Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me first thank my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, for her comments and leadership on this issue, and in particular the work we started together last fall and her determination with regard to the amendment that we are quite determined to make sure stays in the African Growth and Opportunity Bill. I also especially thank Senator Durbin, who came back from Africa in December with a tremendous passion on this issue, for using his enormous leadership skills to bring us together on a bipartisan basis to try to help fight this problem. I am grateful for his leadership and for his having the idea that we should come together in the Chamber to make some comments. 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 the context of the African debate. I have had success in some areas but not in others. I had a chance to raise it in December in personal meetings in their own countries with 10 different African Presidents. I applaud the United Nations Security Council's decision to address the crisis last month. I want to especially mention our Ambassador to the U.N., Richard Holbrooke, whose idea it was to have such a session, and I support the administration's call to increase the resources directed at the crisis. I am especially pleased to stand with my colleagues to raise the issue again today. I have heard some of the statistics, but I think they bear repetition. In 1998 alone, AIDS killed 2 million Africans. 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. According to World Bank President James Wolfensohn, the disease has left 10 million 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 has been no AIDS epidemic. My recent trip to 10 African countries only renewed my resolve to address this matter with the urgency and seriousness it deserves. In Namibia, HIV-positive citizens pulled 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 feared that their identity would be revealed, and that the stigma still attached to the disease would cause them to lose their jobs and perhaps even to be disowned by their 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. 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 struggle to survive. In Zimbabwe, life expectancy has dropped from 65 to 39. 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. The answer was 40. 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 July 1999, the National Institutes of Health released a report on the effectiveness of a drug called nevirapine, the drug Senator Feinstein mentioned, in preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV. Studies indicate that this drug can reduce the risk of mother-to-child transmission by as much as 80 percent. As she said, NVP costs $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. It should be recognized that Uganda is making real headway with regard to prevention. 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. 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. Again, because Senator Feinstein and I, and I know Senator Durbin, are determined on this, we offered an amendment to the African Growth and Opportunity Act that was accepted into the Senate version of that legislation. It prohibits federal money from being used to lobby governments to change TRIPS-compliant laws allowing access to HIV/AIDS drugs. Basically, it just says that taxpayer money shouldn't be used to prevent countries from taking international legal measures in this AIDS emergency. I strongly urge the conferees to support that amendment. The AIDS crisis in Africa is just 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, 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 comply with international law. I thank my colleague from Illinois and I look forward to all the efforts we will take on together on this issue, and I look forward to working with Members of the other party on this as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, be recognized after my remarks.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote to confirm the nomination of Alan Greenspan to another term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. While I continue to have some concerns about some of the day-to-day management of the Federal Reserve System, he has helped sustain a period of economic growth that few would have predicted a few years ago. Mr. President, when I first ran for the U.S. Senate in 1992, my highest priority was reducing the Federal budget deficit. In 1992, that deficit stood at $340 billion. This past fiscal year, we balanced the budget. That is an enormous achievement, and it was due to the tough fiscal policies of Congress, particularly the 1993 deficit reduction package, and Chairman Greenspan stewardship at the Federal Reserve. Both were integral to our economy's growth and to the resulting improvement in our budget picture, and I credit Chairman Greenspan for his part in that effort. I do want to make clear that I have some continuing concerns regarding the Federal Reserve, concerns that stem in part from a 1996 General Accounting Office report which reviewed the Federal Reserve System. Noting that there were no strong external forces to minimize Federal Reserve costs, the report identified weaknesses in existing oversight and budgetary processes which resulted in a number of troubling issues. The GAO found a $4 billion cash reserve known as a Surplus Account that the Federal Reserve exempted from its policy of returning all its net profits to the Treasury. The report found evidence from its policy of returning all its net profits to the Treasury. The report found evidence of inefficiencies and excessive spending, and specifically identified the construction of a Federal Reserve Bank as well as overly generous travel, salaries, and employee benefits. The report noted at least one major instance, the construction of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, in which the Federal Reserve missed an opportunity to save money, including the purchase of unnecessary land at the cost of $7 million. The GAO also reported that some employees had home security systems installed by the Federal Reserve, costing from $2,500 to $8,000, while others had home-to-work transportation using Federal Reserve vehicles. And the GAO found Federal Reserve travel expenses had risen by nearly 67 percent between 1988 and 1994, from $28.5 million in 1988 to $47 million in 1994, compared to only 26 percent for the Federal government. Mr. President, it should be noted that the Federal Reserve did respond to the GAO findings by establishing annual audits of their Reserve banks, and I credit that action. Those annual audits have since been codified, along with annual audits of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve System by a provision added to the financial modernization bill, the Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act. That audit provision was added to the financial modernization bill by the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) and the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan). They have been vigilant on this matter, and in fact they were the original requesters of the 1996 GAO report. The Reid-Dorgan audit requirements are an important step, and I am greatly encouraged by it, but we should go further. I feel strongly that we should ask the GAO to update its 1996 report on the Federal Reserve, and hope Chairman Greenspan will join in such a request. We cannot have a complete understanding of current management practices at the Fed until we hear from the GAO again on this matter, however, I am willing to give Chairman Greenspan the benefit of the doubt. The audit requirements added to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act do represent an improvement, and I was encouraged by the modest step taken by the Fed in response to the 1996 GAO report. Mr. President, I opposed this nomination four years ago, and I very much look forward to a needed update of the GAO audit of the Federal Reserve. However, given his remarkable record in helping to sustain the economic growth of the past several years and in the improvement in our budget picture, I will vote to confirm Chairman Greenspan.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In that devastated country, we see one of the worst international crises of the last decade. It is a bloody and brutal conflict, one that has drawn country after country into an un-winnable struggle, one that has cost the lives of thousands of civilians and has displaced hundreds of thousands more, and one about which this body has been strangely quiet. Congo's conflict is as complex as it is destructive. It is born of the long absence of any semblance of political legitimacy in the government of that battered state, it is fed by the horrifying legacy of the Rwandan genocide, and it is intensified by the constant struggle for resources and wealth in the region. The litany of the causes of the war in Congo is a catalogue of the problems that plague the heart of Africa. Its outcome will likely determine the course of the region's future. Mr. President, we need to wake up and realize that the U.S. has a stake in that future. Our interests in global peace and stability, the rule of law, and respect for basic human rights are bound up in Congo's future. Africans and their potential American trading partners can have no hope of realizing Africa's vast economic potential until the region's cycles of violence come to an end. And America urgently needs to stop the spread of infectious disease, to address environmental degradation, and to build a global coalition to fight international crime--but these needs cannot be met without stability in central Africa. And Mr. President, global forces of instability will thrive, and their insidious influence will grow, when parties to the conflict in Congo turn to them, in desperation, for support. Mr. President, central Africa's leaders know that the region cannot prosper while the war in the D.R.C. continues. For that reason, last summer the parties to the conflict signed a blueprint for ending the conflict--the Lusaka Agreement. That Agreement calls for an end to the fighting, for a free political dialogue within Congo, and lays out the path to the withdrawal of foreign forces. Mr. President, I traveled to many of the countries involved in the crisis at the end of last year. In Angola, Zimbabwe, and Namibia, in Uganda and Rwanda, and in the D.R.C. itself, I personally heard heads of state acknowledge the importance of making the Lusaka Agreement work. They understand the challenge before them, the precious opportunity embodied by Lusaka. Last week the parties to the Congo conflict renewed their commitment to the Lusaka Agreement in a series of extraordinary meetings at the United Nations in New York. They have all agreed to a facilitator, former President Masire of Botswana, to move the inter-Congolese dialogue forward. And all parties have called for a strengthening of the Joint Military Commission that is at the heart of the framework for peace. Mr. President, just as the U.S. has a stake in the outcome, the United States also has a role to play in supporting these efforts. The U.N. has already deployed a small team of liaison officers to the scene. Now, the United Nations Secretary General has issued a report laying out the next phase of U.N. involvement. It calls for the deployment of 500 monitors, with a 5,000-strong force providing security and logistical support to their mission. They will have a robust mandate that ensures their ability to protect themselves. Mr. President, none of the troops would be American, and that is as it should be. In fact, in my meetings with heads of state in the region, I explicitly asked about their expectations with regard to American troops, and I can report that no one has visions of a large American presence on the ground in Congo. But by creating the breathing room necessary to allow the belligerents to move toward peace, these troops will serve American interests. The U.N. Secretary-General has endorsed a good plan. Its value comes, in part, from what it does not do. The U.N. does not plan to send tens of thousands of troops into Congo to impose peace on hostile parties. Nor does the U.N. intend to stand by while the most brutal elements in Congo seize power through violence and impose their will on civilians. Instead, the plan that has emerged in New York harnesses international support to the commitment of the parties to the conflict. It recognizes that the only viable peace to be found in Congo is a peace created by the belligerent parties themselves. It acknowledges African responsibility for this African war, and strengthens the Joint Military Commission created by combatants when they signed the Lusaka accords. At the same time, this plan ensures that the international community does not turn its back on Africa. There can be no double-standard, whereby African conflicts are measured by a different scale than that used for conflicts in Europe or Asia. The plan for the deployment of the monitors and their supporting team has been vetted as thoroughly as any U.N. project. The stakes--in terms of human life and regional stability--are unquestionably high enough to meet the threshold for international action. Now, the U.N. has an opportunity to get it right in Congo. Supporting this U.N. mission is the least we should do to secure our interests and fulfill our responsibilities as responsible members of the international community. Should we fail to support it, should we ignore this terrible conflict any longer, we will weaken the international community's mechanisms for burden-sharing at the dawn of this new century. And we will lose an opportunity to reinforce a model for ending conflict and embracing a better future. I want to say, because obviously this has to be true and I am concerned about it, that the plan is not guaranteed to succeed. Little worth attempting ever is. Zambian President Frederick Chiluba was right when he said, last week, that no peacekeeping operation anywhere in the world is risk-free. But Mr. President, this is the best chance for shoring up the Lusaka Agreement and helping African states to end the conflict that we are likely to see. I strongly urge my colleagues to look at this program that is being suggested and to give it their support.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, current law provides for an automatic stay of eviction proceedings upon the filing of a bankruptcy case. Landlords can apply for relief from that stay so eviction can proceed, but under current law the process often takes several months. Section 311 of the bill eliminates the stay in all landlord-tenant cases so eviction can proceed immediately. My amendment would allow tenants to remain in their apartments as they try to sort out the difficult consequences of bankruptcy, if and only if they are willing to pay the rent that comes due after they file for bankruptcy. If the tenant fails to pay the rent, the stay can be lifted 15 days after the landlord provides notice to the court that the rent has not been paid. So no hearing and no delay. If the reason for the eviction is drug use or property damage, the stay can also be lifted after 15 days. Under the amendment, this 15-day notice period does not apply if the tenant has filed for bankruptcy previously. In other words, in the case of repeat filings, the automatic stay would never take effect, just as under section 311 in the bill. Under my amendment, therefore, you could never live rent free as some of the opponents suggest. The debtor has to pay rent after filing for bankruptcy. If a debtor misses a rent payment, the stay will be lifted after 15 days. So the amendment gets at the abuse and it protects the rights and economic interests of the landlord. What it does eliminate is the punitive aspect of the bill. We have modified this so it is fair. The major reform in favor of landlords still holds, but there has to be some fairness and balance with regard to the effect of the bill on evictions. That is what I am trying to protect through this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my amendment is designed to lessen the harsh effects of section 311 of the bill on tenants, while at the same time protecting the legitimate financial interests of landlords.

Mr. FEINGOLD. With that understanding, I yield back my remaining time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, with the understanding the other side will yield their time, I will yield my time, as well. But if, instead, they wish to speak again, I will keep the 3 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I wish to respond briefly to the short remarks the Senator from Alabama made with regard to the landlord-tenant amendment. I want to reiterate, as the Senator from Alabama acknowledged, that he raised a whole series of concerns out here on the floor in the course of our debate on the amendment a few months ago. And he does not dispute that we addressed every single one of those concerns, as we modified the amendment. We have been very attentive to the fact there were aspects of the amendment that made the Senator, and others, uncomfortable. We made changes in the spirit of compromise in order to try to get something done. By eliminating the automatic stay, section 311 of this bill is an enormous change in the law in favor of landlords. What the Senator does not make clear is that we are not undoing that change with this amendment. What our amendment does is streamline the process for lifting the automatic stay, rather than eliminating the stay altogether. So instead of a 6- or 8-week period, or longer, to get the stay lifted, our amendment provides a 15-day period, and the State eviction proceedings go forward. But those proceedings cannot go forward when the tenant is paying rent. All we are saying is that if a person is truly trying to get his or her act together, and is willing, from the time of the bankruptcy filing forward, to pay rent every month, on time, then in those cases the stay should be in place. I think that is enormously reasonable. For the Senator to suggest this is somehow federalizing this area is the opposite of what is going on. In fact, this bill, as it will undoubtedly pass, will remove Federal court, in effect, in an awful lot of cases that currently are protected by Federal bankruptcy proceedings because of the automatic stay. And so will our amendment. If a tenant misses a rent payment, or is damaging the apartment, all the landlord has to do is file a simple one page certification to that effect with the bankruptcy court and the stay is lifted. All we are saying is, in some cases there still needs to be that stay in place where someone is honestly trying to stay in that apartment, someone is truly trying to get their life together, and is willing to make the rent payments. So it is simply incorrect to say this is going to gut the provision in the bill. Our amendment still is a dramatic change from current law. It is a change that is very pro-landlord. All we are saying is, let's be fair. It is not accurate when the Senator from Alabama says there is automatically going to be a hearing at the end of the 15 days. That is not the case. Yes, it is conceivable that tenants could come and seek a hearing if they claimed that the landlord's certification was inadequate or mistaken, but there is no automatic right to a hearing. If those 15 days lapse, that is it. The State eviction proceeding goes ahead, the automatic stay is lifted. In summary, I think this is a classic case of where, instead of there being a fundamental disagreement that we cannot bridge, we tried very hard to add a few elements of fairness to the bill. I think the Senator from Alabama would have to concede we did do that. It would be appropriate for Members to take a good look at this modified amendment and adopt it to make sure we do not have an unduly harsh change in the law. I cannot believe even the harshest landlord would want to have some of the consequences that could result if we do not adopt the reasonable modifications contained in this amendment. Mr. President, with that, I ask, how much time is remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask if I can use a portion of that time at this point to respond on the landlord-tenant amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I believe I have 6 minutes remaining, is that correct?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will oppose the Levin-Durbin amendment, which would make certain judgments against gun manufacturers nondischargeable in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. I appreciate the sincere views of my friends from Michigan and Illinois who have proposed this amendment as a way to highlight the serious issues of gun violence in this country. I do not believe, however, that this amendment is necessary, and I think it has the potential to set a dangerous precedent in our business bankruptcy system. First, there is a real question of whether this amendment is necessary. Chapter 11 business bankruptcy is not like Chapter 7 personal bankruptcy where debts are simply wiped out by the bankruptcy decree. In a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, a business's reorganization plan must receive the approval of the court and of the other creditors. It is far from clear that the kind of judgments that are at issue in the Levin amendment will automatically be discharged in a bankruptcy reorganization. In addition, Chapter 11 bankruptcy often provides a useful forum for making sure that all claimants against a company are treated fairly. We have seen that happen with respect to suits against asbestos and IUD manufacturers. Without it, plaintiffs may end up in a race to the courthouse to try to claim the limited assets of a company. Because I have some doubt that the amendment is necessary, and whether it is advisable even from the point of view of potential plaintiffs against gun manufacturers, I am reluctant to set the precedent of using the business bankruptcy system in this way. I believe this amendment is different from some of the non- dischargeability provisions already applicable to personal bankruptcies or that will be voted on here before we complete this bill. Whereas we can say to someone who is contemplating personal bankruptcy that it is our judgment that certain debts simply should not be discharged because of the circumstances or culpability that led to the bankruptcy in the first place, it is hard to see how delivering that message in this particular narrow business bankruptcy context accomplishes the same goal. I will therefore vote against this amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I have no objection.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment is what we have referred to in this debate on the bankruptcy bill as the ``landlord-tenant amendment.'' We had extensive debate on this amendment in November before we recessed for the year. We did make some progress in identifying the areas of dispute and, I think, in narrowing our differences as well. To remind my colleagues, this amendment is designed to reduce the harsh consequences of section 311 of the bill on tenants, while at the same time protecting legitimate financial interests of landlords. To review, current law provides for an automatic stay of eviction proceedings upon the filing of a bankruptcy case. Landlords can apply for relief from that stay so the eviction can proceed, but it is a process that often takes a few months. What section 311 of the bill does is eliminate the stay in all landlord-tenant cases so an eviction can proceed immediately, completely, regardless of the circumstances. What my amendment would do is allow tenants to remain in their apartments as they try to sort out the difficult consequences of bankruptcy, if--and only if--they are willing to pay the rent that comes due after they file for bankruptcy or that comes due within the 10 days before bankruptcy. If the tenant fails to pay rent, the stay can be lifted without further proceedings 15 days after the landlord provides notice to the court that the rent has not been paid. If the reason for the eviction is drug use or property damage, the stay can also be lifted after 15 days. Finally, if the lease has actually expired by its terms--in other words, if there is no more time on the lease--and if the landlord or a member of his or her family plans to move in to the property, then again, after 15 days notice, the eviction can proceed. There is no 15-day notice period, with a chance for the tenant to go into court and challenge the allegations of the landlord, if the tenant has filed for bankruptcy previously. In other words in cases of repeat filings, the stay never takes effect, just as under section 311 in this bill. That is the main abuse that has been alleged in Los Angeles County, where unscrupulous bankruptcy petition preparers advertise filing bankruptcy as a way to live ``rent free.'' So under my amendment, a debtor can never live ``rent free.'' The debtor has to pay rent after filing for bankruptcy. If a debtor misses a rent payment, the stay will be lifted 15 days later. And the automatic stay does not take effect at all if the tenant is a repeat filer. So my amendment gets at the abuse, and it protects the rights and economic interests of the landlord. What it eliminates is the punitive aspect of Section 311, and the possibility that tenants who are willing and able to pay rent once they get a little breathing room from their other creditors will instead be put out on the street. I am frankly disappointed that my colleague from Alabama, with whom I have had a good debate on this issue, and the property owners organizations are insisting on the harsh aspects of section 311 when my amendment would get at the problems they have identified just as well. It is also important to note that even in cases where a tenant pays the rent that is due after filing for bankruptcy, my amendment leaves intact the current law that allows landlords to get relief from the automatic stay. Let me be very clear about that. My amendment does not eliminate the ability of landlords to apply for relief from the stay under current law. The law now gives debtors some breathing room in legal proceedings, including eviction proceedings. But landlords can apply for relief from the stay. It is not an abuse of the law to take advantage of the automatic stay to get your affairs in order. Many tenants use that time to work out a payment schedule for their back rent so they can avoid eviction altogether. Most landlords don't want to throw people out on the street--they just want to be paid. My amendment requires that they be paid once bankruptcy is filed, or the eviction can proceed immediately. But even if the rent is paid while the bankruptcy case is pending, a landlord can still seek relief from stay under the normal procedures and press forward with the eviction. I have a letter from the National Association of Realtors, a powerful lobbying association, that is unalterably opposed to my amendment. This letter is dated January 24, 2000, several days ago. It urges opposition to my amendment, which it says will ``seriously weaken'' the bill. But listen to what it says about the bill. The letter says that current law allows for ``serious fraud and abuse.'' But my amendment deals with the cases of fraud and abuse by disallowing the automatic stay in the case of repeat filings. And the Realtor's letter says that current law allows tenant to ``live rent free at the expense of the property owner.'' But my amendment does not allow tenants to live rent free. They have to pay rent once the bankruptcy is filed. And it says that prospective tenants often ``have to wait 6 months or longer, as they do now, to get into rental property units occupied by residents overstaying their lease.'' Well that is simply not true under my amendment. This amendment allows for expedited relief from stay in any case where the lease has expired according to its terms and the landlord has entered into a valid rental agreement with another tenant prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition. Every single one of the arguments made by the National Association of Realtors against the amendment is refuted by the amendment itself, every one. Yet this group persists in urging the Senate to reject the amendment. It says, speaking about the provisions of the bill that the amendment will modify: ``we believe these common sense provisions will curb abusive use of the Bankruptcy Code.'' If the Realtors were honest, they would admit that my amendment will do exactly the same thing. It will curb abusive use of the Bankruptcy Code. But it will also continue to allow the code to provide protection to people who are not abusing the system, but simply using it to get back on their feet, and keep a roof over their heads. Those people would be treated too harshly by the current bill, and it is unfortunate that the Realtors, in their zeal to get as many advantages for landlords as they can, refuse to see that. I have modified this amendment in the spirit of compromise to address all of the concerns that the Senator from Alabama raised in debate last year. This amendment addresses the abuse, it is fair to landlords and makes sure they are not economically harmed when a tenant files for bankruptcy, and it is fair to debtors who file for bankruptcy in good faith and simply need a little breathing space to get their lives in order. I urge my colleagues to look carefully at this amendment, and I hope they will support it. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time am I allotted on this amendment?

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment be temporarily laid aside so I can call up amendment No. 2748, as modified by amendment No. 2779.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we would like an opportunity to briefly respond to the comments of the Senator from Missouri. I could have sworn the Senator had not heard my remarks earlier because his remarks suggest an analysis that has something to do with their original legislation. I took great pains throughout my comments to indicate exactly what the Senator from Missouri was indicating, that there are some very positive developments in Indonesia, and in particular that Government there, the democratically elected Government, is struggling to keep that nation strong, to keep that nation together, and to get control over the military. So I find it very ironic that the Senator would come down here and say we need to be fair to that Government when you look at the comments in the last 48 hours. What has happened in the last 48 hours? President Wahid of Indonesia said, I say to the Senator from Missouri, that it may be necessary for Mr. Wiranto to resign. That is what the democratically elected President of Indonesia said when he heard about the investigations and reports of the United Nations. What did Mr. Wiranto say with regard to that suggestion of the President of Indonesia? He said he was going to brush aside calls to resign from government and stand trial for his alleged role in human rights abuses in East Timor last year. ``Like a good soldier, I am going to continue to fight for the truth.'' In other words, the Senator from Missouri asks us to support the President and the nation of Indonesia. But instead what he is really doing is giving support and sanction to the attitude of Mr. Wiranto, the person who many believe had a great deal to do with the atrocities in East Timor. I did not come today to actually seek a vote on this amendment. I did indicate I would withdraw the amendment from this bankruptcy bill. We wanted to serve notice that we will continue to monitor this situation, and we are doing it in a balanced way that indicates our support for the positive developments in Indonesia. The Senator from Missouri complains that our resolution is mostly negative with regard to things that happened in East Timor and with regard to Indonesia. This resolution is not about Indonesia in general. If the Senator wants to promote a resolution praising Indonesia and the positive things that have happened in Indonesia in the last couple of months, I may well join him. But this is about what happened in East Timor. The Senator apparently took a trip recently to Indonesia, but the people who were on the floor to talk today--Senator Reed and Senator Harkin-- have actually been to East Timor. You can add to that a key person of the Clinton administration he kept mentioning, our distinguished Ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke, who also went to East Timor in late November and came back and told me and others that the conditions and circumstances with regard to the refugees in West Timor, many of whom want to get home to East Timor, are not good. He has a long and distinguished record of seeing these kinds of situations throughout the world in the over 30 or 40 years he has been in diplomacy. He was deeply troubled by the fact the job was not done. The people of East Timor and the people of East Timor who are in West Timor and want to come home have not had their rights fully protected. That is why we are trying to put pressure on the military in Indonesia. That is not an unfriendly act to the Government of Indonesia. That is a friendly act because that is the toughest challenge the President of Indonesia has right now--making sure the military accepts democratic rule of that country. We are in an effort to support democracy in Indonesia, and it cannot go forward as the kind of democracy we support unless this situation in East Timor is properly resolved. That is the spirit of our amendment, and that is the spirit of our bill. I appreciate the additional time. Let me add, Senator Leahy is another who has done an enormous amount on this issue of East Timor and can certainly tell you the job is not done with regard to using our leverage and our ability to persuade and make sure the people of East Timor have full independence and that the people who want to return to East Timor have the opportunity to do that. Amendment No. 2667, Withdrawn Mr. President, I withdraw the amendment.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, at this time I am delighted to yield the remaining time we have on the amendment to the distinguished Senator from Iowa who, along with the Senator from Rhode Island, has shown not only a tremendous interest and dedication on the issue of East Timor but took the time and risks associated with actually visiting East Timor at a very critical point and came back here to be key to the entire effort to lead the East Timorian independence. Senator Harkin, Senator Reed, I, and others are going to watch this every day to make sure this situation moves in the right direction and we don't go backwards. I yield whatever time is necessary to the Senator from Iowa.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his extremely dedicated work on this issue. It has been a pleasure working with him on it. I wish to reiterate what he said, which is that this is another opportunity for us to tell our colleagues, as well as Indonesia and the rest of the world, that we are watching this on a daily basis and we are prepared to act again. The legislation is very viable and we are prepared to offer it as an amendment to another bill if the situation becomes difficult. At this point, I suggest the absence of a quorum.