Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, first, I compliment the wonderful statement by the Senator from Michigan in opposition to this amendment. On all issues I appreciate his knowledge and his understanding, and particularly his extremely clear way of presenting his views on this very important issue.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Alabama deals with the procedural matters I be recognized for 5 minutes and then Senator Feinstein be recognized following me for 15 minutes as in morning business.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am delighted to be here, along with the Senator from California, who I believe is one of the most determined and effective Members of the Senate, to talk about a very important matter. Last year, when this Senate was debating the African Growth and Opportunity Act, Senator Feinstein and I offered an amendment to that legislation, which was accepted by the bill's managers Senators Roth and Moynihan, to address to critically important issue--an issue relating to Africa's devastating AIDS crisis; an issue that has cast a dark shadow on US-African relations in the past. Our amendment was simple--and I want to clarify this point, because there has been some misleading characterizations of it in print recently. It prohibited 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 adhered 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. HIV/AIDS kills 5,500 Africans every day. 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.'' In contrast to this incredible crisis, is a very modest amendment. This year a number of our colleagues have offered very ambitious proposals--many of which I support--aimed at addressing the AIDS crisis in Africa because they have been moved by the severity of the crisis, by the scope of the devastation, by the human tragedy of millions lost to disease and a generation of orphans left in their wake. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently reported out legislation combining many of these efforts in one integrated plan to get serious about this crisis. Time and again, Members of this Senate on a bipartisan basis have stepped forward to implore their colleagues to do more to help. What is ironic is that this amendment was far less ambitious. It simply took a step toward requiring the United States to do no harm. Yet the conferees working on the African Growth and Opportunity Act are resisting this measure every step of the way. I find the resistance to this measure baffling. They try to skirt the issue, pointing out that prevention programs, not access to drugs, are the most important element in the fight against AIDS. I couldn't agree more. But why does the fact that the Feinstein- Feingold amendment addresses only one small piece of the puzzle prevent us from making it law? Why on earth should we forgo an opportunity to do no harm even as we strive to form a broader plan of action to do some good? How can anyone justify pressuring these countries, where in some cases life expectancies have dropped by more than fifteen years, not to use all legal means at their disposal to care for their citizens? I simply cannot understand it; I cannot imagine that ordinary Americans are urging their representatives to oppose the Feinstein- Feingold amendment. I cannot imagine that anyone would prevail upon my colleagues to oppose this measure--except perhaps for pharmaceutical companies, companies that know they would not lose customers in Africa, as Africans simply cannot afford their prices, but fear that this measure would somehow, somewhere down the road, affect their bottom line. The bottom line in Africa is that AIDS represents that worst infectious disease catastrophe since the bubonic plague. The bottom line is that this is a modest measure and it is the right thing to do. I along with the Senator from California, urge the conferees to support it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I believe under the previous order I will speak for 5 minutes, Senator Feinstein will have 15 minutes, and then Senator Wellstone will be recognized.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act of 2000. This bill would place an immediate pause on executions in the United States while a national, blue ribbon commission reviews the administration of the death penalty. Before one more execution is carried out, jurisdictions that impose the death penalty have an obligation to ensure that the sentence of death will be imposed with justice, fairness, and due process. I am pleased that my distinguished colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, has joined me as a cosponsor of this important initiative. If a particular aircraft crashed one out of every eight flights, Congress would act immediately to ground it. But as New York public defender Kevin Doyle says in the book, Actual Innocence, that is about what is happening now with the death penalty in this country. Since the reinstatement of the modern death penalty, 87 people have been freed from death row because they were later proven innocent. That is a demonstrated error rate of 1 innocent person for every 7 persons executed. When the consequences are life and death, we need to demand the same standard for our system of justice as we would for our airlines. Both supporters and opponents of the death penalty should be concerned about the flaws in the system by which we impose sentences of death. More than 3,600 inmates sit on State and Federal death rows around the country, while it becomes increasingly clear that innocent people are being put to death. A 1987 study found that between 1900 and 1985, 350 people convicted of capital crimes in the United States were innocent of the crimes charged. Some escaped execution by minutes. Regrettably, according to researchers Radelet and Bedau, 23 had their lives taken from them in error. In Illinois, since 1973, 13 innocent people have been freed from death row in the time that 12 were executed. Governor George Ryan, a supporter of the death penalty, has done two things in response: He has effectively imposed a moratorium on executions and established a blue ribbon commission to review the administration of capital punishment in Illinois. Governor Ryan and I are from different political parties, but we both recognize that the system by which we impose the death penalty is broken. Modern DNA testing of forensic evidence led to the exoneration of 5 of the 13 innocents freed from Illinois' death row and 8 of the 87 men and women who have been freed from death row nationwide since the 1970's. But Illinois and New York are the only states that currently provide some measure of access to DNA testing for death row inmates. My distinguished colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, has introduced a bill, the Innocence Protection Act, of which I am a co-sponsor, that would ensure access to DNA testing for all inmates on death row in the Federal system and the 38 States that impose the death penalty. That bill is an important initiative to help ensure that innocents are not condemned to death. I hope my colleagues will join Senator Leahy in moving this bill forward. But, as Governor Ryan and others have recognized, flaws in our system unfortunately go well beyond access to DNA testing. As Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer note in their book, ``Actual Innocence,'' Sometimes eyewitnesses make mistakes. Snitches tell lies. Confessions are coerced or fabricated. Racism trumps truth. Lab tests are rigged. Defense lawyers sleep. Indeed, Scheck and Neufeld note that eyewitness error is the single most important cause of wrongful convictions. As important as DNA testing is, it is only the first step in addressing the host of problems in the administration of capital punishment. It is time for the Congress to take the lead and declare once and for all that it is unacceptable to execute an innocent man or woman. It is a central pillar of our criminal justice system that it is better that many guilty people go free than that one innocent should suffer. Sadly, history has demonstrated that time and again, America has brought innocence itself to the bar and condemned it to die. That history now demonstrates that even in America, innocence itself has provided no security from the ultimate punishment. Most insidiously, the ghosts of institutional racism still haunt our courthouses. They intrude when lawyers select jurors, during the presentation of evidence, when the prosecutor contrasts the race of the victim and defendant, and when juries deliberate. The evidence mounts that the United States applies the death penalty differently to people of different races. The numbers tell the story: Although African-Americans constitute only 13 percent of the American population, since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, African-Americans account for 35 percent of those executed, 43 percent of those who wait on death row nationwide, and 67 percent of those who wait on death row in the Federal system. Although only 50 percent of murder victims are white, fully 84 percent of the victims in death penalty cases were white. Since 1976, America has executed 11 whites for killing an African- American, but has executed 144 African-Americans for killing a white. Governor Ryan and Illinois serve as a model for the Congress and the Nation. The flaws in the Illinois criminal justice system are not unique. Problems like convicting the innocent, racial disparities in the application of the death penalty, and inadequacy of defense counsel have plagued the administration of capital punishment across the Nation. That is why we need a national review of the death penalty and a suspension of executions until we can be sure that death row inmates across the country have been given the full protections of justice, fairness, and due process. Governor Ryan is not alone in questioning the state of the death penalty. In the last few months, people of all political stripes have been stepping forward to say there is a problem and it is time to do something about it. Columnist George Will recently wrote that serious defects exist in the criminal justice system by which we impose capital punishment. In a recent column in The Washington Post, George Will wrote that accounts of the wrongly convicted compel the conclusion that ``many innocent people are in prison, and some innocent people have been executed.'' He also wrote that even though he continues to believe that capital punishment may be a deterrent to crime, it can only be an effective deterrent if the criminal justice system operates properly to convict and sentence those who actually committed the offense, not innocent people. The Reverend Pat Robertson, a founder of the Christian Coalition and a long-time supporter of the death penalty, has also recognized that something is terribly amiss in the administration of the death penalty. At a recent conference at the College of William and Mary, Reverend Robertson noted that the death penalty has been administered in a way that discriminates against minorities and the poor who cannot afford high-priced defense attorneys. Reverend Robertson said, ``these are all reasons to at least slow down.'' He also said, ``I think a moratorium would indeed be very appropriate.'' Around the country, other State and local legislative bodies have also urged pause and reflection. At least 17 city and county governments have now passed resolutions supporting a moratorium on executions. And resolutions have been offered in the legislatures of several states, including Alabama, Maryland, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Washington state. In 1997, the American Bar Association adopted a resolution calling for a nationwide moratorium on executions. Recently, the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations and a number of other religious organizations called on the President to suspend the scheduling of executions and initiate a review of the administration of capital punishment at the Federal level. These local governments and organizations have recognized that a little time and a little reflection are not much to ask when the lives of innocent people may hang in the balance. Congress, too, should recognize that a little time and reflection are not too much to ask. That is why I ask my colleagues to support the bill I introduce today. This bill simply calls on the Federal Government and all States that impose the death penalty to suspend executions while a national commission reviews the administration of the death penalty. The Commission would study all matters relating to the administration of the death penalty at the Federal and State levels to determine whether it comports with constitutional principles and requirements of fairness, justice, equality and due process. Congress would review the Commission's final report and then enact or reject its recommendations. Those jurisdictions that impose capital punishment could resume executions only after Congress considers the Commission's final report and repeals the suspension of executions provision of the bill. This means that before executing even one more person, the Federal Government and the States must ensure that not a single innocent person will be executed, eliminate discrimination in capital sentencing on the basis of the race of either the victim or the defendant, and provide for certain basic standards of competency of defense counsel. Questions about the administration of the death penalty can only be answered with an impartial, independent review. The blue-ribbon commission called for in my bill would include prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, law enforcement officials, and other distinguished Americans with experience or expertise in the issue. It would be a balanced commission, not chock full of death penalty foes or death penalty supporters representing different viewpoints on the issue. Other nations, including some of our closest allies, have also established national commissions to review the death penalty. In the 1950s, Great Britain created the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment, and the Canadian Parliament established a joint committee of their Senate and House to review capital punishment. Now, almost 50 years later, I believe it is time for the United States to undertake a national review. We should be the leader on issues of justice. It has been almost 25 years since the reinstatement of the death penalty, and we still don't know how innocent people got on death row or how to prevent it from happening again. That is embarrassing, at the least, for the world's greatest democracy. My bill is a step in the right direction. And the time is now. Our Nation has come to the point where the machinery of death is well greased, and the pace of executions has accelerated. Last year, our Nation hit an all-time high for total executions in any 1 year since 1976. We had 98 executions last year in America. This year, we are already on track to meet or exceed that same high rate. Before our Government takes the life of even one more citizen, it has a solemn responsibility to every American to prove that its actions are consistent with our Nation's fundamental principles of justice, equality, and due process. Before carrying out an irreversible punishment, the Government must carefully consider the tough questions surrounding capital punishment. Mr. President, let us slow the machinery of death to ensure we are being fair. Let us reflect to ensure that we are being just. Let us pause to be certain we do not kill a single innocent person. This is really not too much to ask for a civilized society. I urge my colleagues to join me and my distinguished colleague, Senator Levin, in sponsoring the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act of 2000.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act of 2000. This bill would place an immediate pause on executions in the United States while a national, blue ribbon commission reviews the administration of the death penalty. Before one more execution is carried out, jurisdictions that impose the death penalty have an obligation to ensure that the sentence of death will be imposed with justice, fairness, and due process. I am pleased that my distinguished colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, has joined me as a cosponsor of this important initiative. If a particular aircraft crashed one out of every eight flights, Congress would act immediately to ground it. But as New York public defender Kevin Doyle says in the book, Actual Innocence, that is about what is happening now with the death penalty in this country. Since the reinstatement of the modern death penalty, 87 people have been freed from death row because they were later proven innocent. That is a demonstrated error rate of 1 innocent person for every 7 persons executed. When the consequences are life and death, we need to demand the same standard for our system of justice as we would for our airlines. Both supporters and opponents of the death penalty should be concerned about the flaws in the system by which we impose sentences of death. More than 3,600 inmates sit on State and Federal death rows around the country, while it becomes increasingly clear that innocent people are being put to death. A 1987 study found that between 1900 and 1985, 350 people convicted of capital crimes in the United States were innocent of the crimes charged. Some escaped execution by minutes. Regrettably, according to researchers Radelet and Bedau, 23 had their lives taken from them in error. In Illinois, since 1973, 13 innocent people have been freed from death row in the time that 12 were executed. Governor George Ryan, a supporter of the death penalty, has done two things in response: He has effectively imposed a moratorium on executions and established a blue ribbon commission to review the administration of capital punishment in Illinois. Governor Ryan and I are from different political parties, but we both recognize that the system by which we impose the death penalty is broken. Modern DNA testing of forensic evidence led to the exoneration of 5 of the 13 innocents freed from Illinois' death row and 8 of the 87 men and women who have been freed from death row nationwide since the 1970's. But Illinois and New York are the only states that currently provide some measure of access to DNA testing for death row inmates. My distinguished colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, has introduced a bill, the Innocence Protection Act, of which I am a co-sponsor, that would ensure access to DNA testing for all inmates on death row in the Federal system and the 38 States that impose the death penalty. That bill is an important initiative to help ensure that innocents are not condemned to death. I hope my colleagues will join Senator Leahy in moving this bill forward. But, as Governor Ryan and others have recognized, flaws in our system unfortunately go well beyond access to DNA testing. As Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer note in their book, ``Actual Innocence,'' Sometimes eyewitnesses make mistakes. Snitches tell lies. Confessions are coerced or fabricated. Racism trumps truth. Lab tests are rigged. Defense lawyers sleep. Indeed, Scheck and Neufeld note that eyewitness error is the single most important cause of wrongful convictions. As important as DNA testing is, it is only the first step in addressing the host of problems in the administration of capital punishment. It is time for the Congress to take the lead and declare once and for all that it is unacceptable to execute an innocent man or woman. It is a central pillar of our criminal justice system that it is better that many guilty people go free than that one innocent should suffer. Sadly, history has demonstrated that time and again, America has brought innocence itself to the bar and condemned it to die. That history now demonstrates that even in America, innocence itself has provided no security from the ultimate punishment. Most insidiously, the ghosts of institutional racism still haunt our courthouses. They intrude when lawyers select jurors, during the presentation of evidence, when the prosecutor contrasts the race of the victim and defendant, and when juries deliberate. The evidence mounts that the United States applies the death penalty differently to people of different races. The numbers tell the story: Although African-Americans constitute only 13 percent of the American population, since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, African-Americans account for 35 percent of those executed, 43 percent of those who wait on death row nationwide, and 67 percent of those who wait on death row in the Federal system. Although only 50 percent of murder victims are white, fully 84 percent of the victims in death penalty cases were white. Since 1976, America has executed 11 whites for killing an African- American, but has executed 144 African-Americans for killing a white. Governor Ryan and Illinois serve as a model for the Congress and the Nation. The flaws in the Illinois criminal justice system are not unique. Problems like convicting the innocent, racial disparities in the application of the death penalty, and inadequacy of defense counsel have plagued the administration of capital punishment across the Nation. That is why we need a national review of the death penalty and a suspension of executions until we can be sure that death row inmates across the country have been given the full protections of justice, fairness, and due process. Governor Ryan is not alone in questioning the state of the death penalty. In the last few months, people of all political stripes have been stepping forward to say there is a problem and it is time to do something about it. Columnist George Will recently wrote that serious defects exist in the criminal justice system by which we impose capital punishment. In a recent column in The Washington Post, George Will wrote that accounts of the wrongly convicted compel the conclusion that ``many innocent people are in prison, and some innocent people have been executed.'' He also wrote that even though he continues to believe that capital punishment may be a deterrent to crime, it can only be an effective deterrent if the criminal justice system operates properly to convict and sentence those who actually committed the offense, not innocent people. The Reverend Pat Robertson, a founder of the Christian Coalition and a long-time supporter of the death penalty, has also recognized that something is terribly amiss in the administration of the death penalty. At a recent conference at the College of William and Mary, Reverend Robertson noted that the death penalty has been administered in a way that discriminates against minorities and the poor who cannot afford high-priced defense attorneys. Reverend Robertson said, ``these are all reasons to at least slow down.'' He also said, ``I think a moratorium would indeed be very appropriate.'' Around the country, other State and local legislative bodies have also urged pause and reflection. At least 17 city and county governments have now passed resolutions supporting a moratorium on executions. And resolutions have been offered in the legislatures of several states, including Alabama, Maryland, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Washington state. In 1997, the American Bar Association adopted a resolution calling for a nationwide moratorium on executions. Recently, the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations and a number of other religious organizations called on the President to suspend the scheduling of executions and initiate a review of the administration of capital punishment at the Federal level. These local governments and organizations have recognized that a little time and a little reflection are not much to ask when the lives of innocent people may hang in the balance. Congress, too, should recognize that a little time and reflection are not too much to ask. That is why I ask my colleagues to support the bill I introduce today. This bill simply calls on the Federal Government and all States that impose the death penalty to suspend executions while a national commission reviews the administration of the death penalty. The Commission would study all matters relating to the administration of the death penalty at the Federal and State levels to determine whether it comports with constitutional principles and requirements of fairness, justice, equality and due process. Congress would review the Commission's final report and then enact or reject its recommendations. Those jurisdictions that impose capital punishment could resume executions only after Congress considers the Commission's final report and repeals the suspension of executions provision of the bill. This means that before executing even one more person, the Federal Government and the States must ensure that not a single innocent person will be executed, eliminate discrimination in capital sentencing on the basis of the race of either the victim or the defendant, and provide for certain basic standards of competency of defense counsel. Questions about the administration of the death penalty can only be answered with an impartial, independent review. The blue-ribbon commission called for in my bill would include prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, law enforcement officials, and other distinguished Americans with experience or expertise in the issue. It would be a balanced commission, not chock full of death penalty foes or death penalty supporters representing different viewpoints on the issue. Other nations, including some of our closest allies, have also established national commissions to review the death penalty. In the 1950s, Great Britain created the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment, and the Canadian Parliament established a joint committee of their Senate and House to review capital punishment. Now, almost 50 years later, I believe it is time for the United States to undertake a national review. We should be the leader on issues of justice. It has been almost 25 years since the reinstatement of the death penalty, and we still don't know how innocent people got on death row or how to prevent it from happening again. That is embarrassing, at the least, for the world's greatest democracy. My bill is a step in the right direction. And the time is now. Our Nation has come to the point where the machinery of death is well greased, and the pace of executions has accelerated. Last year, our Nation hit an all-time high for total executions in any 1 year since 1976. We had 98 executions last year in America. This year, we are already on track to meet or exceed that same high rate. Before our Government takes the life of even one more citizen, it has a solemn responsibility to every American to prove that its actions are consistent with our Nation's fundamental principles of justice, equality, and due process. Before carrying out an irreversible punishment, the Government must carefully consider the tough questions surrounding capital punishment. Mr. President, let us slow the machinery of death to ensure we are being fair. Let us reflect to ensure that we are being just. Let us pause to be certain we do not kill a single innocent person. This is really not too much to ask for a civilized society. I urge my colleagues to join me and my distinguished colleague, Senator Levin, in sponsoring the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act of 2000.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Feingold pertaining to the introduction of S. 2463 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of the 1.5 million ethnic Armenians that were systematically murdered at the hands of the Ottoman Empire from 1915-1923. The 85th anniversary of the beginning of this brutal annihilation was marked on April 24. During this nine year period, a total of 1.75 million ethnic Armenians were either slaughtered or forced to flee their homes to escape the certain death that awaited them at the hands of a government-sanctioned force determined to extinguish their very existence. As a result, fewer than 80,000 ethnic Armenians remain in what is present-day Turkey. I have come to the floor to commemorate this horrific chapter in human history each year I have been a member of this body, both to honor those who died and to remind the American people of the chilling capacity for violence that, unfortunately, still exists in the world. It is all too clear from the current ethnically and religiously motivated conflicts in such places as the Balkans, Sierra Leone, and Sudan that we have not learned the lessons of the past. Recently, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, of which I am a member, had the honor of hearing the testimony of one of the most well- known survivors of the Holocaust, Dr. Elie Wiesel. His eloquent words remind us that the same capacity for hate that drove the Ottoman Empire to murder ethnic Armenians and the Nazis to murder Jews is still present in the world. At the hearing, Dr. Wiesel said, ``violence is the language of those who can no longer express themselves with words.'' This hate manifests itself in many ways, from extreme nationalism to so-called ``ethnic cleansing'' to violations of the basic human rights of ethnic and religious minorities. And, in some cases, those filled with hate attempt to mimic the horrific events and beliefs of times past. For example, I am deeply disturbed by the apparent resurgence of right wing and anti-Semitic movements in Europe. Dr. Wiesel also said, ``to hate is to deny the other person's humanity.'' Today, let us take a moment to remember the Armenians who died at the hands of the Ottoman Empire, and all of the other innocent people who have lost their lives in the course of human history simply for who they were. Our humanity may depend on it.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to authorize payment of rewards to individuals furnishing information relating to persons subject to indictment for serious violations of international humanitarian law in Rwanda. This bill would add the masterminds of the Rwandan genocide to the list of individuals our rewards program is helping to track down, and this legislation will send those individuals a clear message--that there is no impunity for genocide, that the world will not forget, and that they cannot evade justice forever. Six years ago today, a headline ran on the front page of the New York Times reading--``Rwandan Refugees Describe Horrors After a Bloody Trek.'' The lead-in read as follows: Their clothes are blood-soaked, and their wounds are eerily similar. Pursued by fear, the 450 or so men, women and children in the makeshift hospital here made the same journey across the border from Rwanda, nursing the deep gouges made by the machetes that struck their skulls, necks and hands. Six years ago today the media was just waking up to the horror unfolding in Rwanda, although the killing had been going on for weeks. Six years ago today, the reporters filing their stories from Burundi and Zaire were still cautious about the word ``genocide.'' They still referred to ``ancient tribal hatreds'' as the source of the incomprehensible violence engulfing the tiny central African country. Six years ago today, the death toll in the Rwandan genocide continued to mount while the international community stood by and watched, despite clear warnings, and despite the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide that committed signatories to act. Six years ago, U.S. leadership failed, the international community floundered, and the global bond of basic human decency broke, leaving the people of Rwanda to face terror alone. Mr. President, we know today that the genocide was not a series of spontaneous acts; it was not about crowds gone wild or tribal bloodlust. It was carefully planned and centrally directed. Extra machetes had been imported, militias groups were in place, and incitements to murder had become a regular element of programming on the hate-radio station. The planners targeted not only ethnic Tutsis, but also politically moderate Hutus who threatened their grip on power. We know today that individual people--leaders and planners--are responsible for the deaths of some 800,000 people, and that the blame for these atrocities cannot be heaped on some imagined cultural failing or the flaws of the human heart in general. Holding those individuals responsible for the genocide accountable for their actions is the only remaining opportunity for the international community to do the right thing with regard to the events of 6 years ago. For this reason, I have consistently supported the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, known as the ICTR. The ICTR was created by the United Nations Security Council in November 1994 to prosecute persons responsible for genocide and other serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in Rwanda during 1994. Its structure mirrors that of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the ICTY. I have come to this floor in the past to raise the issue of parity between the ICTY and the ICTR. In particular, I have pointed out that whereas the ICTY has the authority to prosecute individuals for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed since 1991 through the present, the ICTR's mandate covers only those acts committed within Rwandan borders during 1994. Last year, the Senate approved an amendment that I offered to the State Department authorization bill requiring a report on the merits of expanding the mandate to the ICTR in space and time, both to deter further abuses and to hold the perpetrators of the continuing atrocities in the Great Lakes accountable for their actions. Even if we accept the confines of the current mandate, I fear that the ICTR is being given short shrift. Under current U.S. law, the Secretary of State can confer with the Attorney General and, through the rewards program that offers incentives to turn in terrorists and other international villains, pay a reward to any individual furnishing information leading to the arrest or conviction in any country of any person who is the subject of an indictment of the ICTY. Similarly, the reward may be made to any individual furnishing information leading to the transfer to or conviction by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. But there is no such provision for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. It is situations like these that feed perceptions of a double- standard in American foreign policy, wherein African lives are somehow less valuable than European ones, and African atrocities are somehow more acceptable. That perceived double-standard undermines American credibility and casts doubt on our commitment to the values we hold most dear, the values at the very foundation of our national identity. The ICTR is not perfect, but it has been responsible for the first convictions for the crime of genocide ever to be issued by an international court. It has been the first international body to recognize rape as a crime of genocide. And knowledgeable observers agree that it has made a great deal of progress since its early days, and that it has gone further to bring ``big fish" to justice than the ICTY. But more needs to be done. I will submit for the Record an article from the most recent issue of The Economist, headlined ``Still Wanted,'' which details some of the challenges the international community faces in bringing the perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide to justice. The United States should assist in these efforts. And the existing law that I propose amending ensures that the State Department and the Department of Justice--not the U.N.--will govern the offering, administration, and payment of rewards. Six years after the Rwandan genocide, six years after the slaughter of 800,000 people, including those indicted by the ICTR in the rewards program is the very least we can do. I yield the floor, and ask unanimous consent that the bill and article be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to rename the United States Post Office in my home town of Janesville, Wisconsin in honor of Les Aspin. I am joined by my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl. This bill is a companion to legislation introduced in the House by Congressman Paul Ryan, who represents the First District of Wisconsin, which includes Janesville. This year marks the thirtieth anniversary of Les' first campaign for the First Congressional District seat in Wisconsin. I was a junior at Janesville Craig High School at the time, and I signed up as a volunteer on Les' campaign. He won that election after a tough recount in the primary, defeating the incumbent Congressman. Following the campaign, I interned in his district office in Janesville during the summers of 1971 and in 1972. I am proud to say that during the next 25 years, Les and I had a continuing friendship, as he carved out a distinguished career in the United States House of Representatives, eventually rising to become the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, while I prepared for and began my own career. Les Aspin served his country ably in many capacities. As an Army captain, he worked as an analyst in the Pentagon; he served on the staff of President John F. Kennedy's Council of Economic Advisors; he represented Wisconsinites for 22 years in Congress; he enthusiastically took on the giant task of steering the Defense Department into the uncharted waters of the post-Cold War era. Mr. Aspin served as Secretary of Defense under President Clinton and, at the time of his death in 1995, he was the chair of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, working on needed reforms in our intelligence communities. Mr. President, Les Aspin was a man I deeply respected and admired, and I felt a profound sense of loss at his passing. Renaming the Janesville post office in his honor is a fitting way to remember a man who spent his life serving the people of Wisconsin and of the United States. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I voted against a motion to close debate on the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 3, a victims' rights constitutional amendment. Only twelve Senators voted no, although a far larger number oppose this resolution. I was prepared to vote yes on the motion, because the rights of victims are terribly important and a resolution like this ought to be thoroughly debated. But before the vote I learned that the language of this resolution to amend the Constitution is still being negotiated. This ought to be a solemn, soberly undertaken effort, for it presumes to revise the work of Madison and Hamilton and those great Americans who put to paper the ingenious design of the American republic in that hot Philadelphia room 224 years ago. But instead, we were asked today to begin that debate in earnest while the supporters of the resolution were still off in a room somewhere trying to agree on the language of the resolution. So I said no. I said no to this casual, cavalier approach to amending the Constitution. It does not respect the seriousness of the process and has led to constitutional profligacy in the Congress--to hundreds of constitutional amendments being offered as if they were not gravely important, as if they were not an attempt to edit the organic law that has held our democracy together for two centuries. In the opening days of some recent Congresses, we have seen constitutional amendments introduced at a rate of more than one per day. A few weeks ago, we considered a constitutional amendment to allow prohibition of flag desecration. I opposed that amendment, but I didn't oppose cloture on the motion to proceed. I voted for cloture because the backers of the flag amendment, wrong as I thought they were, at least showed some respect for the process. They believed there was a need for the amendment and they were able to point to particular events and precedents that they believed needed to be addressed. But no court has struck down the dozens of state constitution provisions and hundreds of statutes that protect victims' rights across America today, so why rush to amend the Constitution? The backers of the flag amendment argued, correctly, that their goal of allowing prohibition of some forms of speech could be realized only by a constitutional amendment. They offered a resolution that had been refined over time, whose supporters at least, had agreed upon. All of us were aware, long before the vote, what the resolution said. The vote on proceeding to the flag debate was not held in a fluid situation, where negotiations about language that might end up in our Constitution were still talking place. So we voted as Senators to proceed and we did proceed to a sober, deliberate and thoughtful debate and an informed vote about the flag amendment. Today, on the victims rights amendment, the process was not respected. The Senate acquiesced in a casual exercise in constitutional improvisation, shunning the statutory alternatives that are readily available, to embrace the near immutability of constitutional language. So I voted no--to say we are not ready to have this debate, but we will have the debate and we may now add one more reason to the many reasons to oppose this resolution: its proponents have not respected the process and we are obliged to assume that their constitutional amendment, even if it were right in its general substance, must be flawed in its language and details.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to oppose S.J. Res. 3, the victims' rights constitutional amendment. I agree with the goals of the proponents of the amendment. We have to do more to protect and enhance the rights of victims of crime. But I disagree with the particular means they have chosen to bring about that end. We do not need to amend the Constitution to protect victims. We can protect the rights of victims by enforcing current State and Federal laws. We can protect the rights of victims by providing the needed resources to prosecutors and courts to allow them to enforce and comply with existing laws. We can protect the rights of victims by enacting additional statutes, if needed, to deal with remaining concerns or any issues that might arise in this regard in the future. The framers of the Constitution made the process of amending the Constitution very difficult. Those who propose to change that long- lived and successful charter bear a heavy burden. I have thus opposed proposals to amend the Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, even when the subject of the amendment was very close to my heart, as it was with the recent proposal to amend the Constitution to allow for mandatory campaign spending limits. Similarly, I believe deeply in the need to ensure that our criminal justice system treats victims fairly, but I do not believe we have to amend the Constitution to do so. Throughout history, Members of Congress have thought of more than 11,000 different ways to amend the Constitution--as of this last recess, 11,045, by one count. Luckily, only 27 have become part of our national charter. Ten of those, the Bill of Rights, were part of the package of ratification, and two, the ones on prohibition, canceled each other. Three others followed the enormous upheaval of the Civil War and addressed the wrongs of slavery and inequality that spawned that conflict. But the pace at which Members have introduced and proposed amendments has picked up in modern times. More than half of the constitutional amendments proposed in the entire lifetime of our Nation have come in the last 40 years. Fewer were proposed in the first 173 years of our Nation. This Senate has now considered three so far in this session alone--and the year is still young. In a sense, there is a certain lack of humility about proposing so quickly to amend the Constitution. To propose to change the Constitution now is to say we have come up with an idea that the framers of that great charter did not, or that we have come to a conclusion on how our Government should work fundamentally different from the one they had and fundamentally different from the one all the Congresses since have had. We should come hesitantly, if we do, to the conclusion that we know better than they did. Yes, there will come occasions where times have changed, as with women's right to vote, and we need to bring the Constitution up to date; but it is hard to consider the basic calculus of prosecutor, defendant, and victim to have changed this much since the foundation of the Republic. I have to admit that of the constitutional amendments I have seen proposed in recent Congresses, this is less objectionable in some respects than most. But I still have significant concerns about the prospect of amending the Constitution, even for this very worthy purpose. We must use the constitutional amendment process sparingly. Before taking the grave step of amending our country's founding charter, we have to make sure we have exhausted all statutory alternatives. When it comes to victims' rights, we are far from exhausting those statutory alternatives. We currently have Federal and State laws protecting victims. Indeed, many States have passed their own constitutional amendments to protect victims, including my own State of Wisconsin--a proposal that I voted for when I was in the Wisconsin State Senate. According to the proponents of this constitutional amendment, these existing laws are not being fully enforced. I would say we should therefore see to it that the existing laws are enforced. Let us enact legislation to improve the existing law, and let us provide the needed resources to prosecutors and courts to comply with existing laws. That is where the real struggle lies. Only when we have exhausted these legislative avenues should we possibly consider a constitutional amendment. Let's address this important issue one step at a time. Statutes protecting victims are on the books in each and every State. Amendments to State constitutions have been adopted by at least 31 States. At the Federal level, prudent legislation has already been enacted and additional legislation proposed. Let us work with the current law and proposals to improve our Federal laws. In fact, additional statutory protections for victims have been introduced during this Congress by Chairman Hatch and by the ranking member and Senator Kennedy. I believe these represent the right direction in which to go. Chairman Hatch has introduced the Victims' Rights Act of 1999. Senators Leahy and Kennedy have introduced the Crime Victims Assistance Act. Senator Leahy announced an improved version of that bill, taking into account many suggestions made by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I understand Senator Leahy will offer his bill as a substitute to this constitutional amendment, if the majority leader allows Senators to exercise their traditional rights to offer amendments. Enforcing and enacting comprehensive Federal statutes is the best way to protect victims. The Leahy-Kennedy bill will accomplish the same goals the proponents of this amendment want, but it will do it faster and also protect the integrity of the Constitution. The Leahy-Kennedy bill includes the right for a victim to be heard at the detention and sentencing stages, the right to be notified of escaped or released prisoners, and the right to be heard during consideration of a plea agreement. These are sensible protections that victims can see take effect in only a matter of weeks--the time it takes for consideration and passage of a statute--not years from now when maybe two-thirds of the Congress approves and three-fourths of the States ratify a constitutional amendment. Another reason I oppose this measure is that a constitutional amendment, as you well know, is far less flexible than a statute when provisions must be improved over time. A constitutional amendment cannot easily be modified. Changing it at all--even one letter of it-- would again require the approval of two-thirds of the Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the State legislatures. This is a real problem in this case because there are numerous uncertainties about the effect of this amendment. Even the sponsors are finding things they want to change. Each time this amendment has been brought before the Judiciary Committee, it has been different. In fact, the amendment was modified as recently as last spring when we marked it up in the Constitution Subcommittee. At that time, my good friend, Senator Ashcroft, successfully offered an amendment to include the rights of victims to be involved in the pardon process. Such a change has inspired a good deal of criticism from the executive branch, which is concerned with its impact on the exclusive power of the President to grant pardons. Whatever one thinks of the change to the amendment, it is the sort of thing that ought to give us pause when we are dealing not with a statute but with what is likely to be a permanent constitutional amendment. What if Senator Ashcroft had not realized that this change was needed until after the pending proposed constitutional amendment was already adopted? What if, instead, we had approved the victims' rights amendment in the last Congress, as I am sure its sponsors would have preferred? Then, to change the amendment, Senator Ashcroft would have been required to get two-thirds of the Congress and three-fourths of the State legislatures to agree to the change. The pardon issue isn't the end of the matter. Other Senators have raised concerns about the specifics of this amendment; for example, its focus on the victims of violent crimes rather than all victims of crime. If any further changes are needed, we will have to, again, go through the lengthy and difficult process of amending the constitution. I have no doubt that further changes will be necessary. I have heard the main authors of this constitutional amendment saying with some pride that there have been 63 versions of this amendment. They offer that as a sign that this is a very well-honed, carefully drafted piece of legislation or amendment. What I suggest it means is that it is highly volatile, likely to change, and likely to be inappropriate for the Constitution, even after it is ratified, given all the changes that have been made and the problems with it. This constitutional amendment really reads as a statute. It is almost as long as the entire Bill of Rights. It is full of terms and concepts that will undoubtedly provoke years of litigation and years of attempts to overturn a court decision that one group or another doesn't like. It even contains an extraordinary clause that might be called the ``emergency eject button.'' The Government can ignore the amendment. Remember, this language will be in the Constitution. The Government can ignore the amendment to achieve a ``compelling interest.'' What if the prosecutors in a high-profile case sought to avoid the impact of the amendment and the courts determined the justification they gave did not rise to the level of a compelling interest? If we, as a Congress, agreed with the prosecutors, we would not be able to pass a statute to override that judicial ruling because it would have to actually pass a constitutional amendment to deal with the problem. It is clear that despite years of effort that have gone into this amendment, it will have to be fine-tuned in the future. We fine-tune statutes all the time, but we all know constitutional amendments can't really be fine-tuned. That is a big problem the Senate needs to face up to. This amendment also poses major federalism problems. I am troubled this amendment could well result in extensive oversight of State criminal justice systems by the Federal courts. Victims who believe their rights have not been recognized in State court proceedings will undoubtedly file lawsuits in Federal district courts. Federal courts will end up second-guessing the decisions of State prosecutors or judges about how long a case took to get to trial or what victim should be notified of a bail hearing. That is why the Conference of Chief Justices, representing the chief justices of the supreme courts of all of our States, oppose this amendment and strongly prefer that we deal with this problem statutorily. The State chief justices have also expressed concern that this year's version of the amendment, as opposed to previous versions, allows Congress, but not the States, to pass legislation implementing the amendment. They appropriately note that the States can better determine what laws are needed to implement the amendment, as it is the operation of their own criminal justice system that is really at issue. But that would again lead to precisely the patchwork of laws and protections varying from State to State that the sponsors of this amendment wish to avoid and claim is the reason they need a constitutional amendment. I cannot emphasize enough that I am deeply committed to protecting the victims of crime. As a State senator in the Wisconsin State Senate in 1991, I voted in favor of amending the Wisconsin State Constitution to include protections for victims. As I have noted, most States have a State constitutional protection for victims, and every State in the country has at least a statute to protect victims. I draw my colleagues' attention to the example of Wisconsin because the Wisconsin State Constitution repeatedly clarifies that the rights granted to the victim in the Wisconsin Constitution are not intended to diminish the rights of the accused. The Wisconsin amendment contains language that explicitly forbids victims' rights from impairing the rights of the accused that are otherwise guaranteed by law. Unfortunately, the victims' rights amendment before this body does not contain a similar provision. For that reason, I offered an amendment during the Judiciary Committee markup that would have included a clarification similar to the Wisconsin language. It is troubling and puzzling to me that the majority of the Judiciary Committee did not agree with that amendment because they stated over and over again in defense of this amendment that it would in no way derogate the rights of the defense. If that is so, why did they oppose such a simple clarification that we found so useful when passing a similar provision in Wisconsin? When, in the wake of the Boston massacre, John Adams defended the British soldiers accused of committing the killings there, he said: [I]t [is] more beneficial that many guilty persons should go unpunished than one innocent person should suffer. Surely, if there is a central pillar of the American system of justice, this is it: Above all, we must protect the rights of the innocent. That is why our Constitution enshrines limitations on the State and protections of the individual whose liberties the State would seek to curtail. Sadly, even with our manifold protections for the rights of the accused, history has demonstrated that time and again America has on occasion brought innocence itself to the bar and condemned it to jail or even to die. Many proponents of the amendment before the Senate today state categorically that the rights of victims and the rights of the accused can comfortably coexist. They claim the amendment would not reduce the rights of the accused. They may be right, although I fear that cases may arise where judges will believe that to give the amendment force will require a lessening of protections for the accused. Be that as it may, the proponents of this amendment have refused to make this protection of the rights of the accused crystal clear by writing that intent into the amendment itself. Until they do, it is not unreasonable for Senators to fear that this constitutional amendment in some cases would actually end up curtailing the legitimate rights and liberties of defendants in courts of law. For those who believe in individual freedom and civil liberties, this should be troubling, indeed. The Constitution should be modified sparingly, where no other alternative provides an adequate solution. That showing has not been made. The laws on the books now should be fully enforced. Courts and prosecutors should be given the resources they need to protect victims under current law. Congress and State legislatures should enact additional legislation where needed to give additional protection. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting prudent, statutory safeguards for victims. But I urge my colleagues to vote against this victims' rights amendment to the Constitution. (The remarks of Mr. Feingold pertaining to the introduction of S. 2458 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I was pleased to join Senators Leahy and Kennedy as a sponsor of the Crime Victims Assistance Act, and I endorse this modified version of the bill. This is an important bill designed to give substantial, enforceable rights to the victims of federal crimes to participate fully in the various criminal justice proceedings arising out of their cases. I understand that the sponsors of the constitutional amendment concerning the rights of victims of crime, often referred to as the Victims' Rights Amendment or VRA, will bring the amendment to the Senate floor in the near future. I have the utmost concern for the victims of crime, and I want to see them supported as much as possible in the law as they deal with the consequences of the crime committed against them. But I oppose the amendment. The main reason for my opposition is that I do not think it is necessary to amend our great governing document, the Constitution of the United States, to provide the protection that victims of crime seek and deserve. We have a responsibility to deal with these issues through legislation before turning to the constitutional amendment process. That process is long and uncertain and its results are much less easier to fix than a statute if we have left something undone that should have been done. The statutory alternative developed by Senators Leahy and Kennedy, which I expect will be offered as an amendment to the VRA when it comes to the floor, will truly serve the interests of victims in a much more direct and effective way than would a constitutional amendment. And we can enact it this year, getting relief and protections to victims of crime immediately that will not be available to them until some uncertain date under the constitutional amendment. So I am pleased to join in this effort, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to try to convince the Senate that this is the best way to support the interests of victims of violent crime.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, one thing observers of the Senate are not likely to see today is anyone defending the marriage penalty. The tax code should not discourage the act of getting married, and it should not encourage divorce. There is widespread agreement that Congress should pass marriage penalty relief. The President's budget included a proposal to address the marriage penalty. And last week, the Senate voted 99-1 in favor of sense of the Senate language calling on us to ``pass marriage penalty tax relief legislation that begins a phase down of this penalty in 2001.'' The marriage penalty is particularly burdensome for lower-income couples--and many young couples don't have much to spare. For some of these couples, the amount of their taxes could actually affect their decision whether or not to marry. Luckily, in the vast majority of cases, in the words of a recent law review article, love triumphs over money. But in this debate that the majority has scheduled for the week before the April 15 tax deadline, one can be forgiven for harboring the suspicion that more than marriage penalty relief is involved. For one thing, on this subject on which there is a broad consensus, the majority appears unwilling to work out a compromise with the President or with Democrats. Rather, the majority seems driven more to create election-year campaign talking points than real tax relief. For another thing, on this bill, for the third time this year already, the majority seems willing to plow ahead on major tax cut legislation before even adopting its own fiscal plan in the form of a budget resolution. To recount, in early February, the Senate passed a $103 billion tax cut as part of the bankruptcy bill. Then, in early March, the Senate passed another $21 billion tax cut for education savings accounts. And now in April, the Senate is considering another $248 billion in tax cuts labeled as marriage penalty relief. So the majority this year has already moved $372 billion in tax cuts--at an average rate of $124 billion a month--before it has even adopted its budget resolution. And you need to add to that the approximately $80 billion in debt services that tax cuts of such a size would require. That yields roughly $450 billion of the surplus that this Senate will have spent in just three months--an average of $150 billion a month. And that doesn't even count the health tax cut provisions that we can expect in the Patients Bill of Rights bill. And that also doesn't count the other multi-billion-dollar reconciliation tax cut that the budget resolution calls for no later than September 22. Some said that the majority brought up the amendment to the Constitution to prevent flag burning when they did because the American Legion was having a convention that week. Now, it seems that they are bringing up the marriage penalty because tax day is coming. What the majority chooses to call up seem more driven by the calendar than by legislative sense. Moving so many tax bills so early in the year raises another suspicion as well--that if we waited, we would find that there is not enough money to do everything that the majority wants. The Senate's consideration of a tax cut this size is also premature because the majority continues to push tax cuts before doing anything to extend the life of Social Security, before doing anything to extend the life of Medicare, or before doing anything to make prescription drugs available to seniors who need them. Yes, Social Security is projected to run cash surpluses on the order of $100 billion a year for the next decade, but beginning in 2015, it is projected to pay out more in benefits than it takes in in payroll taxes. Medicare Hospital Insurance benefit payments will exceed payroll tax revenues as early as 2007. The tax cuts that the Senate has passed and that we debate today would phase in so that their full impact would come just as the Nation begins to need surpluses in the non-Social Security budget to help address these Social Security and Medicare commitments. In 2010, the marriage penalty bill before us today alone will cost $40 billion a year. Rather than pay down our debt to free up resources for our coming needs, these tax cuts would add to our future obligations. To commit resources of this magnitude without addressing the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare is simply irresponsible. The size of the tax cut before us today flows in large part from its scatter-shot approach. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, it delivers a comparable amount of benefits to those who enjoy marriage bonuses as to those who suffer from marriage penalties. And according to Citizens for Tax Justice, more than two-thirds of this tax bill's benefits would go to the fewer than one-third of couples with incomes of more than $75,000. Are tax cuts for the well-off really our most pressing national need? A more targeted approach could save money and leave us better prepared to address our coming fiscal commitments. Our economy is strong and has benefitted from sound fiscal policy. Monday's papers reported that unemployment has remained below 4\1/2\ percent for fully two years now. The Nation continues to enjoy the longest economic expansion in its history. And home ownership is at its highest rate on record. We have this strong economy in no small part because of the responsible fiscal policy we have had since 1993. That responsible policy has meant that the government has borrowed less from the public than it otherwise would have, and indeed is projected to have paid down nearly $300 billion in publicly-held debt by October. No longer does the government crowd out private borrowers from the credit market. No longer does the government bid up the price of borrowing--interest rates--to finance its huge debt. Our fiscal policy has thus allowed interest rates to remain lower than they otherwise would be, and businesses large and small have found it easier to invest and spur new growth. Passing large tax cuts like the one before us today without addressing the long-run needs of Social Security and Medicare risks returning to the budgets of 1992, when the government ran a unified budget deficit of $290 billion and a non-Social Security deficit of $340 billion. It risks returning to the Congressional Budget Office's 1993 projection of a unified budget deficit that would climb to $513 billion in 2001, instead of the unified budget surplus of $181 billion and non-Social Security surplus of $15 billion that we now enjoy. Any young couple would be well-advised to do a little financial planning before entering into a marriage. We can ask the Senate to do no less. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, to strike a small part of the overly large tax cut included in this budget resolution and instead use that money for grants to the states under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. For too long the federal government has failed to live up to its responsibility to provide to the States the up to 40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure for each disabled child served allowed by IDEA. During the current fiscal year, the federal government will fund only about 12.6 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure. This is 37.4 percent less than the maximum amount allowed under IDEA--an amount that the federal government has not once provided to the states since this funding formula was created. According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress is appropriating only about a third of what would be required to fully fund IDEA. As I travel around my home state of Wisconsin every year to host listening sessions in each of our 72 counties, I hear time and time again from frustrated parents, school administrators, teachers, school board members, and others about the need for an increase in special education funding at the federal level. Just last week at my Dane County listening session, one of my constituents told me that full funding of the maximum federal share of IDEA would have meant an additional $17 million for his school district during the 1999-2000 school year. And there are stories like that across my state and around the country. In Wisconsin, and in many other states, the population of students eligible for special education is outpacing the modest annual increases in the Federal share of special education funding, and state and local governments are struggling to keep up. Mr. President, the efforts of our pubic schools to serve students with disabilities are a hallmark of our national commitment to a free appropriate public education for all children. Since 1975, public schools have helped students with disabilities become more self- sufficient, to prepare for employment, and to learn the skills they will need to lead productive lives. America's public schools have led the way toward the full integration of individuals with disabilities in our national life. Our society is richer for it. IDEA has provided access to free, appropriate public education for millions of previously unserved or underserved students. Through assessments, evaluations, and Individual Education Program (IEPs), every disabled student is served based on his or her individual educational needs in the setting where those needs can best be met. We must do more to help state and local governments pay for the cost of educating these children. I urge my colleagues to support his common sense amendment. It will move toward fully funding the federal share of IDEA, and it will help to provide badly needed relief for a deserving group of Americans.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senator Kennedy's amendment which would raise the individual maximum Pell grant Award to $3,700, an increase of $400. Higher education is one of the most important investments our Federal government can make. After all, for the United States to continue its economic growth, we need an educated workforce. I recognize that the federal government cannot guarantee that all Americans will be able to attend a post secondary institution. But we must ensure that all qualified Americans have equal access to a post secondary education. After all, Congress created need-based student financial aid programs to ensure that individuals from low-income families are not denied post secondary education because they cannot afford it. Grant aid, specifically Pell grant aid, is the key that enables many individuals to graduate from college. I am deeply concerned about the emergence of a widening educational gap between rich and poor. Statistic after statistic illustrates that students from low-income families are pursuing a post-secondary education at a much slower rate than individuals from middle and upper income families. With more and more students attending college, the situation may get much worse unless Congress fully funds Pell. Over the next ten years, more than 14 million undergraduates will be enrolled in colleges and universities around the country--an increase of 11 percent. Many of these students will be the first in their families to attend college and one in five of these students will come from families with incomes below the poverty level. The same students that rely on need- based student grant aid. Without Pell grants, many individuals simply can't consider college-- and without a college degree or serious post-secondary training, some employers won't consider hiring these individuals. Statistic after statistic shows that a college education helps those who graduate from college with a bachelor's degree earn 74 percent more than those who only complete high school. What is so tragic is the decrease in Pell grant funding. The Pell grant has failed to keep up with inflation. Over the past 25 years, the value of the average Pell grant has decreased by 23 percent--the average grant is now worth only 77 percent of what Pell grants were worth in 1975. What is even more troubling about the trend of increasing tuition and decreasing impact of grant value is how students, especially low-income students, make up the difference between aid and tuition. This chart illustrates grant and loan funding as a percentage of total aid. As you can see, twenty years ago, grant aid comprised approximately fifty-two percent of a student's aid package, and loans comprised about forty-two percent. Over the past 20 years, this trend has reversed itself--loans now constitute almost 60 percent of total aid, and grants have plummeted to about forty percent. Unfortunately, some aren't aware of the recent funding trends for the Pell Grant or its importance. Let's take a look at a recent headline of the Eau-Claire Leader-Telegram: Bush Averse to more college grant funding. Let students get loans, candidate says in Eau Claire. Apparently, Governor Bush isn't aware that most students are already having to fund their education through loans and more and more debt. Well, Mr. President, as I visit college campuses each year in Wisconsin, I hear from students who are forced to turn to credit cards to pay the difference on tuition, for books or groceries. In fact, last year alone, the number of students who took out non- federal loans increased by 25 percent. Well, it seems that Governor Bush believes that Congress needs to force students to take on even more debt. Again, Governor Bush's views on how students should pay for a post secondary education: Some of it you are going to have to pay back, and that's just the way it is because there is nothing free in society. College is not free. What, then, is need-based grant aid? Congress created need-based grant aid to ensure that individuals from low and middle income families are not denied post secondary education because they cannot afford it. Congress created the student grant aid programs under the Higher Education Act for the specific purpose of making college affordable for those in need. Even after someone pointed out that some students already carry a heavy loan repayment burden, Governor Bush didn't get the picture. According to the Leader-Telegram, Bush responded to this statement by saying ``too bad.'' Congress should not say ``too bad'' to students who are in need. I believe that everyone deserves fair and equal access to a higher education. After all, that is why Congress created need based grant aid. By supporting this amendment and an increase for the Pell grant program, Congress has a chance to renew its commitment to equal access for all to higher education. I thank my colleagues for their time and support.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the budget resolution assumes revenues from leasing the lands in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling. I, too, support the efforts of the senior Senator from Delaware to ensure that drilling in the Arctic Refuge is not used as a revenue assumption. I have also long been a cosponsor of his bill to designate the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge as a wilderness area. Not only do I support this amendment along with many Members of this body, but also I support this amendment along with Members of the other body who have worked so hard on this issue. I particularly recognize the efforts of my colleague in the other body, Mr. Vento, who so long and so well has led the fight to designate the refuge as wilderness. I am concerned this assumption obligates Congress to decide whether or not to drill on the Coastal Plain refuge before we decide whether or not it should be designated as wilderness. Drilling on the Coastal Plain allows an activity that is generally considered to be incompatible with designated wilderness areas. In addition, I am concerned about the potential impact drilling would have upon the existing wilderness, the area that was just being discussed, existing wilderness in the Arctic Refuge. Eight million acres south of the Coastal Plain are already designated as wilderness. I want my colleagues to be aware the drilling question does not only impact our ability to make future wilderness designations in the refuge but also may impact areas that we have already protected in the public trust. I suggest even if the previous portrayal by the Senator from California was of an area that is already protected, that is part of the point. Drilling in this area could have an impact on the already- protected area. I want to speak to my colleagues who may be considering allowing drilling in the refuge in light of current high oil prices. Supporters of drilling argue that the Arctic Refuge has the potential of yielding 16 billion barrels of oil. That figure, I am afraid, represents the outside limit of probabilities for an assessment area that includes the Arctic Refuge, Coastal Plain, plus adjacent areas where exploration has already taken place. When you look at just the Coastal Plain, the correct low-probability estimate of oil is 11.8 billion barrels of undiscovered oil; 25 percent less than the 16- billion-barrel figure. Moreover, USGS assigns a probability of 5 percent, or 1 chance in 20, to the possibility that a field of that magnitude will be discovered. The mean estimate for technically recoverable oil is considerably lower, and the figure for oil that is economically recoverable is lower still. In fact, USGS concluded that the refuge is capable of producing, altogether, approximately 3.2 billion barrels of oil. That is only one- fifth the amount of oil we have heard might be available. If including this assumption in the budget resolution may impair our ability to make a decision about the wilderness qualities of the refuge in the future, and if the refuge does not contain as much oil as we thought, why are we considering drilling? Consider this: Oil companies with an interest in drilling in the refuge poured millions of dollars of soft money into the coffers of the political parties in 1999; millions of dollars in just 1 year, and it was an off-year election at that. I would like to briefly call the bankroll on just a few of the oil companies that would profit from opening the refuge to drilling so my colleagues and the public can have a fuller picture of what is at stake. Last year, giant political donor Atlantic Richfield, its executives and subsidiaries, gave more than $880,000 in soft money to the parties. The recently merged Exxon-Mobil, its executives and subsidiaries, gave more than $340,000 in soft money in 1999. And in 1999, BP Amoco, the result of another oil megamerger, gave over $361,000 in soft money, along with its executives and subsidiaries. This is quite an influx of cash. In a day and age where wealthy interests drop $100,000 checks to the parties on a regular basis, the huge donations of the oil and gas industry are still remarkable. As we examine this issue closely, I think we have to keep the industry's donations and the resulting political clout in mind as we debate this legislation. As I have said, the facts do not point toward drilling in the refuge. The refuge does not contain as much oil as we thought. What is more, including this in the budget resolution may cause problems down the road as we decide about the wilderness qualities of the refuge in the future. For these reasons, I support the amendment proposed by the Senator from Delaware. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I regret I will be unable to support the amendment offered by Senator Allard to provide for budget procedures designed to reduce our national debt. While I strongly agree with the goal of debt reduction, I cannot support the amendment because of several important flaws. First, the amendment calls for at least partially privatizing Social Security as part of an overall reform plan for that program. While I believe we need to pursue modest reforms to Social Security, I strongly oppose efforts to privatize that program. For the past seven decades, Social Security has worked to keep retirees out of poverty. Roughly half of seniors would in live poverty were it not for Social Security. It would be a great mistake to eliminate the fundamental shared security that program provides by moving to a privatized system. Second, while a policy of planned debt reduction may be meritorious, there are clearly times when it would be wise to temporarily suspend such plans. The amendment provides for one exception, namely a declaration of war. However, there are other circumstances under which an exception may be needed, in particular, when there is a severe economic recession. At such a time, debt reduction may aggravate an economic slump. At the very least, the amendment should provide some flexibility with respect to the level of debt reduction. Unfortunately, it does not. Finally, the amendment may be unconstitutional, as it attempts to constrain the power of the Vice President, provided in the Constitution, to break tie votes in the Senate. It is ironic that perhaps the most critical vote of the past decade in the cause of a lower national debt, the vote to pass the 1993 deficit reduction package, was decided by the tie-breaking vote of the Vice President and would have been precluded had this provision been in effect at the time. That single vote may be more responsible for the record-breaking economic growth we have experienced than any other over the past seven years. More importantly, this provision is almost certainly unconstitutional, and on that basis alone, warrants opposition. This budget resolution would certainly look a lot better were it to incorporate the levels of debt reduction contemplated by this amendment, and it is regretful that, thanks in large part to the fiscally irresponsible tax cuts in it, the underlying budget resolution could not sustain the level of debt reduction that Senator Allard proposes. While I cannot vote for his amendment, I congratulate Senator Allard on his effort, for he has certainly helped to raise the critical issue of debt reduction, and given it the priority it deserves.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the people of Senegal on their recent democratic presidential elections. On March 19, the citizens of Senegal selected a new leader, Abdoulaye Wade of the Senegalese Democratic Party, in run-off elections for the presidency. This election was not just for show. The Senegalese people were not simply going through the motions of political participation. Rather this was a remarkable moment in Senegalese and African history. After 40 years of Socialist Party rule, the Senegalese people peacefully and democratically took control of their country's destiny and chose to make a change. I also want to acknowledge the behavior of incumbent President Abdou Diouf, who has held power for two decades. President Diouf lost the vote, but he won the respect of champions of democracy worldwide when he accepted the choice of the voters and gracefully congratulated Mr. Wade on his victory. The manner in which he leaves office will be one of the richest elements of his legacy. Mr. President, so often the only news that Americans hear from Africa is news of war and oppression, of flood and famine, of disease and drought. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on Africa, I have often come to this floor to speak about abuses and conflicts in the sub-Saharan region. But I have also spent enough time learning about Africa to know that small victories are won each day--in cities and villages across the continent, individuals, families, and communities are making real progress in their quest for a better future. This month the people of Senegal won a truly great victory, and it is my pleasure to call this Senate's attention to their achievement.