Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am wondering if there would be an opportunity, after the completion of this period, for an additional 10 minutes in morning business by unanimous consent.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, just over a week ago we witnessed a seminal event in Nigeria, the West African country that could hold the key to stability and prosperity in the region. Millions of Nigerians participated in an election to select the first civilian president in almost two decades. Since gaining its independence in 1960, Nigeria has survived a number of military coups and has been under the military rule of one regime or another for most of that time. Last weekend's election was only the second democratic presidential election in Nigeria the last 39 years. According to the official results, former Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo won a majority of votes throughout the country, and will be inaugurated as a civilian president on May 29. Yet, Mr. President, what could have, and should have, been a proud moment in Nigeria's history was marred by significant irregularities, fraud and low voter turnout. Coincidentally, election weekend was also marked by two important announcements by President Clinton: his determinations pursuant to the drug certification law and the publication of the annual State Department Human Rights Report. Under the drug law, Nigeria was identified among those countries that failed to meet the test for cooperation on anti-narcotics efforts but were granted waivers exempting them from the economic penalties imposed by the law. The administration explained this decision with respect to Nigeria by expressing hope that it would be able to work more effectively after the ``nation's transition to democracy.'' At the same time, the human rights report noted significant progress in Nigeria's human rights record, although it still acknowledged that significant problems remain. Now, as Nigeria plots its course through the next stage of its multiphase transition to civilian rule, Nigerians, and we in the international community, must figure out how to react to these concurrent, though sometimes contradictory, developments. Let me elaborate. The February 27 presidential elections marked the last of a series of four types of elections--local council, gubernatorial, legislative and presidential, respectively--that have taken place over the past three months according to the transition program established by General Abdusalami Abubakar. Despite some disturbing irregularities, these elections, and the campaign period preceding them, were conducted in a calm and orderly fashion, and--with the exception of a few localized incidents--without violence or physical intimidation. This process has been marked throughout by a clear demonstration of Gen. Abubakar's commitment to the transition program, including the handover of power to elected civilian authorities on May 29, and the genuine efforts of the Independent National Electoral Commission charged with the responsibility for conducting the elections themselves. Although the turnout was much lower than expected, particularly for the presidential election, millions of Nigerians opted to participate in the process, either through voting or civic work. According to reports from domestic and international observers, the conduct of the presidential election in many places was smooth, orderly and implemented according to the established procedures. Particularly noteworthy was that the head-of-state himself, General Abubakar, was denied the opportunity to vote because he arrived at his polling site too late to follow the required accreditation process. This adherence to proper procedures is indeed encouraging. Doubly encouraging is the clear and strong wish of the overwhelming majority of Nigerians for a swift and orderly transition to democratic civilian rule. Mr. President, I commend and congratulate the Nigerian people who contributed to these positive developments in the electoral process. But Mr. President, these commendations and congratulations are dampened by reports of massive irregularities in this election, which can be more properly called deliberate fraud. I find these reports deeply discouraging. At polling stations in several areas, particularly in what is known as the South-South zone, the turnout observed by domestic and international monitors was significantly lower than the vote totals reported at a statewide level. This suggests that there were a considerable number of ballots included in the final count that were not submitted by legitimate registered voters. Domestic and international monitors also noted that the reported collated results from a particular local government area exceeded the combined total votes from the polling stations in that area. Additionally, at some locations, voters were denied the opportunity to vote because ballots were delivered suspiciously late or in insufficient numbers. Finally, certain procedures established by the electoral commission were not consistently applied. According to the report issued by the Carter Center/National Democratic Institute Observer Delegation, these included the failure to use indelible ink at many polling stations, the failure to ensure ballot secrecy, late poll openings, and a failure to adhere to an accreditation process that was distinct from the actual voting process. Reports of these malpractices are indeed disturbing. Although it remains unclear whether the fraudulent activities had an impact on the ultimate outcome of this election, such irregularities risk bringing the legitimacy of the process into question and must be condemned. Indeed, former President Jimmy Carter, who led a 66-person observation delegation and spent considerable time in the country, was so disturbed by these irregularities that he sent a terse, two-sentence letter to the chairman of the electoral commission. The letter said-- quote--``There was a wide disparity between the number of voters observed at the polling stations and the final results that have been reported from several states. Regrettably, therefore, it is not possible for us to make an accurate judgment about the outcome of the presidential election.'' Since 1989, President Carter has led delegations to observe electoral processes in 15 countries and has rarely had such harsh words to say regarding the outcome. This assessment truly gives me pause. Mr. President, in addition to the views expressed by international observers, I would also like to emphasize the importance of the views of the main domestic observer group, The Transition Monitoring Group, or TMG. The TMG is an umbrella organization formed of more than 60 human rights and civil society groups from throughout Nigeria. Together, these organizations fielded some 10,700 monitors to observe voting and counting at a large number of the country's 115,000 polling stations in all of the country's 36 states. In its interim report, the TMG noted that the kinds of malpractices observed in the elections ``have the potential to erode the confidence of the electorate in the whole transition.'' Therefore, the report recommends, and I quote: It is important for the incoming civilian government to appreciate and understand that the emphasis in the current process has been on transition to civilian rule, rather than the establishment of full-blown democracy to Nigeria. Any triumphalist insistence on a ``winner-take-all'' stance on the basis of a supposed democratic mandate must be avoided. The incoming civilian government must therefore begin to make determined and sustained efforts to cultivate democratic norms and values amongst its members, as well as in the society at large. Mr. President, this is a key observation. The large number of reports of deliberate fraud, combined with the low voter turnout, appear to weaken the mandate for Gen. Obasanjo. His strong mandate, however, is for the development of civilian democratic rule. The General certainly has the capacity to embrace that mandate and implement true civilian rule according to the wishes of his people. Whether he chooses to go this route or not remains to be seen. I strongly urge him to take the needed steps to allow real democracy to take root in Nigeria. He should act decisively to develop effective democratic institutions, establish appropriate decentralization of decisionmaking throughout the three levels of government, integrate the military into democratic society, and create the mechanisms of transparency and accountability that will allow the people to gain confidence that they are truly governing themselves. Key to these measures, of course, will be the adoption of a broadly accepted constitution. Amazingly, the ongoing transition process has been conducted without the benefit of a constitutional framework. The current military government has said it will introduce a constitution in the near future. I hope it will be promulgated as an interim framework, and not imposed as a final document. Then I hope the president-elect will institute a democratic procedure to debate and develop a new constitution that can have popular support. Mr. President, as I said at the beginning, Nigerians and we in the international community, must decide how to react to these developments. My own assessment is mixed. Therefore, I have a few words to say about the two executive branch announcements that were issued just prior to the election, the drug certification decision and the human rights report. Although there was little concrete progress on important anti- narcotics efforts between the United States and Nigeria, the President decided to grant Nigeria a vital national interests certification in order to support the transition underway in Nigeria. That decision paves the way for the administration to provide needed economic and security assistance to the new civilian government in Nigeria once it is inaugurated. In this particular case, I wish the decision to waive the sanctions under this law could have waited until inauguration day actually arrives. The United States has until now had a strong sanctions regime against Nigeria, which has provided significant leverage for us in that country. Slowly, we were beginning to open up that relationship, with the loosening of visa restrictions last fall. Now, however, by appearing to bless the efforts of the current Nigerian regime on narcotics enforcement, we have removed an important source of leverage. Despite good communication between Nigeria's National Drug Law Enforcement Agency and our own Drug Enforcement Agency, the fact is little progress has been made in key areas. Nigerian efforts have been unsatisfactory on extradition of offenders wanted in the United States, implementation of Nigeria's own national drug strategy and related laws, stemming corruption among law enforcement personnel, and targeting Nigeria-based worldwide narcotics and money laundering organizations. Mr. President, the loss of our leverage on these important issues makes me nervous. Yet I am inclined to be ``cautiously supportive'' or at least ``cautiously open-minded'' about this decision as long as the administration's plans for working with the government are moderated and deliberately paced. A cautious approach is essential so that in the event of a severe downspiral, the United States will not be overly exposed. I look forward to extensive consultation with the executive branch on such plans. Mr. President, I must also note some of the observations in this year's State Department report on human rights in Nigeria. I am pleased that the report indicates substantial improvement in Nigeria's human rights record in the latter part of 1998 as compared to its previously extremely poor record. Nonetheless, despite progress in the reduction of government use of lethal force and torture, the ending of harsh suppression of a free press, and the restoration of citizens' rights to choose their government, the report acknowledges that serious human rights problems persist. In particular, Nigerian security forces continue to commit extrajudicial killings, although generally not of a political character. During frequent fuel shortages, the police and military deployed to maintain order at filling stations repeatedly killed customers and operators, according to press reports. During the month of November alone, members of the combined police and military anticrime task force known as ``Operation Sweep'' reportedly committed at least 16 extrajudicial killings. Although some improvements were made, harsh prison conditions and denial of proper medical treatment contributed to the death of inmates. While Gen. Abubakar apparently began a serious effort to release political detainees, the lack of authoritative information regarding the exact number of remaining detainees served to confirm the fact that Abacha-era security forces were able to put persons in detention with very little concern about due process or accountability. In addition, several of the important military decrees, which grant the security forces sweeping powers of arrest and detention, remain on the books. Given the longstanding pattern of human rights abuses and some uncertainty about how widely accepted the new civilian president will be, the report acknowledges that there is significant potential for a continued unacceptable human rights environment in Nigeria. Mr. President, I have long been concerned about the human rights situation in Nigeria. I have introduced several pieces of legislation designed to encourage democratization and respect for the rule of law in that country. I desperately want to support an active and proactive U.S. policy toward the country. For now, most signals seem to indicate that the transition will continue to be smooth and peaceful. However, I am concerned that in truly wishing the best for the Nigerian people and in looking for ways to support the transition, the United States will in effect hold Nigeria's rulers to a lower standard of good governance than it traditionally has demanded. I know that the administration is anxious to work with the new government, and if all goes well, I would encourage that. The conduct of the elections last weekend did not inspire much confidence in the process, and this is a great disappointment. However, it does not mean we should throw in the towel in the fight to foster a democratic Nigeria. No. In fact the opposite is true. We must continue to be vigilant and encourage Nigeria and its new leadership to follow the right path. This means the United States should continue to help Nigeria develop democratic institutions and to strengthen political and civic organizations at all levels of government. We should help the military remove itself from political life and become integrated into democratic society. But we should do this carefully and thoughtfully. And that is the best way we can help Nigeria help itself. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of a March 1 New York Times editorial on this subject be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. That's fine.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask for its second reading.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I understand that Senate bill 564, introduced earlier today by Senators Murray, Kennedy and Daschle is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join others around the world in marking International Women's Day. This day celebrates the contributions and accomplishments of women worldwide, and also reminds us that, unfortunately, many women are still treated as second-class citizens. Gender-based discrimination and harassment, domestic violence, and sexual assault are far too common in too many places. The glass ceiling, while perhaps a bit cracked, still blocks the progress of many women who work outside the home. Lack of affordable quality child care forces many women to make a painful decision between their children and their careers. The wage gap between men and women around the world is still vast. According to 1997 statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, American women working outside the home in non-agricultural jobs earn about seventy-five percent of what their male counterparts earn; that is, seventy-five cents on the dollar. International Labour Organization statistics from 1996 state that women in Japan make sixty-two percent of what their male counterparts earn; the figure in Kenya is eighty- five percent. Australian women fare better, earning virtually the same wages as men. In many places, women and girls are not considered valued members of society. Rather, their basic human rights are curtailed, sometimes to the point of denial of adequate medical care and basic educational opportunities. The illegal trafficking of women and girls for purposes such as slavery and prostitution is rampant in some areas of the world. In some places, it is common for women to be burned with acid by their husbands if their dowries are not large enough. The deplorable practice of so-called ``honor killing''--men murdering female relatives accused of things ranging from infidelity to objection to an arranged marriage--is again receiving international attention. What is even more deplorable is that the men committing these murders take pride in their crimes, which they justify as cultural tradition, and are routinely given light prison sentences. Some women endure voluntary imprisonment to escape male relatives who intend to murder them. Despite the challenges they face--or maybe in spite of them--women in the United States and around the world contribute to their families and their countries in countless ways. In the United States, March is Women's History Month. It is a time to celebrate the contributions of women such as Carrie Chapman Catt, a native of Ripon, Wisconsin, who served as the last president of the National American Women Suffrage Association, and was the founder and first president of the National League of Women Voters. Her influence on the direction and success of the suffrage movement is legendary, and her legacy in grassroots organizing is equally significant. She led a tireless lobbying campaign in Congress, sent letters and telegrams, and eventually met directly with the President--using all the tools of direct action with which political organizers are now so familiar today. Catt's crusade for suffrage saw a homefront victory on June 10, 1919, when Wisconsin became the first state to deliver ratification of the constitutional amendment granting women the right to vote before it was adopted as the Nineteenth Amendment in August of 1920. The legacy of Carrie Chapman Catt is alive and well today--in Wisconsin and across the globe--as women take a more and more active role in the political process. I am proud to serve alongside Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, the first woman elected to Congress from Wisconsin. The 106th Congress includes a record 67 women--nine in the Senate and 58 in the House of Representatives. As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on African Affairs of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, I have monitored how the women of Africa participate in the political process and make vital contributions to the economies of their countries. During the recent assembly and presidential elections in Nigeria, women served as poll workers and were candidates for the assembly. I regret that voter turnout among women was noticeably low, but was pleased to see some progress being made. One way in which the Senate can honor women worldwide is to fulfill our long-overdue constitutional obligation to offer our advice and consent to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) at the earliest possible date. This year marks the 20th anniversary of CEDAW, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 18, 1979. CEDAW was signed by the United States on July 17, 1980, and was transmitted to the Senate for its advice and consent by President Carter on November 12, 1980. Almost two decades later, the treaty is still pending before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. As of December 1998, 163 countries have ratified CEDAW. Only three signatories have yet to ratify the convention: Afghanistan, San Tome and Principe, and the United States. It is high time for us to ratify this important document. In closing, Mr. President, as the father of two daughters, I am hopeful that the world we leave to our children and grandchilren will be deviod of domestic violence and other forms of gender-based discrimination, harrassment, and violence. As we prepare to enter the 21st century, we must redouble our efforts to protect and promote the rights of women and girls at home and abroad.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I join today with my colleagues the Senior Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senior Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) to pay tribute to Morris K. Udall. While my friends from Arizona and Massachusetts enjoyed direct personal and working relationships with Mo Udall, I never knew him. But, I believe that those members of this body who worked with Mo Udall were infected by his unwavering commitment to his colleagues and share Udall's desire to work in a bipartisan fashion. I feel that I am a part of this legacy, and that is why I am joining in paying tribute to Udall's life. Central parts of Udall's legislative agenda were his commitment to the reform of campaign financing and his commitment to environmental protection. In 1967, Udall wrote in a constituent newsletter about the perilous position in which the drive to raise money places young aspiring legislators. He argued, setting the stage for the reform of the 1970s, that ``drastic changes'' were ``needed to breathe new life into American politics and recapture our political system from the money changers.'' I am inspired by Udall's remarks, in my own work on campaign finance reform with the Senior Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), especially when I reflect on the fact that these are neither new nor resolved problems. I also share Mo Udall's great respect for America's public lands. I have been a co-sponsor of the bill to protect the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife refuge for three Congresses, and I have joined in the fight to protect the public lands of Southern Utah. Both of these campaigns date back to unfinished business that Udall began with the Alaska Lands Act and with his commitment to designating and protecting our country's special wild places. In addition to conveying my own admiration for Mo Udall, I am also here to share the reflections of my own home state. Wisconsinites have a special fondness for Mo Udall for several reasons. Udall, who began his presidential quest as a long shot, a relatively unknown Arizona congressman, turned out to be a serious contender for the presidency. With his special brand of humor, Udall was a reformer who didn't come across as self-important. He outlasted bigger-name contenders and became Jimmy Carter's major rival for the nomination. As a presidential candidate, Udall was unafraid to describe himself as part of a political tradition near and dear to the heart of the Badger State--progressivism. ``Liberal,'' Udall said, was just a buzzword. He didn't mind answering to it but by his standards he felt that he should more accurately be described as a ``progressive,'' in the tradition of Wisconsin's Fighting Bob LaFollette and in line with the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy. During the 1976 campaign, a commitment to progressivism nearly handed him Wisconsin's nod. Udall's biggest disappointment was in Wisconsin, where two networks declared him the winner and the April 7, 1976 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's front page declared: ``Carter Upset by Udall.'' After going to bed as the winner of Wisconsin, Udall woke up as the runner-up when Carter pulled it out by less than 1% of the vote. Those premature reports turned out to be as close to victory as Udall got in the Democratic primaries that year. It is my understanding that following his unsuccessful campaign for President, Udall framed that Milwaukee Journal Sentinel cover and it remained hanging on the wall within arm's length of his desk in his Capitol Hill office. Second, Wisconsinites truly appreciated an accomplished national legislator who could laugh at himself. That's a rarity in politics. It's also why Udall is being remembered with such respect and affection from both sides of the political aisle. It is my understanding that Udall always had a one-liner. When Udall wrote a book about his '76 campaign, he called it ``Too Funny to Be President.'' A few of Washington's more somber commentators had suggested in '76 that Udall was too witty to be taken seriously. Udall disagreed: ``I've had a lot of letters about it. People found it a very appealing characteristic. They don't like pomposity. I took problems seriously--but not myself. The humor was directed at me, at other politicians, at the political process. I thought it was a big asset. It showed some stability and sensitivity.'' That book describes a 1976 campaign discussion in Wisconsin that Udall had with a 70-year old farmer in the northern part of my state. According to Udall, the farmer asked: ``Where are you from son?'' ``Washington, DC,'' Udall replied. ``You've got some pretty smart fellas back there ain't ya?,'' said the farmer. ``Yes sir, I guess we do.'' ``Got some that ain't so smart too, ain't ya?,'' the farmer continued.'' ``Well,'' Udall replied, ``I guess that's true too.'' ``Hard to tell the difference, ain't it,'' the farmer concluded with a laugh. Having traveled to every one of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year as part of my commitment to hold an annual town meeting, I share Udall's delight in this anecdote and his characterization of this truly Wisconsin exchange ``In a democracy, you see,'' Udall said, ``the people always have the last laugh.'' Udall will be long remembered for his character and fundamental decency. Without him, we must all strive to put issues before party and to complete the people's business. On behalf of myself and the citizens of my state, I wish to convey our greatest sympathy to Mo Udall's family. We are a greater country for his service. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for the Airline Passenger Fairness Act. I commend Senators Wyden and McCain for bringing this crucial consumer issue before the Senate in a bipartisan manner. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this bill. Mr. President, I'm sure that each and every one of us in this body has experienced his or her fair share of frustration with air travel. Whether it's late flights, bad meals, long lines, or lost luggage, we've all gotten the short end of the stick at one point or another. When it comes to air travel, we are all consumers. And this bill assures the protection of consumer interests. The Airline Passenger Fairness Act would ensure that passengers have the information that they need to make informed choices in their air travel plans. Given the recent spate of airlines' customer relations debacles, I hope this bill will also encourage some of them to treat their customers with more respect. Mr. President, financial statements and the stock market don't lie. Most airlines have been experiencing years of exploding growth and record profits. Unfortunately, some employees and consumers have not shared in the boom. While this bill doesn't address all consumer concerns, it does move us forward in a constructive manner. Mr. President, it's probably about time air travelers' interests received our attention. According to the Department of Transportation, consumer complaints about air travel shot up by more than 25 percent last year. Those complaints run the gamut from ephemeral ticket pricing; being sold a ticket on already oversold flights; lost luggage; and flight delays, changes, and cancellations. This bill addresses these issues and more. Perhaps of more importance, this bill does so without forcing airlines to compile information that they don't already keep. The bill simply allows air travelers the right to that basic information and the ability to make informed decisions. Mr. President, I am fortunate to represent and be a customer of the nation's premier airline when it comes to customer satisfaction. For years, Midwest Express Airlines has enjoyed some of the highest airline customer satisfaction ratings in the country. For those of my colleagues who haven't had the pleasure to ride on Midwest Express, I, and I'm sure I speak for the senior Senator from Wisconsin, encourage you to do so. Mr. President, Midwest Express maintains those superlative ratings because it already incorporates some of the provisions spelled out in this bill. Midwest Express already tries to notify its travelers if it anticipates a flight delay, flight change, or flight cancellation. The airline already attempts to make information on oversold flights available to its customers. Midwest Express already makes efforts to allow its customers access to frequent flyer program information. These are some of the reasons the airline has been awarded the Consumer Reports Travel Letter Best Airline Award every year from 1992 to 1998; Zagat Airline Survey's #1 Domestic Airline award in 1994 and 1996; Travel & Leisure's World's Best Awards for Best Domestic Airline in 1997 and 1998; and Conde Nast Traveler's Business Travel Awards for Best U.S. Airline in 1998, among many awards. Mr. President, other airlines should see this bill as a challenge to meet the lofty standards set by airlines like Midwest Express. Mr. President, air travel is on the rise, but so are air travel complaints. This bill responds to the complaints by giving our constituents access to the information they need to make wise choices in air travel. Airlines truly concerned about their customers should already be making these efforts. As I noted, one Wisconsin-based airline is already making the effort. I urge my colleagues to join in this effort.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, with the impeachment trial now behind us, I wanted to take a moment to make a few comments about the process that we experienced and suggest some of the lessons that we learned. I hope that in the weeks and months to come, we can look back dispassionately and try to take advantage of those lessons to make some changes in the Senate's rules that might serve us well in future impeachment trials. The process used in the impeachment trial in the Senate was imperfect, but this is not surprising. The only truly apposite source of precedents took place more than 130 years ago. The value of the Johnson procedural precedents has been undermined in part by the changes in our politics, our culture and our technology. There are many aspects of the trial that history will undoubtedly look upon with favor. Chief Justice Rehnquist, a son of Shorewood, Wisconsin, presided fairly and with dignity. His few rulings were not challenged. Perhaps most important, he provided a steady hand with a dose of humor. We are all in his debt. In addition, senators approached the trial with dignity and collegiality. At the moment of greatest tension between the advocates, good will among senators never faltered. I understand that this may, in part, be due to the fact that the ultimate outcome of this trial was never in doubt. Having said that, however, senators, really without exception, took their duties and each other seriously. The impeachment of a president is a painful process, and, as I will discuss further in a moment, it ought to be painful. The stakes were very high in this trial, yet the Senate remained a place of civility. This was in stark contrast to the impeachment process in the House of Representatives. I hope the relative harmony in the Senate restored to this process some of the legitimacy lost in the partisan din of the other body. The House Managers and the President's counsel did well in their individual presentations. At the outset we senators caucused together and reached a fair, if imperfect, roadmap for the early stages of the trial. Ultimately, we agreed on a procedural course that took us through the verdict. The tone throughout was civil and the arguments, by and large, on point. But we did tie the hands of the advocates in some ways, and perhaps denied ourselves the fullest possible presentation of the evidence and arguments. The trial consisted, except for the unusual, and not always helpful, question period, of opening arguments followed by several iterations of closing arguments. These arguments were interspersed with video snippets from grand jury depositions and depositions by the House Managers. This arrangement, pieced together as we went along, did not always make for a coherent narrative. The House Managers' theory of the case required us to accept a narrative, a story of conspiracy, lies and efforts to thwart justice. As they told the story, each sinister act was offered as evidence of the coherent whole. They had trouble telling a story, due partly to flaws in their theory and, to be fair, perhaps in small part due to flaws in our process. We had no live witnesses. The parties alternated control of the floor, creating a dynamic of thrust and parry, rather than a methodically constructed narrative. The managers' complaints about the process in turn became a recurrent theme in their arguments, resulting in greater, and sometimes unfair, latitude for them in their efforts to make the case. For example, on a disappointing party line vote, the President was denied fair notice of the snippets of taped testimony that would be woven into the House Managers' arguments. Then the Senate allowed the House Managers to reserve two of their three hours of closing arguments for a ``rebuttal'' which included new iterations of their various accusations, with no opportunity for the defense to reply. The question of witnesses was distorted on both sides by political considerations. The House Managers were counseled by their allies in the Senate not to seek too many witnesses, lest they unnerve Senators with visions of unseemly testimony on the floor. The President's defenders declared that no witnesses were necessary; they argued that the House Managers had passed up their chance to hear fact witnesses in the House Judiciary Committee hearings. Neither approach was sound-- witnesses would have helped, but they should have been chosen and presented in a thoughtful way. I believe, for example, that Betty Currie was a very important potential witness. She was nowhere to be found, apparently because the managers made a political calculation that they would do without her testimony, trading away the strongest piece of their obstruction case. In the end, both sides made strategic decisions in this trial at the mercy of a fluid and unpredictable procedure. That led to an element of chance in the trial that I believe was unfortunate. And it also led to complaints from each side about the fairness of the process that were a distraction from the substance of the trial. I therefore recommend to future presidential impeachment courts that at the very outset they try hard to achieve consensus on a procedure that will govern the entire trial. The process was not only flawed in the procedure on the floor. In the midst of the trial, the Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr, at the behest of the House Managers, sought from the District Court an order compelling Monica Lewinsky to travel to Washington to submit to a private interview with the House Managers. This interposed the court and the Independent Counsel in matters properly reserved to the Senate, in which the Constitution vests the sole power to try impeachments. In so doing, he undermined the bipartisan agreement of the Senate that it would make procedural determinations regarding witnesses following the opening arguments and the question period. Both the Republican and Democratic caucuses met throughout the trial to discuss the proceedings. I attended these meetings and I do not assert that they were improper, but we could have better lived up to our oath to do impartial justice, if we had not held those regular party caucuses. Those meetings must have seemed to some of our constituents to be the place where we plotted a partisan course. This could not have helped the people to have confidence in our work. Time and again, we saw the House Managers and the President's lawyers clearly responding to advice from Senators. At times they held formal meetings with Senators. There were countless casual conversations about the case between Senators and the advocates for both sides. We are not solely jurors, in the traditional sense, but as triers of fact and law, we would do well in future impeachment trials to avoid these interactions, which really amount to ex parte communications. The greatest flaw in the process was the lack of openness in deliberations. The modern Senate has no excuse for locking the people out of any of its proceedings except for the most serious reasons of national security. The Chief Justice ruled forcefully that the Senate in an impeachment trial is not a jury in the ordinary sense of the word. With that ruling, any pretext for closed deliberations was destroyed. We should quickly take steps now that the trial is over to change the archaic rules that forced this process behind closed doors at crucial moments. The American people should be able to watch us and hear us at every stage in a process that could lead to removal of a President they elected. Secrecy in these proceedings is wrong and can only undermine public confidence in this important constitutional event. Mr. President, impeachment trials should be extremely rare. To make this more likely, the process of impeachment in the Senate should not be quick, convenient, and painless. Making it so only invites its further abuse. Adherence to a thorough process can provide a stabilizing bulwark against this kind of abuse. That is one of the reasons I opposed premature motions to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment and supported the House Managers' motions to depose witnesses and to admit those depositions into the record. The hasty and abbreviated impeachment process of the other body helped contribute to a feeling of two armed encampments facing each other in a high stakes contest rather than a search for truth or justice. Whether a President is convicted or acquitted, no credible or politically sustainable result can possibly come from such a process. I believe it is important for us to review and analyze the process by which we conducted this trial and look honestly and critically at what worked and what didn't. We should then make changes to the process, now, while the experiences of this trial are fresh in our minds, and hand down to the next Senate that faces the unfortunate task of mounting an impeachment trial rules and procedures that will help it conduct the trial in a manner worthy of the weighty constitutional duty that the Framers of the Constitution bequeathed to it.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the subject of the Meat Labeling Act of 1999. This measure, introduced earlier this year by South Dakota Senator, Tim Johnson, would require the country-of-origin labeling of beef, lamb, and pork prior to their sale at a retail level in the United States. This bill will protect the consumers--who right now have no way of telling what country their meat is coming from--and come to the aid of an industry which has had to face severe competition from foreign countries in recent years. Mr. President, last year, the U.S. agriculture industry faced devastating losses. Bad weather, pest infestation, decreased demand stemming from the Asian financial crisis, and increased imports, especially from Canada, all contributed to the record low prices in nearly every sector. In Wisconsin, the hog industry took a big hit as cash prices dropped an average of 55%. Incomes were slashed, farms were sold for pennies on the dollar, and over 600 producers left the business. This year, the Asian crisis continues, as well as the financial problems in Russia, in Brazil and other countries. The truth is that the market for U.S. agriculture products is bleak and it does not appear to be changing anytime soon. America's meat producers face not only tough global competition from abroad, but a big disadvantage here at home, because their products aren't marked ``made in the USA.'' That means consumers can't distinguish a U.S.-grown pork chop from a Mexican one. This raises health and safety concerns, since meat- handling standards in other countries may not be as stringent as our own, and it means that consumers can't choose to put their buying power behind American farmers in the check-out aisle. Right now the only guidance consumers do have is misleading at best-- since many of us would assume that a steak that carries a USDA inspection and grade label is U.S. produced. But in many cases, this couldn't be farther from the truth. That steak could be from Mexico, Canada, or Nicaragua. And for a variety of reasons, I think Wisconsinites want to know if the pork chop they are buying is from Marquette or Mexico. Recent scares over food imported from foreign countries make this issue more important than ever to consumers. Cases of disease and numerous problems with the quality of some foreign products make it all the more vital that we provide our consumers with as much information as possible so that they may make informed decisions about the food they purchase for themselves and their families. Mr. President, this measure is supported by the Administration and prominent agriculture groups like the National Farmers Union, the American Farm Bureau, and the National Cattlemen's Association to name a few. Most importantly, this measure is supported by American consumers. In January, a survey conducted by Wirthlin Worldwide showed an overwhelming percentage of Americans, 78%, want to know more about the origin of the meat they purchase. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important measure. I urge you to give your constituents the right to know more about the origin of the food they buy and to allow them the opportunity to make choices that support their nation's agriculture industry.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer S. Res. 54 with regard to the escalating violence, the gross violation of human rights and attacks against civilians in the West African country of Sierra Leone. I am joined in this effort by my colleagues, Senators Frist, Biden, Jeffords, Wellstone, and Feinstein. This resolution expresses in the strongest terms the condemnation of the ongoing atrocities committed by rebel forces in Sierra Leone, including forced amputations, the rape of women and children, the pillaging of farms, and the murder of unarmed civilians. It urges all parties in the brutal violence to cease hostilities and engage in a dialogue to bring about a lasting solution that will support the people of Sierra Leone in their quest for a democratic, prosperous, and reconciled society. It further calls upon the President and the Secretary of State to give high priority to solving the conflict and supporting United Nations efforts to monitor respect for human rights and humanitarian law by all parties to this deplorable situation. Mr. President, since it gained independence in 1961, Sierra Leone has endured a series of military regimes and rebellions in struggles over economic and political power. However, the latest round of violence is unique in the scale and brutality of the attacks On innocent civilians. Let me provide a little history to help set the stage for the current human tragedy faced by the people of Sierra Leone. In May 1997, a group of military officers, the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) seized power. During their nine month tenure, the AFRC joined forces with the armed rebel Revolutionary United Front (RUF) to form a regime characterized by serious human rights abuses and a complete breakdown of the rule of law. In response to this situation, in February 1998 the Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group (ECOMOG), a Nigerian-led African peacekeeping force that helped restore stability to neighboring Liberia, forced the AFRC/RUF out of power, restoring President Ahmad Kabbah, who had been elected in March 1996 in Sierra Leone's first multi-party elections in almost three decades. Since their ouster, the AFRC/RUF forces have waged an increasingly vicious struggle against the weak Kabbah government. The situation is further complicated by the apparent participation by neighboring governments, Liberia and Burkina Faso, in supporting the rebel forces. Libya, too, has been identified as providing support to the rebels. In recognition of the unacceptable state of human rights and the massive humanitarian crisis brought on by the civil war, the United Nations took action in July 1998, when the Security Council established the UN Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL) for an initial period of six months, until January 1999. UNOMSIL, formed of up to 70 military observers and a small medical unit, was tasked with monitoring the military and security situation in the country, including the disarmament and demobilization of former combatants, and the adherence to international humanitarian law. Unfortunately, a rebel assault on the capital in January forced the evacuation of UNOMSIL to neighboring Guinea. Mr. President, it is difficult for most of us to comprehend the extent and the brutality of the human crisis in Sierra Leone. The United Nations has estimated that over 400,000 Sierra Leoneans have fled the fighting, either as refugees to neighboring Guinea and Liberia or to camps for the internally displaced. Conditions for both internally displaced persons and refugees are often severe due to a lack of access to camps and poor security conditions. Mr. President, words cannot adequately describe the horrors that have been waged by the AFRC/RUF forces, which have included some of the most heinous acts ever committed in wartime. Human Rights Watch estimates that thousands of Sierra Leonean civilians have been raped, deliberately mutilated (often by amputation), or killed outright by the AFRC/RUF. In February 1998, these rebel groups launched two loosely organized campaigns of terror, ``Operation No Living Thing'' and ``Operation Pay Yourself,'' designed to loot, destroy, or kill anything in the path of the combatants. During these campaigns, rebel fighters were encouraged to actively target women and commit sexual violence, including rape. Children, too, have not been spared from the gross violations of human rights committed by both sides to the conflict. The AFRC/RUF has abducted as many as 2,500 children--probably in the thousands--for use as laborers, fighters, and in the case of girls, sexual prisoners. They have abducted many children, some as young as eight or ten years old, and turned them into some of the rebels' fiercest fighters. In December, the Chairman of the UN Security Council's Sierra Leone Sanctions Committee stated that it was hard to find words strong enough to describe the atrocities committed by the rebels. He cited instances where AFRC/RUF forces have cut off body parts with large machetes or burned civilians alive. He estimated that more than 4,000 people had been summarily executed or mutilated, just since April. Given the restrictions on access to a significant portion of the country, these numbers are likely just the tip of the iceberg. The scope of the catastrophe is overwhelming, yet it is even more heart rending when viewed through the lens of the stories of individual experiences. International human rights groups have interviewed hundreds of survivors of the violence, each with a tale of suffering that is incomprehensible to many Americans. One woman described how she was captured, cut with a machete by a child rebel, had her hand amputated, and was left to bury her own hand. A reporter for the ``Herald Guardian'' reported seeing rebels cut off the foot of a boy and then execute him, with the final words of ``You're too tall.'' Another woman recounted being captured, beaten, raped, and having the backs of her ankles sliced just below the Achilles tendon to ensure that she could not run away. Hundreds of Sierra Leoneans, who have swelled the refugees ranks in border camps in Guinea and Liberia, have similar stories. Mr. President, although the bulk of the condemnation must go to the rebel forces of the AFRC and the RUF, the Kabbah government is itself no paragon of liberty and the rule of law. In particular, the Kamajor civilian defense forces affiliated with the Kabbah regime have been cited for indiscriminate killings and torture. Many of the more than 2,000 prisoners in Sierra Leone have been held under the 1998 Public Emergency Regulations, which provide for indefinite detention without trial. Section 13 of the same Public Emergency Regulations even declares that ``disturbing reports'' by the media are punishable offenses. Further exacerbating human rights abuses, government prisons are often overcrowded, unsanitary, and lacking in health care and the regular provision of food. In other examples, the High Court of Sierra Leone sentenced to death twenty-seven civilians convicted of treason, including five journalists and a seventy-five-year-old woman. International observers questioned the appropriateness of the treason charges for the journalists, and criticized the lack of a right to appeals in sentencing by the military court. In October, the government of Sierra Leone executed by firing squad, without benefit of an appeal process, twenty-four soldiers. Unfortunately even elements of the otherwise admirable ECOMOG forces must also shoulder some of the responsibility for the devastation that wracks Sierra Leone. According to international humanitarian groups, shelling by ECOMOG during its assault on Freetown, Sierra Leone's capital, in February 1998, took a high toll on civilians. Its forces have also obstructed humanitarian assistance and some members may seek to prolong their mission in order to exploit the conflict for economic gain. Mr. President, it is unconscionable to allow this situation to continue without exerting every effort to help resolve the conflict that generates such atrocities. While no other country or international organization can impose a settlement on Sierra Leone, it is incumbent upon us to offer our assistance in ending the catastrophic violence. We must call on the combatants to come to the negotiating table, and on neighboring governments to cease their support for the rebel forces that have prolonged Sierra Leone's political and humanitarian agony. We should be prepared to support such a process through provision of additional logistical support to the regional peacekeeping force and through encouragement of a renewed commitment for UNOMSIL to carry out its mandate. To provide for a long term solution, we must also actively support multinational humanitarian operations to address the wide- ranging needs of a displaced and brutalized population. But even if the humanitarian disaster can be stemmed, we must not walk away until there is the prospect of a government that adheres to the rule of law and supports the universally recognized standards of human rights. Mr. President, it does not please me to have to introduce this kind of resolution here in the Senate. But I believe it is important for the Senate to be on record in strong condemnation of the atrocities currently raging in Sierra Leone. I hope we can all move quickly to pass this resolution through the Committee on Foreign Relations and through the full Senate.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few remarks concerning S. 4, the military pay and benefits bill. Senator Warner, the esteemed new chairman of the Armed Service Committee, has begun what I'm sure will be a distinguished tenure by addressing an issue of critical importance. I don't know if there is a more vital resource in this nation than its men and women in uniform. Without question, certain services have a recruiting and retention problem. For a variety of reasons, officers and enlisted members are leaving the Army, Navy, and Air Force in droves, and these services are having problems bringing new people on board. Serious questions remain unresolved about the cause of this problem, or its best solution, yet we will probably vote out the bill this week without those answers, and with little concern for its fiscal impact. I am extremely concerned that this bill came out of the Armed Services Committee without the benefit of a single hearing and with little understanding of its effects on the budget. The rush to pass this bill is perplexing. We would normally address military pay raises, retirement reform, and the other bill provisions during consideration of the annual defense authorization bill. This course only makes more sense given the uncertainty we face regarding the budget impact of this bill. It would give the Senate ample opportunity to answer the myriad questions surrounding the bill's cost and budget implications. Mr. President, there are some significant budget concerns raised by this bill. It increases both discretionary spending and entitlement costs, and all of its costs are heavily back loaded. According to CBO, S. 4 increases discretionary spending by $40.8 billion over the next 10 years. In addition, the bill's costs rise each year, reaching $6.5 billion by 2009, and would continue to rise for a number of years after that. The bill increases entitlement costs by $13.2 billion over the next 10 years. Again, this figure does not fully reflect the eventual price tag as costs rise over time. CBO estimates that when the provisions of S. 4 are fully phased in, the entitlement costs for pensions would result in increased costs of $5 billion a year. Similarly, the additional costs for so-called readjustment benefits, essentially education benefits, would rise, and by 2009 would increase by $2.5 billion per year. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, when fully in effect, the bill as a whole would cost at least $15 billion per year, and possibly more. Most notably, none, let me repeat that, Mr. President, none of this is offset. Due to these effects on the budget, the bill is subject to not one, but three 60-vote points of order: (1) It exceeds the Armed Services Committee's allocation for entitlement spending for fiscal years 1999 through fiscal year 2003; (2) It breaches the revenue floor by decreasing income tax revenues from the Thrift Savings Program provision; and (3) It has PAYGO problems because none of the new mandatory spending and tax revenue losses are offset. Mr. President, strictly from a budget point of view, regardless of the pay and pension policies in the bill, this can be fairly characterized as a budget buster. An eventual cost of $15 billion per year is large, and at the very least should be considered as part of an overall budget, not rushed through before we have passed a budget resolution. There are other concerns, Mr. President. The biggest question is whether this bill will actually improve recruitment and retention. Just this week, the General Accounting Office offered preliminary data on a study showing that money has been overstated as a factor affecting decisions to stay in or leave the military. Instead, GAO found, in a survey of more than 700 service members, that issues like a lack of spare parts; concerns with the health care system; increased deployments; and dissatisfaction with military leaders have at least as much effect on retention, if not more, than money. GAO is expected to finish the report in June. Not only that. The Defense Department and the Congressional Budget Office are expected to have their own reports in the coming weeks and months. Why not wait until then? Let's make sure we're doing the right things to maintain the world's best armed forces. Mr. President, I'd like to address some specific provisions in the bill. As we are all now well aware, the military pension system was changed in 1986. At the time, many, including those in President Reagan's Defense Department, argued that the pension system encouraged many of our servicemembers to leave the services early. They had the benefit of several years of study and hearings to reach that conclusion. My late colleague from Wisconsin, the former Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, devoted much of his career to shaping the world's best and most feared military. At the time we changed the military pension system, he voiced considerable concern that the pension benefits were so generous to those with 20 years of service, and still at a relatively young age, that they provided incentive to leave for the private sector, rather than stay in the service. Our former Armed Services Committee Chairman, Sam Nunn, stated that ``returning to the old system would reduce--not strengthen--the willingness of personnel to remain in the service.'' That is a heady statement from a colleague whose judgment on defense issues is still widely respected by those serving in this body today. Just back in October, then-Chairman Thurmond and Senator Levin, the committee's ranking member, proclaimed that any change to the pension system should be subject to ``careful analysis.'' As yet, I haven't seen one. And I would like to see that careful analysis before moving forward with this bill. I have heard from the men and women out on the front lines. According to what I've heard, they are leaving because of ever-increasing deployments to uncertain destinations, ever-widening time away from their families, and dwindling advancement opportunities. Like anyone else, they want to see a better quality of life. I won't disagree with the view that many servicemembers need a raise. And I firmly believe that they should receive one, especially the enlisted folks, many of whom could be getting more money by flipping burgers at the closest fast food joint. These men and women have chosen to represent our country. They deserve to be paid adequately. Ultimately, though, Mr. President, too many questions about this bill remain unanswered. I, and I hope many of my colleagues, would like to know how this bill will affect our budget now and in the future. We just extricated ourselves from a budget quagmire. Shouldn't we have all the answers about a bill that will cost $55 billion over the next 10 years before we vote on it? I just seems like common sense to me. If we were to find that this bill won't harm Social Security and other important programs, and it will actually improve recruitment and retention, I would support it fully. Short of those answers, I cannot support putting our nation's budget on the precipice of disaster. Mr. President, we have time this year to hold hearings; to hear from officers and enlisted men and women; to hear from service chiefs; to receive expert studies. There is no reason to rush this important legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I especially thank my friends from Arkansas and Minnesota. I am extremely proud of their leadership on this issue. Having this matter become one of the first matters we take up in this Congress is exactly the right way to go. We need to be as aggressive as we can on this issue. That is why I am cosponsoring the resolution. I strongly commend them for their leadership on this. The resolution expresses the sense of the Senate that the United States should initiate active lobbying at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights for a resolution condemning human rights abuses in China. And it calls specifically for the United States to introduce and make all efforts necessary to pass a resolution on China and Tibet at the upcoming session of the Commission, which is due to begin next month in Geneva. This resolution makes a simple, clear statement of principle: The Senate believes that there should be a China resolution in Geneva, period. The Commission is a focal point for the protection of human rights, and as such, is an ideal multilateral forum in which the United States should voice its concerns. Under the pressure of previous Geneva resolutions, China has finally reacted. China signed the U.N. Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights in 1997 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in October 1998. Unfortunately, neither of these important documents has been ratified or implemented. But at least the kind of pressure the United States put on this situation led them to sign these documents. The effort to move a resolution in the Commission is particularly important this year, in light of the Administration's decision, contrary to the nearly unanimous sentiment of the Senate, not to sponsor such a resolution last year. That was a real disappointment for all of us. Their misguided belief that progress could be achieved by other means was clearly not borne out by events in 1998, when, particularly in the last quarter, China stepped up its repression. As we all know, for the past few years, China's leaders have aggressively lobbied against efforts at the Commission earlier and more actively than the countries that support a resolution. Last year, Chinese officials basically succeeded in getting the European Union Foreign Ministers to drop any European cosponsorship of a resolution. In the past, China's vigorous efforts have resulted in a ``no action'' motion at the Commission. I will say, on a bright note, that in 1995 a ``no action'' motion was defeated and a resolution was almost adopted. But, unfortunately, on a downbeat note, it lost by only one vote. A little more effort could have made the difference. I sincerely hope that we do not end up with that kind of a loss at this year's meeting. Nearly five years after the President's decision, which I deeply regretted, to delink most-favored-nation status from human rights, we cannot forget that the human rights situation in China and Tibet remains abysmal. While the State Department has not yet provided its most recent human rights report, I have no doubt it will be as critical of China as the 1997 report was when it noted that ``the Government of China continued to commit widespread and well-documented human rights abuses in violation of internationally accepted norms, including extrajudicial killings, the use of torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, forced abortion and sterilization, the sale of organs from executed prisoners, and tight control over the exercise of the rights of freedom of speech, press, and religion.'' I encourage Secretary Albright to actively raise these concerns with her counterparts during her visit to Beijing next week. Unfortunately, in the past bilateral discussions have produced only empty promises from China's leaders on the subject of human rights. Regardless of what assurances China may provide to the Secretary, we should not let Beijing's easily abandoned promises deter us from seeking international condemnation of its practices. Only through strong US leadership can we gain the broad international consensus necessary to maintain the pressure on China to demonstrate sustained progress in providing the basic human rights its people deserve. Mr. President, again my thanks to these two Senators. The time is now, and the place is Geneva. We are going to keep pushing this until it gets done. I thank the President, and I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that will restore a measure of pay equity for our nation's Guardsmen and Reservists. The men and women who serve in the Guard and Reserves are cornerstones of our national defense and domestic infrastructure and deserve more than a pat on the back. Mr. President, as I'm certain my colleagues are well aware, the Guard and Reserve are integral parts of overseas missions, including recent and on-going missions to Iraq and Bosnia. According to statements by DoD officials, guardsmen and reservists will continue to play an increasingly important role in national defense strategy. The National Guard and Reserves deserve the full support they need to carry out their duties. National Guard and Reserve members are increasingly relied upon to shoulder more of the burden of military operations. We need to compensate our citizen-soldiers for this increasing reliance on the Reserve forces. Mr. President, this boils down to an issue of fairness. Mr. President, my amendment would correct special duty assignment pay inequities between the Reserve components of our armed forces and their active duty counterparts. These inequities should be corrected to take into account the National Guard and Reserves' increased role in our national security, especially on the front lines. Given the increased use of the Reserve components and DoD's increased reliance on them, Reservists deserve fair pay. My amendment provides that a Reservist who is entitled to basic pay and is performing special duty be paid special duty assignment pay. Mr. President, right now, Reservists are getting shortchanged despite the vital role they play in our national defense. The special duty assignment pay program ensures readiness by compensating specific soldiers who are assigned to duty positions that demand special training and extraordinary effort to maintain a level of satisfactory performance. The program, as it stands now, effectively reduces the ability of the National Guard and Reserve to retain highly dedicated and specialized soldiers. The special duty assignment pay program provides an additional monthly financial incentive paid to enlisted soldiers and airmen who are required to perform extremely demanding duties that require an unusual degree of responsibility. These special duty assignments include certain command sergeants major, guidance counselors, retention non-commissioned officers (NCO's), drill sergeants, and members of the Special Forces. These soldiers, however, do not receive special duty assignment pay while in an IDT status (drill weekends). Between fiscal years 1998 and 1999, spending for the program was cut by $1.6 million, which has placed a fiscal restraint on the number of personnel the Army National Guard is able to provide for under this program. These soldiers deserve better. Mr. President, these differences in pay and benefits are particularly disturbing since National Guard and Reserve members give up their civilian salaries during the time they are called up or volunteer for active duty. As I'm sure all my colleagues have heard, the President will propose an enormous boost in defense spending over the next six years; an increase of $12 billion for fiscal year 2000 and about $110 billion over the next six years. I have tremendous reservations about spending hikes of this magnitude, but have no such reservations about supporting this nation's citizen-soldiers in this small but important way. The National Guard and Reserve deserve pay and benefit equity and that means paying them what they're worth. Mr. President, according to the National Guard, shortfalls in the operations and maintenance account compromise the Guard's readiness levels, capabilities, force structure, and end strength. Failing to fully support these vital areas will have both direct and indirect effects. The shortfall puts the Guard's personnel, schools, training, full-time support, and retention and recruitment at risk. Perhaps more importantly, however, it erodes the morale of our citizen-soldiers. Over these past years, the Administration has increasingly called on the Guard and Reserves to handle wider-ranging tasks, while simultaneously offering defense budgets with shortfalls of hundreds of millions of dollars. These shortfalls have increasingly greater effect given the guard and reserves' increased operations burdens. This is a result of new missions, increased deployments, and training requirements. Earlier this year, Charles Cragin, the assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs, presented DoD's position with regard to the department's working relationship with the National Guard and Reserve. He stated that all branches of the military reserves will be called upon more frequently as the nation pares back the number of soldiers on active duty. This has clearly been DoD's policy for the past few years, but Mr. Cragin went a little further by stating that the reserve units can no longer be considered ``weekend warriors'' but primary components of national defense. Mr. President, in the past, DoD viewed the armed forces as a two- pronged system, with active-duty troops being the primary prong, reinforced by the Reserve component. That strategy has changed with the downsizing of active forces. Defense officials now see reserves as part of the ``total force'' of the military. The National Guard and Reserves will be called more frequently to active duty for domestic support roles and abroad in various peace- keeping efforts. They will also be vital players on special teams trained to deal with weapons of mass destruction deployed within our own borders. According to many military experts, this represents a more salient threat to the United States than the threat of a ballistic missile attack that many of my colleagues have spent so much time addressing. Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to see some of these soldiers off as they embarked on these missions and have welcomed them home upon their return, and I have been struck by the courage and professionalism they display. Guardsmen and Reservists have been vital on overseas missions, and here at home. In Wisconsin, the State Guard provides vital support during state emergencies, including floods, ice storms, and train derailments. Mr. President, we have a duty to honor the service of our National Guardsmen and Reservists. One way to do that is to equitably compensate them for their service. I hope my colleagues agree that our citizen- soldiers serve an invaluable role in our national defense, and their paychecks should reflect their contribution. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today as an original co-sponsor of S. Res. 45 with regard to human rights in China. The resolution expresses the sense of the Senate that the United States should initiate active lobbying at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights for a resolution condemning human rights abuses in China. It calls specifically for the United States to introduce and make all efforts necessary to pass a resolution on China and Tibet at the upcoming session of the Commission, which is due to begin in March in Geneva. This resolution makes a simple, clear statement of principle: The Senate believes that there should be a China resolution in Geneva, period. Mr. President, the Commission on Human Rights first met in 1947, spending its first year drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Over the next two decades, the Commission was responsible for drafting an impressive body of international human rights law and set the global standards for human rights. In the 1990s, the Commission has increasingly turned its attention to assisting states in overcoming obstacles to securing human rights for their citizens. It has been a focal point for protection of human rights for vulnerable groups in society, and as such, the Commission serves as an ideal multilateral forum for a resolution and debate on China's human rights practices. The effort to move a resolution is particularly important this year, in light of the Administration's decision, contrary to the nearly unanimous sentiment of the Senate, not to sponsor such a resolution last year. Their misguided belief that progress could be achieved by other means was clearly not borne out by events in 1998, when, particularly in the last quarter, China stepped up its repression. As we all know, for the past few years, China's leaders have aggressively lobbied against efforts at the Commission earlier and more actively than the countries that support a resolution. Last year, Chinese officials basically succeeded in getting the European Union Foreign Ministers to drop any European cosponsorship of a resolution. In the past, China's vigorous efforts have resulted in a ``no action'' motion at the Commission, however, in 1995 a ``no action'' motion was defeated and a resolution almost adopted, losing by only one vote. I sincerely hope we will not have the same results again at this year's meeting. It is essential to have a resolution on China under the auspices of the Commission on Human Rights. The multilateral nature of the Commission makes it a very appropriate forum to debate and discuss the human rights situation in China. The Commission's review has led to proven and concrete progress on human rights in other countries, and the expectation is that such scrutiny could also lead to progress on human rights in China. Under the pressure of previous Geneva resolutions, China signed in 1997 the UN Covenant of Social, Economic and Cultural Rights and in October 1998 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Neither has yet been ratified or implemented. Nearly five years after the President's decision, which I deeply regretted, to delink most-favored-nation status from human rights, we cannot forget that the human rights situation in China and Tibet remains abysmal. While the State Department has not yet provided its most recent human rights report, I have no doubt it will be as critical of China as the 1997 report was when it noted that ``the Government of China continued to commit widespread and well-documented human rights abuses in violation of internationally accepted norms, including extrajudicial killings, the use of torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, forced abortion and sterilization, the sale of organs from executed prisoners, and tight control over the exercise of the rights of freedom of speech, press, and religion.'' According to testimony to Congress by Amnesty International, the human rights situation in China shows no fundamental change, despite the recent promises from the government of China. At least 2,000 people remain in prison for counter-revolutionary crimes that are no longer even on the books in China. At least 200 individuals detained or arrested for Tiananmen Square activities nearly a decade ago are also still in prison. By China's own statistics, there are nearly a quarter of a million people imprisoned under the ``re-education through labor'' system. One of these, Yang Qinheng, received a three year term in March after he was arrested for reading an open letter on Radio Free Asia citing workers' right to unionize. The litany of specific violations of human rights also has continued unabated in the last several months. Attempts to register the fledgling opposition China Democratic Party resulted in at least six arrests of opposition political leaders. In December, Wang Youcai, a student leader during Tiananmen Square protests, Xu Wenli, and Qin Yongmin were each sentenced to over 10 years in prison allegedly for ``attempting to overthrow state power'' because of their roles in the Democratic Party. China took great strides to keep overseas dissidents out of China. In April, less than an hour after her arrival at her parents home, Li Xiaorong, a research scholar at University of Maryland, who was traveling on a US passport with a valid visa, was taken into custody. Her crime, according to police, was that her work in the US on behalf of human rights in China was unacceptable. Similarly, in October, Shi Binhai, a journalist at the state-run China Economic Times and co- editor of a book on political reform was indicted for collusion with overseas dissident organizations. As recently as February 4, Wang Ce was sentenced to four years in prison for illegally reentering China and providing financial support to the banned Democratic Party. Demonstrating that the range of potential crimes has moved into the computer era, this year in late January, Lin Hai received the distinction of being sentenced to two years in prison for providing e- mail addresses to an Internet pro-democracy magazine. These are but a few of the many detentions, arrests, and assignments to forced labor that befell individuals for expressing their views since the President's human rights dialogue at the June 1998 summit in Beijing. Mr. President, the situation is just as bad in Tibet, where, according to Human Rights Watch, at least ten prisoners reportedly died following two protests in a prison in the Tibetan capital in May. In the weeks following, scores of prisoners were interrogated, beaten and placed in solitary confinement. Other deaths in prison reportedly occurred in June, with Chinese authorities claiming that many were suicides. Further, during the 1998, Chinese officials continued the ``patriotic education campaign''' designed to force Tibetans, especially Buddist monks and nuns, to denounce the Dalai Lama and to attest that Tibet has always been a part of China. As a result of the campaign, authorities reported that 76 percent of Tibetan monasteries and nunneries had been ``rectified''. In a December speech Secretary Albright said, ``As we look ahead to the new century, we can expect that, perhaps, the greatest test of democracy, human rights and the rule of law will be in China.'' If the Administration believes this, perhaps it should use the time left in this century to take positive steps to encourage international condemnation of China's human rights practices. In January, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Harold Koh held a bilateral human rights dialogue with the Chinese, the first such discussions in four years, and notified them of the possibility that the United States would sponsor a resolution in Geneva. In testimony to Congress following these discussions, he further promised that ``The Administration supports the Geneva process, and intends to participate vigorously in this year's Commission activities.'' I was encouraged to hear these words and I hope they will translate into determination by the Administration actively to pursue this issue, in this forum, this year. I urge the Administration to make a decision to sponsor a resolution and to begin high level lobbying of governments around the world to support a resolution before Secretary of State Albright travels to Beijing on March 1 and 2. Mr. President, the situation in China indeed remains troubling. The United States has a moral responsibility to take the lead in sponsoring and pushing for a resolution at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. I believe that there is a strong bipartisan consensus in the Foreign Relations Committee--and I predict on the floor--that we must send a message to China and that this is the appropriate time and place in which to do it. I strongly commend my friends, the Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from Minnesota, for their leadership on this terribly important issue.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. Chief Justice, my colleagues, like many others, the day the President wagged his finger at the American people and indicated he had not been involved with Ms. Lewinsky, I had the sense that he wasn't telling the truth and I felt some genuine regret. The President and I began here in Washington in the same month, in 1993. I had high hopes and actually felt very close to what he was trying to accomplish. So all along in this process, I have had to fight an urge to personalize that regret in a way that would affect my ability to do my job in this impeachment trial. And I will tell you that taking that separate oath helped me get into the mindset necessary to do that task. But let me say that I do regret that the President's public conduct-- not his private conduct--has brought us to this day. But we are here, and I want to take a minute to praise my colleagues on the process. I think it would have been unfortunate had we not had any witness testimony--at least in the form of deposition testimony. I think it would have been an unfortunate historical precedent. I found the video testimony helpful. I didn't enjoy it, but I found it helpful in clarifying some of the things that I was thinking about. So I am glad, on balance, that we did not dismiss the case at the time it was first suggested. But as we get to the final stage and get immersed in the law and facts of this case, it is too easy to forget the most salient fact about this entire matter, and that is one simple fact that many others have mentioned: In November 1996, 47 million Americans voted to reelect President Clinton. The people hired him. They are the hiring authority. An impeachment is a radical undoing of that authority. The people hire and somehow, under this process, the Congress can fire. So, I caution against, with all due respect to the excellent arguments made, the attempt to analogize this to an employee-employer relationship, or a military situation, or even the situation of judges--those situations are all clearly different. Along with the choice of the Vice President, in no other case, do the American people choose one person, and in no other case can a completely different authority undo that choice. Having said that, the Presidential conduct in this case, in my view, does come perilously close to justifying that extreme remedy. There really have been three Presidential impeachments in our Nation's history. I see this one as being in the middle. The Andrew Johnson case is usually considered by historians to have been a relatively weak case. President Johnson had a different interpretation of the constitutionality of the statute that he believed allowed him to remove the Secretary of War, Mr. Stanton. He was not convicted, and subsequently the U.S. Supreme Court, I believe, ruled that in fact that was constitutional. I see that as having been a relatively weak case. The case of Richard Nixon, in my view, was a pretty strong case, involving a 1972 Presidential election and attempts to get involved with the aspects of that election--frankly--an attempt to cover up what happened during that 1972 election. I think that had more to do with core meaning of ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' This is a closer case; this is a close case. In that sense, it may be the most important of the three Presidential impeachments, in terms of the law of impeachment, as we go into the future. I agree neither with the House managers who say their evidence is ``overwhelming,'' nor with the President's counsel who says the evidence against the President is ``nonexistent.'' The fact is, this is a hard case, and sometimes they say that hard cases make bad law. But we cannot afford to have this be bad law for the Nation's sake. So how do we decide? There have been a lot of helpful suggestions, but one thing that has been important to me is the way the House presented their case. That doesn't bind us, but they did suggest that two Federal statutes had been violated. Mr. Manager McCollum said that, ``You must first determine if a Federal crime has occurred.'' Many others have said that. I will reiterate a point. If that is the approach you want to take, then it is clear, in my view as one Senator, that you must prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, you are using the power and the opprobrium of the Federal criminal law as a sword but refusing to let the President and the defense counsel have the shield of the burden of proof that is required in the criminal law. I do not have time to discuss the perjury count this afternoon, but will do so in a longer presentation for the Record. Suffice it to say I do not believe the managers have met their burden of proving perjury beyond a reasonable doubt. As to obstruction of justice, the President did come perilously close. Three quick observations make me conclude that, in fact, he did not commit obstruction of justice beyond a reasonable doubt. First, I am very concerned about the conversations between the President and Betty Currie concerning the specifics of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. But the critical question there is intent. Was his intent about avoiding discovery by his family and the political problems involved? Or was the core issue trying to avoid the Jones proceeding and the consequences of that? I don't think it has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the Jones proceeding was the President's concern. Perhaps Ms. Currie could have shed some light on this. That is why I was extremely puzzled when the House managers didn't call Betty Currie. Let me be the first to say that I don't think in this instance the House managers ``wanted to win too badly.'' I don't think they wanted to win badly enough to take the chance of calling Betty Currie, a crucial witness. I was very concerned about the false affidavit until I saw Ms. Lewinsky's Senate deposition testimony. I am persuaded that you cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that she was urged by the President to make a false statement in that affidavit. Finally, I was very concerned about the hiding of the gifts. And maybe every one will disagree with me on this. But when I watched her testimony, I thought Ms. Lewinsky was the most indefinite about whether or not she had gotten that call from Ms. Currie than any other part of her testimony. I happen to believe that Ms. Lewinsky was the one who was the most concerned about the gifts. And I believe a showing beyond a reasonable doubt has not been made that the President masterminded the hiding of the gifts. So I cannot deny what Representative Graham said: If you call somebody up at 2:30 in the morning you are probably up to no good. But if you call somebody up at 2:30 in the morning you have not necessarily accomplished the crime of obstruction of justice. I realize there is a separate question of whether these same acts by the President, apart from the Federal criminal law, constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. I do not. I will discuss that in more detail in a future statement in the Record. But I would like to conclude by just talking a little bit about this impeachment issue in the modern context. When I say that the vote in 1996 is the primary issue, I don't just mean that in terms of the rights of people. I mean it in terms of the goal of the Founding Fathers, and our goal today; that is, political stability in this country. We don't want a parliamentary system. And we don't want an overly partisan system. I see the 4-year term as a unifying force of our Nation. Yet, this is the second time in my adult lifetime that we have had serious impeachment proceedings, and I am only 45 years old. This only occurred once in the entire 200 years prior to this time. Is this a fluke? Is it that we just happened to have had two ``bad men'' as Presidents? I doubt it. How will we feel if sometime in the next 10 years a third impeachment proceeding occurs in this country so we will have had three within 40 years? I see a danger in this in an increasingly diverse country. I see a danger in this in an increasingly divided country. And I see a danger in this when the final argument of the House manager is that this is a chapter in an ongoing ``culture war'' in this Nation. That troubles me. I hope that is not where we are and hope that is not where we are heading. It is best not to err at all in this case. But if we must err, let us err on the side of avoiding these divisions, and let us err on the side of respecting the will of the people. Let me conclude by quoting James W. Grimes, one of the seven Republican Senators who voted not to acquit Andrew Johnson. I discovered this speech, and found out that the Chief Justice had already discovered and quoted him, and said he was one of the three of the ablest of the seven. Grimes said this in his opinion about why he wouldn't convict President Johnson: I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an unacceptable President. Whatever may be my opinion of the incumbent, I cannot consent to trifle with the high office he holds. I can do nothing which, by implication, may be construed as an approval of impeachment as a part of future political machinery.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on January 28, I was the only Democratic senator to cross party lines and oppose the motion to dismiss. I felt it would be unwise to end this trial prior to a more complete presentation of evidence and a final vote on the Articles of Impeachment themselves. Nonetheless, I had no doubt that a motion to dismiss was a constitutional way to end the trial, if a majority of senators had supported the motion. The Senate must keep in mind at every step in this process that our actions will be scrutinized not just by our constituents today and for the rest of the trial, but also by history. If another impeachment trial should occur 130 years from now, the record of this trial will serve as an important precedent for the Senate as it determines how to proceed. It is our responsibility to abide by the Constitution as closely as possible throughout the remainder of this trial. My votes on House Managers' motions on February 4 were based on the same concerns about prudence and precedent that motivated my earlier votes on the motion to dismiss and calling witnesses. With the judgment of history awaiting us, I did have serious concerns about the constitutionality of proposals that the Senate should adopt so-called ``Findings of Fact'' before the Senate votes on the Articles of Impeachment themselves. It now appears that support for such proposals has waned, and the Senate will not be called upon to vote on them. Nonetheless, I want to explain my opposition to such proposals for the record. Findings of Fact would allow a simple 51 vote majority of the Senate to state the judgment of the Senate on the facts of this case and, in effect, to determine the President's ``guilt'' of the crimes alleged in the Articles. But the Constitution specifically requires that two- thirds of the Senate must convict the President on the Articles in order to impose any sanction on him. The specific punishment set out by the Constitution if the Senate convicts is removal from office, and possibly disqualification from holding future office. The supermajority requirement makes the impeachment process difficult, and the Framers intended that it be difficult. They were very careful to avoid making conviction and removal of the President something that could be accomplished for purely partisan purposes. In only 23 out of 105 Congresses and in only six Congresses in this century has one party held more than a 2/3 majority in the Senate. Never in our history has a President faced a Senate controlled by the other party by more than a 2/3 majority. (The Republican party had nearly 80 percent of the seats in the Senate that in 1868 tried Andrew Johnson. Johnson was at that time also a Republican, although he had been a Democrat before being chosen by Abraham Lincoln to be his Vice- President in 1864.) The great difficulty of obtaining a conviction in the Senate on charges that are seen as motivated by partisan politics has discouraged impeachment efforts in the past. Adding Findings of Fact to the process would undercut this salutary effect of the supermajority requirement for conviction. The Senate must fulfill its constitutional obligation and determine whether the President's acts require conviction and removal. The critical constitutional tool of impeachment should not be available simply to attack or criticize the President. Impeachment is a unique. It is the sole constitutionally sanctioned encroachment on the principle of separation of powers, and it must be used sparingly. If Findings of Fact had been adopted in this trial, it would have set a dangerous precedent that might have led to more frequent efforts to impeach. The ability of a simple majority of the Senate to determine the President's guilt of the crimes alleged would distort the impeachment process and increase the specter of partisanship. When the Senate is sitting as a court of impeachment, its job is simply to acquit or convict. And that is the only judgment that the Senate should make during an impeachment trial.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am deeply saddened by the death of King Hussein this past weekend. I have had the honor of meeting King Hussein several times, and have always been impressed by his dignity and grace. He was a true statesman. Mr. President, through almost half a century of war and hope, tragedy and peace, King Hussein shepherded his country through its transition to a stable modern nation and a close U.S. ally. More than the words he has spoken, it is the actions he has taken that have earned him the respect of Israelis, and the trust of the Arab world. Throughout it all, King Hussein never lost sight of our common goal of a just and comprehensive Middle East peace, nor of what that peace would mean. He understood, even when no one else did, that true peace ``resides ultimately not in the hands of governments, but in the hands of people.'' On a personal note, I remember being moved by the words he shared during the funeral of another great leader, Yitzhak Rabin. There, on the hill above the troubled city of Jerusalem, a city where as a young boy the King had witnessed the assassination of his own grandfather, and in sight of the grave of Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, King Hussein bore witness to his never-ending commitment to peace ``for all times to come,'' and pledged to do his ``utmost to ensure that we leave a similar legacy.'' And he mourned the loss of Rabin as a brother and a friend. I also recall with deep admiration being in the company of the King as he looked out at the Old City from the King David Hotel at the time of that funeral. It was perhaps the first time in many decades he had visited that place, and it was a moving moment. King Hussein understood well that the religious and cultural roots of the Jewish and Muslim people are forever intertwined in the fertile and historic soil of the Middle East. His country was created along the Jordan River, after which it is named, following the First World War. Its original borders on the east bank of the river, created by colonial rulers, have been altered by annexation, war, and peace agreement. Two years after Jordan gained its independence from Great Britain, the fledgling State of Israel emerged on the other side of the Jordan River, and many of the Palestinians living in the new state migrated to Jordan. King Hussein's grandfather, King Abdullah, was the first ruler of an independent Jordan. His decision to annex the Palestinian-held West Bank in 1950, when his grandson was 15 years old, initiated a series of events that would profoundly affect the balance of power in the Middle East and the life of the young prince. In 1951, King Abdullah was assassinated by a Palestinian nationalist angered by the annexation of the West Bank. The then-Prince Hussein was standing just a few steps away as his grandfather fell. Illness prevented King Abdullah's son, Talal, from ruling, and he abdicated in favor of his own son, Prince Hussein, who formally assumed the throne in May 1953, at the age of 17. King Hussein would go on to rule Jordan for nearly half a century, and was the longest serving ruler in the Middle East at the time of his death. King Hussein was the only ruler that most Jordanians have known. On a more personal note, he was the King of his country for just about as long as I have been alive. I was about two months old when he formally became King. Over the course of my life and his rule, my views about him and his country have changed dramatically. I remember the deep animosity that existed between Jews and Jordanians when I was growing up in the 1960s, culminating in the Six Day War in 1967 during which Jordan lost control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. While I was horrified by the religiously-motivated attacks perpetrated by many Jordanians during this time, I understand and appreciate the religious ties the Arab people feel toward Jerusalem. Two of the holiest sites in Islam, the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque, where King Hussein's grandfather was assassinated, are located there. Throughout these last few decades, I have developed an immense respect for King Hussein and for the Jordanian people. As is true for most people, when I was younger it took me some time to realize that the actions of one person or a group of people are not always an accurate representation of the true feelings of a country or a political leader. The ethnic and religious violence that has occurred in the Middle East, and indeed around the world, is largely carried out by fringe groups who believe that violence is the only way to send a message, protest an action, or achieve a political goal. Even though it was a violent act that propelled him into power at such a young age, King Hussein chose to reject violence and embrace peace. As a result of his moderate views, in 1974 an Arab summit declared that he was no longer the spokesman for the Palestinian people, and proclaimed that the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and its leader, Yasser Arafat, would assume that role. When the PLO began its ``intifada'' against Israel in 1988, King Hussein formally cut Jordan's ties to the West Bank, but retained a supervisory role over Muslim holy places in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. In 1994, Jordan became only the second Arab country to sign a peace agreement with Israel. The two countries established diplomatic relations, Israel returned some territory to Jordan, and the countries have begun to work together on common issues such as shared infrastructure and access to potable water. Unfortunately, these courageous moves have sometimes been met with violent acts, particularly from those who felt that peace between Israel and Jordan was premature. The 1997 murder of seven Israeli school girls by a Jordanian soldier was a sobering reminder that not all Jordanians shared their King's support for peace. But, in a testament to his commitment to peace, King Hussein not only condemned this cowardly action, but he also made the effort to travel to Israel to visit with the families of the young victims. One of the King's biggest strengths was his ability to lead quietly by example. His decision to visit the families of the children murdered by one of his army's soldiers is but one instance of this. Even as the King was undergoing treatment for cancer at the Mayo Clinic, the welfare of his people and the status of the Middle East peace process was not far from his mind. He displayed a quiet courage and admirable strength by leaving the hospital and traveling to the Wye River peace negotiations last fall in order to encourage a settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Even as his health was deteriorating, King Hussein's commitment to peace never waned. Selfless acts such as that earned him the respect of people around the world and made him one of the linchpins of the negotiations for peace in the Middle East. Mr. President, this week's Torah portion speaks of the Revelation at Sinai. Moses had been commanded by God to prepare the people for God's descent and visit, and in the wake of dark clouds, thunder and lightning, the sounds of the Shofar, and the trembling of the earth, God spoke to the Israelites and made his commandments known. It is a powerful passage that speaks to the hearts of all of us who believe in God. Despite a history fraught with pain, violence and death, King Hussein understood the universal meaning of the commandments, which instruct us not to covet the land and property of our neighbors, and, above all, not to kill. Throughout his life, King Hussein maintained a vision of a Middle East free from pain, violence and death, and he hoped he would see that day during his lifetime. Alas, although significant progress has been made, including the warming of relations between Jordan and Israel, true peace in the Middle East still escapes us. But there is no doubt in my mind that among the many legacies of King Hussein is a true commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. In his honor and in his memory, let us join him in committing ourselves to the same goal.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, during yesterday's impeachment trial proceedings, I voted against the motion to dismiss offered by the senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. I also voted in favor of allowing the House Managers to depose a limited number of witnesses in this case. I would like to explain the reasons for my votes. Let me state first that I understand that this trial is a unique proceeding; it is not precisely a ``trial'' as we understand that term to be used in the criminal context. The Senate, for example, as the Chief Justice made clear in upholding Senator Harkin's objection early in the trial, is both judge and jury, with the final authority to determine not only the ``guilt'' or ``innocence'' of the defendant, but also the legal standard to apply and what kind of evidence is relevant to the decision. Nonetheless, Sen. Byrd's motion was a motion to dismiss, which I believe gives the motion a legal connotation we must not ignore. I believe that in order to dismiss the case at this point, a Senator should be of the opinion that it is not possible for the House Managers to show that the President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, even if they are permitted to call the witnesses that they want to call. Even apart from the possibility of witness testimony, in order to vote for the motion, a Senator should believe that regardless of what occurs in the closing arguments by the parties and in deliberations in the Senate, that a Senator would not vote to convict. So for me, this motion to dismiss was akin to asking the judge in this case not to send the case to the jury. In a criminal trial, there is a strong presumption against taking a case out of the hands of the jury, and a very high degree of certainty on the facts of the case is demanded before a judge will take that step. Indeed, a judge must decide that a reasonable juror viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution could not vote to convict the defendant, before he will direct a judgment of acquittal. My view, as of this moment, is that to dismiss this case would in appearance and in fact improperly ``short circuit'' this trial. I simply cannot say that the House Managers cannot prevail regardless of what witnesses might plausibly testify and regardless of what persuasive arguments might be offered either by the Managers or by Senators who support conviction. And when the history of this trial is written, I want it to be viewed as fair and comprehensive, not as having been shortened merely because the result seemed preordained. As Senator Collins and I indicated in a letter to Senator Byrd on Saturday and in a unanimous consent request we offered on Monday, my preference would have been to divide the motion to dismiss and allow separate votes on the two articles of impeachment to more closely approximate the separate final votes on the two articles contemplated by the impeachment rules. It would have allowed the Senate to consider the strength of the evidence presented on the two separate articles and the possibility that one of the articles comes closer to the core meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors than the other. I believe that many of my colleagues on the Republican side view the perjury article as less convincing than the obstruction article and might have voted to dismiss it had the opportunity to do that been made available. But we will never know. When a final vote is taken on the articles, and I now believe such votes will almost certainly occur, I hope that my colleagues who did not vote to dismiss the case today will carefully consider the two articles separately. I want to be clear that my vote not to dismiss this case does not mean that I would vote to convict the President and remove him from office or that I am leaning in that direction. I have not reached a decision on that question. It is my inclination, however, to demand a very high standard of proof on this question. Because the House Managers have relied so heavily on the argument that the President has committed the federal crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice as the reason that his conduct rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, they probably should be required to prove each element of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the standard that juries in criminal proceedings must apply. In this case, where the ``impeachability'' question rests so much on a conclusion that the President's conduct was not only reprehensible but also criminal, I currently believe that standard is the most appropriate for a Senator to apply. It is my view at this point that the House Managers' case has some serious problems, and I am not certain that it can be helped by further testimony from witnesses. But I believe it is possible that it can, and the Managers deserve the opportunity to take the depositions they have requested. In voting against the motion to dismiss and to allow witnesses to be subpoenaed, I have not reached the important question of whether, even if the House Managers manage to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, the offenses charged would be ``impeachable'' and require the President to be removed from office. That is an important question that I decided should be addressed in the context of a final vote on the articles after the evidentiary record is complete. Therefore, I want to be clear that my vote against the motion does not mean I am leaning in favor of a final vote to convict the President. I am not. But I have determined, after much thought, that we must continue to move forward and not truncate the proceeding at this point. I believe that it is appropriate for the House Managers, and if they so choose, the President's Counsel, to be able to depose and possibly to present the live testimony of at least a small number of witnesses. And I want to hear final arguments and deliberate with my colleagues before rendering a final verdict on the articles. I reached my decision on witnesses for a number of reasons. First, although I recognize that this is not a typical, ordinary criminal trial, it is significant and in my mind persuasive that in almost all criminal trials witnesses are called by the prosecution in trying to prove its case. Because I have decided that the House Managers probably must be held to the highest standard of proof--beyond a reasonable doubt--I believe that they should have every reasonable opportunity to meet that standard and prove their case. Furthermore, witnesses have been called every time in our history that the Senate has held an impeachment trial. (In two cases, the impeachment of Sen. Blount in 1797 and the impeachment of Judge English in 1926, articles of impeachment passed by the House were dismissed without a trial.) Now I recognize that an unusually exhaustive factual record has been assembled by the Independent Counsel, including numerous interviews with, and grand jury testimony from, key witnesses. That distinguishes this case from a number of past impeachments. But in at least the three judicial impeachments in the 1980s, the record of a full criminal trial (two resulting in conviction and one in acquittal) was available to the Senate and still witnesses testified. In this case, the House Managers strenuously argued that witnesses should be called. It would call the fairness of the process into question were we to deny the House Managers the opportunity to depose at least those witnesses that might shed light on the facts in a few key areas of disagreement in this case. I regard this as a close case in some respects, and the best course to follow is to allow both sides a fair opportunity to make the case they wish to make. This does not mean that I support an unlimited number of witnesses or an unnecessarily extended trial. Furthermore, at this point, I am reserving judgment on the question of whether live testimony on the Senate floor should be permitted. I believe the Senate has the power, and should exercise the power, to assure that any witnesses called to deliver live testimony have evidence that is truly relevant to present. In this regard, I think we should allow somewhat greater latitude to the President's counsel since he is the defendant in this proceeding. I am inclined to give a great deal of deference to requests by the President's counsel to conduct discovery and even call additional witnesses if they feel that is necessary. But at least with respect to the House Manager's case, while we must be fair in allowing them to depose the witnesses they say they need to prove their case, we need not allow them to broaden their case beyond the acts alleged in the articles or inordinately extend the trial with witnesses who cannot reasonably be expected to provide evidence relevant to our decision on those articles. Finally, let me reiterate. My vote against the motion to dismiss should not be interpreted as a signal that I intend to vote to convict the President. Nor does it mean that I would not support a motion to adjourn or a motion to dismiss offered at some later stage of this trial, although I strongly prefer that this trial conclude with a final vote on the articles. It only means that I do not believe that dismissing the case at this moment is the appropriate course for the Senate to follow.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am introducing a measure that I sponsored in the 105th Congress to reduce the amount of federal irrigation subsidies received by large agribusiness interests. I believe that reforming federal water pricing policy by reducing subsidies is an important area to examine as a means to achieve our broader objectives of achieving a truly balanced budget. This legislation is also needed to curb fundamental abuses of reclamation law that cost the taxpayer millions of dollars every year. In 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed legislation, which came to be known as the Reclamation Act of 1902, to encourage development of family farms throughout the western United States. The idea was to provide needed water for areas that were otherwise dry and give small farms--those no larger than 160 acres--a chance, with a helping hand from the federal government, to establish themselves. According to a 1996 General Accounting Office report, since the passage of the Reclamation Act, the federal government has spent $21.8 billion to construct 133 water projects in the west which provide water for irrigation. Irrigators, and other project beneficiaries, are required under the law to repay to the federal government their allocated share of the costs of constructing these projects. However, as a result of the subsidized financing provided by the federal government, some of the beneficiaries of federal water projects repay considerably less than their full share of these costs. According to the 1996 GAO report, irrigators generally receive the largest amount of federal financial assistance. Since the initiation of the irrigation program in 1902, construction costs associated with irrigation have been repaid without interest. The GAO further found, in reviewing the Bureau of Reclamation's financial reports, that $16.9 billion, or 78 percent, of the $21.8 billion of federal investment in water projects is considered to be reimbursable. Of the reimbursable costs, the largest share--$7.1 billion--is allocated to irrigators. As of September 30, 1994 irrigators have repaid only $941 million of the $7.1 billion they owe. GAO also found that the Bureau of Reclamation will likely shift $3.4 billion of the debt owed by irrigators to other users of the water projects for repayment. There are several reasons why irrigators continue to receive such significant subsidies. Under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, Congress acted to expand the size of the farms that could receive subsidized water from 160 acres to 960 acres. The RRA of 1982 expressly prohibits farms that exceed 960 acres in size from receiving federally- subsidized water. These restrictions were added to the Reclamation law to close loopholes through which federal subsidies were flowing to large agribusinesses rather than the small family farmers that Reclamation projects were designed to serve. Agribusinesses were expected to pay full cost for all water received on land in excess of their 960 acre entitlement. Despite the express mandate of Congress, regulations promulgated under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 have failed to keep big agricultural water users from receiving federal subsidies. The General Accounting Office and the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior continue to find that the acreage limits established in law are circumvented through the creation of arrangements such as farming trusts. These trusts, which in total acreage well exceed the 960 acre limit, are comprised of smaller units that are not subject to the reclamation acreage cap. These smaller units are farmed under a single management agreement often through a combination of leasing and ownership. In a 1989 GAO report, the activities of six agribusiness trusts were fully explored. According to GAO, one 12,345 acre cotton farm (roughly 20 square miles), operating under a single partnership, was reorganized to avoid the 960 acre limitation into 15 separate land holdings through 18 partnerships, 24 corporations, and 11 trusts which were all operated as one large unit. A seventh trust very large trust was the sole topic of a 1990 GAO report. The Westhaven trust is a 23,238 acre farming operation in California's Central Valley. It was formed for the benefit of 326 salaried employees of the J.G. Boswell Company. Boswell, GAO found, had taken advantage of section 214 of the RRA, which exempts from its 960 acre limit land held for beneficiaries by a trustee in a fiduciary capacity, as long as no single beneficiary's interest exceeds the law's ownership limits. The RRA, as I have mentioned, does not preclude multiple land holdings from being operated collectively under a trust as one farm while qualifying individually for federally subsidized water. Accordingly, the J.G. Boswell Company re-organized 23,238 acres it held as the Boston Ranch by selling them to the Westhaven Trust, with the land holdings attributed to each beneficiary being eligible to receive federally subsidized water. Before the land was sold to Westhaven Trust, the J.G. Boswell Company operated the acreage as one large farm and paid full cost for the federal irrigation water delivered for the 18-month period ending in May 1989. When the trust bought the land, due to the loopholes in the law, the entire acreage became eligible to receive federally subsidized water because the land holdings attributed to the 326 trust beneficiaries range from 21 acres to 547 acres--all well under the 960 acre limit. In the six cases the GAO reviewed in 1989, owners or lessees paid a total of about $1.3 million less in 1987 for federal water then they would have paid if their collective land holdings were considered as large farms subject to the Reclamation Act acreage limits. Had Westhaven trust been required to pay full cost, GAO estimated in 1990, it would have paid $2 million more for its water. The GAO also found, in all seven of these cases, that reduced revenues are likely to continue unless Congress amends the Reclamation Act to close the loopholes allowing benefits for trusts. The Department of the Interior has acknowledged that these problems do exist. Interior published a proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register on November 18, 1998. The proposed rulemaking requires farm operators who provide services to more than 960 nonexempt acres westwide, held by a single trust or legal entity or any combination of trusts and legal entities to submit RRA forms to the district(s) where such land is located. If the rule is finalized, the districts will be required to provide specific information about declaring farm operators to Interior annually. This information will be an important step toward enforcing the legislation that I am reintroducing today. This legislation combines various elements of proposals introduced by other members of Congress to close loopholes in the 1982 legislation and to impose a $500,000 means test. This new approach limits the amount of subsidized irrigation water delivered to any operation in excess of the 960 acre limit which claimed $500,000 or more in gross income, as reported on their most recent IRS tax form. If the $500,000 threshold were exceeded, an income ratio would be used to determine how much of the water should be delivered to the user at the full-cost rate, and how much at the below-cost rate. For example, if a 961 acre operation earned $1 million dollars, a ratio of $500,000 (the means test value) divided by their gross income would determine the full cost rate, thus the water user would pay the full cost rate on half of their acreage and the below cost rate on the remaining half. This means testing proposal is featured, for the fourth year in a row, in this year's 1999 Green Scissors report which is being released today. This report is compiled by Friends of the Earth and Taxpayers for Common Sense and supported by a number of environmental, consumer and taxpayer groups. I am pleased to join with the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) in distributing a copy of this report to all members of the Senate. The premise of the report is that there are a number of subsidies and projects that could be cut to both reduce the deficit and benefit the environment. This report underscores what I and many others in the Senate have long known: we must eliminate practices that can no longer be justified in light of our effort to achieve a truly balanced budget and eliminate our national debt. The Green Scissors recommendation on means testing water subsidies indicates that if a test is successful in reducing subsidy payments to the highest grossing 10% of farms, then the federal government would recover between $440 million and $1.1 billion per year, or at least $2.2 billion over five years. When countless federal program are subjected to various types of means tests to limit benefits to those who truly need assistance, it makes little sense to continue to allow large business interests to dip into a program intended to help small entities struggling to survive. Taxpayers have legitimate concerns when they learn that their hard earned tax dollars are being expended to assist large corporate interests in select regions of the country who benefit from these loopholes, particularly in tight budgetary times. Other users of federal water projects, such as the power recipients, should also be concerned when they learn that they will be expected to pick up the tab for a portion of the funds that irrigators were supposed to pay back. The federal water program was simply never intended to benefit these large interests, and I am hopeful that legislative efforts, such as the measure I am introducing today, will prompt Congress to fully reevaluate our federal water pricing policy. In conclusion, Mr. President, it is clear that the conflicting policies of the federal government in this area are in need of reform, and that Congress should act. Large agribusinesses should not be able to continue to soak the taxpayers, and should pay their fair share. We should act to close these loopholes and increase the return to the treasury from irrigators as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am introducing a measure that I sponsored in the 105th Congress to reduce the amount of federal irrigation subsidies received by large agribusiness interests. I believe that reforming federal water pricing policy by reducing subsidies is an important area to examine as a means to achieve our broader objectives of achieving a truly balanced budget. This legislation is also needed to curb fundamental abuses of reclamation law that cost the taxpayer millions of dollars every year. In 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed legislation, which came to be known as the Reclamation Act of 1902, to encourage development of family farms throughout the western United States. The idea was to provide needed water for areas that were otherwise dry and give small farms--those no larger than 160 acres--a chance, with a helping hand from the federal government, to establish themselves. According to a 1996 General Accounting Office report, since the passage of the Reclamation Act, the federal government has spent $21.8 billion to construct 133 water projects in the west which provide water for irrigation. Irrigators, and other project beneficiaries, are required under the law to repay to the federal government their allocated share of the costs of constructing these projects. However, as a result of the subsidized financing provided by the federal government, some of the beneficiaries of federal water projects repay considerably less than their full share of these costs. According to the 1996 GAO report, irrigators generally receive the largest amount of federal financial assistance. Since the initiation of the irrigation program in 1902, construction costs associated with irrigation have been repaid without interest. The GAO further found, in reviewing the Bureau of Reclamation's financial reports, that $16.9 billion, or 78 percent, of the $21.8 billion of federal investment in water projects is considered to be reimbursable. Of the reimbursable costs, the largest share--$7.1 billion--is allocated to irrigators. As of September 30, 1994 irrigators have repaid only $941 million of the $7.1 billion they owe. GAO also found that the Bureau of Reclamation will likely shift $3.4 billion of the debt owed by irrigators to other users of the water projects for repayment. There are several reasons why irrigators continue to receive such significant subsidies. Under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, Congress acted to expand the size of the farms that could receive subsidized water from 160 acres to 960 acres. The RRA of 1982 expressly prohibits farms that exceed 960 acres in size from receiving federally- subsidized water. These restrictions were added to the Reclamation law to close loopholes through which federal subsidies were flowing to large agribusinesses rather than the small family farmers that Reclamation projects were designed to serve. Agribusinesses were expected to pay full cost for all water received on land in excess of their 960 acre entitlement. Despite the express mandate of Congress, regulations promulgated under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 have failed to keep big agricultural water users from receiving federal subsidies. The General Accounting Office and the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior continue to find that the acreage limits established in law are circumvented through the creation of arrangements such as farming trusts. These trusts, which in total acreage well exceed the 960 acre limit, are comprised of smaller units that are not subject to the reclamation acreage cap. These smaller units are farmed under a single management agreement often through a combination of leasing and ownership. In a 1989 GAO report, the activities of six agribusiness trusts were fully explored. According to GAO, one 12,345 acre cotton farm (roughly 20 square miles), operating under a single partnership, was reorganized to avoid the 960 acre limitation into 15 separate land holdings through 18 partnerships, 24 corporations, and 11 trusts which were all operated as one large unit. A seventh trust very large trust was the sole topic of a 1990 GAO report. The Westhaven trust is a 23,238 acre farming operation in California's Central Valley. It was formed for the benefit of 326 salaried employees of the J.G. Boswell Company. Boswell, GAO found, had taken advantage of section 214 of the RRA, which exempts from its 960 acre limit land held for beneficiaries by a trustee in a fiduciary capacity, as long as no single beneficiary's interest exceeds the law's ownership limits. The RRA, as I have mentioned, does not preclude multiple land holdings from being operated collectively under a trust as one farm while qualifying individually for federally subsidized water. Accordingly, the J.G. Boswell Company re-organized 23,238 acres it held as the Boston Ranch by selling them to the Westhaven Trust, with the land holdings attributed to each beneficiary being eligible to receive federally subsidized water. Before the land was sold to Westhaven Trust, the J.G. Boswell Company operated the acreage as one large farm and paid full cost for the federal irrigation water delivered for the 18-month period ending in May 1989. When the trust bought the land, due to the loopholes in the law, the entire acreage became eligible to receive federally subsidized water because the land holdings attributed to the 326 trust beneficiaries range from 21 acres to 547 acres--all well under the 960 acre limit. In the six cases the GAO reviewed in 1989, owners or lessees paid a total of about $1.3 million less in 1987 for federal water then they would have paid if their collective land holdings were considered as large farms subject to the Reclamation Act acreage limits. Had Westhaven trust been required to pay full cost, GAO estimated in 1990, it would have paid $2 million more for its water. The GAO also found, in all seven of these cases, that reduced revenues are likely to continue unless Congress amends the Reclamation Act to close the loopholes allowing benefits for trusts. The Department of the Interior has acknowledged that these problems do exist. Interior published a proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register on November 18, 1998. The proposed rulemaking requires farm operators who provide services to more than 960 nonexempt acres westwide, held by a single trust or legal entity or any combination of trusts and legal entities to submit RRA forms to the district(s) where such land is located. If the rule is finalized, the districts will be required to provide specific information about declaring farm operators to Interior annually. This information will be an important step toward enforcing the legislation that I am reintroducing today. This legislation combines various elements of proposals introduced by other members of Congress to close loopholes in the 1982 legislation and to impose a $500,000 means test. This new approach limits the amount of subsidized irrigation water delivered to any operation in excess of the 960 acre limit which claimed $500,000 or more in gross income, as reported on their most recent IRS tax form. If the $500,000 threshold were exceeded, an income ratio would be used to determine how much of the water should be delivered to the user at the full-cost rate, and how much at the below-cost rate. For example, if a 961 acre operation earned $1 million dollars, a ratio of $500,000 (the means test value) divided by their gross income would determine the full cost rate, thus the water user would pay the full cost rate on half of their acreage and the below cost rate on the remaining half. This means testing proposal is featured, for the fourth year in a row, in this year's 1999 Green Scissors report which is being released today. This report is compiled by Friends of the Earth and Taxpayers for Common Sense and supported by a number of environmental, consumer and taxpayer groups. I am pleased to join with the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) in distributing a copy of this report to all members of the Senate. The premise of the report is that there are a number of subsidies and projects that could be cut to both reduce the deficit and benefit the environment. This report underscores what I and many others in the Senate have long known: we must eliminate practices that can no longer be justified in light of our effort to achieve a truly balanced budget and eliminate our national debt. The Green Scissors recommendation on means testing water subsidies indicates that if a test is successful in reducing subsidy payments to the highest grossing 10% of farms, then the federal government would recover between $440 million and $1.1 billion per year, or at least $2.2 billion over five years. When countless federal program are subjected to various types of means tests to limit benefits to those who truly need assistance, it makes little sense to continue to allow large business interests to dip into a program intended to help small entities struggling to survive. Taxpayers have legitimate concerns when they learn that their hard earned tax dollars are being expended to assist large corporate interests in select regions of the country who benefit from these loopholes, particularly in tight budgetary times. Other users of federal water projects, such as the power recipients, should also be concerned when they learn that they will be expected to pick up the tab for a portion of the funds that irrigators were supposed to pay back. The federal water program was simply never intended to benefit these large interests, and I am hopeful that legislative efforts, such as the measure I am introducing today, will prompt Congress to fully reevaluate our federal water pricing policy. In conclusion, Mr. President, it is clear that the conflicting policies of the federal government in this area are in need of reform, and that Congress should act. Large agribusinesses should not be able to continue to soak the taxpayers, and should pay their fair share. We should act to close these loopholes and increase the return to the treasury from irrigators as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. Chief Justice, I renew my request, along with the junior Senator from Maine--the unanimous consent request that when the Senate proceeds to vote on the anticipated motion to dismiss, that the question be divided into a separate vote on article I of the articles of impeachment, and then a separate vote on article II of the articles of impeachment.