Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1417.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana. Mr. President, I rise to offer some comments on the reconciliation tax measure we are considering. First, let me note that we have come a long way in the last seven years. When I first came to the Senate, we were facing an actual budget deficit of $340 million. That was the real figure--the figure that did not use the Social Security Trust Fund balances to mask the deficit. Thanks in large part to the President's deficit reduction package in 1993, and to a lesser extent the bipartisan budget cuts of 1997, we are approaching a truly balanced budget. I emphasize `'approaching,'' Mr. President, for we are not there yet. The budget projections of the Office of Management and Budget, and of the Congressional Budget Office, are just that--projections. We do not currently have a budget surplus, not without including the Social Security Trust Fund balances. Mr. President, I do not mean to minimize the wonderful budget turnabout that has been achieved. But we should not be building massive new commitments on a shaky foundation of questionable budget assumptions. And that is just what we have. The assumptions underlying the tax measure we will debate depend on Congress making cuts of $775 billion in real spending over the next ten years compared to current levels. Let me note that this level of cuts does not include any additional cuts that might have to be made in order to offset the cost of unanticipated emergencies. Let me repeat that, Mr. President. The $775 billion in real spending cuts over the next ten years does not include the spending we do to help the victims of hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, or any kind of international emergency. But, for the moment, let us suppose that there will be no hurricanes, or earthquakes, or tornadoes, or floods in the next ten years. Let us suppose that there will be no international emergencies that require our assistance. Will Congress find the political will to cut spending by three- quarters of a trillion dollars over the next ten years? Mr. President, Congress has yet to demonstrate it can stay even within the current spending caps, let alone find an additional three- quarters of a trillion dollars in cuts. Last fall, Congress passed an omnibus appropriations bill that busted the current spending caps by more than $20 billion. This past winter, even before we passed a budget resolution, the Senate passed another budget buster, S. 4, the military pay and retirement measure, which over the next ten years would add another $62 billion in spending. And just a few weeks ago, Congress busted the spending caps yet again with $15 billion in additional spending. Mr. President, this is not a record of fiscal discipline. Nor is it the kind of record that should give anyone confidence that the budget assumptions underlying this tax bill are sound ones. Mr. President, the assumptions underlying this tax bill are grounded not in fiscal reality but in political expediency. But, let us assume that somehow, Congress was able to enact the three-quarters of a trillion dollars in spending cuts. And let us further assume, as we did earlier, that there will be no hurricanes, or floods, or earthquakes, or drought, or any other kind of natural disaster for the next ten years. And that there will be no more Bosnias or Kosovos or Iraqs--no international emergencies of any kind for the next ten years. Even under all of these assumptions, would this tax proposal be a sound one? The answer is no, because even if each and every one of those rosy scenarios comes true, this bill would use over $75 billion in Social Security balances to pay for the tax breaks. Mr. President, I strongly oppose using Social Security to fund tax cuts; that is why I voted against the 1997 tax cut package. We simply should not be using Social Security balances--balances needed to pay future benefits--to fund other government programs, or to pay for tax cuts. Of course, some may argue that even more spending cuts will be found in order to avoid the use of Social Security balances--on the top of the three-quarters of a trillion dollars in cuts assumed in this measure. Mr. President, granting even this still rosier scenario, would this tax measure be fiscally responsible? I regret that it would not, because not only does this tax bill risk our current budget, it puts future generations at risk as well. Mr. President, while the revenue impact of any tax cut measure can be expected to grow over time, the policies outlined in this measure explode. Consider that while in the next ten years, the cost of this proposal is an already whopping $800 billion--if those tax policies are continued, the cost in the second ten years will be a nearly unbelievable $2 trillion. If you add the additional interest payments that will arise from debt service, the total cost of the tax policies in this bill rise to over $3 trillion. For those who may have forgotten, let me remind my colleagues that it is in that second ten years when the baby boomer generation begins to retire and put increased pressure on Social Security, Medicare, and the long-term care services provided under Medicaid. If ever there were a time to be prudent, now is the time. As improved as the short-term budget picture is, the longer-term budget picture is little changed. We still face serious problems in Medicare, and as I noted, the baby boomer generation will put enormous pressure on that program, as well as on the long-term care services, many of which are provided through Medicaid. There is also a consensus that we should address the long-term fiscal health of Social Security, and the sooner the better. And finally, Mr. President, we still face a mountain of debt that was run up during the 1980s and early 1990s because of the deficits that were run up during that time. In each of these areas, there is a stark choice: we can act now to address each of these areas; or, we can ignore them, watch the problems get much worse, and leave the work and cost of reform to our children and grandchildren. Mr. President, for me, that's an easy choice. I do not want my children footing the bill for the failure of past generations to act responsible. I want to support a tax cut, but not one that jeopardizes the work we have done to straighten out the current budget and squanders the opportunity to reduce our debt and put Social Security, Medicare, and our long-term care system on sound footing. Mr. President, let me take a moment to look at the make-up of the tax measure itself. One might expect that a tax cut of $800 billion would provide the sort of broad-based tax benefits that would be politically attractive. But given the amount of revenue dedicated to this tax cut, the benefits to the average taxpayer are surprisingly small, and the overall package is heavily skewed to some of the wealthiest individuals and corporations in the world. As was noted by the tax watchdog group Citizens for Tax Justice, the tax bill gives three-quarters of its benefits to the best-off fifth of all taxpayers. By contrast, only 11 percent of the tax bill's benefits go to the bottom 60 percent of all taxpayers. While the average tax reduction for the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers--those with incomes over $300,000--is over $23,000 a year under this bill, those with more average income do not do quite as well. The average tax cut for those who are among the middle fifth of taxpayers will be $279, or about $5 per week. For those in the bottom three-fifths of all taxpayers, the average tax cut is even smaller--about $140 per year, or less than $3 per week. Mr. President, under this $800 billion tax bill, the majority of taxpayers will have an average tax cut of $3 per week. Maybe the proponents of this bill are hoping most of America will use this windfall to buy one of those overpriced cups of coffee. Well, Mr. President, thanks to this tax bill, once a week, three- fifths of America will now be able to go to one of those fancy coffee shops and get a frothy decaf cappuccino latte with skim milk. This tax bill is a bad tax policy any way you brew it. Mr. President, I recognize that some may genuinely believe we should dedicate about $800 billion to tax cuts over the next ten years. The tragedy is that even in that context, the $800 billion was spent unwisely, because in addition to Social Security, Medicare, long-term care, and reducing our national debt, one of our highest priorities should be significant reform of our tax code. It was just a few months ago that we heard how critical fundamental tax reform was to our future. Flat tax, consumption tax, a national value-added tax--there were a number of significant proposals that sought to address the inefficiency of our current Tax Code. Simplification was the order of the day, and let me add, Mr. President, that while I did not support many of those proposals, I think many of the proponents of reform got it exactly right. Our Tax Code should be simplified. We should reduce the number of special interest tax breaks and use that savings to lower the tax rates for everyone. I participated in just that kind of exercise at the State level as chair of the Taxation Committee in the Wisconsin State Senate. As we all know, there will be winners and losers in a reform of our tax code, and I can tell you from direct experience that the best time to enact tax reforms is when you have additional resources to help increase the number of winners and decrease the number of losers. Mr. President, this tax bill and the House version both squandered that opportunity as well. We might have had a significant start on real tax reform. Instead, we got a grab bag of goodies for special interests added to a tax code already thick with complexity. A recent article in the Washington Post listed a number of the special interest tax breaks in this bill and the House version. They include tax breaks for: multinational corporations, utility companies, railroad, oil and gas operators, timber companies, the steel industry, seaplane owners in Alaska, sawmills in Maine, barge lines in Mississippi, Eskimo whaling captains, and Carolina woodlot owners. This bill is a dream come true for business lobbyists. The Post reported one lobbyist as saying, ``If you're a business lobbyist and couldn't get into this legislation, you better turn in your six-shooter.'' Mr. President, in the name of complete disclosure, let me note that I understand the Democratic alternative, which I may support, suffers from the same problem, though to a much lesser extent. And it will come as no surprise to my colleagues that I firmly believe this kind of pandering to special interests is a direct result of our campaign finance system. There's ample evidence to that effect right here in this bill. The campaign finance system gives wealthy interest an open invitation to influence legislation in this body, and in this bill it's clear that special interests accepted that invitation in droves, Mr. President. For the benefit of my colleagues and the public, I'd like to share just a few examples of what these interests gave in PAC and soft money, and what they got in either this bill, the House tax measure, or both. I do this from time to time; it is known as ``The Calling of the Bankroll.'' According to the Washington Post, an umbrella organization called the Coalition of Service Industries, a coalition of banks and securities firms, won a provision to extend for five years a temporary tax deferral on income those industries earn abroad. The value of this tax deferral: $5 billion over ten years. So we know what Congress has given the Coalition of Service Industries, but what has the Coalition of Service Industries given to candidates and the political parties? During the 1997-1998 election cycle, coalition members gave the following: Ernst & Young--more than half a million dollars in soft money, and nearly $900,000 in PAC money. CIGNA Corporation--more than $335,000 in soft money, and more than $210,000 in PAC money. American Express--more than $275,000 in soft money and nearly $175,000 in PAC money. Deloitte and Touche--more than $225,000 in soft money and more than $710,000 in PAC money. Of course, as I said Mr. President, this is just a sampling of what Coalition of Service Industries members have given. I'd be up here a lot longer if I had a document all the millions of dollars these groups have given. But it doesn't stop there. These two tax bills mean Christmas in July for special interests, Mr. President, with gifts for jut about every industry in Santa's bag. The post reports the utility industry got a provision affecting utility mergers in the House measure, which, if it survives, is worth more than $1 billion to the utility industry. The provision would excuse the payment of taxes on the fund that utilities set up to cover the costs of shutting down nuclear power plants. Utilities companies that operate nuclear power plans would be particularly grateful to see this provision passed, Mr. President. Their depth of their gratitude would be matched only by the size of their campaign contributions during the last election cycle, including: Entergy Corporation, which gave $228,000 in soft money and nearly $250,000 in PAC money; Commonwealth Edison, which gave $110,000 in soft money and more than $106,000 in PAC money; And Florida Power and Light, which gave nearly $300,000 in soft money and more than $182,000 in PAC money. As it does so many other issues, our campaign finance system is preventing real reform to our tax code, and those who doubt that only need to look at this bill. Mr. President, the best thing we can say about this tax bill is that it will not be enacted into law. The President will almost surely veto it, and he will be right in doing so. This bill is fiscally irresponsible. It depends on budget suppositions that are at best fanciful. It uses Social Security balances to pay for tax cuts. It proposes a tax policy that no only jeopardizes our current budget but our future fiscal health. It sticks our children and grandchildren with the cost of paying-off the debt run up over the past two decades, and leaves them the task of extending the solvency of Social Security, strengthening Medicare, and reforming our long-term care system. And it hands our special interest tax breaks galore while providing little tax relief to the vast majority of taxpayers. Mr. President, I will vote against this bill, and urge my colleagues to do so as well. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce a bill whose time has come. Mr. President, it is a decade since the Berlin Wall came down, heralding the end of the Cold War. Since then, we have reduced our nuclear arsenal, as have the Russians. And our Navy is advocating to downsize the Trident nuclear submarine fleet, the cornerstone of our nuclear triad strategy. It's just common sense to limit future production of weapons deployed in those submarines. The bill I introduce today would terminate future production of the Trident II missile. In doing so, this common sense bill would save American taxpayers $5 billion over the next five years, and more than $13 billion over the next ten years. Mr. President, the Trident II, or D-5 missile, is the Navy's submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). The missile is a Cold War relic that was designed specifically to be a first-strike strategic missile that would attack targets inside the Soviet Union from waters off the continental United States. The Trident II is deployed aboard Ohio-class nuclear submarines in the order of 24 per boat. Each missile is loaded with 8 independently targetable, nuclear warheads. In other words, 192 warheads per submarine. The warheads bear 300- to 475-kilotons of explosive power. Doing the math, that equals up to 91,200 kilotons of warheads on each and every Trident submarine. Mr. President, the truth of the matter is we all know that one submarine firing 192 warheads could bring about an apocalypse on this planet. Needless to say, 18, 14, or even 10 submarines with that kind of firepower is beyond necessity. This is especially true if one considers that in addition to, yes, in addition to the SLBMS, the United States deploys 500 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles with three warheads each; 50 Peacekeeper ICBMs with 10 warheads each; and 94 B-52 and 21 B-2 bombers capable of carrying strategic nuclear warheads. Mr. President, the United States is building or possesses, right now, 360 Trident II missiles. Current plans would have us purchase 65 more missiles through 2005. The 360 missiles we already own are more than enough to fully arm the ten existing Trident II-armed submarines as well as maintain an adequate test flight program. We simply do not need 65 more missiles. Nor do we need to backfit four Trident I, or C4, missile carrying submarines to carry Trident IIs, especially when one considers that the C4 submarines won't even outlast the Trident I missiles they carry. I'd like to briefly inform my colleagues on the difference between the Trident I and Trident II missiles. According to CBO, the C4 has an accuracy shortage of about 450 feet compared to the D5, or the distance from where the presiding officer is sitting right now to where the Speaker of the House is sitting down the hall. Given the fact that either missile could utterly destroy the District of Columbia many times over, spending billions of dollars to backfit the C4 submarines seems unnecessary. And this is not an inexpensive program, Mr. President. According to the Congressional Budget Office, which recommends that we discontinue production of the Trident II and retire all eight C4 submarines, if we terminate production of the missile after this year and retire the C4s by 2005, we would save more than $5 billion over five years, and more than $13 billion over the next ten years. Even here in the Senate, that's real money. Mr. President, I am not naive enough to believe that Russia's deteriorating infrastructure has eliminated the threat of their ballistic missile capability. And given the missile technology advances in China, North Korea, and Iran, and attempts by rogue states to buy intercontinental ballistic missiles, it is imperative that we maintain a deterrent to ward off this threat. There is still an important role for strategic nuclear weapons in our arsenal. Their role, however, is diminished dramatically from what it was in the past, and our missile procurement decisions should reflect that change. Mr. President, of our known potential adversaries, only Russia and China even possess ballistic missile-capable submarines. China's one ballistic missile capable submarine is used solely as a test platform. Russia is the only potential adversary with a credible SLBM force, and its submarine capabilities have deteriorated significantly or remain far behind those of our Navy. Due to Russia's continued economic hardships, they continue to cede ground to us in technology and training. Reports even contend that Russia is having trouble keeping just one or two of its strategic nuclear submarines operational. According to General Eugene E. Habiger, USAF (Ret.) and former commander in chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, Moscow's ``sub fleet is belly-up.'' Mr. President, Russia's submarine fleet has shrunk from more than 300 vessels to about 100. Even Russia's most modern submarines can't be used to full capability because Russia can't adequately train its sailors. Clearly, the threat is diminishing. Mr. President, earlier this year, Admiral Jay Johnson, the Chief of Naval Operations, went before the Senate Armed Services Committee and stated unequivocally that the Pentagon believes that 14 Trident submarines is adequate to anchor the sea-based corner of the nuclear triad. Based on that testimony, the committee put forward a Department of Defense authorization bill supporting the Navy's plan. Common sense would dictate that fewer submarines warrant fewer missiles. The threat is diminishing; the Navy knows it and the Congress knows it. The Navy's plan, with the Senate's agreement, to downsize our Trident submarine fleet saves valuable resources and allows us to reach START II arms levels for our SLBMs, and moves us toward future arms reduction treaties. By going with ten boats, the Navy could meet essential requirements under START II today and the anticipated requirements under a START III framework tomorrow. And ultimately, Mr. President, the United States' leadership in reducing our nuclear stockpile shows our good faith, and will make Russia's passage of a START II treaty more likely. This strategy of reducing our nuclear stockpile is supported widely by some of our foremost military leaders. General George Lee Butler, former commander in chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, and an ardent advocate of our deterrent force during the Cold War, has said that ``With the end of the Cold War, these weapons are of sharply reduced utility, and there is much to be gained by substantially reducing their numbers.'' I believe we should heed his words. Mr. President, more than anything else, this issue comes down to a question of priorities. Do we want to spend $13 billion over the next ten years to purchase unnecessary Trident II missiles, or do we want to use that money to address readiness concerns that we've talked a lot about but haven't addressed adequately? Mr. President, for the past year, we've heard the call to address our military's readiness crisis from virtually all quarters. We were told that foremost among the readiness shortfalls were operations and maintenance as well as pay and allowances accounts. A preliminary General Accounting Office report on recruitment and retention found that issues like a lack of spare parts; concerns with the health care system; increased deployments; and dissatisfaction with military leaders have at least as much effect on retention, if not more, than a pay raise. And the Pentagon concurs. Last September, General Henry Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, stated that ``without relief, we will see a continuation of the downward trends in readiness . . . and shortfalls in critical skills.'' Army Chief of Staff General Dennis Reimer claimed that the military faces a ``hollow force'' without increased readiness spending. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jay Johnson asserted that the Navy has a $6 billion readiness deficit. To address the readiness shortfall, Mr. President, the Congress passed an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. The bill spent close to $9 billion, but just $1 billion of it went to address the readiness shortfall. Priorities, Mr. President. And last month, on the Defense appropriations bill, a couple of Senators inserted an amendment, without debate, to take $220 million from vital Army and Air Force spare parts and repair accounts, and from the National Guard equipment account to buy planes. Planes that the Pentagon doesn't even want. Sponsors of the amendment admitted readily that this was done for the benefit of a company that had lost a multi- billion dollar contract with a foreign country. Priorities, Mr. President. This bill makes sense now and for the future by saving vital defense dollars now and for years to come, and by stimulating the arms treaty dialogue. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce a bill whose time has come. Mr. President, it is a decade since the Berlin Wall came down, heralding the end of the Cold War. Since then, we have reduced our nuclear arsenal, as have the Russians. And our Navy is advocating to downsize the Trident nuclear submarine fleet, the cornerstone of our nuclear triad strategy. It's just common sense to limit future production of weapons deployed in those submarines. The bill I introduce today would terminate future production of the Trident II missile. In doing so, this common sense bill would save American taxpayers $5 billion over the next five years, and more than $13 billion over the next ten years. Mr. President, the Trident II, or D-5 missile, is the Navy's submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). The missile is a Cold War relic that was designed specifically to be a first-strike strategic missile that would attack targets inside the Soviet Union from waters off the continental United States. The Trident II is deployed aboard Ohio-class nuclear submarines in the order of 24 per boat. Each missile is loaded with 8 independently targetable, nuclear warheads. In other words, 192 warheads per submarine. The warheads bear 300- to 475-kilotons of explosive power. Doing the math, that equals up to 91,200 kilotons of warheads on each and every Trident submarine. Mr. President, the truth of the matter is we all know that one submarine firing 192 warheads could bring about an apocalypse on this planet. Needless to say, 18, 14, or even 10 submarines with that kind of firepower is beyond necessity. This is especially true if one considers that in addition to, yes, in addition to the SLBMS, the United States deploys 500 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles with three warheads each; 50 Peacekeeper ICBMs with 10 warheads each; and 94 B-52 and 21 B-2 bombers capable of carrying strategic nuclear warheads. Mr. President, the United States is building or possesses, right now, 360 Trident II missiles. Current plans would have us purchase 65 more missiles through 2005. The 360 missiles we already own are more than enough to fully arm the ten existing Trident II-armed submarines as well as maintain an adequate test flight program. We simply do not need 65 more missiles. Nor do we need to backfit four Trident I, or C4, missile carrying submarines to carry Trident IIs, especially when one considers that the C4 submarines won't even outlast the Trident I missiles they carry. I'd like to briefly inform my colleagues on the difference between the Trident I and Trident II missiles. According to CBO, the C4 has an accuracy shortage of about 450 feet compared to the D5, or the distance from where the presiding officer is sitting right now to where the Speaker of the House is sitting down the hall. Given the fact that either missile could utterly destroy the District of Columbia many times over, spending billions of dollars to backfit the C4 submarines seems unnecessary. And this is not an inexpensive program, Mr. President. According to the Congressional Budget Office, which recommends that we discontinue production of the Trident II and retire all eight C4 submarines, if we terminate production of the missile after this year and retire the C4s by 2005, we would save more than $5 billion over five years, and more than $13 billion over the next ten years. Even here in the Senate, that's real money. Mr. President, I am not naive enough to believe that Russia's deteriorating infrastructure has eliminated the threat of their ballistic missile capability. And given the missile technology advances in China, North Korea, and Iran, and attempts by rogue states to buy intercontinental ballistic missiles, it is imperative that we maintain a deterrent to ward off this threat. There is still an important role for strategic nuclear weapons in our arsenal. Their role, however, is diminished dramatically from what it was in the past, and our missile procurement decisions should reflect that change. Mr. President, of our known potential adversaries, only Russia and China even possess ballistic missile-capable submarines. China's one ballistic missile capable submarine is used solely as a test platform. Russia is the only potential adversary with a credible SLBM force, and its submarine capabilities have deteriorated significantly or remain far behind those of our Navy. Due to Russia's continued economic hardships, they continue to cede ground to us in technology and training. Reports even contend that Russia is having trouble keeping just one or two of its strategic nuclear submarines operational. According to General Eugene E. Habiger, USAF (Ret.) and former commander in chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, Moscow's ``sub fleet is belly-up.'' Mr. President, Russia's submarine fleet has shrunk from more than 300 vessels to about 100. Even Russia's most modern submarines can't be used to full capability because Russia can't adequately train its sailors. Clearly, the threat is diminishing. Mr. President, earlier this year, Admiral Jay Johnson, the Chief of Naval Operations, went before the Senate Armed Services Committee and stated unequivocally that the Pentagon believes that 14 Trident submarines is adequate to anchor the sea-based corner of the nuclear triad. Based on that testimony, the committee put forward a Department of Defense authorization bill supporting the Navy's plan. Common sense would dictate that fewer submarines warrant fewer missiles. The threat is diminishing; the Navy knows it and the Congress knows it. The Navy's plan, with the Senate's agreement, to downsize our Trident submarine fleet saves valuable resources and allows us to reach START II arms levels for our SLBMs, and moves us toward future arms reduction treaties. By going with ten boats, the Navy could meet essential requirements under START II today and the anticipated requirements under a START III framework tomorrow. And ultimately, Mr. President, the United States' leadership in reducing our nuclear stockpile shows our good faith, and will make Russia's passage of a START II treaty more likely. This strategy of reducing our nuclear stockpile is supported widely by some of our foremost military leaders. General George Lee Butler, former commander in chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, and an ardent advocate of our deterrent force during the Cold War, has said that ``With the end of the Cold War, these weapons are of sharply reduced utility, and there is much to be gained by substantially reducing their numbers.'' I believe we should heed his words. Mr. President, more than anything else, this issue comes down to a question of priorities. Do we want to spend $13 billion over the next ten years to purchase unnecessary Trident II missiles, or do we want to use that money to address readiness concerns that we've talked a lot about but haven't addressed adequately? Mr. President, for the past year, we've heard the call to address our military's readiness crisis from virtually all quarters. We were told that foremost among the readiness shortfalls were operations and maintenance as well as pay and allowances accounts. A preliminary General Accounting Office report on recruitment and retention found that issues like a lack of spare parts; concerns with the health care system; increased deployments; and dissatisfaction with military leaders have at least as much effect on retention, if not more, than a pay raise. And the Pentagon concurs. Last September, General Henry Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, stated that ``without relief, we will see a continuation of the downward trends in readiness . . . and shortfalls in critical skills.'' Army Chief of Staff General Dennis Reimer claimed that the military faces a ``hollow force'' without increased readiness spending. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jay Johnson asserted that the Navy has a $6 billion readiness deficit. To address the readiness shortfall, Mr. President, the Congress passed an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. The bill spent close to $9 billion, but just $1 billion of it went to address the readiness shortfall. Priorities, Mr. President. And last month, on the Defense appropriations bill, a couple of Senators inserted an amendment, without debate, to take $220 million from vital Army and Air Force spare parts and repair accounts, and from the National Guard equipment account to buy planes. Planes that the Pentagon doesn't even want. Sponsors of the amendment admitted readily that this was done for the benefit of a company that had lost a multi- billion dollar contract with a foreign country. Priorities, Mr. President. This bill makes sense now and for the future by saving vital defense dollars now and for years to come, and by stimulating the arms treaty dialogue. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will have to object.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object, I ask the leader a question. I assume a second-degree amendment to the first-degree concerning agriculture would be out of order under rule XVI?

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my distinguished colleagues, Senators Graham and DeWine, to support an amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill that will assist our local law enforcement agencies to respond in a timely fashion to life or death situations. Sheriffs and police chiefs in my state and around this country have found that their hands are tied when it comes to sharing helicopters or other public aircraft with neighboring jurisdictions. The Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department recently became the first local law enforcement agency in Wisconsin to acquire a helicopter. Neighboring jurisdictions would like to borrow that helicopter and reimburse the Milwaukee County Sheriff for the cost of their use of that helicopter. The Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department is perfectly willing, indeed eager, to share its helicopter but it can't easily do so. Under current law, in order for the assisting agency to receive a cost reimbursement from the neighboring jurisdiction, the neighboring sheriff or police chief must first exhaust the possibility that a private commercial helicopter is available. Even when the neighboring law enforcement agency is faced with a serious imminent threat to life or property, the law requires the neighboring sheriff or police chief to first determine whether a privately operated helicopter is available. Mr. President, this law is absurd and puts everyone's safety at risk. Law enforcement agencies use helicopters for a variety of reasons--to chase a suspect fleeing the scene of a crime, in search and rescue missions, to observe crowds in public gatherings, to transport prisoners, and to detect marijuana fields. Current law, however, stands in the way of cooperation between agencies to carry out these important law enforcement functions. Cooperation between law enforcement agencies is good. It saves time, money, resources and maybe even lives. We should do all we can to promote law enforcement cooperation. Saving lives and maintaining law and order is delayed if we require sheriffs and police chiefs to determine first whether they can find a private helicopter. Public safety is also jeopardized because private commercial pilots are likely not trained law enforcement personnel with experience in sensitive and sometimes dangerous situations. In addition, a commercial helicopter is most likely not equipped with the instrumentation and tools needed by law enforcement officers to do their job. But if we allow sheriffs and police chiefs to share their aircraft with neighboring jurisdictions without first exhausting private avenues, law enforcement response is far more likely to be swift and sure. Current law effectively prevents law enforcement from borrowing a helicopter or other aircraft from a neighboring agency. The law must be changed and this amendment does the job. This amendment modifies the definition of ``public aircraft'' so that law enforcement agencies no longer need to make an attempt to find a private helicopter operator before using a neighboring jurisdiction's helicopter. This amendment is supported by the National Sheriffs' Association, as well as numerous police chiefs and sheriffs across the country. I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators McCain and Hollings, for working with us on this issue. They raised some concerns, but, as described in the colloquy, they have given us assurances that they will work to resolve the urgent needs of law enforcement either on the Federal Aviation Administration appropriations bill or by the end of the year. I welcome their recognition of the magnitude of this problem to law enforcement and their willingness to work with us on this issue. Mr. President, we demand that law enforcement act quickly and professionally to life or death situations, but we're not always giving them the tools they need to do their job. We must do our part. I urge my colleagues to join in this bipartisan effort to change the law and give the sheriffs and police chiefs in Wisconsin and across this country the tools they need to keep our communities safe and secure. I yield the floor. Barry University Intercultural Center

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, 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 have entitled the Calling of the Bankroll. When I Call the Bankroll I will describe how much money the various interests lobbying on a particular bill have spent on campaign contributions to influence our decisions here in this chamber. Of course I embarked on this effort with the hope of exposing the corruption of our current campaign finance system, and in particular how wealthy donors exploit the soft money loophole. When I began this effort, I never worried that I would lack for opportunities to Call the Bankroll, and as I've demonstrated over the past few months, there are countless opportunities to Call the Bankroll about efforts to influence legislation before this body. For example, so far I have talked about the contributions of special interests working to influence the debate over the Patients' Bill of Rights, I have discussed the contributions of the high tech industry and trial lawyers lobby during debate on the Y2K legislation, and I have pointed out the contributions of gun makers and gun control advocates during the juvenile justice debate, just to name a few. And now we have before this body the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill. During his state of the union address last January, the President called for the Justice Department to prepare a ``litigation plan'' against the tobacco companies to reclaim hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars spent through federal health-care programs such as Medicare to treat smoking-related illnesses. But this bill does something quite different. The language in the committee report on the Commerce, State, Justice Bill attempts to grant immunity to the tobacco industry from any federal litigation. Instead of a litigation plan, this bill would create a protection plan for the tobacco companies. I hope my colleagues in this body would agree that the Justice Department must be able to pursue litigation based on the law, and that we should do everything in our power to enable the department to enforce the law. But the language currently in the committee report prevents the Justice Department from enforcing the law. So instead of a huge federal lawsuit, the tobacco industry will have immunity from federal litigation. It looks like the tobacco companies have really gotten what they wanted in this bill, Mr. President. It's a fortunate turn of events for the tobacco companies, but based on the tobacco industry's track record of political donations and political clout, I can't say that it's surprising. The nation's tobacco companies are some of the most generous political donors around today, Mr. President, including Philip Morris, which reigns as the largest single soft money donor of all time. During the 1997-1998 election cycle the tobacco companies, including Philip Morris, RJR Nabisco, Brown and Williamson, US Tobacco and the industry's lobbying arm, the Tobacco Institute, gave a combined $5.5 million dollars in soft money to the parties, and another $2.3 million in PAC money contributions to candidates. I offer this information to my colleagues and to the public to paint a clearer picture of who is trying to influence the bill before us, and how they are using the campaign finance system--very successfully, I might add--to get what they want from this bill and this Congress.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud co-sponsor of the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden. Despite the proven track record of the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program and widespread support from the law enforcement community, the current version of the Commerce- Justice-State appropriations bill almost completely eliminates this important program. Senator Biden's amendment, however, corrects this terrible flaw in the bill. It would preserve the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and fund the hiring of roughly 1,500 police officers through FY 2000. Since its inception in 1994, the COPS Program has provided an unprecedented level of resources to communities across the nation in the fight against crime. The COPS Program has awarded $6 billion to 11,300 communities to fund the hiring of more than 100,000 police officers. The addition of 100,000 police officers represents a nearly 20% increase in the number of officers on the streets. And more cops on the streets means lower crime. Crime is at its lowest rate in 25 years and has declined for seven consecutive years. The COPS Program has a lot to do with that happy statistic. What is community policing and how has it reduced crime? Community policing is a law enforcement strategy that emphasizes establishing community partnerships, putting more officers on the street, decentralizing command functions, and promoting innovative, community-oriented strategies to prevent crime. With the recent wave of schoolhouse shootings like those that occurred in Littleton, Colorado and Jonesboro, Arkansas, there is a growing sense among Americans that we are no longer safe in our homes, in our schools, in our communities. One sure way to reduce crime and restore peace of mind is through community oriented policing. The COPS Program does just that. COPS has had a positive, and very tangible, impact on communities throughout the country, including in my home state of Wisconsin, by putting more police officers on our streets and making our citizens safer. In the state of Wisconsin alone, the COPS Program has funded the equivalent of over 1,100 new officers and contributed roughly $70 million to communities to make it happen. The COPS Program has succeeded because it helps individual officers to be a friendly and familiar presence in their communities. They are building relationships with people from house to house, block to block, school to school. This community policing helps the police to do their job better, makes the neighborhoods and schools safer and, very importantly, gives residents peace of mind. The current Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, however, threatens the progress in community policing and the reduction of crime our nation has seen in recent years. First, it eliminates the federal funding for local law enforcement to hire additional, needed officers. Second, it eliminates the COPS office and transfers the administration of technology and school resource officer grants to the Office of Justice Programs. This is absurd and ignores the success of the COPS Program. As I travel through Wisconsin and talk to sheriffs, police chiefs and other law enforcement officers, I hear the same refrain, time after time: the COPS Program is vital to their work and has enabled them to get more officers out from behind their desks and onto the streets. I agree. The COPS Program has been a shining example of an effective partnership between local and Federal Governments. It provides federal assistance to meet local objectives. It does not interfere with local prerogatives. It does not impose mandates. The program provides funding to counties, towns and cities to enable communities to put more police on the street. Individual police and sheriff's departments have discretion over how those funds are used, because they know what problems their communities face and the places they need help most. Mr. President, zero funding for hiring officers means fewer cops on the streets. Shutting down the COPS office means local law enforcement will lose the ability to participate closely in determining what funds they receive and how they are used. Senator Biden's amendment, however, would provide for continuing the much-lauded COPS Program to ensure that we have an additional roughly 1,500 police officers in our communities in Wisconsin and throughout the nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and continuing our drive to put more police officers on the streets and to reduce crime in our communities. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a measure that will begin to restore to many dairy farmers throughout the nation, part of the market power they have lost in recent years. Mr. President, on March 31 of this year, Secretary Glickman put forth the Department of Agriculture's final rule on the Federal Milk Marketing Order system. As many of you know, that proposal consolidated federal orders and made changes to various pricing formulas in current law. As mandated in last year's Omnibus Appropriations bill, this new federal policy is scheduled to take effect no later than October 1, 1999. However, prior to October, this nation's farmers will put USDA's proposal to a referendum. Farmers will have the opportunity to vote on their futures. Or at least that is what is supposed to happen. Mr. President, most farmers in the country won't actually get to vote on this, the most significant change in dairy policy in sixty years. Their dairy marketing cooperatives will cast their votes for them. This procedure is called bloc voting and it is used all the time. Basically, a Cooperative's Board of Directors decides that, in the interest of time, bloc voting will be implemented for that particular vote. In the interest of time, but not always in the interest of their producer owner-members. Mr. President, I do think that bloc voting can be a useful tool in some circumstances, but I have serious concerns about its use in the August referendum on USDA's plan. Farmers in Wisconsin and in other states tell me that they do not agree with their Cooperative's view on the upcoming vote. Yet, they have no way to preserve their right to make their single vote count. After speaking to farmers and officials at USDA, I have learned that if a Cooperative bloc votes, individual members simply have no opportunity to voice opinions separately. That seems unfair when you consider what a monumental issue is at stake. Coops and their members do not always have identical interests. We shouldn't ask farmers to ignore that fact. Mr. President, the Democracy for Dairy Producers Act of 1999 is simple and fair. It provides that a cooperative cannot deny any of its members a ballot if one or two or ten or all of the members chose to vote on their own. This will in no way slow down the process at USDA; implementation of the final rule will proceed on schedule. Also, I do not expect that this would change the final outcome of the vote. Coops could still cast votes for their members who do not exercise their right to vote individually. And to the extent that coops represent farmers interest, farmers are likely to vote along with the coops, but whether they join the coops or not, farmers deserve the right to vote according to their own views. I urge my colleagues to return just a little bit of power to America's farmers, and a little bit of pure democracy to the vote on the USDA plan which is sure to have such an impact on their future. I urge my colleagues to support the Democracy for Dairy Producers Act, a dairy bill without regional bias.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue of increasing national and international importance. Mr. President, encryption may not yet be the most common term in the American lexicon, but it may well affect every American as we progress in this Information Age. Encryption systems provide security to conventional and cellular telephone conversation, fax transmissions, local and wide area networks, personal computers, remote key entry systems, and radio frequency communication systems. As we become more reliant on these technologies, encryption becomes a more important application. For these and other reasons, I come to the floor today to discuss my decision to cosponsor S. 798, the Promote Reliable Online Transactions to Encourage Commerce and Trade, or PROTECT Act. This bill pushes us toward a thoughtful debate on encryption policy. I appreciate the efforts of the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, to push this important legislation forward. As the chairman knows all too well, balancing competing interests, regardless of issue, is a difficult, and often thankless, job. In this case, we must find an equitable balance between personal privacy, technological innovation and public safety. The rapidly expanding global marketplace and our increasing reliance on new technology has resulted in the almost instantaneous transfer of consumer information. Bank information, medical records, and credit card purchases are transferred at lightning speed. But these transactions, and even browsing on the Internet, can leave consumers vulnerable to unwanted and illegal access to private information. Encryption technology offers an effective way consumers can ensure that only the people they choose can read other communications or their e- mail, review their medical records, or take money out of their bank accounts. Plain and simple, encryption products protect consumers. Over the past couple of years, we have seen the power of Internet commerce. From amazon.com to eBay to drugstore.com, companies with a dot com have become the darlings of the investment world. For consumers, online commerce provides viable competition and, thus, a cost-effective alternative to traditional brick-and-mortar stores. The Internet, however, will never achieve its full potential as a center of commerce if consumers do not trust that their transactions and communications remain confidential. If we ever are to realize the commercial and communications potential of the Internet, we must have sophisticated and effective encryption. For these precise reasons, consumers have an economic interest in the use of strong encryption technology. That economic interest necessitates more research and more development of stronger technology. The current export control climate, however, stifles development of domestic encryption technology. I believe that expansion of the market for U.S. developers will serve to quicken the pace of innovation. Two recent reports bear this out. The Electronic Privacy Information Center found that the United States is virtually alone in its restrictions on encryption. Another report by researchers at George Washington University found that 35 foreign countries manufacture 805 encryption products. The same GWU report found that of the 15 algorithms now being considered by the National Institute of Standards for a new American encryption standard, 10 have been developed outside the U.S. Clearly, our outdated policies are doing more to exclude U.S. manufacturers from the marketplace than they are doing to keep encryption technology out of the hands of criminals. I do not mean to belittle the serious law enforcement implications of encryption. As the FBI has stated, ``encryption has been used to conceal criminal activity and thwart law enforcement efforts to collect critical evidence needed to solve serious and often violent criminal activities.'' The same technology that prevents a computer hacker from stealing one's credit card number can prevent a law enforcement officer, even one with a properly obtained court order, from decrypting illegal information. But the fact of the matter is that criminals simply can purchase and use an advanced encryption product produced in a foreign country. I understand concerns that some in the law enforcement community may have. Muzzling American development and export, however, is a doomed strategy. I believe there should be criminal penalties for those that use encryption in the furtherance of a crime and I hope the Senate will adopt penalties similar to those found in the leading House encryption bill. Mr. President, there is no question that this bill moves us forward, both in terms of privacy and technological innovation. I must point out, however, that my support for this bill will not preclude me from advocating a stronger privacy position in the future. My cosponsorship of this bill establishes what I believe should be the starting point for the Congress to begin the encryption debate. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this very important issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is with deep sadness that I come to the floor today to speak of the tragedy that struck the Kennedy family last Friday night. I offer my condolences to the Kennedy family, and in particular to my friend and colleague, Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, who has lost a beloved nephew. My thoughts and prayers are with the Kennedy and Bessette families as they struggle to cope with the loss of John F. Kennedy, Jr., his wife Carolyn Bessette Kennedy, and her sister Lauren Bessette. While we as a nation mourn the loss of a young man who had so much yet to offer the world, these families must suffer the private pain of the loss of their beloved brother or sisters, their children, their cousins, their friends. The late John F. Kennedy was a genuine inspiration to me and so many of my generation. I am grateful for the hope and the direction that President Kennedy gave so many of us when we were young, and I know that in his own way John F. Kennedy, Jr., carried on his father's work to inspire young people to public service, or to otherwise serve the public good, throughout his lifetime. There can perhaps be no comparison to the contributions the Kennedy family has made to our country, or the sacrifices the family has endured, and sadly continues to endure with the death of John F. Kennedy, Jr. Like his father and his uncle Bobby, John F. Kennedy, Jr.'s life was cut tragically short, but like them he lived his life to the fullest, with the vigor and dedication that marks the Kennedy legacy. Recently I had the honor of receiving the Profile in Courage Award from the late President Kennedy's family, and had the pleasure of meeting and spending time with John F. Kennedy, Jr. I was impressed by his kindness, his dignity, and the keen grasp of both politics and policy which he so often displayed as editor of George magazine. John reflected all the best hopes we have for our country, as did his father before him. In a speech I gave at that time, I chose one of the many beautiful memorials I have heard about President Kennedy to express my own feelings. The following passage from Romeo and Juliet was previously used by Robert F. Kennedy himself at the 1964 Democratic convention to memorialize his brother: and, when he shall die, take him and cut him out in little stars, And he will make the face of heaven so fine That all the world will be in love with night And pay no worship to the garish sun. These words both pained and consoled us as we remembered John F. Kennedy then, and they do the same today as we mourn the loss of his son, John F. Kennedy, Jr. Mr. President, again I offer my condolences to all those who have been affected by this tragedy. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes, absolutely, and there are other things on which I would like to be working. That is a good lead-in for my comments on this issue. Again, I thank the majority leader and the Senator from Kentucky for their remarks. I especially thank the Senator from Arizona for his tremendous persistence on this issue and especially in working out this agreement in the middle of a very busy legislative schedule that I know we have for the rest of the year. This agreement involves a debate to come up by October 12. It is later than I would have wanted. I understand we have had a few other things going on, including an impeachment trial, the war in Kosovo, and so on, but it is essential that this matter be seriously considered. I hope it is resolved and that we pass legislation before the end of this year. In any event, we have to bring it up. The word ``amendments'' is critical in this agreement. We have to have a real amending process. We have not had that yet on campaign finance reform. At no point, since I have been working on the McCain- Feingold bill, have we ever had a time when Senators could offer their amendments about what they care about. Somehow, the process has always been truncated, and you can blame either side. Obviously, I have my view of it. But to me this agreement means that we will not again have a one-cloture-vote-and-we-are-done process. We are going to have real amendments, real debate, and a real discussion. If that transpires, I have a feeling we will have an outcome that, in my view, can lead to 60 or 70 votes, something on which Members on both sides can agree. That is my goal, and I think that is the goal of my colleague from Arizona. I think it is very important to stay in touch with what happened in the other body. They have passed this legislation. A majority of Members of both Houses of the Congress are for this, and the President is ready to sign it. I think it is important to make those points. Although it has its limitations, this can be the beginning of truly reaching some kind of an agreement in this House to do something about the incredible explosion of soft money that has tainted our democracy. So, again, I thank the majority leader, and I am looking forward to this process.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I thank the majority leader for his cooperation on this. I will ask a brief question. I want it to be absolutely clear in the record that the agreement as it reads involves a limitation with regard to the first session of the 106th Congress, but that we are not precluded in any way from raising this issue again in the second session of the 106th Congress.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today in opposition to the President's decision to extend normal trade relations status to China. I especially thank the Senator from New Hampshire for bringing up the issue today. I have objected to the President's policy on this issue since 1994, when he first de-linked the issue of human rights from our trading policy in China. The argument made then was that trade privileges and human rights are not interrelated. At the same time, it was said, through ``constructive engagement'' on economic matters, and dialogue on other issues, including human rights, the United States could better influence the behavior of the Chinese Government. I have yet to see persuasive evidence that closer economic ties alone are going to transform China's authoritarian system into a democracy, or even reduce the current level of oppression borne by the Chinese people. Unless we continue to press the case for improvement in China's human rights record, using the leverage of the Chinese Government's desire to expand its economy and increase trade with us, I do not see how U.S. policy can help conditions in China get much better. Virtually every review of the behavior of China's Government demonstrates that not only has there been little improvement in the human rights situation in China, but in many cases, it has worsened-- particularly in the weeks preceding the tenth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre on June 4th. More generally, five years after the President's decision to de-link trade from human rights, the State Department's most recent Human Rights Report on China describes once more an abysmal situation. In my view, it is impossible to come to any other conclusion except that ``constructive engagement'' has failed to make any change in Beijing's human rights behavior. I would say that the evidence justifies the exact opposite conclusion: respect for human rights by the Chinese government has deteriorated and the regime continues to act recklessly in other areas vital to U.S. national interest. This year--1999--is likely to be the most important year since 1989 with respect to our relations with China. Not only does it represent a significant milestone for the victims of Tiananmen Square, but 1999 is also the 50th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic. This year has also seen the emergence of new thorny issues between the United States and China, including the accidental embassy bombing, faltering negotiations regarding accession to the World Trade Organizations, and the recent release of the Cox report on Chinese espionage. If moral outrage at blatant abuse of human rights is not reason enough for a tough stance with China--and I believe it is, as do the American people--then let us do so on grounds of real political and economic self-interest. For example, China has failed to provide adequate protection of U.S. intellectual property rights; it has employed broad and pervasive trade and investment barriers to restrict our exports; it has made illegal textile transshipments to the United States; it has exported products to the United States manufactured by prison labor; and it has engaged in questionable economic and political policies toward Hong Kong. This does not present a picture of a nation with which we should have normal trade relations. Alternatively, if the Administration accepts these practices as normal, perhaps we need to redefine what normal trade relations are. The current practices are certainly not any that I wish to accept as normal. Nor, Mr. President, do I wish to accept as normal the practice in our country of using campaign money to influence policy decisions, but I'm afraid that the China/NTR decision is far from an exception to this rule. No, Mr. President, U.S.-China trade policy epitomizes how our campaign finance system can influence important decisions. The corporations and associations lobbying in favor of China NTR, as well as on China's accession to the World Trade Organization, represent a virtual who's who of major political donors. In an effort to inform my colleagues and the public about who's who in the push for NTR for China, I'd like to Call the Bankroll on some of the companies and associations involved in this fight. These big donors represent industries that run the gamut of American commerce--from agribusiness to telecommunications and everything in between--but they all have in common a keen financial interest in China winning normal trade relations status. One of the major coalitions lobbying to boost China's trade status, USA Engage, has a membership list brimming with top PAC money and soft money donors. Let me name just a few examples of the political donations some of these USA Engage members gave during the last election cycle: Defense contractor TRW Inc. gave more than $195,000 in soft money and $236,000 in PAC money. Financial services giant BankAmerica gave more than $347,000 in soft money and more than $430,000 in PAC money. The powerful business coalition of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce gave nearly $50,000 in soft money and $10,000 in PAC money Exxon, one of the world's largest oil companies, gave $331,000 in soft money and nearly half a million dollars in PAC money. Communications giant Motorola gave more than $100,000 in both soft money and PAC money. Mr. President, this is just the tip of the iceberg. The list goes on and the money is piled high. Over in the other body, junior members--who of course sit in the most remote offices in the far corners of the House office buildings--say that the only reason corporate CEOs come visit their offices is to push for NTR status for China. So you see, Mr. President, on the one hand, some of the most powerful interests in America come to our offices to call on us to grant NTR status to China. We hear them loud and clear, and more than that we know too well the influence they wield as a result of their political donations. But Mr. President, what about the other side? What about the voices we don't hear? The faces we don't see? I am talking about the human rights organizations who oppose de-linking trade from human rights, but are virtually nonexistent in the world of campaign contributions. I am talking about the thousands, if not millions, of Chinese people living without basic human rights who don't have access to the Halls of Congress. I fail to see anything normal about the United States extending favorable trading status to a government that routinely denies basic freedoms--of expression, of religion, and association--to its people. I fail to see what is normal, what is acceptable, or what is just about the United States tacitly condoning the actions of a country where our own State Department reports that the human rights situation is--quote--``abysmal.'' Mr. President, my main objective today is to push for the United States to once again make the link between human rights and trading relations with respect to our policy in China. As I have said before, I believe that trade--embodied by the peculiar exercise of NTR renewal-- is one of the most powerful levers we have, and that it was a mistake for the President to de-link this exercise from human rights considerations. So, Mr. President, for those of us who care about human rights, those of us who long for freedom of religion for others, and those of us who believe America should demonstrate moral leadership in the world, I urge colleagues to join me in disapproving the President's decision to renew normal-trade-relations status for China.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help clarify the difficult subject of the use of offsets in international defense trade. This little known practice has a potentially tremendous impact on our domestic industry, international trade, and national security, yet is barely understood by either the public or private sectors. My bill, the ``Defense Offsets Disclosure Act of 1999'' seeks to expand the monitoring and reporting of offsets use so that policy makers and the public can better understand the impact on our economy. Mr. President, what are offsets? Offsets are the entire range of industrial and commercial benefits that are provided to foreign governments as inducements, or conditions, for the purchase of military goods and services. Among techniques used to meet offset requirements are co-production, subcontracting, technology transfers, in-country procurement, marketing and financial assistance, and joint ventures. In other words, they are largely non-cash ``sweeteners'' attached to export sales of large military [and occasionally civilian] products, typically set forth in side agreements and provided to the purchasing country over a period of time. My legislation would offer several measures to get a handle on the whole range of issues involved in the use of offsets: First, my bill declares that it is the policy of the United States to pursue better monitoring of offsets, to promote fairness in international trade; and to ensure an appropriate level of foreign participation in the production of United States weapons systems. To fully understand the implications of offsets and the extent of their impact, we must have more information on offset agreements, particularly the indirect offset obligations that are otherwise invisible. While many of my colleagues can cite anecdotal evidence of companies harmed or jobs lost, we must develop a more effective mechanism to accurately quantify the impact of offsets. Second, my bill expresses the sense of Congress that the Executive Branch should seek trade fairness through transparency and standardization of the use of offsets in international defense trade. In particular, the Secretaries of State and Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative should raise the issues of transparency and standardization bilaterally at all suitable venues, and our government should initiate discussions on standards for use of offsets through appropriate multilateral fora. While some believe that offsets are a business practice best left to business to handle, the nature of the problem calls out for government-to-government discussion to ensure that an even playing field exists for all stakeholders in the international defense trade. Third, the bill establishes a new requirement for more detailed information on offsets in Congressional notifications of government-to- government and commercial sales. Current law only requires notification of the existence of an offset agreement, with no details or follow up description of the measures used to fulfill the offset obligation. My bill will require a description of the offset agreement and its dollar value. It also calls for an additional report upon completion of an offset obligation which would identify all measures taken to fulfill the offset agreement identified earlier in its pre-sale Congressional notification. At least one defense contractor already has been willing to provide this information as part of its regular license application and has provided the size of the offset, its direct and indirect components, and a rough estimate of the likely measures it would use to fulfill its offset obligations. My bill should elicit similar useful information on all offset agreements. Fourth, the bill expands a prohibition on incentive payments that I authored in 1993. That earlier provision prohibited the use of third party incentive payments to secure offset agreements in any sale subject to the Arms Export Control Act. My new bill expands the prohibition to include items ``exported'' or ``licensed''. The previous language addressed only ``sales''. The incentive payments provision in my bill should close any loopholes and clarify that incentive payments are not an acceptable component of any type of offset transaction. Fifth, the bill requires the Administration to initiate a review to determine the feasibility, and the most effective means, of negotiating multilateral agreements on standards for the use of offsets. It also mandates a report on the Administration's activities in the area. Through international dialogue and coordination we can arrive at multilateral standards for the use of offsets in defense trade agreements. Whether you believe that offsets are merely an annoying, but ordinary, business practice, or hold the view that they pose a major long term threat to our labor force, our industries, and our national security, I believe it is both possible and necessary to develop some common ground for business practices worldwide. Sixth, the bill requires the President to establish a high-level, nonpartisan commission to review the full range of current practices; the impact of the use of offsets; and the role of offsets in domestic industry, trade competitiveness, national security, and the globalization of the weapons industry. There needs to be broader public awareness and national debate by a range of concerned parties on the implications of offsets. A June 29 hearing on offsets in the House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, at which I testified, was a good start, but more still must be done. Mr. President, I first discovered the murky world of offsets in 1993 when I learned that the Wisconsin-based Beloit Corporation, a subsidiary of Harnischfeger Industries Inc., had been negatively affected by an apparent indirect offset arrangement between the Northrop Corporation and the government of Finland. Beloit was one of only three companies in the world that produced a particular type of large paper-making machine. In its efforts to sell one of these machines to the International Paper Company, Beloit became aware that Northrop had offered International Paper an incentive payment to select instead the machine offered by a Finnish company, Valmet. Northrop was promoting the purchase of the Valmet machinery as part of an agreement that would provide dollar-for-dollar offset credit on a deal with Finland to purchase sixty-four F-18 aircraft. This type of payment had the flavor of a kickback, distorted the practice of free enterprise, and threatened U.S. jobs. By lowering its bid--barely breaking even on the contract--to take into account the incentive payment offered by Northrop, Beloit did succeed in winning the contract. Nevertheless, the incident demonstrated to me the potential for offset obligations to have an impact on apparently unrelated domestic U.S. industries. To address some of the immediate concerns raised by Beloit's experience, as I mentioned earlier, in 1993 I offered an amendment (which passed into law in 1994), to the Arms Export Control Act to prohibit incentive payments in the provision of offset credit. I wanted to clarify the Congress' disapproval of an activity that appeared to fall through the cracks of various existing acts. Neither the Anti- Kickback Act nor the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act seemed clearly to address issues raised by the payment being offered to International Paper in the Beloit case. The measure also expanded the requirements for Congressional notification of the existence, and to the extent possible, information on any offset agreement at the time of Congressional notification of a pending arms sale under the Arms Export Control Act. Last year, I offered additional language to expand further the prohibition on incentive payments and enhance the reporting requirement on offsets to include a description of the offset with dollar amounts. While my provisions were incorporated in the Security Assistance Act of 1998 as passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the legislation never made it to the floor. Unfortunately, Mr. President, while Congress has tried to address specific problems encountered by companies in our states and districts, efforts to date have barely scratched the surface of the difficult subject of offsets. In fact, neither the legislative nor the executive branches has a full grasp of the breadth and complexity of the issue, although I know many are concerned about the potential impact of the use of offsets. From what we do know, it appears that there are several key areas affected by the practice of using offsets: The domestic labor force and defense industrial base, particularly in the aerospace industry, impacted by the increasing role of overseas production in the defense industry; The non-defense industrial sectors unintentionally harmed, as in the Beloit case, when defense contractors engage in indirect offset obligations; The breadth of the U.S. economy potentially influenced by the growing globalization of the defense industry; and The national security possibly threatened by joint ventures and growing reliance on foreign defense contractors, a concern recently highlighted in the Cox report on China's technology acquisition. Mr. President, I believe my bill will allow us to collect better information on the use of offsets, to engage in an informed discussion on both the problem and viable policy options, and to encourage multilateral efforts to find common standards and solutions that will benefit us all. Only through these efforts can we hope to get a clear picture of the complex offset issue and ensure that their use does not produce negative consequences for the American labor force, the domestic industrial base, or our national security. Mr. President, I ask that the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the importance of passing a meaningful Patients' Bill of Rights package that will ensure that managed care companies cannot put their cost- control measures ahead of the well-being of their patients. This legislation is absolutely vital to protecting the quality of health care for all Americans. Many of my colleagues have spoken on various aspects of this issue over the past few weeks. But I would like to bring my colleagues' statements ``home'' by speaking a bit about what we mean when we talk about ``Protecting Patients' Rights.'' We are talking about the grim reality that the American health care system is no longer controlled by those who best understand how to treat patients--our physicians. Instead, managed care companies, primarily HMOs but also other health insurance providers, have become so involved in the business of health care that they control nearly every aspect of health care including where the health care is provided, and by whom. Of greatest concerns to me the most is that these managed care organizations can decide whether that health care can be provided at all--they make the key medical decisions. In other words,, regardless of whether that care is determined to be medically necessary by the physician who is treating you, managed care administrators can override your doctor's medical decisions and refuse to cover the care that you need. How does this happen? Well, managed care companies control costs by limiting supply--screening which health care providers its enrollees are permitted to see, requiring patients to go through insurance company gatekeepers prior to seeing a specialist, tracking physician practice patterns to ensure that doctors are complying with HMOs' cost- control efforts. Some HMOs go so far as to impose a gag-rule on doctors, prohibiting physicians in their system from discussing treatment options that the HMO administrators deem too expensive. Managed care companies control how--or even whether--we receive health care. Their control over what goes on in the examination room can be matched only by their significant political clout in Washington, which they've gained in part through generous political donations. Mr. President, during earlier remarks I gave on the Patients' Bill of Rights, I talked about the power special interests wield in the health care debate, but I want to remind my colleagues and the public of those remarks, because I think it's vital that we keep the power of these wealthy interests in mind throughout this discussion. During the last election cycle, managed care companies and their affiliated groups spent more than $3.4 million on soft money contributions, PAC, and individual contributions--roughly double what they spent during the last mid-term elections. Managed care giant United HealthCare Corporation gave $305,000 in soft money to the parties, and $65,500 in PAC money to candidates; Blue Cross/Blue Shield's national association gave more than $200,000 in soft money and nearly $350,000 in PAC money; And the managed care industry's chief lobby, the American Association of Health Plans, has given nearly $60,000 in soft money in the last two years. Mr. President, these numbers are just the tip of the iceberg, but I mention them today to present a clearer picture of the power the managed care industry wields in Washington as we debate managed care reform. As we talk here on the floor about why Americans have such an important stake in this body passing the Patients' Bill of Rights, we should also be aware of what a huge stake the industry has in stopping this legislation, and how they have used the campaign finance system to protect their interests. Regardless of how you feel about any particular Patients' Bill of Rights proposal, I think any reasonable person would agree that an arrangement where someone has financial incentives to deny health care to my family and me--that the very existence of such incentives has to raise flags. As a parent, and as a consumer, I want to be sure that managed care cost-control systems don't compromise the quality of health care for my family and me. So I want to make it clear that the central goal of protecting patients' rights is to ensure that medical necessity is what drives our health care. That's what we're talking about. We need to be sure that the people making health care decisions are licensed health care professionals, not administrative personnel whose primary mission is to protect their bottom line. I do not think that is an outrageous, pie- in-the-sky goal. I think it's a common sense expectation when I buy health insurance for my family, and I don't think any of my colleagues would demand any less from their own health insurance. During the year or so since Senators Daschle and Kennedy first introduced the Patients' Bill of Rights, I have had the opportunity to visit every county in my state to speak with my constituents and to find out what issues they care about. I can tell you that health care-- the quality of health care, the availability of health care--is consistently one of the top issues that my constituents raise with me. In general, the quality of health care in Wisconsin is quite good. Wisconsin was one of the first states to regulate HMOs as insurance providers, and the state has developed a set of basic, common sense patient protections--many of which are included in S. 6, the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights. Mr. President, I would like to share a story that was told to me by a pediatrician who practices in Madison, Wisconsin. This pediatrician told me about a newborn infant she saw who looked fine upon first examination, but on the second day, the pediatrician detected a heart murmur. Knowing that this newborn urgently needed to see a specialist, the pediatrician immediately called for a referral to a pediatric cardiologist, which in this particular HMO requires first going through an adult cardiologist for the referral to a pediatric specialist. By sheer luck, a pediatric cardiologist happened to be in the hospital on a separate matter and was able to examine the baby. The pediatric cardiologist ordered an echocardiogram and diagnosed coarctation, a tightening or narrowing of the aorta that is specific to newborns. That pediatric cardiologist happened to be in the right place at the right time--but under usual circumstances, time would have been lost while a referral was sought from an adult cardiologist. As a result, that baby immediately began receiving medication-- prostaglandin--intravenously until she could be transported to Children's Hospital in Milwaukee to receive emergency heart surgery. The baby survived and is doing well. When I heard this story, apart from relief that the baby survived, my first question was, ``What would have happened if you and the baby's parents had to go through the normal processes of the HMO's rules?'' The pediatrician told me that that process, even if expedited, would have taken at least 24 hours, which didn't sound very long until the pediatrician informed me that the untreated coarctation would have resulted in the baby's death within a few hours. I am greatly relieved and happy that this particular baby was cared for and survived. But what I find frightening, though, is that this baby survived almost as a fluke, in spite of the system. The Patients' Bill of Rights includes a guarantee of access to pediatric specialists. Fortunately for the family of the baby with the heart murmur, many pieces fell into place to save the baby, including a dedicated and vigilant pediatrician willing to be an advocate for her patient and a pediatric specialist in the right place at the right time. This situation didn't turn into a horror story. But we simply cannot let these sorts of happy endings happen only by chance. We must enact meaningful patient protections, such as guaranteed access to pediatric specialists as contained in the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights but lacking in the Republican bill, to ensure that people get the care that they need. The patient protections we are talking about ought to be part of the deal when you enroll in health insurance. These are pretty basic concerns, Mr. President, concerns that I think may get obscured sometimes when we get into jargon like ``prudent layperson,'' ``point of service,'' and so on. So when we speak about protecting patients' rights, I want to be clear that we are talking about how to make sure that corporate cost-control concerns don't result in people being denied the care that they need. I thank the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleague Senator James Jeffords of Vermont on legislation he introduced that makes several important first steps in addressing some serious access problems in the Medicare home health care program. Senator Jeffords' legislation, the Preserving Access to Care in the Home (PATCH) Act of 1999, contains several important provisions to ensure that all Medicare beneficiaries have access to home health services. Mr. President, I have been working to promote the availability of home care and long-term care options for my entire public life. I believe it is vitally important that we in Congress work to enable people to stay in their own homes. Ensuring the availability of home health services is integral to preserving independence, dignity and hope for some of our frailest and most vulnerable fellow Americans. I feel strongly that where there is a choice, we should do our best to allow patients to choose home health care. I think Seniors need and deserve that choice. I applaud Senator Jeffords for his leadership on this issue, and I look forward to working with him to ensure that Seniors have access to the care that they need.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to S. 606, a bill for the Relief of Global Exploration and Development Corporation, Kerr-McGee and Kerr-McGee Chemical, offered by my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl. In 1954, Congress enacted ``termination'' legislation eliminating the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin's federal trust status. At that time, the Menominee Tribe was ill-prepared to function outside of the federal trust system. The Tribe's lack of readiness became quickly apparent when, upon termination, the Tribe was plunged into years of severe impoverishment and community turmoil. Today, with this amendment, we seek to provide redress for some of that severe turmoil, and the mismanagement of tribal resources in the period following the enactment of termination legislation. I am pleased that this issue is finally being resolved, in part. This Menominee Settlement claim has been an active issue throughout my tenure in the Senate. In the five years since the original legislative reference was referred by the Senate to the Court of Claims, the tribe and the federal government have engaged in extensive litigation and negotiation. Following documentation and negotiations by both sides, the United States, represented by the Department of Justice, and the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin agreed upon a settlement of the claims of the Tribe for a sum of $32,052,547, subject to passage of the necessary legislation by Congress. This amendment will legislatively complete that settlement. This settlement cannot undo the suffering of the Menominee people. The reservation, the boundaries of which are entirely co-terminous with the boundaries of Menominee County, is acknowledged to be still experiencing some of the most significant levels of poverty and economic dislocation in my entire state. The compensation for the lack of management of forestry and other reservation resources provided in this settlement, though it cannot undo the past, can help the Menominee Nation to seek a bright future. I know the Menominee Nation looks forward to assisting its people and the surrounding communities through the use of these funds. In conclusion, I also want to acknowledge the leadership of my colleague from Wisconsin on this issue. He has taken on significant responsibility in seeking to right this wrong and I commend him for it. Thank you.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to honor one of our former colleagues, Jim Sasser, who today completes his term as United States Ambassador to China. I was honored to serve with Jim Sasser during my first two years as a member of this body. He served the people of Tennessee with distinction. As a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, I was pleased to support his nomination to be our Ambassador to China both in Committee and on the Senate floor. Although I have serious concerns about United States policy toward China, I believe that Ambassador Sasser served this country admirably during a period of immense strain in the complex relationship between the two countries. In particular, he displayed enormous poise and courage in the days that followed the unfortunate, tragic, and accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. For more than four days, Ambassador Sasser and numerous staff members were literally trapped inside the United States embassy in Beijing as thousands of demonstrators chanted anti- American slogans and threw rocks at the embassy from the streets outside. I commend him for the calm and diplomatic manner in which he dealt with this tense situation. He reminded us that ambassadors are more than just the official representatives of the United States; they are also the chiefs of mission with responsibility for the staff of many U.S. agencies, as well as the responsibility for the safety of American citizens living or traveling in the countries in which they serve. Our former colleague carried out all of these functions admirably under difficult conditions. I wish Ambassador Sasser well in his future endeavors.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas, (Mr. Brownback), the so-called ``Silk Road Strategy Act.'' I certainly support the Senator's desire to promote peace and democracy in Central Asia and the South Caucasus region, but I remain concerned about the approach this legislation takes toward achieving these laudable goals. In particular, I am troubled by the provision in the Silk Road Strategy Act which would allow the President to waive Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. Section 907 prohibits United States assistance to the government of Azerbaijan until it takes demonstrable steps to end the blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh. No such steps have been taken, Mr. President. The blockade continues, as do human rights violations against the Armenian population in the region. I am concerned that the waiver of Section 907 would, in effect, reward the Azeri government for its refusal to end the blockade. For those reasons, I opposed prior versions of the Silk Road Strategy Act in the Committee on Foreign Relations in the 105th and 106th Congresses, and I signed on to the minority views contained in the committee report both times. Those views stated, in part, that ``to waive [Section 907] in the absence of any progress toward a lifting of the blockade would reward the Government of Azerbaijan for its intransigence and remove a major incentive for good-faith negotiation from one side in the conflict.'' Mr. President, a decision not to provide foreign assistance to a government is not a sanction. The United States Congress has the responsibility to prohibit the provision of bilateral assistance to governments with which we have serious concern. This is not a sanction; rather, it is a means of making our foreign policy goals clear. Foreign assistance is not an entitlement. Section 907 plainly states that there will be no U.S. assistance to the government of Azerbaijan until the blockade is lifted. Period. As my colleagues well recall, this body has placed numerous conditions on bilateral assistance to a variety of countries. Section 907 is a condition, not a sanction. Moreover, many types of bilateral assistance are exempt from Section 907, and U.S. trade with Azerbaijan has been unaffected by this provision. I will support the McConnell-Abraham second degree amendment to strike the waiver authority for Section 907 from the bill, and I will oppose the Brownback amendment in its current form. I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my distinguished colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, to offer this amendment to encourage a peaceful process of self-determination in East Timor. This amendment closely mirrors what he and I and several other Senators expressed in Senate Resolution 96, and in a similar amendment to the State Department authorization bill. We are offering this amendment today to again highlight the significance of the process underway in East Timor that will once and for all determine its political status. I want to commend the members of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee for including language relating to East Timor in the committee report accompanying this bill. I believe it is important that the Senate go on record regarding its support for the forthcoming ballot and in condemnation of the violence surrounding this historic vote. As we all know, Indonesian President Habibie announced on January 27 that the Government of Indonesia was finally willing to seek to learn and respect the wishes of the people in that territory. On May 5, the Governments of Indonesia and Portugal signed an agreement to hold a United Nations- supervised ``consultation'' on August 8 to determine East Timor's future political status. This ballot has since been postponed to an as yet undetermined date in late August. Despite the positive step forward that the ballot represents, excitement and tension over the possibility of gaining independence have in recent months led to a gross deterioration of the security situation. Militias, comprised of individuals determined to intimidate the East Timorese people into support for continued integration with Indonesia and widely believed to be supported by the Indonesian military, are responsible for a sharp increase in violence. Just this week, members of a pro-Jakarta civilian militia attacked a United Nations regional headquarters in the Maliana township in East Timor. Several people, including a U.N. election officer, were wounded. This is latest in a string of violent incidents that have been linked to pro-Jakarta militias. Mr. President, this kind of violence and intimidation cannot be tolerated, especially at this crucial time. In the May 5 agreement, the Government of Indonesia agreed to take responsibility for ensuring that the ballot is carried out in a fair and peaceful way. Unfortunately, it is unclear that they are implementing this aspect of the agreement. Quite the opposite. Whether Indonesian troops have actually participated in some of these incidents or not, the authorities certainly most accept the blame for allowing, and in some cases encouraging, the bloody tactics of the pro- integration militias. The continuation of this violence is a threat to the very sanctity and legitimacy of the process that is underway. Thus, the Leahy-Feingold amendment specifically calls on Jakarta to do all it can to seek a peaceful process and a fair resolution to the situation in East Timor. Mr. President, I believe the United States has a responsibility--an obligation--to put as much pressure as possible on the Indonesian government to help encourage an environment conducive to a free, fair, peaceful ballot process for the people of East Timor. I am pleased that we have taken a leadership role in offering technical, financial, and diplomatic support to the recently authorized U.N. Assistance Mission in East Timor, known as UNAMET. Mr. President, it is not in our power to guarantee the free, fair exercise of the rights of the people of East Timor to determine their future. It is, however, in our interest to do all that we can to work with the United Nations, other concerned countries, the government of Indonesia and the people of East Timor to create an opportunity for a successful ballot process. We cannot forget that the Timorese have been living with violence and oppression for more than 23 years. These many years have not dulled the desire of the East Timorese for freedom, or quieted their demands to have a role in the determination of East Timor's status. We have to do all we can to support an environment that can produce a fair ballot in East Timor. Now. And throughout the rest of this process. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. I yield the floor. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Vermont. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this bill for their work on this legislation. This is not an easy bill. I certainly commend their efforts to keep this bill within the budget caps. I regret that in trying to balance our many important priorities, international affairs spending may have suffered disproportionately. Mr. President, national security can not be viewed solely through a defense lens, but also must comprise all the critical preventive measures offered through an active foreign affairs program. This means continuing to fight the spread of disease and drugs, providing adequate nutrition for children and families, and pursuing U.S. goals in arms reduction. We also should continue to make our full contributions to the multilateral institutions, in particular the United Nations, on which the United States relies. I will, however, support this legislation. However, I do wish to comment on one area of funding in particular which has suffered cuts in this legislation, and that is international peacekeeping. This bill appropriates funds for America's voluntary peacekeeping activities, which includes such things as our contributions to the Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group, to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and to the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) in the Middle East. The voluntary peacekeeping account also funds our contributions to important peacekeeping initiatives in Africa, including through an Africa regional fund and through the Africa Crisis Response Initiative. But Mr. President, this bill would cut the voluntary peacekeeping account by $50 million off the President's request; that's 40% below the request. While the bill would support a slight increase from last year's appropriation for this account, I am afraid that this level is inadequate to support our peacekeeping efforts in Africa. This voluntary peacekeeping fund is designed to support peacekeeping efforts other than assessed missions by the United Nations, which are funded separately through an account in another appropriations bill. The account funded in this bill is designed to try to anticipate needs in the peacekeeping arena, but also to be flexible and prepared to deal with unanticipated contingencies. This morning, the chairman of the Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky, made the assertion that the administration's request regarding peacekeeping was, in his words, ``redundant,'' because there is more than one account that provides funds for peacekeeping in Africa. But, Mr. President, I would respectfully disagree with this characterization and note that the requirements for peacekeeping in Africa are such that a distinct account may be required. At a recent hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Africa, Chairman Frist and I heard testimony regarding the conflict raging in Central Africa, in which there are currently as many as nine countries involved. These wars don't get much press attention in the United States, but it is likely that more people are dying there right now than we have seen killed in Kosovo in recent months and in a number of other well publicized conflicts outside Africa. Mr. President, it is easy to make generalizations about the causes of conflict in Africa, but I think its roots are not well understood. At that hearing, I posed some important questions which I would like to repeat here on the floor. First, what is the basis for U.S. policy in Africa? Is it to support democracy and respect for human rights? Is it to avoid genocide? Is it to encourage stability and economic development? These are some of the things I hear administration officials saying, but sometimes I am not sure our actions are consistent with these lofty goals. For example, some would question how the United States government hopes to prevent genocide, when it is often hesitant to condemn atrocities that fall short of genocide. Some also question our commitment to preventing genocide in the future when our government has so far declined to examine in any detail our own weak response during the 1994 crisis. Second, if there were to be another ``genocide''--assuming there is consensus as to the meaning of that word--what steps is the United States prepared to take to stop it? Is NATO going to start launching air strikes against the offending powers? We all know that is unrealistic, yet the crisis in Kosovo is causing a lot of people-- including Members of Congress and including myself--to ask: ``Why Kosovo and not Rwanda?'' Why is it that the United States can spend billions of dollars trying to stop ethnic cleansing in one place, but yet wouldn't even use the word ``genocide'' in the Rwanda case until two months after the killing started, and thousands had been killed? The distinguished chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, the Senator from Kentucky, also noted the Committee's intent to have Serbia designated as a terrorist state, which is mandated in the legislation. I support this designation, and I agree with my colleague that it is hard to understand the difference, as he said this morning on the floor, ``between thugs blowing up a village with a car bomb or thugs shelling and burning a village to the ground. The intent and impact are the same. In both instances, innocent civilians are the targets and the victims.'' Mr. President, this is precisely my point. Only I would make this point with respect to Africa and say this: I do not understand the difference between the terror and violence that is going on in Sierra Leone and what is going on in Kosovo! In both instances, innocent civilians are the targets and the victims. Yet the bill before us today provides millions of dollars to support peacekeeping and other activities for Kosovo, and barely anything for similar activities in Africa. I do not understand how the decision to intervene in Kosovo fits in with an overall post-Cold War American foreign policy strategy. Obviously, the tragedies and the horrors that have been perpetrated in Kosovo demand a response and that response must include a role for the United States. But as the world's only superpower, I do not believe the United States is able to act effectively only in Europe or only in our own region. We have shown our ability to project overwhelming power throughout the world. Is an accident of geography sufficient to allow inaction in Africa, while Kosovo requires a huge commitment? This question needs to be answered not so much for me but for the American people, and to some extent for the people of Africa. They do not understand, and I do not understand, why one tragedy demands our attention and our action, and another one simply does not. Mr. President, my point here is that, given the overwhelming response to the events in the Balkans, the very least we can do in response to conflict in Africa is to support regional peacekeeping efforts, as well as do all we can on the preventive side. The United States has been a significant contributor to existing regional efforts such as the actions of the Economic Community of West African States, or ECOWAS, and its peacekeeping force, ECOMOG in both Liberia and in the ongoing conflict in Sierra Leone. There is no doubt that ECOMOG has had its share of problems, but nevertheless, it is solely through the efforts of this regional peacekeeping force that there is even the hope of a peaceful resolution in the Sierra Leone situation. Mr. President, we can never truly anticipate the extent of needs such as this, and I would hope we could allow the administration some flexibility in this account. We should ensure the availability of funding to provide resources to support what I hope will be a peace agreement in Sierra Leone and maybe a cease-fire agreement in the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea. If these positive developments take place, the United States should be poised to provide some support. This is no time to send a signal that we are not concerned with these crises. Finally, just a quick word about the two Africa-related portions of this voluntary account. As I understand his remarks, the Senator from Kentucky believes it is ``redundant'' to have both an Africa Regional fund and monies for the Africa Crisis Response Initiative. But in my view, these two funds serve two separate purposes. The first, the Africa regional fund, represents our traditional peacekeeping functions. This is the account that has been used to provide logistical assistance to ECOMOG in both the Liberia and Sierra Leone cases. The other, the Africa Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI), is different. ACRI seeks to assist African militaries to build their own capacities to conduct peacekeeping operations. It is hoped that countries which now receive training under ACRI would agree to participate in future peacekeeping operations. In this regard, ACRI represents a forward- leaning approach; call it ``preventive diplomacy.'' Mr. President, ACRI has been in operation for just a short while and can still be considered in its early stage. Most of the militaries that have received training through ACRI have been trained at the company or, in a few cases, battalion levels, but an important aspect of the program is also to conduct brigade level training. As envisioned, the brigade level training is key to the whole ACRI program because it would expand joint training exercises between and among participating countries and would help ensure interoperability between and among the forces of contributing nations. Mr. President, just as the ACRI program is getting underway, I do not think we should be cutting support for it. Our efforts to build peacekeeping capacity in Africa will fail if we can not assist in preparing our partners to actually participate and conduct peacekeeping operations. In summary, Mr. President, I believe the voluntary peacekeeping account represents an important part of our international affairs funding, and of America's ability to lead in the world, and I am concerned that the cuts to this account will have an inordinate impact on Africa. Mr. LAUTENBERG Mr. President, I rise today first of all to thank and commend the Chairman and the ranking member of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee for their efforts to develop a bill to meet priority foreign affairs needs within the limits of the subcommittee allocation. Mr. President, the Budget Resolution did not allocate sufficient resources for Foreign Affairs and the Foreign Operations Subcommittee frankly did not receive a sufficient allocation to maintain America's world leadership role We need to recognize that neither isolationism nor limited engagement is an option if we want to maintain America's security and prosperity. We need to realize that we cannot conduct effective foreign policy solely by having a strong military In fact, by limiting funding for other tools of diplomacy we increase our reliance on threats and use of military force. This bill fails to fulfill the President's request in numerous areas. I am deeply concerned that the Wye aid package for Israel, the Palestinians, and Jordan requested by the President has not been fully funded The fact that it could not be accommodated within the subcommittee allocation without drastically cutting important programs around the world merely reinforces my previous point. In the near future, we are going to have to step up to the responsibility of funding aid to help implement the Wye River Memorandum I hope the Chairman will agree that we will need to find a way to fund this aid outside the confines of this bill This is a small price to pay for continued and renewed efforts to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East. The bill does not include the $60 million I sought for tuberculosis prevention programs We need much stronger programs to combat tuberculosis now Tuberculosis kills more people worldwide than AIDS and malaria combined, yet receives substantially fewer aid dollars. TB is spread easily and each active case leads to many more, so concerted global action to bring TB under control, now estimated to require $1 billion, becomes more expensive the longer we wait We need to find more resources to begin to confront the challenge of TB this year. I hope we will also be able to find an additional $20 million for the United Nations Development Program UNDP has made great strides in cutting costs and improving coordination among UN agencies in the field to more effectively deliver essential assistance and promote sustainable economic development. Unfortunately, we're penalizing the poor in many countries by following the Administration's lead and failing to restore funding for UNDP to $100 million. I am also concerned that the bill significantly underfunds debt relief for the poorest countries. Funding for the Peace Corps is reduced from the requested level, when it should have been increased to make progress toward the President's goal of fielding ten thousand Peace Corps Volunteers. Even counter terrorism programs have not been adequately funded. Having raised these concerns, let me reiterate my commendation to the subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Member for making a real effort to achieve a balanced bill while remaining within an allocation nearly $2 billion below the President's request. I would also like to thank the subcommittee chairman and ranking member for including many important programs. In particular, Seeds of Peace contributes to reconciliation in the Middle East by bringing together young people from throughout the region, including Israelis and Palestinians and other Arabs. Carelift International, which is largely funded by the private sector, improves health care in transition and developing countries at low cost by sharing refurbished American medical equipment. Senator McConnell has also put some real dollars behind the rhetoric supporting regional integration in Southeast Europe. We need to aid the Kosovars to rebuild their shattered lives and help the countries and peoples of this troubled region to overcome their differences and their history and truly become a part of the new Europe. I do hope we will be able to restore funding requested by the Administration for regional programs under the SEED Act, including programs to combat trans-national crime. I am not offering amendments to increase allocations to unfunded or underfunded programs because I think it would be very difficult to do so without reducing funding for other priorities. I voted for this bill in the subcommittee and committee because I think Senators McConnell and Leahy have done a good job with the limited resources available to them. I will likely vote for the bill in the Senate as well, but not without deep reservations about the overall funding level and priorities which have not been funded adequately. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on June 10, 1999 I joined as a co- sponsor of legislation introduced by my Midwestern colleagues, the Junior Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, and the Junior Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh, S. 872, The Municipal Solid Waste Interstate Transportation and Local Authority Act of 1999. I am pleased to be working with them on this very important issue. I know that they, as former Governors, are intimately aware of the concerns that the growing trash trade poses for the States we represent. We in the Midwest, especially those of us fortunate enough to be from the Great Lakes States, enjoy a very high quality of life--beautiful scenery, small, neighborly towns, and spectacular natural resources. We hold it as a particular point of pride that we, in many instances, have the luxury of avoiding many environmental problems and we have structured our State and local governments in Wisconsin to try to be sure that we continue to avoid them. However, Mr. President, we in Wisconsin are unable to protect our communities, which have done a good regulatory job, from having to deal with the solid waste mess created by our neighboring communities in other States. Instead, my State has been forced to accept other States' municipal solid waste in ever increasing amounts. We need to enact legislation to re-empower States to be able to control the flow of waste into state-licensed landfills from out-of- state sources. This legislation would give States the tools to do just that. It gives states, like mine, the power to freeze solid waste imports at the 1993 levels. States that did not accept out of State waste in 1993 would be presumed to prohibit receipt of out-of-State waste until the affected unit of local government approves it. Facilities that already have a host community agreement or permit that accepts out-of-State waste would remain exempt from the ban. States would also be allowed to set a State-wide percentage limit on the amount of waste that new or expanding facilities could accept. The limit can not be lower than 20 percent. Finally, States, under this bill, are also given the ability to deny the creation of either new facilities or the expansion of existing in-State facilities if it is determined that there is no in-State need for the new capacity. My home State has tried to address this issue repeatedly on its own, without success. On January 25, 1999, a federal appeals court struck down as unconstitutional a 1997 Wisconsin law that prohibits landfills from accepting out-of-State waste from communities that don't recycle in compliance with Wisconsin's law. We are now examining options for limiting out-of-State trash in Wisconsin including: appealing the decision to the United States Supreme Court, which refused to hear an appeal of a similar Wisconsin case in 1995, passing new State legislation, or pursuing the option before us today--seeking specific authority from Congress to regulate trash from other States. Wisconsin's law bans 15 different recyclables from State landfills. Under the law, communities using Wisconsin landfills must have a recycling program similar to those required of Wisconsin communities under Wisconsin law, regardless of the law in their home State. About 27 Illinois towns rely on southern Wisconsin landfills. Since the law took effect, waste haulers serving those communities have had to find alternative landfills for their clients, incurring higher transportation costs in the process. IL-based Waste Management Inc. and the 1,300-member National Solid Waste Management Association were the entities that challenged Wisconsin's law, arguing that the law violated the Interstate Commerce Clause. By recycling, Wisconsin residents have reduced the amount of municipal waste heading to landfills. Since the State's previous out- of-State waste law was struck down by the appeals court in 1995, the amount of non-Wisconsin waste in Wisconsin landfills has tripled. When the law was in effect, 7.7 percent of the municipal waste in Wisconsin came from out of State. That has risen to more than 22.9 percent since the law was struck down. Though this legislation will not afford Wisconsin the ability to block garbage containing recyclables from our landfills, it will at least give my State the ability to address the overall volume of waste entering our State. In 1995, I supported flow control legislation sponsored by the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, and drawn substantially from the work of the former Senator from Indiana, Mr. Coats. I have been shocked that the Senate, which passed that bill by a significant majority vote of 94-6, has not taken up legislation to address this issue since that time, shocked until I examined the relationship between the interests opposing that legislation and political campaigns. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in the 1998 election cycle, one of the interests that opposes flow control legislation, Waste Management Inc., contributed $422,275 in soft money to the two major political parties-- $85,000 to the Democratic Party and $337,275 to the Republican Party. Mr. President, the issue of interstate waste control effects my home State and 23 other States. For years States have been faced with the challenge of ensuring safe responsible management of out-of-State waste, and the need for State control is even more acute today than in was in 1995. Congress is the only body that can give the States the relief they need from being overwhelmed by a tidal wave of trash. We have not acted on a problem that effects nearly half of our States, and citizens are left to try to understand our inaction by following the money trail behind the trash truck. We need to take prompt action on this matter, and I think this legislation is a good first step. I urge my other colleagues to consider lending this bill their support.