Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. No, that is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment concerning the Department of Defense jet fighters, a different matter.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, that is correct.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for his commitment to this issue and his leadership in this debate and very clear explanation of the situation. I will not oppose the second-degree amendment that he and the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Arizona have proposed. I also wish to compliment the Senator from Rhode Island on his comments, which I think were very appropriate with regard, especially, to the issue of making it absolutely clear throughout all aspects of our Government that it really is our intention to be out of this situation in terms of our ground troops by the end of June 1998. As Senator Levin has described, his second-degree amendment expresses the sense of the Congress that United States ground troops should not participate in a follow-on force in Bosnia and Herzegovina after June of 1998. Of course, I heartily agree with that premise. I believe we have to have a firm end date to our mission in Bosnia. Without it, many of us have said it here on the floor tonight, the mission absolutely risks continuing for who knows how long. There simply is no sign or clue as to when our involvement would end. Of course, I would have preferred my own hard mandate in my own amendment, which would have cut the purse strings of the Bosnia mission after June 30, 1998. This would have absolutely ensured that United States ground troops would be out of Bosnia by that date. But I am willing to not oppose the change offered by the Senator from Michigan because not only is there more support for the amendment in this form, but because it, again, puts the U.S. Senate on record with respect to its concern about the Bosnia mission. I am particularly pleased that the Levin amendment includes language urging the President to inform our European allies of this expression of the sense of Congress. This may well be the most important point. It is pretty clear that our allies in the region, our NATO partners, have become dependent on the active participation of the United States in this peacekeeping operation. If I were them, I would not want to do it alone either. But it is my view that if President Clinton lets our allies know immediately and with all candor that U.S. troops will not participate in the mission after next June, then they will begin to think creatively about what our next steps should be in the region. If the President does not send that message, then our allies and partners will have every reason to believe that the United States will, of course, remain in Bosnia after that date, as we have done already with regard to a number of other deadlines. Why do I say that? Because the last time we had a deadline for completing the peacekeeping mission, the December 1996 end date for IFOR, the administration was only too quick to let it slip with just a few months left to go on our initial 1-year commitment, the mission got rebaptized as SFOR, and U.S. ground troops were stuck there for what is going to be at least an additional 18 months. I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed by people like Secretary Albright, Chairman Shalikashvili and Secretary Cohen. In her June 27, 1997 letter to the Senate leadership, Secretary Albright wrote that if legislation mandating a cutoff were to pass, it would ``send exactly the wrong signal to our allies, to the signatories to the Dayton Accords, and to the American people about what American leadership in the world should mean.'' Mr. President, I don't understand this statement. I don't understand this statement in light of the fact that the United States is already on record for wanting to end the military mission on June 30, 1998. How can people be so concerned about the statement sending a signal about that date when that is exactly the signal that the President of the United States has sent? By telling our European allies about the planned withdrawal date, as the Levin second-degree specifically calls upon the President to do, we can make it clear that our leadership role is there but that our leadership role has limits. In the event of a follow-on force in the region, the Levin amendment suggests that the United States may decide to provide support in the form of command and control, intelligence, logistics and, if necessary, a ready reserve force. I believe this kind of support is more appropriate than the deployment of our men and women to Bosnia. I am also aware that the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, had made an agreement during the Armed Services Committee markup of the bill to resist the temptation to offer Bosnia language in this bill. The issue of when and where we deploy our troops is a tough, emotional and controversial one for all of us. Because of that, I know that the members of the Armed Services Committee would all like to see a longer, more thoughtful debate on Bosnia at some point. I, too, would like the Congress to have the opportunity to engage in a more extensive debate on the issue. But I also believe, as we consider this legislation, we cannot ignore the Bosnia issue in the very bill that authorizes the activities of the Defense Department. So, in light of the initial hesitation of the Armed Services Committee, I am particularly pleased that Senator Levin and I have been able to work together on this issue. I think it is vitally important that in a bill as important as this one, the Senate go on record regarding our mission in Bosnia. Let me just conclude by saying if, in fact, we are able to pass my amendment, as amended by the Levin amendment, it will mean that both the House and the Senate will be on record on this DOD bill calling for termination of the Bosnia mission no later than June 1998. This should guarantee that this issue will not simply disappear in conference. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to S. 936, the Department of Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1998. This amendment simply would prohibit the use of funds within the bill for the deployment of any ground forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina after June 30, 1998. As we all know that is the date that the President has said now United States troops would be out of Bosnia. My amendment would simply codify this goal. This amendment would allow appropriate exceptions, however, for Armed Forces personnel deployed in Bosnia to protect United States diplomatic facilities or noncombat personnel to advise NATO commanders. It would also not affect the President's constitutional authority to protect the lives of American citizens. Mr. President, this is similar to an amendment I introduced in May to the supplemental appropriations bill. That amendment, which applied only to the approximately $1.5 billion worth of ``emergency'' appropriations included in that bill, prohibited the use of fiscal year 1997 funds after the date of December 30, 1997. In order to accommodate the views of several other Members of this body, I did agree to accept an amendment by the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, that changed that date to June 30, 1998. I was pleased that on that occasion the Senate unanimously chose to accept the modified version of my amendment on that bill. Although it was eventually dropped in the conference committee, I was pleased that the conferees included language in their report expressing the concern of the Congress regarding the Bosnia deployment and requiring the President to provide regular reports to Congress on the deployment itself as well as on the cumulative costs stemming from various United States efforts associated with Bosnia. So here today, Mr. President, we now have an opportunity again to go on record regarding the continuation of the Bosnian operation beyond next June. I have held strong reservations about United States troop deployment in Bosnia ever since it was announced in 1995. These doubts were so strong that I ended up being the only Democrat in the Congress to vote against deployment of United States men and women to support the Dayton accord. It was a hard vote, but I voted no because I felt that the administration's promises to bring our men and women home after just 1 year were simply not plausible. Now, here we are in July of 1997-- nearly 2 years later--our troops are still in Bosnia, and it is already clear that at a minimum we will remain there at least until the middle of 1998. Mr. President, my concerns about our involvement in Bosnia have not changed since that first ``no'' vote. I will be the first to acknowledge, though, that the international intervention in Bosnia has had some positive benefits. The Dayton accord and the deployment of the NATO-led implementation force, IFOR, put an end to the bloodshed of the 3-year Bosnian war. In this sense, Mr. President, the IFOR mission in Bosnia was a success. There also can be no argument about the bravery and professionalism of the United States personnel who served in IFOR and are still in Bosnia as a part of the stabilization force, SFOR. Amazingly, there have been virtually no casualties even though there have been as many as 27,700 United States troops in the theater at one time. These men and women work through harsh conditions in a complex and often unstable environment. Although there have been passionate debates about whether our military should stay in Bosnia, admiration for the outstanding performance of our troops has been unanimous. Mr. President, my problem is with the seemingly endless duration of this mission. When in late 1995, the President first announced he would be sending United States forces to Europe to participate in the IFOR mission, he promised the Congress and the American people that the IFOR mission would be over within 1 year. This promise was reiterated by the President on several occasions and continually backed up by senior American military and diplomatic officials in public statements and in testimony before Congress. I think we all understood that promise. I think we all understood that promise to mean that our military men and women would be withdrawn from the region by December 1996, or at least very shortly thereafter. But in November 1996 the President announced that he would extend the U.S. mission for an additional 18 months, through June 1998, for participation in the NATO force now known as SFOR. Mr. President, despite this new acronym, SFOR really represents nothing more than an extension of the original IFOR mandate, albeit somewhat more limited in scope. Mr. President, I am afraid that there is still no clear end to our mission. The main factions in Bosnia are not making progress toward creating a viable nation that can survive without the presence of the international force. Although the IFOR and SFOR deployment has certainly halted the wide-scale fighting, there has been little progress on the political front. According to a May report by the General Accounting Office, the united governments Parliamentary Assembly has met just once and has yet to pass any legislation. The unified Council of Ministers has no authority, no funding, and no office space. So long as SFOR maintains an indefinite commitment to serve as referee in Bosnia, I don't think we can expect any movement by the three Bosnian factions to build the institutions that will be needed, once the NATO force pulls out. So unless we set a deadline for our involvement to end, Mr. President, I believe there will be little to no incentive for the three sides to create a lasting political solution to the conflict. Mr. President, Bosnia's problems are still immense. Authoritarian rulers from all sides are hampering democracy. Many refugees are still unable to turn to their homes, and acts of ethnic violence occur on a daily basis. In short, Mr. President, there will never be a good time to pull out of Bosnia. If we stay in Bosnia until the Croats and Serbs and Bosnians learn to live together, then we may never leave. At the heart of the conflict is the fact that the strategic political goals of the warring factions remain unchanged. There are many observers who believe that the presence of the U.S. troops alone, instead of helping in some way, actually serves to harden rather than soften ethnic tensions in the area. The longer the Muslim refugees are prevented from returning to their homes the more determined they are to fight for their right to do so. At the same time, the Serbs are thwarting resettlement efforts and ignoring indictments from the War Crimes Tribunal against their own leadership. I believe that the open- endedness of this mission is helping to keep the warring parties from truly fulfilling their commitments under the Dayton accord. Mr. President, I have a second concern, as well. It really is the crux of this amendment. It relates to the bill that the United States taxpayer is expected to bear to support this Bosnia operation. The Congress and the American people, Mr. President, were originally told the Bosnia mission would cost the U.S. taxpayers approximately $2 billion. Sometime in 1996 that estimate was revised to $3 billion. Then, subsequent to the President's November announcement extending the deadline for troop withdrawal, we learned that the cost estimate had been revised upward again, and really revised upward to a staggering $6.5 billion after the initial figure of $2 billion had been used. Six months later now, the May 1997 GAO report estimates this mission will cost $7.7 billion for military and civilian support for fiscal years 1996 through 1998. Mr. President, this latest figure is nearly four times as great as the administration's original estimate. To put this in perspective, the United States, over the course of 30 months in Bosnia, expects to spend an amount equivalent to over just half of the entire foreign operations budget for the current fiscal year for the whole world. Mr. President, as I said during the debate over the supplemental appropriations bill, what we now have with United States involvement in the Bosnia operation is not mission creep, it has become dollars creep for the U.S. Congress and for the American people. At the very time we are straining so hard to eliminate the Federal deficit, we need to plug up the ever-enlarging hole in the Treasury through which funds continue to pour into the Bosnia operation. Mr. President, by setting a hard date, by prohibiting the use of funds after June 30, 1998, my amendment establishes an end date for the deployment of ground troops in Bosnia. This is the only hope we have to plug this hole in the Treasury. Mr. President, by establishing an end date for the funding of the deployment of U.S. troops, my amendment, I hope, serves the dual purpose of preventing both mission creep and dollars creep in the Bosnia situation. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. I call up my amendment, Mr. President, No. 759, which is at the desk.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me also associate myself with the remarks by the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Virginia about the resolution that we just passed regarding Cambodia. Let me also say just how grateful I am, and I know all Members of this body are, for the extremely distinguished service of the Senators in that group in the war in Vietnam. Let me also associate myself with regard to the situation in Cambodia. I have placed my own brief statement in the Record with the hope that we can get back on the road to democracy and progress in Cambodia. I am honored to have been here to hear their remarks with regard to that issue. In that regard, Mr. President, and in regard to a current situation where American men and women are serving overseas in the Bosnia situation, I am prepared to offer an amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the editorial, ``Calling a Coup a Coup,'' argues that the United States and the international community should condemn Hun Sen's actions as a coup and halt aid to his government. Mr. President, I agree. I believe the administration should officially recognize Hun Sen's actions as a coup. This is the right policy. While nobody wants to increase the suffering of the Cambodian people, the United States cannot legitimize Hun Sen's actions by maintaining the current flow of aid and development assistance. As we all know, the United Nations spent over $2 billion in 1993 to bring peace and democracy to Cambodia. We made a large investment, but an important one. Now, even though this long-suffering nation appears to be slipping back into a civil war, we should not conclude that the efforts of the United States and the international community have been in vain. In 1993, Cambodia's citizens overwhelmingly rejected tyranny, and they will do so again. U.S. support for democracy, though, will seem shallow if we do not take action against the use of violence. Like the military dictators of Burma, the Hun Sen regime too should be subject to the toughest sanctions. The United States must do all it can to insure that Hun Sen does not become the next Cambodian dictator.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to condemn the coup that occurred in Cambodia this past Sunday. I want to put special emphasis on the word ``coup'' because the United States State Department has been reluctant to use this term to describe the events in Phnom Penh. The facts, however, leave no doubt. On Sunday, troops loyal to Hun Sen, Cambodia's second prime minister, attacked the forces of Prince Norodom Ranariddh, Cambodia's first prime minister and leader of the royalist party known as FUNCINPEC. According to news reports, Hun Sen's army is currently rounding up political opponents. Already, at least one senior royalist official has been executed. As an added insult to the Cambodian people, Hun Sen's forces have been looting shops in the capital. I am sure my colleagues will agree that Hun Sen's use of military force to oust his rivals and take sole control of Cambodia's government is, by definition, a coup d'etat. Hun Sen is a man who has always preferred the gun over the ballot. In 1993, his party was defeated by the royalists in the United Nations- sponsored elections. Nearly 90 percent of eligible voters participated in that historic event. Even though he lost the election, Hun Sen threatened to restart Cambodia's civil war unless he was named as a second prime minister alongside Prince Ranariddh. In an effort to avoid further bloodshed, the U.N. agreed to let the two factions govern together. After uneasily sharing power for 4 years, this clumsy coalition finally began to unravel this year. On March 30, 20 people were murdered in Phnom Penh when gunmen fired grenades into a peaceful opposition rally. Investigations have linked Hun Sen's troops to this cowardly attack. The political violence in Cambodia has only grown worse in the weeks since that tragic event. The only good news to emerge from Cambodia in recent weeks was the capture of Pol Pot, the genocidal leader of the Khmer Rouge. The ruler of Cambodia between 1975 and 1979, Pol Pot is responsible for the deaths of as many as one million people. This notorious war criminal was taken prisoner by Khmer Rouge defectors who indicated a willingess to turn him over to the government. Hun Sen's takeover, however, may jeopardize efforts to have Pol Pot brought to Phnom Pehn and eventually extradited to an international tribunal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the July 9 edition of the Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. It was just about 1 year ago, Mr. President, last June, when I stood here on the Senate floor with the senior Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, and others, and participated in a somewhat abbreviated debate on the need for meaningful, bipartisan campaign reform. We discussed several issues during that debate, Mr. President. We talked about the 1994 elections and the resulting record amount of campaign spending in that election. We had a chance to talk briefly about how one candidate for the U.S. Senate had spent $30 million of his own money to try and win a California Senate seat. We talked about how the average amount of money spent by a winning 1994 Senate candidate had, unfortunately, reached over $4.6 million. We talked about the damaging effect that the unabated flow of campaign cash had on our political system as well as on the public perceptions of this institution. In response to all of that, interestingly, we were told by opponents of reform that all was well, that spiraling campaign spending would somehow strengthen our democracy, and that our system was far from crying out for reform. And then, on a quiet Tuesday afternoon, after a few paltry hours of debate and absolutely no opportunity for Senators to offer amendments, the bipartisan McCain-Feingold reform bill fell six votes short of breaking a filibuster, and that was done effectively by the guardians of the status quo. That was a year ago, Mr. President. Although our opponents continue to proclaim that all is well and reform is not a priority, the evidence from the 1996 campaign stands in stark contrast to the declarations of those who are trying to defend the indefensible. Last year, according to the Washington Post, candidates and parties spent a record amount of money on Federal elections--$2.7 billion. Mr. President, $2.7 billion was spent on those elections, which is an all- time record. This record amount of campaign spending, I assume, is exactly what the opponents of reform, including the Speaker of the other body and the junior Senator from Kentucky had really hoped would happen. Recall Speaker Gingrich's words from the last Congress: One of the greatest myths in modern politics is that campaigns are too expensive. The political process, in fact, is not overfunded, but underfunded. My distinguished colleague from Kentucky, referring to the 1996 election said: I look on all that election activity as a healthy sign of a vibrant democracy. Well, Mr. President, back here on planet Earth, and back home in my State of Wisconsin, the American people have a very different view. They are disgusted by our current campaign finance system. They are appalled at the insane amount of money that is being spent on democratic elections. And not surprisingly, they told us how appalled they are by staying home in huge numbers last November. In fact, fewer Americans turned out to vote in 1996 than in any Presidential election year in the last 72 years. There are mountains of evidence demonstrating the failure of current election laws. Poll after poll demonstrates the mistrust and cynicism the public feels toward this institution as a result of large campaign contributions. The newspapers and nightly news programs are brimming with reports of election scandals, with charges and countercharges of abuse and illegality filling the headlines every day. Scores of candidates--including many current officeholders--are choosing not to run for office principally because of the millions of dollars needed for a campaign for the U.S. Senate. In fact, the theory that unlimited campaign spending produces competitive elections has been completely discredited, as the average margin of victory in Senate elections last year was 17 percent. Let me repeat that, Mr. President. Not only did 95 percent of incumbent Senators win reelection last November, most of these elections weren't even close. On average, 17 percentage points separated the winners from the losers. Mr. President, while Rome burns and our campaign finance system crumbles all around us, the junior Senator from Kentucky characterizes the chaos of the 1996 elections as a healthy sign of a vibrant democracy. Mr. President, as the U.S. Senate continues to duck and weave and dodge around the issue of campaign finance reform, the American people are becoming more and more convinced that we here in this body do not have the courage or the will to reform a system that has provided Members of this institution with a consistent reelection rate of well over 90 percent. As we all know, Mr. President, this week hearings will begin in the Governmental Affairs Committee on the abuses and possible illegalities that occurred in the last election. I can think of no better time for us to make a major step forward to fundamentally overhaul our failed election laws. Opponents of reform will surely assert that we should wait until the conclusion of these hearings before we consider reform legislation, so we can adequately identify the loopholes and the gaps and holes in our campaign finance system. But, Mr. President, in the last 10 years on this issue alone, we have had 15 reports by 6 different congressional committees, over 1,000 pages of committee reports, 29 sets of hearings, 49 days of testimony, over 6,700 pages of hearings, 522 witnesses, 446 different legislative proposals, more than 3,300 floor speeches, 76 CRS reports, 113 Senate votes, and 17 different filibusters. So I think it is safe to assume that we have probably reviewed this issue more than almost any other issue pending before this body. So, Mr. President, it is time now for serious consideration of reform legislation. I have joined with the senior Senator from Arizona, and others, in authoring the only comprehensive, bipartisan plan to be introduced in the Senate this year. Mr. President, we are very aware that this bill is not perfect. Some have voiced their concerns or objections about this or that provision, or have criticized the legislation for not addressing particular areas. As we have said--and I think as we have shown all along--this legislation is primarily a vehicle for reform, and we are more than willing to consider additions, deletions, or modifications to the package. We do have some bottom lines, though. First, we should have a full and robust debate on the issue, with all Senators having the opportunity both to debate the many complicated issues involved here and, also, to have the opportunity they didn't have last year to offer amendments. Second, it is imperative that any legislative vehicle ban on so- called party soft money. These are the monstrous, unlimited and unregulated contributions that have poured in from labor unions, corporations, and wealthy individuals to the political parties. It is these multihundred-thousand-dollar campaign contributions that were, more than anything else, at the root of the abuses and outrage stemming from the 1996 elections. Individuals and organizations certainly should have the opportunity to contribute to their parties with funds that can be used for Federal elections. But all of those funds, Mr. President, should be raised and spent within the scope and context of Federal election law. Finally, Mr. President, we must have provisions in this reform legislation that encourage candidates to spend less money on their campaigns and, if we can, to encourage them to raise most of their campaign funds from the people they intend to represent in their district or State. We have to provide candidates, and particularly challengers who have less access to large financial resources, with the tools and means to effectively convey their message, without having to raise and spend millions of dollars. Unless we take fundamental steps to change the 90 to 95 percent reelection rates for incumbents that are seemingly enshrined under current election laws, the American people will justifiably perceive such reform as little more than one more incumbent protection plan. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Arizona and I have waited quite patiently for the opportunity to have this historic debate. It is my hope that we can sit down with the majority leader in the coming days and begin the process of bringing such a meaningful discussion to the Senate floor in the next few weeks. I look forward to that discussion, and I hope that it will eventually lead to passage of bipartisan reform legislation that will result in what I like to call moderate, mutual disarmament. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise as an original cosponsor of the legislation being introduced today by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] to close the U.S. Army School of the Americas [SOA] located at Fort Benning, GA. SOA was created in 1946 to train Latin American military officers in combat and counterinsurgency skills, with the goal of professionalizing Latin American armies and strengthening democracies. Originally located in Panama, the SOA moved to Fort Benning in 1948. There has been a great deal of controversy surrounding the types of leaders that have graduated from the SOA, leading it to be called the School for Dictators. Some of SOA's graduates include Manuel Noriega, at least 19 Salvadorean officers implicated by El Salvador's Truth Commission in the murder of 6 Jesuit priests, and officers who participated in the coup against former Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide. In 1991, following an internal investigation, the Pentagon removed certain SOA training manuals from circulation. On September 22, 1996, the Pentagon released the full text of those training manuals and acknowledged that some of those manuals provided instruction in techniques that, in the Pentagon's words, were ``clearly objectionable and possibly illegal.'' The techniques in question included torture, extortion, false arrest, and execution. I and other Senators have written the Department of Defense several times to request additional disclosure of SOA policies, curriculums, training manuals and other materials so that the history of the school can be fully understood. The horrendous record of the SOA has inspired hundreds of Wisconsin residents to contact my office to express their support for closing this school. Numerous organizations, including Public Citizen, the Washington Office on Latin America and Human Rights Watch also support the elimination of SOA. As a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, I am committed to promoting human rights throughout the world. In my view, our Government cannot continue to support the existence of a school that counts so many murderers among its alumni. While I do not doubt that it can be in our national interest to conduct military training with our friends and partners, it is unexcusable that such military training should take place at an institution with the reputation of the School of the Americas. This bill gives Members of the Senate an opportunity to separate the legitimate training exercises conducted by the U.S. military from the sordid acts of many individuals who have been trained at SOA. We must lift the cloud of suspicion that has fallen on these programs by closing SOA once and for all. Not only are the human costs of this training program unjustifiable, but so are its monetary costs. With a national debt in excess of $5 trillion, every Federal program needs to be carefully scrutinized to ensure that Federal tax dollars are wisely spent. Given the end of the cold war, and in light of documents indicating the SOA training program provided instruction in techniques which violate human rights standards, I feel that the School of Americas is an unwise expenditure, and I support eliminating it as soon as possible.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise as an original cosponsor of the legislation being introduced today by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] to close the U.S. Army School of the Americas [SOA] located at Fort Benning, GA. SOA was created in 1946 to train Latin American military officers in combat and counterinsurgency skills, with the goal of professionalizing Latin American armies and strengthening democracies. Originally located in Panama, the SOA moved to Fort Benning in 1948. There has been a great deal of controversy surrounding the types of leaders that have graduated from the SOA, leading it to be called the School for Dictators. Some of SOA's graduates include Manuel Noriega, at least 19 Salvadorean officers implicated by El Salvador's Truth Commission in the murder of 6 Jesuit priests, and officers who participated in the coup against former Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide. In 1991, following an internal investigation, the Pentagon removed certain SOA training manuals from circulation. On September 22, 1996, the Pentagon released the full text of those training manuals and acknowledged that some of those manuals provided instruction in techniques that, in the Pentagon's words, were ``clearly objectionable and possibly illegal.'' The techniques in question included torture, extortion, false arrest, and execution. I and other Senators have written the Department of Defense several times to request additional disclosure of SOA policies, curriculums, training manuals and other materials so that the history of the school can be fully understood. The horrendous record of the SOA has inspired hundreds of Wisconsin residents to contact my office to express their support for closing this school. Numerous organizations, including Public Citizen, the Washington Office on Latin America and Human Rights Watch also support the elimination of SOA. As a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, I am committed to promoting human rights throughout the world. In my view, our Government cannot continue to support the existence of a school that counts so many murderers among its alumni. While I do not doubt that it can be in our national interest to conduct military training with our friends and partners, it is unexcusable that such military training should take place at an institution with the reputation of the School of the Americas. This bill gives Members of the Senate an opportunity to separate the legitimate training exercises conducted by the U.S. military from the sordid acts of many individuals who have been trained at SOA. We must lift the cloud of suspicion that has fallen on these programs by closing SOA once and for all. Not only are the human costs of this training program unjustifiable, but so are its monetary costs. With a national debt in excess of $5 trillion, every Federal program needs to be carefully scrutinized to ensure that Federal tax dollars are wisely spent. Given the end of the cold war, and in light of documents indicating the SOA training program provided instruction in techniques which violate human rights standards, I feel that the School of Americas is an unwise expenditure, and I support eliminating it as soon as possible.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I intend to vote against this tax bill. Although I voted for the budget resolution which was designed to bring us to a balanced budget within the next 5 years, I have consistently said that we should actually achieve a balanced budget, before enacting any sweeping new tax cuts. As attractive as new tax cuts may be, I think our first fiscal obligation is to eliminate the deficit. We shouldn't ask our children and grandchildren to foot the bill for our program spending or our tax cuts. Having said that, let me address several other issues. If we are going to have tax cuts before the budget is actually balanced, then we should focus on the kinds of cuts that at least have some potential to help enhance economic productivity and increase revenues--tax changes that arguably will increase income and resulting revenues will help move us toward a balanced budget. For these reasons, I have indicated that if we are to have tax cuts before the budget is in balance, we should limit them to changes that will stimulate economic growth. A number of my constituents have presented me with strong arguments that some reductions in the capital gains and estate taxes will enhance economic productivity and growth, and I have been willing to support capital gains and estate tax changes if crafted in ways that target the benefits so as to stimulate growth and economic activity. For Wisconsin, this means, in particular, that capital gains and estate tax changes should be targeted to help family farms and other smaller family businesses that are passed down from one generation to the next. Arguments for certain types of education tax cuts and child tax credits are not as persuasive. And they become less so when they are not available to those families who might most need such relief. If we are going to provide tax cuts to families with children, then we shouldn't exclude millions of working families with lower and moderate incomes. Over 565,000 kids in Wisconsin, nearly 40 percent, live in families that will not receive the tax credit. Altogether, as desirable as tax cuts might be, we need to keep our focus on balancing the budget first, then consider tax cuts. American families will benefit enormously by the Federal Government bringing down the deficit and achieving a balanced budget. Anything that diverts us from that course should be resisted until we have finished the job. Finally, if we must have tax cut legislation as part of the budget agreement, it ought to be both fiscally responsible and fair. This bill fails on both counts. The tax cut bill is heavily back-loaded. While costing $85 billion over the first 5 years, the plan will cost close to $60 billion annually once it is fully in place. That kind of exploding cost moves us away from a balanced budget, and puts us back on the track to rising deficits. It is ironic that those who shout the loudest about the need for a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution are among the biggest supporters of a tax bill that is nothing less than a budget buster. The tax plan also fails the test of fairness. A package of tax cuts, even one targeted toward economic development, need not be skewed to the wealthiest. Unfortunately, this measure is. According to the tax watchdog group Citizens for Tax Justice, over half the proposed tax cuts in the bill go to the top 5 percent of all taxpayers. And while the 40 percent of families with the lowest income receive no tax benefit, the top 1 percent receive an average benefit of nearly $16,000. Mr. President, let me emphasize my firm belief that our highest priority must be to balance our Federal budget before we cut taxes. We have come too far and worked too hard to bring our deficit down to jeopardize that effort with a fiscally irresponsible tax cut bill. I support the bipartisan balanced budget agreement negotiated by the congressional leadership and the White House, but this tax package is not consistent with the spirit of that agreement, and needlessly risks the progress we made in the reconciliation package we just passed.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment eliminates percentage depletion allowances for four mined substances--asbestos, lead, mercury, and uranium--and it saves an estimated $83 million over 5 years. Unlike depreciation or cost depletion, percentage depletion allows companies to deduct far more than their actual costs. This results in a generous loophole for the company and an expensive subsidy for the taxpayer. But it gets worse, Mr. President. While we spend millions subsidizing corporations to mine these toxic substances, we spend even more on their downstream public health and environmental consequences. So, as the senior Senator from Arkansas says, this subsidy gives corporate welfare a bad name. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this provision, and I yield the remainder of my time in deference to the Senator from Nevada.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to applaud today's U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down the Communications Decency Act as an unconstitutional restriction of free speech on the Internet, affirming the 1996 lower court decision. In striking down the provisions of the CDA, which effectively censors the speech of adults on the Internet, the Court stated ``We agree with the District Court's conclusion that the CDA places an unacceptably heavy burden on protected speech.'' The Court concluded that the CDA ``threatens to torch a large segment of the Internet community.'' Mr. President, this decision is a victory not only for Internet users, it is a victory for all Americans who hold the first amendment right to free speech among their most cherished rights. The Senator from Vermont [Senator Leahy] and I spoke in opposition to the CDA when it was first brought to the Senate floor in 1995 during consideration of the Telecommunications Act. The high court decision pointed out the many flaws of the CDA that the Senator from Vermont and I raised before the legislation was approved. Among other concerns, we pointed out that indecency restrictions which have been upheld when applied to other media, were unconstitutional when applied to the Internet due to its unique nature. We urged our colleagues to study the problem and the potential solutions more carefully before they rushed headlong to pass what we knew to be unconstitutional legislation. Ultimately, the CDA passed the Senate in June 1995 with only 2 hours of debate and no Congressional hearings. The lack of congressional consideration of the CDA's problems was among the reasons cited by the Court in its finding that the act violated the first amendment. In failing to carefully examine the problem, the Congress merely tied the CDA up in Court for over a year while getting no closer to its goal of protecting children on the Internet. Both the Supreme Court, and the lower court before it, conducted an exhaustive review of the nature of the Internet and of the technologies that exist to protect children and concluded that the CDA was an unconstitutional restriction on the free speech of adults that was not narrowly tailored to the goal of protecting kids on the Net. Specifically, Mr. President, the Supreme Court found that: Other laws restricting speech that have been upheld by the Supreme Court are substantially different from the CDA. Fundamentally, the Court determined that unlike other media that have been subject to some speech restrictions, the Internet receives full first amendment protection. Additionally, the Court pointed out that restrictions previously upheld by the High Court have been time, place and manner restrictions, rather than ``content-based blanket restriction on speech.'' Those differences bring into question the constitutionality of the CDA rather than confirming it. The characteristics of other media that have some speech restrictions, such as the scarcity of broadcast spectrum and the invasive nature of broadcast media, do not apply to the Internet. The combination of criminal penalties for violations and the vague nature of the ``indecency'' prohibition will chill speech on the Internet because speakers will not know which speech is prohibited and which is acceptable. The breadth of the indecency standard in the CDA is unprecedented. The CDA attempts to protect children by suppressing constitutionally protected speech of adults. This burden of speech is constitutionally unacceptable because less restrictive means of achieving the Government's goal are available. Mr. President, the Supreme Court correctly struck down the Communications Decency Act. While this decision precludes enforcement of the act, Congress should act quickly to repeal the CDA. It is time to conduct a thorough and thoughtful review of constitutional methods to protect children on the Internet from those who would seek to harm them. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to read today's Supreme Court decision striking down the Communications Decency Act and work toward more effective solutions to protect our kids.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I'm pleased that the Senate is turning its attention today to the Drug Free Communities Act. As a cosponsor of this legislation, I want to thank Senator Grassley for his leadership in developing the bill and the chairman for agreeing to move it through the committee expeditiously. This is an important bill for children and communities, and it deserves to be passed quickly and signed into law. The Drug Free Communities Act will provide needed support to local partnerships, which play an important role in helping children and teens to resist drugs. My State of Wisconsin currently has 132 such community-based partnerships--groups of parents, teachers, community and religious leaders, youth advocates, and others who come together to teach leadership skills and provide kids with alternative activities and opportunities. In Marshfield, WI, for instance, the Wood County Partnership Council has focused on activities to reduce drunk driving by teens. Programs sponsored by the council have included regional teen institutes, parent to parent workshops, and general prevention training of community members. In Milwaukee, Neighborhood Partners has developed grassroots neighborhood organizations which focus on preventing substance abuse and drug-related crime. These organizations have helped to establish neighborhood watch programs, after school tutorial programs, and block patrols. Two years after founding this partnership, the personal property crime rate in the targeted area fell by 16 percent, as compared with a Milwaukee-wide decrease of 12 percent. These are the sorts of programs that might apply for funding under the Drug Free Communities Act, in order to help support parents and other community volunteers reach more youths with their important messages. No new funds will be appropriated under H.R. 956. Instead, funding for qualifying local partnerships will be diverted from the existing $16 billion drug control budget. In order to ensure that the coalitions receiving these Federal dollars are sustainable, grants will be made available only to broad-based, local partnerships that have been active for at least 6 months, and are able to match their Federal awards dollar for dollar, with either cash or in-kind contributions. Supporting locally-based prevention initiatives is a critical piece of a comprehensive drug control strategy. The Judiciary Committee, on which I sit, spends a good deal of time addressing issues of crime that stem from youth and adult drug use. I'm pleased that today the Senate is focusing, in a bipartisan way, on preventing the root cause of so much crime, by supporting parents and localities in their efforts to prevent youth drug use.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like a rollcall vote.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, to answer the Senator's question, I appreciate his very positive political prognosis for me, and I hope he is right. I would rather not, after all the work I have done on this and all the work he has done on this, simply leave this issue to the hope that I or others in the future will have the time, the energy and the interest to focus on this particular matter. There are so many things we need to work on to cut the fat out of the Federal Government. It is incredible. We go home and tell people we finally passed a bipartisan balanced budget, and they look at us skeptically. The first thing I say to them is, ``Don't kid yourself, there is still an awful lot of fat in Washington, an incredible amount.'' The energy it takes to focus on this one particular piece and clean it up is very, very taxing. I can't simply hope that my own ability to pursue this will last forever. Let's face it, these radios have been there for 50 years. I know there are Members here who approach that kind of tenure, but for most of us, we have to try to set something up that we hope will last after we are gone. This is relevant to an interesting point that the Senator from Delaware was making where he eloquently outlined the past, the important role that Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty played during the cold war. But in so doing, he made an interesting comment about how things are different now. He said ``We have gone from cold war to chaos.'' I think that was well said. But the problem is that this new world that we are living in is much more complicated than it used to be, involving a lot of different forums for different ideologies, different constellations in power. But there are also different technologies, technologies that did not exist at the time the assumptions that the Senator from Delaware was speaking about were made. Things like the BBC, things like CNN, things like the Internet. That is not to say that radios do not have an important role, and perhaps a unique role, as you were indicating, in a number of these situations. But, Mr. President, it is a different world than the world that required us to set up Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty in the way that we did as a surrogate radio. Who is to say that we cannot at this point, without using Federal dollars, have our official Government broadcasting done by the Voice of America and then have these alternatives that we have described function as they are doing and didn't in the past, such as BBC, CNN and the Internet and then, yes, perhaps, and here I actually do not disagree with the Senator from Delaware, perhaps have a fully privatized Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, a fully privatized Radio Free Asia, and whatever else can be established, be a part of that combined effort to make sure that people who live under any kind of authoritarian government, such as China or any other type of government like that, whether Communist or not, would have the opportunity to get the information they need? Mr. President, what the Senator from Delaware has really pointed out by his excellent description is what I said from the beginning. This Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, as a Government-funded entity, not as an entity on its own, but as a Government-funded entity, based on the notion of a need for a surrogate, is a cold-war relic. The concept of the surrogate that is somehow a part of the Government but not really part of the Government is, in my view, a relic. It is a fact and important part of the history of the 20th century. It is not a guidepost for the 21st century. But the most important point is this. The Senator cleverly tries to take the argument as to whether or not I think radios are needed for freedom. I am not necessarily disputing that at all. Let's for the sake of argument agree that some kind of radios of this kind are a part of the constellation of services and technologies that are needed for freedom. The question here today is whether we need an independent, federally funded agency to get that job done, this sort of hybrid that claims to be independent but, obviously, isn't because it is funded by the taxpayers and the President of the United States appoints the board. This isn't independence. No one thinks it is independence, although, yes, as the Senator from Delaware points out, perhaps during the heart of the cold war, in that context at that time, there may have been this mythical distinction which I question just how many people actually believe. So the question here isn't do we need the radios--let's concede that for the moment--the question is, do we need a new independent agency to run the radios when the Senator himself just said this whole thing is supposed to be completely privatized by 1999 anyway. How important can it be to have an independent agency to do this funded by the Federal Government when he himself just said we are going to privatize the whole thing by 1999? What it comes down to is this. The Senator from Delaware has given a great speech, a very accurate speech, but it is most appropriately a speech given to people in this country who have a lot of money, who want to privatize and pay for a privatized Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. That is to whom these words should be spoken, people like Steve Forbes who would be able to put in this kind of money and is interested in it. That is who should hear the plea, not the U.S. taxpayers who have paid enough already in this area. Let's just review the facts about independence and lack of independence. Fact: The Board for International Broadcasting was an independent agency, and during its tenure as an independent agency, there were horrible revelations of fiscal abuse. That is the fact. The Senator from Delaware says, what would you rather have, an agency that stands out there alone or one that is in the State Department? The fact is, when the Board for International Broadcasting stood alone, that is when the huge abuses, the $200,000 and $300,000 salaries paid by the American taxpayers, occurred, when it was independent. Fact No. 2: That there has been a time period when this board was not independent, when, under our agreement, it went under the United States Information Agency. And what happened during that tenure when it was not independent, when it was supervised, when it did have to submit its budget to the head of USIA? What happened is we achieved these things, we achieved these efficiencies. That is when it happened. So I will go with the same test the Senator from Delaware has suggested: When it was on its own, it failed and was abusive; when it has been under the supervision of another agency that is dedicated to controlling it, it has been under control. We cannot simply create a new pleader here in the form of a new Federal agency. It will need its own staff and personnel. The Senator from Delaware says it won't be required to, but it is allowed to. I simply cannot understand how any of us believe after the record of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty under the Board for International Broadcasting, that letting it be free--subject only to appointment and confirmation hearings--that somehow that will lead to a better situation. That is the history, two different scenarios: the record, when it was independent, which is one of terrible fiscal abuse, and the record since it was put under another department under the USIA, which everyone has conceded has been much better. Mr. President, I strongly suggest we should avoid this step of creating a new Federal agency. I yield the floor. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield for a question.