Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I rise today to join with my colleague from Arizona [Mr. McCain] in introducing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. I want to acknowledge the Democratic and Republican Senators who have agreed to join myself and the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] as original co-sponsors in introducing this historic legislation. Those co-sponsors include the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Thompson], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], the Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], the Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun], the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Cleland], the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Johnson] and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin]. I think it is clear Mr. President, that the few remaining pillars holding up our crumbling election system finally collapsed. According to the latest figures provided by the Federal Election Commission, congressional candidates spent a total of $742 million in the 1996 elections, a noticeable increase over the 1994 levels despite the absence of a single Senate contest in any of the largest States including California, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, or Ohio. And that $742 million figure does not even include the record amounts of so-called ``soft money'' contributions raised and spent by the national political parties in the last election cycle. Every campaign year we are hit with these astonishing spending figures and every year we acknowledge that a new record has been set. And just when the spending and abuses seem like they cannot get any worse, they do. Last November, our campaign finance system lurched out of control, filling the headlines and airwaves with charges and countercharges about which candidates and parties were abusing our laws and loopholes the worst. Another cadre of millionaires spent vast sums of personal wealth on their campaigns, 94 percent of House and Senate challengers lost their election bids, and the smallest percentage of Americans went to the ballot box in 72 years. Coupled with the continued need to reduce the Federal budget deficit, there may be no more fundamentally important issue than the need to pass meaningful reform of our campaign finance system. The bill we are introducing today has several components, but is centered primarily on what I believe are the two cornerstones of reform. The first cornerstone is the creation of a voluntary system that offers qualified candidates an opportunity to participate in the electoral process without being compelled to raise and spend outrageous sums of money. This voluntary system merely says to candidates that if you agree to follow a set of ground rules, we will provide you with the tools that will not only reduce the high costs associated with campaigning, but at the same time enhance your ability to sufficiently convey your message to the voters of your State. What are those ground rules and benefits, Mr. President. First, candidates who elect to voluntarily participate in the system must agree to limit the overall amount of money they spend on their campaigns. This spending cap is based on the voting-age population in each State. For example, in my State of Wisconsin the primary spending limit would be about $1 million while the general election cap would be about $1.5 million. In a larger State such as New York, the primary limit would be about $2.7 million while the general election limit would be about $4 million. The second rule candidates must follow is to limit how much of their personal wealth they contribute to their campaigns. Again, this would be based on the size of each State. In Wisconsin, it would be about $150,000 and in no State would it be higher than $250,000. Finally, candidates must agree to raise 60 percent of their contributions from individuals within their home States. This rule is grounded in our belief that anyone wishing to receive the benefits of the bill should be able to demonstrate a strong base of support from the people they intend to represent. Moreover, candidates and officeholders will be compelled to focus their campaign and fundraising activities on the people who matter most --the voters back home. If candidates elect to participate in the system and follow these simple ground rules, they are entitled to certain benefits. The first benefit is a postage discount. Eligible candidates would be given a special postage rate, currently only available to non-profit organizations and political parties, for a number of mailings equal to two times the voting-age population of the candidate's State. Second, the bill provides each eligible candidate with up to 30 minutes of free television advertising time from the broadcast stations in the candidate's State and any adjoining States. Third, and most importantly, the bill offers eligible candidates a 50-percent discount off of the lowest unit rate for their television advertising 60 days before their general election and 30 days before the primary. Current law merely provides Federal candidates with the lowest unit rate--our bill would cut the costs of television advertising for eligible candidates almost in half. That, Mr. President, is the first foundation of meaningful reform, creating a voluntary system--purely voluntary--that provides candidates who agree to limit their campaign spending with the means to convey their ideas and message to the voters and also significantly reduce their campaign costs, therefore reducing the need to raise millions and millions of dollars. The second foundation of reform is to ban so-called ``soft money,'' those contributions to the national parties from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals that are unlimited and unregulated by federal election law and yet are funneled into federal campaigns around the country. It was soft money, Mr. President, that garnered so much outrage in the last election. To illustrate how expansive of a loophole soft money has become, consider how much of this unregulated money the national parties have raised over the last two election cycles in which we had a presidential election. In 1992, the Republican National Committee raised $50 million in soft money while the Democratic National Committee raised $36 million. In 1996, the RNC raised $141 million while the DNC raised $122 million. Overall, soft money contributions to the two parties went from $86 million in 1992 to $263 million in 1996. That is a staggering increase. In the wake of the countless media reports documenting this abuse, Americans were left wondering why an individual who is limited to contributing $1,000 to a federal candidate by federal election law is somehow able to contribute $100,000 or $1 million to the Democratic or Republican National Committees. They want to understand why labor unions and corporations, which are prohibited by law from using their treasury funds to make contributions or expenditures to advocate for or against a federal candidate, are able to funnel millions and millions of their treasury dollars directly into the two national parties and indirectly into various House and Senate elections. Clearly, a ban on soft money contributions to the political parties must be a part of a serious reform proposal. The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on the constitutionality of limiting campaign contributions from individuals and organizations. They have upheld the statutes barring corporate and labor union direct contributions. They have upheld the statute limiting individuals to contributing $1,000 to federal candidates per election and $20,000 to national parties per year. And yet the soft money loophole has allowed interested parties to blow these limits away, leaving the average citizen who wishes to contribute $25 to their local congressman wondering just how much of a voice they have in the electoral process. The McCain-Feingold proposal simply bans all soft money contributions to the national parties. Individuals can still contribute to the national parties, but they will have to abide by the current law $20,000 ``hard money'' limit. Corporations and labor unions will also be able to contribute to the national parties, but they too will have to follow the ``hard money'' limits. That means they will have to contribute through their separate segregate funds, also known as PAC's, rather than using their general treasury funds, and their contributions to the national parties will be limited to $15,000 per party committee per year. We heard considerable debate in the last election about foreign money--both coming from foreign nationals oversees, which is clearly illegal, and from noncitizens residing in the United States, which is not. This is a problem and we have a new provision in our legislation to address this abuse. But I have always said that the problem is whether anyone should be permitted to contribute $400,000 in our election system, whether it is from Jakarta or Janesville, WI. And the soft money ban in our legislation will prohibit any future such contributions, regardless of their source. The legislation includes a new proposal that bars anyone who is not eligible to vote in a federal election from contributing to a federal candidate. This will affect noncitizens, minors under 18 years of age and certain convicted felons. Simply put, if our laws and Constitution do not allow an individual to participate in the political process with their ballot, there is no reason the same individual should be permitted to participate with their checkbook. The McCain-Feingold bill includes a number of other important provisions as well. For example, we propose a new definition of what constitutes ``express advocacy'' in a federal election. ``Express advocacy'' is the standard used to determine to what extent election activities may be limited and regulated. If a particular activity, such as an independent expenditure, is deemed to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a particular federal candidate, then that activity must be paid for with fully disclosed and limited ``hard money'' dollars. Labor unions, corporations and other political organizations would have to fund such activities through a PAC, comprised of voluntary, limited and disclosed contributions. If on the other hand, an expenditure is used for an activity that does not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a particular candidate, such as a television ad that attempts to raise important issues without advocating a candidate, then that expenditure may be funded with ``soft money'' dollars--undisclosed and unlimited monies, such as corporation's profits or a labor union's member dues. Unquestionably, the largest abuse in recent elections is the use of non-party soft money to fund huge electioneering activities under the guise that there is an absence of express advocacy. Current FEC regulations defining express advocacy are so weak that these organizations are able to channel unlimited resources into activities that are thinly veiled as ``voter education'' or ``issue ads'' when in truth they seek to directly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate. These activities, outside the scope of federal election law, have come to dominate many House and Senate campaigns. And while political parties and outside organizations have poured unlimited resources into these ``issue ads,'' candidates have found their role in their own elections shockingly diminished. If we are to have any control of our election process, we must have a clear standard in the law that defines what sort of activities are an attempt to influence the outcome of a federal election. The McCain-Feingold proposal includes a new definition of what constitutes ``express advocacy.'' Under this proposal, the definition of ``express advocacy'' will include any general public communication that advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for federal office by using such expressions as ``vote for'', ``support'' or ``defeat''. Further, any disbursement aggregating $10,000 or more for a communication that is made within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election shall be considered express advocacy if the communication refers to a clearly identified candidate and a reasonable person would understand it as advocating the election or defeat of that candidate. If such a communication is made outside of the 30 day period before the primary election or the 60 day period before the general election, it shall be considered express advocacy if the communication is made with the purpose of advocating the election or defeat of a candidate as shown by one or more factors including a statement or action by the person making the communication, the targeting or placement of the communication, or the use by the person making the communication of polling or other similar data relating to the candidate's campaign or election. This will ensure that a much larger proportion of the expenditures made by political parties and independent organizations with the intent to influence the outcome of a federal election will be covered by federal law and subject to the appropriate restrictions and disclosure requirements. The McCain-Feingold proposal will also protect candidates who are targeted by independent expenditures. First, the legislation requires groups who fund independent expenditures to immediately disclose those expenditures. The FEC would then be required to transmit a copy of that report to any candidate who has agreed to limit their spending and has been targeted by such an expenditure. This will give candidates advance notice that they have been targeted. The legislation also allows candidates to respond to such expenditures without these ``response expenditures'' counting against their overall spending limit. This will ensure that targeted candidates are not bound by the spending caps and unable to respond. And finally, the bill tightens statutory language to ensure that independent expenditures made by political parties are truly independent and not coordinated with campaigns in any way. The legislation also includes a ban on Political Action Committee [PAC] contributions to federal candidates. In case such a ban is held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the legislation includes a ``back-up'' provision that lowers the PAC contribution limit from $5,000 to $1,000 and limits Senate candidates to accepting no more than 20% of the applicable overall spending limit in aggregate PAC contributions. The bipartisan bill is further helpful to challengers in that it prohibits Senators from sending out taxpayer-financed, unsolicited franked mass mailings in the calendar year of an election. Often, these mass mailings are thinly disguised ``newsletters'' that help to bolster an incumbent's name recognition and inform constituents of their accomplishments. Such unsolicited activity by officeholders can be unfair in an election year. The final major piece of this reform effort is our enhanced enforcement provisions. There is legitimate criticism that our federal election laws are not adequately enforced, and much of this problem can be directly attributed to Congress' unwillingness to provide adequate funding to what is supposed to be the government's watchdog agency, the Federal Election Commission. Regardless, there are reforms we can pass that will allow the FEC to better enforce the current laws we have on the books as well as the new laws enacted as part of this legislation. First and foremost is a provision that will require all federal campaigns to file their disclosure reports with the FEC electronically. Currently, this is optional and the result is a disclosure system that is marginally reliable. We need a disclosure system that is readily accessible to the public and will allow the American people to know where from and to whom the money is flowing. The bill also requires candidates to disclose the name and address of every contributor who gives more than $50 to a candidate. Currently, that threshold is only for contributions over $200 and the result is millions of dollars of undisclosed contributor information. Second, we allow the FEC to conduct random audits of campaigns. This will provide a mechanism to make sure candidates are complying with all of the limitations and restrictions in federal election law. The bill toughens penalties for ``knowing and willful'' violations of the law. If such a standard is met, the FEC is permitted to triple the amount of the civil penalty. We must send a message to candidates and campaigns that deliberate attempts to evade the law will be met with serious penalties. Mr. President, the support the McCain-Feingold proposal garnered last year was bipartisan and broad based. It was strongly supported by President Clinton, who first endorsed the McCain-Feingold proposal in his State of the Union Address almost one year ago and has recently reaffirmed his strong commitment to the legislation this year. It was endorsed by Ross Perot, Common Cause, Public Citizen, United We Stand America, the American Association of Retired Persons and some 30 other grassroots organizations. It received editorial support from over 60 newspapers nationwide. This legislation is also bicameral. Republican Representative Chris Shays, Democratic Representative Marty Meehan and a number of others will soon be introducing a House version of the McCain-Feingold proposal in the 105th Congress. Recently, the Wall Street Journal conducted a poll on this issue. They found that 92 percent of the American people believe we spend too much money on political campaigns. This is consistent with numerous other polls that have found similar results. Coupled with the troubling fact that the smallest percentage of Americans went to the ballot box in 72 years, it is clear that the American people want meaningful reform of our electoral process. It is also clear that they want less polarization in the Congress, and for Democrats and Republicans to work together and find effective solutions to our common problems. For years, campaign finance reform has stalled because of the inability of the two parties to join together and craft a reform proposal that was fair to both sides. We believed we have bridged those differences, and produced a proposal that calls for mutual disarmament and will lead to fair and competitive elections. It is my hope that the distinguished majority leader will recognize how important this issue is to the American people and our democratic system and will allow this legislation to be considered in the coming weeks. I want to thank my friend from Arizona [Mr. McCain] for his dedication to this issue.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Civil Rights Procedures Protection Act of 1997. The 105th Congress will mark the third successive Congress that I have introduced this legislation. Very simply Mr. President, this legislation addresses the rapidly growing and, in my opinion, troubling practice of employers conditioning employment or professional advancement upon their employees willingness to submit claims of discrimination or harassment to arbitration, rather than pursuing them in the courts. In other words, employees raising claims of harassment or discrimination by their employers must submit the adjudication of those claims to arbitration, irrespective of what other remedies may exist under the laws of this Nation. To address the growing incidents of compulsory arbitration, the Civil Rights Procedures Protection Act of 1997 amends seven civil rights statutes to ensure that those statutes remain effective when claims of this nature arise. Specifically, this legislation affects claims raised under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 1977 of the Revised Statutes, the Equal Pay Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In the context of the Federal Arbitration Act, the protections of this legislation are extended to claims of unlawful discrimination arising under State or local law and other Federal laws that prohibit job discrimination. Mr. President, I want to be clear that this legislation is in no way intended to bar the use of arbitration, conciliation, mediation or any other form of adjudication short of litigation in resolving these claims. I have long been and will continue to be a strong supporter of ``voluntary'' forms of alternative dispute resolution. The key, however, is that the practices targeted by this bill are not voluntary. Rather they are imposed upon working men and women and are mandatory. Furthermore, the ability to be promoted, or in some cases, to be hired in the first place, is often conditioned upon the employee accepting this type of mandatory arbitration. Mandatory arbitration allows employers to tell all current and prospective employees in effect, `if you want to work for us, you will have to check your rights as a working American citizen at the door.' In short, working men and women all across this country are faced with the tenuous choice of either accepting these mandatory limitations on their right to redress in the face of discrimination or placing at risk employment opportunities or professional advancement. These requirements have been referred to recently as ``front door'' contracts; that is, they require an employee to surrender certain rights up front in order to ``get in the front door.'' As a nation which values work as well as deplores discrimination, we should not allow this situation to continue. As I noted Mr. President, today marks the third successive Congress in which this important legislation has been introduced. Given that much of the rhetoric coming out of Washington and this body in recent months, certainly during the most recent elections, dealt with helping working families, it is my hope that this legislation will receive consideration in the coming months. The practice of mandatory arbitration should be stopped now--if people are being discriminated against, they should retain all avenues of redress provided for in the laws of this Nation. This bill will help restore integrity in relations between hard working employees and their employers, but more importantly, it will ensure that the civil rights laws which we pass, will continue to protect all Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that a newspaper article from the September 24, 1996 edition of the Boston Globe, entitled, ``A cautionary tale about signing away right to sue,'' be placed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation for myself and Senator Kohl, which we offered during the 103d and 104th Congress to terminate the Extremely Low Frequency Communications System, located in Clam Lake, WI, and Republic, MI. This project has been opposed by residents of Wisconsin since its inception, but for years we were told that the national security considerations of the cold war outweighed our concerns about this installation in our State. As we continue our efforts to reduce the Federal budget deficit and as the Department of Defense continues to struggle to meet a tighter budget, it is clear that Project ELF should be closed down. If enacted, my legislation would save $9 to $20 million a year. Project ELF was developed in the late 1970's as an added protection against the Soviet naval nuclear deployment. It is an electromagnetic messenger system--otherwise known as a bell ringer--used primarily to tell a deeply submerged Trident submarine that it needs to surface to retrieve a message. Because it communicates through very primitive pulses, called phonetic-letter-spelled-out [PLSO] messages, ELF's radiowaves transmit very limited messages. With the end of the cold war, Project ELF becomes harder and harder to justify. Trident submarines no longer need to take that extra precaution against Soviet nuclear forces. They can now surface on a regular basis with less danger of detection or attack. They can also receive more complicated messages through very low frequency [VLF] radiowaves or lengthier messages through satellite systems, if it can be done more cheaply. Not only do Wisconsinites think the mission of Project ELF is unnecessary and anachronistic, but they are also concerned about possible environmental and public health hazards associated with it. While I have heard some ELF supporters say there is no apparent environmental impact of Project ELF, we can only conclude that we do not know that--in fact, we do not know much about its impact at all. The Navy itself had yet to conclude definitively that operating Project ELF is safe for the residents living near the site. It you are a resident in Clam Lake, that is unsettling information. For example, in 1992, a Swedish study found that children exposed to relatively weak magnetic fields from powerlines develop leukemia at almost four times the expected rate. We also know that in 1984, a U.S. district court ruling on State of Wisconsin versus Weinberger ordered Project ELF to be shut down because the Navy paid inadequate attention to the system's possible health effects and violated the National Environmental Policy Act. That decision was overturned on appeal, however, in a ruling that claimed national security interests at the time prevailed over environmental concerns. More recent studies of the impact of electromagnetic fields in general still leave unanswered questions and concerns. During the 103d Congress, I worked with the Senator from Georgia, Senator Nunn to include an amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994 requiring a report by the Secretary of Defense on the benefits and costs of continued operation of Project ELF. The report issued by DOD was particularly disappointing because it basically argued that because Project ELF may have a purpose during the cold war, it should continue to operate after the cold war as part of the complete complement of command and control links configured for the cold war. Did Project ELF play a role in helping to minimize the Soviet threat? Perhaps. Did it do so at risk to the community? Perhaps. Does it continue to play a vital security role to the Nation? No. Most of us in Wisconsin don't want it anymore. Many of my constituents have opposed Project ELF since its inception. Congressman David Obey has consistently sought to terminate Project ELF, and in fact, we have him to thank in part for getting ELF scaled down from the large-scale project first conceived by the Carter administration. I look forward to continue working with him on this issue in the 105th Congress. As we take up the budget for fiscal year 1998, the Department of Defense and the Armed Services Committee will again be searching for programs that have outlived their intended purpose. I hope they will seriously consider zeroing out the ELF transmitter system, as I propose in this bill, and save the taxpayers $9 to $20 million a year. Given both its apparently diminished strategic value and potential environmental and public health hazards, Project ELF is a perfect target for termination. 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 introduce legislation today to eliminate the current mandate on States to place liens on the homes and estates of older Medicaid beneficiaries receiving home and community-based long-term care services, and to provide more than adequate funding for that change by establishing a certificate of need process to regulate the growth of federally funded nursing home beds. This legislation modifies the estate recovery provisions of OBRA 93 to clarify that States may pursue recovery of the cost of Medicaid home and community-based long-term care services from the estate of beneficiaries, but that States are not required to do so. Mr. President, slowing the growth of rising Medicaid costs is central to easing pressure on both Federal and State budgets, and addressing the long-term care portion of those Medicaid budgets is a key to containing those costs. Meaningful reform of our long-term care system is the ultimate solution to this problem, and I will introduce long- term care reform legislation in the near future that will outline the path we need to follow--helping States provide flexible, consumer- oriented and consumer-directed home and community-based long-term care services. In the meantime, however, we can take a few important steps down the path toward long-term care reform by repealing the cumbersome mandate on States that they recover the cost of some services by imposing liens on the homes and estates of seniors using home and community-based long-term care services. Mr. President, in the past, States have had the option of recovering payments for those services from the estates of beneficiaries, but in some cases, at least, have chosen not to do so. In Wisconsin, estate recovery for home and community-based long-term care services was implemented briefly in 1991, but was terminated because of the significant problems experienced with the home and Medicaid waiver programs. Many cases were documented where individuals needing long- term care refused community-based care because of their fear of estate recovery or the placement of a lien on their homes. One case in southwestern Wisconsin involved an older woman who was suffering from congestive heart failure, phlebitis, severe arthritis, and who had difficulty just being able to move. She was being screened for the Medicaid version of Wisconsin's model home and community-based long-term care program, the Community Options Program, when the caseworker told her of the new law, and that a lien would be put on the estate of the program's clients. The caseworker reported that the older woman began to sob, and told the caseworker that she had worked hard all her life and paid taxes and could not understand why the things she had worked for so hard would be taken from her family after her death. When asked if she would like to receive services, the client refused. As frail as this client was, the social worker noted that she preferred to chance being on her own rather than endanger her meager estate by using Medicaid funded services. In northeastern Wisconsin, a 96-year-old woman was being care for by her 73-year-old widowed daughter in their home. The family was receiving some Medicaid long-term care services, including respite services for the elderly caregiver daughter, but the family discontinued all services when they heard of the new law because the older daughter needed to count on the home for security in her own old age. A 72-year-old man, who had 4 by-pass surgeries and was paralyzed on one side, and his 66-year-old wife, who had 3 by-pass surgeries and rheumatoid arthritis, both needed some assistance to be able to live together at home. But when Medicaid was suggested, they refused because of the new law. Mr. President, these examples are not unusual. Nor were many of the individuals and families who refused help protecting vast estates. For many, the estates being put at risk were modest at best. A couple in the Green Bay area of Wisconsin who lived in a mobile home and had less than $20,000 in life savings told the local benefit specialist that they would refuse Medicaid funded services rather than risk not leaving their small estate to their family members. Leaving even a small bequest to a loved-one is a fundamental and deeply felt need of many seniors. Even the most modest home can represent a lifetime's work, and many are willing to forego medical care they know they need to be able to leave a small legacy. Mr. President, while the vision of this mandate on States from inside the Washington beltway may appear simple, the estate recovery requirements are not so simple for program administrators. States, counties, and nonprofit agencies, administrators of Medicaid services, are ill- equipped to be real estate agents. Further, divestment concerns in the Medicaid Program, already a problem, could continue to grow as pressure to utilize existing loopholes increases with estate recovery mandated in this way. Worse, as the Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups has pointed out, children who feel ``entitled to inheritance'' might force transfers, constituting elder abuse in some cases. Too, Mr. President, there is a very real question of age discrimination with the estate recovery provisions of OBRA 93. Only individuals over age 55 are subject to estate recovery. Such age-based distinctions border on age discrimination and ought to be minimized. Mr. President, because I am committed to reducing the deficit and balancing the budget, I firmly believe we must find offsetting spending cuts to fully fund legislative proposals, even when we might disagree with the cost estimates for those proposals. For that reason, I have included provisions in this measure that have been scored by the Congressional Budget Office to more than offset the officially estimated loss in savings from the estate recovery mandate. Nevertheless, while this bill includes offsetting cuts to fund the proposed change, I also believe that the savings ascribed to the existing mandate are questionable. Prior to enacting estate recovery in Wisconsin, officials estimated $13.4 million a year could be recovered by the liens. Real collections fell far short. For fiscal year 1992, the State only realized a reported $1 million in collections. And for the period of January to July of 1993, even after officials lowered their estimates, only $2.2 million was realized of an expected $3.8 million in collections. In addition to lower than expected collections, the refusal to accept home and community-based long-term care because of the prospect of a lien on the estate could lead to the earlier and more costly need for institutional care. Such a result would not only undercut the questionable savings from the program, but would be directly contrary to the Medicaid home and community-based waiver program,which is intended precisely to keep people out of institutions and in their own homes and communities. The brief experience we had in Wisconsin led the State to limit estate recovery to nursing home care and related services, where, as a practical matter, the potential for estate recovery and liens on homes are much less of a barrier to services. Indeed, just as we should provide financial incentives to individuals to use more cost-effective care, so too should we consider financial disincentives for more costly alternatives. A recent study in Wisconsin showed that two Medicaid waiver programs saved $17.6 million in 1992 by providing home and community-based alternatives to institutional care. In that context, retaining the more expansive institutional care alternatives in the estate recovery mandate makes good sense, and my legislation would not change that portion of the law. But it does not make sense to jeopardize a program that has produced many more times the savings in lowered institutional costs than even the overly optimistic estimates suggest could be recovered from the estates of those receiving home and community-based long-term care. All in all, the estate recovery provisions of OBRA 93 are likely to produce more expensive utilization of Medicaid services, may cause an administrative nightmare for State and local government, could aggravate the divestment problem, may result in increased elder abuse, and could well constitute age discrimination. Though many long-term care experts maintain that mandating estate recovery for home and community-based long-term care services will only lead to increased utilization of more expensive institutional alternatives, and thus increased cost to Federal taxpayers, the CBO estimated a revenue loss of $20 million in the first year and $260 million over 5 years for this proposal. As I noted above, it is important to act responsibly to fund that formal cost estimate with offsetting spending cuts. The additional savings I firmly believe will be generated beyond the scored amounts would then help reduce our Federal budget deficit. This measure includes a provision that more than offsets the official scored revenue loss from eliminating the estate recovery mandate. That provision regulates the growth in the number of nursing home beds eligible for Federal funding through Medicaid, Medicare, or other Federal programs by requiring providers to obtain a certificate of need [CON] to operate additional beds. For any specified area, States would issue a CON only if the ratio of the number of nursing home beds to the population that is likely to need them falls below guidelines set by the State and subject to Federal approval. This approach allows new nursing home beds to operate where there is a demonstrated need, while limiting the potential burden on the taxpayer where no such need has been established. CBO has estimated that the proposed regulation of nursing home bed growth would generate savings of $35 million in the first year, and $625 million over 5 years, more than offsetting the CBO estimates for removing the State mandate on estate recoveries sought in this bill. The net fiscal effect of this proposal would be to generate about $15 million in savings in the first year, and $365 million over 5 years. Slowing the growth of nursing home beds is critical to reforming the current long-term care system. In Wisconsin, limiting nursing home bed growth has been part of the success of the long-term care reforms initiated in the early 1980's. While the rest of the country experienced a 46-percent increase in Medicaid nursing home bed use between 1980 and 1993, Wisconsin saw Medicaid nursing home bed use decline by 15 percent. The certificate of need provision is far more modest than the absolute cap on nursing home beds adopted in Wisconsin, and recognizes that there needs to be some flexibility to recognize the differences of long-term care services among States. It is also consistent with the kind of long-term care reform I will be proposing as separate legislation. Certainly, our ability to reform long-term care will depend not only on establishing a consumer-oriented, consumer-directed home and community-based services that are available to the severely disabled of all ages, but also on establishing a more balanced and cost-effective allocation of public support of long-term care services by eliminating the current bias toward institutional care. Mr. President, taken together, the change in the estate recovery provisions and the slowing of nursing home bed growth, these two provisions will help shift the current distorted Federal long-term care policy away from the institutional bias that currently exists and toward a more balanced approach that emphasizes home and community- based services. That is the direction that we will need to take if we are to achieve significant long-term care reform. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the proposed Senate Campaign Financing and Spending Reform Act of 1997, legislation that would provide public financing for Senate elections. The need for comprehensive campaign finance reform is unquestionable. Each election year continues to set new records for campaign spending by federal candidates, with 1996 campaign expenditures expected to surpass $1.6 billion. This explosion in campaign spending has alienated the American people from the election process, discouraged thousands of qualified yet underfunded candidates from seeking public office, and heightened public disgust with the ways of Washington to levels not seen since the dark days of Watergate. I have long believed that we need to sever the nexus between money and politics, and end as a prerequisite for elected office a candidate's ability to raise and spend millions of dollars. The most straight forward way to achieve that result is through a system of public financing. The legislation I am introducing today, which I also introduced at the outset of the 104th Congress, would provide qualified candidates with the means to run a credible, competitive and issue-based campaign without having to raise the average $5 million it takes to win a Senate election. This bill will establish voluntary spending limits based on each state's individual voting age population. With the cooperation of the candidates, this will finally curtail the skyrocketing spending that has plagued political campaigns in recent years. Just as important, these spending limits will allow members of Congress to focus on their duties and responsibilities as elected officials rather than spending substantial amounts of time raising money. For those candidates that do abide by the spending limits, there will be matching funds in the primary election for contributions under $250, once a candidate has raised 15 percent of that state's spending limit in contributions of $250 or less, half of which must come from within the candidate's state. There will be a 100 percent match for contributions under $100, and a 50 percent match for contributions between $101 and $250. These provisions, along with only providing matching funds for in- state contributions, will encourage candidates to focus on smaller contributions from their home states. I believe this focus upon raising money within our home states is critical. General election candidates will become eligible for public financing benefits equal to the general election spending limit for their state. In addition to agreeing to limit their overall campaign spending, candidates who receive the public benefits must agree to not spend more than $25,000 of their own money. Opponents of campaign finance reform have often suggested that voluntary spending limits are unconstitutional. That is unfounded. In fact, in the landmark Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo, the Court noted that ``Congress may engage in public financing of election campaigns and may condition acceptance of public funds on an agreement by the candidate to abide by specified expenditure limitations. Just as a candidate may voluntarily limit the size of the contributions he chooses to accept, he may decide to forego private fundraising and accept public funding.'' The legislation also bans so-called ``soft money'' that has allowed corporations, labor unions, and wealth individuals to contribute unlimited funds, up to millions of dollars, to the political parties outside the scope of Federal election law. The legislation restricts Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions to Federal candidates, prohibits lawmakers from sending out franked mass mailings during the calendar year of an election, bars lobbyists from contributing to elected officials they have lobbied in a 12-month period, and codifies a recent ruling by the Federal Election Commission that bars candidates from using campaign funds for personal purposes, such as mortgage payments, country club memberships, and vacations. Public financing of campaigns will give challengers a legitimate opportunity to run a competitive campaign, will allow incumbents to focus on their legislative responsibilities, and will help to extinguish public perceptions that the United States Congress is under the control of the Washington special interests. Public support for this sort of reform is strong. According to a recent poll by the Mellman Group, 59 percent of the American people-- the highest level since Watergate--support full public financing for congressional campaigns. Just 29 percent of the American people oppose this proposal. The Mellman Group even found two out of every three self-described Republicans supported public financing. A Gallup poll found similar results, finding 64 percent overall support for a public financing system. And perhaps most revealing, a very recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found 92 percent of the American people simply believe too much money is spent in Federal elections. I have no illusions that a public financing proposal would win approval in the 105th Congress. I believe that one day those who have opposed public financing will finally get the message the voters are trying to send us and there will be wider support within the Congress for this approach to cleaning up election campaigns. In the meantime, I do believe there are meaningful reforms that can be considered and enacted with bipartisan support. That is why I have joined with a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including Senators McCain, Thompson, Wellstone and others in co- authoring the first bipartisan campaign finance reform proposal offered in a decade. That legislation, strongly supported by President Clinton, Common Cause, and numerous grassroots organizations and newspapers nationwide, would begin the process of fundamentally changing and reducing the role of money in our political system. It also encourages candidates to limit their campaign spending, but instead of offering direct public financing it provides substantial discounts on broadcast media and postage rates to candidates who agree to limit their overall spending, who agree to limit their own personal spending, and who agree to raise 60 percent of their campaign funds from their home States. I look forward to working with my colleagues on passing such meaningful reform, and will press for action in the first 100 days of this new Congress. 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 be joined by my good friend the senior Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] in introducing legislation to reduce the number of presidential political appointees. Specifically, the bill caps the number of political appointees at 2,000. The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] estimates this measure would save $392 million over the next 6 years. The bill is based on the recommendations of a number of distinguished panels, including most recently, the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on the Presidential Appointment Process. The task force findings, released last fall, are only the latest in a long line of recommendations that we reduce the number of political appointees in the executive branch. For many years, the proposal has been included in CBO's annual publication Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options, and it was one of the central recommendations of the National Commission on the Public Service, chaired by former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker. Mr. President, this proposal is also consistent with the recommendations of the Vice President's National Performance Review, which called for reductions in the number of federal managers and supervisors, arguing that ``over-control and micro management'' not only ``stifle the creativity of line managers and workers, they consume billions per year in salary, benefits, and administrative costs.'' Those sentiments were also expressed in the 1989 report of the Volcker Commission, when it argued the growing number of presidential appointees may ``actually undermine effective presidential control of the executive branch.'' The Volcker Commission recommended limiting the number of political appointees to 2,000, as this legislation does. Mr. President, it is essential that any administration be able to implement the policies that brought it into office in the first place. Government must be responsive to the priorities of the electorate. But as the Volcker Commission noted, the great increase in the number of political appointees in recent years has not made government more effective or more responsive to political leadership. Between 1980 and 1992, the ranks of political appointees grew 17 percent, over three times as fast as the total number of executive branch employees and looking back to 1960 their growth is even more dramatic. In his recently published book Thickening Government: Federal Government and the Diffusion of Accountability, author Paul Light reports a startling 430 percent increase in the number of political appointees and senior executives in Federal Government between 1960 and 1992. In recommending a cap on political appointees, the Volcker Commission report noted that the large number of Presidential appointees simply cannot be managed effectively by any President or White House. This lack of control is aggravated by the often competing political agendas and constituencies that some appointees might bring with them to their new positions. Altogether, the commission argued that this lack of control and political focus ``may actually dilute the President's ability to develop and enforce a coherent, coordinated program and to hold cabinet secretaries accountable.'' The Volcker Commission also reported that the excessive number of appointees are a barrier to critical expertise, distancing the President and his principal assistants from the most experienced career officials. Though bureaucracies can certainly impede needed reforms, they can also be a source of unbiased analysis. Adding organizational layers of political appointees can restrict access to important resources, while doing nothing to reduce bureaucratic impediments. Author Paul Light says, ``As this sediment has thickened over the decades, presidents have grown increasingly distant from the lines of government, and the front lines from them.'' Light adds that ``Presidential leadership, therefore, may reside in stripping government of the barriers to doing its job effectively* * *'' Finally, the Volcker Commission also asserted that this thickening barrier of temporary appointees between the President and career officials can undermine development of a proficient civil service by discouraging talented individuals from remaining in Government service or even pursuing a career in Government in the first place. Mr. President, former Attorney General Elliot Richardson put it well when he noted: But a White House personnel assistant sees the position of deputy assistant secretary as a fourth-echelon slot. In his eyes that makes it an ideal reward for a fourth-echelon political type--a campaign advance man, or a regional political organizer. For a senior civil servant, it's irksome to see a position one has spent 20 or 30 years preparing for preempted by an outsider who doesn't know the difference between an audit exception and an authorizing bill. Mr. President, the report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on the Presidential Appointment Process identified another problem aggravated by the mushrooming number of political appointees, namely the increasingly lengthy process of filling these thousands of positions. As the task force reported, both President Bush and President Clinton were into their presidencies for many months before their leadership teams were fully in place. The task force noted that ``on average, appointees in both administrations were confirmed more than eight months after the inauguration--one-sixth of an entire presidential term.'' By contrast, the report noted that in the presidential transition of 1960, ``Kennedy appointees were confirmed, on average, two and a half months after the inauguration.'' In addition to leaving vacancies among key leadership positions in Government, the appointment process delays can have a detrimental effect on potential appointees. The Twentieth Century Fund Task Force reported that appointees can ``wait for months on end in a limbo of uncertainty and awkward transition from the private to the public sector.'' Mr. President, a story in the National Journal in November of 1993, focusing upon the delays in the Clinton administration in filling political positions, noted that in Great Britain, the transition to a new government is finished a week after it begins, once 40 or so political appointments are made. That certainly is not the case in the United States, recognizing, of course, that we have a quite different system of government from the British parliament form of government. Nevertheless, there is little doubt that the vast number of political appointments that are currently made creates a somewhat cumbersome process, even in the best of circumstances. The long delays and logjams created in filling these positions under the Bush and Clinton administrations simply illustrates another reason why the number of positions should be cut back. Mr. President, let me also stress that the problem is not simply the initial filling of a political appointment, but keeping someone in that position over time. In a recent report, the General Accounting Office reviewed a portion of these positions for the period of 1981 to 1991, and found high levels of turnover--7 appointees in 10 years for one position--as well as delays, usually of months but sometimes years, in filling vacancies. Mr. President, while I recognize that this legislative proposal is not likely to be popular with some in both parties, I want to stress that this effort to reduce the number of political appointees is bipartisan. The sponsorship of this bill reflects this, and the bill itself applies not only to the current Democratic administration, but to all future administrations as well, whatever their party affiliation. The sacrifices that deficit reduction efforts require must be spread among all of us. This measure requires us to bite the bullet and impose limitations upon political appointments that both parties may well wish to retain. The test of commitment to deficit reduction, however, is not simply to propose measures that impact someone else. As we move forward to implement the NPR recommendations to reduce the number of government employees, streamline agencies, and make government more responsive, we should also right size the number of political appointees, ensuring a sufficient number to implement the policies of any administration without burdening the Federal budget with unnecessary, possibly counterproductive political jobs. Mr. President, when I ran for the U.S. Senate in 1992, I developed an 82 point plan to reduce the Federal deficit and achieve a balanced budget. Since that time, I have continued to work toward enactment of many of the provisions of that plan and have added new provisions on a regular basis. The legislation I am introducing today reflects one of the points included on the original 82 point plan calling for streamlining various Federal agencies and reducing agency overhead costs. I am pleased to have this opportunity to continue to work toward implementation of the elements of the deficit reduction plan. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce three bills which attempt to rectify three different problems with domestic dairy policy. My State of Wisconsin is home to more than 26,000 dairy farmers. Over the past 4 years during the more than 288 listening sessions I've held in Wisconsin counties, I have heard from many of those dairy farmers on the issues addressed by the legislation I am introducing today. The first bill I am introducing today, if enacted, will be a first step towards rectifying the inequities in the Federal Milk Marketing Order system. The Federal Milk Marketing Order system, created 60 years ago, establishes minimum prices for milk paid to producers throughout various marketing areas in the United States. My legislation is very simple. It identifies the single most inequitable and injurious provision in the current system, and corrects it. That provision--known as single basing point pricing--is USDA's practice of basing prices for fluid milk--Class I milk--in all marketing areas east of the Rocky Mountains on the distance from Eau Claire, WI, when there is little economic justification for doing so. In general, the price for fluid milk increases at a rate of 21 cents per 100 miles from Eau Claire, WI. Fluid milk prices, as a result, are $2.98 cents higher in Florida than in Wisconsin, more than $2 higher in New England, and more than $1 higher in Texas. While this system has been around since 1937, the practice of basing fluid milk price differentials on the distance from Eau Claire was formalized in the 1960's, when arguably the Upper Midwest was the primary reserve for additional supplies of milk. The idea was to encourage local supplies of fluid milks in areas of the country that did not traditionally produce enough fluid milk to meet their own needs. At that time, this was important because our transportation infrastructure made long distance bulk shipments of milk difficult. Thus, the only way to ensure consumers a fresh local supply of fluid milk was to provide dairy farmers in those distant regions with a milk price high enough to encourage local production. Mr. President, the system worked too well. Ultimately, it has worked to the disadvantage of the Upper Midwest, and in particular, Wisconsin dairy farmers. The artificially inflated Class I prices have provided production incentives beyond those needed to ensure a local supply of fluid milk in some regions, leading to an increase in manufactured products in those marketing orders. Those manufactured products directly compete with Wisconsin's processed products, eroding our markets and driving national prices down. Under the provisions of the 1996 farm bill, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is currently undergoing an informal rulemaking process to consolidate the number of Federal Milk Marketing Orders from 32 to 10. USDA is also looking at how to set prices for milk in those consolidated orders. By statute USDA is prohibited from basing the new prices on the structure of the existing milk differentials set by the 1985 farm bill. The reforms must be completed by spring, 1999. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman will no doubt be pressured by many supporters of the status quo to maintain the overall price structure that has discriminated against Wisconsin farmers for so many years. I will do everything I can to prevent that from happening. Wisconsin farmers need real Class I price reform that removes the artificial competitive advantages provided to other regions to other regions of the country and allows Upper Midwest farmers to compete on a level playing field. The legislation that I am introducing today identifies the one change that is absolutely necessary in any outcome--the elimination of single basing point pricing. It prohibits the Secretary of Agriculture from using distance or transportation costs from any location as the basis for pricing milk, unless significant quantities of milk are actually transported from that location into the recipient market. The Secretary will have to comply with the statutory requirement that supply and demand factors be considered as specified in the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act when setting milk prices in marketing orders. This legislation sends a very simple message to the Secretary of Agriculture--that among all the Class I pricing reform options from which the Secretary must choose, he should in no case select on option that either by intent or effect sets prices based on distance from a single location. I will work towards enactment of this legislation prior to the completion the proposed rule on Class I pricing reform. Mr. President, my next two bills address inequities to dairy producers throughout the country under the Dairy Promotion and Research Order--also known as the dairy checkoff. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kohl today on these two very important bills. The National Dairy Promotion and Research Program collect roughly $225 million every year from dairy farmers each paying a mandatory 15 cents for every hundred pounds of milk they produce. The program is designed to promote dairy products to consumers and to conduct research relating to milk processing and marketing. While 15 cents may appear to be a small amount of money, multiplied by all the milk marketed in this country, it adds up to thousands of dollars each year for the average producer. Given the magnitude of this program, it is critical that Congress take seriously the concerns producers have about their promotion program. Since participation in the checkoff is mandatory and producers are not allowed refunds, Congress required that producers vote in a referendum to approve the program after it was authorized. The problem is that Congress didn't provide for a fair and equitable voting process in the original act and it's time to correct our mistake. My bill does that by eliminating a process known as bloc voting by dairy cooperatives. Under current law, dairy cooperatives are allowed to cast votes in producer referenda en bloc for all of their farmer-members, either in favor of or against continuation of the National Dairy Board. While individual dissenters from the cooperative's position are allowed to vote individually, many farmers and producer groups claim the process stacks the deck against those seeking reform of the program. Mr. President, the problem bloc voting creates is best illustrated by the results of the August 1993 producer referendum on continuation of the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board, called for by a petition of 16,000 diary farmers. In that referendum, 59 dairy cooperatives voting en bloc, cast 49,000 votes in favor of the program. Seven thousand producers from those cooperatives went against co-op policy and voted individually against continuing the program. While virtually all of the votes in favor of the program were cast by cooperative bloc vote, nearly 100 percent of the votes in opposition were cast by individuals. Bloc voting allows cooperatives to cast votes for every indifferent or ambivalent producer in their membership, drowning out the voices of dissenting producers. It biases the referendum in favor of the Dairy Board's supporters, whose votes should not have greater weight than the dissenters. The inappropriate nature of bloc voting in Dairy Board referendum is even clearer given that none of the 17 other commodity promotion programs allow cooperatives to bloc vote despite the existence of marketing cooperatives for many of those commodities. Mr. President, it is time to give dairy farmers a fair voting process for their promotion program. I urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation. My last bill, Mr. President, provides equity to domestic producers who have been paying into the promotion program for over 10 years while importers have gotten a free ride. Since the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board conducts generic promotion and general product research, domestic farmers and importers alike benefit from these actions. The Dairy Promotion Program Equity Act requires that all dairy product importers contribute to the Dairy Promotion Program for all dairy products imported at the same rate as domestic dairy farmers. This is not an unusual proposal, Mr. President. Many of our largest generic promotion programs in agriculture already assess importers for their fair share of the program, including programs for pork, beef, and cotton. This legislation is particularly important in light of the passage of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which will result in greater imports of dairy products over the next several years. An assessment of this type on importers would also be allowed under the GATT since our own milk producers are already paying the same assessment. We have put our own producers at a competitive disadvantage for far too long. It's high time importers paid for their fair share of the program. I am also pleased to be an original cosponsor of the National Dairy Promotion Board Reform Act introduced today by Senator Kohl. That bill further enhances producer representation on the National Dairy Board by providing for the direct election of National Dairy Board members, rather than appointment by the Secretary. That process will allow producers to elect members to the board that represent their views on promotion and eliminates the divisive impact of the political appointment process on the Dairy Board. Direct producer election of board members should also increase the accountability to their fellow dairy farmers. I believe that these bills together comprise a sound reform package for the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board by providing a stronger voice to dairy farmers. These reforms will create a stronger, more effective and more representative Dairy Board. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of all three bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to eliminate percentage depletion allowances for four mined substances-- asbestos, lead, mercury, and uranium--from the Federal tax code. This measure is based on language passed as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 by the other body during the 102d Congress. Analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation on the similar legislation that passed the House estimated that, under that bill, income to the Federal treasury from the elimination of percentage depletion allowances in just these four mined commodities would total $83 million over 5 years, $20 million in this year alone. These savings are calculated as the excess amount of federal revenues above what would be collected if depletion allowances were limited to the actual costs in capital investments. These four allowances are only a few of the percentage depletion allowances contained in the tax code for extracted fuel, minerals, metal and other mined commodities--with a combined value, according to 1994 estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation, of $4.8 billion. Mr. President, unlike depreciation or cost depletion, the ability to use so-called percentage depletion allows companies to deduct far more than their actual costs. The result is a generous loophole for the company, and an expensive subsidy for the taxpayer. Historically, percentage depletion allowances were placed in the tax code to reduce the effective tax rates in the mineral and extraction industries far below tax rates on other industries, providing incentives to increase investment, exploration and output. However, unlike cost depletion or even accelerated depreciation, percentage depletion also makes it possible to recover more than the amount of the original investment. As noted in the Budget Committee's report on tax expenditures, this makes percentage depletion essentially a mineral production subsidy. There are two methods of calculating a deduction to allow a mining companies to recover the costs of their capital investment: cost depletion, and percentage depletion. Cost depletion allows for the recovery of the actual capital investment over the period which the reserve produces income. Using cost depletion, a company deducts a portion of their original capital investment minus any previous deductions, in an amount that is equal to the fraction of the remaining recoverable reserves. Under this method, the total deductions cannot exceed the original capital investment. However, under percentage depletion, the deduction for recovery of a company's investment is a fixed percentage of ``gross income''--namely, sales revenue--from the sale of the mineral. According to the Budget Committee's summary of tax expenditures, under this method, total deductions typically exceed the capital that the company invested. Mr. President, given the need to reduce the deficit and balance the budget, there is just as clear a need to review the spending done through the tax code as there is to scrutinize discretionary spending and entitlement programs. All of these forms of spending must be asked to justify themselves, and be weighed against each other in seeking to reach the broader goal of a balanced budget. In the case of these particular tax expenditures, we must decide who should bear the costs of exploration, development, and production of natural resources: all taxpayers, or the users and producers of the resource. The current tax break provided to the users and producers of these resources increases pressure on the budget deficit, and shifts a greater tax burden onto other businesses and individuals to compensate for the special treatment provided to the few. Mr. President, the measure I am introducing is straightforward. It eliminates the percentage depletion allowance for asbestos, lead, mercury, and uranium while continuing to allow companies to recover reasonable cost depletion. Even as a production subsidy, the percentage depletion tax loophole is inefficient. As the Budget Committee summary of tax expenditures notes, it encourages excessive development of existing properties rather than the exploration of new ones. Moreover, Mr. President, the four commodities covered by my bill are among some of the most environmentally adverse. The percentage depletion allowance makes a mockery of conservation efforts. The subsidy effectively encourages mining regardless of the true economic value of the resource. The effects of such mines on U.S. lands, both public and private, has been significant--with tailings piles, scarred earth, toxic by-products, and disturbed habitats to prove it. Ironically, the more toxic the commodity, the greater the percentage depletion received by the producer. Mercury, lead, uranium, and asbestos receive the highest percentage depletion allowance, while less toxic substances receive lower rates. Mr. President, particularly in the case of the four commodities covered by my bill, these tax breaks create absurd contradictions in government policy. While Federal public health and environmental agencies are struggling to come to grips with a vast children's health crisis caused by lead poisoning, spending millions each year to prevent lead poisoning, test young people, and research solutions, the tax code is providing a subsidy for lead production--a subsidy that is not provided for the lead recycling industry. Asbestos, too, has posed massive public health problems, and it is indefensible that this commodity, the use of which the Federal Government will effectively ban before the year 2000, continues to receive a massive tax subsidy. Mr. President, the time has come for the Federal Government to get out of the business of subsidizing business in ways it can no longer afford--both financially and for the health of its citizens. This legislation is one step in that direction. Mr. President, in 1992, I developed an 82+ plan to eliminate the Federal deficit and have continued to work on implementation of the elements of that plan since that time. Elimination of special tax preferences for mining companies was part of that 82+ point plan. Just as we must cut direct spending programs, if we are to balance that budget, we must also curtail these special taxpayer subsidies to particular industries that can no longer be justified. Finally, Mr. President, in conclusion I want to pay tribute to several elected officials from Milwaukee, Mayor John Norquist and Milwaukee Alderman Michael Murphy, who have brought to my attention the incongruity of the federal government continuing to provide taxpayer subsidies for the production of toxic substances like lead while our inner cities are struggling to remove lead-based paint from older homes and buildings where children may be exposed to this hazardous material. I deeply appreciate their support and encouragement for my efforts in this area. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on the first of January, the clock began ticking on an historic 8-year experiment. The Line-Item Veto Act became effective on that date, a law that provides the President with significant new authority to cancel discretionary spending and new entitlement spending, along with an extremely limited ability to cancel new spending done through the Tax Code. Though the version enacted was flawed in several ways, I supported this new authority to provide the President with some additional flexibility to eliminate inappropriate spending. I do not believe the line-item veto is the whole answer to our deficit problem, or even most of the answer, but it certainly can be part of the answer. A key part of the new Presidential authority is the sunset clause. Unless Congress renews this authority, it will expire. The sunset clause will put the burden on those who want to retain the authority to demonstrate the experiment has worked. Mr. President, though the continuing Federal budget deficits justify granting this temporary authority to the President on a trial basis, there are many extremely serious issues surrounding this proposal that merit close monitoring over the next several years. At the time I voted for the final version of this new authority last year, I announced my intention to form a line-item veto watchdog project to regularly monitor how this new law is implemented over the next 8 years, and I am pleased to take this opportunity to report on that project. Mr. President, joining me in this line-item veto watchdog project are a number of distinguished observers of Federal policymaking, including Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, Stephen Moore of the CATO Institute, and Demetri Coupanis on behalf of the Concord Coalition. In addition, several individuals from my home State of Wisconsin have also agreed to participate in the project. They include State Senator Lynn Adelman, State Representative Dave Travis, and attorney Fred Wade of Madison. Each of those three individuals has a deep interest in the partial veto authority granted to Wisconsin's Governors and brings a critical perspective to the new authority given the President. Mr. President, though we have no prior experience at the Federal level, many in this body who have served in State government may have seen the use of line-item veto authority at the State level. Indeed, much of the support for a Federal line-item veto stems from the State experience. But few other States, if any at all, have witnessed the abuses of line-item veto authority that we have seen in Wisconsin. That abuse has been bipartisan--Governors of both parties have used Wisconsin's partial veto authority in ways it is safe to say no one anticipated when that authority was first contemplated. For example, Wisconsin's current Governor, Governor Thompson, has used the veto authority not only to rewrite entire laws, but actually to increase spending and increase taxes. Mr. President, given that history, the participation of Senator Adelman, Representative Travis, and attorney Wade will be invaluable in helping us monitor potential abuses of the new Presidential authority. Mr. President, the watchdog project will be monitoring and chronicling a number of aspects of the Presidential power--first, the actual amount of Federal spending eliminated by the President's use of the line-item veto. Reducing unnecessary spending was the central argument for this new authority, and keeping track of how much spending is eliminated will be useful in seeing how effective this new tool actually is. It may also help encourage Presidents to make sure that they are making full use of this new authority as we will attempt to track missed opportunities as well as successes. The watchdog project will also monitor instances where the new authority is abused by the executive branch. Some have suggested that the line-item veto could be used to coerce Members of Congress to toe the line on an administration's policies through the threat to cancel spending in home States. If a President starts misusing the line-item veto authority as a club to get votes on nominations or other policy matters, the public ought to hear about it, and our project will seek to document this kind of abuse if it takes place. Mr. President, the watchdog project will also look for examples of excess spending that escape scrutiny because of loopholes in the new law. Some already are speculating on the different techniques that may be attempted to avoid the reach of this new Presidential power. Mr. President, in this regard, I am especially concerned that the sections of the line-item veto authority that deal with tax expenditures were too narrowly drawn, and that many new special interest tax breaks could escape the line-item veto pen. Along with my good friend in the other body, Representative Tom Barrett of Milwaukee, I have introduced legislation to address this weakness in the new law, and will do so again this session. It makes no sense to provide the President with this new authority while protecting one of the fastest growing areas of spending in the Federal budget, an area that includes unjustified subsidies to some of the wealthiest individuals and corporations in the world. Mr. President, the watchdog group will also monitor efforts to twist the line item authority beyond its stated purpose. As I noted above, in Wisconsin, the partial veto authority has been abused by our Governors by striking out single letters in appropriation bills to create new words and new meanings to legislation. In some cases, the Wisconsin statute has been used to actually increase State spending. The new Federal law does not, on its surface, appear to allow for that kind of abuse, but our project will be monitoring that aspect of implementation of the new law as well. Other aspects of the new law that warrant review are also sure to present themselves as we begin its actual use later this session, and I welcome suggestions from my colleagues who are interested in this historic new law. It is critical that we track closely how the new authority is being used so that when it expires in 8 years, Congress and the public will have some measurable criteria by which to assess its effectiveness.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on the plan to send an additional 5,000 troops to Bosnia over the next few days. The report, which first appeared in articles in the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post earlier this week, came as a surprise to me and I am sure to many of my colleagues. Apparently, members of the media learned about this new troop deployment before Congress itself had been notified. Now I learn that Secretary Perry will appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee--only after the chairman sent him a stinging letter of rebuke. I have held strong reservations about United States troop deployment in Bosnia ever since it was initially announced last year. As many in this Chamber will recall, I was one of the few Members of Congress to vote against the deployment of U.S. troops to support the Dayton accord. I said then, and I reiterate today, that I doubted the value of a heavy U.S. investment in this region. I felt then, and I still feel today, that administration promises to have U.S. troops out of the region within a year's time were unrealistic and would not be kept. And I questioned then, and still question today, whether or not the Dayton plan would truly level the playing field between Serbs and Muslims. I recognize that the Dayton accord, and the deployment of the NATO Implementation Force [IFOR] to enforce it, has not been without some real benefit. We can all be grateful that people are no longer dying en masse in Bosnia. U.S. troops, in conjunction with troops from other countries, should be applauded for having largely succeeded in enforcing the military aspects of the agreement. In addition, many of the peacekeeping tasks delegated to IFOR troops also have been completed, including overseeing the transfer of territory, the demobilization of troops, and the storage of heavy weapons. Furthermore, while they were not without problems, the September 14 elections have now created a new political structure in Bosnia, although its viability is yet to be tested. In the past, I have raised concerns regarding compliance with the war powers resolution and the constitutional implications of troop deployment without prior congressional authorization. I will not revisit that larger issue now. In this case, I understood that there was an implicit--if not explicit--understanding between the administration and the Congress that the Congress would be consulted regarding any proposed changes in the mandate of United States troops in Bosnia. Certainly, this deployment of 5,000 more troops would fall within that understanding. At a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 10, several administration witnesses noted that, even though IFOR's mandate will expire in December, it was unclear what the security needs on the ground would be in Bosnia at that time. But as Thomas Longstreth, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense and Director of DOD's Bosnia task force, made clear during the hearing, further decisions would ``have to be made in concert with our allies and, obviously, in consultation with the Congress between the [September 14] elections period and the end of IFOR's mandate [on December 20].'' I understood this to mean that the Defense Department would--at the very least--let the relevant congressional committees know about any troop enhancements before releasing such information to the press. On Tuesday, October 1, at a followup hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee less than 24 hours before the Washington Post article appeared, no mention was made of this specific troop enhancement, but only passing references to the possibility that additional troops might be needed depending on the security situation on the ground in December. Instead, at that second hearing, Assistant Secretary of State John Kornblum told the Committee that ``We fully understand and appreciate the need to work closely with Congress on questions that involve the deployment of U.S. troops. Clearly, the prospects for the success of any such effort, if it occurs, depend significantly on whether we have gained Congressional and public support. Mr. President, I do not think releasing information to the press that has not been released--formally or informally--to the Congress qualifies as ``working with the Congress.'' There are a number of questions that I believe must be answered about the mandate of these additional troops. How many additional troops are being planned for and what will they be doing? Will these men and women be an additional part of the U.S. contribution to IFOR? Or will they be deployed as part of a post-IFOR force of some kind? Will these new troops be under the command of NATO, or of a U.S. commander, and what rules of engagement must they abide by? Is the timing of this deployment at all related to NATO announcements last week that it was studying the anticipated security situation in Bosnia over the next few months? Then there continue to be questions on the political-diplomatic side. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe [OSCE], the international body tasked with implementing the elections, recommended the postponement of municipal elections because of security concerns, allowing only national elections to take place on September 14. These municipal elections are currently scheduled for November, but many observers feel they should be postponed until the spring of 1997. My question is what kind of U.S. troop commitment will the Administration be looking for if the elections are postponed? And when do they intend to notify the Congress of their plans? I know that many of these questions will be answered at today's hearing before the Armed Service Committee. But I also would like to remind my colleagues here, and at the Department of Defense, that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee continues to have a significant interest in the details concerning any deployment of U.S. troops. I think it is fair to assume that if the Administration expects to have Congressional and public support, as it has said in public testimony, then it should make some effort to consult with all the relevant committees before its plans are announced in the morning newspaper. A year ago--in October 1995--I asked whether or not the U.S. would be able to withdraw troops from IFOR in December 1996, as the administration said then, even if the mission clearly had not been successful. I had my doubts then that the stated goal--ending the fighting and raising an infrastructure capable of supporting a durable peace--would be doable in 12 month's time. I foresaw a danger that conditions would remain so unsettled that it would then be argued that it would be folly--and waste--to withdraw on schedule. My concerns and hesitations of 1 year ago can only be compounded by the fact that additional troops are being deployed to Bosnia--perhaps even as I speak--without the Congress having been notified in advance.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague and good friend, the senior Senator from Arizona, to once again urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in making a commitment to pass meaningful bipartisan campaign finance reform. Just a few months ago, we had an abbreviated but spirited discussion here on the Senate floor about the issue of campaign reform. The Senator from Arizona and I, along with the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Thompson, brought to this floor the first bipartisan campaign finance reform bill in a decade. The importance of the bipartisan nature of that effort should not be glossed over too quickly. For the previous 10 years, the battle over campaign reform had been marked by partisan skirmishes--Democrats accusing Republicans of defending the status quo, Republicans accusing Democrats of attempting to rig a system to protect their congressional majorities. And not surprisingly, nothing was accomplished. But last year, in what one newspaper called the ``most hopeful and remarkable legislative development in Washington of 1995'', three U.S. Senators of vastly differing political and philosophical ideologies, sat down in a room and drafted a comprehensive reform proposal that was designed to be fair to Democrats, Republicans, liberals and conservatives alike. We certainly had our differences. I have long been a supporter of public financing. The Senator from Arizona believes we can encourage candidates to limit their campaign spending and reduce campaign costs by providing free television time to congressional candidates. The Senator from Tennessee is one of this Congress' most ardent advocates of congressional term limits. But despite these differences, we also found we had many commonalities in how we believe our political system should function. For example, we each have significant misgivings about the role money plays in our electoral system. We shared a concern that more and more Americans are choosing not to run for public office because they lack the access to the millions of dollars necessary to run a competitive campaign. We were troubled that Americans have come to view their elected leaders and representatives with a depth of cynicism not seen since the early 1970's. That is why we put together a proposal that could be supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. That proposal, for the first time ever, would have provided congressional candidates access to low-cost media and postage rates in exchange for a candidate's voluntary compliance with limits on their campaign spending. Specifically, candidates would have had to agree to three limits: a limit on their overall spending based on the size of their State, a strict limit on the amount of personal funds they expend during their campaign, and a requirement to raise at least 60 percent of their campaign funds from individuals residing in their home States. The proposal had a number of other important provisions as well. The bill would have sharply limited the influence of political action committees. It would have reformed the congressional franking process which has seen its share of abuse in recent years. It would have restricted the practice of bundling campaign contributions to circumvent contribution limits. It would have provided candidates greater protection from independent expenditures and required greater accountability for those who engage in negative advertising. And perhaps most importantly, it would have essentially shut down the soft money system--a system that has shown itself this year to be completely out of control. Soft money, a term used to describe an unregulated and unlimited flow of money between the special interests and Washington lawmakers, is severely undermining and compromising the effectiveness of the Presidential system and is making a mockery of every single one of the limits we have in current law that governs how much individuals and entities may contribute to congressional candidates. So what happened here on the Senate floor last June, Mr. President? After a limited debate we were unable to gain the 60 votes necessary to overcome a procedural hurdle and cut off a filibuster. But we did receive a remarkable 54 votes, including several from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Let me repeat that, Mr. President. A strong majority in the U.S. Senate voted in favor of advancing the McCain-Feingold reform proposal. Some have said that this doomed any hope for campaign finance reform, that this was the end of the line for this issue. On the contrary Mr. President, this is clearly just the beginning for bipartisan campaign finance reform. It took us 3 years to reform our lobbying disclosure laws. It took us 3 years to finally reform the Senate's rules on the acceptance of lobbyist-provided gifts, meals, and vacation junkets. And it may take us just as long to see real campaign reform enacted into law. I for one am fully confident that we will prevail. We will prevail because it is becoming increasingly difficult for opponents of campaign reform to defend an indefensible system that is crumbling all around them. To suggest that the current system is fair, is functional, and is worthy of the voters' trust is simply an absurd proposition and no one is buying it. We have already begun to hear some of the numbers coming in and it is becoming clear that the current trend of skyrocketing campaign costs will continue through the 1996 elections. The distinguished Senator from Arizona and I will be back here during the opening days of the 105th Congress to discuss those numbers and to shine a spotlight on some of the darkest corners of our political system. Two years ago at this time, my Republican colleagues were touting their Contract With America and the issues they hoped to address in the first 100 days of the new Congress. I said it countless times then that one issue that was conspicuously missing from that contract was campaign finance reform. I was, quite frankly, astonished that although other reform issues were mentioned, there was not a single word about what has to be considered the mother of all reform issues. It was entirely omitted from the contract. Not surprisingly, we did not debate campaign finance reform in the first 100 days of the 104th Congress. Or the second 100 days. Or the third, or the fourth. In fact, we did not debate campaign finance reform here in the Senate until 18 months after the start of the 104th Congress. Eighteen months, Mr. President. It was a pretty good strategy by our opponents. They knew that by waiting so long to schedule debate on campaign reform that it would be highly unlikely that there would be enough time in the legislative session for a proposal to work its way through the legislative process and become law. In the House, the strategy was even simpler. They just refused to allow the bipartisan reform bill modeled after the McCain-Feingold bill to come up for a vote. By only allowing votes on a Democratic reform bill and a Republican reform bill, the House leadership guaranteed that no reform bill would leave the House alive. So rather than throwing any kind of knockout punch, the Congress has chosen to bob and weave around the issue of campaign finance reform. This cannot be allowed to happen in the 105th Congress, and that is why the Senator from Arizona and I are joining today to call on our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to agree to debate campaign finance reform here on the Senate floor during the first 100 days of the 105th Congress. It does not matter if Republicans retain control of this body or if Democrats can reclaim the majority--campaign reform must be the subject of floor debate in the first 100 days of 1997, regardless of the outcome of the elections. Mr. President, the campaign finance reform landscape has experienced a significant shift in recent years. When I arrived here in 1993 and in the years before that, there was certainly a significant block of Senators that believed that money had little role in the outcome of elections. They believed that the embodiment of true political reform was to have unlimited campaign spending coupled with even less regulation of the entire campaign finance system. Some still cling to that viewpoint, Mr. President, but not many. I'd like to point to a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives just about 2 months ago. On July 25, the House voted on legislation backed by Speaker Gingrich that had as its foundation the Speaker's view that our campaign system is not overfunded as most of us believe, but is in fact underfunded. That legislation, known as the Thomas bill, would have opened up the campaign finance system and permitted unlimited campaign spending to continue without providing any assistance to challengers and not a single reform of the soft money process. What happened to that bill, Mr. President? Quite simply, it was obliterated on the House floor by a vote of 259 to 162. Nearly 70 Republican House Members, nearly 70 of them Mr. President, rebelled against the Speaker and voted against his bill. We have seen some amazing things happen in the other body over the course of the last 2 years. We have seen some eye-opening votes over there. But I cannot think of another single vote where so many Republican House Members defied Speaker Gingrich and voted against a bill that he was so prominently a part of. Mr. President, considering that the Speaker's point of view was so universally condemned on the floor of the House, and considering that the McCain-Feingold bill received a majority of votes in this body, I not only think that bipartisan campaign finance reform is a strong possibility, I think that it is a strong probability. Republicans want it, Democrats want it, incumbents want it, challengers need it, and most importantly, the American people are demanding it. I would hope that our other colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, will join the senior Senator from Arizona and I in insisting that the 105th Congress address the issue of campaign finance reform in the first 100 days of the next congressional session. I want to once again thank my colleague and friend from Arizona for his perseverance on this issue.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I want a moment to say a word about the point-of-order issue. A point was made by the Senator from South Carolina, I believe, that the same type of point of order could have been raised with regard to the continuing resolution earlier this week. I have not examined the issue closely, but I imagine that is true. But we should reflect a moment on the concept of what that was about versus the willingness of this body, perhaps, to overturn its own rules on something that is so specific to one corporation that it seems almost astonishing. To what extent are we going to go as a body in the future in changing our rules, undoing our rules, overruling a point of order, to accommodate one provision that only has to do with one matter? I think there is a huge difference. I am not even sure it was appropriate with regard to the continuing resolution. I happen to have voted against it in part for that reason. Surely, for us to start engaging in overruling points of order to benefit the needs of one corporation to try to overturn what is a continuing litigation or to affect the results of continuing litigation is a very troubling precedent for this body, as the Senator from Massachusetts has indicated. I thank the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, thank you. There has been some confusion in this body about whether this is a big issue or little issue, technical issue or substantive issue. Well, I think the argument that this is somehow just a technical debate has been pretty well shredded by the reality of what has happened this week. Let me just quickly read again from the letter from the Office of the President, the administration, from Franklin Raines, of the Office of Management and Budget, which says: The administration believes that the provision is not a ``technical amendment'' to transportation labor law. In fact, it could result in a significant shift of the relationship between certain workers and management. We hope Congress will not jeopardize aviation safety, security, and investment initiatives as it comes to closure on this issue. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas just again tried the ploy of saying this is a minor issue. She said, a ``minute'' labor issue. Well, does anyone believe, after the almost herculean effort to keep this provision in, that this is a minor issue? This is a major, major issue to one very powerful corporation in this country. Let us focus again on what this intense major debate is about. It is about whether one powerful corporation is going to be able to get its way in the closing hours of this Congress and push through a special interest provision aimed at only one thing --it is aimed at only one thing: protecting this powerful company from its workers trying to form a union. Mr. President, this apparently is not the only time that this corporation, Federal Express, has used this type of procedure to benefit its own interests. Let me say here, I do not think Federal Express is a bad corporation. Obviously, it provides tremendously important services in our economy, as do other services, such as UPS. But you cannot ignore the record. Last night, I and other Members of the Senate received a letter from Public Citizen, a nonpartisan public interest group. They express frequently a direct interest in the way this body does business. This is what Public Citizen wrote about the effort to push FedEx's special interest provision through in the FAA conference report. They said: This is not the first time or the second time that Federal Express has used last-minute tactics to gain passage of controversial amendments to law. In the 1990 aviation authorization bill, with no hearings, exemption from local noise requirements for aircraft were pushed through. In the 1994 aviation authorization bill, Federal Express was involved in getting preemption of State regulation of truck prices, routes and services through the Congress with no hearings in the Senate where the amendment was added to an unrelated bill and only a last-minute hearing in the House during the conference negotiations. State officials were outraged at the way this was maneuvered. In 1995, motor carrier safety standards were eliminated for Federal Express type trucks in the National Highway System legislation. In 1996, the anti-labor provision Federal Express seeks to get enacted in the aviation authority conference report is [just] the most recent in a long string of such maneuvers. These issues [they say] are major public policies that deserve appropriate hearings and evaluation. The public is already angry about the way wealthy business interests dominate the congressional decision-making process. This history of Federal Express sponsored legislation, combined with the millions of dollars it spends each year lobbying, campaign contributions, and providing air transportation services to key members of Congress, undermines our democratic system. Federal Express has a long history of opposition to government regulations. But when they want to block their employees' efforts to form a union and gain an unfair advantage over their competitors, the sky's the limit on money and political muscle they will use to get their own customized regulatory protection made into law. Those are words by Joan Claybrook from Public Citizen. And this is not an isolated, innocent, or minor matter to the corporation pushing it. Mr. President, let me repeat one phrase from this letter. This kind of activity ``undermines our democratic system.'' However anyone feels about the underlying merits of the issue, the process which is taking place is repugnant. As the distinguished Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Simon] has said, if this corporation succeeds, this will be a textbook example for years to come of how special interests have perverted the democratic process. I hope we will do the right thing and just say no to this. Mr. President, let me simply say, as a conclusion, I have heard speakers all week, and especially this morning, say that we have to pass this bill because of airline safety; we have to pass this bill because of the airline tax extension; we have to pass this bill because of airport aides. And I agree. We have to pass this bill. How can all of those things, how can all of those things be less important than this one provision for Federal Express? It seems inconceivable to me that those on the other side, given their commitment to those issues and those concerns, would not drop this provision at this point and let the bill be passed today and be signed by the President. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his question. Let me say, first of all, that I have the great honor and pleasure of serving with him not only on the Senate floor but particularly on the Senate Judiciary Committee. For one concerned with the independence of our judiciary and the relationship between the Congress and judiciary, this is a threatening prospect. I suppose incidents like that have occurred in the past in this great country. When the power of one single company cannot only move a Congress like this to jeopardize the reauthorization of a bill but do it in such a specific and targeted way as to try to undo the process in the courts is even more frightening. It is not only a question for working people; it is a question for anyone. They should have the opportunity to go to court and have a matter resolved without some company being able to flex its muscles in the waning days of the Congress to undo their right to their day in court. So I do think that this is an extremely important aspect of my opposition. I am opposed to it anyway, but it seems particularly inflammatory when this matter is being litigated at this time, as the Senator from Massachusetts has indicated. It makes me want to just sort of add on to something that he has said to me earlier. This is part of a broader agenda. This isn't just an isolated moment where somebody decided to insert a provision to help a company. This is part of a broader agenda to shove back working people in this country so they can't get as organized as they need to be in order to protect themselves and their families. It is a broader agenda. It is a broader agenda that was very clearly articulated in that Contract With America about which we will have a referendum in a few weeks. So let us not just view it in isolation. It is inappropriate. It does not belong here. It is a special interest item but part of a broader agenda that is willing not only to push its weight around in the Congress but to also try to override the procedure in our courts. What we are faced with here today is a situation in which many Members of this body have worked very, very hard to craft a good bill. I praise all of them. I think they have succeeded. But, unfortunately, the conferees allowed a corporate special-interest provision to be attached to this good bill, and now we are being pressured to pass the bill and its offensive add-on quickly because the end of the fiscal year has come and because, as we all know, it is an election year and everyone wants to go back to their home States. But to conclude, I think we would be making a larger mistake than usual if we do not remove this provision. I urge my colleagues to support the Simon-Kennedy substitute, which will provide a clean FAA reauthorization. If the proponents of this provision would let us pass a clean bill, this measure not only could but I imagine would be signed within a few hours. It is the proponents of this special interest treatment for one big company, not the opponents, who, I am afraid, have subverted the legislative process. So let us drop this provision, let us drop it now, and let us get a clean FAA bill passed. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. It does that and more, because it ties in with other facts that the other side can't deny. Not only was this item treated in the way the Senator indicated, not only was it not part of the Senate bill, or the House bill, but we have also had analysis by the CRS, an independent agency that we rely on, saying that the deletion of the term ``express carrier'' in the ICC Termination Act of 1995 does not appear to be a technical error. I will say more about that in a moment. These are the slender reeds that the other side are resting on--that everybody voted for this bill originally, even though this provision was not in it, and it was somehow a technical error. This is not much to rely on. When you have a special interest provision of this magnitude, maybe that is what you do. Madam President, this provision would help Federal Express resist the efforts of its workers to unionize. That is the purpose of it, whether you call it technical, or whether you call it a drafting error. The fact is that the purpose of it is to stop possible unionization. It has already been rejected by the Senate Appropriations Committee. Let me repeat, the Appropriations Committee rejected the amendment. Yet, somehow it reappeared on the table during the bill's conference, and it was inserted into the conference report, where proponents felt it was well protected from attack. I want to repeat that phrase: Where it was well protected from attack. Again, I have been here almost 4 years. I know about the idea of trying to put the stuff that you want through on what is called a must- pass bill. People back home are catching on to it, too. I watched it when we had the legislation to help out the folks in California after the earthquake. That wasn't one of the bills we weren't sure was going to become a law. We knew we had to help the people in California. So money was tacked on for Pennsylvania Station, the space station, and so on. It is a vehicle you use to try to avoid having items have to stand on their own weight in front of the Congress. When this item was placed before separate votes in the Congress, it didn't make it. So the American people are catching on to this kind of abuse of the legislative process. Madam President, this is another similar vehicle, another must-pass bill. It wasn't chosen by chance. You will notice that a separate bill to correct this so-called technical error wasn't going anywhere. No chance. Proponents put it on the FAA authorization bill and said, ``We are sorry it was snuck in there, but we have to pass the bill.'' That is the game. It is an insider game. But people are catching on. This one was just a little too much, and to have it thrown on such a very, very important bill for our airports across the country seems like just a bit too much to me. Some may say, well, as of January, we have a line-item veto. The President can line out something like this. Of course, the new line-item veto authority does not extend to this kind of provision, but though I have never advocated extending the line-item veto authority beyond removing excess spending items, if the President had a broader authority, this is certainly one situation where it would be a good policy to take this piece of special interest legislation out of this bill. So the practice will continue, unless we here and people across the country say, wait a minute, we don't want laws made this way. We don't want one company to be able to push its weight around and shove this provision into a bill and say it absolutely has to pass, regardless of the merits of the provision, because otherwise we won't be able to help our airports. Madam President, this is one of the most clear examples of special interest treatment I have ever seen. You know it, and I know it, and every Member of this body knows it. It's offensive and it doesn't belong on this bill. To accuse Members of the Senate of not caring about airport safety and the welfare of air passengers just because we object to this subversion of the rules is just disingenuous. We know what is going on here, and nobody can say this particular provision has anything at all to do with airline safety. Supporters of the provision claim that it is simply a technical correction, to correct the accidental deletion of the term ``express carrier'' from the Railway Labor Act, which was amended in the Interstate Commerce Termination Act of 1995--a technical error. My colleagues, does this look technical to you? Does all the controversy and anger on this issue look technical to you? It is not technical. The term was intentionally removed by the Congress last year, and has now been intentionally inserted into the FAA conference report by the Members of the conference committee. In fact, researchers in the bipartisan American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service say that the deletion of that term ``express company'' does not appear to have been inadvertent or mistaken. To the contrary, the deletion appeared to be consistent with the statutory structure and the intent of Congress. Moreover, it appears unlikely that Federal Express would constitute an express company, as that term is used in the proposed amendment. That is the CRS analysis, Madam President, not a labor union. CRS is the Congress' own nonpartisan research service. Although the report and its author have been maligned here on the floor, I think those accusations have been unfair. We all rely on CRS for unbiased analyses of the facts. They say that this provision does not merely make a technical correction. It is a significant, substantive change. If there is one thing it is not, it is technical. This is a significant policy change, Madam President. It does not belong on this bill. Moreover, it is interesting to note that Linda Morgan, Chair of the Surface Transportation Board, formerly the ICC, confirmed CRS's opinion that Federal Express would not qualify as an express carrier. In a recent letter to Congressman James Oberstar, Ms. Morgan stated that when the term ``express carrier'' was in use, the ICC considered Federal Express to be a motor carrier, not an express carrier, as the company claims it was and would like to be considered in the future. Let me just read briefly from that letter: The ICC considered FedEx to be a motor carrier. She continued later: In a decision in 1934, the ICC concluded that express company operations wholly by rail, or partly by rail and partly by water, were subject to ICC regulation, but that an express company's motor carrier operations were not. So this is a special interest provision, designed to protect the interest of one company. Now, we see these kinds of provisions often in tax bills, where one single company is given a tax preference like a special depreciation break or a tax credit. This provision, however, in my mind, is way out in front of the pack in terms of special interest benefits. This provision, I want to reiterate, is designed exclusively for this single company, Federal Express, to allow it to impose special barriers to block unionization efforts among employees who transport cargo by truck. Other motor carriers, including FedEx's major competitor, UPS, are, in contrast, subject to the National Labor Relations Act and organize at specific localities. If FedEx truckers in Pennsylvania want to form a union, they should have that right, under the NLRA. But if this provision goes through, FedEx truck drivers across the Nation would all have to agree to a single nationwide bargaining unit or forfeit the right to organize. They would have to forfeit the right to organize. It is an awfully big hurdle. It is a hurdle intended to prevent unionization. That is not what the NRLA provides for millions of workers across the Nation. But under this provision FedEx would have the more stringent rules of the National Railway Labor Act applied to its truck drivers. Supporters of the FedEx provision also claim that if we do not pass this bill this week, without amendment, that the safety of air travel will be significantly threatened. Again, this is a kind of blackmail attempt to stick a special interest provision in a bill and say that it can't be removed without jeopardizing the underlying vital legislation and then shift the burden to those who want to get the special interest provision out. It is a good trick. But we are here today to say that it is unfair and that we have been willing and will continue to be willing to come out here on the floor of the Senate to indicate that it is not justified. Let me just refer to a similar occurrence not too long ago on another item for which the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts was taking the lead on a bipartisan basis with the Senator from Kansas to try to get some semblance of health care reform in this country. Another provision like this got stuck in the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill. It was not until Members of the Senate objected loudly, strenuously, and publicly to that special interest provision that the proponents, with some embarrassment, suddenly agreed to have it dropped through a correcting resolution. That is what should happen right here. It should happen right now. This provision should be dropped so that we can get the FAA bill passed and signed into law in the next few hours. Let me stress once again--because this is the whole heart of the opposition's argument--that they want to pretend inaccurately and unfairly that we oppose the underlying bill. We do not oppose the underlying bill. I would like to see the FAA be reauthorized before this Congress adjourns. My colleagues, the Senators from Massachusetts and Illinois, have a bill ready--it is at the desk--that I support wholeheartedly. That is the bill we should be considering. It is the conference version of the FAA bill minus just this one offensive FedEx provision. But the other side will not agree to bring up that bill. It is they, not we, who are holding up the reauthorization of these important aviation programs. So again, let us ask: Why is it so important to supporters of this provision that it remain in the bill? How can it be so important? After all, they keep saying over and over and over again that this is a minor technical amendment. Well, then why does Federal Express care so much that it be considered an express carrier? The reason is clear: They want to avoid unionization. That is the benefit to this so-called technical correction. Federal Express, and my colleagues who support their provision, understand how much more difficult it would be for Federal Express' truck drivers to unionize if they have to organize all of their employees nationwide as opposed to being able to form local unions. In fact, Madam President, Federal Express' antiunion sentiment is, unfortunately, well documented. Federal Express Co. produces a manual called the Manager's Labor Law Book, which states that its corporate goal is to remain union-free. Of course, we all know that if Federal Express is able to maintain its union-free status, it will be easier for it to remain competitive with UPS. Like Federal Express, UPS' airline operations are covered under the Railway Labor Act. However, UPS' truck drivers are covered by the National Labor Relations Act, and they have been members of local Teamsters unions for decades. Interestingly, Federal Express' trucking operations expanded in recent years. Some of their drivers have been attempting to organize, but they have, not surprisingly, met resistance from the company's management. The issue of whether the company's trucking operation is most appropriately covered under the NLRA or the RLA is currently in litigation. So what is this? What is this provision today? This is a backdoor effort to win that dispute. This amendment has no business in this bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his tremendous leadership on the issue before the Senate today, and of course for his leadership on all issues relating to working people. I come to the floor today to speak about the issue that is holding up the passage of the FAA reauthorization bill. As the Senator from Alaska was just indicating, that is the problem we have, the bill is held up and it does need to go forward. The problem that some of us have is with the item that has been added to the conference report. What I am talking about is an effort to give special treatment to one company-- the Federal Express Co.--by subverting standard labor law requirements in order for this company to be able to avoid unionization. Maybe this is just part of a larger agenda. I think it is part of a larger agenda, symbolized by aspects of the Contract With America, which represented an assault on the working people of this country. In a sense, this is one more kick from that contract at working people. Like all of my colleagues and all of us on this side of the issue have said, we understand the importance of reauthorizing the FAA. No one, absolutely no one, wants to jeopardize in any way the safety of our Nation's air travelers and personnel. I, like all of my colleagues, supported this critical bill when the Senate passed it earlier this year. But as we have heard repeatedly now, the bill that passed the Senate did not contain --did not contain--the controversial antiunion provision that has now been inserted into the conference report. The other side of this debate has conveniently mentioned over and over again the unanimous vote in the Senate, but has also conveniently failed to mention the fact that this controversial provision was not part of the bill when that unanimous consent vote was held in the Senate. Also, Madam President, this provision was nowhere to be found in the House version of the bill, either. So it truly has no place in the conference report that is before the Senate today. Now, I realize, having been here for nearly 4 years now, that inserting material into a conference report which has not been considered by either body has become almost commonplace in the Congress. Madam President, that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it the right place for the sponsors of the Contract With America to administer one more blow to the working people of this country.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, yesterday I was one of a handful of Members of the Senate to vote against the FY97 omnibus appropriations bill. This was a difficult vote and I have mixed feeling about passage of this bill. While I am pleased a Government shutdown was avoided, I am disappointed in the way the process was handled. Various measures that warranted separate consideration, ranging from the immigration bill, to amendments to the age discrimination law to banking legislation, were wrapped into this massive bill. The measure was hundreds of pages long, and few Members of either body were fully aware of the wide range of items shoved into this must-pass bill at the 11 hour. It has been pointed out by a Member of the other body that you could get a double hernia just trying to lift this omnibus spending bill. I predict that over the course of the next several weeks, there will be many surprises discovered in the package. Some of the special interest pork provisions are buried deep within the various titles, as well as policy changes that should have been debated in public and voted on without the pressure to keep the government running. Moreover, although we succeeded in avoiding a massive new tax cut that would have set us backward on the road to deficit reduction, this omnibus spending bill represents a missed opportunity to cut Government waste and stop the unnecessary spending. The fact that this bill was loaded up with special spending provisions for individual Members indicates that it is business as usual in Congress when it comes to spending Federal dollars. While we have made significant progress in reducing the Federal deficit, much of that work was done in the last Congress and we missed the opportunity in the 104th Congress to finish the job and truly get the Federal budget into balance. This bill adds a whopping $9 billion in deficit spending for defense systems above what Department of Defense requested. When all of the fiscal year 1997 appropriations bills are lined up together, excessive spending on things like sending Russian monkeys into space and massive out-dated water projects out West continues to drain the Treasury. I voted against this bill because I think we could have done a much better job at curbing unnecessary spending, government waste, and reducing the Federal deficit.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, almost 1 year to the day after the Senate approved the Communications Decency Act [CDA], the Federal District Court in Philadelphia concluded that congressional approval of the CDA was ``unquestionably a decision that placed the CDA in serious conflict with our most cherished protection--the right to choose the material to which we would have access.'' Mr. President, this fall the Supreme Court will consider an appeal of that Federal District Court decision, issued in June 1996, which found the CDA to be unconstitutionally vague and a violation of free speech. The action by the Supreme Court will, without doubt, be one which determines whether the Congress will continue to encroach upon one of our most fundamental rights. The Communications Decency Act was badly flawed in a number of ways-- and I have spoken of those flaws often and in great detail on the floor of this Senate--but its most serious flaw was that it criminalized speech transmitted via the Internet which the Supreme Court has ruled is protected by the first amendment--so-called indecent speech. While its proponents claimed to be most concerned about sexually explicit and obscene materials on the Net--the transmission of which is already a violation of criminal law--the CDA swept more broadly, effectively prohibiting speech which is perfectly legal if it appears in a newspaper, magazine, or book. Mr. President, when I and other Senators pointed out the great danger of the act's overly broad prohibitions of on-line speech, we were told that we were overreacting. We were told that this minor erosion on speech rights will not lead to greater restrictions on the rights of Americans. But, Mr. President, what danger could be greater than a Congress willing to subjugate speech rights to the political needs of the day? While indecency may have been the target of Congressional disapproval in 1995, when the Communications Decency Act was first considered, the target of our current political climate appeared to be violence in media. The Senate Commerce Committee has considered and reported legislation that puts the Federal Government in the business of determining what violent television programming is acceptable and what is not. In the name of protecting children, this Congress has edged closer and closer to Federal content regulation of speech in mass media. It is an unfortunate but true fact, that the propensity is high for Congress to jeopardize speech rights for the sake of political expediency. That the United States Congress has taken the same path of countries which do not hold free speech as one of their most cherished rights-- such as China and Singapore--should be of great concern to the American people. For example, earlier this year, China passed a law allowing use of the Internet, but prohibited so-called harmful information on the Internet. According to media reports, as of September 10, Chinese officials had blocked access of China's 120,000 Internet users to more than 100 different sites on the World Wide Web. China considers ``harmful information'' to include sexual material, political material, and other types of news information that might somehow be harmful to China's people. China has blocked access to Web sites operated by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as well as to foreign media sites such as the Washington Post, Cable News Network, and the Wall Street Journal. China also requires Internet providers to use government phone lines which allow information to be routed to government choke points where access can be blocked. And Internet users are required to register with the government. Media reports indicate, however, that the censors are already missing some sites such as the Swedish-Tibet Network and that many computer users have found ways to circumvent the ban. Why are China's actions so significant? The Chinese Government has shown us three things. First, they have shown how fear of a new form of electronic communications leads to excessive regulation and censorship. While censorship is acceptable in China, it is repugnant and unacceptable to most citizens of the United States. Second, they have shown us that once certain types of speech are prohibited by a government, the ban must be enforced. The regulations imposed by China to enforce their ban--the required use of government phone lines and the registration of users with the Government--has led to even greater erosion of civil liberties of the Chinese people. And third, they have shown us that speech and access prohibitions are ineffective when broadly applied to this new form of electronic communication. China's ban on certain types of speech is being circumvented. Their misguided efforts to protect the public from foreign sources of information and other sites are not likely to be effective. Surely, the actions of the 104th Congress in approving the CDA are substantially different from the Chinese Government's actions. Nevertheless, Mr. President, there are some striking similarities. China reacted to the freedom of the Internet by applying the same type of controls they have used for centuries to control information--a ban on speech and prohibition on access. Similarly, Congress reacted to the presence of objectionable and offensive materials on the Internet by imposing the same types of speech restrictions that have been used in broadcasting. Both governments reacted in fear to a new and poorly understood technology by imposing overly restrictive controls that do not take into account the unique nature of the Internet. The difference is that China has a centuries-old tradition of restricting speech while Americans hold their first amendment rights among their most cherished freedoms. Governments with such vastly different values should not be following the same path on speech restrictions. Senator Leahy and I urged this body to take the time to study how we might more effectively protect children on the Internet without jeopardizing free speech rights. There are less restrictive and more effective means of protecting children on the Internet than the unconstitutional Communications Decency Act. Instead, like China, congressional fear of the unknown led this body down the perilous path of censorship. Some in this body might find China's methods of enforcing the ban completely inapplicable to the Communications Decency Act. Surely, the United States would never require adults to register to use the Internet. However, the Department of Justice hasn't yet determined quite how the CDA would be effectively enforced. They have suggested credit card verification, which may not yet be viable. They have also suggested adult identification cards and tagging systems. Some involved in the debate of the CDA last year suggested that users be required to get an information superhighway drivers' license. That sounds remarkably like the registration requirements employed by the Chinese. Mr. President, the fact is that the only way to effectively enforce the CDA is to dramatically restrict the constitutional rights of adult Americans. And that is simply unacceptable. Congressional passage of the Communications Decency Act was a misguided attempt to reach an honorable goal--protecting children from those who seek to harm them on the Internet. While we should continue our efforts to protect children, we must seek more effective and constitutional means to achieve that goal. The 104th Congress failed to honor its obligation to uphold the Constitution when it passed the Communications Decency Act. After the Federal District Court ruling, the Congress should have repealed the CDA--a law we knew to be unconstitutional. I hope that the 105th Congress will repeal this unconstitutional statute soon after it convenes next year. Maybe then we can get down to the business of protecting children.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the contributions of retiring Senator William Cohen of Maine, as he prepares to take leave of the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, the Christian Science Monitor once referred to Senator Cohen as a ``true Renaissance man.'' That is an apt compliment, because it describes a person of broad interests who applies his intellect and energy with distinction in many theaters of human activity. Senator Cohen certainly embodies that description. In my 3 years here, I have come to appreciate Senator Cohen's intelligence, independence of thought and action, his integrity, his capacity for hard work and his respect for the Senate and for the process of making public policy. He has also found time to write a pretty good book or two. Senator Cohen and I have both served on the Senate Special Committee on Aging, and there I have been able to watch, first-hand, his skill and dedication in dealing with issues of particular importance to senior citizens and of relevance to us all. He has, in particular, been a leader in the battle against waste, fraud and abuse in our Medicaid system. He has also, upon assuming the chair, continued the tradition of bipartisan cooperation on that committee. I have also appreciated Senator Cohen's insistence on the highest ethical standards for lawmakers. He wrote the law that renewed the Office of Government Ethics and, in fact, made it stronger. He has been a reliable ally in the fight for congressional reform. He played an important role in lobbying reform and was an important supporter of the efforts to restrict gift giving. Mr. President, several months ago, Senator Cohen delivered a moving tribute to another Maine lawmaker, Senator Edmund Muskie, after Senator Muskie's passing. Senator Cohen quoted John Kennedy on how to take the measure of people: ``First, were we truly people of courage? Second, were we truly people of judgment? Third, were we truly people of integrity? Fourth, were we truly people of dedication?" Senator Cohen said at the time that the answer to each of those questions in Ed Muskie's case was ``yes.'' The same can be said for Senator Cohen. Mr. President, the residents of Maine know, I am sure, they have been well-served by Senator Cohen. Let me say, for the record, so have the American people.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to bid farewell to the senior Senator from Louisiana, J. Bennett Johnston, and to acknowledge his long service in this body. Senator Johnston's political career spans 32 years, beginning in the Louisiana State legislature. Since his first election to the U.S. Senate in 1972, he has universally been regarded as a leader on issues affecting this Nation's energy policy. He has also built a reputation as a patient lawmaker, willing to listen and always cordial. When he announced his retirement in January of 1995, Senator Johnston delivered a ringing statement of his respect for this chamber, saying, ``The United States Senate, with all its faults and criticisms, remains a bulwark of our democracy and a hallowed institution. I will stand up for it, will not bash it, and will defend it against those who do.'' He has contributed much to the deliberations and the workings of this body, as well as being dedicated to advancing the interests of Louisiana and his constituents. I wish Senator Johnston well after he leaves this body.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the senior Senator from Alabama, a dedicated public servant, a respected lawmaker and a man I am proud to call my colleague, Howell Heflin. Mr. President, in three U.S. Senate terms, Howell Heflin has distinguished himself in many ways, and perhaps the most prominent has been in the area of judicial reform. He has always trusted and respected the American judicial system. His passion for the highest standards in our judicial system was kindled long before Howell Heflin joined the U.S. Senate in 1978. During his tenure as Chief Justice of the Alabama State Supreme Court, he was recognized as one of the Nation's leaders on judicial reform. He was subsequently selected as this country's outstanding appellate jurist in 1975 and served as chairman of the National Conference of Chief Justices in 1976 and 1977. I have worked alongside Senator Heflin on the Judiciary Committee and, in particular, on the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. Throughout that association, I have appreciated his intelligence and his wisdom. I will miss him, as, I am sure, will all his colleagues in the U.S. Senate, as he retires, I am told, to Tuscumbia, AL. I wish him all the best as he takes his leave.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to bid farewell to an outstanding U.S. Senator, Mark Hatfield of Oregon, upon his retirement from this Chamber. Serving in the U.S. Senate with Mark Hatfield, who was one of my personal heroes long before I aspired to join this body, has been a very meaningful experience in my career in public service. Senator Hatfield has made his mark as one of the finest Senators to serve in this body. In a New York Times article 2 years ago, Senator Hatfield characterized himself as having been out of step most of my political life. While it may perhaps be accurate that Senator Hatfield was out of step with political fashion, he was always in step with his conscience, his view of right and wrong, and his personal sense of integrity. As a student in Wisconsin during the turbulent Vietnam war era, Mark Hatfield's courage and leadership were well known to me. His persistent opposition to the United States' involvement in that tragic conflict drew attention to the costs, material and spiritual, of the war, and he took a bold step toward trying to avert further tragedy with his joining then-Senator George McGovern in sponsoring the McGovern- Hatfield amendment to end the war. This was the stance of a man who had himself seen the terrible costs of war up close. He commanded landing craft at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and he was one of the first Americans to see Hiroshima after the dropping of the first atomic bomb in 1945. A man of fiscal prudence, Senator Hatfield has consistently advocated more reasonable levels of military spending, even during the 1980's, when a President from his own party was calling for the largest military expansion in our Nation's history. He voted for a nuclear freeze and voted against the gulf war resolution. Mr. President, I have also admired Senator Hatfield's unwavering opposition to the death penalty, even in a time when increasing numbers of political leaders are suggesting that capital punishment is the solution to crime. Senator Hatfield once reminded us that, ``shallow symbols like the death penalty, only serve to further pummel the battered fabric of our decreasingly civilized society.'' It has been an honor to stand with Senator Hatfield, voting against measures that would expand this barbaric practice of executions. Mr. President, I spoke moments ago of Senator Hatfield as a man of fiscal prudence. He demonstrated his fidelity to that principle when he withstood great pressure and voted against a proposed balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, asserting that the amendment was nothing more than a procedural gimmick. Senator Hatfield recognized that Congress must accept its responsibility to use its power to reduce spending and balance the budget. Mr. President, when Senator Hatfield announced his retirement, he said, ``I felt the call to public service and believed in the positive impact government can have on the lives of people.'' For 40 years, Mark Hatfield has been an example of a public servant who obeys the dictates of his conscience, who acts with the common good foremost in his mind, and who has tried to have a positive impact. It truly has been an honor, Senator Hatfield, one for which I thank you.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to extend my best wishes to my colleague, Senator James Exon of Nebraska, upon his retirement from the U.S. Senate. Senator Exon's political career stretches back to 1970, when Nebraskans first elected him as their Governor, and throughout, he has built a reputation for fiscal responsibility and sober assessment of the cost of government. He carried those qualities with him when he was elected to the Senate in 1978, part of a class which is seeing several members retire this year. In a political environment that many fear is marked, perhaps a better word is scarred, by ever-greater partisanship and ever-declining civility, Senator Exon has been able to work in a birpartisan manner and retain his cordiality, qualities which would be well-recommended to any lawmaker. His dedication to fiscal responsibility and reducing the Federal deficit has led him to take many courageous stands. I am particularly grateful for his early and steadfast support of my efforts to prevent a massive tax cut from undermining our efforts to achieve a balanced budget, a position that has not always been popular. I have enjoyed working with Jim Exon, and I hope he enjoys a well- earned retirement from public service.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to offer a few heart-felt words of appreciation to Senator Nancy Kassebaum as she closes the book on a truly distinguished public service career. Last December, shortly after she announced her intention to retire, I rose to thank Senator Kassebaum for her leadership, her independent mind, and her graciousness, particularly in her stewardship of the Subcommittee on African Affairs. I am here today to offer a last farewell to an outstanding colleague. Since I spoke last December, Senator Kassebaum has added another significant accomplishment to her career--the passage of the Kassebaum- Kennedy health insurance reform bill, and she was a cosponsor of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, support I greatly appreciated. I am not certain what the future holds for Senator Kassebaum, but no matter where she goes, she will, I am certain, always be an example of independence, intelligence, prudence, and integrity.