Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the bill the Senate is now considering accomplishes a ban on soft money in four simple ways. First, and most important, it prohibits the national political parties from raising or spending money that is not subject to the limits of the federal election laws. Second, it prohibits federal officeholders and candidates from raising money that is not subject to the election laws, except for appearing as a speaker at a fundraising event sponsored by a state or local political party. Third, to prevent soft money from being laundered through state parties and making its way back into federal elections, it requires state and local parties that spend money on certain federal election activities to use only money that is subject to the federal election laws. And finally, it prohibits the parties from soliciting money for or contributing money to outside organizations. The amendment also makes some changes in the contribution limits of current law in a recognition of the new difficulties that parties may face as they are forced to go ``cold turkey'' in giving up soft money. It increases the amount that individuals can legally give to state party committees from $5,000 per year to $10,000 per year. And it increases the amount that an individual can give to all parties, PACs, and candidates combined in a year from $25,000 to $30,000. This provision is tough, but it is fair. It allows federal candidates to continue to help raise money for their state parties by appearing at fundraisers. It permits the state parties until four months before an election to use non-federal money to conduct voter registration drives that will obviously benefit federal candidates as well. Mr. President, I truly believe that we must do much more than ban soft money to fix our campaign finance system. But if there is one thing more than any other that must be done now it is to ban soft money. Otherwise the soft money loophole will completely obliterate the Presidential public funding system, and lead to scandals that will make what we saw in 1996 seem quaint. And the number of investors in this body will continue to skyrocket, with untold consequences on the work of this body and the confidence of the American people in their government. Mr. President, we have some momentum. I was delighted this week to have us get another cosponsor on this bill, the Senator from Kansas, Sam Brownback, and to also have the endorsement of one of the leaders from the other body, Congressman Asa Hutchinson. So we have had good momentum this week. I am pleased with that. I especially felt the momentum when last Friday I had a chance to go to Nashville, Tennessee, and I had the good fortune to meet an extraordinary woman, who is in Washington today. I'm speaking of Doris Haddock, from Dublin, New Hampshire. Doris has become known to many people throughout the country and around the world as ``Granny D.'' She is 89 years old. On January 1st of this year, she set out to walk across this country to call attention to the need for campaign finance reform and call on this body to pass the McCain-Feingold bill. As she said last week, voting for McCain-Feingold is something our mothers and grandmothers would want us to do. And coming from Granny D, this is not just a polite request--it is a challenge and a demand from one of the toughest and bravest advocates of reform I have ever had the pleasure to know. I joined Granny D on the road last week, and as we walked together through the streets of Nashville, shouts of ``Go Granny Go'' came from every corner--from drivers in their cars, pedestrians on the sidewalk and construction workers on the job. The response she got that day, and the support she gets every day on her walk across America, speak volumes about where the American people stand on this issue. They are fed up with a campaign finance system so clogged with cash that it has essentially ceased to function; they are frustrated by a Congress that has stood by and watched our democracy deteriorate; and today they are demanding that the U.S. Senate join Granny D on the road to reform by passing the McCain-Feingold bill. Granny D and countless Americans like her are demanding, here and now, that this body act to ban soft money and begin to clean up our campaign finance mess. Granny has been walking across this country for more than nine months now--from California to Tennessee, in the sweltering heat and now in the growing cold, over mountains and across a desert. At age 89, she has braved all of this. And all she is asking U.S. Senators to do in return one simple thing. What she's asking is not anywhere near as strenuous, and it won't take anywhere near as much time as what she has endured. All she is asking the members of this body to do is lift their arm to cast one vote--a vote to ban soft money. That's what she's asking, and I urge my colleagues not let her down. The time has past for the excuses, equivocations and evasions that members of this body have employed time and again to avoid passing campaign finance reform legislation. The time has come to put partisanship aside, to put our own ideal reform bills aside and finally put our democracy first--let's join Granny D on the road to reform. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Aug. 17, 1998] Campaign Reform: Finish the Job (By Nancy Kassebaum Baker and Walter F. Mondale) The House's finest moment of this Congress will soon become the Senate's great opportunity. The House's action on campaign finance reform is a demonstration of courage, conviction and bipartisanship. It shows that clear majorities of both houses, when permitted to vote, want to remove the blight of soft money from our national politics. Now it's up to the Senate to complete the job. Soft money, the flood of corporate and union treasury funds and unlimited donations from individuals to national political committees that swamped the 1991 elections with a quarter-billion dollars, undermines protections built by the Congress over the course of a century. Each major safeguard skirted by soft money, beginning with the 1907 ban on corporate treasury donations, resulted from efforts to protect the integrity of American elections. No less is at stake now. The significant House vote cannot be allowed to become just a gesture. The Senate's task-- supported by principle and an appreciation of experience, priority and responsibility, is to ensure that this singular achievement of the House becomes a large stride toward enactment of campaign finance reform in this Congress. Principle. A ban on soft money would not introduce any new principle into the law. It would, instead, restore sound principle, long held to be essential. That bedrock principle, developed step by step through measures signed into law by presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Gerald Ford, is that federal election campaigns should be financed by limited contributions from individuals and not by either corporate or union treasuries. Neither candidates for federal office nor the national political party committees whose primary mission is to elect them, should be dependent on the treasuries of corporations or unions that have strong economic interests in the decisions of the federal government. As for individuals, who should always be the center piece of our national politics, the law should encourage the broadest participation possible, while establishing reasonable limits to avoid disproportionate power by those who can write the biggest checks. Experience. Nearly every major controversy and excess of the last election was related to soft money. If earlier Congresses were unaware of the full consequences of the soft- money loophole, our experience in 1996 and the investigations by this Congress have removed ignorance as a defense for inaction. Legislators are often challenged by the uncertainty of future developments. But to see the future of American elections, one only needs to look at the present and multiply. Soft money in the first year after the 1996 election was raised at twice the rate it was raised four years ago. We are on the way to a half-billion dollars or more in soft money in the 2000 elections. Priority. The urgency of action is clear. Congress should use the shrinking window of time this year to safeguard the next presidential election. In response to the trauma of a president's fall in Watergate, this country struck a bargain with its presidential candidates. Accept public funding in the general election and forgo private fund-raising. Three presidential elections--in 1976, 1980 and 1984--were faithful to that bargain. Now the American taxpayer provides public funding while presidential candidates and their parties engage in an unlimited soft-money arms race. No matter who wins, the country will be diminished if this continues to be the way our presidents are elected. Responsibility. Without authorization by Congress, the Federal Election Commission cracked open the door through which corporate, union and unlimited individual soft-money contributions have poured. But Congress can no longer avoid the responsibility for making the fundamental choice about the basic rules that should govern the financing of federal election campaigns. It should vote to either approve the soft-money system or end it. Either way, to borrow Harry Truman's phrase, Congress must know that the public understands that the buck, literally, stops on Capitol Hill. In sum, this is a time for the Senate to recognize the force of the observation of one of its noted leaders, Everett McKinley Dirksen, who opened the path to enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by reminding senators of the strength of an idea whose time has come. The time has come-- as former presidents Ford, Carter and Bush, hundreds of former members of both parties and majorities in both Houses firmly believe--for Congress to protect the integrity of our national elections. Our common purpose should be no less than to allow the nation to look forward with pride to the character of the new century's first presidential election. Exhibit 2 Campaign Finance Reform--A Statement by Nancy Kassebaum Baker and Walter Mondale June 15, 1998 A year ago, we released an open letter to the President and Congress calling on the Executive and Legislative Branches to debate and act on meaningful campaign finance reform. We included in the open letter our initial recommendation for several reforms--beginning with an end to ``soft money'' contributions to the national parties and their campaign organizations--on which agreement, in our view, could be attained. Now, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of supporters of reform within and outside of the Congress, the House stands at the threshold of an important opportunity. And no one should underestimate how important and urgent its task is. The issue of reform goes to the very heart of American democracy--to the trust and respect citizens can have in elections. Removing soft money will help restore the letter and spirit of existing campaign laws and reassure voters that they can again be the most important participants in elections. Without action by this Congress on soft money, at the current fundraising rate, the 2000 presidential election will have more than a half billion dollars in soft money, double the amount of 1996. Since our June 1997 open letter, we have been joined by hundreds of distinguished Americans who have helped to bring us all to this juncture. Foremost among them are former Presidents Bush, Carter and Ford, and also the 216 former Members of Congress who have signed a joint statement calling for reform. Beyond lending their names to this effort, the former Presidents and former Members, in letters, guest editorials, and statements, have convincingly set forth the urgency and case for reform. The following brings together some of the main ideas that we and others have shared over the last year. The Primacy of Individual Voters and Their Confidence in Government As we wrote in the Los Angeles Times (September 22, 1997), ``Progress on reform is perhaps the most important step that can be taken to restore voter confidence in the ability of all citizens, regardless of wealth, to participate fully in elections. The failure of Congress to act will only deepen voter despair about politics.'' In a letter last June, former President Bush said, ``We must encourage the broadest possible participation by individuals in financing elections.'' Former Presidents Carter and Ford, in a joint article in The Washington Post (October 5, 1997) said, ``We must redouble our efforts to assure voters that public policy is determined by the checks on their ballots, rather than the checks from powerful interests.'' Former Senator and Republican National Committee Chairman Bill Brock underscored that point in a guest editorial in the Hill (April 29, 1998). ``The basic intent of the campaign finance laws that Congress enacted in the past is quite clear,'' he wrote, ``It is that campaigns should be funded by individuals (not corporations and unions). . . . Because Americans have long believed in individual responsibility as the best antidote to the threats of excesses of wealth and institutional power.'' And, as former Republican Senator Mark Hatfield wrote in the Washington Times (March 26, 1998). ``These prohibitions on corporate and union contributions reflect a basic idea: Individuals should be the dominant force in our political process.'' Writing in the Chicago Sun-Times (March 24, 1998), former House Republican Leader Bob Michel and former Representative, Judge, and White House Counsel Abner Mikya, made the point that ``[t]he cost to confidence in government of this breakdown in campaign finance regulation is high.'' Raising soft money, they explained, ``requires the sustained effort of elected and party officials, often one-on-one with donors, to raise--indeed, wrest--the large sums involved in soft money contributions. The entities and people from whom soft money is sought often have enormous economic stakes in government decisions. Corporate and other soft money donors frankly say they feel shaken down.'' Former Presidents Ford and Carter forcefully noted that soft money ``is one of the most corrupting influences in modern elections because there is no limit on the size of donations--thus giving disproportionate influence to those with the deepest pockets.'' Impact on the Presidency As former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter expressed, it is vital for Congress ``to seize this opportunity for reform now so it can improve the next presidential election.'' Writing last week in the San Francisco Chronicle (June 3, 1998), former Representative and White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta described the bargain the nation struck with its presidential candidates in 1974: in return for public financing of presidential elections, candidates would forego fundraising in general elections. ``. . . the elections of 1976, 1980 and 1984 elections showed that national elections could be run with fidelity to that bargain.'' Time is of the essence. As Leon Panetta observed, ``As difficult as the chances may seem, this Congress remains the best hope for enabling the nation to begin the new century with a presidential election of which it can be proud.'' As former Reps. Bob Michel and Abner Mikva observed about the coming House debate, ``Either [the House] will act to end the scourge of soft money'' or it ``will do nothing about letting the next presidential election become the biggest auction the country ever has know.'' Restoring Congressional Intent ``Congress never authorized soft money. ``Bill Brock wrote as he called on Congress to ``restore the spirit and the letter of election laws dating back decades,'' Reps. Michel and Mikva said, ``Congress never agreed to the creation of soft money. The loophole is a product of exceptions allowed by the Federal Election Commission that were expanded by aggressive fund-raising by both parties.'' Congress should decide whether it supports reforms dating back to the beginning of the Century. ``It's time for lawmakers to say whether soft money is good or bad for the system,'' Brock said. strengthening parties Bill Brock, writing from the perspective of a former party chairman, dispelled the myth that soft money strengthens parties. ``In truth, parties were strongest and closer to their roots before the advent of this loophole than they are today.'' Far from reinvigorating the parties themselves,'' he observed, ``soft money has simply strengthened certain specific candidates and the few donors who can make huge contributions, while distracting parties from traditional grassroots work.'' Or, as we wrote in Roll Call (February 26, 1998), ``no one can seriously say more people vote or participate because of soft money. In fact, as soft money has skyrocketed, voter turnout has continued to decline.'' ``Without soft money,'' we continued, ``the parties will have to work harder to raise money. But the benefits gained-- by increasing the public's faith in democracy and reducing the arms race for cash--will far outweigh the cost.'' focusing on priorities A consistent theme of our efforts, together with the former Presidents and other former Members, is that it is essential to take a first step toward reform, even while recognizing that further steps will need to be taken in the years ahead. Thus, as we wrote last July in The Washington Post (July 18, 1997), Congress ``should not delay action on those measures that can pass now.'' Or, as former Senator Al Simpson wrote in The Boston Globe (February 24, 1998), ``[Banning soft money] won't solve all the problems, but it sure will be a start, and it may even provide a sensible and responsible foundation on which many additional thoughtful reforms can be built. . . .'' And as the statement of more than 200 former members elaborates, ``we believe it is time to test the merits of different or competing ideas through debate and votes, but that any disagreement over further reforms should not delay enactment of essential measures, beginning with a ban on soft money, where agreement is within reach.''

Mr. FEINGOLD. As I mentioned, Mr. President, Senators Mondale and Kassebaum Baker put together a group of former members 216 strong who want to end soft money. One of those is former Senator Bill Brock, who also served as Chairman of the Republican Party. In an op-ed last year, Senator Brock dispelled the myth that the parties cannot survive without soft money. He stated: ``In truth, the parties were stronger and closer to their roots before the advent of this loophole than they are today.'' He adds: ``Far from reinvigorating the parties themselves, soft money has simply strengthened certain specific candidates and the few donors who can make huge contributions while distracting parties from traditional grassroots work.'' Those are not just my sentiments; they are the sentiments of former Senator Brock, and he has it exactly right. Our national political parties should be the engines of democracy, the organizers of individual donors and volunteers who care about big ideas and are willing to work for them. Instead they have become fundraising behemoths, obsessed with extorting the biggest chunks of cash that they can from corporate and wealthy donors. This is not what the two great political parties should be about Mr. President. Soft money has changed our politics for the worse Mr. President. And I think everyone in this body knows that. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement from Senators Mondale and Kassebaum-Baker that contains excerpts from a number of articles written by former Members of Congress on the topic of banning soft money be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to the fiscal year 2000 Department of Defense Appropriations conference report. Back in June, I lamented the Senate's unwillingness to scrutinize the Pentagon's profligate spending. During the Senate's debate of the DoD appropriations bill, we had exactly two amendments worthy of extensive debate. Two amendments, Mr. President. Here we have a defense policy that perpetuates a cold war mentality into the 21st century, and the Senate gave the Defense Department a pass. Now we come to the conference report. I took some satisfaction from the F-22 drama that played out in conference, but the final act was rather predictable. Other than the F-22 program, however, did anyone question the Pentagon's continuing failure to adapt its priorities to the post-cold-war era? Clearly not. And who is left to pay for this $268 billion debacle? Who else but the American taxpayers. The Senate debated recently the wisdom of using across-the-board spending cuts as a budget tool. This conference report is the best argument against that strategy. We need look no further than this bill to find billions of dollars in wasteful spending that could be cut to avoid reductions in programs that are truly justified--including Defense Department programs. As we did last year, we are again in danger of breaking the spending caps agreed to in 1997, and as the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Committee was reported to have said, military spending will be the force that breaks them. This bloated bill contains billions of dollars in spending that is simply unjustified. It spends even more than was requested by the Pentagon, a level that was already too high. Let me take just one example--the tactical aircraft programs. My opinion on the Navy's F/A-18E/F program is well known. I have not been shy about highlighting the program's myriad flaws, not least of which are its inflated cost with respect to its capabilities. I have to admit, though, that the Super Hornet program can claim to build on a solid foundation, in the form of the reliable, cost- effective Hornet. The Air Force's F-22 program, on the other hand, is a brand new program. It is the most expensive fighter aircraft in the history of the world and arguably the most complex, yet it completed just 4 percent, or about 183 hours, of its flight test program before the Pentagon approved $651 million in production money. The completed flight test hours were about a quarter of the Air Force's own guidelines. In comparison, the F-15 flew for 975 hours before a production contract award; the F-16 for 1,115 hours; and even the much- flawed Super Hornet had 779 flight test hours before a production contract was awarded. Let me remind my colleagues that the flight test program hasn't even tested the aircraft's much-touted stealth or its electronics capabilities. My primary concern with this program is its cost. This cold war anachronism will cost about $200 million a copy. Add this program's cost to the E/F and the Joint Strike Fighter, and we have a $340 billion fiscal nightmare on our hands. We cannot afford this. CBO knows it; GAO knows it; the CATO Institute knows it; the Brookings Institution knows it. The Congress, however, cannot seem to figure it out. I know that some folks will talk about how this conference report puts the program under greater scrutiny and that it delays the aircraft's production, but let's be honest. Barring the discovery, and admission, of some enormous flaw, this conference report holds off the inevitable for just a year. This report postpones production of the Air Force's F-22 fighter plane until April 2001, but refrains from eliminating the program, as was done by the House. The report provides $1.9 billion to purchase up to six planes, under the scope of research and development and testing and evaluation. It even spends $277 for advanced procurement. That is something. The program is supposed to be under a microscope, but we still put up more than a quarter of a billion dollars for advanced procurement. If that is not a clear indication of the plane's future, I do not know what is. And just to cover both ends, the report establishes a $300 million reserve fund to cover any liabilities the Air Force might incur as a result of terminating the program's contracts. That's an awfully generous insurance policy given the trouble we're going through to fund other important programs, like veterans health care and education. As long as we are talking about money, I would like to take this opportunity to Call the Bankroll on the money that has poured into the coffers of candidates and political party committees from the defense contractors who have mounted a huge campaign to keep the F-22 alive. First, we have defense contracting giant Lockheed Martin, the primary developer of the F-22. Lockheed Martin gave nearly $300,000 in soft money and more than $1 million in PAC money in the last election cycle. During that same period, Boeing, one of the chief developers and producers of the F-22's airframe, gave more than $335,000 in soft money to the parties and more than $850,000 in PAC money to candidates. Then there are the subcontractors for the F-22, who account for more than half the total dollar value of the project. Four of the most important subcontractors, according to the F-22's own literature, are TRW, Raytheon, Hughes Electronics and Northrop Grumman. And I guess it should come as little surprise to us to find that these major subcontractors also happened to be major political donors in the last election cycle. Raytheon tops this list with nearly $220,000 in soft money and more than $465,000 in PAC money. Northrop Grumman gave more than $100,000 in soft money to the parties and more than $450,000 in PAC money to candidates. Hughes gave nearly $145,000 in PAC money during 1997 and 1998, and last but not least, TRW gave close to $200,000 in soft money and more than $235,000 in PAC money. The F-22 program, and TacAir in general, highlights the Defense Department's flawed weapons modernization strategy. And today I Call the Bankroll to highlight how the corrupt campaign finance system encourages that flawed strategy--by creating an endless money chase that asks this body to put the interests of a few wealthy donors ahead of the best interests of our national defense. The flawed strategy makes it impossible to buy enough new weapons to replace all the old weapons on a timely basis, even though forces are much smaller than they were during the cold war and modernization budgets are projected to return to cold war levels. Consequently, the ratio of old weapons to new weapons in our active inventories will grow to unprecedented levels over the next decade. Subsequently, that modernization strategy is driving up the operating budgets needed to maintain adequate readiness, even though the size of our forces is now smaller than it was during the cold war. Each new generation of high complexity weapons costs much more to operate than its predecessor, and the low rate of replacement forces the longer retention and use of older weapons. Thus, as weapons get older, they become more expensive to operate, maintain, and supply. Supporting the Defense Department's misguided spending priorities is not synonymous with supporting the military.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I certainly have no objection to the Senator from Kentucky laying down an amendment. Before he does that, I do make one comment on the colloquy I just listened to. It is my understanding, based on the agreement we have with the majority leader--I just want to reiterate what Senator McCain said-- that this was to be a 5-day debate. The critical issue here is on what day the cloture motion can be filed. It is certainly my understanding, based on the discussion we just had, the cloture motion can't be filed until Monday, meaning the cloture vote couldn't occur before Wednesday. That is how I am going to proceed, and I assume that is the good faith understanding. This agreement was not hammered out of pure good faith. This was based, as it should be in the Senate, on our willingness to withdraw an amendment from a piece of legislation at another critical time when the Senate's business was pressing. I certainly intend to give an opening statement. This bill is not different from any other major piece of legislation. In fact, I argue it is one of the most important bills we can take up. It is important it be set out properly, and I certainly intend to make an opening statement tomorrow as well. Privilege of the Floor Finally, I ask unanimous consent the following staff members be permitted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of S. 1593, campaign finance reform legislation: Bob Schiff, Mary Murphy, Kitty Thomas, Tom Walls, Sumner Slichter, and Marla Kanemitsu.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to speak about some grave concerns I have regarding the dramatic and unprecedented cuts to Title XX, the Social Services Block Grant, in S. 1650, the Labor-Health and Human Services Appropriations bill. As I am sure many of my colleagues are aware, the Social Services Block Grant is currently authorized at $2.38 billion, but the Senate bill provides for only $1.05 billion, a reduction of more than 50%, for Fiscal Year 2000. In addition, it appears that the bill would also accelerate the reduction in transferability of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families--or TANF--from 10% to 4.25%. In other words, not only has the appropriation been slashed in half, the ability of the states and counties to transfer other dollars into SSBG is also sharply reduced. My immediate reaction when I learned about these cuts to SSBG was enormous disappointment. When I travel through each of Wisconsin's 72 counties each year holding town-meeting style listening sessions, many of my constituents have discussed with me the value and importance of SSBG funds in enabling the provision of vitally-needed services for some of our most vulnerable citizens. I have the benefit of a very engaged and active Counties Association to keep me informed about the importance of assuring SSBG funding. But perhaps not all of my colleagues share my good fortune in this respect, perhaps some of our colleagues are not aware of the value of SSBG funds in their own states and communities--that is the only reason I can think of why these cuts are included in the bill. In the event that that is the case, please allow me a few moments to elaborate on the important services that SSBG dollars fund in my home state of Wisconsin: Wisconsin counties received more than $42 million in SSBG dollars in FY 1997, the most recent year for which data is available. Those dollars provided services to Wisconsin's Seniors such as home meal delivery programs like meals-on-wheels, day programs for seniors, and supportive home care. SSBG dollars also help to provide crucial services to protect children, such as investigating potential child abuse cases and providing protective services for children who ARE being abused, and providing for after school programs so that children have a safe place to go in the afternoon. Throughout Wisconsin, SSBG dollars have enabled Wisconsin's counties to provide these services to 283,964 Wisconsinites--many of whom will lose access to these services if SSBG is further cut. Lastly, let me illustrate what the impact of SSBG cuts means for some communities in Wisconsin: the Rainbow Center for Prevention of Child Abuse in Dane County, Wisconsin, will have to cut services for 130 families. In Milwaukee County, 428 patients will not receive outpatient mental health care, and 550 adults seeking drug and alcohol abuse treatment will be turned away. Milwaukee County will also lose funding for more than 2,000 shelter nights for the homeless and victims of domestic violence. Mr. President, I hope that this short description of the many ways SSBG supports and strengthens counties and local communities helps to illustrate why a 50% reduction in funds will be so devastating. I hope that House and Senate conferees will restore SSBG to its authorized amount for Fiscal Year 2000 so that the counties who so rely on these funds will be able to provide the services our constituents need, services that are vital to supporting and strengthening our communities. I thank the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of Senate advice and consent to the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. As a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, I have advocated for consideration of this treaty since President Clinton submitted it to this body for advice and consent on September 22, 1997. Now, more than 2 years later, this important treaty is being considered on the Senate floor. While I am pleased that we are having this debate, I am concerned about the manner in which we reached this point. I regret that the Foreign Relations Committee, of which I am a member, had only one day of hearings on this important arms control agreement and that the committee did not consider and mark up a resolution of ratification. I am concerned that this debate is too limited in duration and scope. This is obviously serious business. And I hope that the manner in which this treaty was brought to the floor does not doom it to failure. This treaty should be fully debated on its merits. And this body should have the opportunity to offer any statements, declarations, understandings, or conditions that we deem necessary. But this treaty should not be defeated simply because the Senate has backed itself into a corner in which the choice is to vote up or down now without the option to postpone this important vote in favor of further consideration. Some of our colleagues have expressed their desire for further consideration. But they have said that if they are forced to vote today, they will oppose this treaty--not necessarily because they do not support the treaty, but rather because they feel they cannot yet fully support it without further study. I think putting Senators in this position is an irresponsible course of action. As my colleagues know, I support this treaty. And I will vote in favor of it today should it come to that. But I hope we will consider the consequences of defeating this treaty, not on its merits, but because of the political box in which we find ourselves. This treaty must not fall victim to politics. The consequences of its defeat will be felt from Moscow to New Delhi to Beijing to Baghdad. And this body, the greatest deliberative body in the world, would be sending the message that we did not want to spend more time on one of the most important issues facing the world today. We do live in dangerous times, Mr. President. Weapons capable of mass destruction have replaced more conventional weapons in our world. New threats continue to emerge. But we have the power to stem the tide of nuclear proliferation. Perhaps we cannot stop it completely. But we can make sure that the nuclear arms race is stopped in its tracks and we can make it extremely difficult for those with nuclear aspirations to develop a weapon in which they can have high confidence. And we should do everything in our power to make the world safer for future generations. And if that includes delaying the vote on this treaty, then we should swallow our political pride and do that. As a number of my colleagues have already said, both in committee and on this floor, the idea of a nuclear test ban dates back to the Eisenhower administration. For more than 40 years, Presidents of both parties have advocated for such a treaty. In a speech delivered on June 10, 1963, President John F. Kennedy discussed his support for the negotiation of a comprehensive test ban treaty. He said--and I quote: The conclusion of such a treaty, so near and yet so far, would check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. It would place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the further spread of nuclear arms. It would increase our security--it would decrease the prospects of war. Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital and responsible safeguards. Mr. President, those words are as relevant today as they were when President Kennedy spoke them 36 years ago. Nuclear weapons are still one of the greatest hazards on the planet. And they have been joined by chemical, biological, and other weapons of mass destruction. President Kennedy spoke from the perspective of the cold war and the still escalating arms race with the Soviet Union. Now, in 1999, the cold war is over and the Soviet Union is no more. But we are on the brink of another nuclear arms race, this time in south Asia. India and Pakistan are watching, Mr. President. And we have the opportunity to end their nuclear aspirations once and for all. Or to give them the cover they need to continue testing. We have the opportunity today at long last to become a party to a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty that will both stop the nuclear arms race in its tracks and maintain our option to withdraw from its provisions if our national security is threatened. I hope that will be our paramount consideration in the coming hours as we decide whether to put this treaty up for a vote today or tomorrow. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues have noted throughout this debate, there are many reasons why the United States should become a party to this important treaty. I will address three of them here. First, this treaty will allow the United States to maintain our strong nuclear deterrent. This treaty does not require the parties to dismantle their existing nuclear stockpiles. It does not prevent them from maintaining those stockpiles through scientific means. Rather, this treaty prohibits further nuclear testing. The United States has not conducted any nuclear tests for 7 years, and the administration has testified that we have no intention of performing any further tests. The Departments of Defense and Energy already have a substantial database of information on the more than 1,000 nuclear tests that we have already performed. And this information has been the basis for the development of the Stockpile Stewardship Program, which the high- ranking administration officials have testified is an effective mechanism for maintaining the safety and reliability of our nuclear arsenal. Second, this treaty will help to create a worldwide nuclear status quo. Parties to the CTBT will be unable to conduct nuclear explosive tests to improve their existing weapons or develop stronger ones. This means that the nuclear arms race will be literally frozen where it is. This is beneficial to the United States for several reasons. It will allow us to maintain our nuclear superiority. It will protect us from the threat of stronger weapons in the future. And, in fact, it ensures that we will have the dubious distinction of having won the nuclear arms race. The third point in favor of this treaty I will make is this: the CTBT is effectively verifiable. Some have argued that this treaty is not verifiable. It seems that argument echoes in these halls every time we debate an arms control treaty. But, again, that argument rings hollow. Verification is a tricky thing. All treaties, including arms control treaties, are largely based on good faith among the parties to them. Good faith in the sense that the parties who have ratified the treaty have promised to comply with the treaty's provisions. Collectively, the parties have agreed to a set of provisions, in the case of the CTBT to not perform nuclear tests. Alone, a country can decide to no longer perform nuclear tests--as the United States has already done--but no other nation knows for sure if that country is living up to its promise. Under a multilateral treaty such as the CTBT, all parties have agreed to the provisions and are subject to a verification regime that otherwise would not exist. The CTBT says that if one party to the treaty has evidence that a test has occurred, that party can request an onsite inspection. This inspection will occur if 30 of the 51 members of the CTBT's Executive Council agree that the evidence warrants such an inspection. This type of onsite inspection cannot occur outside the CTBT regime, Mr. President. And this inspection will allow the parties to the treaty to obtain information that cannot be obtained outside the treaty regime. No one here will claim that any treaty is 100 percent verifiable or that some countries may try to cheat. But the Pentagon has said that this treaty is effectively verifiable. And that is the key. The International Monitoring System created by this treaty includes 230 data gathering stations around the world in addition to those already operating in the United States. Last week, Secretary of Defense William Cohen told the Senate Armed Services Committee that ``the information collected by these sensor stations would not normally be available to the U.S. intelligence community.'' In addition to this enhanced capability, the United States is also permitted, under the provisions of the treaty and in accordance with international law, to use our own national technical means to detect nuclear tests. Mr. President, some people say that, because the United States has already made the decision not to do any further nuclear testing--and indeed that we have not tested in seven years--that this treaty is unnecessary. They claim that the CTBT merely reinforces what we have already done and that there is no real benefit to our ratification. In fact, as many of my colleagues have already addressed during this debate, and as I have already noted, there are many benefits to this treaty. We retain our leadership in the arms control arena. We maintain our nuclear superiority. And, importantly, we gain the ability to request and participate in onsite inspections of suspected nuclear testing abroad. And, if the President is unable to certify that our nuclear arsenal is sound, we have the option to withdraw from the treaty. Mr. President, in urging my colleagues to support this important treaty, I will again quote President Kennedy: The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough--more than enough--of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on--not toward a strategy of nuclear annihilation but toward a strategy of peace. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. My understanding is, I would be next in line after the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for S. 1678, the Medicare Beneficiaries Access to Care Act of 1999, a bill to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries across our nation continue to have access to the health care services that they need. The package that has been introduced addresses some of the most troubling areas in implementation of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and I commend the Senate Democratic Leader, Senator Daschle, for the hard work that he and his staff put into the creation of this bill. I joined my Senate colleagues to vote in favor of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, with the expectation that we would save $100 billion that would help preserve the solvency of the Medicare program. Yet the magnitude of cuts in BBA of 1997 have been much deeper than anyone intended. Present projections indicate that actual reductions have been in the area of $200 billion, twice as much as originally anticipated. The unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 have been severe indeed. And while there is a lot of publicity about the impact of BBA 1997 cuts on entities like hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies, the real issue here is that the cuts are threatening the ability of our constituents--patients who rely on these entities to provide care, rehabilitation, and life-saving services--to gain access to the care they need. Take for example the impact of the BBA 1997 Interim Payment System for home health agencies in Medicare. IPS was designed as a way to counteract fraud, waste and abuse within the Medicare program. Unfortunately, the way in which IPS was implemented created a counterintuitive and unfair system that penalizes low-cost areas for their thrift by basing reimbursement on past spending. More than 40 home health agencies in 22 counties have closed in Wisconsin since the implementation of Medicare home health IPS. IPS has ratcheted Medicare home health payments so low that Wisconsin home health agencies are losing hundreds of dollars per patient per day treating Medicare patients. Agencies in Wisconsin are not closing just because the business isn't profitable, they are closing to reduce the devastating rate of loss. BBA 1997 cuts have also been devastating for our nursing homes and patients' ability to gain access to outpatient therapy services. Reimbursements to some nursing homes in Wisconsin has been so low that one nursing home administrator in La Crosse, Wisconsin, informed me that his agency, one of the few Medicare-certified ventilator-dependent programs in the region, was losing between $150 and $300 per patient per day treating patients who depend on ventilators to breathe. That agency had no choice but to stop new admissions of ventilator-dependent patients. Similarly, residents of nursing homes who require physical therapy, occupational therapy or speech pathology services are faced with an arbitrary $1500 cap on their services, an amount that is grossly inadequate to provide the necessary rehabilitation to patients recovering from a stroke, an amputation or other life-altering event. These arbitrary caps on the provision of rehabilitative therapy, have the effect--though inadvertently--of placing a cap on the extent to which these patients can regain their independence. One final area that I would like to raise is the expected impact on hospitals of BBA 1997 changes such as cuts to Graduate Medical Education payments and the impact of a Prospective Payment System on hospital outpatient departments. Preliminary estimates from my constituents at the Wisconsin Health and Hospital Association, WHA, indicate that Wisconsin's 28 teaching hospitals will lose almost $25 million per year from GME cuts. In addition, WHA projects that Wisconsin hospitals will lose $30 million over the next three years if PPS is implemented--a loss of such magnitude that several rural hospitals in Wisconsin would likely be forced to close. S. 1678 speaks directly to these concerns by increasing payments to Medicare Dependent Hospitals and Critical Access Hospitals, of which my home state of Wisconsin has 44. S. 1678 also includes stop-loss protection to ensure that hospitals do not suffer dramatic losses under the Outpatient Prospective Payment System. Lastly, S. 1678 freezes Indirect Medical Education cuts at 6.5% over 8 years and increases the number of residency slots available in rural areas. The provisions of S. 1678 are important to ensuring continued access to care, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would be happy to shorten my remarks in the necessity to move forward.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington. (The remarks of Mr. Feingold pertaining to the introduction of S. 1636 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on September 24 I introduced a new Africa trade bill--S. 1636, the HOPE for Africa Act--a bill that will invigorate commercial relationships between the United States and African trading partners, with healthy results for both. It expands trade between Africa and the United States, offers United States companies new opportunities to invest in African economies, and promises new HOPE for the people of Sub-Saharan Africa themselves, who are struggling against daunting odds to gain a foothold in the global marketplace and embrace the growth and stability it will bring. It's important to say here that everyone proposing Africa trade legislation has the same goal--we all want to help expand trade and development with Africa in a way that is also good for American companies and workers--but it's equally important to point out how we differ in approach, and what those differences will mean for African economies. For years Africa has gotten short shrift in the attention of the American public and of American policymakers, and I am very encouraged that there has been renewed interest in expanding opportunities for United States business in Africa. But Congress shouldn't make up for those years of neglect by passing weak legislation that will have little impact on United States-Africa trade. As a member of the Senate Subcommittee on Africa for more than 6 years, and its ranking Democrat for more than four, I know that now is the time for foresight and bold action, because Africa today is brimming with both tribulations and potential. I offer this bill today because unfortunately, other proposals fall short of their goals by providing only minimal benefits for Africa and for Africans. First and foremost, they fail to address two crises that are hobbling Africa's ability to compete--the overwhelming debt burden, and the deadly HIV/AIDS epidemic, both of which are so corrosive to African aspirations. My legislation, which is similar in many respects to the HOPE for Africa bill introduced recently by Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr., in the House of Representatives, takes a more comprehensive approach to our current trade relationship with Africa--the only kind of approach that can generate the kind of dramatic progress Africa needs to become a more viable partner in the global economy. My HOPE for Africa legislation offers broader trading benefits than the other pending proposals, and just as importantly, it takes steps to address the debt burden and AIDS crisis that handicap African economies. My bill extends trade benefits to selected African countries on a broader variety of products--and does not rely narrowly on textiles, as other proposals do. Broader benefits give African businesses and workers a better chance to establish sustainable trade-generated economic development. My bill includes strong protections against the backdoor tactic of illegal transshipment of goods from China and other third countries through Africa to the United States, that would cheat workers and companies here and in Africa of hard-earned opportunities. Provisions of my bill will help deter the influx to the African continent of lower-wage workers from outside Africa, ensuring that Africans themselves will be the ones to benefit from the provisions of this bill. Another centerpiece of this bill is that it requires strict compliance with internationally-recognized standards of worker and human rights and environmental protections. The rights of Africa's peoples and the state of its environment may seem removed from life here in the United States. But if we are wise we will all remember that we are all affected when logging and mining deplete African rainforests and increase global warming, and we all reap the benefits of an Africa where freedom and human dignity reign on the continent, creating a stable environment in which business can thrive. American ideals and simple good sense require that we be vigilant in this regard. The bill takes crucial steps to support the fight against the crushing HIV/AIDS epidemic, which has had a devastating impact in Sub- Saharan Africa. Of the 33.4 million adults and children living with HIV/AIDS worldwide in 1998, a staggering 22.5 million live in the 48 countries of sub-Saharan Africa. Since the onset of the worldwide HIV/ AIDS crisis, more than 34 million sub-Saharan Africans have been infected, and more than 11.5 million of those infected have died. Since the onset of the HIV/AIDS crisis, approximately 83 percent of AIDS deaths have occurred in Africa. The vast tragedy of HIV/AIDS in Africa is daunting, overwhelming, but it must be overwhelmed with a massive effort that will have to be integrated with any Africa trade regime that hopes to succeed. Finally, the bill provides for substantial debt relief for Sub- Saharan African nations. Debt, debt, debt is the finger on the scales that keeps that rich continent from achieving its economic potential and embracing a freer, more prosperous future. In 1997, sub-Saharan African debt totaled more than $215 billion, about $6.5 billion of which is owed to the United States government. The debt of at least 30 of the 48 Sub-Saharan African countries exceeds 50 percent of their gross national products. The international community must find a reasonable way substantially to reduce this debt burden so that the countries of sub-Saharan Africa can invest scarce dollars in the futures of the most precious of their natural resources--their people. My HOPE for Africa bill can establish a framework to achieve these goals by relieving Sub-Saharan African nations of a significant piece of their current debt, supporting environmental protections and human rights in these developing economies, and giving African businesses-- including small and women-owned businesses--a chance to share in the burgeoning global economy. I was pleased to announce my intention to offer this legislation at a press conference recently in Milwaukee along with several representatives of the state legislature and the local business community. Mr. President, the current level of trade and investment between the United States and African countries is depressingly small. It is called the magic 1 percent. Africa represents only 1 percent of our exports, one percent of our imports, and 1 percent of our foreign direct investment. That is a tragic 1 percent, the fruit of missed opportunities, wasted potential and simple neglect. The history of U.S. trade on the African continent is a litany of lost opportunity with a smattering of bright spots concentrated among a few countries. United States trade in Africa is not diversified. In 1998, 78 percent of U.S. exports to the region went to only five countries--South Africa, Nigeria, Anglola, Ghana, and Kenya, and the vast majority of imports that year came only from Nigeria, South Africa, Angola, Gabon, and Cote d'Ivoire. In 1998, major U.S. exports to the region included machinery and transport equipment, such as aircraft and parts, civil engineering, equipment, data processing machines, as well as wheat. Major United States imports from Africa include largely basic commodities such as crude oil which is the leading import by far, and some refined oils, minerals and materials, including platinum and diamonds, and some agricultural commodities such as cocoa beans. U.S. exports were much more diversified than U.S. imports. The top 5 import items represent 75 percent of all U.S. imports from the region. That dire lack of diversity is discouraging, but the holes in the United States-Africa trade picture tell also of a wealth of opportunity. The investment picture is no better. United States foreign direct investment in Africa, including northern Africa, at the end of 1997 was $10.3 billion, or 1 percent of all United States foreign direct investment. Over half of the United States direct investment in Africa was in the petroleum sector. South Africa received the largest share of United States foreign direct investment in sub-Saharan Africa, and manufacturing accounted for the largest share of that investment. Nigeria received the second largest share of United States foreign direct investment in Sub-Saharan Africa, and petroleum accounted for almost all of that investment. What is missing here is the coherent development that can make the countries of Africa into a growing dynamic economic power with a healthy appetite for American products. I hope my bill will help spark that development and drive up all of these meager trade statistics. First, if offers trade benefits on a wider variety of products than is covered under competing proposals. These provisions are designed to help African economies diversify their export base. that's good for Africa, and good for us. Second, as I have noted, my bill addresses the two biggest barriers to economic development in Africa--HIV/AIDS and debt. In addition, it helps infuse into African economies a powerful engine of economic growth--small business. The bill gives special attention to small- and women-owned businesses in Africa and it ensures that existing United States trade promotion mechanisms are made available to American small businesses seeking to do business in Africa. That kind of attention to the economic fundamentals also is good for Africa and good for us. My bill authorizes the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC, to initiate one or more equity funds in support of infrastructure projects in sub-Saharan Africa, including basic health services, including HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, hospitals, potable water, sanitation, schools, electrification of rural areas, and publicly- accessible transportation. It specifically requires that not less than 70 percent of equity funds be allocated to projects involving small- and women-owned businesses with substantial African ownership, thus ensuring that Africa truly gains from the provision. It also specifies that a majority of funds be allocated to American small business. Good for Africa and good for America. This measure also ensures that the benefits of economic growth and development in Africa will be broad enough to allow African workers and African firms to buy American goods and services. My bill explicitly requires compliance with internationally recognized standards of worker and human rights and environmental protections in order for countries to receive the additional trade benefits of the legislation. The requirements are enforceable and allow for legal action to be taken by United States citizens when an African country fails to comply. The bill also includes strong protections against the illegal transshipments of goods from their countries through Africa, and authorizes the provision of technical assistance to customs services in Africa. Transshipment is frankly a sneaky practice employed by producers in China and other third party countries, especially in Asia. Here's how it works: they establish sham production in countries which may export to the United States under more favorable conditions than those producers enjoy in their own countries. Then they ship goods made in their factories at home and meant for the United States market to the third country, in this case an African country, pack it or assemble it in some minor way, and send it on to the United States marked ``Make in Africa,'' with all the benefits that label would bring. If that happens in Africa, it will undermine our objectives--it will be bad for Africa, bad for the United States, and simply unjust. These provisions are intended to ensure that the trade benefits in Africa accrue to African workers rather than non-African producers. There is more talk of Africa in the Halls of Congress than we have heard in a long time. I welcome that because we have hope for this kind of attention on the Senate Subcommittee on Africa for the seven years I have served on that committee. The prospect of expanding trade with Africa has inspired many members to educate themselves about the changes taking place on the continent. Now they have to accept the opportunity and the challenge those changes present. Now they have to fix our trading relationship with Africa. In our zeal to expand our trading relationship with selected countries, we must be mindful to do it in a manner that is sustainable. I fear that some of the other alternatives that are out there are insufficient to meet and sustain the goals that we all share. A better trade relationship for Africa has to be for the long term because its richest rewards will come in the long term. Lasting, equitable, and effective expansion of commercial ties to the economies and peoples of Africa will require bold steps. This legislation represents the first of those steps. I urge my colleagues to take up the tools we have to help the Nations of Africa build a more prosperous and just place on their continent. It is the right thing to do and the smart thing to do for America. Please join me in supporting the HOPE for Africa bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Honorable Edward Kennedy, who received the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Freedom Medal in early May of this year. I ask that Ambassador William J. vanden Heuvel's remarks honoring Senator Kennedy be printed in the Record following this statement. The remarks follow. The Four Freedoms: A Gateway to the New Millennium An Address by William J. vanden Heuvel, President of the Franklin & Eleanor Roosevelt Institute--Hyde Park, New York--May 7, 1999 Today, midst the renewal of life that Spring represents, we come to the valley of the Hudson River that Franklin Delano Roosevelt loved so very much. The President parents and four children of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt are buried in this country churchyard. We remember that three sovereigns of the Netherlands--Wilhelmina, Juliana and Beatrix came to this church to worship accompanied by it Senior Warden who was also the President of the United States. We welcome the Queen's High Commissioner. Wim van Gelder, and the delegation from Zeeland where the Roosevelt Study Center has established itself as a pre-eminent place of study of the American presidency. Winston Churchill described Franklin Roosevelt as the greatest man he had ever known. President Roosevelt's life, Churchill said, ``must be regarded as one of the commanding events in human destiny.'' We listen once more to the words the President spoke to the Congress on January 6, 1941, as he defined the fundamental charter of democracy: [The voice of President Roosevelt as he spoke to the Congress of the United States on January 6, 1941] ``In the future days, which we seek to make secure we look forward to a world founded upon four essential freedoms. The first is Freedom of Speech and Expression--everywhere in the world. The second is Freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--everywhere in the world. The third is Freedom from Want--which, translated into world terms, means economic understanding which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants--everywhere in the world. The fourth is Freedom from Fear--which, translated into world terms, means a worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor--anywhere in the world.'' Freedom of Speech and Expression Freedom of Worship Freedom from Want Freedom from Fear For ourselves, for our nations, for our world. Those are the reasons why we fought the most terrible war in human history--to secure those freedoms for our children and generations to come, to make possible for them the well- ordered society that only Democracy can assure, a community established by the consent of the governed, where the rule of law prevails, where freedom means respect for each other, and where fairness and decency and tolerance are the cherished values, where government protects the powerless while encouraging everyone to nourish the spirit and substance of our land. Franklin Roosevelt was the voice of the people of the United States during the most difficult crises of the century. He led America out of the despair of the Great Depression. He led us to victory in the Great War. Four times he was elected President of the United States. By temperament and talent, by energy and instinct, Franklin Roosevelt came to the presidency, ready for the challenges that confronted him. He was a breath of fresh air in our political life--so vital, so confident and optimistic, so warm and good humored. He was a man of incomparable personal courage. At the age of 39, he was stricken with infantile paralysis. He would never walk or stand again unassisted. We can feel the pain of his struggle--learning to move again, to stand, to rely upon the physical support of others--never giving into despair, to self-pity, to discouragement. Just twelve years after he was stricken, he was elected President of a country itself paralyzed by the most fearful economic depression of its history. He lifted America from its knees and led us to our fateful rendezvous with history. The majesty of that triumph can never be dimmed. He transformed our government into an active instrument of social justice. He made America the arsenal of democracy. He was Commander-in-Chief of the greatest military force in history. He crafted the victorious alliance that won the war. He was the father of the nuclear age. He inspired and guided the blueprint for the world that was to follow. The vision of the United Nations, the commitment to collective security, the determination to end colonialism, the opportunity of peace and prosperity for all people--everywhere in the world. Such was the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt. President Roosevelt spoke in simple terms that everyone understood. Civilization needs a police force, he said, just as every one of our communities look to their local police for security and protection against the lawless. Adolf Hitler and his Nazi hoodlums brought the world to the precipice of destruction. Franklin Roosevelt was the first among the world's leaders to denounce and confront the savagery of the Nazis. The tin horn dictators who trample democratic values today when they carry out ethnic cleansing and murder innocent people, destroying their children and their hopes, are in the same gangster tradition. It is Franklin Roosevelt's legacy to nullify their power by collective action. If the freedoms, which are the essence of civilization, are only rhetoric unworthy of defense and sacrifice, they will not prosper. They will perish. The America that President Roosevelt left us was prepared for the challenge of the New Frontier. Despite the trouble and turbulence of the 20th century, there is much of which we can be proud. We have a nation based upon the consent of the governed. We must cause it once again to be respectful of the opinions of Mankind. We have amassed wealth that has never been equaled. We have brought together all of the world's races and creeds and shown that we can live together in peace and common purpose. We have spent our treasure and spilled our blood to prevent tyrants from destroying the possibilities of freedom and liberty. Neither President Roosevelt nor we who share his vision are projecting a Utopia, a place liberated of all human trouble, where no one shall want for anything. No, the Four Freedoms are not a vision of a distant millennium, but rather the basis of a world attainable in our own time and generation. It is the purpose of this day to honor five laureates whose lives and achievements give us hope that our cherished freedoms will endure as our Republic will endure. It is my privilege and honor to bestow the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Four Freedoms Medals.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join a number of our colleagues in support of prompt Senate consideration of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty the CTBT. The issue of arms proliferation is at the heart of our national--and international--security. In the post-cold war world we are no longer faced with a military threat posed by the Soviet Union, but in some ways the world now is a more dangerous place than it was just a decade ago, with many smaller, unpredictable threats taking the place of a single large one. U.S. and international security are now threatened by transfers of nuclear, conventional and non-conventional materials among numerous states. Nuclear testing last year by India and Pakistan, the attempts of other states to obtain nuclear and ballistic missile technology, and the growing threat of weapons of mass destruction reinforce the need for a comprehensive international effort to end nuclear testing and curb the illicit transfer and sale of nuclear, ballistic, and other dangerous technology. I have been a strong supporter of prompt Senate action on the CTBT since President Clinton submitted the treaty to the Senate for its advice and consent on September 22, 1997--2 years ago last week. As a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, I continue to feel strongly that the committee should have thorough hearings specifically on this important treaty at the earliest possible date. I know that the chairman of the committee and I do not agree on the importance of the CTBT, but I hope he will agree that the Senate must fulfill its advice and consent obligations with respect to this treaty. I continue to hear from numerous Wisconsin residents who favor prompt Senate action on--and ratification of--the CTBT. The CTBT, which has been signed by more than 150 nations, prohibits the explosion of any type of nuclear device, no matter the intended purpose. India and Pakistan's nuclear tests only underscore the importance of the CTBT, and serve as a reminder that we should redouble our efforts to bring the entire community of nations into this treaty. While I am pleased that both of those countries have agreed to sign the treaty, I regret that they did so only after intense international pressure, and only after they conducted the tests they needed to become declared nuclear states. We must do more to ensure that no further tests take place. The United States must lead the world in reducing the nuclear threat, and to do that we must become a full participant in the treaty we helped to craft. I am deeply concerned that the third anniversary of the date the CTBT opened for signature, September 24, 1996, passed last week without Senate advice and consent to ratification. This failure to act by the United States Senate means that, according to the treaty's provisions, the United States will not be able to participate actively in the upcoming conference, which is reserved for only those countries who have deposited their instruments of ratification. That conference is currently scheduled to begin on October 6, 1999. Because we cannot participate, the United States will be at a severe disadvantage when it comes to influencing the future of the treaty and encouraging other countries to sign or ratify. Mr. President, I again urge the Senate to act on this important treaty at the earliest possible date. The credibility and leadership of the United States in the arms control arena is at stake. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the HOPE for Africa Act of 1999, a bill to authorize a new trade, investment and development policy for sub-Saharan Africa. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate having the floor returned. I appreciate the ruling of the Chair. Let me say that any attempt to gag the discussion on the floor of the Senate about the impact of soft money on this place is something I will fight tooth and nail with my colleagues on, and I was prepared, if necessary, had the Chair ruled against me to appeal. But I am grateful for the ruling and the precedents. There is a notion that somehow saying the oil companies have contributed money means we are accusing somebody of something illegal, or something that can't be done. But that isn't a necessary conclusion. Contributions can be given innocently, but if the impact is that the process is greatly affected and the judgment is affected by the power of that money, I think it is relevant to this debate. That is my concern about soft money. It is not so much the contributions given to individual Senators. Individual Members can't take soft money. It is this new phenomenon of the very large soft money contributions being given to political parties that I think has changed this place in a way that is extremely troubling and has allowed some amendments such as the one before the Senate today to get the kind of credibility I don't think they would have had without the power of soft money. We have heard the horror stories again and again. Parties have special clubs for big givers and offer exclusive meetings and weekend retreats with officeholders to the donors. It is totally legal. In response to the Senator from Louisiana, I can see it is legal. I am not suggesting that these parties or industries are involved in illegal activity; it is legal, but it should be illegal. It is distorting to the process. The tobacco companies have funneled nearly $17 million in soft money to the national parties in the last decade, $4.4 million in 1997 alone, when the whole issue of congressional action on the tobacco settlement was very much alive, and it is totally legal. In 1996, the gambling industry gave nearly $4 million in soft money to the two major political parties at the same time that Congress was creating a new national commission on gambling but with limited subpoena powers. It is totally legal. There are some in this body, despite what the Thompson investigation uncovered a few years ago and what news stories show on almost a daily basis, who don't see or won't acknowledge the corrupting influence of these unlimited soft money contributions which again are now totally legal. I remember a history lesson that one of our colleagues, the junior Senator from Utah, gave during a debate on campaign finance reform a few years ago that was intended to convince Members there was nothing wrong at all with enormous campaign contributions. He recounted the very frequently told story of how Senator Eugene McCarthy's Presidential campaign in 1968 was jump-started by some very large contributions by some very wealthy individuals. He also noted that Steve Forbes was apparently prepared to make similar contributions to support Jack Kemp for a run for the Presidency in 1996 but was prohibited from doing so by the Federal elections law and decided to run his own campaign, a decision from which we might infer that money is more important than the candidate. He also recounted the story of Mr. Arthur Hyatt, a wealthy businessman who gave large soft money contributions to the Democratic Party in 1996 but decided after the election not to give soft money to the parties anymore but instead to fund an advocacy group that is promoting public financing of elections. The point of the examples was to try to argue that wealthy donors are motivated by ideology and to benefit the public as they see it, rather than the desire to gain access and influence with policymakers through their contributions. I suppose that could sometimes be the case. Of course, there are other examples, including the candid story of the well-known incident of Mr. Roger Tamraz who testified under oath to our Governmental Affairs Committee that he never even votes and the only reason he gave soft money to the DNC was to gain access to officials he thought could help him with his business. It is my strong suspicion that Mr. Tamraz' motives, if not his methods, are more typical of big contributors than are those of Steve Forbes or the millionaires who funded Eugene McCarthy's campaign.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I certainly dispute that. I believe this is entirely relevant. I am talking about corporations and interests that are very much behind this matter. I would certainly suggest that it is appropriate.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I will not yield for a question at this point. I will later. Mr. President, I am not cynical about this. There is a reason I hold suspicions about the motives of soft money donors. The reason is, a solid majority of soft money contributions to our political parties, as I mentioned before, comes from corporate interests. It simply cannot be argued that those interests are acting out of a public spiritedness or ideological conviction. Corporations do not have an ideology; they have business interests. They have a bottom line to defend. They have learned over the years that making contributions to the major political parties in this country is a very good investment in their bottom line. Unfortunately, too often campaign money buys access and access often pays off at the bottom line. Corporate interests are special interests. Special interests have self-interested motives. They are concerned with profits, not only what is best for citizens or consumers or the country as a whole. They like to cast their arguments in terms of the public interest, and I am sure sometimes their beliefs are genuine. And they certainly will argue that if Congress follows their advice on legislation, the public will be better off. But in the end, it is their own businesses they most care of and not necessarily the broader public good. Indeed, the boards of directors and management of corporations actually have a legal duty--this is not a criticism of the corporations at all--to act in the best interests of their shareholders. They are supposed to do that, not to think of the broader public at large. Let me make it clear to those Senators concerned about my remarks, there is not a suggestion here that the corporations are acting illegally or suggesting that there is something wrong with corporations doing what they should can for their own interests. I have no illusions about it. It is OK with me that the corporate special interests are looking out for No. 1 in the public debate. But I must object, and object loudly and over and over again, when their deep pockets give them deep influence that ordinary Americans simply don't have. Corporations with business before the Congress, not disinterested, public-spirited millionaires, and certainly not ordinary citizens, lead the way in soft money giving. One interesting set of contributors proves that access, not ideology, is the main reason for soft money donations. In the 1996 election cycle, 40 companies gave over $150,000 to both political parties. Guess what. Three of those double-givers were the oil companies I have already mentioned here today. Double- givers, they give to both parties: Atlantic Richfield, Chevron, and Occidental Petroleum. They cover their bases. This is not always about choosing sides, but covering bases. I suppose there might be some in the companies or in this body who argue that the double-givers just want to assist the political process, that they are motivated not by the bottom line but by a keen desire to assist both parties in serving the public. If that is the case, why is it, in every Congress since I have been here, the industries most seriously affected by our work give huge contributions to Members and to the political parties? In 1993-1994, it was the health care debate. Hospital insurance companies, drug companies, and doctors all opened up their wallets in an unprecedented way. In 1995 and 1996, the Telecommunications Act was under consideration, and, lo and behold, the local and long-distance companies and cable companies stepped up giving. In the last Congress-- and this one, for that matter--we have been working on bankruptcy reform and financial services modernization. The biggest givers of all in the 1998 cycle, according to Common Cause research, was security and investment companies, insurance companies, banks, and lenders eager to have business interests protected or expanded. What is going on here? I suggest this is not a spontaneous burst of civic virtue. Since we didn't finish work on the bills last year, the money is flowing again this year. It has even been suggested that sometimes the very Members of Congress who most want a big bill to pass will slow progress to keep the checks flowing in. That such a view of legislators and public servants has gained currency in the public debate, even if it is true, shows the depths of cynicism that this soft money system has inspired in those we represent. Mr. President, the American people are not gullible or naive. They know that these companies contribute these enormous sums to the parties because their bottom line is affected by what the Congress does and they want to make sure the Congress will listen to them when they want to make their case. And they know that the big contributors get results. We are seeing another example of that here today. And frankly, it's a two-way street. The parties are hitting up these donors because they know that most companies, unlike Monsanto and General Motors have announced early in 1997 that they would no longer make soft money donations--most companies don't have the courage to say no. Most companies are worried that if they don't ante up, their lobbyists won't get in the door. Our current campaign finance laws encourage old fashioned shakedowns, as long as they are done discreetly. A growing number of business leaders are objecting to this system, and recognizing that it must be changed. The business group CED, the Committee for Economic Development, has come out for a ban on soft money, and I think we will see more and more business leaders embracing campaign finance reform in the future. An unhealthy democracy is not healthy for business. It is beyond me how any Senator could support this soft money system. In a few weeks, we will have a chance to vote on a bill that bans soft money. Senator McCain and I are looking forward to that debate, and I want to thank the Senator from California for giving me the opportunity to talk about it this morning, as part of her fight against this ill- advised amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. If we can pass a soft money ban this year, perhaps there will be fewer of these special interest deals to contend with in the future. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I believe I have the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I am shocked at the efforts of my colleagues to gag one of their colleagues who is trying to talk about a reality in this country that has occurred with regard to these campaign contributions that affect what we are doing on this amendment. The notion that somehow I should stop speaking while the Chair reviews the precedents is absurd. A Senator should be allowed to speak as long as he is permitted under the rules to do so, and there has been no such ruling otherwise.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Regular order.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I just want to make one clarification concerning the colloquy between the majority leader and the Chair. I have no disagreement with the statements of the Chair concerning the Senate rule on germaneness during the post-cloture debate. However, the majority leader prefaced his inquiry with the statement that it was his understanding that some debate on the oil royalties amendment was not germane. I want to make clear that there was never a ruling that any particular statement made during the debate by any Senator was not germane. I am confident that my remarks during this debate were germane to the issue at hand and I do not interpret the Chair's statement in this colloquy to have suggested or ruled otherwise.