Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I wish to ask a question. Our bill only provides that 90 percent of the people who work in the firm have to be citizens of an African country. It does not suggest in any way anything about their ethnic or racial background. I am very sensitive to that. I wonder if the Senator is aware that that is the only requirement, so anyone who is a citizen of any one of the African countries, regardless of their background, would be within the 90 percent.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in response to the chairman's remarks, I believe those provisions would be enforceable. We already have a mechanism where an import's country of origin must be verified. The consent must also be verified. I suggest we use the same mechanisms in place to certify African value content. In fact, it was indicated under GSP that it is a 35-percent requirement and under this bill is a 20- percent requirement. The question doesn't seem to be whether we can enforce it or identify it; the question seems to be, What should the percentage be? In response to the broader point that somehow this is going to be unfair to the countries of Africa, it is just the opposite. What we are trying to avoid with this amendment is, in effect, the exploitation of African countries as a way for other countries to get away with something they can do right now very easily; for example, the Chinese willingness here to use transshipment through African companies to undercut American jobs. All we are trying to do is have a reasonable assurance, in two ways, that Africans are actually having a chance to do the work and they are actually contributing to the product. A 60-percent requirement is not 100 percent, it is a reasonable level. It still leaves room for joint activities with other entities. And a 90-percent requirement is not restricted, as the chairman has suggested, to one country, but 90 percent have to be African citizens of any one of the over 50 African countries. It still leaves a 10- percent possibility for workers from other countries. If we don't do this, this proposal has nothing to do with making sure African workers get an opportunity to have a decent living and to have these economic opportunities. This bill has to be a two-way street at some level, Mr. President; it is not that now. This amendment is a good-faith effort to make it more balanced and to be fairer to African workers. I strongly suggest it is a modest step that needs to be taken to improve this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the African Growth and Opportunity Act, we have to keep asking ourselves the key question: Growth and opportunity for whom? It is an important question because the Africa trade legislation we are now considering does not require that Africans themselves be employed at the firms that are going to receive the trade benefits. In fact, AGOA, as it now stands, actually takes a step backwards for Africa. The GSP program requires that 35 percent of a product's value added come from Africa, but this legislation actually lowers the bar to 20 percent. Under this scheme, it is possible that a product would meet the 20- percent requirement and qualify for AGOA benefits. For example, if non- African workers physically standing in West Africa simply sewed a ``Made in Togo'' label on apparel and then shipped it to the United States, that is all they would have to do. It makes something of a mockery of how this is supposed to help African countries and African workers. This plan undercuts the potential for trade to boost African employment and encourages transshipment of goods from third countries seeking to evade quotas. As I said before on the other amendment, the U.S. Customs Service has determined that for every $1 billion of illegally transshipped products that enter the United States, 40,000 jobs in the textile and apparel sector are lost. So this amendment would also fight transshipment but in another way, requiring that 60 percent of the value added to a product has to come from Africa. It is a significant improvement over the 20 percent of the bill. I think it is an appropriate improvement over the 35 percent of the GSP standard. This amendment also emphasizes African opportunities. It requires that any textile firm receiving trade benefits must employ a workforce that is 90-percent African. This doesn't mean that all 90 percent of the people have to come from a particular African country where the company might be or the activity might be, but they do have to be citizens of an African country. This provision holds out an incentive to African governments, businesses, and civil society to develop their human resources. That would not only be good for Africa; it would be good for America, as well as our trading partners in the region gaining economic strength. Without these amendments, this legislation offers neither growth nor opportunity to Africans themselves. In fact, unless the Senate makes these changes, we will simply see a continuation of a disturbing trend. In the first 4 years of this decade, corporate profits in Africa average 24 to 30 percent compared with 16 to 18 percent for all developing countries. But real wages in Africa continue to fall, as they have for nearly three decades now. The number of African families unable to meet their basic needs has doubled. It would be irresponsible to pass an African trade bill that reinforced this dangerous disconnect between corporate profits and African wages. I know my colleagues who support the African Growth and Opportunity Act do so because they genuinely want to engage with the continent. I share their goal, and I believe this amendment would push U.S. Africa policy in that direction by linking economic growth and human development protecting both African and American interests. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 2406.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, be made an original cosponsor of amendment No. 2408 relating to anticorruption efforts.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I would ask for the same on the amendment I am proposing with the expectation we will not use all the time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. This is No. 2406.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have a question for the chairman. He and I talked about my adding another amendment prior to these votes as well, amendment No. 2406. I also only need 10 minutes. I ask it be included in the sequence of votes as well.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this is a little confusing. We are debating several amendments at once. I would like to see if we could get a little back and forth going. I wanted to respond to the chairman's comments about my amendment, but then he went into several arguments about the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina. I am worried it is going to be awfully hard for people to follow this. Let me return to and respond to the concerns of the chairman with regard to the amendment I have offered, to try to do something about this problem of transshipment, this problem that some countries--very likely China--will take advantage of this new Africa Growth and Opportunity Act to ship a lot more of their goods through Africa into the United States, and not only harm the African nations and people who are trying to benefit from this but harm American jobs. Every $1 billion of transshipped goods into this country apparently costs about 40,000 American jobs in the textile-related area. When the chairman suggests we are trying to discourage legal trade by this amendment, that is the opposite of what we are doing. We are trying to prevent this kind of circumvention of the spirit and intent of the law by unfair and what should be illegal transshipment. The Senator has suggested somehow there is a constitutional problem with imposing some penalties on importers who are given some responsibilities in this regard. I was not clear on what the constitutional provision was. I assume it is the notion of taking property without due process of law. But if we take a look at these penalties, what we are trying to do is make absolutely sure the importer cooperates with the Customs Service in order to make sure what is happening is not a scam by a government, such as the Chinese Government, to transship its goods through Africa. Let's look at the actual language the Senator has complained about. He refers to the use of ``best available information.'' All that is required for an importer is that an importer has to cooperate. Let me emphasize this for my colleagues. It says: If an importer or retailer fails to cooperate with the Customs Service in an investigation to determine if there was a violation of any provision of this section, the Customs Service shall base its determination on the best available information. The only time this ``best available information'' is even utilized is where the importer has not been willing to cooperate. I think that is entirely reasonable. The Senator refers to these penalties as draconian, as too severe. Let's remember what this bill does. It gives these importers a golden opportunity, a new opportunity to make a lot of money through these new trade opportunities with Africa. I do not think it is draconian to ask these importers to take reasonable steps to avoid the kind of abuse China obviously intends to pursue in this area. The penalty for the first offense is a civil penalty in the amount equal to 200 percent of declared value of merchandise, plus forfeiture of merchandise. In light of the new opportunities this gives these importers, I do not see this as draconian. I see this as a penalty that is commensurate with the kind of opportunities they are provided. I assume these importers in good faith do not want to facilitate Chinese circumvention of our laws and our quotas. I assume their goal is a good-faith desire to make a profit by trading with these African countries. So we need to do something other than what is the current law, and all the bill does in its current form is reiterate the current law that does not work because it relies on foreign officials to certify these products are really African goods. That is not good enough. We need to place some responsibility on the importer who is subject to American law. This is the critical point. Either we are going to simply pass this bill, which, frankly, already is very unbalanced and not sufficient to protect American workers, or we are going to try to fix it. Surely, one area we need to fix is this transshipment problem. Let me quote, again, these web sites of the People's Republic of China, Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation. They say, about the current law which this bill continues: There are many opportunities for Chinese business people in Africa. Setting up assembly plants with Chinese equipment and personnel could not only greatly increase sales in African countries, but also circumvent the quotas imposed on commodities of Chinese origin imposed by European and American countries. The opposition to this amendment simply wants to allow the Chinese Government to continue this program. They provide no tough penalties, no obligation for people we can do something about, such as importers and people under American law. They want to let the good times roll for these Chinese companies and governments that are trying to undercut American jobs. I think that is wrong. Clearly, if there is anything should be adopted, it should be some cracking down on the extremely abusive practice of transshipping. Let's not let these African countries be pawns for the Chinese goal of undercutting American jobs. Our amendment will strengthen this bill. It certainly will not weaken the bill. It will make the bill a much more honest attempt to make sure this fosters a trade relationship between the United States and the countries of Africa--not a conduit for Chinese abuse of American quotas. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as I have said before, unless the African Growth and Opportunity Act is significantly improved, it will fail to stimulate any meaningful growth in Africa; it will fail to provide significant opportunities for commerce or development; and, in fact, if we do not make some changes, it may do harm to both Africans and Americans. So what this amendment does is take an important step toward preventing harm and improving this trade legislation. Mutually beneficial economic legislation has to be fair to all parties involved. The African Growth and Opportunity Act must be amended to adequately address the problems of transshipment, not just to make certain that it is fair to Africans but also to ensure Americans are not cheated and that American law isn't broken. Let me talk a little bit about transshipment. Transshipment occurs when textiles originating in one country are sent through another before they come to the United States. What this does is, the actual country of origin seeks to disguise itself and therefore ignore our U.S. quotas. This is not a minor matter. Approximately $2 billion worth of illegally transshipped textiles enter the United States every year. The U.S. Customs Service has determined that for every $1 billion of illegally transshipped products that enter the United States, 40,000 jobs in the textile and apparel sector are lost. Let me repeat that. The Customs Service says that every time we have a billion dollars of illegally transshipped products entering the United States, we lose 40,000 jobs in this country in that area of our economy. Failure to protect against transshipment surely does harm. Those who think transshipment isn't going to be a problem in Africa had better think again. We have had a chance to take a look at the official web site of the China Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation. It quotes an analyst as follows. This is a direct quote we have on this board. This is what they say on the web site: Setting up assembly plants with Chinese equipment technology and personnel could not only greatly increase sales in African countries but also circumvent quotas imposed on commodities of Chinese origin by European and American countries. That is very explicit and very intentional. The Chinese know standard United States protections against transshipment are weak, and they obviously intend to exploit them. The African Growth and Opportunity Act, as it currently stands without my amendment, relies on those same weak protections--the same textile visa system that China and others have successfully manipulated in the past. This inadequate system requires government officials in the exporting country to give textiles visas certifying the goods' country of origin for those textiles to be exported. Too often, this isn't good enough; corrupt officials simply sell the visas to the highest bidder. What does this amendment do? This amendment changes this failing system. It makes U.S. importers responsible for certifying where textiles and apparel are produced. This gives the U.S. entities a strong financial stake in the legality of their imports. This amendment allows us not to rely simply on foreign officials. This standard relies on the American companies that operate right here under American law, and it holds those companies liable for any false statements or omissions in the certification process. This amendment lays out clear procedures and tough penalties so that these regulations will actually work. If the Senate agrees to this amendment, countries such as China that want to evade United States trade regulations will have to rethink their designs on Africa. If we agree to this amendment, the opportunities promised by this legislation really will go to Africans, and not to third parties. If we agree to this amendment, Americans will not lose their jobs because of AGOA's inadequate transshipment protection. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2428 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending amendment aside.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I rise to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the publication of Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac. The publication of this work has been celebrated in my home state throughout 1999, most recently with a major national conference on the future of the land ethic at the beginning of this month. However, October 27, 1949 is the date that Oxford Press released the first edition of the book. Aldo Leopold is considered to be the father of wildlife ecology. He was a renowned scientist and scholar, exceptional teacher, philosopher, and gifted writer. It is for this book, A Sand County Almanac, that Leopold is best known by millions of people around the globe. The book has been acclaimed as the century's literary landmark in conservation. It led to a philosophy that has guided many to discovering what it means to live in harmony with the land. When Leopold died in 1948, he had yet to see his Sand County Almanac in print, and it was through the efforts of his son Luna that the first version of A Sand County Almanac was made available to the public. Aldo Leopold's authority as a philosopher of conservation came from a lifelong love of wilderness and the recognition of his need to be surrounded by ``things natural, wild, and free.'' Upon graduation from Yale University, Leopold went to work for the United States Forest Service in 1909, helped to found the Wilderness Society, and in 1924 was responsible for the institution, through administrative action, of the first of the United States' Wilderness Areas, the Gila National Forest in New Mexico. From 1933 until his death, Leopold held a chair in game management at the University of Wisconsin. Although Leopold's love of the land is apparent in the book, his book does not cry out in defense of particular tracts of land about to go under the axe or plow. Rather Leopold deals with the minutiae of often unnoticed plants and animals, all the little things that one might overlook in the task of managing lands but which must be present to add up to healthy ecosystems. Part I of A Sand County Almanac is devoted to the details of a single piece of land: Leopold's 120-acre property in central Wisconsin, abandoned as a working farm years before because of the prevalence of sandy soil from which the ``Sand Counties'' took their nickname. It was at this weekend retreat, Leopold says, ``that we try to rebuild, with shovel and axe, what we are losing elsewhere.'' Month by month, Leopold leads the reader through the progression of the seasons with descriptions of such things as skunk tracks, the songs, habits, and attitudes of dozens of bird species, cycles of high water in the river, the timely appearance and blooming of several plants, and the joys of cutting one's own firewood. Part of Leopold's request, toward the end of the book, that we attach values to the things in nature that have no apparent economic worth. At the time Leopold's Wisconsin sand farm itself was economically valueless because of its unsuitability for crops, timber or pasture. However, from Leopold's essays one comes to realize that here is a parcel of land that is anything but worthless; the property that yields to its owner the multitude of joys and insights that Leopold describes is a rich piece of ground indeed. In Part II of A Sand County Almanac, titled ``The Quality of Landscape,'' Leopold takes his reader away from the farm; first into the surrounding Wisconsin countryside and then even farther. Leopold describes an Illinois bus ride, a visit to the Iowa of his boyhood, on to Arizona and New Mexico where he first worked with the U.S. Forest Service, across the southern border into Chihuahua and Sonora, Mexico, north to Oregon and Utah, and finally travel across the northern border into Manitoba, Canada. In each of these places, Leopold outlines the natural history of the region. Leopold understood the difficulty of the choices before us, and certainly knew the paradox with which we are faced: ``But all conservation of wildness is self-defeating,'' he writes, ``for to cherish we must see and fondle, and when we have seen and fondled, there is no wilderness left to cherish.'' In the final pages of A Sand County Almanac, Leopold introduces the concept of a ``land ethic'' and a plea that such an ethic be adopted. Leopold defines philosophical ethics as ``the differentiation of social from anti-social conduct'' for the common good of the community, and declares that a land ethic, wherein the ecologies in which we erect our developments would be considered an integral part of the community, amounts to the same thing as social ethics. A land ethic, in the author's terms, means a ``willing limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for survival.'' A Sand County Almanac was not written specifically for wilderness activists. It was written for everyone, regardless of vocation. I recommend this book to colleagues not only because it is enjoyable, but also because it raises important questions that the Senate will eventually be forced to address. As members of the Senate, the decisions we will make regarding land use are critically important. The responsibility is there, as well as the rewards, for those who seek to conduct themselves in a fashion consistent with Leopold's vision. A Sand County Almanac continues to inspire new generations of Americans to take up the cause of conservation. And 50 years later, the land ethic continues to serve as the guiding beacon for American conservation policy. We do well in the Senate to mark this Anniversary, and to dedicate ourselves to Leopold's legacy.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I come to the floor to briefly comment on a significant development in the fight for campaign finance reform. This morning, a bipartisan group of Senators, led by the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel, announced a new campaign finance reform proposal. Let me say that I and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, warmly welcome the heightened participation of this new group of Senators, which includes the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, who has been, from the day she came to the Senate, a strong supporter of campaign finance reform. I also note that it includes five Republican Senators who have previously never voted for a campaign finance reform measure that includes limits on soft money. As I predicted last week on the floor, the wall of protection for the current system of unlimited soft money contributions to the political parties is rapidly crumbling. While I am pleased by this development, I am not surprised. The soft money system is indefensible. I think we saw that during our abbreviated debate last week. Opponents of reform didn't defend soft money; they tried to divert our attention from it. They actually questioned whether there is anything corrupting about unlimited contributions from corporate and union treasuries to the political parties. As the chairman of the Global Board of Directors of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu wrote in the New York Times when he heard about these comments on the floor: You could almost here the laughter coming from boardrooms and executive suites all over the country when Senate opponents of campaign finance reform expressed dismay that anyone could think big political contributions are corrupting elections and government. I think the new initiative, led by the Senator from Nebraska, recognizes the opponents of reform have now retreated to an untenable position. They are defending the indefensible. To say there is nothing wrong with unlimited contributions to the political parties, that this is somehow the ``American way,'' is to live in a fantasy world the American people simply will not accept. The public knows soft money is wrong. The public knows soft money is corrupting. And the business community knows it, too, as the Global Chairman of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu so well expressed. While the Hagel proposal does not ban soft money completely, which I believe is an essential element of an acceptable campaign finance reform bill, it does limit it significantly. So what you have here is a whole new group of Republican Senators, as well as some Democrats who are obviously saying it is not unconstitutional to limit soft money. In fact, they are obviously seeing the abuse of $300,000 or $500,000 contributions and they want to do something about it. So I am looking forward to working with Senator Hagel and the others to reach common ground. When campaign finance reform left the floor last week, we had a total of 55 Senators who had voted in favor of reform. Now, with this new initiative, there are five more Senators who apparently are prepared to vote to change this system. I think that is very significant, as I am sure my colleagues know, because what is 55 plus 5? It is 60. If we can bring all of these Senators together on a package they can all accept, we can break the filibuster. What we need now is real hard work, bipartisan work. We need to bridge our differences. If we can do that, we can defeat the defenders of this corrupt system and give the people a cleaner and fairer campaign finance system for the new century. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, business support for campaign finance reform is real and it is growing. Businessmen are tired of being the fall guys of American politics. They are tired of seeing politicians with their hands out for money. They are tired of the ever increasing demand for ever larger checks. They are tired of the feeling like they are being shaken-down for their contributions, like political donations are a form of protection money. They are tired of the public's perception that when business wins an argument in Congress it wasn't because its position was right but because they gave big soft money donations to the political parties. That is certainly a risk with this particular Africa trade bill, as my Calling of the Bankroll at the beginning of this presentation showed. I want to commend the leaders of the business community for joining this cause, and standing up to the pressure from those who want to preserve this corrupt system. In the end, they are on the right side of the issue, not only for business, but for the American people. I have to ask my colleagues, Mr. President, how can this body continue to allow soft money contributions to flow to the political parties' warchests--unregulated, unchecked, and doing untold damage to the public perception of the way we do business in this Chamber? How long can we expect the public to put up with a U.S. Senate that refuses to shut down such an egregious loophole, and chooses instead to perpetuate a soft money system that taints everything we do on this floor? That's right. I'll say it again. Everything we do on this floor is called into question by the soft money system. And that includes this Africa and Caribbean trade bill. The $5 million in soft money contributions by the industry coalition created supposedly to show public support for this bill casts a shadow on this debate. It's the 800 pound gorilla, as I've said before, that is sitting over there on the floor and that we all ignore. Until we close the soft money loophole, the shadow will get darker and darker, and the gorilla bigger and bigger. Until we close that loophole, our constituents have every right to be skeptical of whether we work for them, or for the big contributors. Until we close that loophole, the concept of one person, one vote--a basic and fundamental tenet of our democracy--is in serious jeopardy. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, CED is not the only business organization that supports campaign finance reform. The Campaign for America is an organization founded by Jerome Kohlberg, former founding partner of the firm of Kohlberg, Kravitz. That organization sent us a letter during the recent campaign finance debate, signed by, among others, Warren Buffet, Arjay Miller, who is the former President of Ford Motor Company and Dean Emeritus of Stanford Business School, and Bob Stuart, former Chair of Quaker Oats. These prestigious business leaders write: ``We believe the current soft money system works against the public interest and against the interests of business. . . . [B]usiness and industry must have access and say in policy-making. But soft money distorts the process.'' I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Campaign for America and these business leaders appear in the Record at this point.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, far from having its intended effect, the Senator from Kentucky's letter, which many believe smacks of intimidation, seems to have emboldened CED and its membership. At last count, 212 business and civic leaders have endorsed the CED report, and not a single member of CED has resigned in response to the Senator from Kentucky's tactics. Not a single one. It was amazing to me, Mr. President, that we heard Senators on the floor during the campaign finance debate questioning whether our current system is corrupting. But the Senate has heard me talk about the corruption of the system a lot. It's no surprise that I think this system has a corrupting influence on the Congress. But for those who are skeptical of this view, perhaps the words of the CED trustee who chaired the subcommittee that developed CED's recommendations on campaign finance, will carry more weight. Listen to the words of Mr. Edward Kangas, who is the Chairman of Global Board of Directors of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, in an opinion piece in the New York Times that appeared after the first days of our campaign finance debate here in the Senate. ``You could almost hear the laughter coming from board rooms and executive suites all over the country when Senate opponents of campaign-finance reform expressed dismay that anyone could think big political contributions are corrupting elections and government.'' Mr. Kangas continues: ``For a growing number of executives, there's no question that the unrelenting pressure for five- and six-figure political contributions amounts to influence peddling and a corrupting influence. What has been called legalized bribery looks like extortion to us.'' Mr. Kangas doesn't mince words on how the system appears to someone who has been part of it. He says: I know from personal experience and from other executives that it's not easy saying no to appeals for cash from powerful members of Congress or their operatives. Congress can have a major impact on businesses. The solicitors know it, and we know it. The threat may be veiled, but the message is clear: failing to donate could hurt your company. You must weigh whether you meet your responsibility to your shareholders better by investing the money in the company or by sending it to Washington. This is an incredible indictment of the system that a minority of this Senate is preserving through a filibuster. These words from a business leader plainly and powerfully answer the arguments from the Senator from Kentucky and others that there is nothing corrupt or corrupting about soft money. This is not some liberal ``do-gooder'' speaking here. This is a respected business person, chairman of the Board of Directors of an international accounting firm, a participant in this system. He says, ``The threat may be veiled but the message is clear. Failing to donate could hurt your company.'' I ask unanimous consent that the full op-ed by Mr. Kangas appear in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me quote from President Bush's letter, sent on the occasion of CED's 50th anniversary in 1992. He said: ``From its inception in 1942 through the recent end of the Cold War, the CED and its trustees have made significant contributions toward the social and economic development of the United States around the globe.'' So, far from being little known and obscure, CED has been a leading voice of the business community in its interaction with government for over 50 years. It is a nonpartisan group that has had a significant role in government policy in education, job training and employment, international economics, and budget and fiscal issues. CED Trustees have held numerous high level government posts, and come from both political parties. The current Chairman of CED, Frank Doyle, is the retired Executive Vice President of General Electric, who has served as a U.S. Representative to the OECD and the European Community. It's also fascinating, Mr. President, that the Senator from Kentucky implied during our campaign finance debate that CED's endorsement of campaign finance reform was insignificant because he has gone to great lengths to try to dissuade it from its view. Indeed, this summer, the Senator from Kentucky wrote to up to 20 business executives to urge them to resign from CED because of its position on campaign finance reform. The Senator from Kentucky charged that CED's position was part of a campaign to ``eviscerate private sector participation in politics,'' and ``ban corporate political activism.'' He criticized CED for aligning itself with groups like the Sierra Club on this issue. The chairs of the subcommittee that developed the CED report, which by the way was adopted without dissent either from the subcommittee or from the 56 member Research and Policy Committee that gave it CED's official imprimatur, replied to the Senator from Kentucky that they thought it ``entirely appropriate for groups with diverse interests to speak out jointly on an issue that they believe threatens the vitality of our participatory democracy.'' And they flatly rejected the charge that they want to silence the private sector. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of Senator McConnell's letter, along with the response from the CED's leaders, as printed in the New York Times, be reprinted in the Record along with a New York Times news story and editorial about this exchange. I also ask unanimous consent that a New York Times story concerning the president of CED, Charles Kolb, who was a lawyer in the Office of Management and Budget and in the Department of Education under President Bush, also be printed in the Record. [From the New York Times, Sept. 1, 1999] A Letter and Its Response Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, wrote to 10 business executives on July 28 suggesting that they resign from a group promoting overhaul of campaign finance laws, which prompted a reply on Aug. 23 by three leaders of that group. Following is a letter sent to an executive, with the recipient's name deleted by the advocacy group, the Committee for Economic Development, and the group's reply: mr. mcconnell's letter I was astonished to learn that . . . has lent its name, prestige and presumably financial backing to the Committee for Economic Development in its all-out campaign to eviscerate private sector participation in politics, through so-called ``campaign reform.'' This week, the Committee for Economic Development joined hands with Ralph Nader and the Sierra Club in taking out a full-page ad in The Hill, demanding new campaign finance laws that would ban corporate political activism and render the Republican Party powerless to defend probusiness candidates from negative TV attacks by labor unions, trial lawyers and radical environmentalists. To legitimize its claim to represent the corporate community in advocating anti-business speech controls, the Web site of the Committee for Economic Development prominently lists . . . as one of the trustees that is ``engaged in implement[ing] their policy recommendations.'' If you disagree with the radical campaign finance agenda of the Committee for Economic Development and resent its abuse of your company's reputation, I would think that public withdrawal from this organization would be a reasonable response. Thank you for considering my great concern over these developments. the committee's letter We are responding to your letter of July 28 to several trustees of the Committee for Economic Development (C.E.D.) urging them ``to resign from C.E.D.'' because of our recent policy statement on campaign finance reform. Your letter refers to a full-page ad that C.E.D. and other organizations sponsored urging the Senate to work toward meaningful campaign finance reform. We make no apologies for expressing our views and associating with groups such as AARP, the League of Women Voters, and the Sierra Club. In our view, it is entirely appropriate for groups with diverse interests to speak out jointly on an issue that they believe threatens the vitality of our participatory democracy. In fact, we find it ironic that you are such a fervent defender of First Amendment freedoms but seem intent to stifle our efforts to express publicly our concerns about a campaign finance system that many feel is out of control. Efforts to secure funding for the Republican Party should not be based on silencing other organizations. You also accuse C.E.D. of an ``all-out campaign to eviscerate private sector participation in politics.'' We respectfully submit that you have misread our report. First, it is disingenuous to imply that a business organization such as C.E.D. wants to silence the private sector or is anti- business. Second, if C.E.D.'s recommendations were enacted tomorrow, there would be more, not less, money available to finance elections. These funds would come primarily from individual contributions--either directly or through political action commitees--not through loopholes in existing laws that have created today's unregulated, apparently limitless, flood of soft money. Our proposal would restore the principle that campaign contributions should be made by individuals not corporations or unions. We know that a majority of the House and the Senate supports campaign finance reform. That sentiment is also shared by a growing number of business community leaders. We hope that you will reconsider your opposition and enable the issue to be discussed and voted on this fall in the Senate. Those of us at C.E.D. applaud your many years of public service. We respect and share your commitment to the First Amendment. However, many of our trustees happen to disagree with you on this issue.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I've already stated my opposition to this Africa trade bill. At best, it does virtually nothing for Africa, and at worst it actually harms African economies while doing little for the United States. Instead, the Senate should support legislation that works with the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa to diversify and strengthen African economies and fight the real enemies of economic progress on the continent: the overwhelming debt burden and the devastating AIDS epidemic. There are many sound policy reasons for opposing this bill, which carries the slightly Orwellian title, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act or AGOA. These reasons have been well articulated during this debate. But today I come to the floor to talk about who supports AGOA--a long list of wealthy corporations who will reap huge benefits if AGOA becomes law. I don't think my colleagues will be surprised to learn that many of these corporate interests are also powerful political donors who know how to use the current campaign finance system to lobby Congress when their interests are at stake. Many supporters of AGOA can be found among the members of Africa Growth and Opportunity Act Coalition, Inc. I'm not making this up Mr. President. This corporation was established, according to its website, to ``demonstrate to the United States Senate that there is significant public support behind enacting the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (H.R. 434).'' I argue that the support this coalition really demonstrates is not broad-based support from the American public, but the very narrow support of the few but powerful members of the coalition themselves-- Amoco, Chevron, Mobil, The Gap, Limited Inc., Enron, General Electric, SBC Communications, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Caterpillar and Motorola, to name just a few. Our campaign finance system allows these companies to be heard on the issue of Africa trade not only because of their business concerns, but because of the legal loophole they have at their disposal to influence this policy debate--unregulated, unlimited soft money contributions. This coalition has the weight of millions of dollars of soft money behind it, Mr. President. We know these corporations have the wealth and clout to be heard in Congress on this bill, so the only question is--what does AGOA offer them? AGOA provides millions in benefits to help corporations invest in Africa--corporations that are often already investing there in the first place, and many corporations that, not coincidentally, comprise the AGOA coalition. AGOA is a huge windfall for many American corporations, but it does little or nothing for African nations or African people or working Americans. It doesn't make an effort to stimulate African economies by helping small businesses in Africa, or adequately guard against transhipment of goods through Africa, which will rob Africans of the benefits AGOA is supposed to intend. Essentially it offers the status quo, plus a multi-million dollar bonus in tariff reductions for American corporations that already do business on the continent. Mr. President, just to give an idea of the soft money donations that give the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act Coalition, Inc., so much clout, I'd like to Call the Bankroll on this industry coalition, as I do from time to time on this floor, for the benefit of the public and my colleagues. First the total numbers. The companies that are members of this coalition gave a total of $5,108,735 in soft money to the political parties in the `98 election cycle. Over $5 million in one cycle, Mr. President. That is an extraordinary figure. Our parties have received over $5 million in financial support from this industry coalition that was organized to lobby for this bill. Are we really comfortable with that? Does that not give us just a little pause? Two major U.S. retailers and coalition members, Gap Inc. and The Limited Inc., have a particularly strong interest in passing AGOA, since they can benefit from importing cheap textiles. Let's look at their soft money contributions specifically. During the 1997-1998 election cycle, Limited, Inc. gave the political parties $553,000 in soft money donations, and in just the first six months of 1999, Limited Inc. gave the parties more than $160,000 via the soft money loophole. The Gap also played the soft money game during this period, with more than $185,000 in the 1998 election cycle and nearly $54,000 already during the current election cycle. And that's not all, Mr. President, not by a long shot. I'd also like to turn my colleagues attention to the wealthy donors who would like to secure enactment of the Caribbean Basin Initiative or ``CBI'', which was combined with the AGOA in the managers' amendment. The soft money donations from one donor with a huge stake in seeing CBI passed are particularly interesting, and bear mention during this debate. Fruit of the Loom stands to gain $25 to $50 million from so-called CBI-NAFTA parity, which essentially removes tariffs on the goods Fruit of the Loom imports from its places of production in the Caribbean basin. Fruit of the Loom stands to gain at least $25 million, Mr. President, and the loss from eliminating duties on apparel from the Caribbean will run U.S. taxpayers at least $1 billion in lost revenue over five years, according to an article from this week's Time Magazine. Mr. President, this article, entitled ``The Fruit of Its Labor,'' has already been printed in the Record. I ask my colleagues to read it. What might a corporation do to lobby for this kind of major change in our trade laws, Mr. President? Under today's campaign finance rules, they might consider making some hefty soft money contributions, and in fact that's just what Fruit of the Loom did. Fruit of the Loom gave nearly $440,000 in soft money during the last election cycle. The company has been an active donor in the current election cycle as well, especially surrounding key moments in the life of CBI legislation. On June 14 of this year, just over a month before CBI/NAFTA parity legislation was introduced in the Senate on July 16, Fruit of the Loom gave $20,000 to the Republican Senate-House Dinner Committee. On July 30, 1999, two weeks after the bill was introduced, the company gave the National Republican Senatorial Committee $50,000. I state these facts for those who might wonder whether political contributions are ever intended to effect what we do here on this floor, and for those who question whether there is an appearance of corruption caused by the soft money system. I offer up the facts, and I ask my colleagues and the public to be the judge of a system that allows these unlimited soft money contributions to occur--contributions that would appear to any logical observer to have a potentially corrupting effect on this vitally important trade debate. Now, one might think, Mr. President, that the business community would be solidly behind this soft money system that allows it so much access and opportunity to influence the legislation that comes out of this body. The amount of money that businesses spend on political donations is a small investment indeed for the kind of return that legislation like the AGOA and the CBI offers. But recently we have seen some very significant cracks in business community support for this system. Perhaps most notable, was the emergence this year of the prestigious business and academic think tank, the Committee for Economic Development, as a supporter of reform. The CED came out in March with a strongly worded report that denounced our current system and proposed a series of reforms. Its comprehensive report and recommendations reached the following conclusion: ``No reform is more urgently needed than a ban on national party `soft money' financing.'' When we debated the McCain-Feingold soft money ban recently, the Senator from Kentucky dismissed the CED report. He called CED and I'm quoting here, a ``little known business group'' and ``a business group which until a few months ago no one had ever heard of.'' Let me tell the Chair and my colleagues a little about the CED, this ``little-known'' group. CED was founded in 1942. It's trustees are chairmen, presidents, and senior executives of major American corporations, along with University Presidents. CED's early work was influential in shaping the Bretton Woods Agreement, which established the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. CED Trustees were prime movers behind establishing the Marshall Plan, the President's Council of Economic Advisors, and the Joint Economic Committee. With respect to the Marshall Plan, the Senator from Kentucky might be interested in knowing that the President's Committee on Foreign Aid, established by President Harry Truman and led by Averell Harriman, included five CED Trustees. Among these was Paul G. Hoffman, chairman and President of The Studebaker Company who happened to be the founder of CED. Hoffman was ultimately selected by President Truman as the first administrator of the Marshall Plan. Interestingly, Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg, a prime mover of the Marshall Plan in Congress, rejected President Truman's first choice of Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson as the plan's first administrator. He argued that the person in that post needed ``particularly persuasive economic credentials'' and that Congress wanted an administrator from ``the outside business world . . . and not via the State Department.'' In the end, Senator Vandenberg himself selected Paul Hoffman to run the Marshall Plan, noting that he was to be the ``business head of a business operation.'' According to SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, ``CED has played a leading role in fostering public sector policies and private sector policies that have helped make America's economy the strongest in the world and its companies the most competitive.'' Mr. President, at this point, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters praising CED's work from Presidents Eisenhower, Johnson, Carter, Reagan, and Bush.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I come to this Chamber concerning the tragic news we received yesterday morning that our friend and colleague, John Chafee, passed away on Sunday. John Chafee was a leader who moved the Senate to do great things. He embraced the bipartisanship we are so quick to reject in this Chamber, and he did so with a dignity and integrity that made us proud to serve with him in this body and to call him a colleague and to call him a friend. John constantly worked to bring his colleagues together and to bring his keen intellect and spirit of fairness to bear in an effort to move legislation forward. Whether he was working on health care, the environment, constitutional issues, or Government reform, he approached every issue on its merits and found ways to overcome partisanship to work together. In an atmosphere which asks us to take sides and defend our ground, John Chafee instead sought common ground, and he sought it with an uncommon commitment to what was best for our Nation. And always, as he worked to foster bipartisanship and civility, he held fast to the principles that guided him: a deep commitment to fiscal responsibility and a dedication to protecting our children, preserving our environment, and striving for better health care for every American. I had the honor and pleasure of working with Senator Chafee on a number of issues that affected my State of Wisconsin and the entire Nation. As a distinguished veteran and one of the Senate's greatest patriots, Senator Chafee had the courage and the commitment to constitutional freedom to be a vocal opponent of a constitutional amendment on flag desecration. When he spoke against the amendment before the Judiciary Committee in April, he criticized the measure as the first amendment to the Constitution that would limit, not expand, our freedoms in that great document. But most of all, this great patriot was deeply troubled by state-mandated patriotism. John Chafee said: We cannot mandate respect and pride in the flag. In fact, in my view, taking steps to require citizens to respect the flag sullies its significance and symbolism. With this issue and so many others, it was Senator Chafee's thoughtful and fair-minded approach that commanded my utmost respect and admiration. His work in the area of conservation was legendary. He won huge gains in the fight to protect the environment, including perhaps his greatest achievement, his vital improvements to the Clean Air Act during its reauthorization in 1990. Senator Chafee also was a dedicated advocate for the reauthorization of the Superfund Program and the Endangered Species Act, and though his attempts at reauthorizing these programs were unsuccessful in recent Congresses, in characteristic fashion he managed to carve out significant common ground between the parties on both issues. John's efforts on these issues were a great service to the Nation, as was his support for another issue recently before this body--campaign finance reform. While John and I did not always see eye to eye about each aspect of campaign finance reform, he characteristically found common ground on which we could agree and lent his invaluable credibility to our efforts. I was also fortunate enough to work with Senator Chafee in the area of health care reform where he displayed an unparalleled commitment to improving access and quality of health care for those most in need. His ability to rise above partisanship enabled him to do the real work of the people, working in bipartisan coalitions to address problems in the managed care system and doing the vitally important work of examining health promotion, disease prevention, and improving health care quality. Most recently, I had the pleasure of working with Senator Chafee to draft legislation to refine portions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that have adversely affected home health care agencies. In everything he did, John Chafee brought a quiet dignity to his work and to the work of this body. We all benefited from the spirit of civility and bipartisanship he fostered during his 23 years in the Senate. I hope we can cherish and nurture that spirit in the years to come. I extend my deepest condolences to John's family, his wife Ginny, his 5 children, and 12 grandchildren. John Chafee was a hero in battle, a distinguished Secretary of the Navy, a great leader as Governor of Rhode Island, and a towering figure in the Senate for more than two decades. His life was an inspiration to all those who believed public service can, indeed, be an honorable profession. All of us who had the opportunity to work with him will cherish his memory and do our best to honor his legacy to the Nation. I thank the Chair.