Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we are now in the closing days of this congressional session. A lot is happening in these final hours. With the clock ticking we almost always knuckle down and get things done. But it has become clear that one thing that this Congress will not do before it adjourns is pass meaningful campaign finance reform. Today I want to serve notice that this fight is not over. If the people of Wisconsin in their wisdom send me back to this chamber next year, the Senate will hear about campaign finance reform again and vote on campaign finance reform again because our democracy has been made sick by the corrupting influence of big money, and the future of our country is at stake. And Mr. President, this fight will continue regardless of what I say. Because the fight for campaign finance reform is bigger than any one Senator or any one political party. It is as big as the idea of representative democracy itself, and just as resilient. This is a fight for the soul and the survival of our American democracy. This democracy cannot survive without the confidence of the people in the legislative and the electoral process. The prevalence--no--the dominance--of money in our system of elections and our legislature will in the end cause them to crumble. If we don't take steps to clean up this system it ultimately will consume us along with our finest American ideals. Mr. President, there has been alot of discussion on this floor in recent weeks about morality. Indeed, we are now engaged in a process, both constitutional and political, that may ultimately lead to an impeachment trial in this historic chamber. Questions of morality are at the center of that process, which has consumed much of the public's and the press's attention over the past several months. I submit that questions of morality should be central in this body's treatment of the campaign finance issue. Along with millions of other Americans, religious leaders from across a wide spectrum of denominations have urged us to enact reform. They see how this corrupt system is undermining the moral authority of our government. How can we pretend to be following the dictates of conscience, and not politics, as we prepare to judge the President, while simultaneously ignoring this moral crisis in the process by which the people elect their representatives? There has also been a lot of discussion about high crimes and misdemeanors. I haven't decided yet whether the President's misbehavior meets that high standard. Many of the American people seem skeptical. But they do think it's a crime that the tobacco companies can use money to block a bill to curtail teen smoking. They do think it's a crime that insurance companies can use money to block desperately needed health care reform. They do think it's a crime that telecommunication companies use money and can force a bill through Congress that's supposed to increase competition and decrease prices, but leads to cable rates that keep on rising and rising. And they do think it's a crime that corporations and unions are able to give unlimited soft money contributions to the political parties to advance their narrow special interests. They think it's a crime. And you know what, it should be a crime. But here in Washington it is business as usual--until we manage to pass meaningful campaign finance reform. Mr. President, it was very disappointing to me that 48 of our colleagues voted against the McCain-Feingold bill a few weeks ago, killing reform for this year. It was especially disappointing that we were unable to break through the filibuster here, after the enormous accomplishment of our colleagues in the other body who passed reform by a lopsided 252-179 margin. It was especially disappointing that all the votes to kill our bill in the Senate came from one party. Facing the determined opposition of the leadership, reformers in the House succeeded not only in bringing campaign finance reform to the floor but in passing it with a strong bipartisan majority. When we failed to invoke cloture on the McCain- Feingold bill last month, we missed a golden opportunity to together do something positive for the American people on a bipartisan basis. I emphasized the strong bipartisan vote in the House, Mr. President, because this effort has been a bipartisan effort all along. The senior Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, and the Senior Senator from Tennessee and Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Thompson, have been in the forefront of this effort from the beginning. Five other distinguished Republican Senators voted for the McCain- Feingold bill. In the House, fully \1/4\ of the Republican Members voted for the bill. Senator McCain and I recognized a long time ago that a partisan campaign finance bill will never become law. A serious effort to actually do something about this problem, Mr. President, has to be bipartisan. It is significant, Mr. President, that many of the leaders in this body on campaign finance reform were part of the Governmental Affairs Committee's year long investigation of campaign finance abuses in the 1996 campaign. Not only the Chairman, Senator Thompson, but two other highly respected Republican members of the committee, Senator Collins and Senator Specter, supported the McCain-Feingold bill. And Democratic members such as the Senator Glenn, Senator Levin, and Senator Durbin, have also been very active and outspoken in pushing for reform. These Senators saw--up close and personal--how the excesses of the 1996 campaign stem from problems with the law, particularly the enormous loophole known as soft money. I want to thank all of them for their hard work on the investigation and on this legislation, and promise them that their work shall not have been in vain. It is unfortunate that the investigation did not lead to legislative correction in this Congress, but the factual record they amassed remains the most powerful and detailed argument for reform, and it will undoubtedly shape our efforts in the future. There are plenty of scandals in this scandal-obsessed town--but when it comes to campaign finance, the greatest scandal of all is not about laws that were broken. The greatest campaign finance scandal is about the outrageous practices and compromising contributions that are perfectly legal. Yes, those who broke the current campaign finance laws should be punished, but that will hardly begin to solve the problems in this corrupt campaign finance system. We've heard the horror stories again and again. The parties have special clubs for big givers and offer exclusive meetings and weekend retreats with officeholders to the donors. And it's totally legal. The tobacco companies have funneled nearly $17 million in soft money to the national political parties in the last decade, $4.4 million in 1997 alone when the whole issue of congressional action on the tobacco settlement was very much alive--and it's totally legal. In 1996, the gambling industry gave nearly $4 million in soft money to the two major political parties at the same time that Congress was creating a new national commission on gambling, but with limited subpoena powers--and it's totally legal. The National Republican Congressional Committee is engaged in a $37 million dollar effort called Operation Breakout, funded largely by soft money, to attack Democratic candidates with advertisements that aren't considered election ads and don't even have to be reported to the FEC because they don't use certain ``magic words'' like Vote For or Vote Against--and it's totally legal. And we're even starting to extort money from our own colleagues. It was recently reported that Republican leaders actually threatened to deprive their own Members of appropriations subcommittee chairmanships if they didn't cough up up to $100,000 for the Operation Breakout plan. And it's totally legal. There are some in this body, of course, despite what the Thompson investigation uncovered and what news stories show on almost a daily basis, who don't see or won't acknowledge the corrupting influence of these unlimited soft money contributions, which are now totally legal. In our most recent debate, the junior Senator from Utah gave us a history lesson intended to convince us that we should not fear enormous campaign contributions. He recounted the frequently told story of how Sen. Eugene McCarthy's Presidential campaign in 1968 was jump-started by some very large contributions by some very wealthy individuals. He also noted that Steve Forbes was apparently prepared to make similarly enormous contributions to support Jack Kemp in a run for the Presidency in 1996, but was prohibited from doing so by the federal election laws and so decided to run his own campaign, a decision from which we might infer that the money is more important than the candidate. And he recounted as well the story of Mr. Arthur Hyatt, a wealthy businessman who gave large soft money contributions to the Democratic Party in 1996, but decided after that election not to give soft money to the parties anymore, and instead to fund an advocacy group that is promoting public financing of elections. The point of these examples was supposed to be that wealthy donors are motivated by ideology and the desire to benefit the public as they see it rather than by the desire to gain access and influence with policy makers through their contributions. And I suppose that is sometimes the case. Of course, there is also the well known story of Roger Tamraz, who testified under oath to our Governmental Affairs Committee that he never even votes, and the only reason that he gave soft money to the DNC was to gain access to officials he thought could help him with his business. I mean no disrespect to the Senator from Utah and the civic-minded millionaires he cites, but Mr. Tamraz, I suspect, is more typical in his motives, if not his methods, of big contributors. I'm not cynical, Mr. President. There is a reason that I hold that suspicion. And the reason is that the vast majority of soft money contributions to our political parties are coming from corporate interests. And it simply cannot be argued that these interests are acting out of public spiritedness or ideological conviction. Corporations do not have an ideology, they have business interests. They have a bottom line to defend, and they have learned over the years that making contributions to the major political parties in this country is a very good investment in their bottom line. Campaign money buys access, and access pays off at the bottom line. Corporate interests are special interests. Special interests have self-interested motives. They are concerned with profits, not what is best for other citizens or consumers or the country as a whole. They like to cast their arguments in terms of the public interest, and they certainly will argue that if the Congress follows their advice on legislation the public will be better off, but in the end it is their own businesses that they care about, not the public good. Indeed, the boards of directors and management of corporations have a legal duty to act in the best interests of their shareholders, not the public at large. And I have no problem with that, and no illusions about it either. It's OK with me that the corporate special interests are looking out for number one in the public debate, but I object when their deep pockets give them deep influence that ordinary Americans don't have. Take the tobacco companies. They oppose increasing the taxes paid by consumers of their products, they promote putting caps on the damages that smokers and their families can be awarded in personal injury or wrongful death actions, but they oppose ending government subsidies for tobacco farmers. In each case, they say they are supporting the public interest, but in the end they are protecting their own bottom line. And they have invested heavily in this Congress, and in our political parties, millions upon millions of dollars to protect their bottom line. These are the folks who raised their right hands and swore that tobacco was not addictive. These are the companies that concealed crucial studies on the dangers of their product for years. These are the people who spent millions on a misleading advertising campaign to kill the most important public health initiative that the Congress considered this year because it threatened their economic health. I'm not willing to rely on them to look out for the public interest, particularly when the voices of opposing views can hardly be heard because they don't have a lot of money. Most soft money donors are using their contributions like Roger Tamraz and the tobacco companies do. That is borne out by a recent study by Common Cause of the major soft money donors so far in this election cycle. The political parties have already raised over $116 million in soft money in this cycle, the most ever in a non- presidential cycle and more than twice the amount given in a similar 18 month period in the 1993-94 cycle. As is always the case, corporations with business before the Congress, not disinterested, public-spirited millionaires, and certainly not ordinary citizens, are leading the way in soft money giving in this cycle. Securities and investment companies and their executives have given $8.5 million, the insurance industry has given $7.3 million, the telecommunications industry $6.1 million, the real estate industry $5.9 million, the pharmaceutical industry $4 million, and the tobacco industry $3.9 million. All of these amounts are at least double and in some cases triple the amount given in 1993-94. And one very interesting set of contributors shows that access, not ideology, is the main reason for soft money donations. Fifty-seven donors in the first 18 months of this cycle gave more than $75,000 to both parties. 15 companies, including Philip Morris, AT&T, Walt Disney Co., MCI, Bell South Corporation, Atlantic Richfield and Archer Daniels Midland gave more than $150,000 to both parties. Now I suppose there might be some in those companies, or even in this body, who will argue that all of these ``double-givers'' just really want to help the political process. That they are motivated not by their bottom line but by a deep desire to assist the parties in serving the public. But if that is the case, why is that in every Congress since I have been here the industries most seriously affected by our work pony up to give huge contributions to us and to the political parties? In 1993-94 it was the health care debate. Hospitals, insurance companies, drug companies, and doctors all opened their wallets in an unprecedented way. Then in 1995 and 1996, the Telecommunications Act was under consideration and lo and behold the local and long distance companies and the cable companies stepped up their giving. Now in this Congress, we've been working on bankruptcy reform and financial services modernization, and the biggest givers of all in this cycle according to Common Cause's research report are securities and investment companies, insurance companies, and banks and lenders, eager to have their business interests protected or expanded. What's going on here? I submit that it's not a spontaneous burst of civic virtue. And if we don't finish work on these bills this year, you can bet that the money will be there for us in the Congress as well--it has been suggested that sometimes the very members of Congress who most want a big bill to pass will slow its progress to keep the checks coming in and the money flowing that much longer. Mr. President, not surprisingly, there's also a powerful new player in the soft money game in this Congress--the computer and electronics industry. According to Common Cause, these companies have given the parties nearly $2.7 million so far, more than twice as much as they gave four years ago. And why is that, Mr. President? Could it have anything to do with the ongoing antitrust investigations and the possibility of congressional action in connection with those investigations? Or is it that the industry suddenly became more public spirited than it was in the past? Mr. President, the American people are not gullible or naive. They know that these companies contribute these enormous sums to the parties because their bottom line is affected by what the Congress does and they want to make sure the Congress will listen to them when they want to make their case. And they know that the big contributors get results. And frankly, Mr. President, it's a two way street. The parties are hitting up these donors because they know that most companies, unlike Monsanto and General Motors who announced early in 1997 that they would no longer make soft money donations--most companies don't have the courage to say no. Most companies are worried that if they don't ante up, their lobbyists won't get in the door. Our current campaign finance laws encourage old fashioned shakedowns, as long as they are done discreetly. Faced with this kind of evidence, it is beyond me how any Senator could support this soft money system. We simply must pass comprehensive reform, including a ban on soft money at the beginning of the next Congress, and we must make that ban effective immediately to prevent the presidential election in the Year 2000 from being contaminated with this corrosive and corruptive force. The consequences of failing to make these reforms will be devastating to the confidence of average citizens in the fairness and impartiality of the legislative process and the actions of a future Chief Executive. Let me be clear Mr. President, I'm not suggesting that any individual Member of Congress is corrupt. I don't know that any Member of this body has ever traded a vote for a contribution. But while Members are not corrupt, the system is riddled with corruption. It is only human to help those who have helped you get elected or reelected, to agree to the meeting, to take the phone call, to allow the opportunity to be persuaded by those who have given money. It is true of the parties, and it is true of the Members, even those who seek always to cast their votes on the merits. The result is that people who don't have money don't get heard. So we don't need to point fingers at one another, we just have to rise above politics and do the right thing by the American people. We must clean up our own house, Mr. President. We cannot continue to ignore the corruption in our midst, the cancer that is eating the heart out of the great American compact of trust and faith between the people and their elected representatives. We know that unlimited soft money contributions make a mockery of our election laws and threatens the fairness of the legislative process. We know that phony issue ads paid for with unlimited corporate and union funds undermine the ability of citizens to understand who is bankrolling the candidates and why. We can find bipartisan solutions to these problems that protect legitimate First Amendment rights if we are willing to put partisan political advantage aside and sit down and work it out. Senator McCain and I are ready--we have been ready ever since we introduced our bill--to make changes to our bill that will bring new supporters on board and get us past the 60 vote threshold that the Senate rules have placed in our way, so long as we stay true to the goal of a cleaner, fairer, system in which money will no longer dominate. I look forward to continuing this work next year Mr. President. And I am confident that we will succeed. Again, I want to thank Senator McCain and all the Republicans who joined our bill this year. And of course, Senator Daschle and all the Democratic Senators who have so steadfastly supported bipartisan reform in this Congress. Mr. President, most important legislative accomplishments take more than one Congress to enact. Rome was not built in a day, and campaign finance reform obviously could not be enacted in a year. But I believe that early in the next Congress there will be a real chance to deal with the campaign finance issue in a bipartisan fashion to make the election in the Year 2000 cleaner and fairer than the one we just had or the one we are about to have. The American people deserve that as we enter a new century, and here is a promise: I will never, ever, give up this fight until we give it to them.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to bring to the Senate's attention an excellent editorial published by the Washington Post on Wednesday, October 7, 1998 concerning the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. This convention seeks to establish worldwide standards for the criminalization of the bribery of foreign officials to influence or retain business. Just over 20 years ago the Congress passed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA. This landmark legislation, which I am proud to say was sponsored by one of Wisconsin's most respected elected officials, Senator William Proxmire, was enacted after it was discovered that some American companies were keeping slush funds for making questionable and/or illegal payments to foreign officials to help land business deals. For these 20 years, the FCPA has succeeded at curbing U.S. corporate bribery of foreign officials by establishing extensive bookkeeping requirements to ensure transparency and by criminalizing the bribery of foreign officials. The OECD treaty, which passed the Senate unanimously earlier this year, would bring most of our major trading partners up to the same standards that U.S. companies have been exercising since the FCPA became law. Mr. President, I consider this treaty, and the implementing legislation, S. 2375, that accompanies it, to be important work of the Congress. However, as the Washington Post noted in its editorial, the House of Representatives has yet to pass this legislation. As a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, which had the responsibility to recommend the Senate provide its advice and consent on this treaty, I hope the House will move quickly to pass the implementing legislation prior to adjournment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the October 7, 1998, Washington Post editorial be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 128, introduced last week by the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy]. I believe that this resolution is both timely and important. This resolution calls on the Secretary of State to take a number of steps to foster improvement in the human rights situation in Mexico and to end the violence in the state of Chiapas. These steps include ensuring that any assistance and exports of equipment to Mexican security forces are used primarily for counter-narcotics and do not contribute to human rights violations, encouraging the Mexican government to disarm paramilitary groups and decrease the military presence in Chiapas, and encouraging the Mexican government and the Zapatista National Liberation Army to establish concrete conditions for negotiations for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Chiapas. Mr. President, allow me to just review briefly what is going on in Chiapas today. Just over four years ago, in January 1994, the Zapatista National Liberation Army, an organization of peasant and indigenous peoples seeking political and social changes, launched an uprising by seizing four towns in the Chiapas region of southern Mexico; fighting in the region resulted in nearly 100 deaths. Although the Mexican government initially countered the rebellion by sending troops to the region, issuing arrest warrants for all Zapatista leaders, and creating a new military zone near the site of the Chiapas rebellion, Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo subsequently canceled the arrest warrants, ordered the cessation of all offensive actions against the Zapatista Army, and called for dialogue between Zapatista leaders and the Mexican government. Since August of 1995, the Zapatistas have participated intermittently in peace negotiations with the Mexican government. Last December, 45 indigenous peasants in the village of Acteal, Chiapas, were killed by armed men reportedly affiliated with President Zedillo's Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). Following this incident, President Zedillo appointed a new Minister of Government and a new peace negotiator for Chiapas, the Governor of Chiapas resigned, and Mexican authorities arrested more than 40 people in connection with this incident, including the mayor of a nearby town. These incidents renewed calls for peace in Chiapas. The Zapatistas rejected legislation submitted to the Mexican Congress by President Zedillo in March 1998 to promote indigenous rights in Chiapas. President Zedillo visited the region several times in mid-1998 to promote dialogue, but the talks fell apart after the June 1998 resignation of Bishop Ruiz from the mediation commission, and the commission subsequently dissolved. In July 1998, the Zapatistas advanced a proposal for mediation and for a Mexican plebiscite on President Zedillo's indigenous rights legislation. But, Mr. President, efforts for dialogue between the Mexican government and the Zapatistas have been largely fruitless, and the violence continues. I am deeply troubled by this situation. I am also deeply troubled by the cool reception that the Mexican government has given to some international human rights observers, including people from my home state of Wisconsin. Many of these individuals have worked tirelessly from the beginning of the Chiapas conflict to help organize humanitarian assistance for the indigenous peoples of the troubled region. Some of these individuals feel that there has been a concerted effort by the Government of Mexico to keep foreigners out of the region in order to limit this kind of humanitarian assistance and to limit the ability of outsiders to monitor and report on the human rights situation there. Many humanitarian workers have been detained for long periods of time and summarily deported from Mexico. The deficient reception of humanitarian workers in Chiapas casts doubt on the sincerity of the Mexican Government when it says it wants to work with the United States and others to control drug trafficking or to enter into end-use monitoring agreements on the transfer of military equipment. Mr. President, I believe the United States has an obligation to be an advocate for human rights protections around the world. I am not convinced that the Mexican National Commission on Human Rights (CNDH), which was established in 1990, has done enough to prevent continuing violations by Mexican law enforcement officials and the Mexican military. I believe the United States must make human rights a top priority in our relations with Mexico, and I do not believe Mexico can reach stability without permitting its citizens to exercise their basic rights. In light of the proximity of Mexico to the United States and the myriad ties between our two countries, we have a clear interest in working to ensure that human rights are respected in Mexico. Again, Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of S.Con.Res. 128, which, in my view, will further call attention to the on-going human rights abuses in Chiapas. I hope that the Administration will actively work to put human rights at the very top of our priority list with respect to Mexico, and that the Mexican government will take concrete steps to end the violence in Chiapas and to respect the rights of all Mexican citizens and international visitors.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, last night, the Senate passed the Water Resources Development Act of 1998. I wanted to voice my support for this bill. In particular, I appreciate the section that reauthorizes the Army Corps' Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management Program, known as EMP. I wish to commend the hard work of the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee) and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus) and their staff members, Dan Delich and Jo Ellen Darcy, in order to complete a WRDA bill prior to the adjournment of the 105th Congress. I appreciate the time and attention they have paid to ensuring that EMP is reauthorized in this bill. I also want to extend my sincere thanks to the Senior Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), who shepherded the EMP provisions through the Committee. I have enjoyed working with him on the reauthorization of this important program. He and his staff have worked along with me and my staff to make sure this section was well crafted and met the needs of the Upper Mississippi states and the Mississippi River environment. The manager's amendment makes the necessary changes to the Committee language to meet the needs of all interested parties. From its inception, the EMP has been a program that enjoys bipartisan support. Initially conceived and sponsored in the House by my former colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Gunderson) and the Congressman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the EMP was originally authorized in the Water Resources Act of 1986. At the same time, Congress designated the Upper Mississippi River ``a nationally significant ecosystem and a nationally significant commercial navigation system.'' Since its inception, the EMP has been a cooperative effort between the Corps, the Upper Mississippi states, conservationists, and commercial shipping and other economic interests. The program's purpose is to regain and protect significant areas of diverse, productive fish and wildlife habitat, to establish long-term resource monitoring which gauges dynamic changes and impacts of future developments, and to improve and assess recreational uses so vital in our nation's midsection. The EMP involves extensive federal-state planning, coordination, and cost-sharing. I am pleased that this legislation will prevent termination of this program in 2001, as provided in the earlier authorizing legislation. This bill will ensure that necessary funding, and approved habitat rehabilitation and enhancement projects will continue. I also recognize, with a total ten year authorization of $350 million, that it is among the largest program authorizations contained in the bill. I am very pleased that the collegial spirit surrounding work on EMP is also well-rooted on the House side. My colleague in the Wisconsin delegation (Representative Kind) is working with Representative Oberstar in steadfastly pursuing this reauthorization this year. The manager's amendment reauthorizes EMP through 2009 at an increased total funding level of $33.5 million per year. It also makes some important changes to the program. It creates an independent technical advisory committee to review habitat projects and monitoring plans. It authorizes the Corps to complete a habitat and natural resource needs assessment of the Upper Mississippi Basin within three years of WRDA enactment. And, it provides Congress with another comprehensive assessment of the program, its projects and effectiveness, by 2005. I believe these to be positive changes to the program. I look forward to the Conference on this matter, and I urge my colleagues in the other body to act quickly on this legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am submitting an amendment to S. 1966, Gaylord Nelson Apostle Islands Stewardship Act of 1988, a bill that I introduced on April 22, 1988. In keeping with my belief that progress toward a balanced budget should be maintained, I am proposing that a section be added to the bill which offsets the $4.1 million in authorized spending for the Apostle Islands contained in my original bill, with the $20 million in funds appropriated in FY 99 to the Denali Commission. The Secretary of the Interior would be required to transfer $15.9 million above the money that it needs to take actions at the Apostle Islands back to the Treasury. Mr. President, the Denali Commission is not currently authorized. Authorization for this new commission was included in the Senate version of the FY 99 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, but was removed in conference. Nevertheless, the appropriators decided to set aside $20 million in funds pending the authorization of the Commission. Whatever the merits of this proposed commission may be, Mr. President, I am concerned that we have set aside such a large amount of money when we have acute appropriations needs at places like the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, for an unauthorized program. I am further concerned, Mr. President, about creating a new Federal commission to address economic development and other State specific issues when Congress is seeking to back away from such commitments. For example, in the same bill that provides funds for the Denali Commission, the Congress terminates appropriated funds for the Tennessee Valley Authority, known as TVA, an action I have had legislation to accomplish since I became a Member of the Senate. I applaud congress for acting to end appropriated funds for TVA, but I fear we may take a step backward if we create a new entity that we now need to fund. I look forward to Senate Energy Committee consideration of the Gaylord Nelson Apostle Islands Stewardship Act of 1988, and its eventual passage.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I offer my comments on the Nickles substitute amendment to H.R. 2431, the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] for all the hard work that he and others have devoted to this important piece of legislation. These Senators, and our House colleagues, have recognized the importance of promoting religious freedom abroad, and have tried to craft legislation that both emphasizes our serious concerns about this issue, and provides authority to the President to react to governments which abuse these fundamental rights. In particular, I appreciate their efforts to make improvements to the original bill, most of which I support. Mr. President, the issue of religious freedom is especially important for our country. Freedom of religion is one of the bedrock principles of American democracy. Our founders, who came to America in part to flee religious intolerance, championed freedom of religion as a universal right, and made it an integral part of the Constitution through the Bill of Rights. Throughout our history, immigrants from every corner of the globe have arrived on our shores seeking a community where they could practice their religion openly and without fear of persecution. Today, we value the separation of church and state as one of our guiding principles. But we are all well aware that such liberties are not fully enjoyed everywhere, and there are millions of people who daily face persecution or intolerance because of their religious beliefs. Worse yet, the exploitation of religious and ethnic differences for political ends has become all too common in the post-Cold War era. These trends have been around for centuries, but have been getting more serious press attention in the last several years. They mirror the myriad other abuses that are conducted, or at least tolerated, by non- democratic regimes around the world. Examples of restrictions on basic freedoms--of expression, of association, of the press--abound, and those who dare violate such restrictions face imprisonment, repression or even death. As we consider this legislation today, it is likely that somewhere, a political prisoner is being beaten by the police or armed forces, or by some paramilitary group whose members might include police officers or soldiers. It is likely that somewhere a union organizer is being detained or harassed by authorities, that a woman is being raped by government thugs, that a newspaper is being shut down, or that a prisoner has ``disappeared.'' The question for us today is this: what is the appropriate U.S. policy response to such acts of oppression by other nations on the basis of religious beliefs? We should also ask: what is the appropriate response to oppression of any kind? I firmly believe that the defense of human rights around the world relates directly to our ``national interests'' and therefore justifies leadership from the United States, a nation founded on respect for individual rights and liberties. We are bound by our country's founding principles to promote and defend certain ideas: that we are all created equal, that we are born with certain inalienable rights, that government is legitimate only with the consent of the people, and that government should exist to promote the general welfare and to secure the blessings of liberty for all. Our other national interests--security and economic opportunity-- have the best chance for advancement in a climate of freedom and respect for individual rights, and are undermined where that climate does not thrive. I have never shied away from the use of every economic, diplomatic, or rhetorical tool to advance our human rights agenda. It is through the vigorous use of these tools that the United States can exercise the type of leadership such fundamental violations of justice demand. To a certain extent, this is the approach implicit in the bill we are considering today, which provides a menu of presidential actions to respond to violations of religious freedom. But, with deference to my colleague from Oklahoma and the work he has done on this bill and although I support the bill, I have some outstanding concerns regarding this legislation. I believe that if we had been able to fully consider this bill in the Committee on Foreign Relations, we would have been able to work out some of these issues. I strongly support the basic premise of the bill, that the United States should defend religious liberty, but I am concerned that it might appear to subordinate other fundamental rights to the right to religious freedom. As we defend the freedom of religion, should we not just as vigorously defend the rule of law, basic human rights and the exercise of political rights? We would be pleased if, tomorrow, Sudan's ruling National Islamic Front suddenly lifted its Shar'ia law and allowed Christians to worship freely. But would we then tolerate the forced conscription of children, the lack of press freedom and the manipulation of humanitarian assistance that also takes place in the Sudan? I also have some concerns about a few specific provisions. First, this bill creates a new commission, the ``Commission on International Religious Freedom.'' Although I am open to arguments on this subject, I am not convinced a new commission is needed. We already have in operation the Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom. This body, which is broadly representative of various religious communities, has been in operation since early 1997 and has already produced several useful reports about the state of religious freedom around the world. Its work has helped focus administration attention on the issue of religious persecution and the conditions of religious minorities. Second, Section 205 of the bill authorizes $6 million over two years to carry out the work of this new Commission. The protection of religious freedom is vital work that must be done, but I believe this is an enormous amount of money to be devoting to a commission of any sort, and I have seen no explanation of why $6 million is required. The Advisory Committee was able to conduct its work with existing resources from the Department of State. I understand that the Committee's work greatly strained the resources of the Department's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, but I also understand that, even if staff salaries are included, the Committee could have been run with a budget of less than $500,000. Also, the new Commission proposed by the legislation would be comprised of nine commissioners, rather than the 20 on the existing Advisory Committee, so it might be expected to require less resources. In addition, I am concerned that because of the narrow language of Section 205, the authorized funds might be used only for the specific activities of the Commission, and not for the many additional requirements of the bill which would then have to borne by the already stretched resources of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Mr. President, I hope there will be further clarification of the intended uses of these funds, and--if the Congress does appropriate such high levels of funding--I hope it will be used to further the goals of the whole bill, and not simply Title II. Third, another provision that raises some concerns is Section 107, which provides equal access to the premises of diplomatic missions to any U.S. citizen seeking to conduct religious activities. It is in the best American tradition to provide a haven for Americans of faith who find themselves in a country that is not hospitable to their religion, but I wonder if some might argue that this provision would expand what the Supreme Court has determined constitutes a ``public forum'' with respect to equal access for religion. In practice, it is possible that it might then be deemed by some court to be an unconstitutional endorsement of a particular religion. That is not what we intend, so I hope the provision allows for discretion on the part of the chiefs of mission to appropriately respond to requests from the American community. My fourth concern relates to the provisions in Section 108--not what is in those provisions, but rather, what has been left out. Section 108 requires the Secretary of State to prepare and maintain issue briefs on religious freedom on a country-by-country basis. These will be similar to the annual country reports on human rights, which have proven to be an excellent source of information on conditions in individual countries. However, the briefs are also required to include lists of ``persons believed to be imprisoned, detained, or placed under house arrest for their religious faith.'' In cases where the production and publicizing of prisoner lists is useful, perhaps we should devote similar attention to individuals detained in the pursuit of other internationally recognized human rights. The Secretary should consider exercising her authority to broaden the list to include all prisoners of conscience, as appropriate. In addition, there may be cases where the production or publication of such a list might actually be harmful to the individuals in question, or indeed to our intelligence resources. I believe on this point the administration is given considerable discretion. Fifth, in an earlier draft of this legislation, included in the description of what might constitute a violation of religious freedom was ``arbitrary prohibitions or restrictions on the grounds of religion on holding public office, or pursuing educational or professional opportunities.'' For unknown reasons, this language unfortunately was deleted from all subsequent drafts of this bill, including the current version. However, the bill's definitional language is merely suggestive, indicating areas the administration can take into consideration when making a determination about a given country. I will assume that the administration will also consider restrictive prohibitions on education and employment, among other factors, when making such determinations. Any kind of religious discrimination is unacceptable. Finally, Section 103 provides for the establishment of a religious freedom Internet web site which would contain major international documents relating to religious freedom, among other items. This is a fantastic way to disseminate information about this issue to individuals around the world who can use it to help promote their causes in their own countries. Already we have seen the importance of the Internet in promoting civil society. The Internet is the modern version of the underground literature of the Cold War, only it does not require printing presses which can be taken away, and it is more readily available to its audience. I hope, however, that the Secretary of State will take the opportunity to also include in the web site other important documents related more generally to human rights. In that way, we can be sure to pursue the protection of all human rights through the most modern technology possible. Also, Mr. President, just to make the record clear, I do not support the provisions of Section 406 which allow an exception to the sanctions in this bill for defense contractors. Again, I commend the sponsors of this legislation and everyone who has worked so hard to produce a consensus package.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I intend to vote against the Conference Report on Fiscal Year 1999 Agriculture Appropriations bill for a number of reasons. In the final version, the congressional majority has added a $3.6 billion unfunded emergency spending provision, while simultaneously stripping out consumer and farmer protections. However, today I will focus on the worst provision in the conference report. I am extremely disappointed that the final version contains language from the House bill extending USDA's rulemaking period on Federal Milk Marketing Order Reform. Once again, on the issue of milk orders, bad politics prevailed over good policy. This extension will require the new milk pricing system to be in place in October of 1999, instead of the original date of April, 1999 set in the Farm Bill. Mr. President, officials at USDA have assured me that they did not request this extension nor do they need it. House Appropriators argued that the extension was necessary to give Congress ample time to review, comment and act on the final rule. They claim that if the rule were to be announced in late November, they would not have time to act on it. Mr. President, let's examine this argument because it does not hold water. My House and Senate colleagues who support this provision on these grounds surely remember passage of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This law empowers Congress and the courts to overturn regulations with Presidential approval. This law gives Congress 60 days to act, once a rule has been published in the Federal Register. So, whether the rule is published in late November, early December, or mid-February of 1999, Congress has 60 days of session to act. So this really tells us what is going on here. Mr. President, this dairy provision was included solely to intimidate and bully USDA and Secretary Glickman into an anti-Wisconsin dairy pricing reform. Instead of allowing USDA to do its job, some Members of Congress want to do it for them, and do it to benefit their own producers at the expense of dairy farmers in the Upper Midwest. Let's just take a look at the current system which is shown on this chart, which some have called the Eau Claire system. I like to call it the anti-Eau Claire system because it is an unfair system for Eau Claire, WI, and our entire state--in fact, the entire upper Midwest. This chart shows that the Class I differential received by dairy farmers in Eau Claire, Wisconsin is $1.20 per hundredweight. Believe it or not, Mr. President, Federal pricing policy dictates that the farther you travel from Eau Claire, WI, the higher your Class I differential. You will notice that the price in Chicago is $1.40, in Kansas City, Missouri it's $1.92 and in Charlotte, NC it's $3.08 per hundredweight. Our friends in Florida make $3.58 in Tallahassee, $3.88 in Tampa, and $4.18 in Miami. Dairy farmers in Miami make nearly $3.00 more per hundredweight than farmers in the Upper Midwest. Does that make any sense? Absolutely not. Let me illustrate this with another chart. To illustrate just how senseless this whole system is, I have borrowed this graphic from my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Rod Grams. As you can see, pricing milk based on its distance from Eau Claire, WI, is as arbitrary and ridiculous as pricing oranges from their distance from Florida, computers from their distance from Seattle, or--even more shocking to some of us--country music from its distance from Nashville. But wait, now that I think about it, maybe Congress should pass legislation to price maple syrup based on its distance from Burlington, VT, and white wine on its distance from California. While we are at it, lets pass a law to pay Members of Congress according to the distance of their hometown from Washington, DC. Sound ridiculous? It is, just as the current milk pricing system is ridiculous. It would almost be funny if it weren't so destructively unfair to Wisconsin's dairy farmers, undermining the livelihoods of their families. Mr. President, the current system desperately needs reform, a reform the Secretary of Agriculture has indicated he is willing to make--but that some members of Congress are very anxious to prevent. This poster is an illustration of today's Federal milk pricing system--how milk is produced and priced in America. You can see that the price of milk begins not with the cow, but with the Congress. Its interesting to note that the market and the farmer don't enter into the equation until two- thirds down the page. I could walk you through all the confusing steps shown here, but I understand we are scheduled to recess sometime in October, and frankly, I would need until mid-November to describe fully the inequity of this system. This system has outlived its usefulness, its patently unfair and its bad policy. The extension of USDA's rulemaking had another intent as well. Extending the rulemaking period automatically extends the life of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. The 1996 Farm Bill requires a sunset of the Compact when the new federal pricing system is implemented. At the rate Congress is going, tacking this issue onto appropriations bills, there is no telling when implementation will now occur. The effects of the Compact on consumers within the region and producers outside of it is indisputable. Dairy compacts are harmful, unnecessary and a burden to this country's taxpayers. The worst part of this entire 65 year dairy fiasco is its effect on the producers in the Upper Midwest. The 6 month extension puts an additional 900 Wisconsin producers at risk. Wisconsin loses approximately 3 dairy farmers a day. Producers cannot stand 6 more days of the current program, let along 6 more months. I am truly troubled by this turn of events and would like to read into the record a few excerpts from letters I have received from struggling dairy farmers in my home state of Wisconsin. From Pulaski, Wisconsin a constituent writes: I would love to encourage my son or daughter to take over this farm someday. But without a fair pricing system, they cannot earn a decent living, and I cannot and will not encourage them to farm. That will be a great loss to the world of agriculture. A letter from Bloomer, WI reads: We, in the Upper Midwest are not asking for a handout, just a more level playing field. Fair competition and price reform is our only hope. Another constituent writes: In my opinion, just because a pricing system has been in implementation for years, doesn't make it useful today. It must also change with the times. How many more farms are we willing to let fall victim to the prejudiced pricing? . . . Its much easier to put a pillow over our heads, roll over and ignore the cry for help from the Wisconsin dairy farmers . . . I realize changing the present milk pricing system will not heal the strained economics of dairy farming. It's only a step . . . I urge you to take this step and . . . hear the cry of dairy farmers like me. And finally, a dairy producer makes this comment: Eau Claire was chosen as the reference point because it was judged by the government to be the center of the dairy industry's most productive region. Since California now produces more milk than Wisconsin, this [rule] should no longer apply. Maybe we should change the [milk pricing] reference point to Fresno, California, to encourage dairy production in the Midwest. These examples illustrate the need for dairy pricing reform and illustrate the state of Wisconsin's dairy industry- struggling needlessly under the burden of current dairy policy. Mr. President, not only is legislating dairy policy on this bill inappropriate, its bad precedent, it circumvents the appropriate committees, the Agriculture and Judiciary Committees, and circumvents USDA's authority. We ought to give USDA the opportunity to do the right thing for today's national dairy industry and put an end to the unfair Eau Claire system now, not 6 months from now. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to take a second look at this antiquated and harmful policy. Stand up for equity, fairness, and for what is best for America's dairy industry, our consumers and our taxpayers. I yield back the floor. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I require.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the full hour be accorded that was intended for the agriculture appropriations bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to register my opposition to the fiscal year 1999 Department of Defense Authorization conference report. Sadly, we continue to spend precious military resources on unneeded, unwanted, pork-barrel projects, all at the expense of our military's legitimate needs. Mr. President, our military needs to be lean and mean, not weighed down with unnecessary, unwanted, expensive pork. We don't need to spend more money, we need to spend money more wisely. Our military leaders have begun to recognize this and some of my colleagues in Congress have recognized it. I hope we can work together toward a more wisely funded military. I am not alone in my call for more efficient and accountable military spending. Lawrence J. Korb, President Reagan's Assistant Secretary of Defense, recently issued a rebuke of the state of the Pentagon's military spending. He said, The problem is not lack of money or aging equipment . . . the Pentagon is buying the wrong weapons. The military behaves as if it is still in an arms race with the Soviet Union, buying $2 billion bombers, $3 billion submarines and $5 billion aircraft carriers . . . Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea--throw in Libya or whoever else you want--all of them together don't spend as much on the military as we do. Mr. President, I couldn't agree more. There is no Cold War. It's over. We need to move toward a 21st century military force. This conference report fails to adequately modernize our armed forces and move toward that goal. As my friend from Arizona, Senator McCain, has so eloquently stated year after year, it's unconscionable that we spend billions of dollars on pork-barrel projects that the Pentagon doesn't need and doesn't want. Mr. President, we can't afford to pretend we're still dealing with the Cold War Soviet threat. Military leaders agree that we need lighter, faster and more agile forces. This strategy does not include wholesale purchase of cumbersome B-2 bombers, new attack submarines, or Cold War-era heavy tanks. One particular program epitomizes the worst of pork-barrel politics. The C-130 air cargo planes have sapped billions of dollars from vital military programs even though our military leaders are incessant in their pleas to end the harmful practice of forcing the Pentagon to buy more planes than it needs. Mr. President, since 1978, the Congress has added a whopping 263 C- 130s for which our Department of Defense has not asked. That's right-- the taxpayers have paid for 263 C-130s the Pentagon didn't need. If you lined them up wing to wing, that would be six and a half miles of unwanted airplanes, with the taxpayers on the hook for $22.4 billion. This assault on military planning hamstrings readiness, equipment, and compensation for our soldiers. As we all know, these are the precise areas which the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified this week were at greatest risk. Politicians who want to bring home the bacon at taxpayers' expense should not be second-guessing the judgment of our military leaders in this way. This conference report follows in the dubious footsteps of its ancestors by authorizing 7 C-130s, while the Pentagon asked for only one. Not only does it take from other procurement money, but DoD must divert operations and maintenance money to look after all these unneeded planes. This is the height of irresponsibility and shortsightedness. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to congratulate my distinguished colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley. He held a hearing on Tuesday to discuss accounting fraud at the Pentagon. His continued efforts to rein in obvious and debilitating fraud at the Pentagon need to be applauded. Perhaps the Senator's most important finding is summed by his quote, ``If we put adequate controls on the money we have, there should be no need for more defense spending.'' That, Mr. President, sums up my point, as well. We don't need to throw good money after bad with pork-barrel spending in our military budget. What we need to do is spend our money more wisely. That is how we will move toward a lean, efficient, and effective military. This conference report does not move toward the new 21st century military force. I thank the chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Senior Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus) in his efforts to describe some of the provisions of concern that were attached to the Interior Appropriations legislation, the fate of which is now uncertain. I hope that all the provisions that will harm the environment, impede the enforcement of environmental law, or weaken federal environmental policy, will be removed from this legislation if it either returns to the floor or is incorporated in a broader appropriations bill. This is not the first time that I have supported the Senior Senator from Montana in his efforts to address environmentally harmful legislative riders in appropriations legislation. In September 1995, I joined in his efforts to mitigate the effects of riders in the FY 96 VA-HUD appropriations legislation regarding the operations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Once again, I applaud his leadership in championing the protection of the environment. Mr. President, for more than two decades, we have seen a remarkable bipartisan consensus on protecting the environment. As a consequence of this broad agreement, today we breathe cleaner air, drink cleaner water, and enjoy spectacular public lands. Unfortunately, again during this Congress, we have faced numerous proposals to modify the environmental protections upon which American families depend. We have seen bills that would undermine the Wilderness Act and the management of our public lands, block implementation of the Endangered Species Act, rollback wetlands standards and weaken enforcement of clean water laws, and slow down or stop cleanup of hazardous waste sites. Congressional consideration of these proposals has been divisive, time-consuming, and ultimately unproductive. Mr. President, I believe we have a responsibility to the American people to protect the quality of our public lands and resources. That responsibility of stewardship requires that I oppose legislative efforts to include proposals in routine spending bills that weaken environmental laws or prevent potentially beneficial environmental regulations from being promulgated by the federal agencies that carry out federal law. In addition to my substantive concerns, Mr. President, I also share with the Senator from Montana a procedural concern about these riders. The people of Wisconsin have been calling my office in the last few weeks to express their grave concern that when riders are placed in spending bills major decisions regarding environmental protection are being made without the benefit of an up or down vote. Wisconsinites have very strong views that Congress has a responsibility to discuss and publicly debate matters effecting the environment. Thus, the Senior Senator from Montana is making an important procedural point for the Senate. We should be on record with regard to our position on this matter of open government and environmental stewardship. Though I have substantive concerns about all of the riders that the Senior Senator from Montana has detailed, and others, I wanted to share my concerns by highlighting in detail a few riders contained in the Interior Appropriations legislation. I am concerned about the language on forest road decommissioning that is contained in Title II of the Interior bill. This language prohibits the use of funds to decommission National Forest System roads until the Regional Forester certifies that all ``unauthorized'' roads are decommissioned or reconstructed. Mr. President, this mandate simply does not recognize that maintaining existing roads is a priority both in Wisconsin's national forests and throughout Forest Service Region 9. Our existing road system in the Nicolet and Chequamegon National Forests not only serves those who visit our forests, but also serves our local communities. Forest Service roads are important routes between communities in the northern part of my state. I also travel them when I attend Listening Sessions and other events in northern Wisconsin. I am concerned that if our forests have to spend time documenting all unauthorized roads this fiscal year, such as snowmobile crossings and other rights of way, we will neither get to accomplish any needed decomissioning, nor any much needed maintenance. I also oppose the rider regarding logging in Tongass National Forest contained in the Interior bill. While Wisconsin's national forests have struggled to bring their timber sales above cost, I am concerned that this rider requires that the Forest Service offer for sale, and allow the logging of, ninety percent of the timber volume proposed by the Tongass Land Management Plan, a plan which is currently under appeal to the Secretary of Agriculture. Moreover, this rider contains a dangerous, precedent-setting provision that makes this requirement legally enforceable. I strongly believe that taxpayers should be getting a better return for the sale of timber from public lands, and I am concerned about increasing cut volumes when we still need to address below cost issues on the Tongass. These are a few of my concerns, Mr. President. I believe that the Senate should act to strip these riders from the bill and send clean Interior funding provisions to the President for his signature. I encourage my colleagues to take the advice of the Senior Senator from Montana, and act to fund the programs we must fund without taking environmental policy actions that the public opposes.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to offer a few comments on the budget picture and the tax measure that appears likely to move through Congress in these few days remaining in the session. Over the last several days, a number of my colleagues have come to the floor to voice concerns about the increasing use of the emergency spending provisions in our budget rule as a device to circumvent the tough limits we have imposed on our budget requiring that all new spending be paid for. Those Members are properly alarmed because those spending provisions, which by any reasonable measure were predictable and expected, have now been designated as emergency appropriations precisely to avoid the need for offsetting spending cuts. Mr. President, I want you to know that I share the concerns of those Members. The spending limits to which we agreed in the bipartisan budget agreement last year are indeed tough. They were intended to be tough. But if we are to make progress toward a truly balanced budget, those limits have to be respected--not just last year's but also this year and into the future. Along those same lines, I have some very serious concerns about the proposed tax bill that is working its way through Congress. To many it will not come as a surprise that I have serious concerns about this measure. In 1994, I was the first Member of either House to fault both parties for the irresponsible tax policies they were advocating while our Nation still faced a very serious budget deficit. Then, as now, I firmly believed that balancing the budget has to be our highest economic priority, and that the irresponsible tax legislation being offered at that time made that task much harder. I think that subsequent events have proved that point. The 104th Congress pursued the so-called Contract With America budget, a proposal that featured massive cuts in Medicare and Medicaid to help fund an irresponsible tax cut. That proposal in effect tried to serve two masters at the same time--a reduced deficit, and a massive tax cut. The result was a measure that was unsustainable economically and politically, and the political gridlock that followed in the wake of that budget produced a Government shutdown, and little, if any, new progress toward balancing the Federal budget. So the result was that the 104th Congress missed an important opportunity to finish the job that we started in the 103d Congress with the successful enactment of the historic deficit reduction package passed in August of 1993. It was the 1993 deficit reduction package that helped finally turn the budget around. It also helped turn Congress around by focusing attention on the need for continuing deficit reduction. Unfortunately, the 104th Congress failed to advance the work of the 103d Congress. It sadly lost the focus of deficit reduction and the politically driven tax cut proposal undercut the potential for a sustainable deficit reduction package. Then, at the beginning of the 105th Congress, we began to regain part of our focus on reducing the deficit. The political gridlock that characterized most of the previous Congress was really a slap in the face to many, and the following Congress--this Congress--there was a historic bipartisan effort to get back on track. As a Member of the Senate Budget Committee, I was proud to be part of that bipartisan effort. Once again, let me pay special notice to our distinguished chairman, the Senator from New Mexico, and our ranking member, the Senator from New Jersey, for their leadership in helping to craft a bipartisan spending-cut bill that we passed in 1997. Mr. President, taken together, the 1993 deficit package, and to a lesser but still important extent the 1997 budget-cutting bill, have put this Nation on the road--``on the road''; we are not there yet, but on the road--to a truly balanced budget. We are not there yet, but the goal is in sight. As I noted, I was proud to support the budget-cutting bill last year. I voted for the tough spending cuts that included. However, I did not support the separate irresponsible tax-cut bill that was also part of those discussions. A large part of the reason we have not reached our goal of a balanced budget is last year's tax-cut legislation. In fact, that tax cut should not have been enacted for a great many reasons. But first and foremost, Mr. President, it shouldn't have been enacted because it was premature. In effect, it created over a 10-year period a $292 billion net tax cut--a net tax cut of $292 billion--while we were still facing significant budget deficits. Mr. President, the bottom line is that because our budget is still in deficit, the tax cut was effectively funded with Social Security revenues. Make no mistake about it. That $292 billion comes out of the Social Security trust fund, because it is the only pot that is left when you have a deficit. Mr. President, this terrible problem in last year's tax bill is the very same problem that plagued this year's tax proposal. There are other problems, as well, with last year's tax bill. Not only was it premature, but the bill's costs were heavily backloaded, putting even a greater burden on our children and grandchildren, and even adding more complexity, if you can believe it--even more complexity--to a Tax Code already thick with it. And by committing revenues to a variety of specific interests, it further jeopardized the broad-based tax reform that so many of us genuinely want to see, and that we really thought was going to happen after the 1994 election. Mr. President, the most telling legacy of last year's premature tax cut is that, if it had not been enacted, our Federal budget would have finally achieved a significant surplus by 2002 instead of having to wait until at least as long as 2006, 4 years earlier. Mr. President, this bears repeating. As we have talked for years about how we wanted to have a truly balanced budget by the year 2002, that goal and that achievement was sacrificed to the desire to give out a premature tax cut last year. If Congress had not enacted last year's premature tax cut, today we would be looking at the chance of real budget surpluses in the year 2002 instead of having to wait at least until the year 2006, and perhaps beyond, if the appetite for premature tax cuts is not satiated. Mr. President, this mistake of last year should have been a lesson for us. Regrettably, it appears at least some have not learned a lesson. We now come to the end of the 105th Congress, and again we are presented with yet another tax-cut proposal. Estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation puts the cost of the tax cuts in this new proposal at about $86 billion over the next 5 years. Naturally, all of us who care about truly balancing the budget say, ``OK. Where are the offsets? What about the offsets? What revenue increases or spending cuts are included in the package to offset this cost of $86 billion in lost revenue?'' Apparently, other than about $5 billion in revenue offsets, there are none. So it begins to look an awful lot like the 1997 tax bill, which involved at least $86 billion to $90 billion in net tax reductions--not offsets--over the course of 5 years. Mr. President, this new proposal essentially has no offsets. It is a net $80-billion-deficit increase. How can this be? What possible justification is offered to again balloon the deficit in this way? The answer is the same shell-game explanation that has been given to the public for about 30 years. Proponents of this legislation argue that somehow there is no deficit, that the budget currently has a surplus, and that all this tax bill does is merely return some of that surplus to the taxpayer. That portrayal of our budget is simply wrong and, frankly, is misleading. We do not have the surplus. The budget this year is projected to have about a $40 billion deficit. And except for briefly achieving balance in 2002 and 2005, the Congressional Budget Office does not project a significant budget surplus until at least the year 2006, 8 years from now, if, and only if, their economic assumptions hold. And they, of course, are optimistic economic assumptions based on the rather healthy economy we have enjoyed for several years. In response to a letter from our ranking member on the Budget Committee, the Congressional Budget Office indicates that if a recession similar to the one that occurred in 1990 and 1991 were to begin in late 1999, the budget's bottom line in that year would be close to $50 billion worse than is currently projected. CBO goes on to note that this impact on the budget would grow to almost $150 billion by the year 2002. Put simply, if we were to experience a recession similar to the one we experienced in 1990 and 1991, instead of having a balanced budget in the year 2002, we would have a budget deficit of $150 billion--all the more reason for us to be fiscally prudent. Let me reiterate, we do not have a budget surplus today. Our budget is currently projected to end the current fiscal year with a deficit of about $40 billion. How can proponents argue that we have a budget surplus when we do not? What is the difference? What is the difference between their view and their argument and the real budget? The difference is Social Security. Those who are pushing this tax measure want to include Social Security trust fund balances in our budget. They want to use Social Security balances to pay for their tax cut. And that is what is wrong with this tax cut. A recent release from the Concord Coalition said it quite well. They said, ``It is inconsistent for Congress to say that Social Security is `off budget' while at the same time using the Social Security surplus to pay for tax cuts or new spending.'' That is exactly what is being proposed here. Years of fiscal discipline are being squandered for the sake of an election year tax cut bill. What is equally troubling, the future discipline that will be needed to finish the job and balance the budget is also put at risk by this tax bill. Our budget rules cannot by themselves eliminate our deficit and balance the budget, but they can help sustain the tough decisions we make here. They play an important role in ensuring that Congress does not backslide in efforts to balance the budget. The tax measure as it currently is being debated in the other body appears to violate several critical budget rules. It violates the pay- go rule, which is supposed to ensure that tax and entitlement bills do not aggravate the deficit. It violates section 311(A)(2)(b) of the Budget Act by undercutting the revenue levels established in the most recent budget resolution. And it may violate section 306 of the Budget Act if, as some believe will happen, the majority includes language which would include further provisions to avoid the automatic cuts made by the sequester process. This proposal may well become a triple threat. It ignores rules requiring offsets, it ignores rules establishing revenue floors, and before we are done it may also seek to circumvent the sequester provisions--the last line of defense to protect the budget. I know this can sound very complicated. The people pushing this tax bill are counting on it sounding complicated. But it is really not complicated. Put simply, what they want to do, just like they did last year, is to use the Social Security trust funds to pay for an election year tax cut. They will balloon the deficit and imperil Social Security, and that is a bad idea. This is the legacy of the tax bill as it is the legacy of the 1997 tax bill--raiding the Social Security trust fund, busting the budget and trashing budget discipline, all for an election year tax cut. For the sake of expediency, this body will be asked to put fiscal prudence on the block. Last year's tax bill was premature. This year's tax bill is equally reckless. We are within sight of our goal of a truly balanced budget. We really should not stray from that path. I urge my colleagues to join with me to oppose any tax measure which violates our budget rules and sets us once again on a fiscally irresponsible course. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Up to 20 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, although I object to numerous provisions in the underlying bill, S. 1301, the Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act, I was pleased to work with the Chairman and Ranking Member to include provisions important to the farmers of this country. Mr. President, everyone knows that family farming is a high risk business. One that's effected more by outside, unanticipated forces-- for example, unstable markets, weather, and disease--than any other industry. To survive in such a volatile vocation, farmers are often given a bit of flexibility. This flexibility is the key to the survival of most family farms. Unfortunately, some farmers become overburdened by the financial hazards associated with the business and seek assistance in dealing with their creditors. In 1986, Senator Grassley added Chapter 12 to the bankruptcy code to satisfy the unique risks and needs of family farmers. Prior to that, farmers were forced to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 11, the Small Business specific Chapter. Although Chapter 12 has provided much needed relief for hundreds of family farmers, through the years, Chapter 12 has become outdated; its definitions, eligibility requirements and other provisions have not kept pace with changes in agriculture or in the nation's economy. Most disturbingly, the out of date eligibility requirements of this provision have excluded many who need it most and forced many farmers into Chapter 11. I was pleased that three amendments I authored with Senators Conrad and Bob Kerrey were accepted by Senators Grassley and Durbin and included in the manager's amendment. Two of these provision change the eligibility requirements of Chapter 12 to include those originally intended under the 1986 statute. One provision indexes the Chapter 12 debt limit. The current maximum debt limit on Chapter 12 is $1,500,000. This limit has not been changed since the 1986 law took effect, while most other Code dollar figures have been increased for inflation and will have automatic adjustments in the future. At this point, the debt limits exclude many farmers for whom Chapter 12 was originally intended. A second eligibility problem had been the requirement that more than 50% of a farm family's taxable income for the prior year came from a farming operation. Farm families, expecting low return on their commodities, usually seek off-farm employment for one of the household adults. A few years of low prices and negligible farm income would make many farmers ineligible under this provision. Current law assumes that farmers throw in the towel after just one bad year. I cannot think of one Wisconsin farmer that gives up that easily. They keep working and hope for better markets next year. My provision changes this requirement so that farmers have a bit more flexibility. More specifically, my amendment will allow the 50% income requirement can be satisfied in any of the past three years. The last provision simply prohibits retroactive assessment of disposable income by the courts. To have a payback schedule confirmed by the bankruptcy courts, a debtor in Chapter 12 must commit projected disposable income--over and above living expenses, operating expenses and secured debt payments--to pay unsecured debtors. Some courts have started ``adjusting'' these payments upward in hindsight, if the debtor's income was greater than projected. My amendment will make Chapter 12 consistent with Chapter 13 and prohibit the retroactive assessment and instead modifies the coming year's payment schedule to reflect the additional income. Again, Mr. President, I wish to thank Senators Kerrey, Conrad, Grassley and Durbin for their work on these amendments. It will give family farmers across the country the flexibility they need to make good on their debts.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated on the underlying amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was rejected.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Given the fact that I have such high regard on behalf of the leader of this bill on our side, Senator Durbin, I yield the remaining time to Senator Durbin who will further speak in favor of the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Ironically, bankruptcy is the only Federal civil proceeding in which a poor person cannot file in forma pauperis. What this means, in any other Federal civil proceeding you can file a case without paying filing fees if the court determines you are unable to afford the fee; but in bankruptcy, you either pay the filing fee or are denied access to the system. That is right, the bankruptcy system-- which is by definition designed to assist those who have fallen on hard times--is unavailable to the poorest of the poor. This prohibition against debtors filing in forma pauperis is a clear obstacle to their efforts to gain access to justice. The current fee is $175; $175 is roughly the weekly take-home pay of an employee working a 40-hour week at the minimum wage. I think it is unrealistic and unreasonable to expect an indigent in this case to raise such a fee simply to enter the system.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the original version of S. 1301 would have made a debtor's attorney responsible for the panel trustee's costs and fees if the attorney lost a 707(b) motion brought by the trustee-- not if the filing was made in bad faith, not if the filing was frivolous, but simply if he or she lost the motion. Fortunately, an amendment was accepted at the Judiciary Committee markup which would make the debtor's attorney liable only if he or she was ``not substantially justified'' in filing the petition. Even this standard, however, is untenable. The opponents of the Feingold-Specter amendment argue that debtors attorneys are notoriously bad actors who abuse the bankruptcy system. No credible evidence, however--beyond an unsubstantiated story here and an unsubstantiated story there--has been offered to support the proposition that debtors attorneys are more likely to act in bad faith than any other type of attorney. Why then would we allow this bill to contain a provision which applies a stricter standard of conduct to consumer debtors' attorneys than to any other type of attorney--a provision which is, as pridefully noted by the opponents of my amendment, designed to punish debtors' attorneys? I have heard from bankruptcy judges in my home State of Wisconsin and they strongly object to the premise that debtors' attorneys are by any measure less admirable or honest than other types of attorneys. Moreover, they believe that this provision of the bill is fundamentally wrong and endangers debtors' access to the system. The conduct of consumer debtors' attorneys should meet the standards set for all attorneys in Federal Civil Rule of Procedure 11, which is incorporated in Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedures 9011. Every other fee-shifting provision in Federal law which holds the attorney liable require affirmative wrongdoing by the attorney. With or without my amendment--indeed, with or without this bill--if a debtor's attorney brings a ``frivolous'' or ``improper'' Chapter 7 filing--the court can order sanctions against that attorney. Let me be clear--under current law, debtors' attorneys can already be fined if they act in bad faith. There is simply no legitimate basis for a different and more punitive standard that only applies to debtors' attorneys in bankruptcy proceedings. Should not the purpose of this bill be to rid the bankruptcy system of abuse, not to punish a particular type of attorney? The basic premise of this bill--the fundamental tool it uses to weed out abuse-- is the 707(b) motion. That is, the motion which is filed by the panel trustee when she feels that the debtor is abusing the system. To supposedly encourage a trustee to file such a motion, this bill would award her costs and fees only when the debtor's attorney's actions were not substantially justified. Under the Feingold-Specter amendment, the trustee would be rewarded for her efforts whenever she wins a 707(b) motion. Let me ask you--if you were a panel trustee charged with the duty of protecting the integrity of the bankruptcy system and your primary tool for doing so was the 707(b) motion, would you be more likely to file such a motion when you got paid whenever you won such a motion or only when the debtor's attorney was demonstrated to have been not substantially justified? Before you answer, let me ask you one more question. What if, before you could get paid--as under the current bill--you, a panel trustee-- not the court or an independent third party--also had to incur the additional time and cost of bringing and arguing another motion to prove that the debtor's attorney was not substantially justified? The answer to these questions is clear. If you were a panel trustee you would have a stronger incentive to bring a 707(b) motion--that is, a stronger incentive to rid the bankruptcy system of abuse--under the Feingold-Specter amendment than you would under the current language of the bill. So, the Feingold-Specter amendment seeks to maintain the incentive for trustees while preserving a debtor's access to justice and representation. It does so by making the trustee's fees and costs an administrative expense under Section 503(b) if the trustee is successful in her 707(b) motion to convert the case into Chapter 13. If the court dismisses the Chapter 7 filing, the debtor would be required to pay the trustee's cost and fees. Your vote on the Feingold-Specter amendment comes down to this--if you want to muddle the system with needless additional hearings and to strike a mean-spirited, unfounded blow against debtors attorneys, vote against our amendment; if on the other hand, you want to rid the bankruptcy system of abuse in the most equitable and efficient manner, then vote for our amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on both of my amendments.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. Have the yeas and nays been ordered on these two amendments, Mr. President?

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support efforts to increase the federal minimum wage by passing the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 1998. This important legislation will provide American laborers with a 50 cent increase to the minimum wage on January 1, 1999, and a second increase on January 1, 2000. This modest increase, which would raise the minimum wage to $6.15 per hour, will help 12 million lower income Americans. Our country's economy is growing. It's economic vitality and the success of welfare reform have resulted in better news and a better life for working people. Or have they? The truth is, even though the economy is on an up-swing, wages are stagnant and people are still living in poverty. In fact, over half a million people live in poverty in our own state of Wisconsin. Despite successes in the welfare to work initiative, last year, a US Conference of Mayors study indicated that eighty-six percent of cities reported an increased demand for emergency food assistance. Thirty- eight percent of those people seeking food at soup kitchens and shelters were employed. This is an increase of fifteen percent since 1994. It is evident that, in many cases, minimum wage workers can not afford to feed themselves or their families. Mr. President, no hard working American should have to worry about affording groceries, shoes for their kids, or medicines. The people whom the bill will help are not people who spend their money frivolously, these are the families who scrimp and save to provide their children with the necessities of life: shelter, food, clothes and an education. In a recent study, The State of Working Wisconsin--1998, by the Center on Wisconsin Strategy, we find some troubling news regarding wages. Today, the Wisconsin median hourly wage is still 8.4% below its 1979 level. Since 1979, Wisconsin's median wage declined 50% faster than the 5.3 percent national decline over the same period. These numbers are, sadly, not Wisconsin specific. This is the situation all over the country. I urge my colleagues to bring some respect and dignity to the federal minimum wage. America's labor force deserves a chance to be successful and we need to give them the tools. I urge them to support the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 1998. Its a vote in support of every full time worker hoping to make ends meet.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, when I heard that bankruptcy was the only Federal Court proceeding in which a poor person is not entitled to file an in forma pauperis petition, I thought there must be some mistake. I found it somewhat surprising, counterintuitive, that bankruptcy, which by definition deals with people who are broke or have very limited funds, does not provide even the poorest of debtors a waiver of the filing fee. The filing fee for consumer bankruptcy is $175. Mr. President, $175 is more than the take home pay of an employee working 40 hours a week at the minimum wage. Tell me, how are the indigent--those who desperately need bankruptcy protection--going to afford $175 simply to file for such protection? Congress acknowledged that the bankruptcy system may need an in forma pauperis proceeding when it directed the Judicial Conference to implement a pilot program in six judicial districts around the nation. This pilot program operated from October 1, 1994, through September 30, 1997, in the following six districts: the Southern District of Illinois, the District of Montana, the Eastern District of New York, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Western District of Tennessee, and the District of Utah. The pilot program was clearly a success. Many of the judges who administered the program, and who were initially skeptical, now support it. In particular the pilot program revealed the following information: An application for waiver of the filing fee was filed in only 3.4% of all Chapter 7 cases, and the large majority of those waivers were granted. Indeed, the U.S. Trustees Office filed objections to less than 1% of the applications. In other words, only those very few individuals who really needed the fee-waiver applied for it. The fee-waiver program enhanced access to the bankruptcy system for indigent single women more than any other group. We have heard a great deal about how this bill, S. 1301, will hurt women and children. We cannot strike another blow against single mothers and their children by denying them access to the bankruptcy system because they cannot even afford the filing fee. The nature of the debt for those who filed for the fee- waiver differed from that of other debtors in that their debts more often related to basic subsistence--education, health, utility services and housing. Moreover, 63 percent of the housing-related debts of those who filed for the fee- waiver owed their debts to public housing authorities. Only one of the debtors who owed a debt to a housing authority did not file for a fee waiver. These findings show that indigent debtors were not filing bankruptcy to escape paying for their boats or their fancy entertainment systems. They were filing bankruptcy merely to subsist. Oftentimes these people use the bankruptcy system simply to prevent homelessness. There was only a minimal increase in the number of filings, and there was no indication that debtors filed for Chapter 7 rather than Chapter 13 just to obtain the benefit of the fee- waiver program. Simply stated, the debtors typically did not abuse the system. A nation-wide program would cost between $4 and $5 million in lost filing fees. Projections state that there will be 1.5 million Chapter 7 filings next year. We can, therefore, off- set the cost of a nation-wide program by merely raising the price of Chapter 7 filings by between $2.70 and $3.40. If we increase filing fees for all bankruptcy filings we can reduce that cost to about $2 per filing fee--a negligible amount. In short, the pilot program was a resounding success. I offered this amendment in committee, where it was defeated by a 9-9 vote, with all the Democrats supporting it. One concern articulated by Senators who voted against the amendment in committee involved the possibility that, if we implement a fee waiver program, unscrupulous lawyers would advertise ``free filings'' and make a profit. However, under the program, debtors cannot obtain fee waivers if they can pay their lawyers; therefore, private lawyers would have no incentive to encourage in forma pauperis cases. Let me repeat that point: debtors who can pay their lawyers cannot obtain fee waivers. Only truly indigent people, those who need bankruptcy protection the most, can have their fees waived. The Specter-Feingold amendment would build upon the strong foundation established in the pilot program, and direct the Judicial Conference to establish a nation-wide in forma pauperis program for the bankruptcy court system. If we examine the findings of the pilot program we find that: (1) only those who really needed the assistance of the program used it; (2) that there was little to no abuse of the fee-waiver program; and (3) that the program in large measure helped those who needed it to subsist and, in many cases, avoid homelessness. Given these findings, how can we choose not to implement a nation- wide program? Why did we direct the Judicial Conference to conduct a pilot program if we were not going to use the results to shape public policy? How, in good faith, can we deny bankruptcy relief to those who truly need it--those who cannot even afford the filing fee? I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to restore some fairness in the bankruptcy filing process for the most financially strapped filers. I yield the floor.