Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the senior Senator from Illinois.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Illinois for all his tremendous help on this issue, and now yield to the Senator from North Dakota such time as he requires.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield to the Senator from Illinois such time as he requires.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his statement, and I strongly agree with his description of what this Paycheck Protection Act is all about. It is a poison pill directed at only one group in this country, which I think is clearly unfair. Mr. President, I now yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut very much for his remarks. I note the emergence of a new argument that is in effect that the Supreme Court of the United States is incompetent, that they will not be able to recognize the constitutional problems in any bill and, therefore, we have to make sure that every piece of our bill raises absolutely no constitutional questions. I think that is a somewhat absurd proposition. With that, Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, perhaps we have reached a new low in the debate on the McCain-Feingold bill, which has been characterized as a ``human rights violation'' and the ``Alien and Sedition Act.'' Perhaps the Senator from Maine can bring us back to the real discussion here. I yield her such time as she requires.

Mr. FEINGOLD. In a moment I will yield to the Senator from Minnesota who I very much want to hear from on this issue. Just a very brief comment with regard to the comments of the Senator from Kentucky. The language of the McCain-Feingold bill on issue advocacy was not an issue in the Wisconsin case. In fact, in that Wisconsin case the judge specifically suggested our provision on issue advocacy may be a model of what might pass constitutional muster. The Senator made a lot of general comments on Buckley v. Valeo, but the one thing he didn't do is relate Buckley v. Valeo to our bill. Our bill was specifically crafted to be constitutional under Buckley v. Valeo. We have a letter from 126 constitutional scholars who say that our bill is in fact constitutional, especially with respect to the ban on soft money. It is 126 constitutional scholars against the mere constant repetition of the claim that our bill is unconstitutional. We have the weight of legal authorities on this issue on our side. Of course, it is our intention and belief that this would pass constitutional muster. With that, Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I and the senior Senator from Arizona, the senior Senator from Tennessee, and the Presiding Officer, and many of the rest of us have been looking forward to this moment for a number of months--the return of campaign finance reform to the floor of the U.S. Senate. This is an important occasion because, when we left the issue last fall, we clearly were in somewhat of a stalemate. Some people wanted more than anything else to say that is it, the campaign finance reform debate of the 105th Congress is over and done with and we will not see it again. They wanted to call a halt to this debate and let us go to the 1998 elections changing absolutely nothing about the current system. But others, including myself, thought that our consideration last fall of this issue had not been sufficient, that the American people deserved more from this Senate than parliamentary tricks and poison pills, that campaign finance reform is essential to the future of our democracy, and that we cannot afford to once again sweep this problem under the rug. The sweeping has already begun anew. And it is vigorous sweeping. It is coming in the form, not this time of a poison pill amendment, but a poison pill bill. The underlying bill to which we will have the McCain- Feingold bill attached as an amendment is the same thing as the poison pill amendment. The majority leader made no pretense in this regard. It is simply the antiunion poison pill bill, as if that is the only issue that is involved in the question of campaign finance reform. The idea that the entirety of campaign finance reform can be summarized in just the question of what happens to union dues is completely untenable. It is an untenable notion to any American that the whole problem with the campaign finance reform system is related only to labor unions. Surely, that is part of the problem. But what about corporations? What about groups spending incredible amounts of money on ads that are not really issue ads at all; they are just phony campaign ads? What about multimillionaires buying Senate seats? What about all of these things? I do not think anyone in America really believes that this whole topic is summarized and encapsulated in the mere question of what happens with union dues. It is also incorrect to suggest that the McCain-Feingold bill does not address that issue. It does in fact codify, put into statute, what the U.S. Supreme Court has said ought to be done and what is the law with regard to union dues, and it does so by codifying what is actually said in the so-called Beck decision. So, Madam President, for all these months, after all this discussion of this issue for well over a year, all that the majority leader's bill does is say: We have to address this problem of union dues. I do not think anyone in America believes that. We just learned a few hours ago, Madam President, that that was going to be the entire contents of the leader's bill. Over 4 months after we agreed that he would lay down the first bill in the debate and after an entire year of scandals and revelations and accusations and investigations, the entire bill that is before us at the moment consists of one narrow provision--one provision--the so-called Paycheck Protection Act. All this time the Republican leadership has not been able to come up with even one thing about this current campaign finance system that it wants to change other than that--not one--as if nothing else has occurred in the country that might trouble Americans a little bit about how much big money is awash in their system in Washington, DC. The leader's bill does not even mention disclosure. It says nothing about fundraising on Federal property. It does not say a word about foreign money. It lets the soft money system off the hook entirely. I guess, from the point of view of the majority leader, all is well in the campaign finance world except for that one question: What about those union dues? Of course, we in effect knew this was his position anyway. The majority leader calls our current system of unlimited contributions in the political parties by corporations and unions and wealthy individuals ``the American way.'' Frankly, Madam President, although I am not surprised at the proposal, I am disappointed. Although all the pundits have been saying for the past few months that the Republican opponents of McCain- Feingold were just going to try to bring about the same deadlock that we had before, I guess I hoped, without reason, that we might have a real debate here about two different bills, about two different visions, about two different real, comprehensive ideas about how our campaign financing system should work. McCain-Feingold has been out there now for over 2 years. It has been analyzed and criticized and, of course, vilified in many ways, but at least it is out there. The so-called Snowe-Jeffords amendment has even been out there for the past week in draft form. Already some groups are attacking it. At least they have something to attack. At least the senior Senator from Arizona and I put our bill out there for people to review and consider. And at least Senators Snowe and Jeffords are trying to reach a compromise and are willing to let people have a look at what they are proposing. But, again, the leadership here has given us nothing new to look at all. Instead, all we get is merciless criticism of President Clinton's campaign fundraising for the last year and yet not a hint of a suggestion about how we could have changed that system that both Presidential campaigns abused. In fact, the very things that the leader was just describing as troubling about the President's campaign, in most cases, I think almost everyone would have to concede was legal. The raising of huge amounts of soft money is entirely legal. The leader's bill does not even mention the problem, as if nothing happened in 1996. Apparently the goal is, once again, just to tie this body in knots, not with a poison pill amendment, but now with a poison pill bill, the goal of which is to attack only one player in the system, the labor unions. Madam President, I did note that one commentator this morning said that campaign finance reform is going to go down again in a prearranged standoff. I remember being told at the beginning of last year the bill would never come up, it was dead on arrival, it would never see the light of day, and certainly that it would never come back this year. But this notion of a prearranged standoff is something that I cannot accept from our point of view. Well, there is no prearrangement on our side. We are ready to fight for reform, because that is what the American people want us to do. I think we have some reason to hope that we will have the votes to defeat the majority leader's attack on unions if he does in fact bring that up again for an up-or-down vote. The majority leader is not going to be able to rely on his poison pill bill to defeat campaign finance reform this time. I hope that gives the American people some hope that we can finally achieve meaningful reform this year. Madam President, a lot has happened in the world and in the country since we last debated this issue last October. Current events and breaking news are always unpredictable and sometimes distract us from the very important task we have at hand. I want to agree with the leader that there are many other issues that require our earnest attention this year. But my first message today with regard to our priorities is that the allegations here in Washington with regard to certain personal issues and issues involving the White House are serious and they have to be taken seriously. But let us not let one potential scandal become an excuse to ignore an obvious and clear scandal. That clear and proven scandal is the record of the 1996 elections and the virtual destruction of the post-Watergate campaign finance reform. Today, Madam President, we are in grave danger of letting that happen. Campaign finance reform is a difficult enough topic to get people interested in, anyway. It can be very arcane and this other alleged scandal which has piqued the public's interest could distract the public and the Senate and end up becoming one of the biggest gifts to the money-driven status quo that has ever occurred. We have to recommit ourselves to the issue of cleaning up the political money system. That is why we are here today. I think there are two questions we have to answer. First, how is the American political system supposed to work? Whom is it supposed to serve? How one answers both of those questions depends on one's vision of American democracy. One vision, the one I share and I bet most of us share, that this is supposed to be a representative democracy. Our Government, our political process, and a good part of our common social and cultural heritage are all based on the premise that we are all to be treated equally under the law. It says so on the facade of the U.S. Supreme Court Building, ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' It is implied in our Nation's motto, e pluribus unum, ``out of many, one.'' It is clearly the driving principle behind our Constitution and behind this basic concept which has been summarized in the notion of one person, one vote, and the foundation of our whole electoral system. Madam President, that vision of America and our democracy, a representative democracy, assumes that every American by his or her birthright has an equal role to play in this system. But there is another vision and that is a vision that does away with this notion of equality, ``one person, one vote,'' and replaces it with a system that I have come to see and refer to as ``corporate democracy.'' Now, what do I mean by that? I want to return again to a story from my younger days, as I mentioned before, because I think it illustrates the difference between representative democracy in one person, one vote, and the notion of a corporate democracy, which is what I think we are becoming. When I was 13, a relative of mine gave me one share of stock in our great Janesville, WI, company, the Parker Pen Company. My relative wanted me to learn something about how our economy worked, and more specifically about how the stock market worked. I think that share was worth about $13. My father told me in addition to owning a stock and getting the massive dividends that $13 share of stock would produce, I also owned a small piece of the company, and therefore, I was entitled to a vote at the company's stockholder meeting. Now, already at age 13 I was interested in the political process and I sort of equated the idea of a shareholders meeting with voting at an election, so at that age I could hardly wait to get to the shareholders meeting and cast my ballot. I asked my father a follow-up question, ``When is the stockholders' meeting? When do I get to cast my vote?'' He laughed, and said ``I better tell you something, the number of votes you get depends on how many shares you have. It is not one person, one vote. It is how many bucks you have invested in the company.'' He said, ``You don't have the same vote and the same power as everyone else because it is a corporation. It is properly based--because it is a corporation--on how much money you are able to put into the corporation.'' He said, ``You can go to the stockholders meeting, Russ, but your vote won't count for very much.'' Needless to say, that dampened my excitement a little bit, but it helped me understand how a corporation works. The people with the largest stake in the business get the most say in how the business operates. That is how it should be. That is how it should be in a corporation. That is the basis of our system. But that is not, Madam President, the way our democracy should work. We are all supposed to have the same opportunity in the democratic process. Now, some of us may have a larger interest in a particular policy or piece of legislation, but we are all supposed to be vested with an equal share of power in the process by which we appoint people to set policy and to vote on legislation. Madam President, the current campaign finance system is fueling the transformation of our representative democracy into a corporate democracy, creating a political system that allots power in direct relation to the amount of money an individual or an interest group can contribute. Let's not completely ignore those hearings that were held earlier last year by the senior Senator and chairman from Tennessee. Remember the testimony of Roger Tamraz who said not only that he had given $300,000 in soft money legally--remember the words of the majority leader, ``the problem is only what is illegal''--$300,000, legally to go to a coffee at the White House, but that next time he would do better. He would get into some serious money and contribute, instead, $600,000. He said he felt after his earlier experience that he needed to pay that kind of money to participate, to get access, and in his own words, ``to level the playing field'' with his competitors. He felt he needed to pay $600,000 so he could have equal share in the political process. There is a question here of what that means not only for our political system but what does it mean for our free enterprise system? One of the great ironies for me in serving on both the Judiciary Committee where we work for the most part on domestic laws and then working on the Foreign Relations Committee is that we have an opportunity to look at the issue of international bribery. Under American law, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, American business men and women are not allowed, under penalty of law and fines and imprisonment, to give bribes under that law to foreign companies and to foreign countries. But here in America, with a soft money system that is perfectly legal, these same business men and women have become the fall guys of the American political system who are called up and asked to give outrageous sums of soft money so they can enter a particular room to apparently be on a ``level playing field'' with others who have been pushed to do the same. Madam President, there has got to be a different vision, a different vision than paying for nights in the Lincoln Bedroom or to have coffee with the President or going down to Florida to have lunch with a distinguished leader of the majority party for $50,000 and having him stand up and look out at the crowd and say this is the ``American way.'' In case anyone thinks that the motive of the people who give these kinds of soft money contributions is simply public spirited or perhaps that we could regard them as a bunch of people who are trying to buy influence that are constantly being swindled because they are getting nothing for it, you can rest assured that these contributions one way or another do affect public policy. There have been a number of embarrassing examples. One is the case of the Federal Express Corporation. Another antiunion express carrier provision was inserted in the aviation bill. That provision, Madam President, had been defeated at every turn, at every opportunity, in every committee, on every floor vote, when it had been attempted, in Congress. This provision was supposed to make it more difficult for the employees of the Federal Express Company to organize their union, and the Federal Express Corporation makes no denial about this. In the waning days of the session, the Federal Express Corporation gave each party $100,000 in soft money, and the provision almost within a few hours found its way magically into a conference committee report. After this was jammed through the Congress, the very impressive CEO of FedEx--who I give credit to for his ingenuity in creating FedEx--came to see me and said, ``You people in Washington set this game up this way and I will play it and I will play it hard as long as that is the way it is set up.'' I can't fault him for that. That is the way the system is set up. Madam President, I think you know, as they say, the rest of the story. We had a UPS strike, and while that strike went on, while the unionized company was in a very difficult position and difficult negotiations, the FedEx Corporation obtained a 10 to 15 percent share of the business that used to go to UPS. That is a very good return for only $200,000 of soft money. The 1996 Telecommunications Act covered a huge field from cable to cellular service to long distance. There was massive lobbying involved. It was the biggest overhaul of our communications law since 1934, and a Center for Responsive Politics analysis showed that cable companies, local telephone companies, and long distance companies gave more than $12 million in soft money and PAC contributions just during the 1996 election cycle. When the bill finally passed in February 1996, all these corporate concerns supported it while consumer groups opposed it. There was very, very little in the way of consumer protections in that bill. Today, cable rates continue to go up, and merger mania has hit all parts of the telecommunications industry. We have yet to see any of those proconsumer effects of competition that the corporate donors who so strongly supported the bill had promised us at the time. One more example, the B-2 bomber. Apparently, the Department of Defense doesn't really want the B-2 bomber anymore. There are questions about its effectiveness, including the possibility that it may not work very well when it gets wet. Yet the Congress added this past year $331 million in this year's bill to keep it going. Northrup Grumman made $877,000 in PAC contributions and soft money contributions during that 1996 election. Its PAC gave $84,500 to House Members from January 1 to May 31, 1997. There are other examples. There are many examples, but these are examples I have had a chance to witness in the last couple of years and they concern me. Lobbyists and other representatives have gotten the messages that some members expect contributions from lobbyists if they want to be heard. Some rely on the stick, saying ``put up or shut up.'' Others hold out a carrot, such as those who would write a letter to people inviting them, if they contribute a certain amount of money, to sort of a club atmosphere where they have been promised the rewards of ``leadership, friendship, effectiveness and exclusivity'' in return for a contribution. In other words, our democracy has become a huge bazaar for very powerful traders. It is bizarre to watch it played out in the middle of our country's great symbol of democracy. Some of us are willing to fight for reform as long as it takes. Some say this is nothing more than a couple of Senators pretending to be like Sisyphus, pushing a rock up a hill. But many issues take time. Tax reform has to be done over and over again to make it work. The post-Watergate reforms were difficult to get through but the fact is they worked pretty well for quite a few years. It has been 24 years since Watergate. Thomas Jefferson said there should be a revolution in America every 20 years. That is not such a terrible statement on our system if we have to fix our campaign finance laws every 20 years or less. Madam President, this is the third year in a row we have made this effort and we will keep fighting for this until we give the American people a campaign finance system that does not turn them away from participating, it doesn't turn them off on participating in our great democracy. I can't really talk about this issue without paying tribute to my senior partner in this effort, the senior Senator from Arizona, who is really the courageous one here. I am the one who is in the minority. It takes a lot more courage to buck this system for a member of the majority. He initiated our relationship for working together on many reform issues and I am grateful to him for having allowed me the chance to work with him on this issue. When we got to the point of campaign finance reform after having successfully passed the gift ban and a number of other efforts, it became pretty clear this would be the hardest of all, changing this addiction to money in this town would be the hardest of all. So our bill has gone through several transformations due to political necessity, but it remains a strong and unique bipartisan compromise. It is not the Feingold bill. I tried the Feingold bill and got no cosponsors. That is a good bill, but it involves public financing, and there isn't majority support for that approach. This was an exercise, instead, in seeing if people of different philosophies could come together and put together the first bipartisan effort of its kind in 11 years. McCain-Feingold in the form presented as an amendment at the next procedural point has several key components. It simply bans these unregulated soft money contributions, these huge contributions that are primarily funneled to the political parties. This is the piece President Clinton focused on correctly and rightly in his State of the Union Address. He said if you vote for McCain-Feingold you are voting against soft money; if you don't, you are supporting the current system. In our bill, we have the beginning of mechanisms to try to encourage people to voluntarily limit how much they spend, at least of their own personal wealth, in the base bill. We also require much greater and more immediate disclosure of campaign contributions, electronic filing, daily filing of campaign contributions, and a prohibition on accepting contributions from people who have not disclosed their profession. We heard a lot of opponents of our bill in the last debate talk about the need for prompt and complete disclosure. Madam President, that is exactly what we have in our bill, the strongest disclosure provisions to date. We also strengthen the FEC's enforcement powers, and we clarify and strengthen the ban on raising money on Federal property and on foreign contributions to elections. Now the current McCain-Feingold bill doesn't do everything that I would like to do on campaign finance reform. I don't think it even does everything that the senior Senator from Arizona wants to do. And so if we do have the opportunity as the debate goes on, we will offer the McCain-Feingold challenger amendment. Our amendment would ask Senate candidates to voluntarily limit their overall spending by getting most of their campaign contributions from their own home State, limiting their PAC fundraising and restricting their spending from their own personal wealth. In return, they would receive the benefit of reduced-cost television time. So we hope to get to that point, and we are optimistic. We expected fierce opposition to our bill in the past, and we got it. We knew from experience that many Members of the Senate are comfortable with the current campaign finance system and they don't want to change it. We tried this in 1996 before people really got a good, clean look at this system, and we didn't get terribly far. When we failed to break a filibuster in 1996, the Senator from Arizona turned to me and said, ``This thing is going to take a scandal.'' I said, ``John, you're too pessimistic, we'll get it through.'' Well, he was right and I was wrong. But we got a scandal. In 1997, we moved this issue much further. After the hearings conducted by the senior Senator from Tennessee and the revelation of many of the things that went on, we got 53 votes on the floor of the Senate; but we still faced a filibuster and a series of arguments that, in my view, can't withstand scrutiny. I see that the Senator from Tennessee has entered the Chamber as well, and the Senator from Kentucky has risen to speak. At this point I will yield the floor and I will complete my remarks at another point. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Madam President. I thank the leader for kicking off this debate on campaign finance reform. Privilege Of The Floor Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of our debate on campaign finance reform: Mary Murphy, Bob Schiff, Sumner Slichter, Kitty Loos, and Diane Welch.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer some initial comments on the President's proposed budget for fiscal year 1999. As with any budget, there will be occasion to discuss and debate the many individual provisions it contains. I have already heard some legitimate concerns voiced about some of the provisions from both sides of the aisle, and I very much look forward to working with my colleagues on the Budget Committee to fashion what I hope will be the second consecutive bipartisan budget agreement. Despite the many issues surrounding individual provisions, though, we have to acknowledge what a historic moment this is. The President's budget is historic. For the first time in 30 years, a President has submitted a unified budget that actually balances. That is an achievement worth noting and noting again. While many of us believe we have a way to go before we can talk about having a genuine balance, it is fitting to pause for a moment to acknowledge the tremendous progress that has been made. The President's proposal also marks the end of one budget era and, I think, really the beginning of a transition period that may require changing some of our budget rules, and I will have more to say on that subject in the coming weeks. It is also worth remembering how far we have come and how we reached this important benchmark. First and foremost was the 1993 deficit reduction package. That was one of the toughest votes I think many of us have ever taken in this legislative body. It wasn't pleasant and it wasn't supposed to be pleasant. As we have found, there just is no painless solution to the deficit, and we had to take a different kind of step. In fact, Mr. President, it was the very toughness of that 1993 package that told me it was worth supporting. Let me also say that last year's bipartisan budget agreement also contributed to the effort. I repeat my admiration for the work done by the chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, and also the ranking member, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, who worked so hard to make that agreement possible. Mr. President, I wish that agreement had gone further. As I have noted on other occasions, I really wish we had refrained from enacting that fiscally irresponsible tax package last year. If we had, the unified budget would have actually reach balance earlier. Nevertheless, both of those efforts helped bring us to where we are today and all concerned deserve praise. Mr. President, in addition to the notable accomplishment of submitting a balanced unified budget, the President also cautioned Congress not to spend the unified budget surplus that is projected, but instead to use those funds to protect Social Security. I think this is one of the better statements we have had in a long time with regard to not only fiscal responsibility, but also our responsibility to future generations that hope to obtain the benefits of the Social Security for which they have already been paying. The President's admonition in this regard may have been just as important as his achievement in proposing a balanced unified budget. The President is absolutely right in urging that any unified budget surpluses not be spent. But while I strongly agree with his sentiment, I approach this issue from a little different perspective. Again, there are many of us who do not view the unified budget as the appropriate measure of our Nation's budget. In particular, I want to acknowledge two of my colleagues on the Budget Committee, the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Hollings and the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, for their consistent warnings on this issue of how we calculate and determine and speak about what is really a balanced budget. Mr. President, the unified budget is not the budget which should guide our policy decisions. The projected surpluses in the unified budget are not real. In fact, far from surpluses, what we really have are continuing on-budget deficits masked, in part, by Social Security revenues. Now, this distinction is absolutely critical. The very word ``surplus'' connotes that there is some extra amount of money or bonus around. One definition of the word surplus is, ``something more than, or in excess of, what is needed or required.'' Mr. President, the projected unified budget is not more than or in excess of what is needed or required. Those funds are required. Those funds are spoken for. In this regard, I take just slight exception to the President's characterization that we should use the surplus to protect Social Security. Some could infer from his comments that the President has chosen, from various alternatives, the best or most prudent option for using surplus funds. I am afraid people will look at it that way and, certainly, from the perspective of the unified budget, it is arguably the best and most prudent option, if we really had surpluses. But, Mr. President, those of us who see the unified budget as merely an accounting convenience do not believe this is an alternative or an option. To repeat, Mr. President, those revenues are already spoken for. They were raised by Social Security for future use. Mr. President, we have various trust funds in our budget, but Social Security is unlike most other trust funds, and it is unlike the others in this respect: It is by law ``off budget.'' It was taken off budget for this very reason; namely, the decision by Congress to forward fund Social Security by raising additional revenues in the near term to ensure the long-term solvency of the program. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to choose their use of the word ``surplus'' very carefully. The problem with the use of the word, or the overuse of the word, is that it encourages a way of thinking which may jeopardize not only the work that we have accomplished over the past 5 years but also the additional work that must be done to put our Nation on a firm financial footing. The use of this term improperly encourages the kind of ``business as usual'' policies that promise immediate gratification while putting off tough budget-cutting decisions until later. Mr. President, it is kind of like buying an expensive Valentine's Day gift for your sweetheart and then charging it to her credit card. That is not the way to do business. That is hardly an honest approach to budgeting either. Mr. President, the challenge before us now is to move quickly toward eliminating the on-budget deficit, balancing the budget without using Social Security trust funds, and in so doing to begin the very important process of bringing down and paying down our national debt. Mr. President, we have to play it straight with the American people. We need to give them an honest balanced budget. I very much hope this body will act to put us on that path this year, and I very much look forward to working with other members of the Budget Committee to ensure that we really do reach an honest balanced budget. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Equal Access to Justice Reform Amendments of 1998. This legislation contains necessary improvements to existing law, the Equal Access to Justice Act, which will streamline and improve the current process of awarding attorney's fees to private parties who prevail in litigation against the government of the United States. I am introducing this legislation for the second consecutive Congress because I believe the reforms embodied in this legislation are important steps in reducing the government generated burden under which many individuals and small businesses currently operate. Over the past few years, certainly since the elections of 1994, many Members of the Senate have taken to the floor and spoken about the importance of ``getting government off the backs of the American people.'' We often hear about the need to reform government in very fundamental ways that effect people all across this nation. I agree and the legislation I propose here today deals directly with some aspects of the concerns we have heard in this chamber, by assisting everyday Americans who face legal battles with the federal government and prevail. At the outset, it is important to understand what the Equal Access to Justice Act is, and why it exists. The premise is very simple, EAJA places individuals and small businesses who face the United States Government in litigation, on equal footing by establishing guidelines for the award of attorney's fees when the individual or small business prevails. Quite simply, EAJA acknowledges that the resources available to the federal government in a legal dispute far outweigh those available to everyday Americans. This disparity is resolved by requiring the government, in certain instances, to pay the attorney's fees of successful private parties. By giving successful parties the right to seek attorney's fees from the United States, EAJA seeks to prevent small business owners from having to risk their companies in order to seek justice. My interest in this issue predates my election to the Senate and arises from my experience both as a private attorney and a Member of the Senate in my home state of Wisconsin. While in private practice, I became aware of how the ability to recoup attorney's fees is often the initial inquiry which must be made when deciding whether or not to seek redress in the courts. The significance of this factor should not be underestimated. Upon entering the State Senate, I authored legislation modeled on the federal law. Today, section 814.246 of the Wisconsin statutes contains provisions similar to the federal EAJA statute. It seemed to me then, as it does now, that we should do what we can to help ease the burdens on parties who need to have their claims reviewed and decided by impartial decision makers. To this end, I have reviewed the existing federal statutes with an eye toward improving them and making them work better. I believe that my legislation does just that. The bill I am introducing today, does a number of things to make EAJA more effective for individuals and small business men and women all across this country. One provision of my original bill that I introduced previously, raising the hourly attorneys fee cap to $125 from $75, has already been enacted as part of the Small Business Fair Treatment Act signed into law during the 104th Congress. While I am pleased that significant change was adopted, my legislation goes further by eliminating the existing ``special factors'' language which allowed the fee cap to be increased in certain circumstances. I believe the $125 level is consistent with the going rate and obviates the need for ``special factor'' language which often serves to slow the recovery process. Further, my legislation explicitly establishes a formula for calculating cost-of-living adjustments for awards and eliminates the often time consuming evaluation that was previously required in the absence of a specific standard. Both of these changes, coupled with the fee increase will work to make EAJA more efficient and effective for Americans. Another significant factor of my legislation is the elimination of the language which allows the government to escape paying attorneys' fees even if it loses a suit but can provide a substantial justification for its action. I believe that if an individual or small business battles the federal government in an adversarial proceeding and prevails, the government should pay the fees incurred. Imagine the scenario of a person who spends countless time and money dueling with the government and prevails, only to find out that they must now undergo the additional step of litigating the justification of the underlying governmental action. For the government, with its vast resources, this additional step poses no difficulty, but for the citizen it may simply not be financially feasible. A 1992 study prepared by University of Virginia Professor Harold Krent on behalf of the Administrative Conference of the United States found that only a small percentage of EAJA awards were denied because of the substantial justification defense and that while it is impossible to determine the exact cost of litigating the issue of justification, it is his opinion, based upon review of cases in 1989 and 1990, that while the substantial justification defense may save some money awards, it was not enough to justify the cost of the additional litigation. In short, eliminating this often burdensome second step is a cost effective step which will streamline recovery under EAJA. The final point in regard to streamlining and improving EAJA is language designed to encourage settlement and avoid costly and protracted litigation. Under the bill, the government is provided the ability to make an offer of settlement up to 10 days prior to a hearing on a fees claim. If the government's offer is rejected and the prevailing party seeking recovery ultimately wins a smaller award, that party is not entitled to attorneys' fees and costs they incurred after the date of government's offer. Again, this will speed the process and thereby reduce the time and expense of the litigation. We all know that the American small business owner has a difficult road to make ends meet and that unnecessary or overly burdensome government regulation can be a formidable obstacle to doing business. It can be the difference between success or failure. The Equal Access to Justice Act was conceived and implemented to help overcome the formidable power of the federal government. In this regard it has helped many Americans do just that. The legislation I am offering today will make EAJA more effective for more Americans while at the same time deterring the government from acting in an indefensible and unwarranted manner. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Leahy, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in introducing a bill today that gives American taxpayers greater ability to recover attorneys fees and other costs against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for unjustified civil actions and administrative proceedings under the Equal Access To Justice Act (EAJA). Clearly, there is a need for such legislation in light of recent hearing testimony that average taxpayers have lost thousands of dollars in actual damages defending themselves against unjustified IRS actions. As the National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service reported, current Internal Revenue Code provisions do not provide adequate relief for unjust IRS actions, much less enable many taxpayers to obtain review of IRS actions at all. I am pleased to join the Senator from Vermont in this effort to help level the playing field and help the American taxpayer recover when the IRS acts improperly. Like other citizens who seek review of, or defend against, unjustified governmental action by federal agencies, taxpayers who successfully defend against the IRS should be able to recover attorneys fees and other costs against when the situation warrants such an award. By providing such relief to taxpayers under the EAJA, not only does this bill help individuals recover the cost of their defense, but also helps deter future abusive actions by the IRS. The Equal Access to Justice Act has helped American citizens and small businesses recover against other federal agencies and this bill makes the IRS accountable under EAJA, just like the rest of the federal government. My interest in the Equal Access To Justice Act predates my election to this body, dating back to my tenure as a State Senator where I worked on the Wisconsin version of EAJA. In addition to working on the Wisconsin EAJA, I have introduced in a previous Congress, and will do so again today, separate legislation to update and streamline the existing federal EAJA--to make the process of recovery less cumbersome and to help ensure that people are made whole when the government cannot defend their actions. The federal EAJA was originally enacted in 1980 and made permanent in 1985. The Act was intended to make taking on the federal government in court less intimidating and I was specifically aimed at helping average citizens and small businesses that prevail against unjustified governmental actions. In my view, EAJA is an effective and valuable check on the virtually limitless power of the federal government. One would assume that the typical American taxpayer is protected by the EAJA. However, this is not the case as the Act exempts all civil actions and administrative proceedings in connection with the IRS from its protections. In addition, court decisions have consistently interpreted the tax code as providing the only relief for taxpayers treated unjustly. The current system is inadequate and this legislation will help to change that untenable situation. I want to commend my friend and colleague from Vermont for his leadership on this important issue. The legislation we are introducing today is only one step in reforming the Internal Revenue Service and making that agency more accountable to the American people. However, it is an important and essential step in that process. The American people should not have to squander their hard earned money defending against unjustified actions by federal agencies--including the IRS. I look forward to working with Senator Leahy and the other concerned Members of this body as this legislation moves forward.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Equal Access to Justice Reform Amendments of 1998. This legislation contains necessary improvements to existing law, the Equal Access to Justice Act, which will streamline and improve the current process of awarding attorney's fees to private parties who prevail in litigation against the government of the United States. I am introducing this legislation for the second consecutive Congress because I believe the reforms embodied in this legislation are important steps in reducing the government generated burden under which many individuals and small businesses currently operate. Over the past few years, certainly since the elections of 1994, many Members of the Senate have taken to the floor and spoken about the importance of ``getting government off the backs of the American people.'' We often hear about the need to reform government in very fundamental ways that effect people all across this nation. I agree and the legislation I propose here today deals directly with some aspects of the concerns we have heard in this chamber, by assisting everyday Americans who face legal battles with the federal government and prevail. At the outset, it is important to understand what the Equal Access to Justice Act is, and why it exists. The premise is very simple, EAJA places individuals and small businesses who face the United States Government in litigation, on equal footing by establishing guidelines for the award of attorney's fees when the individual or small business prevails. Quite simply, EAJA acknowledges that the resources available to the federal government in a legal dispute far outweigh those available to everyday Americans. This disparity is resolved by requiring the government, in certain instances, to pay the attorney's fees of successful private parties. By giving successful parties the right to seek attorney's fees from the United States, EAJA seeks to prevent small business owners from having to risk their companies in order to seek justice. My interest in this issue predates my election to the Senate and arises from my experience both as a private attorney and a Member of the Senate in my home state of Wisconsin. While in private practice, I became aware of how the ability to recoup attorney's fees is often the initial inquiry which must be made when deciding whether or not to seek redress in the courts. The significance of this factor should not be underestimated. Upon entering the State Senate, I authored legislation modeled on the federal law. Today, section 814.246 of the Wisconsin statutes contains provisions similar to the federal EAJA statute. It seemed to me then, as it does now, that we should do what we can to help ease the burdens on parties who need to have their claims reviewed and decided by impartial decision makers. To this end, I have reviewed the existing federal statutes with an eye toward improving them and making them work better. I believe that my legislation does just that. The bill I am introducing today, does a number of things to make EAJA more effective for individuals and small business men and women all across this country. One provision of my original bill that I introduced previously, raising the hourly attorneys fee cap to $125 from $75, has already been enacted as part of the Small Business Fair Treatment Act signed into law during the 104th Congress. While I am pleased that significant change was adopted, my legislation goes further by eliminating the existing ``special factors'' language which allowed the fee cap to be increased in certain circumstances. I believe the $125 level is consistent with the going rate and obviates the need for ``special factor'' language which often serves to slow the recovery process. Further, my legislation explicitly establishes a formula for calculating cost-of-living adjustments for awards and eliminates the often time consuming evaluation that was previously required in the absence of a specific standard. Both of these changes, coupled with the fee increase will work to make EAJA more efficient and effective for Americans. Another significant factor of my legislation is the elimination of the language which allows the government to escape paying attorneys' fees even if it loses a suit but can provide a substantial justification for its action. I believe that if an individual or small business battles the federal government in an adversarial proceeding and prevails, the government should pay the fees incurred. Imagine the scenario of a person who spends countless time and money dueling with the government and prevails, only to find out that they must now undergo the additional step of litigating the justification of the underlying governmental action. For the government, with its vast resources, this additional step poses no difficulty, but for the citizen it may simply not be financially feasible. A 1992 study prepared by University of Virginia Professor Harold Krent on behalf of the Administrative Conference of the United States found that only a small percentage of EAJA awards were denied because of the substantial justification defense and that while it is impossible to determine the exact cost of litigating the issue of justification, it is his opinion, based upon review of cases in 1989 and 1990, that while the substantial justification defense may save some money awards, it was not enough to justify the cost of the additional litigation. In short, eliminating this often burdensome second step is a cost effective step which will streamline recovery under EAJA. The final point in regard to streamlining and improving EAJA is language designed to encourage settlement and avoid costly and protracted litigation. Under the bill, the government is provided the ability to make an offer of settlement up to 10 days prior to a hearing on a fees claim. If the government's offer is rejected and the prevailing party seeking recovery ultimately wins a smaller award, that party is not entitled to attorneys' fees and costs they incurred after the date of government's offer. Again, this will speed the process and thereby reduce the time and expense of the litigation. We all know that the American small business owner has a difficult road to make ends meet and that unnecessary or overly burdensome government regulation can be a formidable obstacle to doing business. It can be the difference between success or failure. The Equal Access to Justice Act was conceived and implemented to help overcome the formidable power of the federal government. In this regard it has helped many Americans do just that. The legislation I am offering today will make EAJA more effective for more Americans while at the same time deterring the government from acting in an indefensible and unwarranted manner. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Leahy, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in introducing a bill today that gives American taxpayers greater ability to recover attorneys fees and other costs against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for unjustified civil actions and administrative proceedings under the Equal Access To Justice Act (EAJA). Clearly, there is a need for such legislation in light of recent hearing testimony that average taxpayers have lost thousands of dollars in actual damages defending themselves against unjustified IRS actions. As the National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service reported, current Internal Revenue Code provisions do not provide adequate relief for unjust IRS actions, much less enable many taxpayers to obtain review of IRS actions at all. I am pleased to join the Senator from Vermont in this effort to help level the playing field and help the American taxpayer recover when the IRS acts improperly. Like other citizens who seek review of, or defend against, unjustified governmental action by federal agencies, taxpayers who successfully defend against the IRS should be able to recover attorneys fees and other costs against when the situation warrants such an award. By providing such relief to taxpayers under the EAJA, not only does this bill help individuals recover the cost of their defense, but also helps deter future abusive actions by the IRS. The Equal Access to Justice Act has helped American citizens and small businesses recover against other federal agencies and this bill makes the IRS accountable under EAJA, just like the rest of the federal government. My interest in the Equal Access To Justice Act predates my election to this body, dating back to my tenure as a State Senator where I worked on the Wisconsin version of EAJA. In addition to working on the Wisconsin EAJA, I have introduced in a previous Congress, and will do so again today, separate legislation to update and streamline the existing federal EAJA--to make the process of recovery less cumbersome and to help ensure that people are made whole when the government cannot defend their actions. The federal EAJA was originally enacted in 1980 and made permanent in 1985. The Act was intended to make taking on the federal government in court less intimidating and I was specifically aimed at helping average citizens and small businesses that prevail against unjustified governmental actions. In my view, EAJA is an effective and valuable check on the virtually limitless power of the federal government. One would assume that the typical American taxpayer is protected by the EAJA. However, this is not the case as the Act exempts all civil actions and administrative proceedings in connection with the IRS from its protections. In addition, court decisions have consistently interpreted the tax code as providing the only relief for taxpayers treated unjustly. The current system is inadequate and this legislation will help to change that untenable situation. I want to commend my friend and colleague from Vermont for his leadership on this important issue. The legislation we are introducing today is only one step in reforming the Internal Revenue Service and making that agency more accountable to the American people. However, it is an important and essential step in that process. The American people should not have to squander their hard earned money defending against unjustified actions by federal agencies--including the IRS. I look forward to working with Senator Leahy and the other concerned Members of this body as this legislation moves forward.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my disappointment that in the final hours of this legislative session, a piece of legislation sponsored by my colleague, Senator DeWine and I, S. 900 has apparently been stopped from passing the Senate because of an objection from the other side of the aisle. S. 900 is a bi-partisan effort to address the growing problem of criminals using the Internet to contact and target young children that they ultimately sexually abuse and exploit. This bill requires the United States Sentencing Commission to create a sentencing enhancement for criminals who use the Internet to facilitate sexual crimes against young people. The legislation also increases penalties for repeat sexual offenders. S. 900 has, on two occasions, received the unanimous support of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It has passed the Committee as a free- standing measure and was adopted as an amendment to juvenile justice legislation considered by the Committee earlier this year. Yet, we are now told that the bill has been held. I find it troubling that someone would object to legislation designed to help protect young children from being sexual abused and molested and that such objection would be made, without providing Senator DeWine or myself an opportunity to address whatever concerns might exist. Mr. President, the misuse of the Internet is a growing problem. FBI Director Freeh has testified to this fact and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children--which supports the DeWine/Feingold legislation--agrees that the situation is a growing concern. S. 900 is a straightforward, bipartisan effort to send the message that pedophiles and child molesters will not be allowed to exploit the Internet to commit their illicit crimes against children. While I regret that someone has chosen to slow this effort to protect children, I fully intend to return to this issue next year and will continue to push for the adoption of this legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to express my disappointment that--due to compromises made during negotiations over three separate conference reports, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for FY 1998, the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill for FY 1998, and the State Department Authorization Act for FY 1998-99--conferees were forced to trade away authorization and appropriations that would have cleared existing U.S. debt to the United Nations. As the Senate adjourns for the holiday recess, only a fraction of the $900 million in arrears payments that was originally proposed by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on which I serve was included in the CJS appropriations bill. Mr. President, what this means is that we will still be in substantial debt to the United Nations. Mr. President, the United Nations is not a perfect organization. I certainly have some real concerns about the size and extent of the UN bureaucracy, for example. Just as with any organization this big, we must be on guard against possible mismanagement or abuse, and certainly the U.N. system has had its share of both. But at the same time, I think that U.S. participation in the United Nations--with all the benefits and costs that membership implies--is an indispensable tool in this country's foreign policy bag. When it operates effectively, the United Nations provides a framework to serve U.S. interests at the same time that it achieves economies of scale. Just this week, Mr. President, the United States is working within the U.N. structure to assert a united front against the flagrant abuses of international law exercised by Iraq in recent weeks. Mr. President, if nothing else, the crisis in Iraq aptly demonstrates the value of the United Nations to our country. I would make a similar point about the role the United Nations plays in peacekeeping operations. U.N. forces have participated in more than 40 peacekeeping operations around the world since 1948. Members of this body may have disagreements over whether or not each and every one of those was necessary, but when you look at places where the U.N. has been instrumental in maintaining cease-fires or providing humanitarian relief, it is clear that the United States can achieve its national interest goals at a lower cost to U.S. taxpayers than would be possible if the United States tried to do it alone. Mr. President, during the listening sessions that I conduct in the 72 counties in the state of Wisconsin, I hear sympathetic words from my constituents about the need for the involvement of the international community in times of crisis. But they also express hesitation about sending their sons and daughters to fight in far-away conflicts. The United Nations provides a mechanism through which the United States can contribute to international security without having to send our own troops every time there is a problem. The U.N. reform and funding package that was agreed to in the Foreign Relations Committee was a carefully crafted compromise between those that would limit or eliminate U.S. participation in the United Nations and those that would like to see a fully funded and active United Nations. But, Mr. President, due to the intransigence of some of our colleagues in the other body, it appears that the moral and legal obligations of the United States to pay its debts to the United Nations have been sacrificed to serve an unrelated domestic interest. The compromise package worked out in our Committee would have gradually decreased the amount of our assessed contribution to the United Nations from the current level of 25 percent, to 20 percent by fiscal year 2001. Assuming the budget for the United Nations remained constant, the time line set forth in this package could have saved the US taxpayer at least $375 million over the next four years from a combination of savings from the assessments and from budget discipline. It would have allowed us to continue our participation in the United Nations, which I think is important, while at the same time achieving some real cost savings for the taxpayer. Now, with authorization of repayment of these arrears in jeopardy, it remains unclear how the United States will manage to clean the slate with the United Nations. Mr. President, I hope we will be able to resolve this issue when the Senate returns for the 2d session of the 105th Congress.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased that the U.S. Senate took action today to confirm Lynn Adelman to the Federal District Court. Lynn's entire career, both in the State legislature and his private legal practice, has been marked by his dedication to serving the people of our State and makes him particularly well suited for a position on the federal bench. I have no doubt that he will continue his career of public service in this new capacity and will be an excellent jurist for the people of Wisconsin. President Clinton choose Lynn Adelman's name from the three forwarded to him by the nominations committee that Senator Kohl and I established to review potential nominees for Wisconsin's federal bench. I am pleased that the full Senate, having had an opportunity to review Lynn Adelman's record and to hear from him directly when he testified before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, has reached the same conclusion that Senator Kohl, President Clinton, Governor Thompson, people all across Wisconsin and I have reached. That being that Lynn Adelman will be an exemplary federal judge. Lynn Adelman was born in Milwaukee and is a graduate of Princeton University and Columbia Law School. He graduated cum laude from both of these excellent institutions. After a brief period working in New York, Lynn returned his native Wisconsin and began what to this day has been a career of dedicated public service to the people of our State. Lynn worked in private practice in Wisconsin beginning in 1972 and continues to do so today. In 1977, Lynn was elected to the Wisconsin State Senate for the 28th District. In the twenty years that he has represented the 28th District, he has been a leading voice in the Wisconsin Legislature. I had the distinct honor of serving with Lynn for ten years while I was a Wisconsin State Senator and worked with him on the Judiciary Committee, which he has chaired on two occasions. Lynn Adelman's legislative record and commitment to the people of his district and the State of Wisconsin has earned him bi-partisan praise. In fact, Republican Governor Tommy Thompson, writing in support of this nominee, characterized Lynn Adelman as ``. . .thoughtful, fair and open-minded. . .'' The Governor has also noted how he and Lynn have worked hand in hand to ensure the passage of important legislation ranging from anti-crime and anti-drug legislation to welfare reform. This bi-partisan praise is a significant statement about the character and ability of Lynn Adelman. At the same time he has served in the Wisconsin Legislature, Lynn Adelman has continued his practice as a successfully attorney. He has appeared in both criminal and civil cases, before both State and Federal courts. Lynn's considerable legal skills also resulted in him arguing before the United States Supreme Court in 1993. There can be little doubt that Lynn Adelman's career makes him well suited to serve on the federal judiciary. His knowledge of the law is undeniable. He has a unique perspective on our legal system, born of his service in the legislature and as a practicing attorney, He understands the fundamental principle of separation of powers and has the temperament necessary to treat everyone who comes before him with the respect and dignity they deserve. In short, he has all the tools necessary to serve the people of Wisconsin with distinction. I am pleased the Senate has chosen to confirm him today.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to offer my congratulations to congregation B'nai Abraham, located in Beloit, WI, as its members mark 90 years of service to the Jewish community in southern Wisconsin. Mr. President, B'nai Abraham was founded on November 7, 1907, by a group of people who were collecting funds to help a destitute man. It was a highly appropriate beginning to a congregation dedicated to providing comfort, inspiration, solace, guidance, and support. Since then, the members of congregation B'nai Abraham have nurtured a strong sense of community responsibility, and the congregation has embraced the role of the synagogue, as with any house of religious faith, as a shelter and a center for renewal of the spirit. But faith, like the body that carries it, only grows stronger with exercise, and by that I mean its application in our daily lives. The values I learned in my community, including diligence, compassion a sense of justice and feeling of responsibility to my community, have been cornerstones of my career in public service, and I have tried to apply those values in my work, including my efforts on bipartisan congressional reform, my support of Israel and the Middle East peace process, and my commitment to civil rights. As with so many other Americans, the people who founded B'nai Abraham came from a culture whose members sought these shores to escape oppression, and they relied on one another for support even as the whole new world of challenge and opportunity spread itself out before them. Mr. President, I grew up among the members of that community, and I counted on my congregation to provide the grounding in values and traditions every young person needs as he or she is growing up, as well as a sense of spiritual and cultural refreshment. It is particularly important for people of faith who find themselves in the minority to have a place to worship and to pass along their values and traditions to their children. B'nai Abraham places a very strong emphasis on education, and congregations like B'nai Abraham also serve to represent their members to others and promote the awareness of Jewish heritage in our communities. In that way, B'nai Abraham's members not only educate their neighbors but also show how people of diverse backgrounds still share experiences, histories and concerns, which can be a powerful encouragement to the continued efforts of so many Americans to promote understanding, tolerance, and cooperation. Mr. President, I am a member of many communities America, the State of Wisconsin and the town of Middleton, but without this community of faith that has done so much to guide and support me, I would be a poorer man. So, Mr. President, let me offer my warmest congratulations to congregation B'nai Abraham, and may its members enjoy good health and good fortune as they prepare to celebrate 100 years.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I want to commemorate the anniversary of the tragic deaths of nine Nigerian activists. Two years ago this week, Mr. Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni leaders were brutally executed by the regime of Gen. Sani Abacha. Ken Saro-Wiwa was a renowned playwright and author, who also happened to be the president of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People, or MOSOP. He and several other colleagues were arrested shortly after four rival Ogoni leaders were killed by a mob in May 1994. They were detained without charge for a year, until May 19, 1995. Then, after trials that are widely believed to have been unfair and politically motivated, Saro- Wiwa and eight others--Barinem Kiobel, Saturday Doobee, Paul Levura, Nordu Eawo, Felix Nuate, Daniel Gbokoo, John Kpuinen and Baribor Bera-- were convicted of complicity in the 1994 murders, and sentenced to death by a civil disturbances special tribunal run by the military. Mr. President, when the death sentences of these individuals were first made public, I and many other members of Congress asked General Abacha to have mercy and exercise his prerogative of executive clemency. We wrote to President Clinton and made calls to the Nigerian representatives to the United Nations and Washington. But, alas, our efforts were to no avail. The nine men were hanged on November 10, 1995. Now, Mr. President, 19 other Ogoni activists remain in prison in Nigeria on the same trumped up charges and could face a similar fate. According to reports from several human rights organizations, the Ogoni 19 have been severely beaten and tortured, and many are suffering from ill health. They reportedly are kept in insanitary prison conditions, are denied food and medical treatment, and rarely, if at all, are granted access to outside visitors, including their lawyers. This lack of contact has stalled attempts to have the detainees released on bail or brought to trial before ordinary, civilian courts. The situation is so dire that, in August, the detainees went on a hunger strike for 10 days to protest the continuing obstructions to their release or trial. The authorities reportedly have had no response. Alas, the deplorable condition of these Ogoni activists is not unique in Nigeria. Hundreds of individuals remain in detention centers or prisons for seemingly political motivations. The flawed judicial process that led to the 1995 death sentences is still in place and threatens the lives of these political prisoners. Numerous Nigerian laws allow for arbitrary detention for reasons ranging from ``personal pique by a senior official to `national security,''' according to information provided to me by the State Department. With a population of more than 100 million people and vast natural resources, Nigeria has the potential to be one of the most important players on the African stage. But the military junta led by General Abacha is squandering the country's future by rampant corruption, severe economic mismanagement, and brutal policies that threaten basic freedoms. Moreover, the so-called transition program bears little hope of ensuring a transition to a fairly elected civilian government. As we remember the lives of the Ogoni 9, let us not forget those Nigerians whose struggle for basic freedoms continues even now. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring this solemn occasion.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to offer some thoughts on the proposed fast-track legislation. A number of other Members have made some excellent points on this subject, in large part reflecting my own views. This is especially true of the comments made by the senior Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], and I want to commend him for his constancy on this critical issue of preserving the constitutional role of Congress in matters of trade. He has rightly framed this issue, not as a question of favoring or opposing free or fair trade, but as a question of what role Congress plays in trade agreements. Mr. President, the fast-track proposal we are considering, and its predecessors, are quite recent inventions. Prior to the Tokyo round of the GATT, there was no fast-track mechanism. In fact, of the hundreds and hundreds of trade agreements our Nation has negotiated and entered into, only five have used the fast-track procedures. Mr. President, this should dispose of the argument that fast track is necessary for us to negotiate trade agreements. Fast track has been the exception, not the rule, with regard to trade negotiations. I understand this Administration has negotiated and implemented over 200 trade agreements without fast track. What were some of those agreements? Well, Mr. President, they included: the market access agreement with Argentina for textiles and clothing; the market access agreement with Australia for textiles and clothing; the agreement on bilateral trade relations with Belarus; the market access agreement with Brazil for textiles and clothing; an agreement concerning intellectual property rights with Bulgaria; an agreement between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Cambodia on trade relations and intellectual property rights protection; the agreement on salmon and herring with Canada; the agreement on ultra-high temperature milk with Canada; the agreement on trade in softwood lumber with Canada; the agreement on intellectual property rights protection with Ecuador; a memorandum of understanding on trade in bananas with Costa Rica; several agreements with the European Union; an agreement on intellectual property rights protection with India; several dozen agreements with Japan; several dozen agreements with Korea; and many, many more agreements with dozens of other countries. And not only bilateral agreements, Mr. President, but also multilateral agreements such as the complex Multilateral Agreement on Investment, the Information Technology Agreement, and the Telecomm Agreement--these last two having been both negotiated and implemented without fast-track procedures. Indeed, Mr. President, the phrase ``fast-track negotiating authority'' is a misnomer. The President already has the authority to negotiate and implement trade agreements. That broad authority was most recently extended indefinitely to the President as part of the 1994 GATT Uruguay round implementing legislation. That authority, called ``Proclamation Authority,'' has its roots in the Reciprocal Trade Act of 1934, which allowed a President to ``enter into foreign trade agreements * * * and to proclaim such modifications of existing duties and other import restrictions * * * as are required or appropriate to carry out any foreign trade agreement.'' Mr. President, while the ability to negotiate and enter into international agreements are inherently part of the President's constitutional powers, the Constitution grants exclusive authority to Congress ``to regulate Commerce with foreign nations.'' Congress has sole constitutional authority over setting tariff levels and making or changing federal law. With the 1934 act, though, Congress delegated some of its authority to the President when the number and frequency of trade negotiations began increasing. It is under this ``Proclamation Authority'' that President Clinton has negotiated and entered into over 200 trade agreements. And he is free to continue that work. He did not need fast track to negotiate those agreements, and he does not need it to negotiate additional agreements. At a recent meeting on this very issue, one of the participants suggested that everyone ought to pay a one dollar fine every time they used the phrase ``fast-track negotiating authority,'' because it was so fundamentally misleading. Mr. President, the Senate might consider adopting such a rule, and if we did adopt a $1 fine for using the phrase ``fast-track negotiating authority,'' we might balance the budget ahead of schedule, maybe even begin to pay down the debt. Until we do adopt such a rule, Mr. President, we will just have to be alert to the misuse of that phrase, and correct those who employ it. Mr. President, those who support fast track constantly make the argument that if you want free trade, you have to enact fast track. They equate fast track with free trade. The reason is obvious. The arguments for free trade are powerful. Indeed, I agree with those arguments. We as a nation are better off in a world with freer trade than we are without it. But the underlying premise, that we need fast track to achieve free and fair trade, is absolutely false. Mr. President, I have referred to the hundreds of trade agreements negotiated by this Administration without fast-track procedures. That is evidence enough. But let me also argue that not only is fast track not necessary for free trade, it may actually undermine it. Mr. President, one of the greatest defects of the recently enacted NAFTA and GATT agreements was the perception that those agreements picked winners and losers. I believe strongly that those perceptions are based on reality, that some industries were huge winners in those agreements, while other industries were effectively written off. Mr. President, Wisconsin had more than its share of those industries that were written off, and at the top of that list, at the very top was the dairy farmer. There is no doubt in my mind that other industries were given a higher priority than our dairy farmers, and the results of those agreements underscore that feeling. Under the GATT, the European Union is allowed to export 20 times the amount of dairy products under subsidy that the United States is allowed to export. Mr. President, not only did we formally provide the EU this significant advantage in that agreement with respect to dairy, apparently the EU is not even complying with those incredibly generous limitations. The lower priority industries do not end with dairy, and while our more populous cities--Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay--experienced serious job the fallout from the winners and losers approach extended to many smaller communities. Even if we only use the extremely conservative statistics collected by the Department of Labor--statistics which many argue grossly understate actual job loss--smaller communities all over Wisconsin have been the victim of this winners and losers approach to trade agreements. These include places such as: DeForest, with 40 lost jobs; Elkhorn, with 50 lost jobs; Hawkins, with 443 lost jobs; Mauston, with 48 lost jobs; Merrill, with 84 lost jobs; Montello, with 25 lost jobs; Peshtigo, with 69 lost jobs; and Platteville, with 576 lost jobs. Mr. President, to trade negotiators whose focus was on advancing the prospects of those industries they predetermined to be winners, the losses experienced elsewhere apparently were unfortunate but acceptable. For the communities I mentioned, Mr. President, those losses were real--real workers with real families to support. Mr. President, the fast-track procedures under which GATT and NAFTA were negotiated and implemented invites this kind of polarization at the negotiating table. And it is this kind of economic disparity produced by these trade agreements--the picking of winners and losers--that undermines broad public support for pursuing free trade agreements. Mr. President, free trade ought to benefit all sectors of the economy. Without fast-track procedures, our negotiators will know their work product will undergo rigorous congressional scrutiny. And they will know that it will be much more difficult to enact a trade agreement that disproportionately benefits some while disadvantaging others. Mr. President, it is this kind of trade agreement--one which benefits the entire economy--that will enhance the cause of free trade. Mr. President, fast track also encourages another disturbing trend in trade agreements, namely advancing the short-term interests of multinational corporations over those of the average worker and consumer. The increasing globalization of the economy confronts us every day. Few can doubt the enormous power multinational corporations wield in trade agreements, from the negotiating table itself to the closed-door bargaining that will go on before the implementing legislation is sent to Congress. Fast track procedures make it all the easier for those interests to advance an agreement that may include provisions which conflict with the interests of our Nation. With opposition to the entire agreement the only alternative left to Congress, and with the considerable weight of the multinational corporate interests behind any proposal, it is likely that Congress will swallow even a deeply flawed agreement. Mr. President, what does that do for the public support necessary for free trade? It severely undermines it, Mr. President, and puts future trade agreements that can enhance our economy at risk. Fast-track also undermines the cause of free trade in another important way, Mr. President. The proposal we are considering partitions off a number of issues that are vital to achieving a sustainable trade agreement, including currency stability, human rights, and worker and environmental protections. None of these issues is brought under fast-track procedures. Mr. President, we have only to look to recent Mexican history, their political turmoil and fiscal roller coaster culminating in the peso crisis, to understand the importance of these other issues to the long- term success of any trade agreement. Even NAFTA's most ardent supporters will concede these events severely undermined any benefits to our economy that were hoped for under that agreement. Mr. President, one might have thought those events would have been a lesson on which we could draw. Instead, the fast-track proposal actually backslides in this area. And for what reason, Mr. President? What possible reason can there be to specifically exclude these areas from fast-track procedures? Some might suggest the reason is that while our national long-term interests could be well served by including these issues in a trade agreement to ensure a rising quality of living with our trading partners, such issues might conflict with the short-term goals of some multinational interests that look only at next year's bottom line. Others might argue the reason stems from the desire of some interests to pursue a race to the bottom in worker and environmental protection, and in basic human rights. Such interests can use the leverage of international trade to change those fundamental standards they have been unable to change directly. Mr. President, there is certainly no argument that specifically excluding these issues from fast-track procedures will enhance our ability to negotiate. Human rights, working conditions, environmental protections --these are all great strengths of this Nation. Preventing our trade negotiators from drawing on these great national strengths limits our flexibility at the table. There is no reason to tie our negotiators hands in these areas. In this important regard, the fast-track proposal we are considering is a barrier to a sustainable free trade agreement. Mr. President, let me turn to another provision in the current fast- track proposal. It may surprise some to know that while specific issues closely related to the long-term success and sustainability of any trade agreement are excluded, the provisions which offset the costs of any trade agreement--provisions which have absolutely no connection to the trade agreement or the willingness of our partners to negotiate with us--those funding provisions are covered by fast-track procedures. What does this mean, Mr. President? It means that Congress cannot amend, it cannot even strike, provisions which are attached to implementing legislation to offset the costs of the trade agreement. It means that the most unjustified funding mechanism attached to trade implementing legislation under fast track will remain unscathed. Mr. President, let me stress these funding provisions are not part of the trade agreement itself. Our trading partners do not get a say in how we offset the cost of a trade agreement. One might ask, if our trading partners have no say in the offset provisions, why are those provisions included under fast-track procedures. An excellent question, Mr. President. Many of us will recall the GATT implementing measure which included some controversial funding provisions, including a change in the actuarial standards of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. and what many viewed as a sweetheart deal for certain media giants that gave them preferential treatment with respect to FCC licenses. Neither of those offsets had anything to do with the underlying trade agreement. Both certainly deserved more scrutiny than they received under the constraints of fast-track procedures. Whatever justification there may be for providing special procedures for trade agreements, procedures which supporters argue are necessary to attract our trading partners to the table, there is no such justification for shielding the funding provisions from thorough congressional scrutiny and review. Mr. President, we are talking about possible tax increases here. Though not required, as I understand it, among the offsets that comply with our budget rules are tax increases. To put it gently, it is ironic that many who would amend our Constitution to require a supermajority vote before any taxes could be increased are now prepared to support a fast-track bill that sweeps away even the most modest review of possible tax increases. Evidently, as long as it is done in the name of free trade, even the most outrageous inconsistency is permitted. Mr. President, let me reiterate that many of us who support free and fair trade find nothing inconsistent with that support and insisting that Congress be a full partner in approving agreements. Indeed, as Senator Byrd has noted, support for fast-track procedures reveals a lack of confidence in the ability of our negotiators to craft a sound agreement, or a lack of confidence in the ability of Congress to weigh regional and sectoral interests against the national interest, or may simply be a desire by the administration to avoid the hard work necessary to convince Congress to support the agreements it negotiates. Mr. President, I can think of no better insurance policy for a sound trade agreement than the prospect of a thorough Congressional review, complete with the ability to amend that agreement. Not only would the threat of possible Congressional modification spur our negotiators to produce the best product possible, that potential for Congressional intervention could serve as an effective club in the hands of our negotiators when bargaining with our trading partners. Mr. President, with hundreds of trade agreements negotiated and implemented without fast track, the refrain we hear again and again, that we need to enact fast track in order to negotiate trade agreements, is off key. We do not need fast track to negotiate trade agreements. As I have argued today, in several important ways, fast-track invites bad trade agreements. It produces agreements that pick winners and losers instead of advancing all sectors of the economy together. It produces agreements designed to respond to the short-term interests of multinational corporations instead of fostering long-term sustainable economic growth. It produces agreements that encourage a race-to-the-bottom in critical areas of human rights, and worker and environmental protection, instead of improving those standards around the World. It protects the completely unrelated funding provisions in trade implementing legislation, and as such invites enormous abuse. Mr. President, fast track is bad for free trade. We don't need it, and we shouldn't enact it. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation, and in doing so, voting for free and fair trade.