, the language of the House rider certainly should not have so blatantly pre-judged and precluded any new objective assessment of fuel economy standards. Section 318 of the House bill, identical to last year's language, states: None of the funds in this Act shall be available to prepare, propose, or promulgate any regulations pursuant to title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.) prescribing corporate average fuel economy standards for automobiles, as defined in such title, in any model year that differs from standards promulgated for such automobiles prior to enactment of this section. The House language effectively prevents NHTSA from collecting any information about the impact of changing the fuel economy standards in any way. Under the House language, not only would NHTSA be prohibited from collecting information or developing standards to raise fuel economy standards, it couldn't collect information or develop standards to lower them either. The House language assumes that NHTSA has a particular agenda, that NHTSA will recommend standards which can't be achieved without serious impacts, and uses an appropriations bill to circumvent the law's requirements to evaluate fuel efficiency and maintain the current standards again for another fiscal year. I cannot support retaining this rider in the law. The NHTSA should be allowed to provide Congress with information about whether fuel efficiency improvements are possible and advisable. Congress needs to understand whether or not improvements in fuel economy can and should be made using existing technologies. Congress should also know which emerging technologies may have the potential to improve fuel economy. Congress also needs to know that if improvements are technically feasible, what is the appropriate time frame in which to make such changes in order to avoid harm to our auto sector employment. I don't believe that Congress should confuse our role as policymakers with our obligation to appropriate funds. Changes in fuel economy standards could have a variety of consequences. I seek to understand those consequences and to balance the concerns of those interested in seeing improvements to fuel economy as a means of reducing gasoline consumption and associated pollution. I deeply respect the views of those who are concerned that a change in fuel economy would threaten the economic prosperity of Wisconsin's automobile industry. I have heard strongly from my state that a sharp increase in fuel economy standards, implemented in the very near term, will have serious consequences. I want to avoid consequences that will unduly burden Wisconsin workers and their employers. In the end, I would like to see that Wisconsin consumers have a wide range of new automobiles, SUVs, and trucks available to them that are as fuel efficient as can be achieved while balancing energy concerns with technological and economic impacts. That balancing is required by the law. I fully expect NHTSA to proceed with the intent to fully consider all those factors. In supporting this motion, I take the position that the agency responsible for collecting information about fuel economy be allowed to do its job, in order to help me do my job. I expect them to be fair and neutral in that process and I will work with interested Wisconsinites to ensure that their views are represented and the regulatory process proceeds in a fair and reasonable manner toward whatever conclusions the merits will support.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as the Senate continues to debate this year's Transportation Appropriations bill, I am pleased to again express my support for high-speed passenger rail. Efficient high-speed passenger rail has many benefits: it helps to relieve some of our ever- increasing traffic congestion, it provides increased mobility for both business and personal travel, and it reduces pollution of the air we breathe. I have long supported a truly intermodal and effective transportation system and high-speed rail is a vital link in that chain. Federal assistance is essential for the development of transit systems such as high-speed rail. The Federal Government has long had a major role, of course, in funding America's transportation network, from construction and maintenance of the interstate highway system to providing mass transit assistance to local governments. I believe the federal role is important because we need a coherent, responsible national transportation policy. But I believe it is appropriate that state and local officials have the greatest role in making the important decisions about where our transportation money is spent, because they are the people who deal with the demands on all the elements of the transportation system on a daily basis. The great thing about high-speed passenger rail is that it incorporates the best of both worlds. The Federal Government should be the partner of state and local government in transportation, where there are local, state and national interests. While it is crucial that we provide adequate funds for high- speed rail, it is also important for the Federal Government to support high-speed rail in other ways. To this end, I urge the Federal Railroad Administration to further develop its outreach activities to help promote awareness of high-speed rail as a viable option for providing dependable intercity transportation. I am committed to supporting a sound national transportation infrastructure and to developing thoughtful, fair transportation policy that reflects the changing needs of our Nation and respects the role of state and local government as the main decision-makers. High speed passenger rail fits the bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the bill's managers, the Senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, and the Senior Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, for assisting me with this amendment. I also deeply appreciate the efforts of the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson, who joins me as a co-sponsor of this amendment, and of his staff who assisted my staff in developing an acceptable final version. This amendment extends the authority of the General Services Administration to convey surplus property to local governments for law enforcement purposes for two years until the end of December 2002. This amendment will help a number of communities across the country seeking to use surplus property to protect their citizens and provide safe, secure facilities for their police departments. Without this amendment, the authority to convey surplus property for law enforcement purposes would expire at the end of July, 2000. Communities that want to use the GSA process, and have counted upon doing so, to negotiate the use of property for law enforcement purposes at a reduced cost would have been shut out in the matter of a few weeks. In fact, Mr. President, I have just such a situation in my own home state. The City of Kewaunee, Wisconsin wants to acquire the city's Army Reserve Center, which is a former federal armory building. The City intends to use the property as a municipal building in which they would house their police force and other municipal offices. Congress has specified a number of public purpose uses for which property can be transferred to local governments at a reduced cost. The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act allows property to be transferred to public agencies and institutions at discounts of up to 100 percent of fair market value for a number of purposes: public health or educational uses, public parks or recreational areas, historic monuments, homeless assistance, correctional institutions, port facilities, public airports, wildlife conservation, and self-help housing. This type of transfer is called a public interest conveyance. I strongly believe that law enforcement is an important public purpose for which surplus property should be used. Moreover, in fairness to local communities with tight budgets, Congress needs to preserve this option for communities that are counting on being able to use this authority. Again, I am delighted that the bill managers have decided to accept this amendment, and I hope that this provision will be retained in Conference.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I offer an amendment that will restore a measure of pay equity for our nation's Guardsmen and Reservists. I offered this same amendment last year to S. 4, the military pay increase bill, and it was adopted by voice vote. I understand that this amendment is acceptable to the managers on both sides, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for their continuing cooperation on this important issue. Mr. President, the men and women who serve in the Guard and Reserves are cornerstones of our national defense and domestic infrastructure, and they deserve to be adequately and equitably compensated for their dedicated service to this country. The Guard and Reserve are integral parts of overseas missions, including recent and ongoing missions in places, including Iraq and the Balkans. According to statements by Department of Defense officials, Guardsmen and Reservists will continue to play an increasingly important role in our national defense strategy as they are called upon to shoulder more of the burden of military operations both at home and abroad. The National Guard and Reserves deserve the full support they need to carry out their duties. Mr. President, my amendment would correct special duty assignment pay inequities between the Reserve components of our Armed Forces and their active duty counterparts. These inequities should be address to take into account the National Guard and Reserves' increased role in our national security, especially on the front lines. My amendment allows a Guardsmen or Reservist who is entitled to basic pay and is performing a special duty to be paid special duty assignment pay. Right now, Guardsmen and Reservists are getting shortchanged despite the vital role they play in our national defense. The special duty assignment pay program ensures readiness by compensating specific soldiers who are assigned to duty positions that demand special training and extraordinary effort to maintain a level of satisfactory performance. The program, as it stands now, effectively reduces the ability of the National Guard and Reserve to retain highly dedicated and specialized soldiers. The special duty assignments pay program provides an additional monthly financial incentive paid to enlisted soldiers and airmen who are required to perform extremely demanding duties that require an unusual degree of responsibility. These special duty assignments include certain command sergeants major, guidance counselors, retention non-commissioned officers (NCO's), drill sergeants, and members of the Special Forces. These soldiers, however, do not receive special duty assignment pay while in on IDT status (drill weekends). I am pleased that the underlying bill as reported by the Armed Services Committee contains a provision that increases the maximum rate for special duty assignment pay from $275 per month to $600 per month. This modest increase, coupled with my amendment, will help to ensure that our Guardsmen and Reservists are fairly compensated for their service. This is especially important since National Guard and Reserve members give up their civilian salaries during the time they are called up for, or volunteer for, active duty. Mr. President, as the U.S. military prepares to face the challenges of the next century and beyond, the National Guard and Reserves will be called more frequently to active duty for domestic support roles and various peacekeeping efforts abroad. They will also be vital players on special teams trained to deal with emerging threats, including the possibility of the deployment of weapons of mass destruction within our own borders. According to many military experts, this represents a more salient threat to the United States than the threat of a ballistic missile attack that many of our colleagues have spent so much time addressing. Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to see some of these soldiers off as they embarked on these missions and have welcomed them home upon their return. I am struck by the courage and professionalism they displayed as they prepare to meet these varied assignments. In Wisconsin, the State Guard provides vital support during natural disasters and state emergencies, including floods, ice storms, and train derailments. We have a duty to honor the service of our National Guardsmen and Reservists. One way to do that is to equitably compensate them for their service. Again, I thank the managers of the bill for their courtesy and for their cooperation on this important amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, last year I delivered a statement for the record commemorating the 40th anniversary of the 1959 Tibetan uprising, during which His Holiness the Dalai Lama and more than 100,000 Tibetans were forced to flee their homeland as a result of brutal suppression by the Chinese government. Unfortunately, the human rights situation in Tibet has not improved, and has if anything deteriorated over the past year. U.S. Administration officials and Congressional supporters of Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China often claim that more open trade with the West will expose ordinary Chinese to new ideas, new ideals, and a new independence from the State. This will awaken their desire for more freedom, paving the way for democracy in China. I have often voiced skepticism about these claims. We do not have to wait for the people of Tibet to express their yearning for freedom. They have continuously struggled for their rights for over forty years, and have paid dearly for their actions. Their efforts so far have failed, not because they do not yearn to be free, but rather because their efforts are brutally suppressed and we are apparently little able to help them. Even our efforts in March to introduce at the annual meeting of the UN Commission for Human Rights a resolution condemning PRC officials' human rights practices in China and Tibet were blocked by the PRC and most of the industrialized nations. If the Administration and Congress are serious about their efforts to promote human rights in China, surely Tibet should be the bellwether. We need to find concrete ways to demonstrate this commitment, and to encourage other countries to do the same.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following members of my staff be granted privileges of the floor during consideration of the DOD authorization: Bob Schiff, Bill Dauster, Sumner Slichter, Kitty Thomas, Mary Ann Richmond, and Mary Murphy.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. It is not, in my view, essential.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I do want to emphasize that there is no constitutional problem with this bill. First, there is no constitutional right to a tax exemption, the Supreme Court has made that abundantly clear. This amendment simply requires disclosure as a condition of receiving a tax exemption. If a group doesn't want to make these disclosures, it can simply pay taxes on its income like any other business in the United States. Second, we don't have a problem of vagueness or line drawing here that might implicate first amendment rights. The disclosure requirements are not triggered by any particular action or communication that a group might make. It is triggered by its decision to claim a tax exemption under section 527. Thus, as I said before, these groups self-identify. They make the decision whether they are 527 and if they do, they have to disclose. There is a simple principle at stake here. It is a question of disclosure versus secrecy. I say to all my colleagues who have argued here on the floor that we do not need reform, we do not need a soft money ban, that all we need is disclosure: Now is the time to put your money where your mouth is. If you vote against this amendment--if you vote against this amendment for disclosure, you will never again be able to argue with any credibility that you support full disclosure. The time has come to put an end to secret money funding secret organizations. As I said yesterday, the combination of money, politics, and secrecy is a dangerous invitation to scandal. What these organizations have done so far in this election cycle, in my view, already is a scandal. Let's agree to this amendment and put a stop to it. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, Mar. 29, 2000] The 2000 Campaign: The Money Factor; a Political Voice, Without Strings (By John M. Broder and Raymond Bonner) Washington, Mar. 28.--The tiny remnant of the American peace movement had a little money and was looking for a voice in the political process. The pharmaceutical industry had a lot of money and was looking for a bullhorn. Both found it in an obscure corner of the Internal Revenue Code known as Section 527, a provision that opens the way for groups to raise and spend unlimited sums on political activities without any disclosure, as long as they do not expressly advocate voting for a candidate. Section 527 has become the loophole of choice this year for groups large and small, left and right, to spread their messages without revealing the sources of their income or the objects of their spending. The provision was written into the tax code more than 25 years ago as a way of protecting more income of political parties from taxation. But only recently, after court rulings and Internal Revenue Service opinions broadened its scope, has it been exploited by nonprofit political organizations trying to avoid the donor disclosure rules and contribution limits of federal election laws. Republicans for Clean Air, the group that broadcast advertisements critical of Senator John McCain in several states before the Super Tuesday primaries, was established under Section 527 by Sam Wyly, a Texas businessman and big contributor to Gov. George W. Bush. Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, which is led by Ben Cohen, a founder of Ben & Jerry's Homemade ice cream, has set up a 527 committee to agitate in 10 Congressional races for less spending on weapons and more spending on schools, Duane Peterson, vice president of the group, said last week. He declined to say which races the group planned to focus on. And on Monday, a Section 527 entity calling itself Shape the Debate began running television commercials in California, New York and Washington that call Vice President Al Gore a hypocrite and ridicule his positions on campaign finance reform and tobacco. The group, which expects to raise $2 million to $3 million this year, was formed by allies of Pete Wilson, the former Republican governor of California. Two of Shape the Debate's officers are $1,000 contributors to Mr. Bush, but the group's founder, George Gorton, said the organization had no ties to the Bush campaign. Following an I.R.S. ruling last year that essentially endorsed the practice, conservative lawmakers, liberal interest groups, rich individuals and large corporations have begun to quietly pour tens of millions of dollars into the political cauldron. The organizations say they plan to use the money for advertising, polling, telephone banks and direct mail appeals--all the major functions of a candidate committee or a political party, but without requirements for public disclosure or accountability. Because there is no law requiring these groups to report their existence, neither the Federal Election Commission nor the Internal Revenue Service can say how many are in place. But lawyers who set them up and campaign finance specialists say that scores of 527's exist and more are being created every week. Their full impact will probably not be seen until the fall, when the airwaves will most likely be filled with advertisements from previously unknown organizations, mirroring the 11th-hour attack on Mr. McCain by Republicans for Clean Air. Citizens for Better Medicare, a group created last summer under Section 527 by major drug makers and allied organizations, expects to spend as much as $30 million this year to oppose legislation that the industry thinks will impose government price controls on medicines, the group's officers say. The group's plans include a national campaign of political advertising this fall, said Timothy C. Ryan, its executive director. Peace Action, the antiwar group once known as SANE/Freeze, created a 527 operation called the Peace Voter Fund late last year to try to influence the debate this year in eight Congressional races, including the Senate races in New Jersey and Michigan and contests for House seats in Michigan, California, Illinois, and the 3rd, 7th and 12th Congressional Districts in New Jersey. The fund's $250,000 in seed money came from a handful of wealthy benefactors who insisted on remaining in the shadows, said Van Gosse, organizing director of Peace Action. Mr. Gosse speaks rhapsodically of Section 527. It offers freedom from the requirements of Federal Election Commission reporting, he noted, and relief from the Internal Revenue Service rules on political activity by charitable organizations. Mr. Gosse said he would not reveal the names of his major donors. ``That's the whole point,'' he said. ``Unlike a PAC,'' he added, referring to political action committees, which are regulated by the election commission because they work directly on behalf of candidates, ``there's no cap on how much you can spend or accept. There's no I.R.S. gift tax or reporting. It's a thing of beauty from an organizing perspective. It gives one a lot of freedom and fluidity.'' As long as a Section 527 group does not expressly advocate the election or defeat of individual candidates--by using the words ``vote for'' or ``vote against''--there is no requirement to report to the Federal Election Commission. These groups are free to engage in ``issue advocacy,'' which to most voters has become virtually indistinguishable from pro-candidate electioneering. The new Shape the Debate advertisement could pass for an attack ad sponsored by the Bush campaign as it concludes with the line, ``Al Gore has a lot to answer for.'' Advocates of campaign finance reform see the 527 loophole as a pernicious and proliferating vehicle for getting and spending tens of millions of undisclosed dollars. ``The new Section 527 organizations are a campaign vehicle now ready for mass production,'' Frances R. Hill, a professor of law at the University of Miami, wrote in a recent issue of Tax Notes, a publication for taxation specialists. The 1996 election was marked by concerns and scandals over the unregulated contributions known as soft money, she noted. ``The 2000 federal election may be equally important in campaign finance history for the flowering of the new Section 527 organizations,'' she said. Mr. Gore called for disclosure of the officers and finances of Section 527 organizations as part of his campaign finance proposal released this week. He called such groups, ``the equivalent of Swiss bank accounts for campaigns.'' Representative Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Democrat, is preparing legislation to regulate Section 527 groups, requiring, at a minimum, disclosure of contributors and expenditures. ``The problem is, our political system is being polluted with substantial amounts of secret contributions and secret expenditures used to attack candidates,'' Mr. Doggett said. Congress' bipartisan Joint Taxation Committee has recommended steps to open Section 527 groups to greater public scrutiny by publishing their tax returns, among other things. But Congress is not likely to act quickly on any proposal to rein in such groups, Mr. Doggett said. Representatives Tom Delay of Texas and J.C. Watts of Oklahoma, both Republicans, have established Section 527 funds to burnish their party's image and promote conservative ideas on taxation, the military and education. Former Representative Pat Saiki of Hawaii has created Citizens for the Republican Congress as another safe haven for anonymous big donors. Scott Reed, who managed Bob Dole's presidential campaign in 1996, has established a 527 group to attract Hispanic voters to the Republican Party. New Gingrich is affiliated with a 527 organization advocating Social Security reform and tax cuts. Recently, attention has focused on the Section 527 operations of conservatives. But the Sierra Club was one of the first nonprofit organizations to set up a 527 subsidiary, in 1996, and the League of Conservation Voters, which is generally partial to Democrats, followed a year later. ``We agree it's a loophole,'' said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. He said a handful of wealthy, anonymous donors had given about $4.5 million to the Sierra Club's 527 committee to use during this year's elections. Mr. Pope said that his organization would support legislation to eliminate the loophole, but that until then the Sierra Club intended to keep using its 527 political fund. Karl Gallant, an adviser to Mr. DeLay, said conservatives began to get into the game in a big way after a San Francisco law firm that represents liberal nonprofit organizations announced last April that it had been successful in setting up a 527 political organization for one of its clients. Mr. Gallant set up Mr. Delay's 527 group, the Republican Issues Majority Committee. The organization has begun hiring workers and has been spending to mobilize conservative voters in two dozen competitive Congressional districts, Mr. Gallant said. The group expects to spend $25 million this year, he said. Section 527 was added to the tax code in 1974, primarily to clarify the tax status of purely political, nonprofit organizations, including the Democratic and Republican national parties and PAC's. Under the provision, they do not pay taxes on contributions from donors, only on investment income. But the parties and PAC's are required to report donations and expenditures to the election commission. While these organizations are exempt from taxation, contributions are not tax deductible. The pure Section 527 organizations like those proliferating today operate in a protected niche of the tax code governing political groups, but because they do advocate on behalf of an individual candidate or candidates, they fall short of election-commission disclosure laws. That is what distinguishes them from a political party or a PAC. Donations are not tax deductible, but the groups' contributions and expenditures do not have to be disclosed to the I.R.S. or the

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee. Mr. President, I begin our side of the debate. I rise in favor of the McCain-Feingold-Lieberman amendment. I hope we will have an overwhelming vote later this afternoon in favor of full disclosure of the contributions and expenditures of 527 organizations. As we discussed yesterday on the floor, these organizations are the new stealth player in our electoral system. They claim a tax exemption under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, a provision that was intended to cover political committees such as party organizations or PACs. At the same time, they refuse to register with the Federal Election Commission and report their activities like other political committees because they claim they are not engaged so-called express advocacy. In other words, these groups admit they exist for the purpose of influencing elections for purposes of the tax laws, but deny they are political committees for purposes of the election laws. That, my colleagues, is the very definition of evading the law. If it is legal, it is, as some have called it, the ``mother of all loopholes.'' I make one point crystal clear because our debates on campaign finance reform often get bogged down in arguments over whether someone is engaged in electioneering or simply discussing issues. These groups cannot claim that their purpose is simply to raise issues or promote their views on issues to the public. Why is that? They can't make that claim because to qualify for the section 527 tax exemption, they have to meet the definition of a political organization in the tax code. And that definition is as follows: The term ``political organization'' means a party, committee, association, fund, or other organization . . . organized and operated primarily for the purpose of directly or indirectly accepting contributions or making expenditures, or both, for an exempt function. And the term exempt function means: The function of influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any individual to any Federal, State, or local public office or office in a political organization, or the election of Presidential or Vice-Presidential electors. These groups self-identify as groups whose primary purpose is to accept contributions or make expenditures to influence an election. These are by definition election-related groups. They refuse to register with the FEC, and they therefore can take any amount of money from anyone--from a wealthy patriotic American, or a multi-national corporation, or a foreign dictator, or a mobster. Indeed the groups seem to revel in the fact that their activities are completely secret. This chart we will be presenting in a moment shows a public statement by a 527 organization called ``Shape the Debate.'' This organization, according to news reports, is connected with our former colleague and the former Governor of California, Pete Wilson. On its webpage, Shape the Debate advertises for contributions. Contributions, it says, can be given in unlimited amounts, they can be from any source, and 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. Mr. President, the amendment we will vote on this afternoon won't change the fact that the contributions can be in any amount. It won't change the fact that the contributions can come from any source, even foreign contributions, even the proceeds of criminal activity. I regret that all it will do is address this third claim--that the contributions are not a matter of public record. If a group is going to accept money from a foreign government, the American people should know that. That's all we're saying here. This is something the Congress has to do. Now. It is clear that the FEC is not going to act on this issue this year. It held a meeting on May 25 to discuss a proposal by Commissioner Karl Sandstrom to get a handle on all the secret money that is now flowing into elections. The FEC voted to have the staff prepare a recommendation, but made it very clear that it is not going to act in time to have any impact on the upcoming elections. In fact one commissioner even said ``I want to speak in favor of secrecy.'' As Commissioner Scott Thomas said recently when the FEC deadlocked on whether it should pursue enforcement actions against the Clinton and Dole presidential campaigns for their issue ads in 1996: ``You can put a tag on the toe of the Federal Election Commission.'' The Commission is moribund, it is powerless even to address the most serious loophole ever to arise. This is why Congress must act. We don't know just how big this problem will be. And we won't ever really know because these groups don't even disclose their existence. Only enterprising news reporters have been able to get information on these groups and their spending. Some estimate that over $100 million in political advertising will come from 527 groups this year. Here are some of the examples that we know of so far. The executive director of the Sierra Club admitted that a handful of wealthy anonymous donors have given about $4.5 million to the group's 527 organization. Shape the Debate, the group whose website advertisement I cited earlier, has said it expects to raise $2 to $3 million for phone issue ads. It has already run ads against Vice President Gore. We know that Republican for Clear Air, with money from the Wyly brothers who are big contributors to Governor Bush ran over $2 million in ads attacking Senator McCain in the New York primary election earlier this year. And a report in Roll Call a few weeks ago indicates that a groupcalled Council for Responsible Government has formed a 527 and will raise over $2 million and target 25 races this fall. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that newspaper articles about 527 organizations be included in the Record following my statement.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Correct.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, very simply, this is a vote on campaign finance reform. The question is whether this body will take the opportunity, offered by this amendment, to shine some sunlight on the secret money that these 527 organizations are pouring into our elections. Here it is on this chart, in black and white, from the web site of one of these groups. The contributions can be given in unlimited amounts. They can be from any source. And they are not political contributions and are not a matter of public record. All this amendment does is make it a matter of public record. The American people have a right to demand this information from any organization that is given tax exemption. The blue-slip argument is a figleaf. It is an excuse made up for those who oppose reform but have said they support disclosure. I urge my colleagues to vote against the point of order and for the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Finally, Mr. President, the most powerful argument against the opponents' attempt to hide behind the fig leaf of this sham constitutional objection is that their famed concern for the prerogatives of the House of Representatives will not fool anyone. This is a vote on campaign finance reform, pure and simple. In the end, when colleagues go back home and when a constituent asks them why they opposed campaign finance reform, if they answer, Well, it might have had a blue-slip problem, I don't think the explanation is going to work very well. That is not cover. The fig leaf is transparent, and the people will see right through it. This is a vote about campaign finance reform, pure and simple. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment, and I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Instances When the Senate Has Considered Bills That the House of Representatives Would Consider ``Bills for Raising Revenue'' S. 2603, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act 2001, considered May 24-25, 2000. S. 2522, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2001, motion to proceed considered May 18, 2000. S. 2521, Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2001, considered May 11 and 15-18, 2000. S. 625, Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999, with amendment number 2547 proposed by Senator Domenici to increase the Federal minimum wage and protect small business considered November 8-10, 16-17, and 19, 1999, and January 26 and 31 and February 1-2, 2000. S. 1650, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, considered September 29-30 and October 1 and 6-7, 1999. S. 1283, District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000, considered July 1, 1999. S. 1282, Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2000, considered June 30 and July 1 and 13, 1999. S. 1234, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2000, considered June 30, 1999. S. 1233, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, considered June 21-22, 24, 28-29 and August 2-4, 1999. S. 1217, Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, considered July 21-22 and 26, 1999. S. 1143, Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, motion to proceed considered June 24 and 28, 1999. S. 1206, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2000, considered June 16, 1999. S. 1205, Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2000, considered June 16, 1999. S. 1186, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1999, considered June 14-16, 1999. S. 1122, Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000, considered June 7-8, 1999. S. 544, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999, considered March 18-9, 22-23, 1999. S. 2237, Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, considered September 8-10 and 14- 16, 1998. S. 2334, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1999, considered September 1-2, 1998. S. 2159, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, considered June 18 and July 13-16, 1998. S. 1768, 1998 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery From Natural Disasters, and for Overseas Peacekeeping Efforts, considered March 23-26, 1998.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment is not about politics. I assure my colleagues, this amendment covers all groups regardless of their politics. Not only do we not cover the AFL-CIO, we don't cover the Chamber of Commerce. The National Right to Life, as with those aspects of the Sierra Club that are 501(c)(4), has to publicly disclose through a tax return whether they are constituted in that manner. The argument and the attempt to somehow suggest that the rules will be one way for some groups rather than others is simply false, as were the other points made by the Senator from Pennsylvania. This is an appropriate place to raise this issue. Let me take a moment to respond to the trumped up charge that the Senate cannot consider this amendment because the House might blue-slip the bill. I think some people are trying to use this charge as a fig leaf for voting against campaign finance disclosure. My first response to my opponent's attack is that this is not a bill for raising revenue. The McCain-Feingold-Lieberman amendment is merely a reporting requirement. It requires that those with a certain status report specified actions. Second, the House's decision to blue-slip a bill, to refuse to consider a bill, is an act of discretion on the part of the House of Representatives. It does not happen automatically. It requires the House to pass a resolution to put this blue-slip into place, and the House can choose to consider this measure if it wants to. Third, the Senate can and must be its own judge of what it considers to be ``bills for raising revenue'' within the meaning of the Constitution. The Senate does not have to adhere slavishly to the most wildly blown interpretation of what somehow constitutes bills for raising revenue, or else in the end the Senate would never be able to send to the House of Representatives any bill the House didn't favor. Someone in the House, anyone, could raise a charge, however baseless, that the bill was a bill for raising revenue and then just somehow stop it dead in its tracks. In this regard, I note it is deeply ironic that some in this majority are suddenly becoming so zealous about enforcing the House's prerogatives to originate bills for raising revenue. The House has a longstanding tradition of considering all appropriation bills to be bills for raising revenue within the meaning of the Constitution. If the Senate were to send the House an S-numbered appropriations bill, the House could blue-slip that bill as well. Of late, the majority has shown a great enthusiasm for taking up S-numbered appropriation bills notwithstanding this threat. The majority cannot have it both ways on this point. I ask unanimous consent that a listing of instances when the Senate has considered such bills that the House would have considered ``bills for raising revenue'' be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.