Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object, I assume it is the intent of the Senator that if we do not work it out, there will be no problem getting a rollcall vote.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate that. I reserve a few moments of my time because the response to this will affect my argument. The only real objection to this is primarily to the role of the GAO in this process. The only other objection was raised by the Senator from Missouri who made much of the fact that of course there is a difference between the E and F plane. The problem is that originally the Navy and the contractor sold this plane on the assumption that only 18 percent of the planes would be the ``F'' version. The reality now is that 56 percent of the planes are going to be the lower-performing ``F'' version. That is why it is essential that we have this certification, at least by the Navy, that in fact a majority of the planes will meet the performance parameters. So I am very interested to see if the Senators here who have raised this concern will allow me to meet their concerns so we can pass this commonsense amendment which, as the Senator from Michigan indicated, without that flaw would be a worthwhile amendment. With regard to the other amendment, the cost containment amendment, let me just make a couple of points in response to the Senator from Michigan. I do want to say he has been a tremendous advocate for appropriate cost containment and careful evaluation of military programs throughout his career. First of all, regarding our cap that we propose, which of course is a figure the Navy proposed in the first place, that $8.8 billion is only for over a 4-year period. It is not a permanent cap. Second, if there is a need for new technologies, as has been posited by the Senator from Michigan, if something comes up that absolutely has to be done--we are here. We are not going anywhere. If something dramatic happens that requires additional technology, we are in a position to respond to that. In fact, the amendment I have proposed allows a number of flexibilities. It is not an absolute $8.8 billion cap. It allows cost increases and decreases for inflation. It allows changes for compliance in Federal, State, and local law, and it also contemplates the possibility of quantity changes in the number of planes within the scope of the multiyear contract, which we all know can dramatically affect the cost of a plane. There is substantial flexibility built into this amendment, and if there is a need for the new technology, we are here and able to respond to that. Otherwise, all we are doing, as I indicated earlier, by including this language for new technology, we are essentially gutting our own amendment. We are removing the cost cap provision in our amendment. How many people would do that? If you are buying a car, if a car manufacturer says: Well, we reserve the right, if we come up with a new thing to put on this car, to charge you a couple more thousand bucks after we cut the contract, after we cut the deal. I do not think we should be doing business that way. We have built flexibility into this amendment. Again, I indicate that all this is is the Navy's own figure of $8.8 billion. We did a similar cost cap on the same plane previously. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator from Michigan advise me of the appropriate time to raise that unanimous-consent request?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will provide the Senate with a copy of the amendment as I would modify it and simply delete the section relating to the Comptroller General.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield myself the time required at this point. Let me say exactly what this amendment does rather than rely on the characterization that was given. This appears to be something of a sleight-of-hand with regard to proving that this plane actually meets the performance parameters it is supposed to meet. There are two versions of the Super Hornet aircraft, a one-seat E model and another that has been proven to be less capable, a two-seat F model. The Navy now states that 56 percent of the Super Hornet will be F models, but they are trying to rely on the performance of the E model to determine compliance with performance parameters. The amendment simply requires that the version of the Super Hornet aircraft that represents the majority--the majority--of the Navy's purchasing plan has to satisfy all the key performance parameters in the program Operational Requirements Documents. That is what this amendment does. For this to be characterized as an additional hurdle, as has been done by the Senator from Pennsylvania, is simply not accurate. It simply says that the flight test data used by the Navy, represent the version of the plane they intend to purchase. All we are trying to do is to be sure that the information we are getting and that the assumptions are based on the planes that are actually being purchased and that they actually do what they said they would do. That is not an additional step. That is just somebody buying something, making sure they are actually getting what they contracted for. Shouldn't we, as the guardians of the taxpayers' dollars, be sure we are getting what we contracted for? How can that be an additional hurdle, unless we want to allow the contractor to give us something we didn't want and, in fact, paid a fortune for? The Senator from Pennsylvania reasonably asked whether or not there is a problem with the GAO having a limited time to make their certification. I am happy to enter into an agreement for a time limit for the GAO, with the Senator's indication that he would regard that as a reasonable change. That is not a problem that was intended, and we can solve that quite simply. This is an incredibly expensive program. Hopefully, this plane, if it goes through, will work as well as has been advertised. Hopefully, it will not cause problems for our pilots, although there are those who are concerned about that. All this amendment does is say that when we make the decision to move to the next phase, it is actually based on the plane we are buying. Any household in America would use that much caution when buying something. We talked a lot as we brought down the deficit, on a bipartisan basis, about doing things like American families have to do. Don't we have a responsibility to make sure we are getting the plane we are paying for? We are not paying for it, the taxpayers are paying for it, and they will pay $45 billion for it. It ought to be the plane that we are supposed to get. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time remains?

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask to be informed by the Chair at a point when I have consumed 15 minutes of my time. Amendment No. 443 (Purpose: To limit the total cost of the F/A-18 E/F aircraft program.)

Mr. FEINGOLD. I want to clarify, the votes would still all be stacked at the end of that period; is that correct?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I have no objection, Mr. President.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I would like 15 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. That is pretty tough, but I will agree to it and proceed accordingly.

Mr. FEINGOLD. That would be difficult. We started off with 45 minutes and we are going down. It is a very complicated issue.

Mr. FEINGOLD. The first amendment is the so-called cost cap amendment which I ask for a total of 30 minutes on my side; the other is the amendment having to do with contract specifications, and we only need 15 minutes on my side.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I do. In terms of time on my side for the presentation, 30 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I have two amendments. It is perfectly acceptable to have the votes stacked after they are presented. The only issue is the time agreement.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, had I been present for the vote on the Landrieu-Specter amendment No. 384 to the FY 2000 Defense Authorization, S. 1059, bill regarding the need for vigorous prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the former Yugoslavia, I would have voted in favor of the amendment. My vote would not have changed the outcome of the vote on the amendment which passed by a vote of 90-0. I was unable to reach the Capitol in time for the vote because of air travel delays due to weather conditions. I am disappointed that, though I and other Members notified the Senate leadership about our travel difficulties hours before the vote began, they were unwilling to reschedule the time of the vote.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania for what he is trying to do with his amendment, to protect the prerogatives of the Senate and the requirements of the War Powers Resolution with respect to the actions of our armed services abroad. Although I understand it may be modified, I think I will be able to support this amendment. I share the Senator's commitment to protecting the war powers granted to the Congress by the Founding Fathers and reaffirmed in the War Powers Resolution. That said, I hope that, should this amendment be adopted, the conferees will make an effort to better define the term ``peacekeeping,'' for which the Senator has made an exception in his amendment. I believe that all military deployments, subject to the exceptions laid out in the War Powers Resolution including peacekeeping operations, should receive authorization of the Congress. And, since there currently is no peace to keep in Kosovo--and in fact NATO continues air strikes to this day--I hope that the Congress will define the parameters of such an exception more specifically. Mr. President, today is May 25, 1999, and in the context of the Senator's amendment I want to take the opportunity to remind the Senate of the significance of today's date. Exactly 62 days ago, U.S. forces, as part of a NATO force, began air strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Today marks the expiration of the 60-day time period after which the President--under the provisions of the War Powers Resolution--is required to withdraw our Armed Forces from their participation in the air strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Exactly 60 days ago--48 hours after the air strikes began--the President was required under section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution to submit a detailed report to the Congress regarding the actions he ordered our troops to take. No such report has been submitted. Rather, the Congress was notified of the U.S. participation in the NATO air strikes by a letter from the President that he says is--``consistent''--with the War Powers Resolution.'' ``Consistent'' or not, I do not believe that the President's letter satisfies the requirements of the War Powers Resolution. Nevertheless, in my view, the War Powers Resolution stands as the law of the land, and the President should comply with it. So it follows, then, that if the President fails to withdraw our troops by midnight tonight--and of course it is clear that they will remain in the region long after the clock strikes twelve--the President will be in violation of the provisions of the War Powers Resolution. I find it disturbing that this important date of May 25 will come and go with no action to remove our troops from the region. Indeed, I am afraid that this Congress is ignoring the significance of this date completely. In fact, I am not sure that the significance of this date has been noted by any of my colleagues during debate on this Specter amendment. The War Powers Resolution provides that the President shall terminate the use of our Armed Forces for the purpose outlined in the report required under section 4(a)(1) of the Act after 60 days unless one of the three things has happened: The Congress has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for the use of the military; the Congress has extended by law the 60- day time period; or the President is not able to withdraw the forces because of an armed attack against the United States. In addition, the President may extend this time period by 30-days if he certifies in writing to the Congress that it is unsafe to withdraw the forces at the end of the 60 days. Sixty days have come and gone, Mr. President, and none of these things has happened. The Congress has not declared war, nor has it authorized this action. The Congress has not extended the 60-day time period. The United States has not been attacked. The President has not certified in writing to the Congress that an additional 30 days are necessary to ensure the safe withdrawal of our troops. As my colleagues know, I voted against the ongoing NATO air strikes against the FRY, and I am deeply troubled that U.S. participation in them continues despite the fact that Congress was divided on whether to authorize them. In addition, the resolution which this body adopted and on which the other body deadlocked was not a joint resolution that would have authorized the military action, by law. No, Mr. President, S. Con. Res. 21 is a sense-of-the-Congress resolution that does not carry the force of law. The Senate also considered a joint resolution offered by the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] which, if adopted by both Houses of Congress, would have given the President the specific statutory authorization required under the War Powers Resolution to continue the use of our Armed Forces in the action against the FRY. In fact, Mr. President, that sweeping resolution would have allowed the President to expand this participation as he saw fit. While I opposed this resolution, I am pleased that the Senate debated it and voted on it as we unequivocally were obliged to do under the War Powers Resolution. I am afraid that the debate and votes on the participation of the United States in Kosovo both here in the Senate, as well as in the other body, reflect the fact that there is no consensus in the Congress or in the country with regard to what we have already done in Kosovo, let alone a consensus on whether to expand the U.S. mission there. Sixty days have come and gone since the President failed to submit the required report regarding U.S. participation in the air strikes against the FRY. Despite this regrettable inaction, the War Powers Resolution clock began to tick 48 hours after the first bombs fell--the date on which the President's report under section 4(a)(1) of the Act was required to have been submitted. That's right, Mr. President, the clock begins to tick whether the President fulfills his obligation to submit the report or not. The vitality of the War Powers Resolution is unmistakable because that law states that the troops must be removed ``. . . within 60 calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1). . . .'' unless one of the actions I mentioned earlier has occurred. As the clock draws closer to midnight today, the sixtieth day, our troops are performing admirably under hostile conditions. But time has almost run out on the President to fulfil this legal obligations under the War Powers Resolution. Despite the fact that many in Congress oppose the current air campaign, and despite the fact that our troops will soon be participating in this campaign in violation of the War Power Resolution, members of this body last week adopted a massive spending package in support of a military action that many of them oppose. I support fully our efforts to give our men and women in the field everything they need to maximize their chances of success and to minimize the risks they face. Still, I voted against that package, both because of my continuing concern over our unauthorized military involvement in the FRY and because of the non-emergency spending that was jammed into the so- called emergency bill. So we are not at a critical juncture, Mr. President. The Congress has voted to fund a military mission that it has not authorized, and the President has signed this bill even though he knows, as we know, that the continued participation of our troops in this mission is in violation of the War Powers Resolution. One way or the other, consistent with the safety of our troops, it is time for the President to comply with the War Powers Resolution by seeking--and gaining--the legal authorization of Congress to continue this war, or by withdrawing our forces.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden. I would like to take this moment to highlight one element of Senator Biden's amendment, the extension and expansion of the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program. I have heard one consistent theme throughout the debate on this juvenile justice bill: a desire to stop, once and for all, the senseless schoolhouse shootings like those that occurred in Littleton, Jonesboro and Paducah. There is a growing sense among Americans that we are no longer safe in our homes, in our schools, in our communities. But while we have heard sharply disparate views about issues like gun control and content of video games in the debate so far, one sure way to reduce crime and restore peace of mind is through community oriented policing. As you are aware, the COPS Program was established in 1994 to put more police officers on the streets and to encourage police interaction with the communities in which they work. This program is 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. 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, COPS has funded over 1,100 new officers and contributed more than $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. Let me illustrate the strong causal relationship between community oriented policing and a reduction in the crime rate. I would like to share with you the story of Chief Jeff Lieberman of Fountain City, Wisconsin. Chief Lieberman polices a small town with big city crime problems. Chief Lieberman moved to Fountain City in 1992 and was faced with an alarming juvenile crime rate. What could he do to decrease the juvenile crime rate? While jails were being built and sentences were being stiffened, Chief Lieberman reached out to the community. He embarked upon a crusade to visit classrooms and teach children about law enforcement and safety. To allow the children to relate to him as they would to any other person and feel comfortable talking to him, he would sometimes dress in shorts and bring his dog to class. Not only has he won their respect, the children now show greater respect for their community. This success is reflected by the fact that during his tenure, he has reduced the juvenile crime rate by an astonishing 99%. Chief Lieberman has earned a reputation in the community as a caring and compassionate citizen, as well as an outstanding law enforcement officer. I might add that Chief Lieberman was recently recognized for his effective community oriented policing by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund as the March 1999 Officer of the Month. I do not believe the answer to the tragedies in Littleton, Jonesboro and Paducah is one extreme or the other--a ban on all guns or censorship of the entertainment industry. The answer is to educate our young people, nurture them, protect them and give them thousands more ``Chief Liebermans'' across this country. Senator Biden's bill does just that. It provides for expanding the much-lauded COPS Program to ensure that we have 30,000 to 50,000 ``Chief Liebermans'' in schools, towns and cities across, not only Wisconsin, but the entire 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 in touch with their communities. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to S. 254, the Juvenile Justice Bill. I oppose this bill because it does far more harm than good to the fundamental interests of our nation's children. The bill fails to do what the Littleton tragedy screams out loudly and clearly we should do: strive to prevent future schoolhouse tragedies and all juvenile violence. The bill is long on prosecution and detention but short on prevention. During debate on this bill, I was glad to see that some of my concerns were resolved. After a contentious debate, the Senate finally closed the gun show loophole. The Lautenberg-Kerrey amendment is a sensible regulation on the sale of guns at gun shows. It does not prevent law-abiding citizens from selling and buying guns at gun shows. The Senate's debate on guns in the last week had what I believe to be a sensible outcome. But I do want to point out one thing about the debate we have had on various amendments to this bill dealing with the topic of gun control. Obviously, there are very strong feelings about gun-related amendments on both sides, and the issues are complex. But the vast majority of campaign contributions from groups interested in these amendments to the Senators who are voting on them is coming from one side. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association, gave over $9 million to candidates, PACs, and parties from 1991 to 1998. The NRA gave $1.6 million in PAC contributions to federal candidates last year. Handgun Control, Inc. gave a total of $146,000. With respect to Senator Lautenberg's amendment to close the gun show loophole last week, the Center found that those who voted against that amendment had received an average of over $10,478 from gun rights groups, while those who voted for it averaged only $297. I say this not to cast aspersions on any Senator's vote, but because I think the public record of our debate on these issues would be incomplete without this information. There have been other improvements made in the bill as a result of the debate here on the floor and negotiations among Senators and the Managers. The final bill now reasonably protects the privacy of juvenile offender records. The amendment to ensure the separation of children from adult prisoners in mixed prison settings also was adopted. This good work, however, is not enough to undo the harm that this bill will do to our nation's children. We have strong evidence that prevention reduces crime. According to the Children's Defense Fund, in the first year after the Baltimore Police Department opened an after-school program in a high-crime area, crime in that neighborhood dropped 42%. Cincinnati's crime rate dropped 24% since it instituted violence prevention, education, social and recreation programs. And in Fort Worth, Texas, gang-related crime dropped by 26% as a result of a gang reduction program. Now, the Hatch-Biden amendment takes us part of the way there by allowing 25% of funding for juvenile block grants to be allocated to prevention efforts. But frankly, that's not enough. We need to do more. Our children's future demands that we do more. The Juvenile Justice bill emphasizes detention and intervention after juveniles have already gotten into trouble. The bill, however, does not provide sensible, adequate funding for prevention programs. Programs that will help to ensure that kids will not turn to crime and violence and will never have to experience handcuffs slapped on their wrists or the inside of a detention center. This bill also deeply troubles me because it will put a halt to efforts to reduce discrimination in our juvenile justice system. The bill ignores reality: we are throwing African-American kids into jails at a higher rate than white kids who commit the exact same offense. This phenomenon is called disproportionate minority confinement. Our Nation has come a long way toward achieving racial harmony and equality, but we still have a long way to go. In nearly every state, children of minority racial and ethnic backgrounds are over-represented at every stage of the juvenile justice system and receive harsher treatment by the system. A California study has shown that black youths consistently receive harsher punishment and are more likely to receive jail time than white youths convicted of the same offenses. Current law requires states to identify disproportionate minority confinement in their states, to analyze why it exists and to develop strategies to address the causes of disproportionate minority confinement. The law does not require and has never resulted in the release of juveniles. Nor does the law provide for quotas. And no state's funding under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act has ever been reduced as a result of non-compliance. In fact, the current law has been very effective. Forty states are implementing or developing intervention plans to address disproportionate minority confinement. This bill will bring to a halt this good work conducted by the states. These states have just begun to address the disturbing reality of disproportionate minority confinement. But under this Juvenile Justice bill, the law enforcement community will no longer be required to address the problem of discriminatory treatment of minority juvenile offenders. This is outrageous. I am outraged, and this body should be outraged, that we are punishing black kids more harshly than white kids for the exact same offenses. The debate on this issue illustrated how much more work we still need to do on civil rights. Many of my colleagues would have you believe that there is no longer a race problem in this country. I beg to differ. To those colleagues, I ask you to look around this chamber and identify for me the Senator of African descent. You cannot because there is not one. I am troubled that on this and other important civil rights issues, we do not have a member of the African-American community as one of our colleagues. I cannot help but think that our debate would have been better informed if we had the voice of an African-American Senator speaking at one of our podiums. I cannot help but think that the vote on the Wellstone-Kennedy amendment would have had a different outcome if we had the vote of an African-American Senator cast on this floor. We have come a long way toward ridding our nation of discrimination against African Americans and other minorities. But we need to keep forging ahead for the good of our children and the future of our country. Let us not turn back the clock. The bill also does more harm than good by shifting the burden to the child to show why he or she should be tried in a juvenile court, not as an adult. Under current law, federal judges, not prosecutors, decide whether a child will be tried as an adult after a full hearing. If the prosecutor believes that a child should be charged as an adult, the prosecutor goes to court and puts on evidence to establish why the child should be tried as an adult. This is called a ``waiver'' hearing. The prosecutor must show reason for the judge to waive the child into adult court. Now, under the Juvenile Justice bill, the prosecutor would be able to charge children as young as 14 as adults if they have allegedly committed a felony. The child--not the prosecutor--would request a hearing to prove to the judge that he or should be treated as a child. There is great wisdom in the current law. The decision to prosecute a child as an adult is a serious one that will profoundly impact that child's life and the sentence that will follow conviction. It is better to leave that decision to an impartial judge, not the prosecutor. Finally, I must cast my vote against this bill because it creates yet another federal death penalty. The Senate unfortunately passed the Hatch-Feinstein amendment, which will allow imposition of the death penalty against persons who cause the death of another person during an act of animal enterprise terrorism. I have been, and continue to be, a strong, steadfast opponent of the death penalty. In my view, the death penalty is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. And it is morally wrong for a civilized society to continue to impose this penalty. We should lock up offenders for life, but we should not take their lives. In sum, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to heed the advice of skilled professionals who work with our youth every day. Organizations like the Children's Defense Fund, the Youth Law Center, the National Network for Youth have expressed their serious opposition to the bill. These organizations represent the thousands of people who are conducting effective after-school programs, providing counseling to troubled youth and other necessary services to our children at risk. In other words, these organizations are the experts. The experts believe that, although the bill is much improved over last year's juvenile justice bill and corrects some problems in the original bill as it came to the floor last week, the final bill is still a regressive solution to juvenile crime. Let us put aside our partisanship for the sake of our children's and our Nation's future. I must oppose this juvenile justice bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I supported Senator Gramm's point of order because, while some of the spending programs in this bill may have merit, they should not be funded by Social Security Trust Fund balances. The point of order would not prevent these programs from being funded, but would force Congress to find adequate offsetting spending cuts to pay for those programs, or those spending cuts would be imposed automatically at the end of the fiscal year.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. President, I rise to offer some comments on the emergency spending bill we have before us. Many of us had hoped that the almost grotesque experience of last year's omnibus appropriations bill might have shamed Congress into refraining from the kind of fiscally irresponsible spending and catering to special interests that characterized that legislation. Apparently, it was a vain hope. We are back at the same disgraceful work barely seven months later. Mr. President, few would argue the need for many of the core provisions of the legislation, especially the urgently needed humanitarian relief in Central America, our current military and humanitarian operations in the Balkans, and for victims of natural disasters here at home. Regrettably, those legitimate provisions are completely eclipsed by dozens of others that are at best highly questionable and at worst grossly irresponsible. Mr. President, first and foremost among this latter group are the billions in additional funding for the military that was not requested by the administration. Mr. President, to say there is a double standard when it comes to fiscal prudence in Congress is to say the ocean is damp. We saw it last year in the omnibus appropriations bill, we saw it again when this body took up and passed an unfunded military pay and retirement increase even before we had passed a budget resolution, we saw it still again during the budget resolution when military spending received a special exemption from the tough new emergency spending rules we adopted, and sadly, we see it now in this bill. As has been noted by others, including my distinguished colleague from the other House, Wisconsin Representative David Obey, what we are probably witnessing is an effort to load as much military spending into this bill under the pretext of an emergency in order to make room for special interest military spending provisions in the Defense appropriations bill later this summer. Mr. President, put simply, this emergency supplemental measure uses Social Security Trust Fund revenues to help lard up an already corpulent defense budget. Almost as troubling as this reckless use of Social Security revenues to pay for the military budget is that this technique isn't an exception. It has become the custom. Mr. President, our budget caps have become a sham. We agree to those tough caps with great acclaim and fanfare, only to circumvent them casually on a regular basis with the emergency provisions of our budget rules. Mr. President, as much as I oppose raising the budget caps, it would be far better if Congress and the White House were to raise those caps in an honest and open manner, than to continue the pretense that the caps have meaning only to circumvent them through the abuse--I say ``abuse''--of the emergency funding designation. Mr. President, while the doubling of the military budget request is certainly the dominant flaw in this bill, there are other provisions that deserve notice as well. They represent what is most unseemly about the emergency appropriations process--special interest provisions that relate to no true emergency, but avoid the scrutiny of the normal legislative process and instead capitalize on human suffering or an international crisis, finding their way onto what we have come to call must-pass bills. Mr. President, let me note that it may be that some of these extraneous provisions have merit. But they should be subject to the same fiscal scrutiny we ask of any proposal. They should be paid for. The standing committees should review and authorize these proposals, and the Appropriations Committee should propose a level of funding for each of them that makes sense in the context of the overall budget. Mr. President, by circumventing this process, the advocates of these provisions reveal their distrust of Congress and possibly their own apprehension that their provisions may not be able to gain passage on their merits. One such provision is the so-called Russian Leadership Program, a new program, Mr. President, newly authorized by this legislation which also provides it with $10 million in funding. I understand the program is intended to enable emerging political leaders of Russia to live here in the United States for a while to gain firsthand exposure to our country, our free market system, our democratic institutions, and other aspects of our government and day-to-day lives. Mr. President, offhand, that doesn't sound like it is necessarily a bad idea. I might be able to support such a program, though I would certainly want to know something more about it before endorsing still another new democracy building effort. But, Mr. President, this proposal has not gone through the normal legislative process. It has not been held up to the scrutiny of a public review by the appropriate committees. Mr. President, if one were asked where the new Russian Leadership Program were to be housed, one might reasonably guess somewhere in the State Department, perhaps in USAID. Those a bit more familiar with the array of duplicate programs we have might stroke their chin wisely and suggest that it would probably be included in the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-governmental agency that many of us believe duplicates services provided elsewhere in government. But, Mr. President, if you guessed the State Department, or NED, you would be wrong. For the next year, this new Russian Leadership Program is to be housed in the Library of Congress. The Library of Congress, Mr. President. Mr. President, as some may know, we already have numerous educational and other exchange programs with Russia. Agencies and Departments which have received funding from the Congress for exchange programs with Russia include, but are not limited to: the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Education, Justice, State, and Treasury; the Agency for International Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Federal Trade Commission, the Marine Mammal Commission, the National Aeronautics and Space Commission, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for Democracy, the National Science Foundation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Peace Corps. Mr. President, I appreciate the tremendous impact that educational cultural exchanges have had on our relationship with Russia. I have to wonder if we really need to create still another exchange program. Even if we determine that the program has great merit, I think serious questions can be raised about whether this ought to be administered by the Library of Congress. It doesn't end there. According to the authorizing language in this legislation, the Librarian of Congress is given authority to waive any competitive bidding when entering into contracts to carry out this program. In other words, this program is effectively shielded from any expertise or efficiencies that might be brought to bear by existing firms or nongovernmental agencies with experience in this area. There we have it: In this bill, a brand-new program that has completely avoided the review of the appropriate standing committees established in an agency, that is wholly inappropriate, with virtually no restrictions on its administration. This is a heck of a way to legislate. Of course, this is just one example, one of dozens of extraneous provisions that have been slipped into this emergency supplemental bill. I am not talking about a lot of different bills; it is just what is going on in this bill. As others have noted, these unrelated riders have become business as usual. This is especially true with respect to antienvironmental policy. This is not the first time I have expressed concerns regarding legislative riders in appropriations legislation that would have a negative impact on our Nation's environment. I am sorry to say with respect to one of these policies, the delaying of the implementation of new mining regulations, this is not even the first time such a rider has been inserted into an appropriations bill. The merits of this policy, this very important policy relating to mining, should be debated at length on another occasion. I do want to note that the rules that safeguard our public lands with respect to mining badly need updating, if only to keep pace with the changing mining technology. One such technique, the use of sulfuric acid mining, caused grave concern 2 years ago in my own State when it was appropriated for use in private lands in the neighboring Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Regulations also need to take into account other land uses that would be displaced by mining, and they need to do more to require meaningful cleanup. Currently, there is no requirement to restore mine lands to premining conditions. This leaves taxpayers holding the bag for the mining industry's mistakes. Obviously, this kind of a change requires a full, careful, and open debate. It just can't get the kind of attention it needs when it is quietly slipped into an emergency supplemental appropriations bill that we are only going to debate for 3 hours. Of course, that is precisely the reason the advocates of the rider have done it this way. They see their opportunity. They don't want a full and careful and open debate-- special interests that push this policy know it will do them best and they will get it done best behind closed doors, away from the light of open debate. In this connection, I think my colleagues should be aware that the PACs associated with the members of the National Mining Association and other mining-related PACs contributed more than $29 million to congressional campaigns from January 1993 to December 1998. Mining soft money contributions totaled $10.6 million during the same 6-year period. Mr. President, that is nearly $40 million in campaign contributions in recent years from an industry that stands to benefit from this rider that has been stuffed in this bill which we are only going to debate for 3 hours. And so it is with too many of these provisions. It should come as no surprise that a process characterized by secret negotiations and backroom deals should be dominated by special interests and produce such questionable policy. These interests have succeeded in presenting Congress with a take-it- or-leave-it deal, and they are betting we will acquiesce for fear of delaying the true emergency assistance that I and everyone else have said is truly urgently needed. Of course, I realize this measure is likely to pass. I hope it does not. But I cannot endorse this package or the process that brought it to the floor by voting for it. I ask my colleagues to consider calling the bluff of the interests that have succeeded in loading this bill up with extraneous matters that could never command a majority in Congress on their own. If we can defeat this measure and insist on a clean, true emergency bill, we just might be able to shame those who have participated in crafting it and maybe even prevent this kind of abuse in the future. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask for 15 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank you and especially thank the Senator from Minnesota for yielding me the time, but especially for his tremendous leadership on this issue, as well as Senator Kennedy. This amendment merely preserves the status quo with respect to the disproportionate minority confinement core requirement of the juvenile justice deliquency prevention formula grants. Disproportionate minority confinement is a serious problem in many of our States, and has been for quite some time. Just as an example, in Pennsylvania, studies in the late 1980s showed that while minorities constituted only 12 percent of the juvenile population, they represented 27 percent of juveniles arrested and 48 percent of juveniles charged in court. In 1995, in Ohio, minorities comprised 14 percent of the state's juvenile population, but 30 percent of those arrested and 43 percent of those placed in secure correctional institutions. And currently, nationwide, although African Americans constitute only 15 percent of the U.S. population of juveniles, they account for 26 percent of juvenile arrests, 46 percent of juveniles in secure corrections facilities, and 52 percent of juveniles transferred to adult criminal court after judicial hearings. A study in California showed that minority youths consistently receive more severe sentences than white youths and are more likely than white youths to be committed to State institutions for the same offenses. And here is another disturbing statistic: nationwide, African American males are 30 times--30 times--more likely to be detained in State juvenile facilities for drug offenses than white males. In Baltimore, African American males are roughly 100 times more likely to be arrested for drug offenses than white males. These statistics are repeated across the country. I sincerely hope that this is a problem that everyone in this body is concerned about. And it is not just unfairness or discrimination in the juvenile system that should concern us. Because juvenile confinement often is the first step toward a lifetime of going through a revolving door between prison and freedom. Confinement has devastating effects on families as well, and provides tragic role models for even younger children. We ought to be doing what we can to address these disparities. The DMC core requirement is not a panacea, but it has been working well in directing attention and resources at this problem. It does not and I repeat, it does not--require quotas in detention facilities or direct the release of any juvenile from custody. It simply requires States to develop plans to address the problem. Since 1992, our States have been required to address DMC in their State plans. Some 40 states have completed the assessment phase and are implementing plans to try to address whatever problems they have identified. They are working on creative approaches, programs of education and vocational training, tutoring, dropout prevention, truancy intervention, and other efforts to keep at risk children in school. And States have been developing alternatives to incarceration for nonserious, nonviolent offenses. All of these things, developed at the state and local level, are positive efforts to address a serious social problem. We should be encouraging them, not undermining them by eliminating this core requirement, as the bill would do. Mr. President, this is well worth the effort on this floor. Again, I strongly commend Senators Wellstone and Kennedy for offering this amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.