Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the crisis facing our criminal justice system. For the first time since the reinstatement of the modern death penalty almost a quarter century ago, there is an increasing recognition, from both death penalty supporters and opponents, that the administration of capital punishment in our country has reached a crisis stage. Our criminal justice system is fraught with errors and the risk that an innocent person may be condemned to die. Since 1976, there have been over 600 executions in the United States. But during this same period, 87 people who were sentenced to death were later proven innocent. That means for every seven persons executed, our criminal justice system has found an innocent person was wrongly condemned to die. The system by which we impose the sentence of death is rife with errors, inadequate legal representation of defendants and racial disparities. At the same time, Congress, state legislatures and the courts have curtailed appellate review of capital convictions. With declining crime rates and a world where our closest allies have increasingly shunned capital punishment, a growing number of Americans--both opponents and supporters of the death penalty--are realizing that something must be done. Indeed, momentum for a moratorium on executions has been building for some time. In 1997, the American Bar Association called for a moratorium on executions. Numerous city and local governments have followed the ABA's lead by passing resolutions urging a moratorium on executions. Governor George Ryan, a death penalty proponent, has acknowledged that fatal flaws exist in the criminal justice system in Illinois and earlier this year effectively put a halt to executions in his state while a blue ribbon panel reviews his state's criminal justice system. Christian Coalition founder and death penalty supporter, the Reverend Pat Robertson, also recently proclaimed his support for a moratorium. Today, on the heels of this activity, the New Hampshire state legislature earlier today took a historic step that is indicative of the deepening public concern about the accuracy and fairness of the use of the death penalty. New Hampshire has had a provision for the death penalty on its books for almost ten years. Over two months ago, the lower chamber of the New Hampshire legislature passed a bill that would repeal the death penalty. Earlier today, the New Hampshire Senate followed the House's lead and passed a bill to abolish the death penalty. This marks the first time since the late 1970's that a state legislature has passed legislation to abolish the death penalty, and I urge Governor Shaheen to let the will of the legislature stand. The New Hampshire legislature's action is particularly remarkable because it comes at the same time that the pace of executions has been accelerating in this country. Last year, we hit an all-time high for executions in any one year since 1976, 98 executions. This year, we are on track to execute at least 100 people. The action of the New Hampshire legislature and long-time death penalty supporters like Governor Ryan and Reverend Pat Robertson indicates that our nation is beginning to re-think its longstanding support for capital punishment. When an auto manufacturer produces a vehicle with a bad fuel tank or malfunctioning airbags that risks injury or death to passengers, we push to have that product recalled, thoroughly review the problem and don't allow the vehicle back on the road until the problem is solved. Like a defective automobile, it is time for a recall on the death penalty. It is time to suspend executions nationwide while we review our criminal justice system to understand why so many innocents have been condemned to death row and to ensure that our justice system is a truly just system. A bill I introduced just a few weeks ago does just that. The National Death Penalty moratorium Act would place a moratorium on executions nationwide while a national, blue ribbon commission reviews the administration of capital punishment. When Americans, both death penalty supporters and opponents, take a moment to consider the flaws in our criminal justice system, they can reasonably reach only one conclusion: the system is broken and must be fixed. I encourage my colleagues to join me in calling for a nationwide moratorium. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota. This was a useful opportunity to discuss very serious problems in the Senate.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Again, Mr. President, looking back over the last several years, I have worked a great deal on agriculture issues, as well, and I remember these kinds of meetings and being able to honestly say to a group of farmers I didn't know if we were going to be able to pass a bill. But I could say there was a decent chance to be able to bring it up on the floor, either as a bill or as an amendment. Maybe we would win; maybe we would lose. It is an odd feeling now to tell a bunch of farmers that we are not allowed to offer amendments anymore. They look at you as if you have lost your mind. But that is what we have to tell them. We aren't allowed anymore in the Senate to bring up ideas and have amendments and have bills because they have to be cleared with the majority leader. We have to show him the amendment first. If he doesn't like it, we can't offer it. I try to be candid with people. That is a candid comment. That is truly different from the way things were. And I have served both in the majority and in the minority in the short years that I have been here.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to speak with regard to the MOTION TO PROCEED and share my concerns that we should not be moving to an ``S'' numbered appropriations bill at this time. In fact, it is a practice simply we should not be involved in at all. For this reason I rise to speak for a bit about care for the Senate in general. The Senate is a special place. It is a place steeped in history. Around this chamber stand the desks of Daniel Webster and Robert LaFollette, of Robert Taft and Richard Russell, of Everett Dirksen and Hubert Humphrey. The drawers of these desks still bear their names, etched in the wood. The polished mahogany still reflects their memory. Their voices still echo from these marble walls. I am honored to have been able to serve with some of the Senate's living legends. It is with pride that I will tell my grandchildren that I worked with the likes of Ted Kennedy, Bob Dole, and Robert Byrd. No honest history of the Senate will omit their names. It is in a modest attempt to follow in the tradition of remarks by Senator Byrd that I rise today. All Senators are aware of Senator Byrd's encyclopedic four-volume treatise on the Senate. And none can forget the series of addresses that Senator Byrd gave on the history of the Roman Senate, which have been reprinted in another volume. His discussions of the special nature of the Senate inspire us all to hold this institution more dearly. The Senate is an almost sacred place, consecrated by the will of the people, hallowed by the expression of the people in free elections. In this room, our 50 separate States each find expression. Every region of our vast continental nation here finds voice. In a country as large and as diverse as ours, disputes will naturally arise. The Senate, almost like a court of law, provides a means for our society to resolve those disputes in peace. Courts allow private parties to resolve their disputes without resort to fist fights. And the Senate allows significant sections of our society to resolve their disputes without resort to the battlefield or the street. For the Senate, as for a court of law, to work this magic, it must do justice. As with a court, as Gordon Hewart, the Lord Chief Justice of Great Britain, wrote, it is: Of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. For the Senate, as for a court of law, to advance the perception of justice and the fair resolution of disputes, it must air disagreements fully. It must give opposing parties their day. It must allow all to approach on an equal footing and make their case. Justice is not cursory. Justice is not offhand. Doing justice can take time. That is how the Founders wanted this great system to work. In the debates of the Constitutional Convention, James Madison said of the Senate: In order to judge of the form to be given to this institution, it will be proper to take a view of the ends to be served by it. These were first to protect the people against their rulers: secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led. Madison warned that the people's representatives might be ``liable to err also, from fickleness and passion.'' Madison's answer was that Senators, because of their ``limited number, and firmness[,] might seasonably interpose against impetuous counsels.'' He thus called the Senate: ``A necessary fence against this danger.'' Time and again, in the history of our country, the Senate has served as that ``necessary fence.'' And the firm pillars and posts supporting that fence have been the Senate Rules. The Senate Rules have helped the Senate to do justice. It is because of the Senate Rules that the British Prime Minister William Gladstone is said to have called the Senate: That remarkable body, the most remarkable of all the inventions of modern politics. The Senate Rules make it one of the few places in government where disagreements can be fully aired. The Senate Rules give opposing parties their day. And the Senate Rules allow every Senator to make his or her case. As Senator Dole said in his speech in the Leader's Lecture Series March 28: We all continue to learn that this institution can only survive if it operates by rules. The two fundamental pillars of those rules are the right to debate and the right to amend. It is these rights that distinguish the Senate from the House of Representatives and from other parliaments. It is these rights of Senators that allow the Senate as a body to preserve the rights of minorities. Rule XIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate provides that ``the Presiding Officer shall recognize the Senator who shall first address him.'' Precedent, of course, gives priority of recognition to the Leaders. Once the Presiding Officer has recognized a Senator, Senate rule XXII allows that Senator to speak for as long as humanly possible, unless 60 Senators vote to cut off debate. As my Colleagues well know, the mere threat of extended debate--called a ``hold''--can detain legislation. As well, the Senate Rules give Senators the right to offer amendments. The Senate Rules do not require Senators to go hat-in-hand to a leadership-dominated Rules Committee to ask permission to offer an amendment, as Members of Congress must do in the House of Representatives. This ability to bring up a subject with which the majority does not want to deal provides a check and balance on the agenda-setting power that is vested in the majority leader. These powers to debate and amend make every single Senator a force to be reckoned with. Every Senator--whether a member of the majority or the minority--can be a player. And Leadership cannot neglect or exclude any single Senator without substantial risk. As a result, Senators do well never to burn bridges with any other Senator. Because any one Senator can disrupt the Senate, every Senator has good reason to show comity for every other Senator. These rules honor the sentiments of committed minorities. They give dedicated groups of Senators substantial power. And they give any group of 41 Senators the absolute right to kill a bill. The Senate Rules thereby force consensus. When these rules are honored, no major change in our government's laws may come about without the concurrence of a three-fifths majority. When these rules are honored, policy changes are likely to be more moderate and more incremental. As Nobel Prize-winning economist James Buchanan has argued, societal efficiency may be served by a Congress that has a hard time enacting laws. Under such circumstances, laws change less often--less frequently disrupting peoples' lives, less often intruding into them. If you agree with Thoreau that the best government is that which governs least, then the most efficient government for society is the one with the most checks and balances. Unfortunately, the Senate is not honoring its rules. The Senate is breaching its longstanding traditions of comity and respect for the minority. Too often, in the name of expediency, today's Senate is cutting corners on the Senate rules. When we give in to expediency it can be disappointing. When we indulge in expediency in this, the place where deliberation is most sacred, it can be deplorable. Although some of the trends of which I speak have, of course, their roots in past Senates and other majorities, the Senate's current majority has brought the level of honor for the Senate's unique ideals to a new low. The current majority has diminished the Senate by abusing and overusing cloture. The application of the rules of cloture have changed dramatically since President Woodrow Wilson, infuriated by an 11- Senator filibuster that blocked the rearming of merchant ships during World War I, complained of ``[a] little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their own,'' who he said ``have rendered the great government of the United States helpless and contemptible.'' Cloture used to be a rarity. The Senate conducted only 45 rollcall votes on cloture in the entire half century from 1919 to 1969. In 1975, the Senate changed the filibuster rule, reducing the two- thirds vote requirement to a vote of 60 Senators, although one still needs two-thirds to cut off debate on changes to Senate rules. With that change in the rules, the leadership began invoking cloture more frequently. As the chart behind me shows, the process of invoking cloture has now reached what I call a fevered pitch. The Senate conducted 99 rollcall votes on cloture in the 1970s. It conducted 138 in the entire decade of the 1980s, and it conducted fully 234 in the 1990s. As this next chart shows, the number of cloture votes has increased in every year of the current majority, nearly doubling, from roughly 20 in 1995 to nearly 40 in 1999. Even by 1984, a select committee on procedure chaired by then-Senator Dan Quayle concluded: ``Cloture is not only invoked too often, it is invoked too soon.'' Senator Quayle's criticism is all the more true today. In the Congress when Senator Quayle made his remark, the 98th Congress, there had by this time been 10 rollcall votes on cloture motions. In the comparable time period in this 106th Congress, we have held more than four times as many--43 rollcall votes on cloture. Add to that another 11 cloture motions that were withdrawn, vitiated, or otherwise disposed of without a vote. As Senator Quayle noted, the problem with cloture is not just how often, but when. The form of a motion to invoke cloture reads: ``We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate'' upon the bill. But on bill after bill, from tax cuts to trade bills to constitutional amendments, the majority no longer tolerates even a day's worth of debate before moving ``to bring to a close the debate'' upon the bill. Indeed, filing cloture without any debate has now become the norm. We proceed to the bill and the cloture motion is filed in the time that it takes the majority leader to draw one breath and make the request. As an example, I have a chart that shows the entire verbatim transcript of the debate on the motion to proceed to S. 2285, the gas tax bill, prior to the filing of cloture. The ``debate''--if you would call it that--was the 11 words the majority leader uttered to make the motion to proceed. In the same breath, the cloture motion was upon us. The practice of filing cloture without any debate at all has made a mockery of the motion. Beyond limiting debate, the majority is also using the blunt instrument of cloture to bludgeon the minority into forgoing its right to offer amendments. All too often, the majority leader now makes a take-it-or-leave-it offer to the minority leader: Either muzzle your right to amendment or we will paint you as obstructionist. Either clear your amendments with us in advance, or have no amendments at all. I am afraid too often, the minority's leadership can get caught up in the business of helping the majority make the trains run on time, in a sense, playing the role of Alec Guinness's Colonel Nicholson in ``The Bridge on the River Kwai,'' building bridges that should not be built. This is not how the Senate was meant to act. Recall that the Senate has often addressed a number of amendments on a single piece of legislation. The Senate conducted 121 rollcall votes on amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It conducted 127 rollcall votes on the Natural Gas Policy Act in 1977. Now the idea that a bill might elicit more than ten amendments appears to be anathema to the majority. The current majority has also diminished the Senate by changing the rule that limits what can be incorporated into a conference report. Late in 1996, to secure last-minute passage of a version of the Federal Aviation Authorization Act that included a special provision for the Federal Express Corporation, the Senate voted 56-39 to overturn the Chair and nullify the rule. At the time, Senator Specter called the change ``a very, very serious perversion of Senate procedures.'' As conference reports are privileged, Senators cannot engage in extended debate to block getting to them. As well, conference reports are not open to amendment. And after the 1996 precedent, Senators have no recourse if a conference committee exceeds the scope of what the Senate committed to it. The majority in a conference committee need not work with the minority, and the majority often does not. Conference committees usually work in secret. Senate rules require no open meetings. House practice has generally required one such meeting, but that tends to be a photo opportunity. Thereafter, Senators' signatures on the conference report constitute their votes, and nothing further need be done in public. Last July, the Democratic leader offered an amendment to restore the rule with regard to conference reports, but the majority would not allow it. The majority voted it down 51-47 in a nearly party-line vote. The current majority has also diminished the Senate by extending and contorting the congressional budget process far beyond any expectations that its drafters may have had. Once again, of course, the roots of the current abuse of the budget process lie in earlier Congresses. Participants in the Federal budget process initially underestimated the power of the budget process. They failed completely, however, to foresee the power of reconciliation bills. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 originally provided for two budget resolutions: The first would advise, and the second, passed closer to the start of the fiscal year, would bind. The Budget Act provided that the second budget resolution could instruct committees of Congress to reconcile substantive laws passed within their jurisdiction over the summer to the new priorities of the second budget resolution. Of course, the reconciliation process has not turned out that modestly. Rather, in 1981, in an effort to expedite President Reagan's first budget, the budget resolution included instructions for years beyond the first fiscal year covered by the resolution, extending the reach of reconciliation bills to more permanent changes in law. Since then, reconciliation has become a regular feature of most budget resolutions. Since then, Congress has accomplished most significant deficit reduction through the reconciliation process. Because reconciliation bills limit debate, Senators cannot filibuster them. A simple majority can pass their policies. Because reconciliation limits amendments, Senators must stick to only the narrow subjects chosen by the majority in the committee process. The reconciliation process is so powerful that the Senate chose in the mid-1980s to adopt the Byrd Rule, named after Senator Robert Byrd, to limit reconciliation solely to deficit reduction. But the current majority dramatically extended reconciliation in 1996. The new Republican Congress sought to move three reconciliation bills--on welfare, Medicare, and tax cuts. And in a marked departure from past practice, the budget that year devoted one of the three reconciliation bills--the one to cut taxes--solely to worsening the deficit, not cutting the deficit but making it worse. The Democratic leader formally challenged the procedure, but to no avail. Through a series of exchanges with the Presiding Officer, the Democratic leader demonstrated that the new reconciliation procedure has few limits. After the Democratic leader appealed the ruling of the Chair, the Senate sustained the procedure on a straight party-line vote. In the wake of that precedent, the majority party has repeatedly created reconciliation bills to worsen the deficit or spend the surplus by cutting taxes, and the same logic would allow fast-track reconciliation bills to increase spending. The majority has taken to using the reconciliation process to move its fiscal legislative agenda through the Senate with simple majority votes and few distractions. The result is plain to see: Congress passes extravagant tax bills that do not command a national consensus and that cannot become law. As well, in this most recently-adopted budget resolution, the majority has even chosen by majority vote to require 60 votes to offer sense-of-the-Senate amendments to future budget resolutions. Though by no means an earth-shaking change in and of itself, it shows yet another instance of how the majority abuses majority-vote vehicles to create yet another variance from the Standing Rules of the Senate. Once again, the current majority seeks to muzzle debate. The current majority has also diminished the Senate by bringing S.- numbered appropriations bills to the floor. That is what is happening right now. That is what prompted, in part, these remarks. The majority wants to go to these S.-numbered appropriations bills. They want to do it on the foreign ops bill. The Senate just considered the military construction appropriations bill as a Senate-numbered bill, not--as is usually the case with appropriations bills--a House bill with Senate Committee-reported amendments. And what does this do? It has a purpose. This posture deprives Senators of the ability to offer legislative amendments. It is yet another way to deny the duly elected Members of this body a chance to offer amendments--an absolutely basic right of every Senator. Not infrequently, the House chooses to attach legislation to an appropriations measure. In that case, if as is usually done, the Senate considers the House bill with Senate amendments, a Senator can also offer amendments with legislative language. If another Senator raises a point of order under rule XVI against legislating on the appropriation bill, the amendment's proponent can raise the defense of germaneness. The idea is that the House opened the door to legislation on this appropriations bill, and the Senate must be able to respond with germane amendments. If, on the other hand, as is being attempted here, the Senate takes up a Senate-numbered appropriations bill, as it did with the military construction bill, then there is no House bill to provide a basis for the defense of germaneness. Under this circumstance, if a Senator offers a legislative amendment and another Senator raises a point of order against legislating on an appropriation bill, then the Chair simply rules the amendment out of order and the amendment falls. The Senator does not have a chance, again, to offer an amendment. Through this device, the majority once again deprives the minority of opportunities to legislate. As well, the majority deprives the full Senate of its ability to respond to riders that the House attaches to appropriations bills. Once again, the majority has diminished the deliberation of the Senate. And now, we see the spectacle of the majority standing ready to shut down the Senate for over 4 hours, as they did, on Tuesday, just to prevent a sense-of-the-Senate vote on gun safety. And now, we see the majority leader appealing the ruling of the Chair, and by a majority vote, changing the Standing Rules of the Senate, so as to have the Presiding Officer rule out of order nongermane amendments to appropriations bills. This in itself was a remarkable thing. Rule XVI, which creates the prohibition against nongermane amendments, states in part: [A]ll questions of relevancy of amendments under this rule, when raised, shall be submitted to the Senate and be decided without debate. And as my colleagues know, it takes a two-thirds vote to invoke cloture on a change to the Senate rules. But by a party-line, majority vote Wednesday, the Senate just erased those words from the Standing Rules of the Senate. And why? For the same reason all these other things were done--all to make it more difficult for Senators to offer amendments on appropriations bills. What has become of our right to debate? What has become of our right to amend? The traditional Senate, I am afraid, is becoming a thing of the past. I have seen this change just from the time I got here in 1993 to now. Some may say, ``Good riddance.'' After all, as a Democratic Member of Congress once said, ``In the Senate, you can't go to the bathroom without 60 votes.'' But the character of this Senate, I am afraid, has been unmistakably altered. The majority's actions are transforming the Senate into a much more majoritarian institution. And that is not how the founders wanted it. Recall that the Constitution itself manifests a belief in supermajorities. Supermajority requirements are evident in the veto power, in the ratification of treaties, in the constitutional amendment process, and in a number of other places. Recall, as well, that the founders who created this Senate also expressed a healthy distrust of simple majority rule. James Madison said that: [i]n Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority. In a letter to James Monroe, Madison also wrote: There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong. In his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson said: Though the will of the majority is . . . to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable. . . . The Minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression. And John Adams wrote: That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world. More recently, Senator J. William Fulbright said: The greatest single virtue of a strong legislature is not what it can do but what it can prevent. In 1984, retiring Congressman Barber Conable told Time Magazine: ``Congress is `functioning the way the founding fathers intended--not very well.' He explain[ed], `They understood that if you move too quickly, our democracy will be less responsible to the majority. I don't think it's the function of Congress to function well. It should drag its heels on the way to decision.' '' And Senator Byrd, who has stood on both the giving and receiving end of many a filibuster, writes in his Senate history: The Senate is the only forum in the government where the perfection of laws may be unhurried and where controversial decisions may be hammered out on the anvil of lengthy debate. The liberties of a free people will always be safe where a forum exists in which open and unlimited debate is allowed. For all their inconvenience, the Senate traditions of deliberation and amendment serve our Nation. It is through those traditions that the Senate protects liberty. It is through those traditions that the Senate can effect justice. When we stand and look back at the Senate's glorious history, we can be forgiven when we do not measure up to the standards of our greatest predecessors. We cannot be forgiven--and we should not be forgiven-- when so often we do not even care to try. We can be forgiven if, after considering the traditions of the Senate's hallowed past, we choose to depart from those traditions. We can not be forgiven--and we should not be forgiven--if we depart from those traditions unaware or oblivious of what we leave behind. I invite my colleagues to look around this Senate Chamber, to read the inscriptions in the marble reliefs over the doors. To the east is written ``Patriotism.'' To the west is inscribed ``Courage.'' And to the south is carved ``Wisdom.'' These are the icons under which we walk whenever we come into this Chamber and whenever we leave it. These walls do not speak of ``ease.'' The marble does not memorialize ``rapidity.'' These sculptures do not enshrine ``convenience.'' This Senate advances the love of country that is patriotism when it struggles to deliver justice. The Senate serves the people not when it avoids difficult issues but when it acts with courage to address them fully. And it is only through the crucible of debate and amendment that this Senate can come, as come it must, to wisdom. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues on the floor this morning to talk about the bankruptcy bill. We need to talk about this bill because what is now going on is that those who desperately want to pass the bill are acting in secret to try to avoid the public scrutiny that might lead to some changes in the bill that will benefit average people. The latest rumor is that the bankruptcy bill's sponsors want to combine it with the ``e-signature'' bill and a bill that has never even been considered on the Senate floor--the bill to increase the number of H-1b visas--and bring it to us as a package. Supposedly this will make it more appealing to some people who oppose one or another of those bills. But I think combining major pieces of legislation in a package like this just makes things worse. We are talking here about doing an end run around the legislative process simply to get things done for a narrow set of special interests. I think that's a disgrace and I hope my colleagues will resist it. This is a bill that gets worse the more you look at it. I am disturbed by reports that the final bill will look more like the House- passed bill than the bill that passed the Senate. But it does not surprise me that this is happening, since a bill that is worked out behind closed doors is much more likely to favor powerful financial interests. A public process generally serves the public interest. So no one should be shocked that the private process that the bill's proponents have been following is going to yield a bill that leaves the public behind. I commend to all my colleagues a major investigative story in the May 15th issue of Time Magazine by reporters Donald Bartlett and James Steele. Bartlett and Steele have done a masterful job in explaining how bankruptcy reform legislation ended up being a wish list for the credit card industry. Even more important, they show us the kinds of people who will be hurt by this bill--honest debtors who are down on their luck, forced into bankruptcy by the loss of a job or divorce or catastrophic medical bills. The bill is particularly detrimental to the interests of women. They constitute the largest segment of bankruptcy filers in 1999. These are the people that this bill turns its back on, at the same time that it gives the credit card industry virtually everything that it asked for. Now I don't deny that there is need for some reform in our nation's bankruptcy laws. But what happened with this bill is that when monied interests were given an inch to correct some abuses they took a mile. One area that I devoted a lot of time to on the Senate floor was the treatment of tenants under this bill. The landlord-tenant provision of this bill is typical of the sledgehammer approach that the bill takes to alleged abuses by people declaring bankruptcy. It started with stories of people repeatedly filing for bankruptcy in order to avoid paying rent. But to address that situation a provision was inserted in the bill that completely eliminates the protection of the automatic stay for tenants in bankruptcy. And when I suggested in an amendment that tenants who had never before filed for bankruptcy and were willing to pay their rent during the bankruptcy proceedings should be protected from being thrown out on the street, the proponents of this bill said no. The National Association of Realtors and other groups representing landlords adamantly opposed any weakening of the extreme provision in the bill. And they got their way. That is the kind of excess that you get in legislation when one side is dumping money into the process and the other side is not or cannot. Common Cause just put out a stunning report recently on the amount of money that the credit industry has contributed to members of Congress and the political parties in recent years. $7.5 million in 1999 alone, and $23.4 million in just the last three years. One company that has been particularly generous is MBNA Corporation, one of the largest issuers of credit cards in the country. In 1998, MBNA gave a $200,000 soft money contribution to the Republican Senatorial Committee on the very day that the House passed the conference report and sent it to the Senate. This year, MBNA gave its first large soft money contribution ever to the Democratic party--it gave $150,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee on December 22, 1999, right in the middle of Senate floor consideration of the bill. So it is no mystery to me why this bill is so anti-consumer, and I don't think it's a mystery to the public either. The bill contains precious little to address abuses by creditors in debt collection and reaffirmation practices, and it contains very weak credit card disclosure provisions. The credit card industry has ridden the rise in personal bankruptcies to get the changes in the law that it wants, but has resisted efforts to inform consumers of the risks of overuse of credit cards. Better disclosure might reduce the number of bankruptcy filings in this country, but the credit industry has successfully prevented the Congress from requiring such disclosure. There is still time to step back from the brink. Nonpartisan experts have many recommendations to reform the bankruptcy laws in a balanced and fair way to get at the abuses, without causing undeserved misery to thousands of powerless and defenseless Americans. Let's listen to them rather than the credit card issuers who are lining our campaign treasuries. I again thank the Senators from Massachusetts, Minnesota and Iowa and my other colleagues who are here this morning to call attention to this crucial issue, and I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent I be yielded Senator Kennedy's time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time do Senators Kennedy and Wellstone have remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this month I join Americans throughout Wisconsin and across the nation in celebrating Taiwanese American Heritage Week, honoring the many important contributions to American society of the more than half a million Taiwanese Americans in the United States. Without the contributions of Taiwanese Americans, we would lack the important AIDS research of Dr. David Ho. We would be denied the work of Nobel Laureate chemist Dr. Lee Yuan-Tse and that of the many American scientists he inspired. We would not be able to search for information on the internet by using Yahoo, co-founded by Jerry Yang. Thousands of Taiwanese Americans throughout the country have made important achievements in a wide range of sectors, including doctors, teachers, lawyers, and computer technology experts. They have improved the lives of their fellow American citizens, and they will play an integral role in our future. Besides their many contributions here at home, Taiwanese Americans have also played a vital role in the political transformation of Taiwan. For many years, they organized letter-writing campaigns, planned marches and demonstrations, and talked to any U.S. policy-maker who would listen about their dreams for Taiwan's future as free and democratic. Many risked arrest in--or exile from--their homeland as a result of their activities. The tireless work of Taiwanese Americans helped ensure the success of Taiwan's democratic evolution, beginning with the lifting of martial law in 1987 and culminating with the first fully democratic presidential election in 1996. These are achievements that all Americans can celebrate. I join Taiwanese Americans in congratulating the winners of the March presidential elections in Taiwan. Mr. President, Taiwanese American Heritage Week recognizes the long- standing friendship between the people of the United States and Taiwan, and celebrates our shared values. I commend the great accomplishments and contributions of the Taiwanese American community.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to, just very briefly, indicate some of the steps that have been taken in the Congo pursuant to what is called the Lusaka agreement that suggests to me this is a situation worth supporting if at all possible. The countries involved, including the Congo itself, and some of the rebel groups, have signed this Lusaka agreement that set up something called a joint military commission. This joint military commission is committed to doing the job of actually enforcing the peace and making sure the parties withdraw from the other countries. In order to get to phase 2 of this operation that is now contemplated, a number of things had to happen. The joint military commission had to be created, and an initial 90 observers from the U.N. had to be deployed. That was done. But before the next phase goes forward--the one that involves some 5,500 U.N. troops and personnel--a number of other things had to happen as well. There had to be a functioning cease-fire. Although it has not worked at all times--and at the moment is in a little bit of trouble because of the conflict between Uganda and Rwanda--on the whole, it has succeeded in the last month. Second, it was essential that all these parties come together and pick one person as a facilitator of the process of national dialogue. After a number of efforts, they did so, by appointing President Masire, the former President of Botswana. They had to create an operational arrangement of the U.N. MONUC group and the JMC to coordinate, and they did it. They had to have a signed commitment by the parties of the conflict guaranteeing security and freedom of movement and access for the U.N. team. And they did it. So now we come to the point of where additional steps, hopefully, can be taken. We are now looking at getting into the second phase of this peace operation, including developing plans to disengage and withdraw the troops from the various countries and parties that have signed this agreement, and the conducting of an inter-Congolese dialog that could lead to a genuine democratic country, and to develop these plans with the JMC. If that is accomplished, and only if these steps are accomplished, would we go forward to the final steps, phase 3, which involves verifying the withdrawal of foreign forces, normalizing border security, and, yes, finally, again, after all these years, the conducting of a democratic election. So what I am seeing here, although it is certainly not perfect, is a measured step-by-step approach--not an all-or-nothing approach--but a step-by-step approach, led by the African countries. That is something I think we should encourage and even admire because it is so very difficult to do in this situation. For me, there is a sufficient record to say, we must try to do something--not send U.S. troops, not send a huge United Nations force of 30,000 or 40,000 people, as some have wondered about. It may not work, and we may ultimately have to say no to doing more, as tragic as failure would be--but based on the facts that I have witnessed and learned about, I think we must try. We must not wash our hands of this or just say that it would be an example of throwing money in the Congo to make ourselves feel better. I believe we should support financially--and in other ways--the efforts for peace in the Congo. We must try. Again, why must we try? I think because this is a test--it is a very tough test--but it is a test of whether the United States really does have a double standard vis-a-vis Africa. To abandon the Congo without an effort would be a strong signal that we intend to abandon all of Africa. We must try, even though we have tried in other situations with great difficulty--such as Kosovo and Bosnia and Haiti. Let me again suggest I think we went too headlong into those situations. I do not think we were careful to take the measured steps that are being done in this case. And that led to our complete, abject failure to act with regard to Rwanda. As I have said, even with regard to Somalia, mistakes were made. But I think that is because it was, again, an example of an all- or-nothing approach, with no clear mission, and no exit strategy. I think this is different. I think this has the potential to work, although it is difficult, because it is measured and it is an African- dominated approach. I think we have to try because at this time in human history the crimes against Africa have to be halted. I do not have time to talk about the slave trade, the gap between the rich and the poor, the use of these countries as a playing field for colonial powers during the cold war. But we cannot extol this new global economy and trade around the world and have these African nations treated forever as hopeless and fundamentally different. We must try, in fact, because the lofty rhetoric of U.S.-Africa trade becomes something of a cruel hoax on the people of Africa if we are not going to confront the brutality, the chaos, and even the genocide in the very nations with whom we claim we want to have improved trade. We must try because I think it truly hurts America in the world's eyes, at a critical time in our role as a world leader, if we are perceived as being unwilling to help African nations when they desperately need that help. Finally, to return to my initial theme--because each situation in Africa is different, and yet interrelated--if we help move this process forward, this Lusaka agreement, involving cooperation between the U.N. and the joint military commission, it cannot only give Congo what it has always deserved and never had--real peace, self-determination and hope--but it can help its neighbors. Rwanda is greatly destabilized and threatened because of this conflict in the Congo. Uganda has a very problematic border with the Congo, and other countries, and is now in conflict with Rwanda because they are in the Congo together. That would help alleviate that situation. Burundi has enormous problems of its own, which President Mandela is trying to help with. None of these countries should be involved in the Congo conflict. They have problems of their own. Angola, which I have described as one of the most horrifying situations in Africa, should not be having troops up in this area for whatever reason, perhaps because of their conflict within their own country. We can cause this to be a more localized problem that perhaps we could deal with. Namibia certainly should not have troops up in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, nor should the other countries, when all it does is drain their resources and causes problems over their borders. And, of course, Zimbabwe. Talk about any country in the world that should not be using its resources right now to fight a war in the Congo, when it has such desperate economic and political problems at this time. Even South Africa suffers in its tremendous struggle to become one of the great nations of the world as long as this Congo conflict continues. Let us be realistic, but let us also be open to the possibility of trying in the Congo. Let us not have a double standard where we act with great rhetoric and words of ``never again'' in so many places in the world, but when it comes to Africa, we seem to be unable to act. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. We just completed our work on the African Growth and Opportunity Act. I had the opportunity on a number of occasions during the debate to express my concerns about the bill and, in particular, the way in which it did not address one of the greatest crises in Africa--the HIV/AIDS problem. But I have asked for this opportunity to speak about another enormous problem in Africa that I think needs to be closely associated with the debate we just had and our thinking with regard to Africa; that is, the problems with armed conflicts in Africa. Anyone who has been reading the newspapers or watching television in the last few days--whatever the medium--could not help but have a natural reaction to the news from Africa that would suggest an impression of chaos, and even feelings of hopelessness. I am sure this is especially true in the last few days when it comes to the events that are transpiring in Sierra Leone with some United Nations troops being killed, others apparently captured, some missing, protesters being killed, and the absurdity of the United Nations troops protecting Foday Sankoh, the leader of the Revolutionary United Front, the group that has been responsible for some of the most heinous crimes against people we have seen in many years--a group that has been responsible for repeated acts of murder, maiming, and rape. People see this on the television, read about it in the newspaper, and they wonder if there is anything that can be done to help make things different in Africa. Then they read about Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and they have this sense, understandably, that is a place of endless conflict. They read about Ethiopia and the starvation and famine in a border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea that seems to be, at least to many of us, unnecessary and terribly harmful to the people of both countries. They turn on the television, and they see Zimbabwe and what must appear to be a form of chaos with people occupying the land of other people and farmers and farm workers being murdered in a place that a lot of people thought was a success and that now begins to look awfully tense, violent, and undemocratic. Add to that what we have been talking about in the last few days with this enormous AIDS crisis. Then, if you mention the AIDS crisis to somebody from Africa, they say: By the way, do you know there is a terrible new strain of malaria that has become extremely problematic and dangerous for people in many parts of Africa? So it is easy for anyone to react with resignation. I think this is a compassionate country. I think our elected representatives wish to help. When all of this is viewed, I fear that people believe it is hopeless. I think that is understandable. But it is too easy to give up or to use well-worn phrases to dismiss the situation in the African countries as hopeless. We hear that a lot of records are thrown away. We hear people say, for example, that is just ``tribalism'' and that is what happens when these tribes strike out at one another. Another word used is, well, it is just ``barbarism.'' That is what goes on in Africa, people seem to say, and there is nothing you can do about it. Others point out quite clearly that there are problems with corruption in many of these countries. One very thoughtful Senator actually said to me the other day as we talked about what might be done to try to resolve the problem in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Well, I am afraid we are just going to throw away money to make ourselves feel better. That is what some people fear we do when we try to solve or help solve the problem in Africa. I don't think anyone can entirely dismiss any of this. As one who has on occasion shared at least the emotional reaction to these phrases and terms, I am afraid these terms and attitudes reflect a generalization about all of Africa, about the entire continent, that does not hold true. In fact, they are generalizations that even with regard to some of the specific examples do not have a connection to reality. I think these generalizations sometimes suggest, and these phrases sometimes suggest, an unwillingness to explore and understand the differences that actually exist as between these African countries and situations, and in fact the differences between easy assumptions and the facts on the ground in any one of these individual places. I understand how easy it is for someone to slip into a feeling of hopelessness about Africa. I fight it myself in my own experience. Having been in Africa in December for 2 weeks and having traveled to 10 different countries, I have had some moments such as this. Since I have been there, in the countries I actually had a chance to visit, the situation certainly has not vastly improved, as in the Congo--although I will be talking about that shortly. In Rwanda, there has been some political instability, a change of power in the Presidency, and other disturbing events. Namibia, just below Angola, has been drawn, to a greater extent than they had been in the past, into the Angolan conflict that has been going on for about 25 years. This has been only since last December, with refugees crossing border lines in significant numbers. In Angola itself, this brutal civil war continues. You may have seen tragedy in some of these other countries on the television. One of the most horrifying things you could ever see is the incredible tragedy of war and the refugee children in Angola. Then, of course, Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe certainly seemed tense in December. I was concerned. President Mugabe seemed quite tense to me at the time, but I had no idea there would be this collapse of a commitment to democracy on the part of the President of Zimbabwe, and all the violence and fear that has resulted. Add to that places I did not go this time. There was a coup d'etat in Cote d'Ivoire. Some say it was for the better in the long run, but a coup d'etat it was. And we have also seen the terrifying and tragic consequences of flooding in Mozambique. Even in Nigeria, which I would cite as a place where we have some greater hope than we used to have, even there where a fledgling democracy is trying to take root, there are repeated examples of religious and geographically based violence that make it difficult to believe the future is going to automatically be a bright one. So I feel all these concerns about these problems, having just been there and traveled to some of these countries. Oddly enough, though, I believe we have to struggle to simultaneously do two things. First, we have to see each of these situations as different instead of just generalizing. Second, at the same time, we have to see the interrelationships between the different situations in Africa and the different countries in Africa. Because if we do not see how these situations relate to each other, we will not be able to help to make stability and peace possible, and we will not be able to help with fighting disease and establishing democracy and fighting corruption. I do not pretend to come close to understanding all of these interrelationships, but I am trying to assist our own analysis of what American foreign policy toward African nations should be. Let me suggest, at the risk of oversimplification, a few distinctions between three different important situations in Africa that we have been reading about right now: Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Zimbabwe. They are very different. First, Sierra Leone is obviously a very small country compared to the others, apparently about twice the size of the State of Maryland. The situation in Sierra Leone is certainly more confined than the situation in the Congo, but it does involve other elements. A lot of the refugees from Sierra Leone have gone to Cote d'Ivoire, which has led to some destabilization there. The leader of Liberia, Charles Taylor, has been heavily involved in backing Mr. Sankoh in Sierra Leone, and has caused problems backing the RUF organization that committed so many of these crimes. Unlike so many other African countries, Sierra Leone recently, in the last few years, had their first real democratic election. The President was thrown out in a coup, then the ECOMOG, the Nigerian-led force, came in and put him back in power. But the country descended into this, one of the most brutal civil wars we have witnessed in many years. So the Sierra Leone situation is a very tenuous governmental situation. There is no long, continuous period of rule, either democratic or otherwise, by one particular power or entity or person. Contrast that with the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Congo is, obviously, a huge country. To give you an idea of the size, it is basically the size of all of the United States, from the Mississippi River all the way over including the entire east coast. It is that big in area. But it has not suffered so much from instability, except for in the last few years, as from a brutal rule of Mr. Mobutu who, for maybe 35 years, was the autocratic ruler of what was then called Zaire and who, in fact, some regarded as one of the greatest thieves of all time, in terms of all the resources and riches he spirited out of his nation of Zaire which is now called Congo. Finally, Mr. Mobutu had to flee and a group of powers from around Africa, some of whom are fighting each other now, together helped establish President Laurent Kabila in power a few years ago. So it is a terribly difficult situation, but it is not the same as Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone is a frightening situation. There are great crimes being committed. But what is happening in the Congo quite a few people have referred to as a world war, or Africa's first world war. It is that significant and that problematic. In fact, many people do not realize it but there are so many countries that now have their troops fighting in Congo that it really does look like a world war. There are alliances. For example, one side of combatants that are supposedly allies--although they have been fighting amongst themselves some--are Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi. They are backing the rebels trying to fight the Kabila government. On the other side, you find groups from Angola, Namibia, and Zimbabwe trying to support and keep in power Mr. Kabila. In addition to that, we fear there are economic incentives for some of these countries to want to stay in Congo. It is a country rich with incredible resources, including diamonds. Some suggest some of these countries may not want to leave the conflict because of the economic opportunities that exist. So, I would have to say Congo is already like the ultimate Rubik's Cube in foreign policy; it is so complicated and difficult, in terms of understanding what is going on and what could be done. It is like a world war. Now, contrast that with the third example, Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is in a very different position. Zimbabwe actually had what, fortunately, became about 20 years ago, majority rule. Although I obviously believe that the previous Rhodesian Government was a terrible government, some of the institutions from that era have continued into the current era and suggest at least a significant commitment in the past to reasonable governance and the rule of law. Unfortunately, that promise and that hope that Mr. Mugabe originally brought have fallen apart. Many people think what is happening in Zimbabwe is a race war; that is not the case. It is not a war of black against white. Some think it is about land reform. Although certainly there should be some land reform, that is not what is happening in what used to be a country that some thought was moving in the right direction. What is happening in this country--that basically was on a better path than Congo, and certainly a better path than Sierra Leone--is President Mugabe is not moving his country forward in a democratic way, in the way that the great Nelson Mandela did. Nelson Mandela, one of the greatest persons of the 20th century, after all those years of imprisonment, became the President of South Africa. What did he do after his first term was up? He believed it was important that democracy work, and he stepped aside and let someone else be elected President. This is just the opposite of what Mr. Mugabe is doing in Zimbabwe, which is threatening to destroy, in my view, a country that has great promise. I am trying to illustrate how different these situations are. Why do I do this? We must consider our responses to each of these crises individually, as well as in the context of Africa as a whole. When we look at each one, as well as any other situation in Africa, I can understand the hesitation on the part of the American people and our elected Representatives. Hesitation is not only understandable, but it makes some sense. I understand the need to be hesitant. Hesitation should not be born of oversimplification or incorrect generalization. I know why we are hesitant to get involved in too many places. I have personally said many times we are overcommitted around the world. We have over 250,000 American troops stationed abroad in this post-cold-war era. We have gotten ourselves in situations in Bosnia and Kosovo and in East Timor and even in Colombia, potentially, that some people would regard as open-ended. I am more optimistic about the East Timor situation. However, I am fearful that in Bosnia and Kosovo we got into a situation very heavily. It is open ended. We may find it difficult to extricate ourselves. That is a reason for hesitation. There are reasons for being hesitant specifically with regard to the record of the efforts made in Africa in the past. Certainly, the failure of the U.N. mission in Congo in the early 1960s is an example often cited as an attempt that failed that makes people hesitant. Without any doubt, the miserable failure of our Somalia mission in northeast Africa in 1993 and 1994 is another example of where the American people would have some reason to pause before wanting to get involved in helping to resolve some of the conflicts in Africa. I think this hesitation begs the question with regard to Africa. I think the question is, Why do we act decisively in other parts of the world, and seem to be disproportionately hesitant to act when it comes to problems in Africa? There are a lot of reasons that might be given for treating Africa differently. Let me suggest I don't think these reasons hold up. I want to mention a few of the reasons that have been given or might be given. First, our not acting in Africa cannot be because of a lack of tragedy, brutality, and even genocide in Africa. Despite the cries of ``never again'' that were legitimately raised with respect to Bosnia and Kosovo and even East Timor, how can anyone now use that kind of phrase with regard to what happens in Africa? I don't need to cite chapter and verse from my colleagues, although maybe I should, about the tragedies and brutality and human suffering in Africa as a result of conflict, be it Angola, Burundi, or, of course, Rwanda. I don't think the reason we don't act in Africa is because the African countries should try to help themselves. The fact is, the African countries are doing a pretty good job with very limited resources to try to shoulder their share of the burden. In fact, they compare favorably to our European allies when it comes to stepping up to the plate in their own region. One of my criticisms of the Bosnia and Kosovo situation is I don't think the European allies did as much as they could and asked us to do more than we should in those situations. There are examples, in Africa, of a better record. Nigeria, a country I have often criticized on this floor, under their previous military regime actually has a good record of trying to resolve conflicts in their region. The ECOMOG forces, led by Nigeria, were involved in trying to change the situation for the better in Liberia, and the Nigerians in the past have taken aggressive steps to try to solve the problem in Sierra Leone, and some hope they will be asked to do this again. When I was in Mali in December, one of the poorest countries in the world, they told me how some of their people were part of the ECOMOG force that went into Sierra Leone, and how they lost eight lives in that mission. They are taking the loss of lives of their own citizens in the name of trying to have peace and stability in their region. I am impressed by that. I am impressed by the comments of President Chiluba of Zambia this weekend who, after a couple hundred of his troops were missing in Sierra Leone, said he regretted it. He was concerned for their safety, but peace was worth this kind of effort. For anyone who thinks the African nations and the African Presidents are asking us to do everything, that is not what the record shows. I don't think it can be a fair objection to our acting and a reason for hesitance to say they are asking for American troops to do this. That is not true. I am not hearing demands for American troops. In fact, I talked to ten different African Presidents about the Congo situation in December, and I don't remember any of them asking for American troops to be involved in this situation. In fact, some did specifically seem to indicate they prefer that there not be American troops involved for whatever reason. This is not a question of whether American ground troops will be asked to resolve these situations. I don't think our hesitance can be explained by suggesting that African situations are somehow too complex--though, as I indicated they often are complex--to try and unravel. Some of the situations are horrible but are relatively straightforward, such as Angola. And as I said, although Congo is complex, so, certainly, are the situations in Bosnia with the ethnic divisions and borders that show no particular relationship to the ethnic identity of the people. There are little enclaves throughout the area. We are talking in this Congress about getting more involved in the situation in Colombia with real money and real resources. That is an enormously complex situation which is related to the situation in other Latin American countries. So it can't simply be that these are tough nuts to crack; they are, but they are not the only ones. We have acted in some incredibly difficult and complex situations in parts of the world that are not in Africa. Can it be because somehow Africa doesn't involve our national security? I don't think it can be that these situations are not dangerous, not only for Africa but for us and the rest of the world. The situation in the Congo is often called Africa's first world war, as I have said. That means not just tragedy for Congo and the nations directly adjacent, but it means it has the potential for enormous disruption throughout the entire continent, and I suggest a destabilizing influence throughout the world when it comes to political borders, when it comes to the spread of AIDS, when it comes to millions of children who are orphans, when it comes to child soldiers marauding around the countries, and, yes, national security because this kind of situation, if left unchecked, opens the door to other countries and other entities that are not our friends, trying to exploit the tragedy in Africa, whether it might be attempted by Libya, North Korea, or perhaps China. It cannot be that we hesitate because this continent is not in our national interest and is not a question of our national security. Finally, perhaps most important, our hesitance cannot be because the United States and the West have no responsibility to act. Consider the colonial legacy. After my trip, I had a chance to read one of the best and most powerful books I have read in a long time called ``King Leopold's Ghost'' by Adam Hochschild. This is basically the story of the brutal exploitation of the Belgian Congo by Belgium's King Leopold and others in the previous century. Colonialism essentially marauded the social structure of a peaceful people. When that period finally came to an end in 1960, I believe, they had a democratic election. I am sure it was not perfect, but a man named Patrice Lumumba, a hero to the Congolese people, was elected President. A few months later, he was brutally murdered, without a doubt at the instruction of our CIA and our country. That is what we did to the people of Congo, and we installed Mr. Mobutu who proceeded to have one of the most brutal rules in history for the next 30 to 35 years. To suggest we do not have a responsibility, that we did not have anything to do with this is just plain wrong. The same thing goes for Angola. This is not about the colonial era only. Angola was used for many years as a playground for the cold war. The Soviet Union and the United States decided to have it out here, and they planted more landmines in the fields, the rich farm fields of Angola, than any other place in the entire world. As a result, there are more amputees in Angola than anywhere else in the world and in any other time in human history. Walk down a street in Angola and look at the number of people who have lost a limb to landmines--not that lives, of course, were not taken. It is appalling. That was our war. I understand the stakes that were involved, but to suggest we do not have a responsibility when we were that involved in the situation and to fail to help the people from Angola to have a decent life is simply wrong. I have just given six reasons that I do not think can really be the reasons for our not acting in some of these situations. I will now suggest three reasons I think might genuinely explain our extreme hesitance and reluctance to help stop these conflicts in Africa, as compared to our willingness to do it in other parts of the world. First, I believe there is a genuine fear that we will get stuck in one of these situations. Some might call it the Vietnam syndrome, and I understand that, having been a young opponent of the Vietnam war myself in my college years. I remember the song entitled ``Knee Deep in the Big Muddy.'' That was a symbol for our generation of how we were stuck in Vietnam. I am sure many people worry about that. I submit we are already stuck in Bosnia and Kosovo, and I believe we became stuck in those places because we went headlong into those conflicts with no good plan about how to finish it or what resources we would commit to it or what steps would allow us to finish the job or decide that we cannot finish the job. I do think that our hesitance is part of our very recent memory of the enormous tragedy in Africa in Somalia when we lost 18 of our brave soldiers in the helicopter disaster that led to our withdrawal. There is no question in my mind that Americans and American foreign policymakers worry that if we try to help in one of these situations, we will get stuck and cannot get out. When I say ``we,'' I mean the international community, not necessarily just the United States. Second, I think we do not act perhaps when we should because we have a tendency in this country to think in terms of having to do all or nothing in one of these situations; that we have to do the whole thing, and if we do not do the whole thing, somehow we have not lived up to an American obligation to do absolutely everything to solve the problem. Some say do not do it at all unless you are going to go in and get the job done. I have heard that many times with regard to military intervention; why don't we just go in there and finish the job? It is an attitude which, on occasion, is appropriate but I think sometimes leads to mistakes. When it comes to the African situation, this notion that we should do everything or nothing leads to real problems. In Somalia, we tried to do too much when we did not know what we were doing, and then we did nothing when it came to Rwanda. It does not have to be everything or nothing. In fact, there is a recent example I am relatively pleased about, and that is what we are doing in East Timor. We are not leading the charge there. Australia is leading the charge and Asian countries are leading the charge. We are helping in a measured, reasonable way because the countries in that region, as I suggest some of the countries in Africa, are trying to do the same thing. I believe that is a reason people are afraid of doing some things because they want to do everything or nothing. A third reason we do not act, and a genuine reason--and I fear it is the most important reason and I wish I did not have to come to this conclusion--but I do think there is somehow, unbelievably, a double standard when it comes to Africa. This is very bad for Africa, and I submit it is just as bad for the United States. When I see President Mbeki of South Africa and the President of the People's Republic of China, Jiang Zemin, get together at a news conference and comment about how they are tired of having one country calling all the shots in the world, I see fertile ground for resentment against the United States that can hurt us today and can especially hurt America and our children and grandchildren in the future. This is a sad thing to let happen because we do not have a lot of the colonial baggage and some of the resentment that Africans feel toward countries such as Belgium because we were not deeply involved in many of those situations. We have a positive opportunity, when it comes to much of Africa, to get it right. It is this idea of getting it right that brings me to the specific purpose of these comments, and that is that we should not summarily retreat from the pursuit of peace and self-determination in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I fear there will be some kind of a knee-jerk reaction because of the very disturbing news and film coming from Sierra Leone. The United Nations there obviously has not yet got it right. I may well be interested in seeing and helping that United Nations effort become stronger and tougher to deal with the brutality that is going on, and we cannot abandon that situation, but I believe there is a way to get it right in Congo. One of the main reasons is the leadership of a man from whom I stole the phrase ``Get It Right,'' and that is our Ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke, whom I had the chance to accompany on a trip to Africa in December. It was an honor to be on that trip, and we had a chance together to meet with virtually every one of the African Presidents who are directly interested in this conflict. I want my colleagues to know that, although we were extremely moved and troubled by the AIDS crisis in Africa, and that overtook us emotionally on the trip, the core reason for the trip was to see if the Ambassador and I and others could get an understanding of the complexity of what is going on in the Congo and what we could do about it. I want my colleagues to know--and I heard him do it--that at each stop, Ambassador Holbrooke said: We want to help, but there are no blank checks and we must get it right or we cannot help. He was very measured and showed due caution. Of course, the situation in the Congo is incredibly difficult, but I see some reason to see it as progressing in the right direction, slowly but surely. I understand that our support may not necessarily work, that there could be a failure, but I think that serious logical steps can be taken. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Iowa. There is differential pricing today between Canada and the United States when it comes to pharmaceuticals, and that is a bad deal. Differential pricing does not necessarily mean the affordable pricing of drugs. But I appreciate the courtesy in being able to speak on this matter because I believe so strongly that the voices in opposition to this bill need to be heard. We did not do the job we needed to do to create a real Africa trade bill. I regret that and will vote in opposition to cloture. I ask my colleagues to vote against cloture. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me first thank the Senator from Iowa for his courtesy in giving me this time to speak in opposition. Mr. President, I rise to take another opportunity to express my disappointment with the conference report on the African Growth and Opportunity Act. I have outlined my concerns about this bill time and again. I have explained how little opportunity it really offers to the countries of Africa. I have expressed my fears about transshipment. I have noted the bill's failure to address the environmental issues that are inextricably linked with trade and investment. And, most importantly, I have pointed out the rather obvious fact that unless we get serious about reducing Africa's debt burden and fighting the region's devastating HIV/AIDS crisis, any effort to stimulate trade and investment is simply an act of political theater. By refusing to address the core obstacles prohibiting so much of that vast continent from achieving its potential as a region of prosperity and a valued trading partner, this Senate is once again ignoring the tough issues in favor of the ultimately futile quick fix. We are capable of better, and the people of Africa are certainly deserving of more. I felt this way before learning the outcome of the conference--I felt this way last year, when I joined Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., to introduce alternative legislation to the African Growth and Opportunity Act. But my disappointment was deepened, and my sense of outrage was provoked, and my resolve to fight for something better was strengthened when the outcome of the conference became apparent. The fate of the Feinstein-Feingold amendment--a provision that was accepted into the manager's package when this bill was debated on the floor last fall but was stripped by the leadership in the final days of the conference--is appalling. Our modest amendment would have prevented the U.S. Government from pressuring African countries that use internationally legal means to make HIV/AIDS medications more accessible to their citizens. I stood on this floor yesterday and cited statistic after shocking statistic, trying to communicate the urgency of the situation and the scale of the crisis. The falling life expectancies, the overcrowded morgues, the millions of orphans, the declines in GDP--I have tried to convey the extent of the disease's reach. In light of these facts, passing legislation that prevents our Government from stopping legal efforts to bring help and hope to the millions affected by the epidemic seemed like the least that this body could do. And yet we could not even accomplish that modest step. We could not even agree to do no harm. And I want to remind my colleagues that this issue will not go away. Even those least inclined to give this issue the attention it deserves will not be able to ignore 5,500 deaths per day, and the social, economic, and political ramifications of those deaths. This issue will not go away as long as the HIV/AIDS crisis continues on its terrible course; this issue will not go away as long as the American public asks tough questions about why this Congress refuses to pass even modest measures like the Feinstein-Feingold amendment; and this issue will not go away as long as I am in this Senate. Most Members didn't have to face up, publicly, to the pressure of the pharmaceutical industry and the far reaching implications of their choice to support or not support the Feinstein-Feingold amendment. But eventually we will all have to face the music, we will have to answer to our constituents and to our consciences. The commitment of the major pharmaceutical companies to differential pricing is perhaps promising, but it raises as many questions as it answers. There is differential pricing today between the United States and Canada.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to take time to share some excerpts taken from the National Intelligence Estimate 99-17D of January 2000, which frames infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, as a national security threat to the United States. This is, obviously, pursuant to the discussion we have been having most of the day with regard to the inadequacy of the African Growth and Opportunity Act with regard to the provisions concerning HIV/AIDS in Africa and, in particular, the very serious error of the conference committee in eliminating the Feinstein-Feingold amendment concerning HIV/AIDS. This report represents an important initiative on the part of the Intelligence Community to consider the national security dimension of a nontraditional threat. It responds to a growing concern by senior US leaders about the implications--in terms of health, economics, and national security--of the growing global infectious disease threat. The dramatic increase in drug-resistant microbes, combined with the lag in development of new antibiotics, the rise of megacities with severe health care deficiencies, environmental degradation, and the growing ease and frequency of cross-border movements of people and produce have greatly facilitated the spread of infectious diseases. As part of this new US Government effort, the National Intelligence Council produced this national intelligence estimate. It examines the most lethal diseases globally and by region; develops alternative scenarios about their future course; examines national and international capacities to deal with them; and assesses their national global social, economic, political, and security impact. Of the seven biggest killers worldwide, TB, malaria, hepatitis, and, in particular, HIV/AIDS continue to surge, with HIV/AIDS and TB likely to account for the overwhelming majority of deaths from infectious diseases in developing countries by 2020. Sub-Saharan Africa-accounting for nearly half of infectious disease deaths globally--will remain the most vulnerable region. The death rates for many diseases, including HIV/AIDS and malaria, exceed those in all other regions. Sub-Saharan Africa's health care capacity--the poorest in the world--will continue to lag. The most likely scenario, in our view, is one in which the infectious disease threat--particularly from HIV/AIDS-- worsens during the first half of our time frame, but decreases fitfully after that, owing to better prevention and control efforts, new drugs and vaccines, and socioeconomics improvements. In the next decade, under this scenario, negative demographic and social conditions in developing countries, such as continued urbanization and poor health care capacity, remain conducive to the spread of infectious diseases; persistent poverty sustains the least developed countries as reservoirs of infection; and microbial resistance continues to increase faster than the pace of new drug and vaccine development. During the subsequent decade, more positive demographic changes such as reduced fertility and aging populations; gradual socioeconomic improvement in most countries; medical advances against childhood and vaccine-preventable killers such as diarrheal diseases, neonatal tetanus, and measles; expanded international surveillance and response systems; and improvements in national health care capacities take hold in all but the least developed countries. Barring the appearance of a deadly and highly infectious new disease, a catastrophic upward lurch by HIV/AIDS, or the release of a highly contagious biological agent capable of rapid and widescale secondary spread, these developments produce at least limited gains against the overall infectious disease threat. However, the remaining group of virulent diseases, led by HIV/AIDS and TB, continue to take a significant toll. The persistent infectious disease burden is likely to aggravate and, in some cases, may even provoke economic decay, social fragmentation, and political destabilization in the hardest hit countries in the developing and former communist worlds. The economic costs of infectious disease--especially HIV/ AIDS and malria--are already significant, and their increasingly heavy toll on productivity, profitability, and foreign investment will be reflected in growing GDP losses, as well, that could reduce GDP by as much as 20 percent or more by 2010 in some Sub-Saharan African countries, according to recent studies. Some of the hardest hit countries in Sub-Saharan Africa-- and possibly later in South and Southeast Asia--will face a demographic upheaval as HIV/AIDS and associated diseases reduce human life expectancy by as much as 30 years and kill as many as a quarter of their populations over a decade or less, producing a huge orphan cohort. Nearly 42 million children in 27 countries will lose one or both parents to AIDS by 2010; 19 of the hardest hit countries will be in Sub--Sahran Africa. The relationship between disease and political instability is indirect but real. A wide-ranging study on the causes of state instability suggests that infant mortality--a good indicator of the overall quality of life--correlates strongly with political instability, particularly in countries that already have achieved a measure of democracy. The severe social and economic impact of infectious diseases is likely to intensify the struggle for political power to control scarce state resources. the deadly seven The seven infectious diseases that caused the highest number of deaths in 1998, according to WHO and DIA's Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center, AFMIC, will remain threats well into the next century. HIV/AIDS, TB malaria, and hepatitis B and C--are either spreading or becoming more drug- resistant, while lower respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, and measles, appear to have at least temporarily peaked. hiv/aids Following its identification in 1983, the spread of HIV intensified quickly. Despite progress in some regions, HIV/ AIDS shows no signs of abating globally. Approximately 2.3 million people died from AIDS worldwide in 1998, up dramatically from 0.7 million in 1993, and there were 5.8 million new infections. According to WHO, some 33.4 million people were living with HIV by 1998, up from 10 million in 1990, and the number could approach 40 million by the end of 2000. Although infection and death rates have slowed considerably in developed countries owing to the growing use of preventive measures and costly new multidrug treatment therapies, the pandemic continues to spread in much of the developing world, where 95 percent of global infections and deaths have occurred. Sub-Saharan Africa currently has the biggest regional burden, but the disease is spreading quickly in India, Russia, China, and much of the rest of Asia.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me first say the senior Senator from California certainly should not apologize for her emotion. If there ever was an issue that deserves such a powerful display of passion and emotion, it is this issue of the AIDS crisis in Africa and the outrageous nerve of these pharmaceutical companies of removing this modest provision that the Senate unanimously placed in the bill in the conference report. It is an abysmal moment. I thank the Senator for her leadership, her passion, and for her willingness to continue this fight that we all will continue as long as it takes. Before we go any further with this conference report, I come to the floor to follow on the comments of the Senator from California to make something clear to my colleagues. I think we can do better than this. We have lost our way with this new Africa policy. We have to chart a new course if we are to seek a better world for Africa and for America. I say this as a Senator, an American, and as a human being who has been to Africa, seen its promise, and been appalled by its suffering. I come here to express my disappointment about the African Growth and Opportunity Act and my deep dismay about how and why the Feinstein- Feingold amendment on the HIV/AIDS crisis was kept out of the conference report. Very simply, I am talking today about the future of U.S.-Africa policy. We have a role to play in Africa's future and we have to decide what that role is going to be. Some in this body think AGOA is the right example of what our role in Africa's future should be. The African Growth and Opportunities Act supporters believe this legislation is somehow a landmark, that it represents a real opportunity for growth on the continent, a new way of thinking about Africa. They want us to believe, as they believe, that to reject it would be to reject all engagement with the continent and, indeed, to reject all of the enterprise and energy of the people of Africa. But they are wrong. This bill is deeply flawed. For 7 years I have served on the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Africa and I have committed myself to supporting democratization, peace, and development in the many countries of that continent. I support engagement with Africa as strongly as any Member of this body. I am deeply concerned about the dearth of economic ties between the people of the United States and those of the African Continent. The current level of trade between us is depressingly small. Africa represents only 1 percent of our imports, 1 percent of our exports, and only 1 percent of our foreign direct investment. So if the question is, Should something be done to stimulate our trade with Africa, the answer is ``absolutely.'' But I urge this body, let's not pretend we are now somehow debating a comprehensive trade package for Africa, for this bill is not in any sense comprehensive. Let's not fail to address the need to build an environment, an actual environment that will foster and sustain mutually beneficial economic relationships. If we fail to assemble the components of that environment in this trade package, it cannot be called comprehensive, and I would certainly say it should not even be passed. There really are only two defensible views of this bill. It either does virtually nothing at all, or it does actual harm. This legislation does very little for Africa. The trade benefits we are talking about are not terribly significant, primarily making African states eligible for temporary preferential access to the U.S. markets for textiles and apparel. Many of Africa's primary exports are not addressed at all by this legislation. This legislation does little to address the African context for economic growth and that context is a challenging one. It is a context of boundless potential amid a web of obstacles. Economic growth in sub-Sarahan Africa faces the obstacle of a staggering $230 billion in bilateral and multilateral debt. Africa's debt service requirements now take over 20 percent of the region's export earnings. How can Africa, to which the Presiding Officer has certainly devoted a lot of his attention, become a strong economic partner when its states must divert funds away from schools, away from health care, and away from infrastructure in order to service this crushing debt burden? How can we talk about economic engagement and simply pay lip service to these painfully obvious realities? I am sorry to say in several ways I think this legislation actually would do harm. By addressing seriously only one industry, the textile industry, it fails to support the kind of diversification that any economy, including African economies, need to regain strength and stability. I fear AGOA also fails to adequately tackle the serious problem of transshipment. Transshiment is a practice whereby, for example, producers in China and other third party countries establish sham production facilities in countries which may export to the United States under more favorable conditions. Then these producers ship goods, made in their factories at home and meant for the U.S. market, to the third country. In this case it would be an African country. They pack it or assemble it in some minor way and send it off to the United States of America with a new label ``Made In Africa,'' thereby enjoying all the trade benefits that label would bring. As I told my colleagues on a number of occasions, and as I think they know, transshipment is really a very serious problem. Approximately $2 billion worth of illegally transshipped textiles enter the United States every year. The U.S. Customs Service has determined that for every $1 billion of illegally transshipped products that enter the United States, 40,000 jobs in the textile and apparel sector are lost. In this regard, just to give you a sense of the thinking that goes on behind this kind of scam, I would like to share some of the words from the People's Republic of China. This is a quote taken directly from the official web site of the Chinese Ministry of Trade and Economic Cooperation. This is the quote: There are many opportunities for Chinese business people in Africa. . . . Setting up assembly plants with Chinese equipment, technology and personnel could not only greatly increase sales in African countries, but also circumvent the quotas imposed on commodities of Chinese origin imposed by European and American countries. There it is, right on their web page. It is not hard to see that those who would engage in transshipment are not too worried about the protections we currently have in place to guard against it. This same visa system that has failed us in the past is the basis, again, for the allegedly effective AGOA protections. In fact, the African Growth and Opportunity Act does not require that Africans themselves be employed at firms that are receiving the trade benefits. This is progress? If nothing else, I think it raises a red flag for my colleagues, when they consider the African Growth and Opportunity Act. This should be a crystal clear signal: Nothing in this Act ensures that whatever opportunities this legislation may create--there is no guarantee these will be opportunities for Africans, for citizens of African countries. AGOA does not mention environmental standards at all, but any plan for sustainable economic development must include some notion of environmental protection. I think this is especially true of a continent like Africa where, in some countries, 85 percent of the people live directly off the land. We are all affected when logging and mining deplete African rain forests and increase global warming. We all lose when species unique to Africa are lost to hasty profit- making schemes, hatched without regard to sustainability or long-term environmental effects. Environmental quality also has serious implications for peace and stability in the region. As we have seen in the Niger Delta, environmental degradation can lead to civil unrest. Responsible trade policies must adequately address human rights and environmental issues, not just because it is the right thing to do but because also in the long run it will create a better business climate for Africans and Americans alike. In addition, the African Growth and Opportunity Act fails to address the critical role that development assistance ought to play in promoting African growth and opportunity. That failure has raised an alarm here at home and internationally. The perception is that the United States has deluded itself into believing that a small package of trade benefits, benefits which may not actually benefit Africans themselves, can replace a responsible and well-monitored program of development assistance. I am afraid that this inevitably will cast doubt on the U.S. commitment to development in Africa. I care about each of the objections I just raised to this bill. But let me tell you, just as the senior Senator from California indicated, more than anything else what makes me doubt the U.S. commitment to development in Africa is that this conference report turns a blind eye to the AIDS crisis by excluding the modest Feinstein-Feingold amendment. As the ranking member of the subcommittee on Africa, I have always felt very strongly about the issue of AIDS in Africa. I tried to raise it last year and this year in the context of the Africa trade debate. I raised it on many occasions in meetings with African heads of state. I applaud the U.N. Security Council's decision to address the crisis earlier this year, and I do support the administration's call to increase the resources directed at this AIDS crisis. But what I cannot support, what I cannot applaud, and what I cannot even understand is how this body can pass up an opportunity to take just one small step toward addressing the AIDS crisis in Africa. I am referring to the Feinstein-Feingold amendment. It was very modest. It simply prohibited Federal money from being used to lobby a government to change TRIPS- compliant laws, allowing access to HIV drugs. Our amendment was taken out in the conference committee. So now this bill, which makes a weak attempt to address Africa trade as it is, does nothing--an African Growth and Opportunity Act does nothing to actually address the HIV/ AIDS crisis that affects every aspect of the African economy, not to mention every African life. We have before us a conference report which does nothing to fight the AIDS crisis that is ravaging Africa, threatening to destroy its economies and decimate its communities. Why? How can it be that we will debate a bill of this nature and ignore the single most important issue facing sub-Sarahan Africa today? Why is it that one modest provision included by this Senate, the Feinstein-Feingold amendment regarding HIV/AIDS drug in Africa, was removed from this bill? When the Senate was debating that legislation last year, Senator Feinstein and I offered our amendment, which was readily accepted by the bill's managers, Senators Roth and Moynihan, to address a critically important issue--an issue relating to Africa's devastating AIDS crisis; an issue that has cast a dark shadow on United States- African relations in the past. Our amendment was simple. It prohibited the U.S. Government or any agent of the U.S. Government from pressuring African countries to revoke or change laws aimed at increasing access to HIV/AIDS drugs, so long as the laws in question adhere to existing international regulations governing trade. Quite simply, our amendment told the executive branch to stop twisting the arms of African countries that are using legal means to improve access to HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals for their people. The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or TRIPS, allows for compulsory licensing in cases of national emergency. Approximately 13 million African lives have been lost since the onset of the crisis. According to the Rockefeller Foundation's recent report, ``on statistics alone, young people from the most affected countries in Africa are more likely than not to perish of AIDS.'' Consider that I say to my colleagues: more likely to perish than not. If these do not constitute emergency conditions, then I do not know what does. This was a very modest amendment, but the final version of the amendment discussed by the conferees was even more modest. It was a true compromise. It was not as strong as I would have liked it to be, and I worked hard to keep it strong, but even the compromise pushed our policy closer to the right thing. I again thank the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, the Senator from New York, Mr. Moynihan, and the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Roth, and their staffs for working so hard to keep this amendment in at the conference level. But despite these efforts, despite the concessions that Senator Feinstein and I made, despite the fact that this is the right thing to do, the Feinstein-Feingold amendment was stripped in conference. The opposition to our amendment is baffling. How do the conferees who killed this provision justify pressuring these countries, where in some cases AIDS has reduced life expectancies by more than 15 years, not to use all legal means at their disposal to provide effective medicines for their citizens? Without broader access to these drugs in Africa, more people will suffer, more people will die--that is a simple fact. I cannot imagine that ordinary Americans are urging their representatives to oppose the Feinstein-Feingold amendment. I cannot imagine that anyone would try to prevail upon my colleagues to oppose this measure--except perhaps for pharmaceutical companies. The pharmaceutical industry does not fear losing customers in Africa, because they know that Africans simply cannot afford their prices. But they do fear that taking this modest step in this time of crisis could somehow, in some ill-defined scenario in the future, cut into their most important consideration: their bottom line. That brings me to the calling of the bankroll. From time to time on this floor when we debate the issues, I review some facts and figures that most of my colleagues are unwilling to discuss. I have dubbed it the ``calling of the bankroll''--a chance for my colleagues and the public to consider not just the issues, but the money that drives the issues in our democracy today. I can tell you, the pharmaceutical industry is certainly no exception when it comes to playing the political money game--in fact, huge donations to the parties are the rule in the pharmaceutical industry. I would like to discuss a few of the companies that fought against the Feinstein-Feingold amendment, not in terms of policy, although I have certainly done that and will continue to, but in terms of political donations. All the figures I am about to cite are for the first 15 months of the current election cycle--all of 1999 and the first 3 months of this year. I will start with Pfizer, which is one of several pharmaceutical giants that rank among the top soft money donors in 1999, and with good reason. Pfizer and its executives gave more than $511,000 in soft money during the period, including a $100,000 contribution earlier this year. Pfizer was also a top PAC money donor in its industry during the period, with more than $242,000 to Federal candidates during the period. Then there's Bristol Myers Squibb, another top soft money donor, which, with its executives, gave nearly $529,000 in soft money to the parties, including two $100,000 contributions during the period. Bristol Myers Squibb also gave more than $146,000 in PAC money during the period. Merck and Company gave more than $51,000 in soft money and nearly $168,000 in PAC money during the period. And finally, Glaxo Wellcome and its executives gave more than $272,000 in soft money to the parties and gave more PAC money than any other pharmaceutical company during the period--more than $291,000. Those are the donations of some of the pharmaceutical companies that fought so hard against the Feinstein-Feingold amendment. They are donations that signal influence, power, and political clout--political clout that most Americans could never hope for, and no African living with HIV could ever dream of. In the fight over the Feinstein-Feingold amendment, the pharmaceutical companies clearly got their way, while millions of Africans suffering from HIV and AIDS were left without even one glimmer of hope from this body or this bill. The people of Africa desperately need hope in the midst of the AIDS crisis. I am going to share some numbers, along the lines of other speakers, that put the staggering AIDS crisis in Africa in stark relief. The disease is already the fourth biggest cause of death in the world. In at least five African countries, more than one adult in five has HIV. Economic growth in Africa faces the obstacle of a devastating HIV/ AIDS epidemic. In the course of 1998, AIDS was responsible for an estimated 2 million African deaths. That is 5,500 deaths a day. At least 12 million Africans have been killed by AIDS since the onset of the crisis. Africa accounts for over half of the world's cases of HIV. The realities of a continent gripped by this disease are truly horrifying--lines outside cemeteries as families wait to bury the dead, and morgues that operate around the clock, 7 days a week. I am told in Harare, Zimbabwe there are 24-hour morgues. For Africa's children, it may be most horrifying of all. Eighty-seven percent of the world's HIV-positive children live in Africa. According to World Bank President James Wolfensohn, the disease has left 10 million African orphans in its wake. Their lives are that continent's future. Their chronic illness and their deaths each day erode a little more of Africa's promise. It is difficult to see how the United States can enjoy mutually beneficial trade relations with Africa unless we commit ourselves to addressing the HIV/AIDS crisis on a scale beyond anything we have done before. In Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe, 25 percent of the people between the ages of 15 and 19 are HIV positive. One report by ING Barings, an investment bank, said that almost 19 percent of all skilled workers in South Africa will have HIV by 2015. To make matters worse, food production in southern Africa has been impacted by the crisis. For example, maize production in Zimbabwe declined 61 percent last year due to illness and death from AIDS. By 2010, sub-Saharan Africa will have 71 million fewer people than it would have had if there had been no AIDS epidemic. My recent trip to ten African countries only renewed my resolve to address this matter with the urgency and seriousness it deserves. When we were in Namibia, I saw a group of HIV-positive citizens pull up to a meeting in a van with curtained windows, and they hurried to the safety of the meeting room as soon as they arrived. They were fearful. They were afraid that their identity would be revealed, and that the stigma still attached to the disease would cause them to lose their jobs and maybe even to be disowned by their own families. It was shocking--in a country gripped by the epidemic, people are still afraid to acknowledge the crisis. In Zambia I visited an orphanage of sorts, where 500 children, many of them orphaned when AIDS killed their parents, gathered by day. This isn't even an orphanage where you get to stay at night. It is just a place where a bunch of kids who don't have any parents hang out during the day before they go out to the streets at night to sleep. At night, there is only room for 50 of them--the rest must make their own arrangements, and many end up sleeping on the streets, sometimes prostituting themselves--thereby risking exposure to HIV in their own struggle to survive. By the end of this year, an astonishing 10.4 million African children under 15 will have lost their mothers or both parents to AIDS--90 percent of the global total of AIDS orphans. In Zimbabwe, some estimates indicate that life expectancy has precipitously dropped from 65 to 39 years. Let me repeat that: life expectancy in Zimbabwe dropped from 65 to 39. Walking past the Parliament building one day, I asked how old one had to be to become a legislator there in Zimbabwe. What was the answer? The answer was 40. Life expectancy is 39, but you have to be 40 to be elected to the legislature. That exchange helped me to grasp how far-reaching the consequences of this disease really are--no society is structured in a way that prepares it to deal with an unchecked epidemic like AIDS. In southern Africa, life expectancy at birth is dropping at a frightening rate. According to one recent U.N. report, expected life spans in the region will drop from 59 years in the early 1990s to just 45 by the year 2010. In July 1999, the National Institutes of Health released a report on the effectiveness of a drug called nevirapine--NVP--in preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV. Studies indicate that this drug can reduce the risk of mother-to-child transmission by more than 50 percent. NVP is given just once to the mother during labor and once to the baby within 3 days after birth. It cost $4 per tablet. This relatively simple and inexpensive drug regimen has created an unprecedented opportunity for international cooperation in the fight against the vertical transmission of HIV. And Uganda is making real headway with regard to prevention. There was a time in Uganda when, of the women coming to the reproductive health clinics, 35 to 40 percent of them tested positive for HIV. But since 1992, the Ugandan Government's very frank and high-profile public education efforts have helped to reduce the incidence of HIV infection by more than 15 percent. Uganda has shown that something can be done. Uganda has demonstrated that prevention can work. But despite these positive signs, there are many fronts on which there has been very little progress. Virtually no one has access to drugs to treat the disease. Prevention is unquestionably the most important element of the equation, but treatment cannot be ignored. Poverty should not be a death sentence--not when the infectious disease that is destroying African society can be treated. The AIDS crisis in Africa is exactly what the TRIPS agreement was meant to address. This is a crisis, an emergency on an incomprehensibly vast scale. This is the rare and urgent situation that calls for something beyond a dogmatic approach to intellectual property rights. If allowing for a TRIPS-compliant response seems expensive, just think how expensive it will be, in the long run, not to do so. Even beyond the human tragedy, there are vast economic costs to this epidemic. AIDS affects the most productive segment of society. It is turning the future leaders of the region into a generation of orphans. It is simply unconscionable for the U.S. Government to fight the legal efforts of African states to save their people from this plague. I cannot imagine why any of my colleagues would support such action. Those dissatisfied with the TRIPS agreement should focus their efforts on changing it--not on twisting the arms of countries in crisis who seek only to protect their people from sickness and death in a manner that complies fully with international law. Again, how could the irresponsible and callous decision to strip the Feinstein-Feingold amendment from the conference have been made? I have some idea, as I said before. Some may have bowed to the pressure of the pharmaceutical industry. And some members just don't get it. But this body has to ``get it.'' We don't have time to posture while HIV infects more than 15,000 young people each day, and the most productive segment of a society is wiped out by disease. We cannot waste precious legislative opportunities as millions of orphans grow up on Africa's streets, without any guidance or education. After witnessing the shocking violence that resulted, in large part, from the masterful manipulation of disenfranchised youth in West Africa over the last decade, I think we all have to take this threat seriously, and acknowledge that the threat is fueled each day by the withering scourge of AIDS that today is galloping through so much of Africa and other parts of the developing world. Mr. President, until recently this Senate has been moving in the right direction on these issues. I have been pleased to work with many of my colleagues in a bipartisan effort--I do want to mention in particular the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Tennessee for his efforts in this regard--we have worked together to raise the profile of the epidemic and to work toward a comprehensive package aimed at addressing this crisis. It disturbs me a great deal to think that Members of this body have somehow failed to hear us, or perhaps refused to listen. As long as we fail to grasp the magnitude of the epidemic and its consequences, AIDS will continue to take its terrible toll on families and communities, on economies, and on stability around the world. And as long as we pass legislation like AGOA, we fail to seriously address virtually every crucial aspect of our trade relationship with sub- Saharan Africa. Everytime we make this kind of weak attempt to improve our trade relationship with Africa, we admit that we are willing to dismiss African countries' problems, and that we are comfortable ignoring the continent's boundless promise. I care deeply about Africa and about U.S. policy towards Africa, and my colleagues know that. But I am here today not just because of my own concerns, but because of others--because I know how deeply they care about Africa, and I have heard them voice their very serious concerns about AGOA. African-American leaders ranging from Cornel West to Randall Robinson have opposed the African Growth and Opportunity Act. Last year, a group of African-American Ministers representing communities from Massachusetts and Mississippi, California and New Jersey, Virginia and Illinois came to Capitol Hill to express their opposition to the African Growth and Opportunity Act. I would like to submit the statement of Reverend Alexander Hurt of the Hurt Inner-City Ministries for the Record. Here is what he said. I have never fully felt like an American until the day that I watched my President land in the land of my fathers. It was like introducing two old friends to each other. That the AGOA is in any way associated with that trip is saddest part of this debate. There are millions of African-Americans who, like me, connect the President's trip of Africa with a start of a new kind of relationship between not only Africa and America, but Africa and the West. AGOA closes that possibility. For it represents not a new future, but a return to the past. America in a period of abundance that is unknown in human history, can not be moved to reach out to Africa to help starving nations. In the end we must decide if we will have a foreign policy that reaches out with a hand toward nations as equals, or with a hammer and pound them into subjection. Few things have changed with America's position toward Africa. What was once done with the canon and the gun is now being done with medicine and debt. I have heard African voices raise the alarm about AGOA as well as American ones. The Congress of South African Trade Unions, COSATU, has issued a statement opposing the African Growth and Opportunity Act. A statement issued by 35 African NGOs--including Angola's Journalists for the Environment and Development, Kenya's African Academy of Sciences, South Africa's International People's Health Council and Zambia's Foundation for Economic Progress--strongly opposed AGOA. Women's groups have spoken out as well. WiLDAF--Women in Law Development in Africa, a coalition of African women and women's advocacy groups, opposes the African Growth and Opportunity Act, as does Women's EDGE, a coalition of international development organizations and domestic women's groups. The Africa-America Institute organized focus group discussions in eight African countries and the U.S. to foster discussion of proposed U.S.-Africa trade legislation. They found that AGOA will not contribute to African development unless the U.S. and other donor countries also increase investments in African human resource development and take measures to relieve Africa's debt burden. I know that others have voiced support for AGOA, and I don't question their motives. Some of those supporters believe that this is the only game in town, and that a deeply flawed Africa trade bill is better than no bill at all. They are wrong. This bill should not become law. Originally, I tried to make this bill better. I proposed alternative legislation, the HOPE for Africa Act. It was based largely on the efforts of my colleague from the House, Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., who has been an important leader on this issue. The provisions of the HOPE bill pointed the way toward a more comprehensive and a more responsible U.S.-Africa trade policy. Mr. President, I wanted to amend AGOA to make goods listed under the Lome Convention eligible for duty-free access to the U.S., provided those goods are not determined to be import-sensitive by the President. These provisions would mean more trade opportunities for more African people. My proposals clearly spelled out the labor rights that our trade partners must enforce in order to receive benefits. They also contained a monitoring procedure that involves the International Federation of Trade Unions, so that violations would not be glossed over at the expense of African workers. I proposed stronger human rights language, and incentives for foreign companies operating in Africa to bring their environmental practices there up to the standards that they adhere to at home. I proposed tough transshipment protections that give American entities a stake in the legality of the products they import. I wanted to be sure that Africans and Americans really would benefit from our U.S.-Africa trade policy. In that same vein, I proposed that trade benefits be contingent upon the level of African content in products and the employment of African workers. I proposed that the U.S. re-assert its commitment to responsible, well-monitored development assistance for Africa. Mr. President, I would have been irresponsible not to propose changes to AGOA to address the factors crippling Africa's economic potential today--debt, HIV/AIDS, and corruption. I urged this Senate to include anti-corruption provisions, to address debt relief, to prioritize HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, and to address the issue of Africa's intellectual property laws, to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are not spent to undermine the legal efforts of some African countries to gain and retain access to low-cost pharmaceuticals. Mr. President, if all of this sounds ambitious, it was. Any plan to seriously engage economically with Africa must be ambitious. We must be willing to do what is necessary to knock down the obstacles to a healthy, thriving and just commercial relationship between the countries of Africa and the U.S. The bill before us falls far short of the minimum meaningful effort. The rhetoric that surrounds the African Growth and Opportunity Act is certainly ambitious. It is the content that is insufficient. We must demand more of a U.S.-Africa trade bill than AGOA has to offer. Ambitious plans can lead to rich rewards for both America and Africa. Every time we turn our backs on a strong economic partnership with African nations, we pass up an opportunity to bring stability, democracy, and prosperity to the continent. We can do better than this, Mr. President. We must do better. We have veered dangerously off course with this legislation and with this conference report. It is time to reconsider this bill and the direction of U.S.-Africa policy because, very simply, our current course promises failure of U.S. policy toward Africa and decades more of despair and lost opportunity for Africa's people. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent, at the conclusion of my remarks, a Republican Senator be recognized to speak, if one seeks recognition, and that Senator Hollings be the next speaker recognized to speak thereafter.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me first thank the managers for allowing us the opportunity to introduce our bill at this time. I especially thank my friend, the Senator from Maine, for taking the lead on this issue with me. She is a very effective Senator on many issues, and is specially effective, I think, when it comes to the concerns of rural people in Maine and throughout the country about an issue which is incredibly important-- first aid. I also thank the Presiding Officer, the junior Senator from Rhode Island, for joining us and cosponsoring the bill. I rise today with Senator Collins to introduce the Rural Access to Emergency Devices Act. This legislation provides a first step to helping save the lives of the more than 250,000 people who die each year from sudden cardiac arrest. Every two minutes, someone in America falls into sudden cardiac arrest--a medical emergency in which the heart's rhythm becomes so erratic it can not pump blood to the brain and other vital organs. According to the American Heart Association, over 250,000 Americans die each year from sudden cardiac arrest. That is 700 deaths each day-- a startlingly large number. Overall heart disease kills more Americans than AIDS, cancer, and diabetes combined. In my home state of Wisconsin, as in many other states, heart disease is the number one killer. Ninety-five sudden deaths from cardiac arrest occur each day in Wisconsin. These numbers are disturbing by any measure, but they are especially troubling because they don't need to be this high. By taking some relatively simple steps, we can give victims of cardiac arrest a better chance of survival, particularly in rural areas. Cardiac arrest victims are in a race against time, and today I'm introducing a bill to increase access to defibrillators, that are essential to reviving cardiac arrest victims. Cardiac arrest strikes its unwilling victims with no warnings or indications. In most cases it's all but impossible to predict who will have a sudden cardiac arrest, or where and when it will happen. Cardiac arrest can strike anyone. When cardiac arrest occurs, the victim loses consciousness, has no pulse and stops breathing normally. Death often occurs within minutes. Cardiac arrest does not discriminate against age, gender, or race. A recent issue of Women's Day magazine detailed a number of cases in which a variety of people suffered from cardiac arrest. The article tells about a 24-year-old woman, a writer for a Seattle comedy show, who suffered from cardiac arrest after watching her favorite television show. Another victim was a 48-year-old women who was out for a birthday dinner with her husband and friend. Yet another individual, only 31 years of age, suffered cardiac arrest at his computer programing job in Minnesota. What these victims have in common is that all three survived. Each was saved because a properly trained person was there with an automated external defibrillator (AED). These life saving machines are compact, portable, battery-operated versions of the machines that were traditionally only in the hands of emergency medical personnel. Wisconsin's Emergency Medical Services are some of the finest in the country. They are effectively trained to identify victims and determine when a shock is needed. There are countless stories of quick EMS responses that have saved so many lives. 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's simply not possible to have EMS units next to every farm and small town across the nation. Fortunately, recent technological advances have made the newest generation of AEDs inexpensive--approximately $3,000--and simple to operate. Because of these advancements in AED technology, it is now practical to train and equip fire department personnel, police officers, and other community organizations--and that's exactly what this legislation would do. But let me be clear, I think they are only one part of the so-called chain of survival. This chart indicates the four crucial aspects of the chain of survival, which is a proven method to save lives. The first link in the chain is simple: it is vitally important that cardiac arrest victims have early access to care. When someone suffers from cardiac arrest, it's crucial that bystanders dial 911 to dispatch the appropriate emergency personnel to the scene. The next link is early CPR--if performed properly, it will at least buy a few minutes to perform defibrillation. Let me be clear though, effective CPR does not replace defibrillation in saving lives. The critical link in the chain of survival for victims of cardiac arrest is early defibrillation. Mr. President, each minute of the delay in returning the heart to its normal pattern of beating decreases the chance of survival by 10 percent. The final link in the chain is early access to advanced care--it is literally of vital significance. Even after successful defibrillation, many patients require more advanced treatment on the way to the hospital. By passing this legislation, and increasing access to defibrillators, we have the chance to strengthen the more important link in the chain of survival. Communities across America are in dire need of better access to defibrillators. Making AEDs widely available so that trained laypeople can use them to administer shocks to cardiac arrest victims will go a long way toward saving lives. In fact, the American Heart Association estimates that over 50,000 lives could be saved each year if AEDs were more readily accessible. This next chart illustrates a startling statistic I mentioned a moment ago--for every minute that passes a cardiac arrest victim is defibrillated, the chance of survival falls by as much as 10 percent. After only eight minutes, the victims survival rate drops 60 percent. Our legislation, the Access to Emergency Devices Act of 2000 takes a common sense approach to strengthen this chain of survival. This legislation provides $25 million to expand access to devices that can save lives across rural America. It also provides for training grants to give people the training they need to learn how to operate defibrillators. And I have learned that training is very important, but also that nearly anyone can be taught to make proper use of a defibrillator. Cities across America have begun to recognize the value of fast access to defibrillators and are making them available to emergency responders. This legislation recognizes that rural communities should have the same chance to improve cardiac arrest survival rates. Because the first emergency responders on the scene of a cardiac arrest may not always be the medical responders, our legislation makes resources available to rural communities to purchase AEDs for police and fire as well as emergency response vehicles--and our bill also provides funds for the training that will sustain the lifesaving effect of these grants. Cardiac arrest can be a killer. But if we give people in rural communities a chance, they may be able to stop a cardiac arrest before it takes another life. Our bill is a simple and effective way to increase the availability of defibrillators, and give rural victims of cardiac arrest a better chance of survival, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me first thank the managers for allowing us the opportunity to introduce our bill at this time. I especially thank my friend, the Senator from Maine, for taking the lead on this issue with me. She is a very effective Senator on many issues, and is specially effective, I think, when it comes to the concerns of rural people in Maine and throughout the country about an issue which is incredibly important-- first aid. I also thank the Presiding Officer, the junior Senator from Rhode Island, for joining us and cosponsoring the bill. I rise today with Senator Collins to introduce the Rural Access to Emergency Devices Act. This legislation provides a first step to helping save the lives of the more than 250,000 people who die each year from sudden cardiac arrest. Every two minutes, someone in America falls into sudden cardiac arrest--a medical emergency in which the heart's rhythm becomes so erratic it can not pump blood to the brain and other vital organs. According to the American Heart Association, over 250,000 Americans die each year from sudden cardiac arrest. That is 700 deaths each day-- a startlingly large number. Overall heart disease kills more Americans than AIDS, cancer, and diabetes combined. In my home state of Wisconsin, as in many other states, heart disease is the number one killer. Ninety-five sudden deaths from cardiac arrest occur each day in Wisconsin. These numbers are disturbing by any measure, but they are especially troubling because they don't need to be this high. By taking some relatively simple steps, we can give victims of cardiac arrest a better chance of survival, particularly in rural areas. Cardiac arrest victims are in a race against time, and today I'm introducing a bill to increase access to defibrillators, that are essential to reviving cardiac arrest victims. Cardiac arrest strikes its unwilling victims with no warnings or indications. In most cases it's all but impossible to predict who will have a sudden cardiac arrest, or where and when it will happen. Cardiac arrest can strike anyone. When cardiac arrest occurs, the victim loses consciousness, has no pulse and stops breathing normally. Death often occurs within minutes. Cardiac arrest does not discriminate against age, gender, or race. A recent issue of Women's Day magazine detailed a number of cases in which a variety of people suffered from cardiac arrest. The article tells about a 24-year-old woman, a writer for a Seattle comedy show, who suffered from cardiac arrest after watching her favorite television show. Another victim was a 48-year-old women who was out for a birthday dinner with her husband and friend. Yet another individual, only 31 years of age, suffered cardiac arrest at his computer programing job in Minnesota. What these victims have in common is that all three survived. Each was saved because a properly trained person was there with an automated external defibrillator (AED). These life saving machines are compact, portable, battery-operated versions of the machines that were traditionally only in the hands of emergency medical personnel. Wisconsin's Emergency Medical Services are some of the finest in the country. They are effectively trained to identify victims and determine when a shock is needed. There are countless stories of quick EMS responses that have saved so many lives. 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's simply not possible to have EMS units next to every farm and small town across the nation. Fortunately, recent technological advances have made the newest generation of AEDs inexpensive--approximately $3,000--and simple to operate. Because of these advancements in AED technology, it is now practical to train and equip fire department personnel, police officers, and other community organizations--and that's exactly what this legislation would do. But let me be clear, I think they are only one part of the so-called chain of survival. This chart indicates the four crucial aspects of the chain of survival, which is a proven method to save lives. The first link in the chain is simple: it is vitally important that cardiac arrest victims have early access to care. When someone suffers from cardiac arrest, it's crucial that bystanders dial 911 to dispatch the appropriate emergency personnel to the scene. The next link is early CPR--if performed properly, it will at least buy a few minutes to perform defibrillation. Let me be clear though, effective CPR does not replace defibrillation in saving lives. The critical link in the chain of survival for victims of cardiac arrest is early defibrillation. Mr. President, each minute of the delay in returning the heart to its normal pattern of beating decreases the chance of survival by 10 percent. The final link in the chain is early access to advanced care--it is literally of vital significance. Even after successful defibrillation, many patients require more advanced treatment on the way to the hospital. By passing this legislation, and increasing access to defibrillators, we have the chance to strengthen the more important link in the chain of survival. Communities across America are in dire need of better access to defibrillators. Making AEDs widely available so that trained laypeople can use them to administer shocks to cardiac arrest victims will go a long way toward saving lives. In fact, the American Heart Association estimates that over 50,000 lives could be saved each year if AEDs were more readily accessible. This next chart illustrates a startling statistic I mentioned a moment ago--for every minute that passes a cardiac arrest victim is defibrillated, the chance of survival falls by as much as 10 percent. After only eight minutes, the victims survival rate drops 60 percent. Our legislation, the Access to Emergency Devices Act of 2000 takes a common sense approach to strengthen this chain of survival. This legislation provides $25 million to expand access to devices that can save lives across rural America. It also provides for training grants to give people the training they need to learn how to operate defibrillators. And I have learned that training is very important, but also that nearly anyone can be taught to make proper use of a defibrillator. Cities across America have begun to recognize the value of fast access to defibrillators and are making them available to emergency responders. This legislation recognizes that rural communities should have the same chance to improve cardiac arrest survival rates. Because the first emergency responders on the scene of a cardiac arrest may not always be the medical responders, our legislation makes resources available to rural communities to purchase AEDs for police and fire as well as emergency response vehicles--and our bill also provides funds for the training that will sustain the lifesaving effect of these grants. Cardiac arrest can be a killer. But if we give people in rural communities a chance, they may be able to stop a cardiac arrest before it takes another life. Our bill is a simple and effective way to increase the availability of defibrillators, and give rural victims of cardiac arrest a better chance of survival, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep disappointment in the failure of the conferees to the African Growth and Opportunity Act to accept the Feinstein-Feingold amendment regarding HIV/AIDS drugs in Africa. When the Senate was debating that legislation last year, Senator Feinstein and I offered our amendment, which was accepted by the bill's managers, Senators Roth and Moynihan, to address a critically important issue--an issue relating to Africa's devastating AIDS crisis; an issue that has cast a dark shadow on U.S.- African relations in the past. Our amendment was simple. It prohibited the United States Government or any agent of the United States Government from pressuring African countries to revoke or change laws aimed at increasing access to HIV/ AIDS drugs, so long as the laws in question adhere to existing international regulations governing trade. Quite simply, our amendment told the executive branch to stop twisting arms of African countries that are using legal means to improve access to HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals for their people. The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or TRIPS, allows for compulsory licensing in cases of national emergency. Approximately 13 million African lives have been lost since the onset of the crisis. According to the Rockefeller Foundation's recent report, ``on statistics alone, young people from the most affected countries in Africa are more likely than not to perish of AIDS.'' Consider that: more likely than not to perish. If these do not constitute emergency conditions, then I don't know what does. This was a very modest amendment to begin with, but the final version of the amendment discussed by the conferees was a true compromise. It was not as strong as I would have liked it to be. But it did push our policy closer to the right thing. I want to take this opportunity to thank Senator Feinstein, Senator Moynihan, Senator Roth, and their staffs for working so hard on this amendment. Senator Feinstein was a tireless advocate on this issue, and I have no doubt that she will continue to fight, as will I, for the right thing when it comes to access to HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals. And Senator Roth, in particular, made it a priority to hammer out this issue, and I thank him for that. But despite these efforts, despite the concessions that Senator Feinstein and I made, despite the fact that this is the right thing to do, the Feinstein-Feingold amendment was stripped in conference. The opposition to our amendment is baffling. How do the conferees who killed this provision justify pressuring these countries, where in some cases life expectancies have dropped by more than 15 years, not to use all legal means at their disposal to care for their citizens? Without broader access to these drugs in Africa, more people will suffer, more people will die--that is a simple fact. As I said on this floor not long ago, I cannot imagine that ordinary Americans are urging their representatives to oppose the Feinstein- Feingold amendment. I cannot imagine that anyone would try to prevail upon my colleagues to oppose this measure--except perhaps for pharmaceutical companies. The pharmaceutical industry does not fear losing customers in Africa, because they know that Africans simply cannot afford their prices. But they do fear that taking this modest step in this time of crisis could somehow, in some ill-defined scenario in the future, cut into their bottom line. This is the same pharmaceutical and medical supplies industry that gave more than $4 million in PAC money contributions and more than $6.5 million in soft money contributions in 1997 and 1998. How could this irresponsible and callous decision to strip the Feinstein-Feingold amendment from the conference have been made? I have some idea. Some may have bowed to the pressure of the pharmaceutical industry. And some members just don't get it. In particular, some of the public comments about this issue made over the weekend by a leading Member of this body demonstrated such a misunderstanding of the problem that they cannot go unanswered. Over the weekend, some troubling remarks were made about the administration's recognition that HIV/AIDS, an infectious disease that currently affects 34 million people worldwide, is a security issue. First, a leader of this body disputed the fact that AIDS is a security issue. He is wrong. Anyone who believes that a dramatic drop in population, a massive reversal in economic growth, a societal disruption of unprecedented proportions, an entire generation of orphans growing up on the streets--anyone who believes that those things are not destabilizing is terribly misguided. Anyone who does not understand that the U.S. will be profoundly affected by the terrible consequences of AIDS in the developing world had better think again. But it didn't stop there. It went further. It was suggested that the administration is using the issue cynically to appeal to ``certain groups'' who were not identified. Is it pandering to ``certain groups'' to stand up and say that a disease that infects more than 15,000 young people each day is an issue of grave concern? Is it political posturing to get serious about the massive destabilization that can occur when the most productive segment of a society is wiped out by disease? Is it only some mysterious narrow constituency that is concerned about the prospect of millions of orphans growing up on the streets, without any guidance or education? After witnessing the shocking violence that resulted, in large part, from the masterful manipulation of disenfranchised youth in West Africa over the last decade, I think we all have to take this threat seriously, and acknowledge that the threat is fueled each day by the withering scourge of AIDS that today is galloping through so much of the developing world. Let me just paint a portrait of the region most affected by AIDS-- sub-Saharan Africa. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Africa, I have always felt very strongly about the issue of AIDS in Africa. I have raised it in meetings with African heads of state. I applauded the U.N. Security Council's decision to address the crisis earlier this year. I support the administration's call to increase the resources directed at the crisis, and I am glad that the U.S. is finally getting serious about this threat. Thirteen million Africans have been killed by AIDS since the onset of the crisis, and according to World Bank President James Wolfensohn, the disease has left 10 million orphaned African children in its wake. In Botswana, Namibia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, 25 percent of the people between the ages of 15 and 19 are HIV positive. By 2010, sub-Saharan Africa will have 71 million fewer people than it would have had if there had been no AIDS epidemic. That is why we must acknowledge that the AIDS epidemic is becoming a crucial part of the context for all that happens in Africa and for all of our policy decisions about Africa. Until this week this Senate has been moving in the right direction on these issues. I have been pleased to work with many of my colleagues in a bipartisan effort to raise the profile of the epidemic and to work toward a comprehensive package aimed at addressing this crisis. It disturbs me a great deal to think that Members of this body have somehow failed to hear us, or perhaps refused to listen. This is not a partisan issue. It is deadly serious. I plead with all of my colleagues to look again at the AIDS epidemic in Africa and to consider its global implications. Those implications are fast becoming strategic and economic realities that will kill millions and drag down all of our efforts on international development and the promotion of freedom and stability around the world. We need to get our heads out of the sand right now, resist the impulse to gain partisan advantage, and join together to seek solutions to the AIDS crisis before we reap global disaster. U.S. policy on access to HIV/AIDS drugs will come up again in this body. All of the complex issues relating to this crisis--prevention strategies, care for orphans, mother to child transmission--none of these issues is going away. And while this Congress fails to do the right thing, while some fail to grasp the magnitude of the epidemic and its consequences, AIDS will continue to take its terrible toll on families and communities, on economies, and on stability around the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, Senator Dodd is not present. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized at this time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, following Senator Wellstone's excellent remarks on education, I want to speak on the bill before us. I rise to add my thoughts to this important debate about the future of the Federal role in the education of America's children. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act has shaped the Federal role in public elementary and secondary education for 35 years. Yesterday, we began the debate on a new 5-year reauthorization of this vital set of programs. This debate will also set the tone for the Federal role in education for the next 5 years and beyond. The legislation that this Congress passes this year will affect today's first graders well into their middle school years, and will carry today's eighth graders through to their high school commencements. We hold the future in our hands, Mr. President. It is our responsibility to find the right balance between local control and Federal targeting and accountability guidelines for the federal dollars that are so crucial to local school districts throughout the United States. Ninety percent of American children attend public schools. During the 1998-1999 school year, the most recent year for which statistics are available, more than 879,000 young people in my home State of Wisconsin were enrolled in public education, from pre-school through grade twelve. I am a graduate of the Wisconsin public schools, and my children have also attended them. Mr. President, just a few short years ago the members of the other body considered eliminating the federal Department of Education all together. Some tried to evoke the specter of a federal takeover of one of the basic responsibilities of local governments--the education of our children. But those voices have faded in recent years as the Department of Education, under the dedicated leadership of Secretary Richard Riley, has regained the confidence of the American people and dispelled the charge that it was out to usurp the authority of the local school districts and the states. I am deeply concerned by the persistent calls by some in Congress and elsewhere for a drastically limited federal involvement in our children's education. While I strongly support maintaining local control over decisions affecting our children's day-to-day classroom experiences, I am concerned about the lack of appropriated targeting of funds and accountability for results in the bill that is currently before the Senate. Mr. President, the legislation before us today has generated vigorous debate in my home state of Wisconsin. I have heard from parents, teachers, school board members, school administrators, school counselors and social workers, state officials, and other interested observers. And there is one central theme in their comments: The United States Congress must not undermine the targeting and accountability measures that currently exist at the Federal level. These provisions are paramount to ensuring that no students are left behind and that all schools perform up to the standards set by the states and by local school districts. I have also heard from a number of my constituents that this Congress should do nothing that would undermine all the good that the federal government's support has helped the states and local school districts achieve in public education over the last several years, in areas including smaller class sizes, technology education, standards-based reform, and accountability for results. The education community in my state is also deeply concerned--and I share this concern--about provisions in this legislation that would shift scarce Federal dollars away from the public schools they are intended to support. I fear that this disturbing trend toward block granting and vouchers will further widen the educational divide in which too many of our students are caught. We need to focus our scarce resources on rebuilding and reforming our public schools, not on tearing them down. I worry that this block grant and voucher-driven weeding-out process will leave behind the most vulnerable students--those from low-income families, those with special needs, those at-risk for dropping out, and those with behavioral problems--those very students that title I was created to help. We cannot and must not abandon our most at-risk students in dilapidated schools with outdated textbooks and few resources. We can and must do better for all of our children. The answer is not to funnel scarce resources away from the public school systems that have served this country so well for so long. And those who think vouchers will lead to real school choice are sadly mistaken. Private schools are already full to capacity and many have extensive waiting lists. We cannot simply shift students from public schools to private schools and think that all of the problems will magically disappear. Mr. President, we will hear a lot of terms batted back and forth during this debate.--Accountability. Flexibility. Targeting. Parental involvement. Class size. Construction and maintenance. Teacher quality. Professional development. After-school programs. Education technology. School choice. School reform.--These concepts are at the heart of this debate. The question lies in how these terms are defined. I sincerely hope that the members of this body will be able to leave behind the partisan rancor that unfortunately pervaded the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee's consideration of this bill and come together to do what is best for all of our Nation's children. I would like to take this opportunity to discuss some of my own priorities--and those of my constituents--for this important piece of legislation: class size, targeting, professional development, music and the arts, and the impact of this bill on preparation for post-secondary education and entrance into the job market. I regret that this bill as reported by the HELP Committee does not contain the authorization for the funds necessary to implement the third year of the President's initiative to reduce class size in the earliest grades. And I particularly regret that this commonsense proposal was defeated in committee on a straight party-line vote. My home State of Wisconsin is a leader in the effort to reduce class size in kindergarten through third grade. The Student Achievement Guarantee in Education program is a statewide effort to reduce class size in kindergarten through third grade to 15 students. The SAGE program began during the 1996-1997 school year with 30 participating schools in 21 school districts. Now in the program's fourth year, there are 78 participating schools in 46 school districts. According to the recently-released program evaluation for the 1998- 1999 school year, conducted by the SAGE Evaluation Team at the University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee: First grade students in SAGE classrooms statistically outperformed their peers in comparison schools in language arts, math, and total scores on the post-tests administered in May of 1999. And twenty-nine of the thirty top-performing classrooms for which two years of data were available are SAGE classrooms. Case studies conducted at three SAGE schools during the 1998-1999 school year found that, ``individualization is made possible because having fewer students enables teachers to know students better, it reduces the need for teachers to discipline students, which results in more time for instruction, and it increases teacher enthusiasm for teaching.'' The case study also found that: ``A product of individualization in reduced size classes in addition to academic development is student independence, thinking, and responsibility.'' The results speak for themselves, Mr. President. Smaller classes translate to better instruction and better achievement. I will support efforts to include this important program in this bill. As I noted earlier, one of the things that my constituents have repeatedly told me is that the targeting mechanisms that ensure that vital federal dollars reach those students who need them most are a crucial part of any ESEA reauthorization. Time and time again, my constituents have expressed opposition to any effort to block grant title I and other programs under ESEA. Title I pays for supplementary educational services for economically disadvantaged students, and those funds are targeted to the schools with the highest concentrations of eligible students. During the current school year, local school districts in my home State of Wisconsin will receive more than $125 million in title I funding. According to the Department of Education, ninety-five percent of the nation's highest-poverty schools receive this vital title I funding. I am deeply concerned about the so-called ``portability'' provisions in this bill, which would allow ten states and twenty local education agencies in other states to distribute their Title I money on a per- pupil basis rather than to the schools with the greatest need. This funding formula would allow parents to choose to use their child's share of these ``portable grants'' for supplementary services at their public school or for private tutoring services, which could be provided by private or religious schools. This formula will all but ensure that those schools with the highest concentration of poor children in the ten states and twenty districts using the portable grants will no longer be able to count on this crucial Title I support. And this provision also raises serious constitutional questions about the use of public funds for tutoring provided by non-public sources. In addition, there is no clear way to determine accountability for the success of those children whose parents opt for non-public tutoring services. I will support efforts to eliminate the portability language and ensure that Title I funding continues to be targeted to the schools with the highest concentrations of low-income students. I have also heard a great deal about the importance of federal dollars for professional development for teachers, administrators, principals, and school counselors and social workers. We must do everything we can to ensure that teachers and other school professionals have access to the resources they need to continue their professional development. We often hear people say that we should encourage our children to become ``lifetime learners.'' We must also ensure that those who educate our children have access to quality professional development programs that enhance their effectiveness and give them access to the latest methods in teaching, administration, and counseling. In that same regard, we must ensure that our children have the opportunity to receive a well-rounded education that is both academically challenging and rich in opportunities to study music and the arts. I am deeply concerned that many school systems around the country have decided to eliminate, or to severely scale back, their arts education programs. Research has shown that arts education can help students to become better learners in all subject areas. The arts given students the opportunity to express themselves in ways that are distinct from those provided by the academic subjects. Students learn valuable lessons including cooperation, hard work, dedication, and the desire to strive for excellence--lessons that will help them in other areas of their education and in other aspects of their lives. We must do all we can to prevent local school systems from having to choose between maintaining the arts as a vital part of their curriculum or building a new science lab. Both are important for our students, and one should not have to be sacrificed to have the other. Finally, Mr. President, we must ensure that high school graduates have the skills they need to be successful adults, whether they choose to go on to college, technical school, the military, or into the job market. I am pleased that the HELP Committee adopted an amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, which authorizes additional funding to expand a very successful existing program which increases access to Advanced Placement classes and exams. It is extremely important that we continue to strive to give all students, regardless of their economic status, access to these challenging academic courses. And it is important that the Congress also help to provide the financial assistance that so many students need to continue their education. For that reason, I will continue my efforts, along with the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and others, to increase the individual maximum Pell Grant award by $400. Mr. President, I wish to again remind my colleagues that this bill currently before us will affect 90 percent of the school-aged children in this country. While many of them have never even heard of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, they will feel the impact of its pending reauthorization in their classrooms beginning next fall. I welcome this important debate. I hope that we can produce a truly bipartisan bill that will provide the financial assistance that our children deserve and the appropriate targeting and accountability measures that our states and local school districts continue to call for. And I hope we will do this without creating a system of block grants and back-door vouchers that will leave our most vulnerable children behind. I thank the chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased that Senator Wellstone is on the floor at this point. I want to join my colleagues and speak regarding our good friend, Mike Epstein, and I send my thoughts to Mike as well. This is a wonderful place to work in the Senate and in this community. But it is a tough town. Mike Epstein is one of the warmest, best people I have ever met. For a while, I was a little jealous that he worked for Senator Wellstone, until I found out that Senator Wellstone, with Mike Epstein, is a team operation. Whenever I needed encouragement out here and Paul wasn't around, or somebody from my office, all I had to do is turn back and look at Mike who would give me a warm smile and good advice. He is a good friend. I am proud to be associated with Mike and to have worked with him over the years. I thank Paul very much for giving us this opportunity.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the memory of Grace Walsh of Eau Claire, WI, who passed away on Monday, April 24. I will remember Grace as a wonderful person and brilliant teacher, someone who taught me lessons in debate and in life that I have relied on so often throughout my career in public service. Grace coached her debate team to six national championships at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, where she co-founded the Speech Department and served as both a professor and director of forensics. During the summer of 1970 when I was still in high school, I was lucky enough to study debate with Grace at the Eau Claire Debate Institute. Grace was a consummate teacher who brought out the best in her students, and a fierce competitor who built a debating dynasty in Eau Claire. With warmth, wit, and a mastery of forensics, Grace quickly won her students' respect. While small in size, Grace was commanding in stature, thanks to her keen understanding of how to coach winning debaters. ``Always slip them the blade nicely,'' she told us. Many years after I attended that summer debating program at Eau Claire, I saw Grace again. I gave a talk in Eau Claire after I won an upset victory in the Democratic primary in 1992, and who was in the front row but Grace Walsh, urging me again to ``slip them the blade nicely, Russell.'' She was still coaching me, and displaying a love of debate that made her a coaching legend in Wisconsin and around the country. Grace passed away last week at the age of 89, but her spirit lives on through all those who knew her and had the opportunity to learn from her. As her student, I am grateful for her guidance, and as a Wisconsinite, I am proud of her many achievements. Her work did honor to our state, and I think it only fitting that we pause to honor and remember her here today.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues may remember, during the first session of this Congress I initiated the Calling of the Bankroll. It is a time when I come to the floor to chronicle the massive amount of PAC and soft money pumped into the campaign finance system by donors looking to influence the work we do here on this floor. I called the bankroll many times last year--19 times, to be exact. And I included not just donations by business interests but from interests on both sides of these debates, including trial lawyers and gun control advocates. Last year when I began my Calling of the Bankroll effort, I did so because I thought it was time for someone in this body finally to talk about what we all think about and what the American people really are quite angry about; and that is, how money can influence what we do here and how we do it. I know that this is an uncomfortable topic, and I know full well that there are some who would prefer that I stop Calling the Bankroll--that there are those who wish that I would stop putting the spotlight on facts that reflect poorly on our system, and in turn on the Senate, and on both major political parties. I have to tell you, Mr. President, no one wishes I could stop Calling the Bankroll as much as I do. I wish wealthy interests with business before this body didn't have unlimited ability to give money to our political parties through the soft money loophole, but they do. I wish these big donors weren't able to buy special access to our political leaders through meetings and weekend retreats set up by the parties, but they can. I wish fundraising skills and personal wealth weren't some of the most sought-after qualities in a candidate for Congress today, but everyone knows that they are. Most of all, I wish that these facts didn't paint a picture of Government so corrupt and so awash in the influence of money that the American people, especially young people, have turned away from their Government in disgust, but every one of us knows that they have. But I also know something else: that we have the power to change this embarrassing state of affairs. Here in the Senate we have the power to show the American people that we have the will to shut down the soft money system. As I said, I Called the Bankroll 19 times last year--and I could have done it even more times. Unfortunatey there is never a shortage of material. When I Call the Bankroll I describe how much money the various interests lobbying on a particular bill have spent on campaign contributions to influence our decisions. I Called the Bankroll on: A mining rider to emergency supplemental appropriations, the gun control amendments to the juvenile justice bill, the Super Hornet amendment to DoD authorization, the Y2K liability legislation, the Patients' Bill of Rights--we did it twice on that, China/NTR, the tobacco industry, last summer's tax bill, agriculture appropriations, the FCC rule on the siting of telecommunications towers, oil royalties--we did it twice on that one, consolidation in the railroad industry, the Passengers' Bill of Rights, the F-22 program, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, the Financial Services Modernization bill, and finally the Bankruptcy Reform Act. As I said, there was no shortage of material for calling the bankrolls. This year, it's time again to examine legislation before this body with an eye to the interests that seek to influence the legislative process. I have already begun that effort--I recently called the bankroll during the debate on the budget resolution. Of course, the budget process itself is tainted by the flood of money that flows to those of us who decide the nation's spending priorities. During that debate we addressed the question of whether or not we should drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and I called attention to the significant contributions by the companies with an interest in the outcome of that debate. Before that I also called the bankroll on the interests lobbying both sides of the nuclear waste debate. I talked about phony issue ads, PAC contributions, unlimited soft money contributions--the money that's always here, just beneath the surface of our debates. It's our unwillingness to discuss it or even acknowledge the influence of this money that speaks volumes about how uncomfortable so many of us are with the current campaign finance system. The purpose of the Calling of the Bankroll is to force this body to face up to the appearance of corruption the system causes and face up to our responsibility to do something about it. So I can assure my colleagues that I will keep Calling the Bankroll until we do something about the campaign finance system that causes the American people to question our motives when we act on legislation, and, I am afraid, to question the very integrity of this body and our democracy. And today they have more reason than ever to take a cynical view of our work. Because last year was another record-breaker in the annals of soft money fundraising--the national political party committees raised a record $107.2 million during the 1999 calendar year--81 percent more than they raised during the last comparable presidential election period in 1995, according to Common Cause. An 81 percent increase is astounding, especially considering that the year it's compared with--1995, the last off-election year preceding a presidential election--which was itself a record-breaking year for soft money fundraising. This year one of the most notable fundraising trends hits very close to home, or to the dome, as the case may be: Congressional campaign committees raised more than three times as much soft money during 1999 than they raised during 1995--$62 million compared to $19.4 million. That's a huge increase, Mr. President. It is three times as much soft money--much of it raised by Members of Congress. The latest reports show record-breaking soft money figures for the first quarter of the year 2000, as well. How should the public view this? What can we expect them to think as Members of Congress ask for these unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals, and then turn around and vote on legislation that directly affects those donors? Frankly Mr. President, it's all the more reason for Americans to question our integrity, whether those donations have an impact on our decisions or not. But we can regain some of the public's trust by doing one simple thing--banning soft money. On January 24, in its opinion in the Shrink Missouri case, the Supreme Court stated even more clearly to us that we may take that step today without the slightest offense to the First Amendment. I'll continue the fight to ban soft money this year, and ask every one of my colleagues to join me. The fight to ban soft money is a fight to regain the public's trust, and Mr. President, there's no fight in our democracy today more worthwhile than that. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.