Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I know the Senator from California is obviously concerned about big windfalls for the oil companies. The Interior Department estimates that underpayments by the oil companies cost the taxpayers up to $66 million a year. I am wondering if she is aware of some of the largest oil companies that benefit from it.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask the Senator from California this because I share her strong opposition to this amendment, which would allow oil companies to continue to underpay the U.S. Government in royalties for drilling on public lands. It is my understanding this rider was modified by the managers' amendment. But, as originally drafted, the rider blocks the implementation of new Interior rules to stop these underpayments, just as their implementation was blocked in the last Congress; is that correct?

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the 35th anniversary of the Wilderness Act of 1964, which was signed into law on September 3, 1964 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, and to announce the formation of a Senate Wilderness and Public Lands Caucus. The Wilderness Act became law seven years after the first wilderness bill was introduced by Senator Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota. The final bill, sponsored by Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico, passed the Senate by a vote of 73-12 on April 9, 1963, and passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 373-1 on July 30, 1964. The Wilderness Act of 1964 established a National Wilderness Preservation System ``to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness.'' The law reserves to Congress the authority to designate wilderness areas, and directs the federal land management agencies to review the lands under their responsibility for their wilderness potential. The original Wilderness Act established 9.1 million acres of Forest Service land in 54 wilderness areas. Now, after passage of 102 pieces of legislation the wilderness system is comprised of over 104 million acres in 625 wilderness areas, across 44 States, and administered by four federal agencies: the Forest Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service in the Department of the Interior. As we in this body know well, the passage and enactment of legislation of this type is a remarkable accomplishment. It requires steady, bipartisan commitment, institutional support, and direct leadership. The United States Senate was instrumental in shaping this very important law, and this anniversary gives us the opportunity to recognize this role. I am honored today to be joined on the floor by one of the three Senators remaining in this body who have the distinguished honor of having voted for this legislation, the Senior Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd). I look forward to his remarks at the conclusion of my own. The Senior Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) and the Senior Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), who also voted for this legislation, have asked that their remarks regarding this anniversary be included in the Record. Their remarks will also appear in the Record together with my remarks on the Wilderness Act anniversary. In addition, I understand that the Ranking Member of the Energy Committee (Mr. Bingaman) has a statement on the anniversary. Under the Wilderness Act, wilderness is defined as ``an area of undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and influence which generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable.'' The concept of the creation of a national wilderness system marked an innovation in the American conservation movement--wilderness would be a place where our ``management strategy'' would be to leave lands essentially undeveloped. Congress lavished more time and effort on the wilderness bill than almost any other measure in conservation history. The original bill established 9.1 million acres of federally protected wilderness in national forests. From June 1957 until May 1964 there were nine separate hearings on the proposal, collecting over six thousand pages of testimony. The bill itself was modified and rewritten sixty-six different times. Twenty different Senators made statements on the legislation. Much of the delay in reaching a final version stemmed from the conflicts between the scope of the bill's restrictions on mining, grazing, oil and other extractive activities on designated wilderness areas and the need for the law to be flexible in the light of pre-existing activities. The bill's supporters argued that the measure gave legal sanction to the areas already being managed by the Forest Service as primitive areas. More importantly, they successfully argued that Congressional action was necessary because the wilderness that exists is its own finite resource. More than a century of development had brought greatly changed conditions to both public and private lands throughout the country. ``If the year were 1857 instead of 1957,'' one supporter of the bill wrote in the Living Wilderness, the Wilderness Society's newsletter, ``I'd say definitely no [to a wilderness bill]. But given the almost total dominance of developed civilization, I am compelled to work for saving the remnants of undeveloped land.'' I think those remarks apply just as well to the state of our federal lands today, more than thirty- five years later. My interest in this law stems from the fact that Wisconsin has produced great wilderness thinkers and leaders in the wilderness movement such as Aldo Leopold, Sigurd Olsen, John Muir and former Senator Gaylord Nelson. Senator Nelson was a co-sponsor of the Wilderness Act of 1964, along with former Wisconsin Senator William Proxmire. I am proud to now hold the Senate seat that Senator Nelson held with distinction from 1963 to 1981. As a Senator from Wisconsin, I have a special depth of feeling about this issue. The testimony at Congressional hearings and the treatment of the bill in the press of the day reveals Wisconsin's crucial role in the long and continuing American debate about our wild places, and the development of the Wilderness Act. The names and ideas of John Muir, Sigurd Olson, and Aldo Leopold, especially Leopold, appear time and time again in the legislative history. Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico, chairman of what was then called the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, stated that his support of the wilderness system was the direct result of discussions he had held almost forty years before with Leopold, who was then in the Southwest with the Forest Service. It was Leopold who advocated, while with the Forest Service, the creation of a primitive area in the Gila National Forest in New Mexico in 1923. The Gila Primitive Area formally became part of the wilderness system when the Wilderness Act became law. In a statement in favor of the Wilderness Act in the New York Times, then Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall discussed ecology and what he called ``a land ethic'' and referred to Leopold as the instigator of the modern wilderness movement. At a Senate hearing in 1961, David Brower of the Sierra Club went so far as to allege that ``no man who reads Leopold with an open mind will ever again, with a clear conscience, be able to step up and testify against the wilderness bill.'' For others, the ideas of Olson and Muir provided a justification for the wilderness system, particularly that the country's strength depends upon blending contact with the primitive into a civilized existence because the frontier played such a central role in the our history. Passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964 has not terminated the American debate over the meaning, value and need to protect wild country. As I mentioned, the wilderness system has dramatically expanded under both Republican and Democratic leadership. The number of wildernesses established and acres designated by each Congress has varied greatly from year to year. There have been only nine individual years since passage of the Wilderness Act when no wildernesses were designated, and 1965 to 1967 was the only period of three consecutive years in which no wilderness legislation was passed by Congress. In 1984, during the Reagan Administration, 175 wildernesses were established, more than double any other year's addition. Despite the record number of new wildernesses in 1984, the largest number of wilderness acres was designated in 1980 with passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which added over 56 million acres to the National Wilderness Preservation System. Combined with other wilderness laws passed that year, nearly 61 million acres of wilderness were designated in 1980, more than 6 times the number of acres passed in any other year. Significant additions to the system continued up until 1994, when Congress passed the California Desert Protection Act. Despite this accomplishment, Congress has gotten out of the habit of passing wilderness bills which protect our remaining wilderness-quality federal lands. In the 105th Congress, the Senate's actions were much more modest--we added about 160 acres to the Eagles Nest Wilderness in Colorado. However, Congress has much bolder bills before it, with bipartisan support, such as the bills to designate 9.1 million acres in Utah and the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness. In addition, President Clinton proposed a new omnibus National Parks wilderness bill in his State of the Union. We need to address these measures, and to revitalize the tradition of statewide and state delegation led wilderness bills. In order to get the Senate in a position to act on wilderness issues, I hope to raise awareness of the importance of wilderness in the Senate. I have been working to organize a Wilderness and Public Lands Caucus that will help the Senate to renew its bipartisan commitment to the active protection of wilderness and public lands. Today I am delighted to announce that Senator McCain, Senator Durbin, Senator Feinstein, Senator Murray, and Senator Bayh will be joining me in this effort. I encourage any member of the Senate interested in learning about and working on these issues to join our caucus, and I am grateful to these members who are willing to lend their time and leadership. I feel it is time to promote and re-develop expertise on these issues in the Senate. In the early days of the Wilderness Act many Senators had expertise on these issues, and ad hoc coalitions formed to pass large bills with provisions for a number of states. However, now that the Senate has lost its zeal for the continuing work of identifying and designating wilderness areas this expertise has dwindled. Without a new dedication to re-building this expertise, wilderness and public lands issues will remain increasingly divisive, despite a resurgent public interest in our wilderness and an increased public desire for Congress to extend additional protection to federal lands of wilderness quality. I intend for the caucus to meet as necessary during each Senate session in pursuit of several objectives: To assist members in defending existing wilderness areas, and other federal land resources already protected in the public trust, from activities that have the potential to significantly affect the qualities for which they were designated. To support and provide advice to members seeking opportunities to designate new wilderness areas. To provide members with a bipartisan forum in which to discuss wilderness and other public land protection and management issues and learn from others' expertise. To educate members about the Wilderness Act and other federal land management statutes, and to improve understanding of the appropriate uses of various federal land management designations and the federal financial and management requirements needed to implement them. Mr. President, many would agree that more must be done to protect our wild places. One of the things that needs to be done, particularly on the cusp of the Millennium, is to examine and improve the ability of this body to understand and grapple with these issues in the public interest. This is a great institution, with a strong conservation history, which has produced the Wilderness Act, one of the gems of conservation law. I am actively committing to working on wilderness issues because I believe it to be in the Wisconsin tradition, and, as a Senator, I am trying to use the tools I have been given by the people of Wisconsin to build the leadership needed to defend these places. In conclusion, I would like to remind colleagues of the words of Aldo Leopold in his 1949 book, A Sand County Almanac. He said, ``The outstanding scientific discovery of the Twentieth Century is not the television, or radio, but rather the complexity of the land organism. Only those who know the most about it can appreciate how little is known about it.'' We still have much to learn, but this anniversary of the Wilderness Act reminds us how far we have come and how powerful a collegial commitment to public lands can be in the Senate. I am very pleased and honored to be able to yield the remainder of my time to one of the three Senators who is here to vote for this legislation, the senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if I could be of help, it is my understanding they have 30 minutes and, subsequent to that, Senator Reid and I will each have 10 minutes. That is my understanding of the unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Feingold and Mr. Reed pertaining to the introduction of S. 1568 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today, along with a number of my colleagues, to introduce a bill in response to the ongoing violence in East Timor. I am outraged at what is going on in East Timor today. The Indonesian government clearly has not lived up to its commitment to maintain security following the recent referendum. In fact it is openly supporting the militia violence against the majority of East Timorese, who have made clear their desire for an independent East Timor. If the Indonesian government cannot, or will not, maintain peace, I believe an international peacekeeping mission is the best option. The United States and the rest of the international community must exercise any and all leverage it has with the Indonesians to allow for this contingency. In addition, the United States provides a great deal of economic and military assistance to Indonesia. If the Indonesian government does not take steps to stop the violence occurring in East Timor, we should suspend these benefits. For that reason, I am today introducing a bill which cuts off all military and most economic assistance to the government of Indonesia until the President determines and certifies to the Congress that a safe and secure environment exists in East Timor which will allow the East Timorese who have fled the militia-led violence to return to their homes, allow the United Nations Assistance Mission to East Timor, UNAMET, to resume its mandate, and allow the results of the August 30, 1999, referendum on East Timor's political status to be fully implemented. At long last, on August 30, the people of East Timor went to the polls to express their will about the future of their homeland, choosing between a future as an autonomous part of Indonesia, or as an independent nation. The approximately 99 percent voter turnout in the face of intimidation from the pro-Jakarta militias is a credit to the dedication and courage of the East Timorese people to determine once and for all their own political status. Ironically, the day of the ballot was relatively free of violence. But that was the calm before the storm. After the polls closed, the militias began a rampage throughout the territory that continues today. At least for UNAMET workers have been killed and at least six other are missing. Thousands of East Timorese have fled their homes, which are being looted and burned at will by the militias. According to some estimates, in the past week alone, several hundred people have been killed, and more than 30,000 have been forced to flee their homes. Television news reports have shown desperate East Timorese citizens scaling the razor-sharp barbed wire fence surrounding the UNAMET mission in order to escape the automatic weapons of the advancing militias. There have been reports of beheadings. Nobel Laureate Bishop Carlos Belo and about six thousand East Timorese who sought refuge in his home in Dili were forced to flee when his home was burned to the ground. Bishop Belo, who has endured years of intimidation and countless threats on his life, has since fled to Australia. The United Nations is evacuating many of its workers and international observers. The result of the ballot, which was announced on September 4, was overwhelming--78.5 percent of East Timorese voted for independence. This crushing defeat for the pro-Jakarta militias and their supporters sparked even more violence. Unfortunately, this is just the latest in a wave of violence that has plagued East Timor for almost a quarter of a century. At this point, I would like to recount some of East Timor's history--the events that have brought the people of that territory to the horrific violence that is being unleashed upon them as I speak these words. The East Timorese people have a long history of foreign domination. The Portuguese ruled there for four centuries. In 1975, less than a year after the Portuguese colonial rulers left East Timor, the Indonesian army occupied East Timor, and it remains there today. For 24 years, the people of East Timor have been subjugated by the Indonesian government and harassed by the Indonesian military. The November 1991 massacre of non-violent demonstrators in the East Timorese capital of Dili is but one example of Indonesia's repressive occupation of East Timor. Despite the harsh rule of the Suharto regime--or maybe in spite of it--the people of East Timor held on to their hope for self-determination. This dream is personified by people such as Nobel Peace Prize winners Jose Ramos Horta and Bishop Carlos Belo, who have worked tirelessly, and at great personal risk, for the liberation of the people of East Timor. Following Suharto's resignation in 1998, it appeared that some positive changes were on the horizon for the people of East Timor. This comes after January 27, 1999, President B.J. Habibie announced that the government of Indonesia was finally willing to learn--and respect--the wishes of the people in that territory. On May 5, 1999, the governments of Indonesia and Portugal signed an agreement to hold a United Nations- supervised ``consultation'' on the future of East Timor. Before the ink was even dry on this agreement, proJakarta militia groups--better described as lawless thugs--began a campaign of terror and intimidation against the East Timorese people aimed at quashing the independence movement. And these thugs operated freely while the Indonesian military looked the other way, and in some cases, helped them. In the weeks leading up to the historic referendum, the militias targeted supporters of East Timorese independence, and members of the UNAMET who were in the territory preparing for the vote. And now, the implementation of the results of this ballot, an effort which has already been paid for by the blood of more than 200,000 East Timorese who have been killed since 1975, is being delayed by more violence from criminals who cannot accept the defeat they received at the polls. Despite his promise to respect the wishes of the East Timorese people, President Habibie has done little to stop the violence. Yesterday, he imposed martial law in East Timor, but this announcement has not ended the militia rampage, and the Indonesian military has done nothing to halt the violence. I am concerned that martial law will only embolden the militias. The bill which I am introducing today calls on the Indonesian government to foster an environment in which the result of the August 30 referendum can be fully implemented. And if the Indonesian government does not take steps to that end, all U.S. military and most economic assistance to Indonesia will be cut off. Period. For too long, the Congress has allowed military and economic assistance to be awarded to the government of Indonesia, with few conditions, despite its miserable human rights record and its deplorable treatment of the people of East Timor. It is high time that the Indonesian government learns that the U.S. will not tolerate the violent suppression of the legitimate democratic aspiration of the people of East Timor. Earlier this week, President Habibie asked the Indonesian people to remain calm in the face of the referendum results. It is past time for him to direct the Indonesian army to stop the militias and to discipline those army personnel who are in collusion with the militias in their rampage through East Timor. It is imperative that President Habibie and his government understand that the United States Congress will not sit idly by while bands of thugs continue to loot and burn East Timor, kill innocent civilians, and drive people from their homes. President Habibie said earlier this year that he would respect the wishes of the people of East Timor. His government also promised the World Bank that it would live up to its commitments to the United Nations. It is time he shows that these statements were more than just political rhetoric. He must stop the violence, and he must allow international peacekeepers to enter East Timor without the threat of attack from militias or members of the Indonesian army. I hope the Senate will act on this important legislation at the earliest possible date. We must not allow the Indonesian government to continue to receive U.S. military and economic assistance so long as it is condoning the terror in East Timor. So, Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk. Because of the urgency of the situation in East Timor, I ask that it be considered as soon as possible. Mr. President, I am delighted that the next speaker will be a person who has devoted an incredible energy to this issue; in fact, who recently had the willingness and courage to go to East Timor, Senator Reed of Rhode Island.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to stand together today with my distinguished colleague, Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, on a bill that protects the rights of state and local governments. Mr. President, the bill that Senator Leahy introduced today addresses an egregious affront to state and local authority. Indeed, the Federal Communications Commission's proposed rule on telecommunications tower siting is an explicit transfer of power to the federal government. Mr. President, the FCC would have the American people believe that it understands state and local land use issues better than the folks back home. It's proposed rule, itself promoted by a special interest group, would preempt state and local zoning and land use restrictions on the siting and construction of telecommunications towers. This is not the way the Federal government should be operating. The FCC's proposed rule would set specific time limits within state and local governments must act in response to requests for approval of the placement, construction or modification of these towers. In addition, the rule would ``remove from local consideration certain types of restrictions on the siting and construction of transmission facilities.'' And finally, the rule would preempt all state and local laws that impair the ability of licensed broadcasters to construct or modify towers unless the state or local government can prove that their regulation is ``reasonable in relation to a clearly defined and expressly stated health or safety objective. Mr. President, the proposal infringes on the rights of states and localities to make important zoning decisions in accordance with their own development objectives. It infringes also on the rights of residents of states and localities to fully enjoy the protection of rules requiring notification of adjacent land owners, hearing requirements and appeal periods. Under the proposed rule, the Federal government would impose specific time periods during which zoning disputes between entities seeking to build or modify towers and the state or locality must be resolved. The rule also appears to preempt entirely a local or state law regarding tower placement even if that law is intended to ensure the health or safety of the community. The rule would allow health and safety concerns to be overridden by the federal interest in the construction of transmission facilities and in the promotion of fair and effective competition among electronic media. It is unclear why the business operations of telecommunications companies should override local health and safety concerns. State or local zoning or land use laws designed to address historic or aesthetic objectives also would be preempted under this rule. Mr. President, states and localities should be able to maintain the right to control development within their own jurisdictions without undue interference from the Federal government. Federal preemption of zoning decisions should be the exception rather than the rule. The proposed rule would make federal preemption of legitimate local and state zoning and land use laws commonplace. Why would we allow this end run around state and local authority, Mr. President? It goes completely against the philosophy of state and local autonomy that so many of my colleagues support. To try and get to the bottom of this, Mr. President, I'd like to Call the Bankroll, which I do from time to time during my remarks on this floor. I'm going to offer some information about the political donations that have been made by the telecommunications giants that have a huge stake in the wireless communications industry. That industry has been lobbying hard in favor of the FCC rule, which empowers the federal government to overrule local communities that don't want a tower in their town. During the least election cycle, the following telecommunications companies with a stake in the wireless market gave millions upon millions of dollars to candidates and the political parties: Bell Atlantic gave more than $920,000 in soft money and nearly $885,000 in PAC money; Wireless manufacturer Motorola gave $100,000 in soft and money and nearly $110,000 in PAC money; The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, the lobbying arm of the wireless industry, gave more than $100,000 in soft money and more than $85,000 to candidates; And AT&T gave nearly $825,000 in soft money to the parties and nearly $820,000 in PAC money to candidates. Certainly, this FCC rule is not the only thing these companies are lobbying for, Mr. President. But whenever wealthy interests wants something, they have the weight of their contributions behind them. Those contributions influence what we do, and they deserve to be noted in this discussion. I think it's vitally important that we keep these contributions in mind as we evaluate the proposed rule, and we try to understand why the FCC would propose it, and why a Congress full of members who support state and local autonomy would stand for it. But Mr. President, now I'd like to get to the good news--the bill authored by the distinguished senior senator from Vermont, which would repeal limitations on state and local authority regarding the placement of, construction of and modifications to telecommunications towers. It would do so by prohibiting the FCC from adopting as final the proposed rule. And the bill does so in a responsible manner. Senator Leahy's bill incorporates aviation industry concerns by allowing state and local governments to require tower construction applications to be accompanied by documentation showing compliance with applicable state and local aviation standards. It acknowledges alternative technologies which can be used in place of towers, including satellite and cable. It authorizes state and local governments to require evidence from companies showing that the proposed tower would comply with federal health and environmental standards. And it maintains the authority of state and local governments to ensure that companies comply with statements, assertions and representations made while applying for permission to locate a broadcast facility. Mr. President, as new telecommunication towers have sprouted up by the thousands from coast to coast, so has the ire of our residents. To quote my distinguished colleague from Vermont, I too don't want Wisconsin turned into a giant pin cushion with 200-foot towers sticking out of every hill and valley. Mr. President, Wisconsin will be a leader in the information age, but Wisconsinites deserve the right to determine where towers are located within Wisconsin. More than a few Wisconsin communities, large and small, have voiced their clear opposition to the heavy hand of the Federal government on this issue. Various communities and groups, from the city of Milwaukee and the Milwaukee Regional Cable Commission to the cities of Fond du Lac and Brookfield to the Dodge County Board of Supervisors, the Lincoln County Zoning Committee, and the Oneida County Planning and Zoning Committee have contacted me to voice their opposition to the proposed rule. And other communities that have voiced opposition to recent tower siting plans, including Delafield, Fox Point, Bayside, Elm Grove, Germantown, Heartland, Mequon, Muskego, St. Francis, and Whitefish Bay. One resident of Cassian, Wisconsin, summed up the feeling of many Wisconsinites: ``We don't want to become a tower farm.'' Mr. President, the FCC clearly has overstepped its regulatory bounds. We should empower state and local governments, not emasculate them. I hope my colleagues will support the rights of our states and municipalities, not more Federal autocracy. I commend my colleague for introducing this important piece of legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to stand together today with my distinguished colleague, Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, on a bill that protects the rights of state and local governments. Mr. President, the bill that Senator Leahy introduced today addresses an egregious affront to state and local authority. Indeed, the Federal Communications Commission's proposed rule on telecommunications tower siting is an explicit transfer of power to the federal government. Mr. President, the FCC would have the American people believe that it understands state and local land use issues better than the folks back home. It's proposed rule, itself promoted by a special interest group, would preempt state and local zoning and land use restrictions on the siting and construction of telecommunications towers. This is not the way the Federal government should be operating. The FCC's proposed rule would set specific time limits within state and local governments must act in response to requests for approval of the placement, construction or modification of these towers. In addition, the rule would ``remove from local consideration certain types of restrictions on the siting and construction of transmission facilities.'' And finally, the rule would preempt all state and local laws that impair the ability of licensed broadcasters to construct or modify towers unless the state or local government can prove that their regulation is ``reasonable in relation to a clearly defined and expressly stated health or safety objective. Mr. President, the proposal infringes on the rights of states and localities to make important zoning decisions in accordance with their own development objectives. It infringes also on the rights of residents of states and localities to fully enjoy the protection of rules requiring notification of adjacent land owners, hearing requirements and appeal periods. Under the proposed rule, the Federal government would impose specific time periods during which zoning disputes between entities seeking to build or modify towers and the state or locality must be resolved. The rule also appears to preempt entirely a local or state law regarding tower placement even if that law is intended to ensure the health or safety of the community. The rule would allow health and safety concerns to be overridden by the federal interest in the construction of transmission facilities and in the promotion of fair and effective competition among electronic media. It is unclear why the business operations of telecommunications companies should override local health and safety concerns. State or local zoning or land use laws designed to address historic or aesthetic objectives also would be preempted under this rule. Mr. President, states and localities should be able to maintain the right to control development within their own jurisdictions without undue interference from the Federal government. Federal preemption of zoning decisions should be the exception rather than the rule. The proposed rule would make federal preemption of legitimate local and state zoning and land use laws commonplace. Why would we allow this end run around state and local authority, Mr. President? It goes completely against the philosophy of state and local autonomy that so many of my colleagues support. To try and get to the bottom of this, Mr. President, I'd like to Call the Bankroll, which I do from time to time during my remarks on this floor. I'm going to offer some information about the political donations that have been made by the telecommunications giants that have a huge stake in the wireless communications industry. That industry has been lobbying hard in favor of the FCC rule, which empowers the federal government to overrule local communities that don't want a tower in their town. During the least election cycle, the following telecommunications companies with a stake in the wireless market gave millions upon millions of dollars to candidates and the political parties: Bell Atlantic gave more than $920,000 in soft money and nearly $885,000 in PAC money; Wireless manufacturer Motorola gave $100,000 in soft and money and nearly $110,000 in PAC money; The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, the lobbying arm of the wireless industry, gave more than $100,000 in soft money and more than $85,000 to candidates; And AT&T gave nearly $825,000 in soft money to the parties and nearly $820,000 in PAC money to candidates. Certainly, this FCC rule is not the only thing these companies are lobbying for, Mr. President. But whenever wealthy interests wants something, they have the weight of their contributions behind them. Those contributions influence what we do, and they deserve to be noted in this discussion. I think it's vitally important that we keep these contributions in mind as we evaluate the proposed rule, and we try to understand why the FCC would propose it, and why a Congress full of members who support state and local autonomy would stand for it. But Mr. President, now I'd like to get to the good news--the bill authored by the distinguished senior senator from Vermont, which would repeal limitations on state and local authority regarding the placement of, construction of and modifications to telecommunications towers. It would do so by prohibiting the FCC from adopting as final the proposed rule. And the bill does so in a responsible manner. Senator Leahy's bill incorporates aviation industry concerns by allowing state and local governments to require tower construction applications to be accompanied by documentation showing compliance with applicable state and local aviation standards. It acknowledges alternative technologies which can be used in place of towers, including satellite and cable. It authorizes state and local governments to require evidence from companies showing that the proposed tower would comply with federal health and environmental standards. And it maintains the authority of state and local governments to ensure that companies comply with statements, assertions and representations made while applying for permission to locate a broadcast facility. Mr. President, as new telecommunication towers have sprouted up by the thousands from coast to coast, so has the ire of our residents. To quote my distinguished colleague from Vermont, I too don't want Wisconsin turned into a giant pin cushion with 200-foot towers sticking out of every hill and valley. Mr. President, Wisconsin will be a leader in the information age, but Wisconsinites deserve the right to determine where towers are located within Wisconsin. More than a few Wisconsin communities, large and small, have voiced their clear opposition to the heavy hand of the Federal government on this issue. Various communities and groups, from the city of Milwaukee and the Milwaukee Regional Cable Commission to the cities of Fond du Lac and Brookfield to the Dodge County Board of Supervisors, the Lincoln County Zoning Committee, and the Oneida County Planning and Zoning Committee have contacted me to voice their opposition to the proposed rule. And other communities that have voiced opposition to recent tower siting plans, including Delafield, Fox Point, Bayside, Elm Grove, Germantown, Heartland, Mequon, Muskego, St. Francis, and Whitefish Bay. One resident of Cassian, Wisconsin, summed up the feeling of many Wisconsinites: ``We don't want to become a tower farm.'' Mr. President, the FCC clearly has overstepped its regulatory bounds. We should empower state and local governments, not emasculate them. I hope my colleagues will support the rights of our states and municipalities, not more Federal autocracy. I commend my colleague for introducing this important piece of legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I would like to echo that sentiment and also thank Senator Kohl for his assistance and all his work on this very important bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator and ask his assistance in including my ginseng amendment in the final conference report on the FY2000 Agriculture Appropriations bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD. My amendment was a non-controversial sense-of-the- Senate resolution that the U.S. Customs Service should, to the maximum extent practicable, conduct investigations into, and take such other actions as are necessary to prevent, the importation of ginseng products into the United States from foreign countries, including Canada and Asian countries, unless the importation is reported to the Service, as required under Federal law. It merely asks that current law be complied with.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Senator Kohl, as Senator Cochran read through the amendments included in the Managers package of the FY2000 Agriculture Appropriations bill late last night, I noticed that an amendment I had filed was not included. It had been my understanding that my amendment would be accepted during the wrap-up on the Agriculture Appropriations bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to bring my colleagues' attention to the plight of refugees in Africa. Just last week we have been reminded yet again of the disparity in the resources provided to assist those in need on the African continent compared to those in Europe. At a briefing to the U.N. Security Council on July 26, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Sadako Ogata outlined some of the desperate problems facing the over 1.5 million refugees the agency currently counts in Africa. These problems are aggravated by a serious shortfall in international funding for UN refugee efforts. By some accounts, only 60% of the UNHCR's $137 million budget for general programs for Africa has been funded to date. The total UNHCR funding for all of Africa for 1999, including the general program, special programs, and emergencies, is only $302 million. That compares to $520 million set aside just for special programs and emergencies for the Former Yugoslavia. The international response to the refugee crisis in Africa remains woefully inadequate. The situation is made even worse by the disparity between the donations offered to assist European refugees and those offered to support African refugees. As Mrs. Ogata so succinctly noted on July 26, ``Undeniably, proximity, strategic interest and extraordinary media focus have played a key role in determining the quality and level of response.'' While this may explain why Kosovo has received far greater refugee assistance than have the multiple crises in Africa, it can not justify that imbalance. The suffering of a family driven from its home or a child wrenched from its family by war is no less because it happens in Africa, away from the media glare and the familiar sources of conflict in Europe. While I understand that there are necessary limits to the resources available for the millions of refugees in the world, I believe we should render our precious contribution to humanitarian assistance in a fair and balanced manner. As I have said many times on this floor--why Kosovo and not Sudan or Sierra Leone or Rwanda? To those who will cite our ``strategic'' interests in Europe, I respond that I believe our ``moral'' interests are also critically important to this nation's standing in the world. I appreciate the State Department's announcement of an additional mid-year $11.7 million contribution to the UNHCR's general program, of which $6.6 million was designated for Africa. This is a good start, but it still falls far short of what Africa needs and what Europe gets. It does not please me to have to highlight the regional disparity in refugee assistance. But I believe it is important for the Senate to be on record in strong support of a fair and balanced effort to meet the needs of refugees throughout the world.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I'm proud to represent a state that produces a wide variety of the highest quality agricultural products, from dairy products to cranberries, ginseng, corn, wheat--the list goes on, and it is as varied as Wisconsin itself. Agriculture is the lifeblood of my state, so when a bill like Agriculture Appropriations comes to the floor, I feel it's vitally important that every aspect of the legislation--including the interests attempting to influence this debate--be discussed and examined. Earlier this year when I gave remarks on this floor, I promised that from time to time when I participate in debates on legislation I would point out the role of special interest money in our legislative process, an effort I am calling The Calling of the Bankroll. That's why today I want to briefly highlight some of the political contributions that have been made by the agriculture industry--money spent to influence the way we approach agriculture appropriations on this floor, in the other body, and at the White House. Agriculture interests have donated nearly $3 million in soft money during the last election cycle, and $15.6 million in PAC money. That's well over $18 million overall--and again that's during just a two-year period. The soft money numbers are particularly interesting, Mr. President, because they reflect a pattern that a number of special interests follow, known as ``double giving'' or ``switch hitting.'' It means that a donor doesn't just give soft money to one party, the party whose political views the donor might favor. Instead double givers amass political clout by donating generously to both parties. Examples of these soft money double givers in the agriculture industry during the last cycle include the Archer Daniels Midland Company, which donated $263,000 to the Democrats and $255,000 to the Republicans; United States Sugar Corp, which donated $157,500 to the Democrats and almost $250,000 to the Republicans; and Ocean Spray Cranberries Incorporated, which donated $156,060 to the Democrats and $117,600 to the Republicans. Those are just a handful of examples, Mr. President, but I think they give my colleagues an idea of how the double-giving game is played. Of course not everyone is a double giver. The top agribusiness soft money donor to the Democratic party, crop producer Connell Company, gave $435,000, all to the Democratic party committees. Dole Food Company gave more than $200,000 in soft money in 1997 and 1998, all to Republican party committees. And in the interest of fairness, Mr. President, I also should mention an agribusiness donor that shares my position against the extension of the Northeast Dairy Compact: The International Dairy Foods Association, which gave more than $71,000 in soft money during 1997 and 1998 all to the Republican party committees. There are many interests that will be affected by what we do here on this floor with regard to agriculture appropriations, Mr. President, and some have more resources to influence this debate than others. It is in the spirit of providing a fuller picture of the debate over agricultural issues--and the wealthy interests that seek to influence the debate's outcome--that I have presented this information, both for the benefit of the public and my colleagues. I thank the chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me associate myself with all of the comments of the senior Senator from Wisconsin with regard to the merits of this amendment. Again, I agree that this has to be one of the most bizarre pieces of the American economy that the Congress ever sought to set up. We are extremely pleased and happy with the vote on cloture. There was a full court press to try to get cloture on this very hard fought issue. Frankly, the proponents of the compact didn't even come close. That is the message that is sent. So when the Senator from Pennsylvania indicates that he is going to withdraw this amendment, which certainly is within his rights, and then fight for it in conference, let me simply point out at this point that I could offer a point of order, which I assume would be agreed to by the Presiding Officer, which would make it clear and indisputable that this simply does not belong on an appropriations bill under rule XVI. That is clear. So if it isn't appropriate in the Senate to do it, and it is against our rules, I would suggest it doesn't belong in conference either. The message from the Senate is clear. All the efforts were made on both sides to try to win that cloture vote. The message is very simple. This body is not representing to the conference or anyone else any other conclusion other than that the compact should come to an end, as the Secretary of Agriculture has proposed. I will not offer that point of order in deference to the Senator from Pennsylvania. But I want to be very clear in the Record that that is the posture from the Senate as this bill ultimately goes to conference. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I, of course, join with my senior Senator and friend from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, in asking that we not take what is, frankly, an irrational step of using this mechanism that was forced because of the rule XVI change to pretend that somehow this will extend the dairy compact. It will not do that. It will just lead to a chaotic situation--that the Department of Agriculture cannot do their job of administering the milk marketing order system. I thank the Senate and the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair and Senator Kohl. The other piece that I think ought to be printed in the Record, especially in light of the comments of the Senator from Vermont with regard to some of the groups interested in this issue, is a letter from the National Taxpayers Union strongly opposing this amendment and specifically saying that, ``the Dairy Compact concept acts as a cartel system that only a Robber Baron could admire.'' I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask the Senator from Wisconsin if I could be granted 1 more minute.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I first thank the senior Senator from Wisconsin for his leadership and dedication on this issue. He has been determined, and I think effectively, in fighting this battle that we have to fight on behalf of Wisconsin dairy farmers, upper Midwestern dairy farmers, and I think dairy farmers all over this country. I thank him and join in his words that we will fight this thing as hard and as long as we have to, to prevent this extremely unfair idea of trying to continue the New England Dairy Compact. But the really interesting thing about the measure before us, the issue the cloture is going to be about, is that it really does not have the impact that a lot of Senators think it might have. The Jeffords-Leahy amendment that they have offered will withhold funding--it will withhold funding--for implementation of the Federal milk marketing order reform in an attempt to preserve the Northeastern Interstate Dairy Compact. They thought this amendment would produce the same result it did when a similar amendment was offered during the appropriations bill last year--and that is a delay of milk marketing order reform--and then an extension of the compact. But it does not do that. As the senior Senator from Wisconsin has indicated, it does not do that. This isn't what the 61 Senators whom the Senator from Vermont was talking about signed a letter about. It isn't about picking 1-B or 1-A. That isn't what it does. What it simply does is create chaos. That is exactly what Senator Kohl has indicated. And we are not asking you to just take our word for it. Take the word of the general counsel of the USDA, who has made it clear that he believes the legal effect of this latest dairy initiative by the Senators from Vermont will be uncertainty and no Federal oversight of the system. A lack of funding at USDA will throw administration of the Federal Milk Marketing Order Program into chaos, effectively leaving no program at all. The Senator from Vermont hangs his hat on the notion that this letter says, at the end, that the issue involves novel questions. But that ignores the heart of the letter, which I want to repeat. It is a letter addressed to Senator Kohl, dated August 2, 1999, from Charles Rawls, general counsel, U.S. Department of Agriculture. It says: You are correct in your understanding that existing marketing orders and the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact will expire upon implementation of milk marketing order reform on October 1st. If the Department were prohibited from spending appropriations to carry out the order reform, it would not be able to provide oversight for the milk marketing order system. Day-to-day operation of the respective order areas could continue, however, because such operations are funded through industry assessments, not appropriated funds. So it is not equivocal about whether, in fact, this will happen. It simply says that the compact will expire and that in fact at this point we will not have an order system. That is not ambiguous. I think it is very ironic that the Senator from Vermont came up and tried to argue that somehow our position on this is unfair to the rest of the country. It is just the reverse. The amendment that has been offered actually makes things much worse for almost the entire country than the current status under the bill. Under the Jeffords-Leahy amendment, the impact on dairy income in various regions is startling. For the Northeast--if you can believe this--it involves a net loss of $225 million in dairy income, if this chaos ensues; in the Appalachia area, $122 million in lost dairy income; in Florida, $100 million; in the Southeast, $112 million in lost dairy income--and down the line. Overall, I believe the figure is a total loss of some $194 million net income if this amendment goes through and the consequence that we believe occurs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the National Farmers Union, also addressed to Senator Kohl, of August 3, indicating opposition and concerns about this amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute one of our nation's most beloved nature writers and dedicated wilderness conservationists, Mr. Sigurd Olson. As an architect of the federal government's protection of wilderness areas, as well as a poetic voice that captured the importance of these pristine sites, Mr. Olson left us and our children a legacy of natural sanctuaries and an ethic by which to better appreciate them. Mr. President, 1999 marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of Sigurd Olson. Over the July recess, I had the opportunity to travel to Northern Minnesota to commemorate and celebrate Sigurd Olson's life and work. I think it is fitting that the Senate take this opportunity to honor the life of Mr. Olson, who sadly passed away 17 years ago, and to renew our dedication to continue his legacy of wilderness preservation. Born in Chicago in 1899, Sigurd Olson and his family soon moved to the beautiful Door County Peninsula of Wisconsin. It was there that he formed his life-long attachment to nature and to outdoor recreation. Half a century later, he described what he experienced as a boy along the coast of Green Bay: A school of perch darted in and out of the rocks. They were green and gold and black, and I was fascinated by their beauty. Seagulls wheeled and cried above me. Waves crashed against the pier. I was alone in a wild and lovely place, part of the dark forest through which I had come, and of all the wild sounds and colors and feelings of the place I had found. That day I entered into a life of indescribable beauty and delight. There I believe I heard the singing wilderness for the first time. A few years after graduating from the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Olson moved to northeastern Minnesota. He traveled and guided for many years in the surrounding millions of acres of lakeland wilderness--what eventually became the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness--and he grew convinced that wilderness provided the spiritual experiences vital to modern society. It was this conviction that formed the basis of both his conservation and his writing careers. As he said at a Sierra Club conference in 1965: I have discovered in a lifetime of traveling in primitive regions, a lifetime of seeing people living in the wilderness and using it, that there is a hard core of wilderness need in everyone, a core that makes its spiritual values a basic human necessity. There is no hiding it. . . . Unless we can preserve places where the endless spiritual needs of man can be fulfilled and nourished, we will destroy our culture and ourselves. Olson became an active conservationist in the 1920's, fighting to keep roads, dams and airplanes out of his ``special place'' in northeastern Minnesota. He went on to serve as the president of both the National Parks Association and the Wilderness Society. Yet, perhaps his greatest contribution to conservation came during his tenure as an advisor to Secretary of the Interior from 1959 to the early 1970's, when he helped draft the Wilderness Act, which became law in 1964 and established the U.S. wilderness preservation system that still exists today. While I never knew Sigurd Olson, those who worked with ``Sig,'' as he was called, were infected by his unwavering commitment to the Boundary Waters and his desire to help people truly understand the meaning and legacy of wilderness. Central to Olson's agenda was his perseverance as public advocate for the Boundary Waters, in spite of the sometimes quite open hostility that he faced in taking that stand. Twenty-two years ago on July 8, 1977, a public field hearing was held at Ely High School on Congressman Fraser's bill that became the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act of 1978. Sigurd Olson, then 77 years old, stepped forward to testify in the midst of hisses, catcalls and boos from the roughly thousand-person crowd that packed the hearing. Despite the fact that an effigy in his likeness was hanging outside the school, he testified, saying in part: Some places should be preserved from development and exploitation for they satisfy a human need for solace, belonging, and perspective. In the end we turn to nature in a frenzied chaotic world to find silence--oneness--wholeness-- spiritual release. I am inspired by Sigurd Olson's actions in my own work, as I have been inspired by my predecessor in the United States Senate Gaylord Nelson. I also share Olson's great respect for America's public lands and for the Boundary Waters. Mr. President, as I mentioned, I recently visited the Boundary Waters and spent a day canoeing in the pristine area that Olson loved so dearly on the Hegman Lake chain. His words, from his first book, The Singing Wilderness, best describe the experience: The movement of a canoe is like a reed in the wind. Silence is part of it and the sounds of lapping water, bird songs, and wind in the trees. It is part of the medium through which it floats, the sky, the water, the shores. . . . There is magic in the feel of a paddle and the movement of a canoe, a magic compounded of distance, adventure, solitude, and peace. The way of a canoe is the way of the wilderness, and of a freedom almost forgotten. It is an antidote to insecurity, the open door to waterways of ages past and a way of life with profound and abiding satisfactions. When a man is part of his canoe, he is part of all that canoes have ever known. In addition to canoeing the Hegman Lakes, I also had an opportunity to visit Listening Point on Burntside Lake with Sigurd Olson's son, Bob Olson, and Bob's wife, Vonnie Olson. Many people have a special place where they go to experience nature. Perhaps it is a park, or a campsite, or a favorite hiking trail. For Sigurd Olson, it was a cabin on a tree-covered glaciated point of rock. He called it his ``Listening Point,'' and it is at the center of his book of the same name. In his book, Sigurd Olson talks about that place on Burntside Lake from his first night sleeping there under the stars to the eventual building of his cabin: ``From this one place I would explore the entire north and all life, including my own,'' he writes. ``For me, it would be a listening-post from which I might even hear the music of the spheres.'' From his cabin, Olson also experienced the wonder and danger of significant storms in the Boundary Waters, an experience nearly identical to my own. Over the Fourth of July weekend this year, shortly before I arrived, serious winds hit the Boundary Waters, downing trees in a quarter of the wilderness area. I was comforted to learn, as I arrived at Listening Point to see Bob Olson clearing trees from the driveway, that Listening Point has weathered significant storms before. Sigurd Olson writes of another storm, and its aftermath in Of Time and Place: As we approached Listening Point we could see the damage, trees down and twisted, blocking the road to the cabin. We chopped and hacked our way through to the turnaround and found the trail to the cabin was a crisscross of broken treetops, a jackstraw puzzle of tangled debris. It was unbelievable; I looked at the trees, remembering how over the years we had treasured each one of them. . . . Olson continues: I sometimes wonder about the meaning of such things as this tornado--why it happened, why it leapfrogged over some areas and hit others. We paddled to the islands beyond Listening Point and saw where many trees had been blown over, all old landmarks along the shore. They would lie there for many years until they, too, would sink into the soil and disappear. Mr. President, I have been a defender of the Boundary Waters, and my constituents adore this area. I have also joined in the fight to protect the public lands of Southern Utah, and have sponsored legislation to have the lands of wilderness potential in the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore identified. All my efforts are linked to unfinished business that Sigurd Olson began in the Boundary Waters and to his commitment to designating and protecting our country's special wild places. In addition to conveying my own admiration for Sigurd Olson, I rise today to share the reflections of my own home state. Wisconsinites have a special fondness for Sigurd Olson for several reasons. Olson, who began his environmental education as a kid from Northern Wisconsin who loved the outdoors, turned out to be a serious conservationist whose name is among the greatest conservationists of the Twentieth Century. With his special wilderness writing, Olson was a reformer who didn't come across as self-important. Second, Wisconsinites truly appreciate an accomplished outdoor enthusiast turned advocate. That's a rarity in politics, especially these days. Olson will be long remembered for his character and fundamental decency in defense of the wilderness he loved. On behalf of myself and the citizens of my state, as well as all Americans, I wish Sigurd Olson a very happy birthday. We are a greater country for his dedication.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my amendment eliminates the percentage depletion allowance for minerals mined on Federal public lands. It applies only to hard rock minerals and does not touch oil and gas, and it preserves the deduction for private lands. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget recommends eliminating this tax break. OMB estimates this amendment would raise $478 million over 5 years. We allow companies to mine on public lands for very low patent fees already. We shouldn't continue to provide them with a double subsidy by preserving this special tax break for hard rock mining companies which ordinary businesses do not get. I understand this will be the subject of a voice vote.

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