Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the majority leader. I have no objection at this point. (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments Submitted.'')

Mr. FEINGOLD. I object.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my distinguished colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, to introduce a bill that will assist our local law enforcement agencies to respond in a timely fashion to life or death situations. Sheriffs 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 sheriff's department in Wisconsin to acquire a helicopter. Neighboring counties 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 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 for use of a helicopter, the neighboring sheriff must first exhaust the possibility that a private commercial helicopter is available. Even when the neighboring sheriff is faced with a serious imminent threat to life or property, the law requires the neighboring sheriff to first determine whether a privately operated helicopter is available. 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 control crowds in public gatherings, to transport prisoners and to detect and eradicate marijuana. Saving lives and maintaining law and order is delayed if we require sheriffs 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. But if we allow sheriffs to share their aircraft with neighboring jurisdictions without first exhausting private avenues, law enforcement response is far more likely to be swift and sure. This bill 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. Mr. President, we demand that law enforcement act quickly and professionally to life or death situations. But we're not 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 in Wisconsin and across this country the tools they need to keep our communities safe and secure.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my distinguished colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, to introduce a bill that will assist our local law enforcement agencies to respond in a timely fashion to life or death situations. Sheriffs 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 sheriff's department in Wisconsin to acquire a helicopter. Neighboring counties 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 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 for use of a helicopter, the neighboring sheriff must first exhaust the possibility that a private commercial helicopter is available. Even when the neighboring sheriff is faced with a serious imminent threat to life or property, the law requires the neighboring sheriff to first determine whether a privately operated helicopter is available. 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 control crowds in public gatherings, to transport prisoners and to detect and eradicate marijuana. Saving lives and maintaining law and order is delayed if we require sheriffs 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. But if we allow sheriffs to share their aircraft with neighboring jurisdictions without first exhausting private avenues, law enforcement response is far more likely to be swift and sure. This bill 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. Mr. President, we demand that law enforcement act quickly and professionally to life or death situations. But we're not 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 in Wisconsin and across this country the tools they need to keep our communities safe and secure.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr President, I want to express my support for the resolution, which was adopted by the Senate yesterday, to begin a new tradition in this distinguished body: to begin our days by saying the Pledge of Allegiance each morning in this Chamber. There were about ten of my colleagues on the floor this morning to inaugurate this new tradition, and I only wish there could have been more to join us. We will pay tribute to our flag, the greatest symbol of our freedom, in the Chamber where we are sworn to uphold the very freedoms the flag symbolizes. There can be no more fitting tribute to our Constitution than the free and unfettered expression of patriotism that the Pledge of Allegiance represents. Today in the Senate, we honor the flag. In contrast to this voluntary celebration of our flag, the other chamber today may vote on an amendment to our Constitution that asks us to turn away from the freedoms we cherish in order to protect our flag, in effect to compel reverence for the flag. This amendment, in a misdirected attempt to protect a cherished symbol, instead tears at the very fabric of our freedom. In the past, I have walked in the Appleton, WI, parade on Flag Day. I am told that it is the largest Flag Day parade in our country--it is certainly one of the best. As I saw the faces of those people, those Americans, as they waved the flag, filled with pride in our great nation, I knew then not only that patriotism shouldn't be legislated, but that it doesn't need to be. It is in this Chamber and in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans across this country. Again, I celebrate the effort to pay tribute to the flag, and the freedom it represents, in this Chamber each day. I only hope when and if the amendment that threatens that freedom is considered on this floor, we will remember the Pledge of Allegiance, and remain true to the liberty it speaks of, and that all of us hold so dear.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank my colleagues for their efforts on the floor to highlight the Patients' Bill of Rights, a bill to empower people around the country who rely on HMOs and other managed care programs for their health care needs. I join them today in enthusiastic support for badly needed legislation that will expand protections for patients who are at the mercy of managed care practices. I strongly support the principles of improving access, quality, and accountability in the delivery of managed care. I believe we can achieve valuable patient protections by passing a bill that ensures some commonsense protections, access to emergency care, access to specialists, and a strong internal as well as external appeals process. We need to keep medical decisions in the hands of doctors. We have to ensure that managed care entities are held legally accountable for administrative decisions that affect patient care and well-being. Protections are extremely important to restoring a sense of security and control to managed care enrollees and their doctors. The protections in this bill are being debated on the Senate floor, but they are also being lobbied furiously in the halls of Congress. Some of the most powerful and influential interest groups in this country have a huge stake in seeing this bill fail, while others want it to succeed. Last week, I announced on the floor that from time to time I will point out the role of special interest money in our legislative process. I call it the 800-pound gorilla sitting in this Chamber every day that nobody talks about, but that cannot be ignored. I said I will start calling attention to this gorilla more often through an effort that I have dubbed, ``The Calling of the Bankroll,'' where I discuss how much money different interests lobbying a particular bill have made in campaign contributions in order to influence our work in this Chamber. I can't think of a better issue than managed care and the future of managed care to once again call the bankroll. Let me give four quick examples. One, the managed care industry: What does it want? The managed care industry wants to prevent any further regulation of the industry, and it doesn't want to be held liable when administrative decisions and policies affect the health, or even the very lives, of patients. What did managed care give? During the last election cycle, managed care companies and their groups made more than $3.4 million in soft money, PAC and individual contributions. This is roughly double what they spent during the last mid-term election cycle of 1993-1994. Their contributions keep increasing. A second example is the pharmaceutical industry. What do they want? They have a big interest in the kind of drugs managed care patients have access to. What did they give? Behind their point of view is the weight of at least $10.6 million in PAC and soft money contributions. That is how much the pharmaceutical and medical supplies industries gave during 1997 and 1998. A third example: The doctors, the AMA, what do they want? Of course, doctors have an interest in seeing managed care reform. They want to eliminate restrictions on doctor-patient communication. More broadly, they want to prevent managed care companies from exerting further control over the way they practice medicine. What did they give? The AMA made significant PAC and soft money donations during the last election cycle, more than $2.4 million worth. A fourth example: Organized labor, what does it want? It is a strong supporter of the Patients' Bill of Rights. Unions are also major campaign contributors. What did they give? The AFL-CIO alone gave parties and candidates close to $2 million in 1997 and 1998. I am sure there are other interests that should be included on this list. I urge my colleagues to come to the floor and add to this list so there will be as full a picture as possible of the money behind and against this piece of legislation. I think it is relevant to what is happening on the Senate floor. Why should Americans care? While many Americans rightly worry about the quality of their health care, I believe the quantity of campaign contributions that may affect that care should also be of serious concern. The huge quantity of campaign contributions influences the very terms of the health care debate itself, how health care is discussed, and whether some health care issues are even discussed at all. Wouldn't it be better if the public could have confidence that we are deciding crucial issues such as the rights of Americans covered by managed care, without the shadow cast by campaign contributions, without the 800-pound gorilla sitting here on the floor? I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to call the bankroll on this issue. Information about campaign contributions should be easily available to my colleagues and to the public to clearly demonstrate the connection between what the wealthy interests want in Washington and what the average American gets on Main Street. It is time to debate, amend, and come to conclusion on a Patients' Bill of Rights. These are health care issues with real consequences for ordinary Americans at the doctor's office, the pharmacy, the emergency room, and the admitting desk. We have to ask: When your critically ill child needs to see a specialist, do you want to think that laws affecting decisions on care are influenced by campaign contributions or have been made based on a thoughtful, reasoned debate. I think the American people deserve better than this. Until we have campaign finance reform, our debate on crucial issues such as health care is going to be carried out under the shadow of these huge amounts of money and the influence that so many Americans are convinced they wield. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr President, I rise today to join my distinguished colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, in offering an amendment to encourage a peaceful process of self-determination in East Timor. This amendment closely mirrors what he and I and several other Senators express in S. Res. 96, introduced last month. We are offering this as an amendment to highlight the significance of the process underway in East Timor that will once and for all determine its political status. 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. Despite this positive development, 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. Let me recount some of the horror stories I have heard coming out of East Timor recently. To cite just a few examples, pro-government militias, backed by Indonesian troops, reportedly shot and killed 17 supporters of independence on April 5. Shortly thereafter, pro- independence groups reported clashes, arrests and deaths, as well as civilians fleeing violence in six cities. One of those cities was Liquica where at least 25 people were brutally murdered by pro- government militias when up to 2000 civilians sought shelter in the local Catholic church. Later, on April 17, hundreds of East Timorese fled the capital of Dili as knife-wielding militias attacked anyone suspected of supporting independence. At least 30 were killed in this incident as Indonesian troops made little effort to stop the violence. The perpetrators have not all been on the government side. Over the years there have been atrocities on the pro-independence side as well. In recent months, however, the overwhelming majority of the violence has come from army elements and militias under their effective control. Overall, hundreds of civilians have been killed, wounded or ``disappeared'' in separate militia attacks. Unfortunately, the possibility exists that tension and violence could still terrorize the island between now and the ballot, although I hope that is not the case. Pro-integration militia leaders announced on April 29 that they reject the concept of the upcoming ballot, or anything that could be considered a referendum. They have further stated that if a ballot leads to independence, they are prepared to fight a guerrilla war for decades if necessary to defend Indonesian rule of the territory. Independent observers fear that neither side will accept a loss in the ballot, thus setting the stage for a prolonged conflict in East Timor. This type of rhetoric does not reassure us about the prospects for a successful transition for the people of East Timor, regardless of which form of government they choose. The climate in East Timor today, sadly, may have become too violent for a legitimate poll to take place. Worse yet, the agreement on the ballot process will be rendered meaningless if people must fear for their lives when they dare to participate in the process. 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 must 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. I am encouraged by the calm manner in which the people of Indonesia went to the polls earlier this month to elect a new government. While the election was not perfect, it is a step in the right direction for the people of that nation, and demonstrates an openness not seen in decades there. 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. Our amendment recognizes the very significant progress that has been made so far, in particular the calming impact the very presence of U.N. officials has appeared to have on the security situation in the capital, Dili. Nevertheless, problems still remain, so the amendment also highlights the increase in violence and human rights abuses by anti-independence militias and urges the Habibie government to curtail Indonesian military support to the militias. The amendment also encourages the Government of Indonesia to grant full access to all areas of East Timor by international human rights monitors, humanitarian organizations and the press, and to allow all Timorese who now live in exile the ability to return to East Timor to participate in this important ballot. 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. amendment no. 731 (Purpose: To require a report on the worldwide circulation of small arms and light weapons) On page 115, after line 18, add the following new section:

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my amendment does not kill the National Endowment for Democracy, nor does it cut off one penny from its budget. Rather, this amendment reforms the grant-making process of the NED. The NED seeks to promote democracy around the world. I believe it is only just and fair that its grant-making process be open and competitive on a level playing field for all applicants. Mr. President, 65 percent of NED's grant money is automatically allocated to four so- called ``core grantees,'' while everyone else has to compete for the remaining 35 percent of the budget. I really do not think this is fair. The core grantees have done good work in promoting democracy abroad, but are the programs sponsored by the core grantees so superior to all the other programs we have that we must assume they should automatically get the full 65 percent while everyone else has to compete for a much smaller piece of the pie? My amendment does not cut funding for the NED or even necessarily for these four grantee groups. It just phases out, over a 5-year period, the automatic bonanza these groups get every year. This amendment will simply level the playing field so these groups have to compete for funding like everybody else. So I urge my colleagues to understand this does not cut a penny. It does not change the basic mission. It just says we have reached the point, with these taxpayers' dollars, where it really should be phased down to the point where everything is done on a competitive basis. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Anne Alexander, a fellow in my office, be accorded the privilege of the floor during the remainder of the debate on the State Department authorization bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, before my time begins, I ask unanimous consent to add the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I require at this point. Let me first say how much regard I have for the Senator from Indiana and enormous respect for his role on the Committee on Foreign Relations, his demeanor, and his knowledge. It is a pleasure to work with him. We disagree on this one. The Senator from Indiana suggests that this point about the National Endowment for Democracy comes from out of the blue. I have been here long enough to know that year after year the former Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers, made several attempts to eliminate the program or change the program. It has been a regular subject of scrutiny in this body, as it should be. I think to suggest that it is a surprise that there would be some oversight of NED is not quite accurate. What the Senator from Indiana is indicating, of course, is the political parties and business and labor are at the heart of a pluralistic democratic society, that they are the fundamental concepts of American political life. I agree with him. I think it is important that as we endeavor to encourage democratization around the world that we try to include all of these elements of our democracy. But I do not think it should be primarily limited or dominantly limited to these four core grantees. The Senator from Indiana knows far better than I do the origins of the program. I appreciate his comments about what the thinking was in the beginning, how these groups got together, and how the structure was crucial for the program to begin. I do not dispute that. I am sure there is some validity. But I think after some 15 years, these groups and these organizations have had time enough to develop their programs so they are ready to fly on their own, that they are ready to compete against other applicants for the funding in a free and fair manner. The fact that the NED's four core grantees are guaranteed to receive a set amount of funds every year seems to me fundamentally unfair and is a contradiction of our democratic principles, especially when you are talking about guaranteeing private groups taxpayer dollars, which is exactly what this does. Every group that conducts democracy programs should have an equal opportunity to pursue Federal funding for its programs, not just the ones that are so powerfully and politically connected. These four well-connected groups are not the only people in America that know something about political parties or business or labor, but it is only these groups that are guaranteed 65 percent of the grant money from this program. That is almost entirely taxpayers' dollars. To me, a much more appropriate system would be a competitive one. As I understand it, since the Senator fairly raises the concern about whether the original understanding between these groups would be preserved, I am told that the board itself has representatives of both of the major political parties, as well as of business and labor, and that they are the ones that would be making these decisions. The Senator from Indiana indicates that this is a situation where something isn't broke so do not fix it. The fact is, in recent years a number of suggestions have been made about ways to help fix the program. There have been some problems. Some of these problems have been fixed. What I am trying to do here is continue the process of fixing it, of improving it. As I indicated earlier, some 80 percent of this money was once tied up only for these four groups. Now it is lower, but it still represents 65 percent of available grant money. What I am saying is, let us fix it, improve it, over the next 5 years, phasing this down so each year this gets a little smaller. By the time we get to the end of that 5- year period, we have all the money based on a fair competition and still have a board that has representatives of both political parties and of business and labor so there is no real possibility of unfairness or partisanship in this regard. All of this is offered in the spirit of trying to further improve the program, acknowledging its great worth, acknowledging the many good things that are done. Let's just do a little better job of making sure our taxpayers' dollars are spent in a manner that involves the best interests and the best applicants getting the money. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. I call up amendment No. 692 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the chairman. I will conclude my remarks, and at the conclusion of those remarks, I will, in fact, send the amendment to the desk. This does not necessarily mean any of the four core grantees will have to cut their budgets, but it will mean they will have to actually make their case to NED that their proposals are the best use of taxpayers' dollars. As it now stands, these four grantees know the fix is in, so there is less incentive to make sure every single program is as efficient and well planned as it possibly can be. My amendment will phase out this fix over a 5-year period and compel each of the four grantees to work a little harder to earn their grants, as hard as everybody else, so they can be in this big green pie of the best applicants, not just the guaranteed applicants. Again, this is not an amendment to kill or even cut funding for the NED. It is an amendment to use old-fashioned American competition to ensure that the best use of taxpayers' dollars in the funding of democracy programs happens abroad. My colleagues who believe in fairness and competition and the efficient use of the taxpayers' money should vote aye. I ask unanimous consent that a list of 250 organizations which received NED funds in calendar year 1998 be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will offer today an amendment to make a simple reform to the grants process for the National Endowment for Democracy, the funding of which is authorized in the State Department authorization bill which we are debating. I want to make this very clear. I am not here to cut or eliminate NED funding by even one penny. This doesn't cut the program at all. Rather, my amendment simply requires the money given by the American taxpayers to NED each year be distributed fairly and effectively. The amendment, therefore, reforms the NED's grant-making procedures, procedures about which it can fairly be said, as of today, ``The fix is in.'' Here is how the grant process at NED works today. Currently, 65 percent of NED grant money goes automatically to four so-called core grantees, and these are the Solidarity Center, an arm of the AFL-CIO; the Center for International Private Enterprise or CIPE, an arm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and two groups tied to America's major political parties, the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. My amendment simply would require that the grant process of NED become competitive. The amount of grant funds provided automatically to the NED's four core grantees would be reduced incrementally over the next 5 years, so all NED grant funds would be awarded competitively on the merits by the time we get to the end of that 5-year period. I hope we can all agree that more competition among applicants for grant funds is a good thing and that it is the fairest way to apportion the tax dollars NED distributes to help promote democracy. As it stands now, the four grantees are hardly subject to any real scrutiny. That is why I say the fix is in for these very well connected organizations. The NED is a private, nonprofit organization created by the U.S. Government during the cold war in 1983. The idea was a good one. The idea was to strengthen democratic institutions around the world through nongovernmental efforts. The NED is governed by an independent, nonpartisan board of directors and operates with an annual congressional appropriation, so strictly speaking, it is not really an endowment. NED receives 97 percent of its funding from the taxpayers. Until it has significant private sources of funding, it does not make any sense to me to guarantee most of its grants to four private groups. The NED provides some direct grants, conducts analyses of the theory and practice of democratic development worldwide, and serves as a clearinghouse for information on that development. The NED makes hundreds of grants each year to support prodemocracy groups in Africa, Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Middle East and the former Soviet Union. The Endowment supports projects that promote political and economic freedom, a strong civil society, independent media, human rights and the rule of law. There are also programs in the areas of labor, business, and political party development which are funded mostly through the four grantees, although other applicants are prepared to conduct programs in each of these areas. Obviously, I believe in the value of democracy and the imperative of the United States to support democratic development, human rights, and the rule of law abroad. So I do not take lightly at all the admirable aims of the National Endowment for Democracy and do believe these goals are in the national interest of the United States. Nevertheless, I continue to have concerns about this bizarre structure of the endowment ``family.'' As I mentioned, more than 50 percent of the NED's budget, and some 65 percent of the grants it makes, goes to these so-called core grantees--NDI, IRI, CIPE and the Solidarity Center. Why do these core grantees get that funding year after year? Because at NED's inception, they had the political clout to get permanently ``wired in.'' Whatever the goals of the originators of this strange arrangement, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the core groups necessarily offer programs of such superior quality that they should get this annual bonanza while other independent organizations must vie for funding from the NED's small remaining discretionary fund. Sure--I am quick to say this--the core grantees have conducted some excellent programs and many of them certainly serve important U.S. national interests. I am sure they deserve to get some funding. But why is it they are automatically given 65 percent of grant funds? I have to believe there are other organizations out there that can do the job better on some projects, but they are not even allowed to compete for this majority of the money. In fact, I have the list of some 250 organizations that have satisfied those individuals who review the remaining amounts of funds to the point where these organizations have been granted funds. I must say in fairness, considerable progress has been made over the years in addressing many of the most pressing concerns about the selection and monitoring of NED grants. As the result of several studies conducted by the GAO, the Endowment has addressed many issues and has tightened up its project selection and performance monitoring procedures. I certainly recognize that the NED has made a little bit of progress in reducing the percentage of its grants that are slated for these four grantees. It used to be as high as 80 percent of the total NED budget. The NED has seen its funding attacked in this Chamber in recent years, but each time the Senate has made a clear and sometimes overwhelming decision to preserve that funding. I understand that an appropriations bill which was filed last week zeros out funding for the NED, but I am absolutely confident those funds will be restored because there is no other federally funded organization in America that is, frankly, better connected on Capitol Hill than the National Endowment for Democracy. Today, I am certainly being realistic and trying to be positive and helpful and trying to improve the program. I am not attempting to shut down the NED. Let me repeat, my amendment does not seek to kill the National Endowment for Democracy, nor does it cut the program funding even by one dime. Rather, I seek to reform the strange and unique grantmaking structure that has evolved at NED. Let me describe this amendment one more time. This chart shows, again, the situation before our amendment and under current law. The distribution, the very small portion in green is available to everybody else after these four grantees are guaranteed 65 percent of the grant money. My amendment will decrease the amount in blue gradually over 5 years by a small amount each year to 52 percent in fiscal year 2001, 39 percent in fiscal year 2002, so on until 2004 when there would be no noncompetitive funds made available and the funds would go to the applicants who offer the best proposals. A novel idea: All the money goes to the best applicants. That is a pretty good use of taxpayers' dollars, in my view.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. I will be happy to yield to the chairman.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time I have already consumed be counted against my time that I was allotted under the agreement.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it was my intention to offer the amendment at the conclusion of my remarks. I certainly anticipated the time I used would go against my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, ever since I arrived here in 1993, I have supported initiatives to help restore the public's confidence in government by limiting the influence of special interests over the legislative process. It's a big task, Mr. President and along the way I have offended and even angered some people around here. I have worked to require greater disclosure of the expenses and activities of lobbyists. I pushed to put in place new gift restrictions that stopped Senators and staff from accepting free vacations and fancy dinners from lobbyists as used to be the norm around here. And finally, I have argued that we need to reform the woefully loophole-ridden campaign finance system that we currently live under. Reforming Congress is a crucial issue for me because the electorate has grown to view this institution with cynicism and disdain, and even to fundamentally distrust their own elected representatives. Now Mr. President, a crucial part of the culture of special interest influence that pervades Washington is the revolving door between public service and private employment. But by putting a lock on this revolving door for some period of time, we can send a message that those entering government employment should view public service as an honor and a privilege--not as another wrung on the ladder to personal gain and profit. There are countless instances of former members of Congress who once chaired or served on committees with jurisdiction over particular industries or special interests now lobbying their former colleagues on behalf of those very industries or special interests. Former committee staff directors are using their contacts and knowledge of their former committees to secure lucrative positions in lobbying firms and associations with interests related to those committees. There have been some very interesting studies showing just how regularly the revolving door swings. Of the 91 lawmakers who left Congress at the end of 1994, at least 25 later registered to lobby. A 1995 study of 353 former lawmakers showed that one in four had lobbied for private interests after leaving office. In fact, there were more than 100 former Members of Congress who appear on the lobbying reports filed in August 1997, and that doesn't count Members who left office in 1996, since they could not yet register without violating the current revolving door law. I could go on, Mr. President, and on and on and on. The problem of revolving door lobbying is quite clear. The amendment I am offering today is designed to strengthen the post- employment restrictions on Members of Congress and senior congressional staff that are currently in place. Keep in mind, post-employment restrictions are nothing new. There is currently a one year ban on former members of Congress lobbying the entire Congress as well as a one-year ban on senior congressional staff lobbying the committee or the Member for whom they worked. And by Senate rule, we prohibit all departing Senate staff from lobbying their former employing entity for one year. Members and senior staff are also prohibited from lobbying the executive branch on behalf of a foreign entity for one year. The amendment would double the current restriction and prohibit members of Congress from lobbying the entire Congress for two years. Thus, in most cases, an entire two year Congress will intervene before a former Member can be back lobbying his or her former colleagues. Perhaps the longer period will encourage those who leave the Congress to seek opportunities for future employment outside of the lobbying world. Perhaps it will discourage big business from putting former Members on their payroll right after they leave office. But in any event, this longer ``cooling off period'' will give the public more confidence in the integrity of this body. With respect to staff, the amendment makes some changes as well. Here we are talking only about those staff who make three quarters or more of the salary of a member of Congress. In other words, this amendment would change the post-employment restrictions only on staff making over $102,000 per year. These senior staff work closely with us, at the committee level, or with the leadership, or in our personal offices. This amendment would prohibit these very senior staffers from lobbying the House of Congress in which they work during the same 2-year period as we are prohibited from lobbying the entire Congress. So senior Senate staffers couldn't lobby the Senate and senior House staffers couldn't lobby the House. Now here we have struck a balance, Mr. President. It seems clear to me that the current restrictions which prohibit lobbying contacts only with the former employer, whether Member or committee, are inadequate. High level staffers have contacts and work closely with people throughout the body, not just with the other staff or Members on their committees or in their Member's office. These are people making $102,000 or more. They are highly in demand in the lobbying world, not just for their expertise but for their contacts. If the cooling off period is to mean anything with respect to these senior staff, it must cover more than the individual committee or member of Congress for whom they worked. Some senior staff undoubtedly have contacts with their counterparts in the other body. But their day to day work, and therefore their closest contacts will be in the house of Congress in which they work. So this amendment leaves an outlet for the use of a former staffer's expertise in lobbying the other body. To me, that is a reasonable balance, and not an unreasonable restriction on a staffer's future employment. Now some might argue that we are inhibiting talented individuals from pursuing careers in policy matters on which they have developed substantial expertise. It may be asked why a former high-level staffer on the Senate Subcommittee on Communications of the Senate Commerce Committee cannot accept employment with a telecommunications company? After all, this person has accumulated years of knowledge of our communication laws and technology. Why should this individual be prevented from accepting private sector employment in the communications field ? But my amendment does not bar anyone from seeking private-sector employment. Staffers can take those jobs with the telecommunications company, but what they cannot do is lobby their former colleagues in the house of Congress for which they worked for two years. They can consult, they can advise, they can recommend, but they cannot lobby their former colleagues. I considered an even longer cooling off period for staffers to be barred from lobbying their former employer, be it a member or a committee, but decided that the two year, house of Congress limitation strikes the best balance. Two years is the length of an entire Congress. That period of time should be enough to mitigate to a great extent the special access that the staffer is likely to have because of his or her former position. At the same time, it allows the staffer who is intent on pursuing a lobbying career to concentrate on the other body for two years, and then return to the side of the Capitol in which he or she worked after that period. Mr. President, this amendment is not an attack on the profession of lobbying. The right to petition the government is a fundamental constitutional right. Simply attacking lobbyists does not address the true flaws of our political system. Lobbying is merely an attempt to present the views and concerns of a particular group and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. In fact, lobbyists, whether they are representing public interest groups or Wall Street, can present important information to Members of Congress that may not otherwise be available. I strongly believe that there is no more noble endeavor than to serve in government. But we need to take immediate action to restore the public's confidence in their government, and to rebuild the lost trust between members of Congress and the electorate. This amendment is a strong step in that direction because it addresses a perception that too often rises to the level of reality--that the interests that hire former Members or staffers from the Congress have special access when they lobby the Congress. We need to slow the revolving door to address that perception, and this amendment will do just that. I am pleased that the managers have agreed to accept my amendment and that it has become part of the bill that will go to the President for signature. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wanted to make a few remarks with regard to the FY 2000 Energy and Water Appropriations legislation. First, let me state that I am pleased that this bill takes strides to significantly reduce, in the name of fiscal soundness, appropriations for two programs about which I have been concerned for quite some time--the non-power programs of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the Animas La-Plata project by the Bureau of Reclamation. I intend to support this appropriations bill this year. For the past few Congresses, I have argued that the non-power programs of the TVA should be seriously scrutinized and reduced appropriately. I have introduced legislation which would put TVA on a glidepath toward eliminating federal funding for the non-power programs. The former Senator from Alabama (Mr. Heflin) and I personally met with TVA to discuss this legislation and the appropriate length of time for a federal fund phase-out. In the last two appropriations cycles, I have written to the appropriations committee asking them to reduce TVA non-power appropriations, and in the FY99 appropriations bill the funds for TVA were reduced significantly to a third of the more than $150 million that TVA received when I began raising this issue in the 104th Congress. My voice in the Senate on this issue is echoed by a number of members of the House Appropriations Committee who zeroed out funds for TVA non-power programs in the House- version of the FY99 Energy and Water Appropriations legislation. I am pleased that this resounding call for scrutiny of these programs is leading to real results. In FY99 the TVA received $50 million dollars, with $7 million of that total specifically for the Land Between the Lakes (LBL) Recreation Area. This appropriations legislation virtually eliminates appropriations for TVA non-power programs, retaining only $7 million in flat funding for LBL. The TVA non-power activities for which we have previously provided funds include providing recreational programs, making economic development grants to communities, and promoting public use of TVA land and water resources. I understand the Committee's concerns that the management of the LBL is a federal responsibility. I believe that the Committee has acted appropriately in this matter. In fulfilling this function, which is federal, the Committee has provided resources specifically for LBL but not for the other non-power programs. In the future, Congress needs to evaluate whether other federal land management agencies, such as the Interior Department, might be able to manage this area, but this is the right step at this time. I believe it is appropriate for the Senate to significantly reduce funds for TVA's appropriated programs because there are lingering concerns, brought to light in a 1993 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, that non-power program funds subsidize activities that should be paid for by non-federal interests. In its 1993 report, CBO focused on two programs: the TVA Stewardship Program and the Environmental Research Center, which no longer receives federal funds. Stewardship activities historically received the largest share of TVA's appropriated funds. The funds are used for dam repair and maintenance activities. According to 1995 testimony provided by TVA before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Water Appropriations, when TVA repairs a dam it pays 70%, on average, of repair costs with appropriated dollars and covers the remaining 30% with funds collected from electricity ratepayers. This practice of charging a portion of dam repair costs to the taxpayer, CBO highlighted, amounts to a significant subsidy. If TVA were a private utility, and it made modifications to a dam or performed routine dredging, the ratepayers would pay for all of the costs associated with that activity. I think that removing appropriations for this program largely ends concerns about taxpayer subsidization of the dam repair and maintenance program. I am also pleased that this legislation contains a $1 million reduction from the Budget Request for the Animas La-Plata project. In this bill, the project receives a total of $2 million for FY 2000. As my colleagues know, I have long been active in raising Senate awareness about the financial costs of moving forward with development and construction of the full-scale version of the Animas-La Plata project. I do not want the federal government to proceed with construction of the full-scale project while the Department of the Interior continues its discussion about alternatives to that project. As my colleagues will recall from the debate on an amendment I offered to the FY 98 Energy and Water Appropriations legislation on this matter, the currently authorized Animas-La Plata project is a $754 million dollar water development project planned for southwest Colorado and northwest New Mexico, with federal taxpayers slated to pay more than 65% of the costs. I am glad that we are not proceeding on this project full steam ahead, and I am pleased to see that the Appropriators recognize that on-going alternatives discussions can proceed without a large infusion of new resources. Despite these gains in reducing funds for some questionable programs, the bill contains some shifts in program funding about which I am concerned. Particularly troubling is the reduction in the President's proposed increase in the renewable energy budget. The bill provides $261 million more for the DOE defense activities than requested by the Administration, but reduces the request for solar and renewable energy programs by $92.1 million. I believe that it is important for the federal government to make appropriate investment in solar and renewable technology, particularly in light of our efforts to restructure the electricity system and meet our overall energy efficiency goals. I would hope that we could find a way to shift resources within this legislation to make it possible to fulfill the Administration's request. Overall, Mr. President, I am pleased that this bill can meet our requirements under the budget caps by reducing unnecessary spending. I yield the floor.