Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the long service of Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia and to wish him well as he leaves the Senate after 24 years. Mr. President, I have read that, as a young man, Sam Nunn was judged by his home town newspaper back in Perry, GA as ``headed for something big or important in this old world.'' Anyone who reflects on Senator Nunn's long and distinguished career in this Chamber would agree that prediction was fulfilled, both in terms of ``something big'' and ``something important.'' For Senator Nunn leaves behind an impressive reputation as a lawmaker. Senator Nunn's reputation as an expert on military matters is well- known, and, of course, well deserved. But I believe that reputation inadequately describes the breadth of Senator Nunn's intellectual reach, his deliberate and thoughtful approach to the issues before him, and his skill at forging bipartisan consensus. I was particularly pleased when he became a co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold bipartisan campaign finance reform bill. Whether the subject is national defense, economics, domestic policy or cultural values, and whether or not you end up agreeing with him, you can learn things from listening to Sam Nunn. Equally as important, you could, through his actions, be reminded of the value of respecting this institution and the lawmaking process. Mr. President, when Senator Nunn last year announced he would be leaving this body, to the shock and surprise of nearly everyone, he expressed concern that the qualities of sensitivity and prudence were being driven out of political debate ``by the extremes in both parties, who are usually wrong but never in doubt.'' I am not alone in sharing that concern with Senator Nunn, and I am certain I am not alone in my appreciation for the way he has demonstrated the value of a thoughtful, prudent approach to the making of public policy.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a gentleman who has done so much to advance the cause of education in our Nation, Senator Claiborne Pell, as he nears the close of a 36-year tenure in the U.S. Senate. A recitation of Senator Pell's accomplishments and the qualities of his character that have earned him the respect of so many of his Senate colleagues would fill a sizable portion of the Congressional Record, but I will limit myself to a few remarks which, I hope, reflect the respect and admiration I feel for the senior Senator from Rhode Island. Mr. President, I have served with Senator Pell on the Foreign Relations Committee since I joined the Senate in 1993, and I quickly learned to respect the word of a man who has been engaged in international affairs, and the development of America's role in the postwar world, since he attended the founding conference of the United Nations in 1945. He has been a stalwart supporter of the movement to secure and protect human rights in all parts of the world. We have joined forces, for example, to protest human rights abuses by the Indonesian Government against the people of East Timor. Senator Pell pressed for his country to take a strong leadership role in protecting the global environment, and he has also been active in efforts to control chemical weapons and to keep nuclear weapons from being sited on the floors of our oceans. But, Mr. President, Claiborne Pell will doubtless be remembered for another accomplishment. Since 1973, more than 60 million Americans have received college educations with the assistance of the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant Program, known since 1980 as the Pell grants. Fathering a program that has done so much good would, in and of itself, rightly establish a Senator's reputation. For Senator Pell, it was a high point in a long and distinguished career. Mr. President, it has been wisely said that only the educated are free. In that sense, Senator Pell has probably been as responsible as anyone for securing freedom for millions of Americans. He also did much to improve the quality of their lives with his efforts to create and nurture the National Endowments for the Arts and for the Humanities. If his accomplishments were not enough, Mr. President, Claiborne Pell also set an example for senatorial behavior. The people who send us here expect us to study the issues with care, conduct our business with civility and make our decisions with respect to the common good. That is exactly what Senator Pell did for 36 years, and that is why the people of Rhode Island kept sending him here. Mr. President, I will miss Claiborne Pell. I wish him every contentment in his life after he leaves this chamber, and I hope that we who remain will be mindful of his example.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to salute Senator Bill Bradley as he closes a distinguished career in the U.S. Senate. A thorough recitation of Senator Bradley's achievements would require a large portion of today's Record. His many accomplishments as a scholar, an athlete, a writer, and a lawmaker are well-known. So let me limit myself with just one area to which he has applied his considerable intelligence and energy, that of bringing a sense of fiscal responsibility to the Federal budget, and particularly, fairness to our Tax Code. Senator Bradley has been praised as a serious student and an original thinker in terms of fiscal policy, marked by a disposition for prudence, fairness, and clarity. Little wonder he has been ranked highly by the bipartisan Concord Coalition for his efforts to cut wasteful spending. I have specifically appreciated his leadership in the effort to reform our system of tax expenditures, what amounts to a $400 billion annual Federal spending program with scant congressional oversight. Senator Bradley has sought reform of this system for years, and I will be one of those who will continue that fight in the 105th Congress. I hope citizen Bradley will be available for advice, encouragement and support in that effort. Mr. President, I know the U.S. Senate will miss the presence of Bill Bradley, and I hope that, from whatever vantage point he has after he takes his leave of us, he remains engaged in the public policy debate. We need people of intelligence, energy and good will, and Bill Bradley possesses all those traits.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the service and the friendship of Senator David Pryor of Arkansas. Mr. President, Senator Pryor's story begins in much the same way as another retiring Senate colleague, Paul Simon--as a journalist. After graduating from the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville in 1957, Senator Pryor founded a weekly newspaper, The Ouachita Citizen. He entered politics in 1960, winning a seat in the Arkansas House of Representatives, to which he was reelected in 1962 and 1964, while simultaneously earning a law degree from the University of Arkansas. His career in public service carried him to Congress in 1966, to the Governor's office in 1974 and then to the U.S. Senate in 1978. Following him to the Governor's office that same year was the young attorney general of Arkansas, William Jefferson Clinton. Mr. President, my association with Senator Pryor began with my joining the Senate in 1993. As it happened, we both share a deep interest in the issues affecting older Americans. Whether the issue is nursing homes, the price of prescription medications, fighting fraud and abuse, consumer protection, or, perhaps most importantly, the reform of our system of providing long-term health care, Senator Pryor has been a leader. In his position as chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, and now in his role as ranking member, Senator Pryor has been this Chamber's pre-eminent voice on aging issues. It was no surprise that he was selected last year to chair the White House Conference on Aging. Perhaps most crucially, Senator Pryor has helped Americans to see that we must all face the inescapable fact of growing older and the issues that fact presents. He has argued that issues of concern to our senior citizens are not special interest issues, but have an impact on all other generations as well. When we are debating and voting on these issues, we are debating and voting on our own futures. In Senator Pryor's eyes, we are all, in fact, in this together, and one of the measures of our society is how well we treat one another. Mr. President, America's senior citizens are losing a knowledgeable and effective advocate as David Pryor retires, and the U.S. Senate is losing a gentleman and a friend. I have enjoyed working with Senator Pryor, and I wish him and his family all the best as he takes his leave of an institution he has served so well.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a distinguished lawmaker, a devoted public servant, and a good friend, the senior Senator from IL, Paul Simon. It has been nearly half a century since Paul Simon bought the Troy, Illinois, Tribune and began crusading against local crime and political corruption, a pretty gutsy thing to do for a 19-year-old who had just left college. But, as many of us have learned, courage, candor, and dedication to principle are fundamental components of Paul Simon's character. I am proud to have had the opportunity to serve with him in the U.S. Senate, and I will miss him greatly upon his retirement. Mr. President, 1996 marks Senator Simon's 40th year in public service. He served in the Illinois House and Senate, and as Illinois' Lieutenant Governor before coming to Washington in 1974 as a Congressman. He joined this body in 1985. Millions of Americans can thank Paul Simon for his important role in the passage of legislation to improve literacy and to support adult education and school-to-work programs. He fought to make student loans more affordable. He has stood by America's working families. He has worked to improve America's relations with the nations of Africa. His sense of social justice has anchored his opposition to the death penalty, and, not surprisingly, this former crusading journalist also has been a reliable defender of the first amendment. He has been, as columnist Jack Anderson once described him, ``a model of integrity.'' He has also found time to write a weekly newspaper column, which has enjoyed a run of 48 years. Mr. President, Senator Simon and I have served together on the Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, and we have worked together closely on many issues, including bipartisan legislation to reform our system of funding political campaigns, legislation on which he was a cosponsor. Throughout it all, I have valued his opinions, his camaraderie and his ability to maintain his cordiality so many feel is slipping away in our public debate. I understand Senator Simon will be taking a post at Southern Illinois University, teaching journalism and politics. I expect he may also keep writing books. He has authored or coauthored 16 of them at last count, including an authoritative book on Abraham Lincoln's years in the Illinois Legislature and one about another crusading journalist, Elijah Lovejoy. Whatever his future pursuits, Paul Simon has already created a memorable legacy in his public service career.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to extend my best wishes to Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming upon his retirement from the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, in a New York Times interview published in June, Senator Simpson was asked to offer valedictory advice to the next class of Senators who will arrive with the 105th Congress. Among his suggestions was ``be your best self'' and ``learn to compromise an issue without compromising yourself.'' Those words would be an apt summation of Senator Simpson himself. You always know where you stand with Alan Simpson, and where he stands with you, even when it's against you. He has demonstrated respect for the Senate, his colleagues, and for the public policymaking process. He is a man to be trusted, and, therefore, respected, and that has made working with him on the Judiciary Committee a pleasure. I also appreciated Senator Simpson's cosponsorship of the McCain- Feingold campaign finance reform legislation. Like so many of my colleagues, I will miss Alan Simpson, and I wish him and his wife, Ann, all the best for the future.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to bid farewell to the senior Senator from Colorado, Hank Brown and to wish him all the best upon his retirement from this Chamber. Mr. President, my association with Senator Brown has been brief, by Senate standards, but it has been quite enjoyable. We have the shared goal of reducing this Nation's deficit, even if we have not agreed on each and every step of the way. I am proud to say I worked with Senator Brown on the Kerrey-Brown deficit reduction package 3 years ago, a proposal that would in and of itself have chopped $100 billion from the deficit. Although we were ultimately unsuccessful, the Kerrey-Brown proposal was a model of bipartisanship, and I am convinced it laid the groundwork for more recent bipartisan deficit reduction efforts. Senator Brown and I have also served together on the Judiciary and Foreign Relations Committees, and I have appreciated his comity and his open-mindedness. Mr. President, Senator Brown leaves us after only one term as a U.S. Senator. We all wish him well, and we all hope future Senators, from Colorado and elsewhere, take a lesson from his tenure in the value of bipartisanship and civility. Those qualities have served him well, and they have served the Senate well.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I object.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I object.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I object.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I object.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Objection. I object.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the immigration provisions that are now included in the continuing resolution. It should come as no surprise that it took nearly 5 months after the Senate passed this bill for the House and Senate conferees to finally be appointed. It should not surprise us that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle initially drafted this conference report amongst themselves, and refused to allow a single democratic amendment to be offered during the conference committee. Some changes were made when the conference report was merged with the omnibus continuing resolution, but the basic provisions were developed in a very partisan process. And finally, it should come as no surprise that the Senate is considering this legislation in the middle of the campaign season. Rather than offering any surprises, the circumstances surrounding us is a clear confirmation that this legislation is less about combating illegal immigration than it is about trying to score political points. Let me begin by observing that there is clearly no demonstrable support in this Congress, nor in this country, for reducing levels of legal immigration. Such reductions were stripped from the House bill and omitted from the Senate bill. I have said repeatedly that there is some abuse of our legal immigration system and we should take appropriate steps to repair this process. But it is clear that a large majority of this body and the other house believes in continuing our longstanding national policy of allowing families to reunite, of continuing to allow foreign skilled workers to be sponsored by businesses, universities and research facilities, and ensuring that the United States continues to be a safe haven for those fleeing persecution from around the world. Mr. President, for anyone who has witnessed the evolution of this legislation, from its inception last spring to the conference report language included in the continuing resolution that is before us today, it is obvious that the commitment of those of us opposing this conference report to combating illegal immigration is just as strong as those who are supporting this legislation. As virtually every expert on this issue agrees, combating illegal immigration must be a two-pronged strategy. The first part of that strategy is border enforcement, particularly along the southwestern border where tens of thousands of illegal immigrants cross into the United States each year. I have supported President Clinton's increases in the U.S. border patrol and I support the further increases contained in this legislation. But a comprehensive strategy must also account for those illegal immigrants who enter the United States legally, usually on a student or a tourist visa, and then remain here unlawfully. This, we know, represents up to one-half--one-half Mr. President--of our illegal immigration problem. So how do you address this problem, known as the visa overstayer problem. Some of my colleagues advocate installing a worker verification system, where employers would have to verify the eligibility status of each worker they hire with the Federal Government. I have long opposed this approach for a variety of reasons. I think it will be a costly burden for our Nation's employers. I think it will lead to an inordinate amount of mistakes resulting in too many law- abiding Americans being denied job opportunities for the wrong reasons. I have concerns that the privacy protections for these workers are inadequate. And that is why the worker verification proposal in this conference report causes me serious concern. It has been pointed out that the verification pilot programs in this bill are purely voluntary. Voluntary for whom, Mr. President? It is voluntary for the employers, sure. But not the employees. Workers do not get a choice of whether or not their name is fed into some Federal Government computer to verify whether or not they are eligible to work in the United States. Interestingly, both in the Judiciary Committee and here on the Senate floor, concern was expressed that these verification proposals could lead to some sort of national identification document. The sponsors of this bill scoffed at such a notion. They said there was nothing in this bill that would create such a document nor require Americans to carry one. Well, let's just take a look at the final agreement. The legislation before us requires that one of the worker verification pilot programs, which must involve millions of United States citizens in at least 5 States, include the use of (quote) ``machine readable documents.'' Now keep in mind that this conference report already imposes a massive Federal mandate on the States by requiring them to only issue birth certificates and driver's licenses that conform to Federal standards. Let me repeat that, Mr. President. Under this legislation, the State of Wisconsin will have to issue drivers licenses based on guidelines set forth by the Department of Transportation. If the DOT tells Wisconsin to add a costly new security feature to their licenses, Wisconsin will have to comply. It does not matter how much it costs. It does not matter what sort of burden that places on the State agency. And it certainly does not matter if the State of Wisconsin concludes that such a security feature will cost far more than any benefit it will derive. I see that the conference report has added language that the Federal Government shall make grants available to the States to help pay for this new mandate. I am sure that is of little comfort to the states. It is clear that considering our fiscal constraint right now, the chances of these grants actually being made available through the appropriations process is an uphill battle to say the least. And that is why this provision continues to draw strong opposition from the National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Association of Counties. So clearly all the talk we have heard over the last 2 years about taking power out of the hands of Washington bureaucrats and placing it back in the hands of the States and local governments was little more than political grandstanding. Those were empty words, Mr. President, pure and simple. The federalization of these documents was a part of the Senate-passed immigration bill. But now we have this new twist, that one of the verification programs is to utilize (quote) ``machine-readable documents.'' That means that in those States that are included in this pilot program, the applicable State agency will also be responsible for ensuring that their drivers licenses or other such documents are embroidered with a machine-readable social security number. Mr. President, these verification and birth certificate provisions alone are enough to oppose this legislation. But there are a number of other provisions that were jammed into this conference report that make little if any sense. Let's look at the triple fence we are now going to build between Mexico and Southern California. This is to be a 14-mile-long fence with three separate tiers to make it as difficult and painful as possible for intruders to navigate. The conference report authorizes $12 million for the initial construction of this wall. But according to INS, the fence and roads in between the three tiers will likely have a final price tag of between $80 and $100 million by the time construction is completed. One hundred million dollars, Mr. President, for a 14-mile-long fence. That works out to be $4,100 a yard, Mr. President; $4,100 for one yard of fence and road. I'd like to know who's getting that Government contract. But it gets worse. During Senate consideration of this legislation, language was added to the bill that made sure that INS had some input as to where these barriers were erected. That language has magically disappeared. Instead, the bill provides for the construction of the 14-mile long triple fence, (quote) ``starting at the pacific ocean and extending eastward''. It doesn't matter if INS believes the fence would be more effective a half-mile away from the ocean. Of course, if I am an illegal immigrant and see a huge wall starting at the ocean and extending eastward, I might just throw a life preserver on and swim around it. I'm sure this triple fence will follow in the footsteps of the other great physical barriers, such as the Berlin Wall and the great Maginot Line. Mr. President, when this bill left the U.S. Senate last April, there was one provision that I thought would make a marked difference in terms of focusing in on the 50 percent of illegal immigrants who come here by legal means, the so-called visa overstayers. It was a provision authored by myself and the junior Senator from Michigan Senator Abraham. The Abraham-Feingold language, for the first time ever, imposed tough new penalties on those who come here on a legal visa and remain in the United States long after the visa has expired. It required the Attorney General to implement an automated system of tracking the arrival and departure of nonimmigrant aliens, permitting for the first time computer identification of nonimmigrants who overstay their visas. And finally, it authorized over 300 new investigators each year for 3 years dedicated solely to the purpose of identifying these visa overstayers. That bipartisan proposal represented the sort of sensible targeted approach to combating illegal immigration that could be supported by Senators of all partisan and ideological persuasions. Our strategy for combating illegal immigration should not be about building walls, or creating a national worker verification system, or placing a brigade of marines on the southwestern border, or telling an immigrant family that they cannot bring a parent, a child or a spouse into this country. It should be about identifying who is and who is not playing by the rules, and sending a strong message that there are severe penalties that will be enforced against those who choose to break our laws. Unfortunately, a change was made to the Abraham-Feingold language in the conference report that I believe greatly undermines the effectiveness of this provision. The Senator from Michigan and I very carefully crafted our language to provide a broad-based exception from these penalties for any individual who could demonstrate good cause for remaining in the United States without authorization. Why were we so careful to include this exception, Mr. President? Quite simply, there are many good reasons why an individual might not leave the United States immediately after their visa expires. Perhaps they have become ill. Perhaps a family member has become ill. Maybe they need a short extension to raise the money to leave the country. There are a variety of reasons, some legitimate, some not. But our language would have put the burden on the nonimmigrant to demonstrate good cause to the INS. Instead, this conference report wipes out that important exception, and essentially only provides an exception to a nonimmigrant who has remained in the United States because they have a claim for readjustment of status pending at INS. That Mr. President, is troublesome, And I have serious concerns that this will result in countless nonimmigrants being subject to harsh penalties for no fault of their own. That is yet another example of sound policy being thrown to the wayside for no apparent legitimate reason. Finally, Mr. President, I want to address the asylum provisions in this legislation that the Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, has so eloquently shown to be very troublesome. America has a proud history of representing a safe haven for those who believe in democracy and who have been tormented for embracing particular political and religious viewpoints. It should continue to do so. We have had, no doubt, serious problems and abuses with our asylum system. In the past, too many nonmeritorious claims have been filed, and the result has been a massive backlog of pending claims that has prevented or delayed more legitimate claims from being processed. I do not believe, however, that sort of abuse is adequate justification to place countless obstacles in front of those who have legitimate asylum claims. Moreover, before we consider passing any heavy-handed reforms, we should remember that the Clinton administration has made tremendous progress in reforming the asylum system in just the past year or so. As a result of these new reforms, in the past year alone, new asylum claims have been cut in half and INS has more then doubled their productivity in terms of processing new claims. Mr. President, these promising reforms are in their infancy and we should be very careful not to mandate any new restrictions that will impede the progress INS is now making and prevent legitimate claims from being considered in as expedited fashion as possible. The summary exclusion provisions in this legislation are unnecessarily harsh and make little sense. This provision states that if you are living in a country where you are being persecuted, if the regime you are living under is oppressive, and you are forced to falsify your papers in order to gain safe passage to the United States--this legislation says that you are unwelcome in the United States. It literally shuts the door on thousands of asylum seekers who find themselves in this position. Mr. President, I do not understand what the authors of this language could possibly be thinking. Often we hear the well-publicized cases of persons seeking asylum in this country, whether it is Fidel Castro's daughter or members of the Cuban national baseball team. But most people who are seeking asylum aren't relatives of celebrities, or famous national athletes. Often, they are working people, who are being imprisoned and often tortured for their religious or political views. How can we expect these people to walk into a government agency in their home country and obtain the necessary paperwork to leave that country? We can't Mr. President, and that is why I am afraid that this provision will have disastrous consequences for a great many individuals seeking political asylum in the United States. Mr. President, to conclude, the conference report before us has turned into little more than an incoherent and unjustifiable attack against immigrants and refugees. There are 100 senators in this body who are genuinely committed to reducing illegal immigration and punishing those who choose to break our laws. Unfortunately, I think it is clear that what some of our colleagues could not do directly in terms of reducing legal immigration is being accomplished indirectly. You can do it by cracking down on legal immigrants who use welfare. You can do it by cracking down on persecuted individuals seeking asylum. You can do it in a host of ways, and I am afraid that is exactly what this conference report has accomplished. Thank you Mr. President and I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object for a moment, let me just say that I am intrigued by the conversation and am concerned about the airline safety issues, the funding. I am very concerned about those issues. I want this bill to pass too. So why in the world, yesterday, just yesterday, under the guise of a technical correction to the Railway Labor Act, was an unacceptable and very controversial special interest provision added to this bill? It was not because of airline safety. It was not because of funding for the airports. And it was not a technical correction. The provision makes a significant change in Federal law to give Federal Express an edge in its current attempt to stop some of its employees from joining a union. That is what is so all-fired important here and had to be put in yesterday in a bill that we are being told has to pass because of airline safety. That is the issue. Let us just get this out of there. That is what that provision is about. It has nothing to do with airline safety. Mr. President, because of what really has happened here, I object.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for the conference language in the 1996 Water Resources Development Act reauthorization [WRDA] that deauthorizes the La Farge Dam and Lake project. I wish to commend the hard work of the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], the Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], and their staff in completing the conference on this measure in a timely fashion prior to the adjournment of the 104th Congress. I have also been very pleased with the collegial work that has taken place among the Members of the Wisconsin delegation--Representative Gunderson, Senator Kohl, and myself--in steadfastly pursuing this deauthorization this year. As I stated when this measure passed the Senate in July 1996, I am pleased that the Congress is finally acting to end this controversial project and to seek a new beginning for the Kickapoo Valley. We are finally able to say to the people of the Kickapoo Valley that the Federal Government can act to improve their lives and correct a situation that has long been the symbol, to many in the area, of a broken promise. This legislation will allow the property to be managed jointly by a local government panel comprised of local, State and tribal representation. It will be the first time in our State's history that these three different levels of government will work together to manage a property to preserve its ecological integrity while allowing the public access to the outstanding recreational opportunities. I wanted to briefly review the details of the conference agreement with respect to this project. Under this legislation, the 8,569 acres of land purchased by the Federal Government for the construction of the La Farge Dam and Lake project will be transferred to two owners: The State of Wisconsin and the Ho Chunk Nation, a federally recognized tribe in my State. The Ho Chunk Nation will receive no more than 1,200 acres in the transfer of culturally and religiously significant sites, and the State will receive the rest. This transfer will occur once the State and the tribe enter into a memorandum of understanding [MOU]. That MOU must ensure that the property is developed only to enhance outdoor recreational or educational purposes, described how the lands will be jointly managed, protect the confidentiality of sites of cultural and religious significance to the Ho Chunk as appropriate, and establish the terms by which the agreement will be revisited in the future. I am particularly pleased that the conference committee was able to include a $17 million authorization for improvement projects at this site, an authorization which was supported by the Wisconsin delegation and the local community. These improvements include: Reconstruction of the three roads; remediation of old underground storage tanks and wells on the abandoned farms; and the stabilization of the old dam site. Next month, members of a gubernatorially appointed negotiating panel will meet with representatives of the Ho Chunk Nation to begin the MOU negotiating process. Bolstered by the passage of this legislation, I know they will try to work as swiftly as possible to complete their task. In conclusion, Mr. President, I again want to express my gratitude to the members of the conference committee for their assistance in working with the delegation on this matter. I believe that this legislation will result in a truly landmark arrangement for the management of a public recreational area. I look forward to the final establishment of the Kickapoo Valley reserve, and the protection of this truly outstanding resource. I first introduced legislation, S. 2186, to achieve this goal on June 14, 1994, and reintroduced that measure as S. 40 on January 4, 1995. It is a great pleasure to see this measure finally enacted.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we are nearing the end of the 104th Congress, a time when many will review the accomplishments and the failures of the last 2 years. Though the dramatic budget disputes have dominated much of the brief history of the 104th Congress, there have in fact been a number of bipartisan successes that have not been as publicly noted. These bipartisan efforts have included congressional compliance, unfunded mandates legislation, lobby and gift reform, modest, but helpful, health insurance reform, and the promising beginnings of campaign finance reform. But, Mr. President, perhaps the biggest achievement of this Congress has been something that was not done. This Congress did not enact any of the massive, fiscally irresponsible tax-cut proposals that Members of both parties have proposed. Mr. President, a recent headline in the Washington Post read, ``Dole's Tax Cut Centerpiece Has Yet To Strike a Chord With Voters.'' It is a telling story about the inability of the Dole campaign to gain significant political benefit from his proposal to cut taxes by nearly half a trillion dollars. To a certain extent, I think the same kind of story could be written, in fairness, about President Clinton's tax-cut proposals. The bulk of the success that the President has enjoyed--I believe will continue to enjoy--clearly comes not from his tax-cut plans, but from his handling of the economy and his record on deficit reduction. So, Mr. President, I think neither candidate has benefited in any significant way from proposing tax cuts. The reason is straightforward. Voters understand we simply cannot afford to cut taxes if we are to balance the Federal budget within the next 6 years. Mr. President, do Americans want lower taxes? Of course they do. But given the choice between cutting taxes and balancing the budget, the American voter wants to balance the budget. Make no mistake, Mr. President, that is the choice we have before us. We have to do one or the other. You cannot do both. Anyone who claims you can do both is either blowing smoke or simply does not understand the huge problem we have in this country with our deficit and the debt which underlies it. Mr. President, we saw how politically unsustainable a budget package becomes when it attempts to provide a major tax cut while it also claims to be eliminating the deficit. The political developments of this past year are testimony to this fact. Indeed, any budget package that eliminates the deficit will be difficult enough to sustain over the next few years that it would take to fully implement its provisions even without the added burden of funding a significant tax cut. The failure of the tax-cut plans offered by either party to gain political momentum is, of course, not due to a lack of effort. Millions of dollars are being spent on carefully crafted television commercials advocating these tax-cut proposals. These plans are not new nor are the efforts to promote them. The President's plan that we have heard about recently is similar, in many ways, to the one he proposed in December of 1994. The Dole plan clearly has its roots in the massive tax cut proposed as a part of the now famous Contract With America. In fact, many in this body will recall that the Speaker of the other body pronounced that the tax-cut proposal, of all the proposals in the Contract With America, was the ``crown jewel'' of the Contract With America, in his words. Mr. President, the Speaker's characterization was notable. Of all the provisions in that political document, it was the tax cut that he, the leader of that charge, gave the privileged position. Yet, despite the considerable political inertia that is conferred by being singled out as the crown jewel of the Contract With America, the tax cut has not been enacted. Mr. President, does anyone doubt that, if there had been strong broad-based support for that tax cut, it would have been enacted by now? Clearly it would have been. If the American people truly preferred tax cuts to deficit reduction, we would have seen an inevitable bipartisan rush to enact them. But that has not been the case. In the Washington Post story on the failure of the Dole tax-cut plan to attract voter support, a gentleman named Ralph Miller, of Greencastle, IN, a self-described independent, is quoted as saying this: When I hear all that talk about how they're going to cut taxes and balance the budget, it turns me against the both of them. He added: I don't believe anybody can do that * * * I have respect for Bob Dole, but this seems ridiculous to me. Mr. President, despite the lost opportunity to make even more progress to reduce the deficit during the 104th Congress, the deficit- reduction package passed in 1993 continues to lower the annual budget deficits below where they otherwise would have been. As many have noted, in the last 4 years we have seen deficits come down from nearly $300 billion to an estimated $117 billion. That progress, of course, has come only with great difficulty. Finishing the job will be even tougher, but it is something that absolutely must be done. Mr. President, proposals to provide large tax cuts jeopardize that effort by pirating the savings generated by spending cuts away from deficit reduction in order to fund tax cuts. They also undercut deficit reduction by providing an alluring alternative to the often painful and unpopular work of balancing the budget. It is much easier it is to talk of cutting taxes than it is to focus on where to cut spending. The American people have not been swayed by the talk of cutting taxes by the Presidential candidates. In fact, if President Clinton wins, as I hope and expect he will, it will in large part be because of his success in reducing the deficit, not because of his tax cut proposals. Mr. President, in 1994, the first time many voters became aware of the Contract With America, including its crown jewel, was after the election. But that fact was conveniently ignored when the new congressional leadership sought to advance their agenda. The contract's provisions were held up as an electoral mandate, though I doubt 1 voter in 10 was in any way familiar with the real specifics of the Contract With America. There will be no comparable, after-the-fact, document this year, Mr. President. The differences between the two candidates are well known. And despite the efforts of some in both parties, and the political and media specialists in both campaigns, the outcome of this election will rest in large part on whether voters choose reducing the deficit or cutting taxes as the higher economic priority of this Nation. Mr. President, despite the loudly trumpeted promises made at the beginning of this Congress, and despite the significant political pressure brought to bear by well-funded special interests, we have succeeded in avoiding significant damage to the deficit, and to the goal of a balanced budget, that a huge tax cut would have meant. If, in the 105th Congress, as I very much hope, we are finally able to enact a bipartisan budget plan that will balance the Federal books, it will be in large part because we did not enact a fiscally irresponsible tax cut in the 104th Congress.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me first say it is an honor to simply have heard the tribute by the Senator from Georgia directed at the Senator from West Virginia. It is an honor to simply serve with these two men. I was delighted to hear the tribute. I thank the Senator. We will all miss him very, very much in this body.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. That's not the question. What this bill is about is a question that should be answered by a doctor and the woman who receives the advice of the doctor. Neither I nor is the Senator from Pennsylvania is truly competent to answer those questions. That is why we should not be making those decisions here on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I would simply answer the question by saying under the Boxer amendment the standard of saying it has to be a determination, by a doctor, of health of the mother, is a sufficient standard that would apply to the situation covered by this bill. That would be an adequate standard.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I will.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, this is a difficult issue for everyone concerned. No one likes abortions, whatever procedure is used. It is a difficult subject to discuss, perhaps most difficult for those who have had abortions or have had to face the choice of an abortion. Madam President, I will vote to sustain the President's veto because I believe, fundamentally, that the decision about whether to choose an abortion should remain a personal, private decision by the woman involved, and the decision about what procedure is necessary to protect the health and life of a woman is one that should be made between the woman and her physician, not by the Federal Government. Before I briefly address the specifics of this bill, I wish to take a moment to pay tribute to the Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], who has been such a courageous leader on this issue, as have a number of other Members of the Senate. I also praise the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], who this morning expressed her outrage at the tenor of this debate where individual Senators talked about the joy of being in the delivery room with their wives, as if that gave them the authority to dictate to the women of this country what options should be available to them in a time of distress and urgency. I share that concern. For that reason, I come to the floor this afternoon to take a little time to underscore why this legislation is wrong and why President Clinton was courageous and correct in his decision to veto it. Madam President, let me say again, no one likes abortion. No one wants to talk about abortion or the procedure. We ought to clearly understand what the effort behind this legislation is. It is to ban abortions entirely, not just this one particular procedure. I know this firsthand from the Judiciary hearings on this bill where I had a chance to ask one of the proponents what the position of her organization was on a variety of other abortion procedures. The response I received was very clear. The witness admitted that their goal was to outlaw and criminalize every single kind of procedure. That is why the underlying push behind this legislation is clear. It is not, and I repeat not, to ban just one form of abortion. It is to outlaw all forms of abortion, from taking a pill such as RU- 486 within the first several weeks after conception to this rarely used procedure, the late-term abortion. If proponents of this legislation wanted to ban only this form of abortion, they could have done so by accepting the amendment of the Senator from California which would allow a physician to use this technique only if necessary to protect the life of a woman or to avoid serious adverse health consequences to the woman. The President said in his veto message that he was vetoing the bill because it ``does not allow women to protect themselves from serious threats to their health'' and because it refuses ``to permit women, in reliance on their doctor's best medical judgement, to use this procedure when their lives are threatened or when their health is put in serious jeopardy.'' The amendment offered by my friend from California, Senator Boxer, would actually impose an even stronger standard than contained in Roe versus Wade, which speaks only to the health of a woman. The Boxer amendment would have allowed this procedure to be banned unless it was necessary to avoid a serious adverse health consequence to the woman. If the proponents of this legislation would accept that amendment, this bill could be passed and sent to the President, as the Senator from California has said, within hours, and he would sign it into law. The fact that the proponents of this legislation refuse to accept an amendment to allow a physician to use this procedure if necessary to avoid a serious adverse health consequence reveals what this debate is really about: it is about scoring political points, confusing the public, and beginning a process aimed at outlawing all forms of abortion. I want to respond briefly to the claims made that this procedure is never medically necessary. I attended the Judiciary Committee hearings and what I heard was that different physicians have different opinions about whether this procedure is more or less safe for a woman than other procedures, whether the procedure may be necessary in a particular situation to protect a woman's future ability to bear children, and precisely what the procedure is that would be banned under this legislation. So, what I heard was a professional disagreement among members of the medical community on the efficacy and risks associated with various abortion procedures. Each side of this debate can quote from the medical expert they prefer as to the safety or necessity of the particular procedure. That medical professionals have different opinions on these issues is both understandable and expected. But that, Mr. President, is precisely why trained physicians and their patients, not Members of Congress, should make the decisions about what course of treatment is appropriate in an individual situation. Without going through a detailed description of the different opinions, some physicians told the committee that there were a number of situations where alternative abortion procedures had a higher risk to the woman. For example, testimony was presented indicating that a woman was 14 times as likely to die from a cesarean hysterotomy than from a D&E procedure. There was also testimony about certain alternative procedures that can cause a traumatic stretching of the cervix that increases a woman's chances for infertility in the future. Others disagreed. Again, what this debate told me is that there is room for disagreement between physicians about specific medical procedures. It should not be the role of Congress to decide or determine which side of this debate is right or wrong. These are medical questions that ought to be decided by medical professionals, not Members of Congress. One woman who had made the difficult choice of choosing this procedure when a much wanted pregnancy had turned into a tragedy told our committee, as follows: It deeply saddens me that you are making a decision having never walked in our shoes. When families like ours are given this kind of tragic news, the last people we want to seek advice from are politicians. We talk to our doctors, lots of doctors. We talk to our families and other loved ones, and we ponder long and hard into the night with God. We ought to listen to those words. These decisions are private, personal, painful decisions to be made by the families involved, guided by their physicians. Congress ought to leave these decisions with the people involved. To tell a woman and her family that Congress will not allow her doctor to use a procedure which will allow her a greater chance to be able to have another pregnancy and bear a child in the future is cruel and unconscionable. To tell a woman and her family that Congress will not allow a physician to use this procedure if necessary to protect her from serious, adverse health consequences is just wrong. Let me say one more time: If the aim of this legislation was simply to restrict the use of this particular procedure, they would have accepted the Boxer amendment. But this is not the goal of the proponents of this bill. The goal is to outlaw each and every abortion procedure, one by one. That is what is at stake. The President's veto should be sustained.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask the Senator from California to yield me up to 10 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. The climate described in the article clearly is not one that supports freedom of expression, freedom of the press or freedom of association. The events of July 27 underscore the Government's intention to foster a repressive climate in the months leading up to the 1997 parliamentary elections. As the New York Times declared in a recent editorial, ``This is no time to be selling high-performance warplanes to Indonesia.'' The administration says its policy is ``to make available to Indonesia military equipment that will support legitimate external defense needs.'' At the same time, the United States will not export or transfer to Indonesia small arms, crowd control equipment or armored personnel carriers until we have seen significant improvement in human rights in the country, particularly in East Timor. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Congress and the administration have worked together to develop a policy linking the sale of small arms to Indonesia to its human rights record. This policy evolved from an amendment that I offered to the foreign aid appropriations bill several years ago. But I believe that we are missing an important opportunity to apply pressure to the Indonesian regime by failing to impose comparable conditions on the F-16 sale. In fact, in public statements since congressional notification was delayed, the administration has not even mentioned human rights or democratic values in connection with the sale. Instead, it continues to state publicly that it intends to go through with the sale as early as January. I believe official advocacy of the F-16 sale sends the wrong message to the Indonesian military. It sends the message that--despite our concerns about the lack of respect for human rights in East Timor and despite the continued failure of the Indonesian military to respond substantively to these concerns--the United States will continue to supply substantial amounts of lethal military equipment to Indonesia. If the events of July 27 tell us nothing else, they should signal to us that Indonesia still has a long way to go in terms of respect for human rights and democratic values. I believe that we should support progress in these areas--only when real progress actually is achieved. Instead, within weeks of a major crackdown by the Indonesian authorities, the administration persists in its plans to provide Indonesia with nine advanced military planes. I do not think now is the time to be rewarding Indonesia with nine planes. Only when we see some improvement in Indonesia's conduct should we be elevating the level of our military ties to the country. In sum, I continue to believe that--in Indonesia, as elsewhere--we must consider a military's human rights record as one of the determining factors in deciding whether or not the U.S. Government should license or facilitate a foreign arms sale. As a result, I oppose the administration's plans to allow the transfer of the F-16's to Indonesia at this time, or in the near future, and I intend to work with a number of other Members of the Senate who share that view to persuade the administration that a change in policy is warranted here. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to make a few brief remarks about United States policy in Indonesia. I am deeply concerned about some of the views being expressed by some members of the Clinton administration, and am particularly concerned because the administration has been quite culpable in the past with regard to aspects of our Indonesia policy. Despite a violent crackdown in Jakarta on July 27--not quite 2 months ago--this administration says it still intends to go forward with the sale of nine F-16 fighter jets to Indonesia. Mr. President, the administration had fully intended to send up notification of this sale earlier this month. Fortunately, objections from myself and many of my colleagues convinced the administration that now was not the right time to announce officially the intention to sell fighter jets to Indonesia. I am pleased that--for the time being--this sale cannot move forward, at least until Congress reconvenes in January. But what concerns me today, Mr. President, are recent statements that suggest that the administration necessarily will attempt to notify Congress again in January--apparently without conditioning this move on any actions by the Indonesian authorities either in the past or in the coming months. Given the history of human right abuses in Indonesia, as well as the events of July 27, I find this attitude difficult to accept. Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on United States policy toward Indonesia. We heard from two very capable administration witnesses and four distinguished private panelists, including a political science professor from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. As one of the witnesses commented, this may have been the first hearing in many years to look at the full scope of American ties to Indonesia. Mr. President, I recognize that Indonesia is an important country and a valuable ally. It is the largest country in Southeast Asia, and its population of more than 200 million people is the fourth largest in the world. It plays a significant role in Asian affairs, and has been instrumental in conflict resolution efforts in the region. It also has been an important ally of the United States in international forums, such as the United Nations. I also salute Indonesia's economic success, and believe there are many valuable lessons in Indonesia's experience which can be applied to other developing countries across the world. Mr. President, these achievements cannot--and do not--excuse Indonesia's consistently dismal record on human rights and its continuous assault on democratic freedoms. Mr. President, I am particularly concerned about the massive human rights abuses that continue in East Timor. As we all know, Indonesia has sustained a brutal military occupation of East Timor since 1975. Human rights organizations from around the world, as well as our own State Department, continue to report substantial human rights violations by the Indonesian military-- including arbitrary arrests and detentions, curbs on freedom of expression and association, and the use of torture and summary killings of civilians. More recently, we have heard reports of the Indonesian military conducting systematic training of East Timorese youth to take part in local militia groups. We also have heard disturbing reports of increasing religious and ethnic tension in East Timor, which at times is exacerbated by government inaction. On top of the ongoing pattern in East Timor, the July 27 events in Jakarta reinforce my perception of an Indonesian regime that squashes alternative political discourse. On that day, hundreds of people rioted after President Soeharto attempted to oust Megawati Sukarnoputri, a popular opposition leader, from her position as chair of the Indonesian Democratic Party, or PDI. During the riot, arson-led fires caused considerable property damage. At least five people were killed, at least 149 injured, and hundreds arrested. But, as Human Rights Watch reports, many of those arrested did not appear to be responsible for initiating the riot. Instead, most were linked, or accused of being linked, to the reform movement or specifically to the Megawati camp. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a September 20, 1996, article from the Washington Post which describes how difficult it is for Megawati to operate as an opposition candidate after government officials ousted her as party leader, threatened to shut down party headquarters, and arrested many of her supporters.