Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in late February the Senate considered campaign finance reform on the floor of the Senate for the second time in this Congress. Once again, we did not resolve the issue. Although a clear majority of this body now supports the McCain-Feingold bill, a determined minority once again prevented it from being adopted. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes today to try to put our debate in some perspective. This is a particularly good time to revisit the issue because of what has been happening just in the past few days in the other body, in the House of Representatives. In fact, the latest development on the other side of the Capitol has made it very clear that the defenders of the current system are on the run, and campaign finance reform is very much alive. Last fall, the Speaker of the House promised an open debate on campaign finance reform by the end of March. The other body, of course, is supposed to be the place where the majority can work its will. There is no filibuster rule in the House of Representatives--in effect, no requirement that you have to get a three-fifths majority to pass legislation, as has long been the case in the Senate. At the end of March, when a bipartisan majority began to clearly coalesce behind the McCain-Feingold bill, or the Shays-Meehan bill as it is called in the other body, the House leadership and other opponents of reform began looking for a way out. The House leadership decided to bring up campaign finance reform under suspension of the rules. That is a procedure that is usually used to allow noncontroversial bills to pass quickly. It was used here for a very different purpose. It allows very limited debate and no amendments, and it requires a two-thirds vote for passage. So the leadership of the other body brought up its own campaign finance bill under the suspension procedure that would guarantee, in effect, the defeat of its own bill. In the end, this bill of the leadership of the House got only 74 votes, and 337 Members of the House voted no. Let's think about that. The major campaign finance bill offered by the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction received only 74 votes in the House of Representatives. The Democrats in the House were not even allowed to offer a substitute, which is customary in the other body. And here is the kicker. The main bipartisan reform bill which, by all accounts, actually had majority support in the House, did not even get a vote. The leadership of the House did everything in its power to make sure that the McCain-Feingold bill would not pass, and they succeeded, but only temporarily. Supporters of reform in the House were understandably outraged. Just as the opponents of reform in this body relied on a filibuster and on parliamentary tactics such as filling the amendment tree to prevent a bipartisan majority from passing McCain-Feingold, opponents of reform in the House, the body that is supposed to reflect the will of majority, in effect rigged the procedure to make sure that reformers did not even get a vote on their bill. Tactics of this kind can work for a while, but they cannot work forever. The American people are tired of tricks and tactics. They are tired of a partisan minority stopping the bipartisan majority from enacting reform. And now there are clear signs that public outrage over these kinds of tactics is having an effect. In the other body, reformers gathered 205 signatures on a discharge petition that would require the other body to consider campaign finance reform under a fair and open procedure. They needed just 13 more Members of the House to sign the discharge petition to force the issue to the House floor despite the opposition of the leadership. This would have been almost unprecedented. It is clear that Members of the Congress are feeling the heat. Five Members agreed to sign the petition over the recess after they heard from their constituents how important it is to have a real vote on reform in the House this year, and four more announced in the last 2 days they will sign the petition. Mr. President, what we found out today is that the leadership in the House reconsidered its hard line position because a meltdown was occurring. I was informed just a little bit earlier that there has been an announcement that the leadership of the other body will now bring campaign finance reform back to the House floor by May 15, and this time there at least supposedly is going to be an open rule and a bipartisan bill will get a vote. This is very good news, and I congratulate the bipartisan reformers in the House for their persistence and effectiveness. They have shown that the will of the people can prevail if only we in the Congress have the courage to fight for it. If the House passes a bipartisan bill in the next few weeks, fortunately, the spotlight will come back here again. The distinguished majority leader of our body was asked on Monday, what will he do if the House passes McCain-Feingold? His answer? ``Nothing.'' And everyone laughed. I don't think they are laughing today, because the reformers in the House have succeeded in their effort to force a fair vote. We will see if the American people will stand for this kind of obstructionism if a bill comes back from the House. I do not think they will. I think the Senate will have to deal with this issue again this year and soon. So I can say to the American people today as I have before, this fight is not over. The opponents of reform may be winning these parliamentary battles, but they are losing the legislative war. The American people know that our current system must be changed. A majority of this Senate, and now of the House, knows that our current system must be changed. Sooner or later, we will prevail. I am absolutely certain of that. I have spent a great deal of time reviewing the debate on campaign finance reform from both this past February and last fall. As most people who watched the debate know, there was a lot of argument on this floor about whether the first amendment to the Constitution would be violated by the provisions of our bill in the Snowe-Jeffords amendment dealing with so-called issue advocacy by outside groups. I think these arguments based on the Constitution were grossly exaggerated and they will be shown to be inaccurate over time in the context of the actual state of constitutional law. But there were a lot of other things said about our bill, a lot of other justifications offered for killing reform, and today I want to concentrate on what I call the three worst excuses for voting against the bipartisan McCain-Feingold bill. These arguments simply do not hold water. And since we will be back sooner or later--and I suspect sooner--to discuss these matters, let me say a bit about them today. Here is the first poor excuse for voting against our bill. We heard time and time again, both last fall and last February, that we do not need changes in the law, we just have to enforce the current law. Now, that gave the opponents the opportunity to excoriate the Clinton administration for its fundraising excesses in 1996 and to try to dodge responsibility as Senators to try to clean up the system. But I have a number of responses. First, we have to remember that the McCain-Feingold bill actually had a whole lot of provisions that were designed to specifically deal with the alleged lawbreaking of the last election. Our bill makes it perfectly clear that fundraising for Federal campaigns cannot take place on Federal property. In other words, no more ``no controlling legal authority,'' no more debate about whether dialing for dollars from your office is OK if you are asking for soft money rather than hard money. Under our bill, you cannot use your office, which is paid for by the taxpayers to raise money. Period. In the McCain-Feingold bill, we also ban all foreign money from U.S. elections first by banning all soft money contributions to political parties. The legislation would prohibit any source, foreign or domestic, from contributing these unlimited and unregulated amounts of money to the national political party. But our bill also makes clear that foreign nationals are prohibited from making any sort of campaign expenditure--coordinated with a candidate or party or an independent expenditure--in connection with any Federal, State, or local election. So while we will not put people in jail with this legislation or force prosecution of lawbreakers, we can make absolutely sure that the loopholes, or alleged loopholes, in the law that those accused of wrongdoing have fallen back on will, in fact, be permanently closed. But beyond that, we reject the notion that the scandals we saw in 1996 were just due to lawbreaking. They were due to problems with the law itself. The biggest scandal stems not from what is illegal today but from what is perfectly legal--soft money. Let me put it this way. Why was the White House charging $100,000 a night for a night in the Lincoln bedroom? Why did coffee with the President or dinners with key leaders of the Congress cost people some $50,000? Because it is legal to contribute $50,000 or $100,000 or even more to a political party in this country. Unless we change that law, the ever-increasing demand for money will lead our party leaders to stretch the bounds of propriety. We have to take responsibility. We have to do our part as lawmakers. What about the huge amounts of money spent by groups on so-called issue ads that looked just like campaign ads but fell just outside the boundaries of the Federal election law? That is not a problem with illegal activities. It is a problem with the law, and we need to address it. Mr. President, poor excuse No. 2 for opposing bipartisan reform. I heard a lot of people who oppose McCain-Feingold say that what we really need to do to solve the campaign finance issue is to have full and instantaneous disclosure of contributions and spending. My first response to that argument is that McCain-Feingold includes the most extensive disclosure provisions of any campaign finance legislation introduced in the Senate in this Congress. But not a single Senator who argued against this bill and said that disclosure is what we really need would even acknowledge the important disclosure provisions in our bill. What does it do? We require all candidates to file their disclosure reports electronically and require the FEC to post this information on the Internet within 24 hours of its receipt. We prohibit campaigns from depositing campaign contributions of over $200 into their treasuries until all required disclosure information has been collected. We step up the reporting of independent expenditures in the closing days of the campaign. We even lower the reporting threshold for campaign contributions from $200 to $50, and we require political advertisements to carry a tag line identifying who is responsible for the content of the advertising. These provisions are very important and they are helpful and they do a great job, but they are not enough in themselves to restore the public's faith in our system and in us. We already know that $262 million in soft money was contributed to the national political parties in 1996. We already know that Philip Morris gave over $3 million in soft money in the 1996 cycle, and that RJR Nabisco, Joseph Seagram & Sons, Atlantic Richfield, and AT&T all gave over $1 million. Federal Express gave almost a million. It is still a scandal that the tobacco companies did contribute millions of dollars to our political parties while the Congress is considering extraordinarily important legislation that will decide the fate of that industry and of the children that its product kills, even if those contributions are disclosed. It is interesting that some of the same Senators who proclaim the miracle benefits of disclosure are unwilling to bring under the Federal election laws the activities of secretive groups funded by wealthy donors that run ads attacking candidates in the last weeks of the campaign. So disclosure is not the answer. It is an answer, but it is not the answer. How can we really expect a lot of hard-working Americans, many of whom do not even have a computer, to spend their free time examining FEC reports to make sure that we are not under the influence of special interest contributions? Who are we kidding with this idea that full disclosure alone will solve all our problems? Most people do not know who the richest people in America are and who they work for. Most people do not know what legislative agenda is pursued by the PACs that fund our campaigns. Most people will not be able to recognize a potentially corrupting contribution from just some name on a report. So we still need reasonable limits on contributions. We still need a ban on soft money. We still need to outlaw fundraising on Federal property. We still need to address the phony issue ads of unknown origin that attack candidates in the last day of a campaign and simply avoid the Federal election laws. Disclosure is a great thing and I am proud that our bill includes some tough new provisions, but disclosure alone is not the answer. One very interesting thing about our debate last fall was that very few of the opponents of our bill ever wanted to discuss the central feature of our bill--a ban on soft money. I do not blame the opponents of our bill for not wanting to discuss it. Soft money is an embarrassment to the American political system. It should shame the defenders of the status quo. Soft money was at the very heart of the scandals of 1996. But a few hearty souls have ventured out onto the floor to defend soft money. I want to take my remaining time to address their arguments. They have given the absolute worst excuse for opposing our bill--that the soft money ban is either unconstitutional or a bad idea. Soft money is the mother of all loopholes. It is the most ingenious money laundering scheme in American history. Corporations and labor unions are prohibited from giving money directly to candidates. It has been that way for most of the century. Instead, what they do is they give the money to the candidate's party. That means, instead of having to use a PAC, the corporation can reach into its shareholders' moneys and a union can reach into its members' dues. The sky is truly the limit for these contributions. You can give $5,000, you can give $50,000, you can give $500,000. There is no reason under this loophole why you could not give the party $5 million by yourself. There are no limits on soft money--none at all. This laundering scheme allows the parties to dump tens of millions of unregulated dollars into congressional elections and into Presidential elections. Just last fall the Republican Party ran an unprecedented issue ad campaign in the special congressional election for the seat vacated by former Representative Susan Molinari of New York. The party reportedly spent $800,000 on ads attacking the Democratic candidate for that office. Much of that money was soft money, money that is supposed to be illegal in Federal elections. In the 1996 cycle, the two political parties raised and spent over $262 million in soft money. That is $262 million that was raised and spent completely outside of the scope of Federal election law. The trend with respect to soft money is frightening. In 1992, the two parties raised and spent a combined $86 million in soft money. In just 4 years, that has gone from $86 million to $262 million. It tripled in just 4 years. And this year, even with the scandals and the very sharp attention to the issue, the money machine just keeps churning away. The FEC just announced that the parties raised $74 million in 1997, the most money ever raised in an off-election year, and more than twice as much as they raised in 1993, the year after the 1992 Presidential election. Those are just the overall amounts of soft money, and the numbers are truly staggering. But what is most troubling about the soft money system is the shameless solicitation of these multi-hundred-thousand dollar contributions from corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals. Both political parties are offering big contributors special access to high-ranking Government officials in exchange for a $100,000, $250,000, or a $500,000 contribution. Maybe you get to sit at the head table with the President. Maybe you get to have a special meeting with a congressional committee chairman. Maybe you get to participate in a trade mission to a foreign land. But let's not pretend that someone is making a $500,000 contribution purely in the interest of good government and good democracy. Just this past year Philip Morris, facing the growing challenge of lawsuits around the country and possible congressional action on tobacco legislation, gave another $450,000 to the Republican Party and $60,000 to the Democrats. What is that all about? I think we know what it is all about. Remember Roger Tamraz, one of the most colorful characters to appear before Senator Thompson's investigation last year? When asked if he felt he got his money's worth for his $300,000 contribution, Tamraz told the Government Affairs Committee that next time he would give $600,000. When asked if one of the reasons he made the contribution was to get special access, Tamraz responded by saying it wasn't one of the reasons, it was the only reason. Mr. President, there is massive public support for a ban on soft money. Three former Presidents, over 200 former Members of Congress, countless editorial boards across the country, and even many people in the business community want to end this disgrace. Therefore, I am not surprised that virtually no one who is opposed to our legislation has stepped forward to offer a defense of this shameful system. How can anyone defend a system that rewards the Roger Tamraz's of the world? How can anyone defend the $500,000 contributions flowing into Federal elections and the auctioning off of special access to high- ranking Government officials? What do the few supporters of this corrupt and corrupting system say? Well, a number of Senators complained that banning soft money would ``federalize all elections.'' One even argued that the Supreme Court in Buckley had actually permitted the use of soft money by the political parties, and somehow enhanced its legitimacy in the Colorado case. Actually, the Colorado case concerned hard money expenditures made by the parties, supposedly independent of its candidates. The Court did mention soft money, but assumed that it may not be used to influence Federal elections. The whole reason we need to ban soft money is that it is abundantly clear that it is being used to influence Federal elections. That is why 126 legal scholars wrote us to say that it would clearly be constitutional to ban soft money. As for federalizing all elections, that argument is like the one made by a Senator who is worried that banning soft money will hurt State parties. He complained that State parties will have to use hard money for voter registration and things like bumper stickers and buttons. The soft money provision in McCain-Feingold does allow the State parties to continue to raise money from corporations and unions if their States allow it, but not for Federal election activities. They can use soft money for voter registration up to 4 months before a Federal election. They can use soft money, non-Federal money to support State candidates. They just can't use it to run these ads that mention Federal candidates. That is not ``federalizing all elections.'' That is just making sure that money that would be illegal, if given to candidates, cannot be used to benefit their elections by doing an end run around the Federal election laws. What use is prohibiting the national parties from raising and spending this illegal money if it can simply be diverted to State parties to turn around and do exactly the same thing with it? Mr. President, there were a few opponents of McCain-Feingold who had the candor last fall to admit that, of course, Congress can constitutionally ban soft money. The Senator from Washington, Senator Gorton, and the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, both fine lawyers, indicated that that was their position. But they argued that we shouldn't do it because it would hurt the political parties and create an ``imbalance'' in the system. They fear that without soft money, parties would be ineffective, and the most irresponsible ads, the ones run by independent groups, would be encouraged. That is a pretty interesting argument. These Senators appear unwilling to address the evasion of the election laws by outside organizations, unwilling even to try to craft a provision dealing with the phony issue ads and let the Supreme Court finally address the issue advocacy versus express advocacy problem by letting the Court know what the Congress thinks the law should be and then, because they don't like these unaccountable ads, which they themselves refuse to do anything about, they want to leave open the biggest and most objectionable loophole of all in our Federal election law today--soft money. Our great political parties and, indeed, our political system are soiled by this soft money system. We ought to be racing to get rid of it. We ought to be trying to clean up our reputation. We ought to try to redeem ourselves in the eyes of the American people. Are we really going to take the position, as we head into the 1998 elections, that our political parties, with their rich and important histories in this country, cannot thrive, cannot survive, without soft money? Are the parties so divorced from what real people want that they have to rely for their financial support on huge contributions from corporations and wealthy individuals who seek special access to pursue their own special interests? I, Mr. President, am one who believes that the parties can survive without soft money. They did it up until the late 1980s. Remember, the law permits the parties to raise up to $20,000 per year in hard money from each contributor. But the parties have gotten lazy. They don't like having to raise money piece by piece, $20,000 by $20,000, voter by voter. They would rather hold dinners at big Washington hotels, send out invitations to lobbyists promising special access and then just sit back and collect a few big soft money checks. They are addicted to these huge sums of money and the nasty attack ads they can buy if the party lawyers are clever enough in how they spend the money. That is right, Mr. President, I don't think our political parties are worth supporting anymore if they don't have anything to offer except fancy fundraisers for corporate lobbyists. If they can no longer appeal to the people of this country to fund their legitimate activity, maybe their time has come and gone. That is why protecting the political parties' ability to raise soft money is the very worst excuse for opposing the McCain-Feingold bill. It simply admits that our political system has utterly failed; that our parties are bankrupt morally and intellectually, even if they have full bank accounts; that our representative democracy has become a corporation democracy, where the amount of power you have depends on how much money you have. I refuse to accept the judgment that we are doomed to have this kind of campaign finance system in America, the greatest democracy on Earth. That is why I am still fighting for campaign finance reform in this Congress. If the opportunity presents itself, if it looks like more of my colleagues are ready to reject the excuses--and I suspect there will be more--I will be ready to bring the McCain-Feingold bill, or any portion of it, before this Senate again. I think the American people should know where this Senate stands on the issue of soft money. I think the people who sent us here deserve to know whether we think it is right that our elections are dominated by this unlimited, unregulated money or not. Because we know that they don't think it is right, the time has come to act. Most of the pundits say we lost in February, but I think we won a battle. We won because we showed that a bipartisan majority of the Senate wants reform, and a bipartisan majority of the Senate will stick together and fight for reform. The battle for reform on both sides of Capitol Hill is proceeding, and it will go forward until the American people win the war and get their Government back. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. On a different subject.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I will ask for 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the historic visit that is just ending today. I speak of the visit of President Clinton to Africa which began on March 22. As the Ranking Member of the Africa Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I know Africa's vital importance to the United States, and I applaud the President's effort to highlight Africa with this timely trip. President Clinton is the first sitting U.S. president since President Jimmy Carter to take such an extensive voyage in Africa, and he will the be the first sitting U.S. president ever to visit each of the individual countries on his itinerary. We can not underestimate the significance of this. Mr. President, millions of Americans trace their roots to Africa. Thousands of Americans have served in Africa in non-governmental organizations, church groups, or the Peace Corps, including many graduates of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Our African heritage is prominent and pervasive in the art, music, and literature of American culture. More and more American tourists are journeying to see the natural wonders of the Serengeti, the Ghanaian Cape Coast or Victoria Falls. Although these ties bind every American to Africa, many of them in a very passionate and personal way, I am concerned that there is so little knowledge about Africa in this country, and so little interest. That is why the President's trip is so important. Many of the 48 distinct nations of Africa are now experiencing what some have called an ``African Renaissance.'' By whatever name, there can be no doubt that Africa is a continent much changed since the years immediately following the independence period. In some nations on that great continent, we see conflicts, coups and corruption. In others, we see the triumph of democracy and of the creative human spirit. In the past few years, too many of Africa's peoples have faced atrocities that rank among the worst of this century. At the same time, healthy changes have swept across much of the continent, and there is more reason for optimism about Africa's future than at any time in recent memory. First, there has been substantial political progress. In 1989, only five African nations could be described as ``democratic.'' Today, there are at least twenty. Where there used to be one-party states or military regimes, we now have governments that have developed new constitutions, held multiparty elections, and taken great strides toward reforming key institutions. Parliaments in countries like Ghana and Namibia are beginning to exercise a meaningful check on executive power. Local and national elections are being conducted freely and fairly in many countries. Journalists are more boldly exercising new press freedoms. The institutions that nourish true democracy are beginning to take root in the African soil. Second, many of the long-standing, violent conflicts that have ravaged the land and the peoples of Africa are coming to a close. Uganda, which suffered terribly throughout the 1980s, is now one of the most stable countries on the continent. The protracted war in the Horn of Africa ended with the peaceful secession of Eritrea, an important new actor on the African stage. The seeds of lasting peace have been planted in Liberia and Angola. And the promise of peace dangles before the peoples of Northern Mali and the Western Sahara. Third, many African nations have surged forward in human and social development. The scourge of AIDS continues to take its toll, but infant mortality rates have dropped significantly. Population growth has slowed to a more manageable rate. The drag of illiteracy still slows economic development, but more African children go to school now than at any other time since independence. African women, too, are playing a more active role in the future of their continent. In Botswana, an organization called ``Stand Up Women'' is working to expand the influence of women on national laws and policy. In South Africa, Ghana and elsewhere, female entrepreneurs are starting and managing their own businesses. Throughout Africa, more and more women are becoming involved in political life. Many have been elected to fledgling parliaments. Finally, Africa's economies are growing at impressive rates, with an estimated 4.5 percent GDP increase in 1997, according to the World Bank. In Senegal and Uganda, growth has topped 5 percent. Hope abides in Africa. And hope abides among those of us who see that a thriving Africa is good for America. Still, many African nations are plagued by authoritarian regimes that deny their citizens basic human rights. The economic and political potential of some nations are being squandered by ruling military juntas. In these few hold-out regimes, corruption, economic mismanagement and violent suppression of dissent are the norm. This is certainly true in Nigeria, a nation of great natural and human potential, which cannot be realized under the current regime. In Sudan, a decades-old war has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Sudanese children are often forced into conscription, and many of them know the barrel of a gun better than the inside of a classroom. Other obstacles to development abound. Some of the poorest, most desolate places on earth are located in Africa. Life expectancy and adult literacy are the world's lowest, while population growth and the incidence of HIV/AIDS are the highest. Basic services that we as Americans take for granted--from clean drinking water and health care, to school books and paved roads--remain out of reach for millions of Africans. The combination of welcome progress and daunting problems in Africa present enormous challenges for U.S. policy. Some observers look at Africa and say, ``This is a basket case!,'' and see few redeeming features. These cynical voices--the so-called ``Afro-pessimists''-- believe America should disengage from the world and particularly from Africa; that the poverty and despair of others is not our problem, that the potential of Africa presents no opportunity. But as the history of this century has shown time and again, the problems of the world community, do, in fact, become ours. As the world becomes smaller and more inter-dependent, new dangers-- terrorism, international crime, narcotics, and infectious disease, all of which are increasingly prevalent in Africa--will not stop at the border. Sudanese involvement is alleged in the World Trade Center bombing. In Wisconsin, hundreds of my constituents have received fraudulent scam letters from Nigeria. For a few days in 1995, we all worried about the threat of the Ebola virus which had recently appeared in the former Zaire. Mr. President, we cannot ignore these threats. Though mindful of the grim realities of Africa, the United States must encourage the positive developments that are already taking place there. We must embrace and encourage those changes, and not just because we are a generous people. Africa is a growing U.S. trading partner. U.S. exports to Sub-Saharan Africa increased 14 percent during 1996; that's twice as fast as the growth rate of total U.S. exports worldwide. Few people realize that the United States currently exports more to sub-Saharan Africa than to all of the former Soviet republics combined. More and more forward-thinking American companies have their eye on the vibrant potential markets in Africa. By going to Africa, President Clinton recognizes Africa's importance to the U.S. and demonstrates his steadfast commitment to America's crucial role in supporting Africa's burgeoning democracies, aiding economic growth, maintaining recent peace agreements, and preventing future conflicts. The President's trip is both symbol and substantive statement. There have been moving moments with genocide survivors in Rwanda and with South African President Nelson Mandela, with school children in Uganda and with Peace Corps volunteers in Ghana. Each of the countries on President Clinton's itinerary represents some facet of Africa's accomplishments. Each is an important U.S. partner. The President has also announced several new policy initiatives, including an important education program and a welcome push for the Senate to ratify the U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification, a treaty currently pending before this body. President Clinton has expressed his commitment to maintaining existing programs, including the Africa Crisis Response Initiative, a U.S.-led effort to help African militaries gain the capacity to participate in peacekeeping operations. I have supported this initiative here on the Senate floor. As part of his itinerary, the President scheduled three highly significant roundtable meetings. The first, a meeting with young South African leaders outside Johannesburg, served to highlight the promise of the new generation in Africa--young people who were born well after the independence period, and who are anxious to seize new opportunities. The second, a meeting with African environmentalists, helped give focus to some of the environmental challenges on the continent. The third, a meeting with human rights and democracy activists at his last stop in Senegal, served to highlight America's commitment to human rights and democracy in Africa and the need to sustain that commitment. Above all, this trip presented a perfect opportunity for the United States to make clear its stated policy of support for human rights and good governance in Africa. Before he departed, I wrote to the President and asked him to consider a few ways in which he might demonstrate his commitment to these principles. Recognizing the unique challenges posed by the recent history of the troubled Great Lakes region, I asked that the President make clear the United States' unwavering support for democracy in the region. For example, I urged him to articulate clear criteria for the Democratic Republic of the Congo to gain U.S. assistance, including lifting existing bans on opposition political activity and ceasing harassment of lawful components of civil society. I also urged extreme caution in any attempt by the administration to seek security assistance for the Rwandan military, which has been responsible for widespread killing of civilians. Without strong statements by the administration against these practices, the U.S. risks sending the wrong signal about our priorities and our values. I also told the President of my hope that this trip would help strengthen the President's resolve with respect to our Nigeria policy, particularly in light of the continuing deterioration of the human rights situation in Nigeria. I have long been concerned about the perceived lack of a policy in Nigeria. That is why I urged the President to take the strongest position possible in support of democracy in that country. I told him I appreciated the remarks delivered recently by Assistant Secretary Susan Rice before the Senate Subcommittee on Africa that made clear that the United States would not accept the election of a military candidate in Nigeria's upcoming elections. This was a very important statement, and one that I had hoped would mark the beginning of a more coherent, resolute Nigeria policy for the United States. That hope was all but extinguished when I heard the President remark last Friday that Nigeria's current military ruler, General Sani Abacha, would be considered acceptable by the United States if he chose to run in the country's upcoming election as a civilian. Other administration officials later tried to clarify the President's remarks by noting that the U.S. objective is to support a viable transition to civilian rule. They also noted, correctly, that the so-called ``transition'' process currently underway in Nigeria appears structured expressly to keep Gen. Abacha in power. In effect, they acknowledged the contradiction between our Nigeria policy and the political realities there. Virtually none of the institutions that would allow for a free and fair election--an independent electoral commission, an open registration process, or open procedures for the participation of independent political parties, for example--have been put into place. Repression continues unabated: political prisoners remain in prison, the press remains heavily constrained, and the fruits of Nigeria's abundant natural resources remain in the hands of Abacha's supporters. Unfortunately, I fear the President's remarks may have done real damage already, by indicating to Gen. Abacha and his cronies that if Abacha were to take off his military uniform, throw on civilian clothes, and win an election, it would be OK with the United States. I fear the United States has explicitly agreed to accept a wolf in sheep's clothing! Well, lest anyone get the wrong idea, let me say that I believe, and I hope most of my colleagues believe, an electoral victory for Abacha would hardly represent a transition to democracy. It would be totally unacceptable. I hope that President Clinton will clarify the policy of the United States with respect to Nigeria soon. It is high time the policy review that began nearly two years ago is completed, so we do not have this alarming confusion. Nigeria must know that anything less than a transparent transition to civilian rule will be met with severe policy consequences. Finally, I emphasized to the President that the United States should make support for Africa's organizations of civil society a higher priority. These groups do courageous work to promote human rights standards and to monitor their governments' compliance. Accordingly, U.S. officials must speak out publicly when these courageous people are abused by their governments. I have urged the President to take the opportunity to highlight the vital work being performed by a broad range of civil society organizations, including those facing government repression. Mr. President, I was concerned last December when some news reports following Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's trip to Africa included statements by U.S. officials that it would be unfair to hold certain African governments to ``Western'' standards of personal and political freedom. Not only does this contradict stated U.S. policy, it is a condescending, unnecessary and dangerous concession to make to African governments that flout human rights. A clear message on democracy and human rights is especially important as the U.S. works with African nations to strengthen their economies. Economic growth is crucial to any nation's success, but the U.S. must ensure that as it helps to foster economic development, it also fosters political and personal freedoms. Not only does the U.S. have a moral obligation to promote human rights, Africa's post-colonial history shows us that African nations with long-term democratic rule are also the nations with the best long-term economic performances. Freedom fosters prosperity. The respect a government shows for human rights can tell us whether that regime will respect its neighbors, its trading partners, and the world community at large. A government that does not respect the rights of its people cannot be trusted to honor a trade agreement or a treaty, much less the rule of law in general. This is as true for Nigeria as it is for China. The common thread running through our Africa policy must be the U.S. commitment to democracy and human rights. Without this commitment, true peace cannot take root and economic growth will ultimately falter. Now more than ever we must make clear our commitment to democracy and human rights, both to governments working toward these goals, and, more importantly, to those repressive regimes that are not. Mr. President, I welcome the energy the Clinton administration has devoted to Africa and to U.S. policy there. I look forward to working with the President in the future to capitalize on the momentum that will certainly be created by this most historic trip.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act as to the pending amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I offer this amendment to establish a narrowly focused, deficit-neutral reserve fund to help people with disabilities become employed and remain independent. While it does not specify a specific proposal, I want it to be clear that we have crafted this reserve fund with a very specific measure in mind, and that is the bipartisan Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1998, S. 1858, which was developed under the leadership of the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords. We truly offer people with disabilities a chance to leave the disability rolls and become self-sufficient taxpayers. If just 1 percent of the 7.5 million Americans with disabilities become successfully employed, it is estimated it will save, in cash assistance alone, over $3.5 billion. So I urge the body to support this narrowly targeted, capped, deficit-neutral reserve fund.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President I am very pleased to join with my friend, the Senator from Arkansas, and my friend, the Senator from New Hampshire, in offering an amendment that enables States to comply with the IDEA Program Act. Mr. President, I promised to hold a town meeting or listening session in each of Wisconsin's 62 counties each year of my first term as a Senator. At these meetings I very frequently hear from both parents and school officials talking about the merits of the IDEA program. They struggle to meet the high costs of disabled education and need additional Federal funding for the program. Of course, this amendment, as good as it is, will by no means meet all of these needs. However, it will finally provide some deserved relief for this deserving constituency. The funds our amendment provides for the IDEA program are derived, as the Senator from Arkansas has indicated, from the elimination of the percentage depletion allowances tax deduction for companies mining on U.S. public lands. What this does is simply close an outdated subsidy that contributes to environmental degradation. We can assist States providing for our Nation's disabled youth by using some of these funds that are going for tax loopholes. Mining companies have a special percentage depletion tax deduction that they can take which other companies can't receive. Under percentage depletion, the deduction for recovery of a company's investment is a fixed percentage of ``gross income''; namely, sales revenue from the sale of the mineral. This percentage is specifically defined in the Tax Code, and under this method total deductions may exceed the capital that the company actually invested. The rates for percentage depletion are quite significant. Section 613 of the U.S. Tax Code contains depletion allowances for more than 70 metals and minerals at rates ranging from 10 to 22 percent. In today's budget climate, we are faced with the question of who should bear the costs of exploration, development and production of natural resources. The question is, should it be all taxpayers or the users and producers of the resource? Given that we face significant constraints in funding other budget priorities such as the IDEA program, these subsidies are really nothing more than a tax expenditure that shifts a greater tax burden to other taxpayers to pay for the IDEA program to compensate for the special tax breaks provided to the mining industry. I am delighted to join with the other Senators in this very appropriate shifting of our priorities. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina for yielding and, more importantly, for taking the lead on this amendment. There is no more important amendment in this whole budget resolution than the Hollings amendment. This goes to the heart of the matter. Madam President, I am pleased to join my good friend, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), in offering this amendment to close a loophole in the rules protecting the Social Security Trust Fund balances. Let me note it gives me particular pleasure in cosponsoring this amendment with Senator Hollings; both in this body and in the Budget Committee, he has been a consistent voice for fiscal prudence. There is a fundamental difference between the way many in Congress approach the budget, and the way I approach it. That difference is Social Security. Since the time Lyndon Johnson lived in the White House, Presidents of both parties and Congresses controlled by both parties have included the Social Security Trust Fund balances in their budget calculations. The result is a false picture of our country's fiscal health, and, just like a false medical report that covers up a serious illness, it can lead to major problems in the future. This false budget picture has been used so often it has become almost a matter of ``budget convention,'' and it has so impressed itself into the vocabulary of the budget that we now hear the word ``surplus'' when there is no surplus. We hear people talking about a budget ``surplus'' in Congress, in news stories, and in the letters we receive from constituents. But there is no surplus; there is a deficit that is still being hidden, and Social Security is the curtain used to hide it. We need look no further than the budget resolution itself. On page 5 of S. Con. Res. 86, the deficit levels are listed for Fiscal Years 1998 through 2003. For Fiscal Year 1998, the deficit is $95 billion. The deficit rises to over $120 billion in Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 before returning to levels below $100 billion, reaching $92 billion in Fiscal Year 2003. With surpluses like these, who needs deficits? Despite these continuing deficits, many in this body want to act as if we have a surplus--free money to hand out in the form of new spending or new tax cuts. The notion of a so-called unified budget, which began as a political convenience to mask the deficit almost 30 years ago, has now become the budget reality for many. This must stop. ``Surplus'' is supposed to mean something extra, like a bonus. It means, all the bills are paid and there is money left over. One dictionary defines ``surplus'' as: ``something more than or in excess of what is needed or required.'' The so-called unified budget surplus is not ``more than or in excess of what is needed or required.'' Those funds are needed; they are needed to pay future Social Security benefits. They were raised by the Social Security system, specifically in anticipation of commitments to future Social Security beneficiaries. When Congress makes budget obligations today based on those Social Security funds--whether in the form of tax cuts or spending increases-- we are committing to a path of fiscal policy that jeopardizes future Social Security benefits. The amendment Senator Hollings and I are offering is designed to shore up protections surrounding Social Security, and end talk of budget surpluses that are not really there. Our amendment does so by closing a loophole in the supermajority protections we give to Social Security. It establishes a point of order against any measure that would allow Congress to change the off-budget status of Social Security, directly or indirectly, without a supermajority vote. Under most circumstances, our rules require a supermajority vote to change the budget treatment of Social Security. But while supermajority points of order usually protect the Social Security Trust Fund balances, in certain circumstances those points of order are subject to amendment or repeal by only a simple majority vote. While legislation to amend budget rules and laws generally is subject to a supermajority point of order, under Section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this point of order does not apply to legislation or a budget resolution that has been reported or discharged from the Senate Budget Committee, or to any amendments to such legislation. Our amendment eliminates this loophole in the supermajority protections we have established for Social Security. We must play it straight with the American people, and we must give them an honest balanced budget. This means Congress must stop pretending there is a surplus, and start acknowledging we still have a way to go before our budget is truly in balance. I very much hope our colleagues will support this sensible protection for Social Security, and will join us in making it harder to change our budget rules in a way which would allow Social Security Trust Fund balances to be used to pay for spending increases or tax cuts. Madam President, let me reiterate, the fact is, we do not have a surplus. All this talk about a surplus is not accurate, and the American people know it. We have made tremendous progress. I am glad that much of it was done in 1993. Some of it was done last year. But the fact is, we have a long way to go. What the Senator from South Carolina is doing is just trying to make this body face up to the reality by creating a little higher standard, a 60-vote rule rather than a majority-vote rule to continue this practice. This practice should not be continued at all. There should not be any 60 votes or 70 votes or 80 votes to use Social Security to try to pretend there is a real balanced budget. At least under the Hollings amendment, the standard would be tougher. It would require 60 votes. You couldn't sanitize the process by running it through the Budget Committee. This is to me the most fundamental issue here, because we are, in effect, telling the American people something that just is not true. We have done well. The economy has stayed very solid throughout this, but to pretend that there is extra money, to pretend that we can do spending or big tax cuts at this time is not straightforward. This, of course, is not just with regard to our senior citizens. The Social Security fund is in good shape for a number of years to come but it has more to do with the baby boomers and the young people in their twenties and thirties and those in high school and even younger. I have had the experience of having high school kids ask me at high school forums not just about the issues one expects high school students to ask about, but whether or not Social Security will be there when they get to that age. That is an unusual question for a high school student, but they know they are potentially being taken for a ride. Many of them are working. They are getting a check from, let's say, McDonald's, and they notice something is being taken out of their checks. ``What is it being taken out for?'' ``Well, for Social Security.'' Then they find out it might not be there for them. What the Senator from South Carolina is saying is the Congress should stop borrowing from Social Security to try to make this look better. This is a very, very important amendment for truth in budgeting. I thank the Senator from South Carolina and yield back any time. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time is remaining on the time of the Senator from South Carolina?

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent my amendment be laid aside at this time.

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

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Washington. I speak in strong favor of her amendment. The resolution offers a deficit-neutral reserve fund for class size improvement. Specifically, it states that if funds become available, budget levels may be adjusted for legislation to improve, or in effect lower, class size for students, especially in the earliest grades. I thank the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, for being the leader on this issue of class size for public schools. She and I share the same commitment to public education and believe strongly that the Federal Government has a limited but very important role in supporting public education. Today's resolution, Mr. President, is very important because it demonstrates a commitment by the U.S. Senate to dedicate available Federal funds to reduce class size in the earliest grades. Parents, teachers and school administrators are increasingly aware of the very positive impact smaller class size can have on student achievement. It is about time that the Senate goes on record in support of smaller classes for our public school children in the earliest grades. The positive impact of smaller classes came to my attention in my State of Wisconsin, and that is because Wisconsin, as is often the case in public education, has been a leader on this issue. In 1995, the Wisconsin State Legislature created the successful pilot program called the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education program, known as the SAGE program. Wisconsin's SAGE program has demonstrated again and again what we really know instinctively: Students in smaller classes benefit from more attention from teachers, and teachers with fewer students will have more time and energy to devote to their jobs. A December 1997 study found that the first-graders participating in the Wisconsin SAGE program scored higher on standardized tests than other students in comparison schools. It is my hope that the SAGE program and this budget resolution offered by the Senator from Washington reinforce what should be good common sense. If you have smaller classes, children will get more attention from teachers, and it stands to reason that more attention will translate into greater learning. In supporting this resolution, Mr. President, I want to clearly state that I believe there is a great national purpose in trying to reduce class sizes for children in the earliest grades. However, I do not support a national mandate for smaller classes. Instead, I support smaller classes as a national goal that would be primarily controlled by the local government and local school boards and the administrators. Additionally, I want to be sure that any distribution formula for the funds that would become available to reduce class size should give credit to States, like my State of Wisconsin, which have already invested substantial resources in this effort. Finally, I want to again stress the importance of this resolution being deficit neutral. The Senator from Washington has been sensitive to that. The resolution is deficit neutral. The days of deficit spending and borrowing from Social Security have to be over. To conclude, Mr. President, I think this resolution takes a very positive step toward helping school districts reduce class size as a part of an overall effort to improve education and ensure that our children have the best chance to excel and reach their full potential. Let me finally thank the Senator from Washington again. I have heard her speak both publicly and privately on this issue of class size. She speaks with experience, but she also speaks with great feeling and eloquence on this subject. She knows what she is talking about, and she is a great force in the Senate and in the Congress on this issue. I thank the Chair. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his courtesy, and I want to speak for just a minute in response to the chairman's remarks. I appreciate the remarks. I understand the difficult situation he is in. But what I can't understand is why we let the administration and others who have represented to us certain limits with regard to the Bosnia operation put us in this position. The leadership of this body said this would cost $2 billion, and that is it, and we would be there for 1 year, and that is it. Now it has cost $8 billion and another $\1/ 2\ billion. Yet they don't provide us with a way to prepay for it. They don't tell us how to offset it. But what they are, in effect, asking us to do--forcing us to do--is to take this out of Social Security. It is deficit spending. It is deficit spending. Sometimes we have to do it, as the chairman has pointed out, in true emergencies. Some of what is in this bill I can't deny involves true emergencies, such as tornadoes and floods. But why should we let this administration put us in the position of having to deficit spend to add onto what is already a quadruple of the $2 billion we were promised this would cost? So, Mr. President, all we are trying to do is have a little truth in budgeting here, remove the emergency designation, and have an honest accounting of how this should be paid for. But I sure want to recognize the chairman's challenge in this area. It is very difficult. In effect, he and others are being forced to have to do this in a situation that isn't appropriate. The administration and others should have identified an offset. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am glad to have a brief opportunity to further explain why I have offered this amendment concerning Bosnia. I believe there will be an opportunity to vote on this, perhaps in the context of a motion to table, very soon, perhaps as soon as 1:30, so I would like to offer just a couple of remarks about why I have offered this amendment. What the amendment would do is remove the emergency designation from the Bosnia money that is in this bill. There are various pots of money in this bill, but I am only talking here about the Bosnia money concerning the operation in the Bosnia theater. If the Senate determines that these funds are not an emergency--if I am able to prevail in this amendment--then they would be treated like any other kind of spending, any other kind of regular spending. In other words, under this scenario, if the administration wants to have these expenditures, they would have to follow the regular procedure. That is, the administration and the Members of Congress would have to find an offset from within the budget caps for these defense expenditures. Otherwise, these defense expenditures would be sequestered. The reason I am offering this is that the emergency designation as drafted in this bill for the Bosnia funding is really just a way around spending caps. In my mind, it is a ruse. It is just a budget fiction. It means we are ignoring our own budget caps. My personal preference would be that we had not put ourselves in the first place in the position of having our troops in Bosnia this way. I opposed the deploying of our troops to Bosnia and still do. Since we have and we are in the situation that we are in, I think at a bare minimum with regard to the continuing of the Bosnia mission, we have to exercise some budget discipline here. Why wouldn't the budget rules apply to this Bosnia situation? What my amendment does is help us exercise that discipline. It strikes the emergency designation for the Bosnia money, again for the simple reason that the Bosnia operation is certainly a very important operation but it is not an emergency. It is very hard to argue that the ongoing, ever-lengthening mission in Bosnia is an emergency. Yet we are faced with this emergency designation as a way to bootstrap this funding into this bill which is supposed to be about emergencies. This amendment does not set an end date by which our troops should leave Bosnia, although I do want to see us do that. I hope it would be no later than June 30 of this year. This amendment does not call for our troop withdrawal at this time, although I very much would like to see that happen. All it does is simply force the administration to be straightforward and force the supporters of the administration's policies to be straightforward and to face the reality of the fiscal demands of this mission. What has happened here is an operation that we were told would only cost $2 billion has already cost the American people $8 billion, and now we are asked to put another half a billion into this, and somehow people are arguing that it is on the basis of an emergency situation. That is simply not credible. This speaks both to the problem of the Bosnia mission and the problem we have with budgeting in general in this country. People are appalled that emergency bills are used as windows of opportunity to achieve other agendas. I am the first to admit that there have been more gross violations than this one, but this is a lot of money, and the American people are beginning to wake up to the fact that we have spent 8 billion American dollars in the Bosnia situation. At a bare minimum, what we try to do in this amendment is say, ``Let's find out how we are going to pay for this. Let's have the budget rules apply. Let's have the administration and the Congress say exactly how they will pay for this,'' instead of, in effect, deficit spending that is being used to fund the Bosnia mission. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. Amendment No. 2121

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be temporarily set aside and that my amendment concerning Bosnia be before the body.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this is simply an amendment that removes the emergency designation for the additional Bosnia money, which I mentioned a few minutes ago. At this point, I simply ask for the yeas and nays.