Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today as an original cosponsor of the Hmong Veterans Naturalization Act of 1999. I commend the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] and our colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Vento, for their commitment to this important issue. I honor the service of the Lao and Hmong veterans to the United States, and appreciate the great personal risk they faced when they chose to help this country. I am pleased that many of them have chosen to make the United States, and my home state of Wisconsin, their adopted homeland. In my view, Mr. President, this bill, which would expedite the naturalization process for 45,000 Lao and Hmong veterans and their spouses, is the least we can for the help repay the huge debt we owe these brave individuals. I have had the opportunity to meet many Lao and Hmong veterans and their families as I travel throughout Wisconsin. I am struck by the profound importance they place on becoming citizens of the United States. This bill would help them reach that goal.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) as an original co-sponsor of legislation to designate 9.1 million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in Utah as wilderness. Though this is the second time this particular measure has been introduced in this body, this year's legislation has been substantially revised. As the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) has already described, these revisions have been made on the basis of a citizen-led re-inventory of the wilderness quality lands that remain on BLM lands in Utah. During the April recess I had an opportunity to travel to Utah. I viewed firsthand some of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes outside of the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness unit contained in this proposal, and inside the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I support this legislation, for a few reasons, Mr. President, but most of all because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the BLM lands of Southern Utah. Second, Mr. President, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the broadest and boldest mark for the lands that should be protected in Southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill encompases all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the Senate has not, as we do today, always had the benefit of considering wilderness designations for all of the deserving lands in Southern Utah. During the 104th Congress, I joined with the former Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Bradley) in opposing that Congress' Omnibus Parks legislation. It contained provisions, which were eventually removed, that many in my home state of Wisconsin believed not only designated as wilderness too little of the Bureau of Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such protection, but also substantively changed the protections afforded designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964. The lands of Southern Utah are very special to the people of Wisconsin. In writing to me last Congress, my constituents described these lands as places of solitude, special family moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of the Capital Times, a paper in Madison, WI, wrote: Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin include some of the last of our country's wilderness which is not fully protected. We must ask our elected officials to redress this circumstance, by enacting legislation which would protect those national lands within the boundaries of Utah. This wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a legacy we can be forever proud to bestow to our children. Some may say, Mr. President, that this legislation is unnecessary and Utah already has the ``monument'' that Wallace Stegner wrote about, designated by President Clinton on September 18, 1997. However, it is important to note, the land of the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument comprises only about one tenth of the lands that will be granted wilderness protection under this bill. I supported the President's actions to designate the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument. On September 17, 1997, amid reports of the pending designation, I wrote a letter to President Clinton to support that action which was co-signed by six other members of the Senate. That letter concluded with the following statement ``We remain interested in working with the Administration on appropriate legislation to evaluate and protect the full extent of public lands in Utah that meet the criteria of the 1964 Wilderness Act.'' I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish that goal. Identical in its designations to legislation sponsored in the other body by Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York, it is the culmination of more than 15 years and four Congresses of effort in the other body beginning with the legislative work of the former Congressman from Utah (Mr. Owens). The measure protects wild lands that really are not done justice by any description in words. In my trip I found widely varied and distinct terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff walls, desert, canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great Basin. The lands also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and stark areas like the new National Monument. These regions appeal to all types of American outdoor interests from hikers and sightseers to hunters. Phil Haslanger of the Capital Times, answered an important question I am often asked when people want to know why a Senator from Wisconsin would co-sponsor legislation to protect lands in Utah. He wrote on September 13, 1995 simply that ``These are not scenes that you could see in Wisconsin. That's part of what makes them special.'' He continues, and adds what I think is an even more important reason to act to protect these lands than the landscape's uniqueness, ``the fight over wilderness lands in Utah is a test case of sorts. The anti- environmental factions in Congress are trying hard to remove restrictions on development in some of the nation's most splendid areas.'' Wisconsinites are watching this test case closely. I believe, Mr. President, that Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save Utah's lands as a sign of where the nation is headed with respect to its stewardship of natural resources. For example, some in my home state believe that among federal lands that comprise the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore and the Nicolet and Chequamegon National Forests there are lands that are deserving of wilderness protection. These federal properties are incredibly important, and they mean a great deal to the people of Wisconsin. Wisconsinites want to know that, should additional lands in Wisconsin be brought forward for wilderness designation, the type of protection they expect from federal law is still available to be extended because it had been properly extended to other places of national significance. What Haslanger's Capital Times comments make clear is that while some in Congress may express concern about creating new wilderness in Utah, wilderness, as Wisconsinites know, is not created by legislation. Legislation to protect existing wilderness insures that future generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that which is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands by extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will publicly codify that expectation and promise. Third, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the federal government for the people of the United States. Thus, while they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to the citizens of Wisconsin as it is for other Americans. Finally, I support this bill because I believe that there will likely be action during this Congress to develop consensus legislation to protect the lands contained in this proposal. We all need to be involved in helping to forge that consensus in order to ensure the best stewardship of that land. As many in this body know, the BLM has completed a review of the lands designated in the bill sponsored in the last Congress by the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and adjacent areas. BLM has found that 5.8 million acres of lands, slightly more than the acreage of the old bill, meet the criteria for wilderness protection under the Wilderness Act. While the re-inventory is not a formal recommendation to Congress for wilderness designation, it suggests that there are and should be more lands in play as the debate over wilderness protection in Utah moves forward. I am also watching closely the on-going dialogue between Governor Leavitt and Secretary Babbitt regarding possible wilderness protection for some of the West Desert lands that are contained in this legislation, and the formal Section 202 process in which the BLM will be engaged in Utah. I hope that the leaders of those efforts will look to this legislation as a guide in identifying the areas that need to be protected as wilderness. I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) to protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) as an original co-sponsor of legislation to designate 9.1 million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in Utah as wilderness. Though this is the second time this particular measure has been introduced in this body, this year's legislation has been substantially revised. As the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) has already described, these revisions have been made on the basis of a citizen-led re-inventory of the wilderness quality lands that remain on BLM lands in Utah. During the April recess I had an opportunity to travel to Utah. I viewed firsthand some of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes outside of the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness unit contained in this proposal, and inside the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I support this legislation, for a few reasons, Mr. President, but most of all because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the BLM lands of Southern Utah. Second, Mr. President, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the broadest and boldest mark for the lands that should be protected in Southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill encompases all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the Senate has not, as we do today, always had the benefit of considering wilderness designations for all of the deserving lands in Southern Utah. During the 104th Congress, I joined with the former Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Bradley) in opposing that Congress' Omnibus Parks legislation. It contained provisions, which were eventually removed, that many in my home state of Wisconsin believed not only designated as wilderness too little of the Bureau of Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such protection, but also substantively changed the protections afforded designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964. The lands of Southern Utah are very special to the people of Wisconsin. In writing to me last Congress, my constituents described these lands as places of solitude, special family moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of the Capital Times, a paper in Madison, WI, wrote: Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin include some of the last of our country's wilderness which is not fully protected. We must ask our elected officials to redress this circumstance, by enacting legislation which would protect those national lands within the boundaries of Utah. This wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a legacy we can be forever proud to bestow to our children. Some may say, Mr. President, that this legislation is unnecessary and Utah already has the ``monument'' that Wallace Stegner wrote about, designated by President Clinton on September 18, 1997. However, it is important to note, the land of the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument comprises only about one tenth of the lands that will be granted wilderness protection under this bill. I supported the President's actions to designate the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument. On September 17, 1997, amid reports of the pending designation, I wrote a letter to President Clinton to support that action which was co-signed by six other members of the Senate. That letter concluded with the following statement ``We remain interested in working with the Administration on appropriate legislation to evaluate and protect the full extent of public lands in Utah that meet the criteria of the 1964 Wilderness Act.'' I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish that goal. Identical in its designations to legislation sponsored in the other body by Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York, it is the culmination of more than 15 years and four Congresses of effort in the other body beginning with the legislative work of the former Congressman from Utah (Mr. Owens). The measure protects wild lands that really are not done justice by any description in words. In my trip I found widely varied and distinct terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff walls, desert, canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great Basin. The lands also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and stark areas like the new National Monument. These regions appeal to all types of American outdoor interests from hikers and sightseers to hunters. Phil Haslanger of the Capital Times, answered an important question I am often asked when people want to know why a Senator from Wisconsin would co-sponsor legislation to protect lands in Utah. He wrote on September 13, 1995 simply that ``These are not scenes that you could see in Wisconsin. That's part of what makes them special.'' He continues, and adds what I think is an even more important reason to act to protect these lands than the landscape's uniqueness, ``the fight over wilderness lands in Utah is a test case of sorts. The anti- environmental factions in Congress are trying hard to remove restrictions on development in some of the nation's most splendid areas.'' Wisconsinites are watching this test case closely. I believe, Mr. President, that Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save Utah's lands as a sign of where the nation is headed with respect to its stewardship of natural resources. For example, some in my home state believe that among federal lands that comprise the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore and the Nicolet and Chequamegon National Forests there are lands that are deserving of wilderness protection. These federal properties are incredibly important, and they mean a great deal to the people of Wisconsin. Wisconsinites want to know that, should additional lands in Wisconsin be brought forward for wilderness designation, the type of protection they expect from federal law is still available to be extended because it had been properly extended to other places of national significance. What Haslanger's Capital Times comments make clear is that while some in Congress may express concern about creating new wilderness in Utah, wilderness, as Wisconsinites know, is not created by legislation. Legislation to protect existing wilderness insures that future generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that which is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands by extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will publicly codify that expectation and promise. Third, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the federal government for the people of the United States. Thus, while they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to the citizens of Wisconsin as it is for other Americans. Finally, I support this bill because I believe that there will likely be action during this Congress to develop consensus legislation to protect the lands contained in this proposal. We all need to be involved in helping to forge that consensus in order to ensure the best stewardship of that land. As many in this body know, the BLM has completed a review of the lands designated in the bill sponsored in the last Congress by the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and adjacent areas. BLM has found that 5.8 million acres of lands, slightly more than the acreage of the old bill, meet the criteria for wilderness protection under the Wilderness Act. While the re-inventory is not a formal recommendation to Congress for wilderness designation, it suggests that there are and should be more lands in play as the debate over wilderness protection in Utah moves forward. I am also watching closely the on-going dialogue between Governor Leavitt and Secretary Babbitt regarding possible wilderness protection for some of the West Desert lands that are contained in this legislation, and the formal Section 202 process in which the BLM will be engaged in Utah. I hope that the leaders of those efforts will look to this legislation as a guide in identifying the areas that need to be protected as wilderness. I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) to protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. And let me especially thank the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from South Carolina for their courtesy in allowing me to speak at this time. I want to simply acknowledge that the Senator from South Carolina is, in my mind, the leader in the entire Congress on trying to make sure that we actually protect the Social Security trust fund and that it not be subject to the kind of raids it has been subjected to for the last 30 years. I give him enormous credit for that. He has been my leader on this issue. I thank him for his continued advocacy in protecting the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, as a part of the celebration of Earth Week, I join with my other colleagues who have come to the floor calling for a renewal of this body's longstanding bipartisan commitment to the Nation's environment. I am doing so because, following the 29th Earth Day celebration tomorrow, the Nation and the 106th Congress will begin planning to commemorate three decades of Earth Days this time next year. We need to begin now to shape and bring forward a positive environmental agenda which will earn the support of both political parties so that when the 30th Earth Day arrives, our actions to protect the environment will not be viewed as falling short of the mark. At the beginning of this Congress, I wrote to the majority leader and the Democratic leader with suggestions of legislative areas where I believe significant opportunities actually exist for bipartisan cooperation. Among the areas I highlighted was the environment; specifically, the protection of public lands, such as passing comprehensive natural resources funding legislation which would allow the States and the Federal Government to protect our land resources, designating new wilderness areas on our public lands, and reforming environmentally harmful subsidies that damage our lands and also hurt the American taxpayer. I also think opportunities exist to try to work together to reauthorize several of our major environmental protection laws, such as Superfund, the Clean Water and Air Acts, and the Endangered Species Act. We have struggled with the reauthorization of these laws for several Congresses, and the time has come to look for ways to break the impasse on these very important issues. We have also struggled, frankly, with getting more Senators involved in environmental issues as well. Several of my colleagues have remarked that with the retirement last Congress of our colleague from Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers, we on the Democratic side of the aisle find ourselves having lost a consistent and persistent champion of the environment. Fortunately, we still have wonderful leaders, and I have been pleased to support the efforts of my Democratic colleagues, such as the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, and the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, and many others of my colleagues who have stepped forward to take up these issues. But, frankly, Mr. President, none of us can do this alone. Not only are environmental issues by their nature complicated and technical, but they are critically important to the American people who overwhelmingly support environmental protection. We need Senators from both parties to take up these issues and move them forward, and we are having some bipartisan successes on environmental issues where Members are working together. For example, I will have the pleasure later this week of joining with my colleague, the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Roth, in being an original cosponsor of legislation to designate the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as a wilderness area. I have had the opportunity to be a cosponsor of this legislation since I joined the Senate in 1993. In addition, this week I was delighted when the junior Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, decided to join me as a cosponsor of legislation I introduced to eliminate the percentage depletion allowance tax subsidy for mining on public lands subject to the 1872 mining law. Mr. President, part of the legacy of Earth Day is a commitment to bipartisanship, and a review of the history reveals that fact. For me, celebrations of Earth Day are always intertwined with thoughts of the day's founder, former Senator Gaylord Nelson from my home State of Wisconsin. I am extremely proud to hold the Senate seat he held with distinction from 1963 to 1981. Not only did Senator Nelson help to set aside a day for the Nation to think and learn more about the environment, he acted by using the power of his office to work with colleagues to protect the environment. Senator Nelson was a two-term Governor. During his gubernatorial tenure, the environment became a priority for the State of Wisconsin with the creation of the State's stewardship program, one of the important models for the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, putting Wisconsin far ahead in recreational opportunities for the general public. During his 18 years in the Senate, he saw, as he is still quick to remind me, great proenvironmental change under both Republican and Democratic administrations. The Senate created the Environment and Public Works Committee, passed the majority of our Federal environmental statutes with significant bipartisan support, and created the Environmental Protection Agency. Senator Nelson himself was the author of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, which passed the Senate by a vote of 84-0. He was also the primary sponsor of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore Act, one of northern Wisconsin's most beautiful areas, at which I spend a portion of my vacation time with my family every year. I am now the author of legislation to provide some improvements to Apostle Islands and to review these lands for their wilderness potential. In his 1969 book on the environment entitled ``America's Last Chance,'' Senator Nelson issued a political challenge which I find relevant today. He said: The number one domestic problem facing this country is the threatened destruction of our natural resources and the disaster which would confront mankind should such destruction occur. There is a real question as to whether the nation, which has spent some two hundred years developing an intricate system of local, State and Federal Government to deal with the public's problems, will be bold, imaginative and flexible enough to meet this supreme test. I believe Senator Nelson meant two things by his challenge. Not only did he mean that government must act immediately and decisively to protect resources in crisis, but he also meant that politicians must maintain that commitment over the long term. A renewal of this body's commitment to work together to protect the environment, fully respecting the commitment former Members of the Senate have made to us by placing us in the position of being vigilant stewards of Federal environmental laws, is an appropriate way on the eve of Earth Day to celebrate the true nature of ecological stewardship. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to be committed to that endeavor. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend the senior Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) in introducing the Traffic Stops Statistics Act of 1999. This legislation represents a substantial step toward ending an insidious form of discrimination that is plaguing African-American and Hispanic drivers on our roadways-- racial profiling. Most law enforcement officers do their best to respect and protect the rights of their fellow citizens, but it has become undeniable that racial profiling has become a disturbingly common practice. Racial profiling is the practice of pulling over African American, Hispanic, and other minority drivers for routine traffic stops as a premise for conducting a search for drugs. They might be driving just like any ordinary driver, and so they might be surprised to be pulled over. ``Was I speeding?'' they ask. Often, they are told that they have committed some minor traffic infraction that most people are not even aware of--sometimes, the infraction is just a pretext--they might be told that their tire tread is not of the correct depth, or that they have a bumper sticker affixed incorrectly. Any such infraction can be alleged in order to pull over a target of racial profiling, and as a premise to ask for a search. Many people are not aware that they have the right to refuse a search, and many innocent people are afraid that saying no will make them look guilty. The reality is, if they do refuse a search, victims can sometimes look forward to being detained anyway while a canine unit comes out to sniff for drugs. That is what happened to attorney Robert Wilkins and his family as they returned to Maryland by car from his grandfather's funeral in Chicago. Mr. Wilkins was fortunate enough to be an attorney who knew his rights, and proceeded to join with the ACLU and other groups to sue the Maryland State Police. As a result of that lawsuit, Maryland has conducted its own study of traffic stops, and the results indicate that over 75 percent of those people stopped and search on I- 95 are African-American, even though African-Americans make up only 17 percent of the state's population. The innocent people who are inevitably caught in these racially motivated stops feel like they are being punished for what is now called ``DWB''--``Driving While Black,'' or ``Driving While Brown.'' Mr. President, by and large when minorities are stopped by law enforcement officers, they are not attorneys, and they may not know or assert all of their rights--they are scared and they are resentful. And rightly so, when they have been the victim of racial profiling. Is this the way we want to stop the flow of drugs in America? By randomly targeting racial and ethnic minorities who are doing nothing more suspicious than driving their cars? Do we want law-abiding American citizens to feel as though they are living in a police state, scared and reluctant to travel in their cars for fear of being stopped and searched for no reason? While African-Americans make up under 20% of the American population, several local studies like the Maryland one I mentioned earlier indicate that they make up a much greater percentage of all routine traffic stops, and are far more likely to be searched and subsequently arrested. In my own home state of Wisconsin, a 1996 study by the Madison Capital Times revealed that African-Americans receive 13% of Madison's traffic tickets, despite the fact that they make up only 4% of the city's population, In Florida, the Orlando Sentinel newspaper obtained more than 140 hours of videotapes from police patrol cars showing drivers being stopped on Interstate 95. About 70% of the drivers stopped were black or Hispanic, even though they made up only 5% of all drivers on the road. And in New Jersey, a recent study suggests that African Americans are almost five times as likely to be stopped for speeding as drivers of other races. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said that ``injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' As Americans, we should all feel threatened when any one of us is denied our personal liberty. Just last week, the United States Supreme Court took yet another step toward eradicating our Fourth Amendment rights against the invasion of our privacy. It held in Wyoming versus Houghton that police can search the personal belongings of all passengers inside a car when looking for criminal evidence against the driver. I fear that this will send a message to some law enforcement officers that they can now expand racial profiling to include not only the driver of a passing car, but also the passengers. And if you happen to be a passenger in a car that was pulled over because of the color of the driver's skin, you can now look forward to having your personal belongings searched through and pored over. The Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act of 1999 will begin to shed light on the practice of racial profiling. By analyzing the data that the Justice Department obtains over the next two years, we will get a clear picture of the prevalence of the practice of pulling people over because of their skin color or apparent ethnicity. A version of this bill passed the House last year, but died in the Senate. The simultaneous introduction of this bill in the Senate and the House shows that we are serious about sending this to the President's desk. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join with us to enact this legislation. It is high time to put a stop to this blatant and offensive practice, which is taking some law enforcement officers, and the rest of us, down a dangerous and discriminatory road.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to joint my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Johnson, Leahy, Wellstone, Inouye, Kerry and others in introducing the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act. Mr. President, the sky-rocketing cost of prescription drugs has long been among the top 2 or 3 issues my constituents in Wisconsin call and write to me about. The problem of expensive prescription drugs is particularly acute among Wisconsin senior citizens who live on fixed incomes. Nationally, prescription drugs are Senior Citizens' largest single out-of-pocket health care expenditure: the average Senior spends $100-$200 month on prescription drugs. As you may know, Mr. President, last fall, a study by the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee found that the average price seniors pay for prescription drugs is twice as high as that enjoyed by favored customers--big purchasers such as HMOs and the federal government. The Committee's report found a price differential in one case was 1400%, meaning that the retail price a typical senior citizen was $27.05, while the favored customer was charged only $1.75. To be sure, Mr. President, the Committee's report did find that Wisconsin had lower price differentials compared to other parts of the country, an 85% differential compared to a high of 123% in California. But I think my constituents would find that a pretty hollow distinction. There's no doubt in my mind that paying 85% more than others are charged for the same product is unfair, plain and simple. Mr. President, as we all know, traditional Medicare does not cover prescription drugs. While some Medicare managed care plans offer a prescription drug benefit, few of those managed care plans operate in Wisconsin or in other largely rural states. So, while pharmaceutical companies give lower prices to favored customers who buy in bulk, small community pharmacies such as we have throughout Wisconsin lack this purchasing power, meaning that Seniors who purchase their prescription drugs at those small pharmacies get the high prices passed on to them. Mr. President, I regularly get calls from Seniors on tight, fixed incomes who tell me that they have to choose between buying groceries and buying their prescription drugs. I would guess that many of my colleagues receive similar calls from their constituents. Calls like these, and the fact that prices are only getting higher as scientific advances develop new medications, tell me that we must take action to make prescription drugs more affordable to Seniors. The legislation my colleagues and I are introducing today will require that pharmaceutical companies offer senior citizens the same discounts that they offer to their most favored customers. Through this legislation, we take an important step in making costly but vitally important prescription drugs more affordable to the Seniors who need them.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Johnson, Leahy, Wellstone, Inouye, Kerry, and others in introducing the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act. Mr. President, the sky-rocketing cost of prescription drugs has long been among the top 2 or 3 issues my constituents in Wisconsin call and write to me about. The problem of expensive prescription drugs is particularly acute among Wisconsin senior citizens who live on fixed incomes. Nationally, prescription drugs are Senior Citizens' largest single out-of-pocket health care expenditure: the average Senior spends $100-$200 month on prescription drugs. As you may know, Mr. President, last fall, a study by the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee found that the average price seniors pay for prescription drugs is twice as high as that enjoyed by favored customers--big purchasers such as HMOs and the federal government. The Committee's report found a price differential in one case was 1400%, meaning that the retail price a typical senior citizen paid was $27.05, while the favored customer was charged only $1.75. To be sure, Mr. President, the Committee's report did find that Wisconsin had lower price differentials compared to other parts of the country, an 85% differential compared to a high of 123% in California. But I think my constituents would find that a pretty hollow distinction. There's not doubt in my mind that paying 85% more than others are charged for the same product is unfair, plain and simple. Mr. President, as we all know, traditional Medicare does not cover prescription drugs. While some Medicare managed care plans offer a prescription drug benefit, few of those managed care plans operate in Wisconsin or in other largely rural states. So, while pharmaceutical companies give lower prices to favored customers who buy in bulk, small community pharmacies such as we have throughout Wisconsin lack this purchasing power, meaning that Seniors who purchase their prescriptions drugs at those small pharmacies get the high prices passed on to them. Mr. President, I regularly get calls from Seniors on tight, fixed incomes who tell me that they have to choose between buying groceries and buying groceries and buying their prescription drugs. I would guess that many of my colleagues receive similar calls from their constituents. Calls like these, and the fact that prices are only getting higher as scientific advances develop new medications, tell me that we must take action to make prescription drugs more affordable to Seniors. The legislation my colleagues and I are introducing today will require that pharmaceutical companies offer senior citizens the same discounts that they offer to their most favored customers. Through this legislation, we take an important step in making costly but vitally important prescription drugs more affordable to the Seniors who need them. I thank the chair. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to offer a few observations on the budget resolution, and on some recent developments that relate closely to our budget position. In particular, I want to sound a note of caution to my colleagues, and urge that we refrain from basing our budget on the assumption that we will have significant budget surpluses in the near future. Mr. President, the last six years or so have seen some dramatic improvements in our Federal budget position. In part, this has been due to some tough budget discipline on the part of the White House and Congress. In part, it has come as a result of a strong economy, itself the beneficiary of our budget discipline. In January of 1993, I don't think anyone would have seriously predicted that we would be on the brink not only of balancing the unified budget, but also of eliminating the on-budget deficit, producing a balanced budget without having to rely on the Social Security Trust Fund balances to make up the difference. Now that we are so close to actually balancing the government's books without using Social Security, some recent developments are all the more troubling to me. I'll just note a few of them. Let me begin with last year's half trillion dollar omnibus appropriations bill. That measure was not only loaded up with special interest provisions, it ended up spending $20 billion over budget by using the emergency spending exceptions to our budget caps. There were a number of reasons the bill ended up the way it did, and let me say that I hope the biennial budget measure offered by the distinguished Chairman of the Budget Committee (Mr. Domenici) can help prevent such situations from arising again. I served in the Wisconsin State Legislature for 10 years using a biennial approach to budgeting, and I think such a structure at the Federal level might help prevent the kind of last minute omnibus appropriations bill we had last year where abuse of the budget process is almost inevitable. Mr. President, I had hoped the new Congress would start off on a more fiscally responsible foot after having produced the omnibus appropriations bill last fall. But I was disappointed that the first major piece of legislation we took up was just more of the same. The bill that passed the Senate recently, S. 4, was another giant budget buster, providing spending increases of more than $50 billion over the next 10 years without a penny of offsetting savings elsewhere. And it did so before Congress has had a chance to pass a budget resolution, even before this committee has produced a budget resolution for floor debate. Mr. President, there was no reason to rush that bill through. A pay hike for our armed forces would have received solid support as part of an overall budget plan. S. 4 was a politically popular bill, and rightly so. There are good arguments for providing members of our armed forces and the national guard and reserve a pay hike. Indeed, I very much want to support a pay hike for them. But not outside of an overall budget plan, and not in a measure that busts the budget. Mr. President, this brings me to the President's budget, the budget resolution reported out of the Budget Committee, and the alternative budgets various interests have proposed. Each of these budget proposals is centered around the use of projected budget surpluses. Indeed, it is the use of those very surpluses that in a sense defines the goals of these budget proposals, and distinguishes one from another. Mr. President, as I noted before, we have come a long way in the last 6 years. We now have the opportunity to achieve a truly balanced budget, one that does not rely on Social Security Trust Fund balances. We are within striking distance of producing genuine surpluses. But let me emphasize, we may be within striking distance, but we aren't there yet. Mr. President, we do not have a budget surplus now, and I am concerned that for several reasons we may not achieve one. While subsequent estimates may change, the most recent CBO estimates show we do not have a budget surplus this year, and CBO does not project a genuine on-budget surplus of any significant size until FY2002, when a $55 billion on-budget surplus is projected. Mr. President, even those modest surpluses are based on assumptions that may prove to be overly optimistic. CBO currently projects non-Social Security surpluses of slightly over $800 billion over the next ten years. But in making those projections, CBO assumes that total discretionary spending will remain under the caps we agreed to in 1997, and that after 2002, total discretionary spending will be held to inflationary increases only. Mr. President, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, these assumptions mean that discretionary spending over the next 10 years will be $580 billion below current levels in real terms. Put another way, if we simply held discretionary spending at a level which reflects current services, and adjusted only for inflation, nearly three-quarters of the projected surpluses over the next 10 years will vanish. Mr. President, some will argue Congress and the White House will hold to the spending caps, and will cut the amount of spending necessary to produce the projected surpluses. Let me suggest that given the omnibus appropriations bill of last fall, the military pay increase bill of last month, and the desire of so many to focus on the surpluses we hope for, those assumptions about limiting our spending appear to be extremely fragile. Beyond our ability to live up to the spending and tax assumptions that produce the projected surpluses, we know that projections can change quickly. Just since last August, the CBO projections for unified budget surpluses over the next 10 years have increased by about $1 trillion--a change that is itself larger than the non-Social Security surplus over that same period. Estimates that can grow by $1 trillion in a few months can shrink by the same amount just as quickly. Altogether, Mr. President, the projected surpluses are far from a sure thing, and we should not be writing budgets that commit us to spending and taxing policies that are so utterly dependent on them. amendment no. 211

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Kennedy's amendment. This amendment will address critical needs and ensure that education investments are a top budget priority in FY 2000. Mr. President, as we know the problems facing education today are great. We need a strong commitment and partnership between federal, state and local governments to meet the needs of all students. Senator Kennedy's amendment will strengthen the effort to reduce class size, provide the full 40% federal share of special education program costs and free up resources for other education priorities. Importantly, this amendment is paid for in the budget we are now debating with a simple 20% reduction in the $778 billion tax cut proposed by the majority. Unfortunately, Mr. President, some of my colleagues who oppose this amendment are in effect asking school districts to choose between providing smaller class sizes and funding for special education. This is a false choice, Mr. President. Both special education and small class size are important national priorities, both deserve funding and we can responsibly fund these programs without busting the budget. Forcing school districts to choose between these critically important education programs will only dilute the effectiveness of both programs. Mr. President, funding for smaller class sizes should not be a partisan issue. Last year when we agreed to fund a serious effort to reduce class size there was broad support for the program proclaimed on both sides of the aisle. What has changed Mr. President? Only a few months after praising the class size program, some are now blocking class size funds and have pit one valuable education program against another all to fund a tax cut we cannot yet afford. Mr. President, there is wide consensus, based on solid research, that investing in smaller class size is the right thing to do. Research shows that smaller classes help teachers provide more personal attention to students and spend less time on discipline, as a result students learn more and get a stronger foundation in the basic skills. My own state of Wisconsin is doing its part to reduce class size. Wisconsin's Student Achievement Guarantee in Education or SAGE class size reduction program, has proven conclusively that smaller classes make a difference in our children's education. Mr. President, SAGE officials in Wisconsin want a partnership with the federal government. Now is the time when school districts in Wisconsin and in other states are making budget decisions, they need to know if Congress will meet its commitment to reduce class size over the next six years to plan effectively. Again, Mr. President, I support Senator Kennedy's amendment because I believe Congress should meet both the commitment to help schools reduce class size and increase funding for special education without busting the budget. I hope my colleagues agree that we should not waste this unique opportunity to responsibly make the needed investments in education today for our children's future.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment (Amendment # 152) being introduced today by the Senators from Oregon [Mr. Smith] and Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes]. This amendment expresses the Sense of the Senate that the resources identified in the underlying budget resolution for Function 150 (International Affairs) be sufficient to enable successful U.S. international leadership. Mr. President, this is an enormously important amendment that comes at a critical time. Function 150 encompasses the majority of our international programs including the operating budget of the Department of State. Representing barely one percent of our entire federal budget, our investment in Function 150 is the American investment in our national security. The post-Cold War era has brought with it new challenges and new responsibilities for the world's only remaining superpower. Yet real spending for International Affairs has declined more than 50 percent since the mid-1980s. Mr. President, national security can not be viewed solely through a defense lens, but also must comprise all the critical preventative measures offered through an active foreign affairs program. This means continuing to be active in fighting the spread of disease and drugs, providing adequate nutrition for children and families, and pursuing U.S. goals in arms reduction. I also believe we should continue to make appropriate contributions to the multilateral institutions, in particular the United Nations, on which the United States relies. In short, Mr. President, only through committed support to both diplomacy and defense can we utilize all the tools available to us to protect our national security and advance our overseas interests.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns regarding two troubling sections of S. 544, the Supplemental Appropriations bill. Section 2002 further delays the promulgation of new regulations governing the management of hardrock mineral mining operations on federal public lands. Section 2005 extends the moratorium on the issuance of new regulations by the Minerals Management Service regarding oil valuation. I hope that all provisions which adversely affect the implementation of environmental law, or change federal environmental policy, will be removed from this legislation when it returns to the floor. I want to note, before I describe my concerns in detail, that this is not the first time that I have expressed concerns regarding legislative riders in appropriations legislation that would have a negative impact on our nation's environment. Mr. President, for more than two decades, we have seen a remarkable bipartisan consensus on protecting the environment through effective environmental legislation and regulation. I believe we have a responsibility to the American people to protect the quality of our public lands and resources. That responsibility requires that I express my strong distaste for legislative efforts to include proposals in spending bills that weaken environmental laws or prevent potentially beneficial environmental regulations from being promulgated by the federal agencies that carry out federal law. Mr. President, the people of Wisconsin continue to express their grave concern that, when riders are placed in spending bills, major decisions regarding environmental protection are being made without the benefit of an up or down vote. Wisconsinites have a very strong belief that Congress has a responsibility to discuss and publicly debate matters affecting the environment. We should be on record with regard to our position on this matter of open government and environmental stewardship. Mr. President, I have particular concerns regarding Section 2002. I think this rider is another attempt to move us away from implementing new mining regulations. This is the third time, in as many years, that a rider has been put forward on this matter. The rider, as drafted, would delay the regulatory process for at least an additional 120 days beyond the final rider compromise language in the Omnibus bill which passed in October 1999. The Omnibus language says that the regulations can not be issued before September 30, 1999. There is no basis for arguing that the Interior Department would not have time to review the on-going National Academy of Sciences study on this topic, which the Omnibus language required to be completed by July 31, 1999. The ``3809'' mining regulations, as they are called, are the environmental rules that govern hardrock mining on publicly owned lands. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 directs the Secretary of the Interior to ``take any action necessary, by regulation or otherwise, to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation on the federal lands.'' The regulations in question are the Bureau of Land Management's promulgated in response to the requirements of this federal law. The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill mining rider blocks the issuance of the final 3809 regulations certainly through the end of the fiscal year. The language further blocks the Administration from spending funds to seek public input on its new draft regulations until after the National Academy of Sciences issues its on-going study examining the adequacy of the existing patchwork of fedeal and state mining rules, as I mentioned earlier. The rules are important, Mr. President, and so is the need to update them. Mining technologies, according to the Interior Department, have outgrown existing safeguards. The original regulations, released in 1981, have never been revised. Since that time, the mining industry has widely adopted new extraction technologies which raise environmental questions and concerns. One such technique, which caused grave concern two years ago in my state when it was proposed for use on private lands in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, was the use of sulfuric acid mining. In addition, Mr. President, existing regulations also need to allow the BLM to balance the fact that multiple activities take place on lands before permitting new mines. In determining whether a proposed mine is appropriate, BLM is not permitted to take into account other land uses that would be displaced by mining. Finally, I believe that existing regulations don't do enough to require meaningful cleanup. Currently there is no requirement to restore mined lands to pre-mining conditions and they leave taxpayers paying for the mining industry's mistakes. To address this issue, I recently introduced legislation to repeal the percentage depletion allowance for mining on public lands and I set aside a portion of the increased revenue to be used to create an Abandoned Mine Reclamation fund. Any clean-up fund, however, needs good clean-up standards to put it to use. In conclusion, I think that continued delay of these regulations is indefensible, and certainly inappropriate as part of a supplemental bill. crop insurance requirements

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am seriously concerned that the administration has cited the Bosnia mission as some kind of positive precedent for a deployment to Kosovo--or anywhere else. In my view, the mission to Bosnia should not be a precedent for anything. The deployment to Bosnia has resulted in, of course, some real benefits for the people of that region, but it has resulted in less favorable consequences for the United States. However, the lack of clear goals and a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, and the glaring absence of an exit strategy, now more than 3 years later, and more than $9 billion after the initial deployment, remain troubling. Let me repeat that. We were promised that the troops would be out of Bosnia in 1 year, that the troops would be home by December of 1996; and after we were promised that, we would spend at the most $2 billion. Our troops are still there, and it has cost over $9 or $10 billion. And now they do not even talk about getting out on any date certain. Any new deployment to the Balkans must not unduly add to the spiraling cost American taxpayers are being asked to bear for our already very, very expensive mission in Bosnia. I do not want to see the mistakes of Bosnia repeated in Kosovo at the expense of our men and women in uniform. Our armed services have served very admirably in the Balkans. They and their families and fellow citizens have a right to know the details of the proposed deployment before it happens. Third, I am concerned that the proposed deployment to Kosovo could set a new precedent for international peacekeeping. As we prepare to mark NATO's 50th anniversary, the topic of continued out-of-area NATO deployments for peacekeeping is a valid point of concern. How do we justify United States participation in NATO missions in Bosnia and Kosovo but not in international deployments in Rwanda, Sierra Leone, or the Congo, where many of the same tragic types of occurrences have been occurring for several years? Violent civil wars have shredded the fabric of civil society around the globe, but it doesn't seem to me, after observing this for over 6 years, that we have a clear principle for deciding where and when to intervene. No such principle emerges from the observation and the justifications for both the Bosnia and Kosovo proposed intervention. Finally, I am concerned about the deployment of our men and women in uniform to Kosovo because our troops are already stretched too thin around the globe. Currently, there are more than a quarter-million American troops deployed in foreign areas, from Haiti, to Bosnia, to the Persian Gulf, to the Korean peninsula. When I talk to my constituents, they are startled to hear that there is something like a quarter-million American troops, approximately 250,000 American troops, stationed around the world at this time. I commend again our men and women in uniform for their service to our country. I cannot, however, support a policy that overcommits our American troops abroad, especially when the situation into which they would be sent in Kosovo is so very uncertain. Again, there will be more debate on this, and I think that is terribly important. I conclude my remarks by thanking the Senators from Texas and New Hampshire for their work on this issue. I am also pleased that the House of Representatives took an opportunity to debate this extremely important issue and that the Senate has followed suit today. Again, I regret that I am unable to support the deployment of U.S. troops to Kosovo at this time. Exhibit No. 1 [From the Washington Post, Mar. 17, 1999] Before We Send in the Troops . . . (By David S. Broder) Last Saturday, two days after the House of Representatives had narrowly defeated a resolution opposing the deployment of U.S. troops as part of a NATO peacekeeping force in Kosovo, The Post's Douglas Farah reported some disquieting news about a previous peacekeeping mission to Haiti. The chief of the U.S. Southern Command, Gen. Charles E. Wilhelm, had told a closed session of a House subcommittee last month he wanted the troops removed from Haiti because the continuing instability of that poverty-stricken island nation put them at too grave a risk, according to a transcript of the hearing obtained by Farah. You may be forgiven if you are surprised to learn the Army is still in Haiti. It has been more than four years now since the September day in 1994 when President Clinton sent a force of 20,000 troops onto the island. There was immense relief when last-minute negotiations cleared the way for their arrival; when they left their bases, they expected to have to fight their way ashore. But the brutal generals running the country backed down, and soon were replaced--thanks to U.S. force--by elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Neither Aristide nor his successor, Rene Preval, has been able to bring peace or democracy to Haiti. Factional fighting has immobilized the government and stymied efforts at economic recovery. And now that the factionalism has provoked assassinations and bombings reminiscent of the bad old days, the 500 U.S. troops still in Haiti spend much of their energy just trying to protect themselves against those they came to help. It would be difficult for the Clinton administration to accept the general's call for a pullout, for it would concede the failure of a peacekeeping mission regularly touted as one of the signal achievements of recent years. It would be especially embarrassing at the very moment when the administration is trying to squelch opposition in Congress--fed by such foreign policy luminaries as Henry Kissinger--to sending 4,000 U.S. troops to Kosovo in a new peacekeeping mission. Two days before peace talks resumed between the Serb forces occupying Kosovo and the rebel forces who claim to speak for the 90 percent Albanian population of the province, bombs planted by unknown persons killed at least seven people--a reminder of how far from peace Kosovo is. During House debate, the question repeatedly raised was what assurance the administration could give that once the troops were sent into Kosovo, they would ever be able to get out. The response was that without NATO troops on the ground, the killing would go on, and without U.S. participation, our European NATO allies would not go it alone. This was the latest manifestation of what might be called the Wilsonian conundrum. It was Woodrow Wilson, in the aftermath of World War I, who most boldly asserted the doctrine that the United States would not only use its might to protect its national interests against any external threats but would aid the struggle for democracy, freedom and self-determination of oppressed people wherever it was being fought. Wilson's ambitions were almost instantly repudiated by the Senate in the debate over the League of Nations, but his ideas have influenced almost all his successors from FDR through Clinton. Under the slogans of human rights, liberation of captive nations or peacekeeping, they have tried--with only intermittent success--to lift American foreign policy beyond the crass calculations of power politics and into the exalted realm of morality and justice. What we have learned, I think, is that all those good values cannot be imposed at the point of a gun--even if the gun is held by an American soldier who wants nothing in return but a safe trip back home. Peace cannot be built unless and until the warring parties have exhausted themselves with bloodshed and are ready to take the responsibility on themselves to turn a new page. No better example can be found this Saint Patrick's Day than Northern Ireland, where decades of sectarian violence blessedly have given way to a shaky peace. The United States, led personally by Clinton, played an honorable and vital role in bringing about that change. But it did so at the conference table, using diplomats, not troops. The lesson is not that we should never be peacekeepers; rather, that there has to be a peace to keep. Sending in the military to impose a peace on people who have not settled ancient quarrels has to be the last resort, not the standard way of doing business.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to add my thoughts to this critical debate about the potential deployment of United States troops to Kosovo as part of a NATO peacekeeping mission. I commend the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, for her commitment to ensuring that the Members of this body have the opportunity to fully debate this important issue. I also commend the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Smith, for his work on this issue, and I share his contention that the President should seek congressional authorization prior to ordering a deployment to Kosovo. Mr. President, like all of us, I am gravely concerned about the situation in Kosovo. More than 2,000 people, including women and children, have been killed since the fighting between ethnic Albanians and Serb security forces escalated just over a year ago. Hundreds of thousands of people have been forced to flee from their homes and hide in the woods during the cold winter months. Those that are able to return to their villages often find their possessions looted and their homes burned. Recent television news reports have shown Serb police shamelessly waiving to the cameras as they steal televisions and other valuables from the deserted homes of ethnic Albanians before setting the homes on fire. Even today, as peace talks have adjourned without an agreement, the violence continues in Kosovo. I am pleased that four representatives from the Kosovar Albanian delegation last week signed the so-called Rambouillet agreement. However, I am alarmed that the government in Belgrade continues to offer ultimatums and to deploy troops and tanks in Kosovo. The continued defiance of President Slobodan Milosevic and other Serb leaders is very troubling. Once again, NATO has threatened airstrikes against Belgrade if the Milosevic government does not comply with the will of the international community. Once agains, Belgrade has refused. Last week, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe evacuated its observers from Kosovo in anticipation of possible NATO airstrikes. The violence in Kosovo has continued, with the aggression from both sides of this conflict. As we debate this important issue, United States Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke is again in Belgrade attempting one last time to convince President Milosevic to cease his operations against the Kosovar Albanians and embark on a path to peace. Although I commend Mr. Holbrooke for his efforts, and hope, of course, that he is successful, I am skeptical. Mr. President, I firmly believe that it is critical for Congress to take an active role in the debate and decision to send our men and women in uniform into any potentially hostile situation. As our constituents' voices in matters of policy, we in Congress must fully debate this important issue and vote up or down on whether or not to authorize such a deployment. While I am pleased that the European members of NATO are taking the lead on the proposed deployment to Kosovo to implement the Rambouillet agreement, I have serious concerns about the United States participation in the form of U.S. troops in that mission. No matter how one feels about the conflict in Kosovo or about the future of that province, under current American policy Kosovo is considered part of Serbia, comprising, along with Montenegro, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic had made it abundantly clear that NATO troops are not welcome on what he refers to as ``Serb territory,'' and he has begun to amass troops along the border with Macedonia, where approximately 12,000 NATO troops are already currently deployed. In addition, for the moment, there is no peace to be kept by the peacekeeping force. While the Kosovar Albanian delegation in France has signed the Rambouillet agreement, the Serbs remain adamant that they will not sign the agreement unless the Kosovar Albanians and the Contact Group accept their latest demands. Many observers see this as a stalling tactic on the part of the Serbs, since they are demanding changes to text that already has been agreed upon. It is into this very uncertain situation and environment that the President has proposed to deploy 4,000 United States troops. Mr. President, with great regret, I have concluded that I must oppose the deployment of U.S. troops to Kosovo at this time. I am compelled to do so for several reasons. First, the potential for harm to our men and women in uniform is too great, and there is too much uncertainty surrounding the proposed deployment. The continuing violence in Kosovo, coupled with the mobilization of Serb troops in the area, fosters a volatile environment into which our troops should not be deployed. The fact that the Serbs are not presently willing to sign the Rambouillet agreement or allow NATO troops into Kosovo makes it hard to believe that there will be any peace at all for foreign troops to keep. Second, since 1995, I have vigorously opposed the deployment of U.S. troops to Bosnia. One can draw disturbing parallels between the deployment to Bosnia and the proposed deployment to Kosovo. The administration, in my opinion, has again failed to make the case to the American people and to the Congress for the deployment of U.S. ground troops in the Balkans. As with the Bosnia mission, there is no clear set of goals beyond ``maintaining'' a currently nonexistent peace, there is no timetable for withdrawal, no cost estimate, and no exit strategy. Mr. President, I have come to the floor of the Senate many times in the last 3 years to talk about the U.S. deployment to Bosnia. I have consistently opposed that deployment and have supported a number of attempts to end it. I cannot help but think that this proposed deployment to Kosovo is another in the long line of ill-fated and seemingly unending peacekeeping missions that this administration has chosen to undertake without the explicit authorization of the Congress. Last week in the Washington Post, columnist David Broder wrote, ``Sending in the military to impose a peace on a people who have not yet settled ancient quarrels has to be the last resort, not the standard way of doing business.'' I agree with Mr. Broder. Peacekeeping should be the exception, not the rule. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of Mr. Broder's column be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I was pleased to join 97 of my colleagues to vote in favor of the Education Flexibility Partnership Act, or Ed-Flex, last week. This bill expands the current federal Ed- Flex pilot program to all states and allows them to waive certain federal education requirements for local schools, so long as schools are accountable for making education improvements, and does so without altering federal requirements concerning health, safety and civil rights. It is my hope that Ed-Flex can help increase student achievement by serving as a catalyst for innovative school reform at the state and local levels. Mr. President, while I am pleased the Senate passed the underlying Ed-Flex bill, I am disappointed that the bill includes amendments that would force local schools to choose between smaller classes and students with special needs. These amendments could undermine the important class size reduction program agreed to on a bipartisan basis last year. I was also deeply disappointed with the defeat of the Kennedy/Murray class size amendment, which would have built on the down payment of 30,000 teachers agreed to last year and finished the job by authorizing class size funding for the next six years. My own State of Wisconsin has been a leader among the states trying to reduce class size in the early grades. Wisconsin's Student Achievement Guarantee in Education or SAGE class size reduction program, has proven conclusively that smaller classes make a difference in our children's education. SAGE officials want the Federal Government to be a partner in Wisconsin's effort to reduce class size. Federal funds are an important complement to Wisconsin's ongoing SAGE program and will ensure that SAGE continues to thrive. The rejection of the Kennedy/Murrary amendment sends a discouraging message to schools in my State and across the nation that are just beginning to make decisions about how to implement the class size funds agreed to last year. It is very unfortunate Mr. President that two critically important federal programs, funds for special education and to reduce class size, were pitted against each other during the Ed-Flex debate. I am fully committed to funding for special education, but not at the expense of funds to reduce class size. The promise of these critically important education funds affecting our nation's children should not fall victim to partisan maneuvers. Congress should not be choosing one over the other--both special education and class size are national education priorities. American parents should know those in Congress who pit these programs against each other are the friend of neither. Finally, Mr. President, while I understand that Ed-Flex is not a panacea for America's education problems, I do believe it will improve the federal, state and local partnership needed to ensure our children receive the best quality education possible. I am confident that the conference committee will protect the class size funds agreed to last year and that Congress will vote on an improved version of Ed-Flex in the near future.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my sorrow over the loss of my friend, and former teacher, George Mosse. George was truly an extraordinary man, a great humanist and a wonderful teacher. While his 25 books were influential, he would not want us to forget that we were almost deprived of his brilliance. Lucky for us, George was able to escape the Nazis at age 19 by way of Switzerland. I had the honor of studying under George at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His lectures were unique in both their style and subject. George first developed his dynamic, bellowing style while at the University of Iowa, where he taught classes of up to 1,000 students. He is perhaps best known for his work on Nazi Germany, but his later work on subjects like national symbols and monuments was equally as impressive. In addition to his countless articles and essays, George was simply a wonderful teacher. His challenging and invigorating teaching style compelled his students to learn. I think many of his students naively took for granted his endless lack of energy and ideas. This expectation is understandable given his almost ritualistic process of exploring a new and dynamic area of study each decade. The University of Wisconsin, and the field of history, have truly lost an asset, but his work will surely live on.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a tribute to my friend, Phil Lerman, who recently passed away. Throughout his lifetime, Phil was a steadfast advocate for civil rights. Perhaps most impressive, is the number of different avenues Phil marched down to promote the ideals of equal justice. As a former union representative, state official, businessman, founder and director of the employment and training institute at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Phil helped to promote racial and social justice throughout the state of Wisconsin. Phil said that he learned his ``strategizing and speechifying,'' as he called it, for civil rights from his father. In a 1997 interview, Phil stated ``I learned to respect people as people. Color meant nothing.'' Perhaps it was this respect that caused Phil to devote time to preforming countless acts of community service, such as donating free tires to the vehicles that carried so many civil rights marchers. Phil was an inspiration to the entire state. I am sure those in the greater Milwaukee area will miss his guidance and helpful advice. However, I am proud to remember, and of course repeat, his well-worn statement, ``a house doesn't care who lives there.'' I can only hope that we will someday translate this ideal into reality.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to honor and to thank a true American hero. A man who risked his life to defend this nation and continues to serve this nation. I am proud to say that J. Robert Kerrey is a friend and colleague. Mr. President, thirty years ago this Sunday, on March 14, 1969, Bob Kerrey led a team of Navy SEALs onto an island in the Bay of Nha Trang. In the course of battle, an enemy grenade exploded at his feet. He wound up losing his right leg below the knee, but Bob directed fire into the enemy camp, resulting in its capture. His extraordinary valor cost him part of his leg, but it earned him the respect of every American. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Daschle, Edwards, and Hagel on this resolution honoring the only Medal of Honor winner in the current Congress. The Medal of Honor is the highest military award for valor that can be conferred on a member of the American armed forces. It is awarded to a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who ``. . . in action involving actual conflict with the enemy, distinguish[es] himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life, above and beyond the call of duty.'' It is that spirit we honor today, which has time and again moved ordinary Americans to rise to every threat to our nation and stand against great odds. It is the spirit that sustained the Revolution at Valley Forge, that carried the day at Gettysburg and Belleau Wood, and that made the difference at the Battle of the Bulge and Iwo Jima. This is the spirit that crashed ashore at Inchon, sustained our resolve at Khe Sanh and swept through the deserts along the Persian Gulf. And Bob Kerrey has showed courage in public life. Whether it's Social Security, Medicare, the budget or protection of the First Amendment, Bob Kerrey is not afraid to take the unpopular position. Above all, I admire his willingness to act and speak according to his conscience. Bob Kerrey has earned our utmost gratitude and our lasting admiration.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to eliminate from the federal tax code percentage depletion allowances for hardrock minerals mined on federal public lands. I am joined in introducing this legislation by my colleague from Vermont, Mr. Leahy. The President proposes the elimination of the percentage depletion allowance on public lands in his FY 2000 budget. The President's FY 2000 budget estimates that, under this legislation, income to the federal treasury from the elimination of percentage depletion allowances for hardrock mining on public lands would total $478 million over five years, more than $95 million in this year alone. These savings are calculated as the excess amount of federal revenues above what would be collected if depletion allowances were limited to ``sunk costs'' in capital investments. Percentage depletion allowances are contained in the tax code for extracted fuel, minerals, metal and other mined commodities. These allowances have a combined value, according to 1994 estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation, of $4.8 billion. Mr. President, these percentage depletion allowances were initiated by the Corporation Excise Act of 1909. That's right, 1909. Provisions for a depletion allowance based on the value of the mine were made under a 1912 Treasury Department regulation, but difficulty in applying this accounting principle to mineral production led to the initial codification of the mineral depletion allowance in the Tariff Act of 1913. The Revenue Act of 1926 established percentage depletion much in its present form for oil and gas. The percentage depletion allowance was then extended to metal mines, coal, and other hardrock minerals by the Revenue Act of 1932, and has been adjusted several times since. Percentage depletion allowances were historically placed in the tax code to reduce the effective tax rates in the mineral and extraction industries far below tax rates on other industries, providing incentives to increase investment, exploration and output. However, percentage depletion also makes it possible to recover many times the amount of the original investment. There are two methods of calculating a deduction to allow a firm to recover the costs of their capital investment: cost depletion, and percentage depletion. Cost depletion allows for the recovery of the actual capital investment--the costs of discovering, purchasing, and developing a mineral reserve--over the period during which the reserve produces income. Using cost depletion, a company would deduct a portion of its original capital investment minus any previous deductions, in an amount that is equal to the fraction of the remaining recoverable reserves. Under this method, the total deductions cannot exceed the original capital investment. However, under percentage depletion, the deduction for recovery of a company's investment is a fixed percentage of ``gross income''--namely, sales revenue--from the sale of the mineral. Under this method, total deductions typically exceed, let me be clear on that point, Mr. President, exceed the capital that the company invested. The rates for percentage depletion are quite significant. Section 613 of the U.S. Code contains depletion allowances for more than 70 metals and minerals, at rates ranging from 10 percent to 22 percent. In addition to repealing the percentage depletion allowances for minerals mined on public lands, Mr. President, my bill also creates a new fund, called the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. One fourth of the revenue raised by the bill, or approximately $120 million dollars, will be deposited into an interest bearing fund in the Treasury to be used to clean up abandoned hardrock mines in states that are subject to the 1872 Mining Law. Mineral Policy Center estimates that there are 557,650 hardrock abandoned mine sites nationwide and the cost of cleaning them up will range from $32.7 billion to $71.5 billion. There are currently no comprehensive federal or state programs to address the need to clean up old mine sites. Reclaiming these sites requires the enactment of a program with explicit authority to clean up abandoned mine sites and the resources to do it. My legislation is a first step toward providing the needed authority and resources. Mr. President, in today's budget climate we are faced with the question of who should bear the costs of exploration, development, and production of natural resources: all taxpayers, or the users and producers of the resource? For more than a century, the mining industry has been paying next to nothing for the privilege of extracting minerals from public lands and then abandoning its mines. Now those mines are adding to the nation's environmental and financial burdens. We face serious budget choices this fiscal year, yet these subsidies remain a persistent tax expenditure that raise the deficit for all citizens or shift a greater tax burden to other taxpayers to compensate for the special tax breaks provided to the mining industry. Mr. President, the measure I am introducing is fairly straightforward. It eliminates the percentage depletion allowance for hardrock minerals mined on public lands while continuing to allow companies to recover reasonable cost depletion. Though at one time there may have been an appropriate role for a government-driven incentive for enhanced mineral production, there is now sufficient reason to adopt a more reasonable depletion allowance that is consistent with those given to other businesses. Mr. President, the time has come for the Federal Government to get out of the business of subsidizing business. We can no longer afford its costs in dollars or its cost to the health of our citizens. This legislation is one step toward the goal of ending these corporate welfare subsidies. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to eliminate from the federal tax code percentage depletion allowances for hardrock minerals mined on federal public lands. I am joined in introducing this legislation by my colleague from Vermont, Mr. Leahy. The President proposes the elimination of the percentage depletion allowance on public lands in his FY 2000 budget. The President's FY 2000 budget estimates that, under this legislation, income to the federal treasury from the elimination of percentage depletion allowances for hardrock mining on public lands would total $478 million over five years, more than $95 million in this year alone. These savings are calculated as the excess amount of federal revenues above what would be collected if depletion allowances were limited to ``sunk costs'' in capital investments. Percentage depletion allowances are contained in the tax code for extracted fuel, minerals, metal and other mined commodities. These allowances have a combined value, according to 1994 estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation, of $4.8 billion. Mr. President, these percentage depletion allowances were initiated by the Corporation Excise Act of 1909. That's right, 1909. Provisions for a depletion allowance based on the value of the mine were made under a 1912 Treasury Department regulation, but difficulty in applying this accounting principle to mineral production led to the initial codification of the mineral depletion allowance in the Tariff Act of 1913. The Revenue Act of 1926 established percentage depletion much in its present form for oil and gas. The percentage depletion allowance was then extended to metal mines, coal, and other hardrock minerals by the Revenue Act of 1932, and has been adjusted several times since. Percentage depletion allowances were historically placed in the tax code to reduce the effective tax rates in the mineral and extraction industries far below tax rates on other industries, providing incentives to increase investment, exploration and output. However, percentage depletion also makes it possible to recover many times the amount of the original investment. There are two methods of calculating a deduction to allow a firm to recover the costs of their capital investment: cost depletion, and percentage depletion. Cost depletion allows for the recovery of the actual capital investment--the costs of discovering, purchasing, and developing a mineral reserve--over the period during which the reserve produces income. Using cost depletion, a company would deduct a portion of its original capital investment minus any previous deductions, in an amount that is equal to the fraction of the remaining recoverable reserves. Under this method, the total deductions cannot exceed the original capital investment. However, under percentage depletion, the deduction for recovery of a company's investment is a fixed percentage of ``gross income''--namely, sales revenue--from the sale of the mineral. Under this method, total deductions typically exceed, let me be clear on that point, Mr. President, exceed the capital that the company invested. The rates for percentage depletion are quite significant. Section 613 of the U.S. Code contains depletion allowances for more than 70 metals and minerals, at rates ranging from 10 percent to 22 percent. In addition to repealing the percentage depletion allowances for minerals mined on public lands, Mr. President, my bill also creates a new fund, called the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. One fourth of the revenue raised by the bill, or approximately $120 million dollars, will be deposited into an interest bearing fund in the Treasury to be used to clean up abandoned hardrock mines in states that are subject to the 1872 Mining Law. Mineral Policy Center estimates that there are 557,650 hardrock abandoned mine sites nationwide and the cost of cleaning them up will range from $32.7 billion to $71.5 billion. There are currently no comprehensive federal or state programs to address the need to clean up old mine sites. Reclaiming these sites requires the enactment of a program with explicit authority to clean up abandoned mine sites and the resources to do it. My legislation is a first step toward providing the needed authority and resources. Mr. President, in today's budget climate we are faced with the question of who should bear the costs of exploration, development, and production of natural resources: all taxpayers, or the users and producers of the resource? For more than a century, the mining industry has been paying next to nothing for the privilege of extracting minerals from public lands and then abandoning its mines. Now those mines are adding to the nation's environmental and financial burdens. We face serious budget choices this fiscal year, yet these subsidies remain a persistent tax expenditure that raise the deficit for all citizens or shift a greater tax burden to other taxpayers to compensate for the special tax breaks provided to the mining industry. Mr. President, the measure I am introducing is fairly straightforward. It eliminates the percentage depletion allowance for hardrock minerals mined on public lands while continuing to allow companies to recover reasonable cost depletion. Though at one time there may have been an appropriate role for a government-driven incentive for enhanced mineral production, there is now sufficient reason to adopt a more reasonable depletion allowance that is consistent with those given to other businesses. Mr. President, the time has come for the Federal Government to get out of the business of subsidizing business. We can no longer afford its costs in dollars or its cost to the health of our citizens. This legislation is one step toward the goal of ending these corporate welfare subsidies. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr President, today we mark a tragic anniversary, 40 years after His Holiness the Dalai Lama and more than 100,000 Tibetans were forced to flee their homeland as a result of brutal suppression by the Chinese government. Tibetans were driven from their homes, freedom was driven from Tibet, and the Chinese Government began in earnest its campaign to destroy Tibet's culture, religion, and national identity. But this campaign will never succeed, because Tibet, and the human rights of the Tibetan people, are not China's for the taking. It's been said that ``a right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you.'' The Tibetan people have a right to their freedom, a right to openly practice their religion, and a right to live with dignity and without fear. These human rights--that belong to Tibetans, and to people everywhere--bind us to the Tibetan people with a tie stronger than the Chinese government's oppression, mightier than the Chinese government's policies of destruction, and more powerful than the Chinese or any government's attempt to take that which cannot be taken--the dignity of the human spirit. I am calling on the Administration to pursue a resolution condemning China's human rights practices in China and Tibet at the upcoming U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, an action the Senate unanimously endorsed by recorded vote in late February. Only through strong U.S. leadership can we build the international consensus necessary to pressure China to provide the basic human rights the Tibetan people deserve. The time to press for these fundamental rights is now and the place is the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of legislation introduced by the senior Senator from my home State of Wisconsin. Today, Senator Kohl has introduced a measure important not only to Wisconsin's dairy farmers but to dairy farmers all over the country. The National Dairy Promotion and Research Program collects roughly $225 million every year from American dairy farmers, who each pay a mandatory 15 cents into the program for every 100 pounds of milk they produce. This program is designed to promote dairy products to consumers and to conduct research relating to milk processing and marketing. While 15 cents may appear to be a small amount of money, multiplied by all the millions of pounds of milk marketed in this country, it adds up to thousands of dollars each year for the average domestic producer. Given the magnitude of this program, it is critical that Congress take seriously the concerns producers have about the way their promotion program is run. This legislation addresses one of the most important of those concerns: importers reap the same promotional benefits as their U.S. counterparts, yet they don't pay a dime into the program. The National Dairy Promotion and Research Board conducts generic promotion and general product research. Domestic farmers and importers alike benefit from these actions. This bill, Mr. President, provides equity to domestic producers who have been footing the bill for this promotion program all by themselves for over 10 years. The Dairy Promotion Fairness Act requires that all dairy product importers contribute to the Dairy Promotion Program at the same rate as domestic dairy farmers. This is not an unusual proposal, Mr. President. Many of our largest generic promotion programs for other commodities already assess importers for their fair share of the program, including programs for pork, beef, and cotton. This legislation is particularly important in light of the 1994 passage of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). GATT has boosted imports of dairy products in the past several years. A dairy promotion assessment on importers would also be allowed under GATT since our own milk producers are already paying the same assessment. We have put our own producers at a competitive disadvantage for far too long. It's high time importers paid for their fair share of this program. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to end the subsidization of foreign farmers on the backs of our own.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Kennedy/Murray class size amendment. As we know, Mr. President, education is serious concern for people across the country, and I am pleased to see an education bill as one of the first priorities in this Congress. Mr. President, last year Congress provided a one-time appropriation in the omnibus budget bill to hire approximately 30,000 new teachers across the country. The Kennedy/Murray amendment we are considering today authorizes a continuation of this effort for the next 6 years. This sends the signal to local school districts that Congress understands the importance of smaller classes and is committed to funding for class size reduction. This amendment takes a positive step toward helping school districts reduce class size as part of an overall effort to improve education and ensure that our children have the best chance to excel and reach their full potential. As my own state of Wisconsin can attest--smaller classes make a difference in student's lives. Wisconsin's Student Achievement Guarantee in Education or SAGE program, now in its third year, continues to be a model for the nation in how to implement successfull education reforms in our public schools by reducting public school class size in the earliest grades. I am very proud that Wisconsin's SAGE program is leading the charge to reduce public school class size across the nation, and pleased that this amendment will help keep SAGE thriving in Wisconsin. The recently released second year SAGE evaluation again empirically demonstrates what we instinctively know; students in smaller classes get more attention from teachers and teachers with fewer students have more time and energy to devote to each child. Specifically, the first and second year evaluations confirm the achievements of SAGE students in all tested areas: mathematics, reading and language arts. The report shows total scores for SAGE students were significantly higher than those students at comparison schools. The evidence shows that teachers in small classes can provide students with more individualized attention, spend more time on instruction and less on other tasks and cover more material more effectively. Again, Mr. President, SAGE has shown conclusively that the significance of small class size should not be underestimated and cannot be ignored. Class size should be at the forefront of the education agenda because there is a great national purpose in helping local schools reduce class size for children in the earliest grades. I would like to state Mr. President my strong belief that education should remain solidly a state and local function. However, I believe the federal government can have a constructive role supporting local efforts. Kennedy/Murray class size proposal is a perfect example. Finally, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to reach across the aisle to ensure that education is a top priority in the 160th Congress. I look forward to working in a bipartisan manner to reach consensus on these important issues to ensure that our children receive the highest quality education possible.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.