Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business, and following my remarks, that Senator Graham of Florida be recognized for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1965, the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996. I am pleased to join many of my colleagues from the Judiciary Committee, including Chairman Hatch and the ranking member, Senator Biden, as a cosponsor of this legislation. This bill is an important step in attempting to halt the spread of methamphetamine across this Nation. Methamphetamine is a dangerous synthetic drug which stimulates the central nervous system and can lead to such unfortunate consequences, as death, violent and uncontrollable behavior and severe depression. Methamphetamine is similar to another synthetic drug which appeared in my home State of Wisconsin in the recent past, methcathinone or cat as it is commonly known. Thankfully, through the hard work of law enforcement, both Federal and local, throughout the upper Midwest, it appears that methcathinone remains a relatively isolated problem. In contrast, however, the use of methamphetamine appears to be spreading. While use of methamphetamine creates responses similar to that of crack cocaine, reactions to methamphetamine have been far more severe and longer in duration than those of crack or cocaine. Furthermore, in recent years the purity of this drug has increased, thus enhancing the potential for violent reactions among its users. The consequences of this are serious, not only for the user, but for society as well. Drug abuse can often lead to crime or violent behavior, possibilities which may be amplified when methamphetamine is involved. A recent national conference of Federal, State and local law enforcement indicated that law enforcement must become prepared to deal with more violent offenders who have abused methamphetamine. The re-emergence of this drug can be traced to the early 1990's when Mexican drug traffickers began to increase their production and importation of methamphetamine in the United States. Although originally produced primarily in Mexico, the clandestine labs which generate methamphetamine have begun to appear in this nation. Initially, the devastating presence of this drug was largely restricted to the Western United States, predominately in California and Arizona. For the period of 1991 through 1994, methamphetamine related deaths increased by 176 percent for the cities of Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Diego, and San Francisco. In the city of Phoenix the number of methamphetamine related emergency room incidents increased by 370 percent for that same 4-year period. Nationwide, the number of emergency room incidents increased 350 percent from 1991 to 1994. While originally restricted to the western part of the United States, it appears that the drug has begun an eastward migration to parts of the Midwest. Mr. President, there can be no doubt that the consequences of using this drug are serious. We must take steps to address this growing problem and this legislation does just that. S. 1965 includes provisions to strengthen and enhance penalties for the trafficking of methamphetamine. It increases penalties for the illegal possession and trafficking of precursor chemicals, those chemicals which are used to produce this deadly drug. The bill increases penalties for the illegal manufacture and possession of equipment used to construct the clandestine labs which generate methamphetamine and other controlled substances. Another troubling facet of this drug, which this bill addresses, is that the labs which produce this drug often pour volatile and lethal chemicals into the environment. This bill increases the penalties for those individuals who endanger the lives of innocent people and law enforcement as well as threaten the environment by operating these labs. Because many of the components of methamphetamine are products which are otherwise legally available, the bill tightens restrictions on the sale and importation of the precursor chemicals used by methamphetamine traffickers. It enhances reporting requirements for pseudoephedrine or phenylpropanolamine, both important components in the production of methamphetamine. In short, Mr. President, in addition to punishing those individuals who market in this deadly drug, the bill addresses the important issue of regulating precursor chemicals which are essential to drug traffickers. Finally Mr. President, this legislation establishes an interagency task force to visit the growing problem of methamphetamine abuse and develop and implement a national strategy of education, prevention, and treatment. Further, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is charged with monitoring the level of methamphetamine abuse in the United States in order to assist public health officials in developing responses to this problem. Clearly, Mr. President, the problems of drug which confront this Nation are complex and challenging. It will require a long-term commitment by all of us. We must coordinate law enforcement and tough sanctions with effective and adequately funded education, prevention and treatment initiatives. This legislation is clearly just one portion of what must be a larger approach to the issue of drug abuse, but it is, in my opinion, an important and necessary step in addressing the consequences of methamphetamine. I want to again thank the Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, and Senator Hatch for their leadership on this bill. I am proud to join them in this effort and pleased that the Senate has chosen to adopt this important legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, very briefly, again I salute the Senator from Ohio for his knowledge in this area. It is extensive and a great contribution to Government efficiency. I want to be clear. The great growth in this area did not occur under President Clinton. I am, of course, a Democrat supporting his reelection, and I am in no way pointing my finger at this administration. The facts don't show that at all. This has been a gradual process over the years which both parties participated in. I want to be clear about that. I also want to point out, because I was very appreciative of the figures just placed in the Record, yes, there is a high turnover rate. This is something I mentioned in my remarks. I will add, I gave a number of reasons why I didn't think we had a harsh provision. That turnover rate means it is going to be very easy, comparatively speaking, for the President to deal with this. If that is the turnover rate during the course of the next year, a lot of those folks who turn over won't have to be replaced. In other words, we're not talking here about mass firings; we are talking about not replacing, in many cases, those who have simply chosen to leave after a brief tenure. Mr. President, if it is consistent with the managers' wishes, I now intend to move to table. Mr. President, I now move to table that portion of the committee amendment beginning on page 129, line 20 through line 18 on page 130.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me, first of all, say that there is no one who has shown more commitment to Government efficiency and making sure we have spent our tax dollars properly than the Senator from Ohio, so it is no fun disagreeing with him on an issue like this. Let me, as I must, respond to a few of the points he made. First of all, to hear some of the comments from the Senator from Ohio and some of the questions of the Senator from Nebraska, you would think what we are proposing to do is to essentially eliminate all political appointees. That is not what we are doing. The figure that has been bantered about is we are cutting the number of political appointees by a third, but that is not the case. The estimate we have is that the number averages about 2,700 or 2,800 political appointees. The effect of this amendment would take it down to about 2,300. That is far less than one-third. It is more like 17 percent or something close to it. I understand the comparison between the rounding off at 3,000 versus the original bill at 2,000 would have produced that result, but that is not the effect here. Neither I nor Mr. Volcker's commission or Mr. Light at any point suggested you do not need political appointees. In fact, I took great care in my original remarks to indicate that you absolutely do need some political appointees. You must have them in order to implement the political will that accompanied a Chief Executive's election to office. So there is no disagreement on that point. The only question is what is the proper level, and that goes to the second question. Are we, as the Senator from Ohio suggested, singling out political employees for a cut? Or is it just the opposite, that they have been singled out for protection? Federal employment in general, in this area, only went up 5 percent between 1980 and 1992; political employment has gone up 17 percent. It is awfully hard to explain to the people back home, while various local jobs at the Federal level as well as so many other things are cut, this area continues to grow and grow quickly. I think it is interesting the very period that figure comes from, the 17 percent growth, is the 12 years we are always talking about out here--what happened between 1980 and 1992 with our Federal deficit. That was the period of exponential growth in the deficit and that is what we have been trying to remedy. It seems to me this is admittedly small in the big picture but, again, one example of how things got out of control. In effect, blank checks were being written all over this Government, including in the area of constantly adding political appointees. That leads me to the point I want to stress to my friend from Ohio. He is absolutely right, the progress that has been made by this administration is tremendous. I am very proud of it. I would like to think I have had a small part in it. The Vice President's national performance review has been key. The reductions have been very impressive. Every American should be proud that, overall, we have made great progress, as the Senator from Ohio has suggested. All I am trying to do by this amendment is to round it out; to make sure it does look, in the words of the Senator from Ohio, fair; that it just did not happen to civil service people but it also happens to political appointees. I think it is most unfortunate to speak of the great reductions that have been made in one area and then find the area where reductions have not been made at all is the most sensitive area, of political appointees. So, some of the language that has been used to describe this amendment--being unfair or arbitrary or taking a meat-ax approach--I think, is wrong. This is very consistent with the philosophy and spirit of the national performance review. I want to respond to the Senator from Ohio by pointing out four ways in which this is not at all a meat-ax approach. First, I reiterate, this does not eliminate all political appointees. It reduces them from a figure of about 2,800 now to about 2,300. Second, it does not have to happen tomorrow. The President has an entire year to get down to this figure. That is the effective date of the amendment. It is not immediate. Third, and this is a question the Senator from Ohio properly raised and it deserves an answer. We put no constraints in this provision on how the President is to do this. We do not micromanage it. We do not say that some specific number has to come from this department or this area of political appointees. We give the President full discretion to make this determination, as it generally should be. Sometimes I get concerned. We have experienced this, for example, in the area of foreign policy, where some folks in this body were trying to micromanage the State Department in every respect. That is wrong. But it is appropriate for us, in the appropriations process, to set an overall level, a maximum number of political appointees, and then say: Mr. President, we want you to reach that level within a year; we, of course, will understand you will make your own determinations how this is to happen. Finally, though it may not be the most important, because I think the Government efficiency aspect and cutting spending are both critical, I think a last point needs to be emphasized from my earlier presentation. That is these experts, Mr. Volcker, Mr. Light and others, concluded not only that we did not need all these folks, necessarily, to have a Federal Government that can implement the policies of the President, but that it actually is harder for a President to be effective, or a Governor to be effective, when there are too many political appointees to manage; when there are so many they become a life and an entity of their own and the President no longer has the time nor the ability to manage all of that. That is the title of Mr. Light's book, ``Thickening Government, Federal Hierarchy and the Diffusion of Accountability.'' We are noting here, not only about limiting the number of employees, we are talking about making sure the political appointees who are put in their positions are actually accountable to the Chief Executive who was elected and whose policies we are concerned about continuing. This is not a hatchet job or meat-ax approach. It is a modest amendment. It gives the President a year to go forward with this change and I think it is perfectly consistent and would be a proud addition to the President's tremendous record and progress, not only on reducing the number of Federal employees, but his magnificent record on reducing the Federal deficit from what would have been $300 billion and is now estimated to be only about $117 billion, moving in the right direction for the coming fiscal year. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Nebraska, of course. I respect very much his distinguished tenure as Governor of Nebraska and his knowledge of the importance of having a political presence within any kind of executive administration, if you want to implement the policies you run on. I indicated that, and it was also indicated from the Volcker Commission, and others' comments to that effect. The question is what level? What I have indicated here and want to repeat is that that clearly has been a greater theme of government with respect to political appointees than other people in executive positions. It has grown 17 percent, while in the nonpolitical area it has only grown approximately 5 percent. That is the question. Clearly, I say to the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. President, there must be some point at which there are too many political appointees-- perhaps 10,000, or 8,000. At some point there are too many people. What these reports have suggested, almost ironically, is that, if you get too many political appointees, the chief executive of a State or the Federal Government cannot even keep track of them so that it actually can backfire on them. It could actually end up being worse than having the right mix between civil service career people and political appointees. In response to the earlier question, as I understand it, there were six members of the task force within the Volcker Commission that examined the specific issue of political appointees. The chairman of that task force was Elliot Richardson. Among the members were Robert McFarlane, Walter Mondale, Benjamin Read, Anne Wexler, and Alan Wolff, and they came up with this conclusion that we ought to go to 2,000 again. To reiterate, my amendment--actually the House amendment that I simply want to restore--would not take this to 2,000 as I originally hoped. It would simply take us to the 2,300 figure. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. The current estimate, if I may say to the Senator from Nebraska, is about 2,900, but it varies and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it averages around 2,700 or 2,800. The effect of this would be, as I understand it, to require, within the next year, a reduction of between 400 and 500 positions.

Mr. FEINGOLD. In addition to Mr. Volcker's commission, which was cited by a number of articles, I also cited the work of Mr. Light, who wrote a more extensive book about this subject called ``Thickening Government,'' which I quoted at length. It was described that the growth of these political appointments has outstripped growth in other areas of Government. Therefore, while we have cut back on some of our Federal employees, this area continues to grow. I can certainly provide the Senator with the details of the Volcker Commission and Mr. Light's book.

Mr. FEINGOLD. That is correct.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the sacrifice that the deficit reduction efforts require really have to be spread among all of us. That has already been felt by many people all over this country and many Government workers all over this country. This measure requires us to bite the bullet and impose limitations upon political appointments that both parties would probably want to retain. The test of a commitment to deficit reduction, however, is not simply to propose measures that impact somebody else. As we move forward to implement the recommendations of the National Performance Review Board to reduce the number of Government employees and streamline agencies and make Government more responsive, we should also take this opportunity today to right-size the number of political appointees, to implement the policies of any administration, without, at the same time, unnecessarily burdening the Federal budget. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan effort. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I intend to move to table the committee amendment beginning on page 129, and ask that it be in order to consider that committee amendment at this time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the pending business be set aside.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I am prepared to make the motion to table.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I cannot think of a lower priority for the Federal Government than to spend this time interfering with the private laws of law-abiding citizens. Before we endeavor to address problems which do not even exist, we should dedicate ourselves to solving those that do. The people of this Nation expect and deserve nothing less, and, therefore, Madam President, I will oppose this legislation. Employment Nondiscrimination Act Let me say with regard to the ENDA bill, that is a piece of legislation I will support and cosponsor. It does, in fact, deal with a real problem in this country, unlike the DOMA legislation, and I hope that we have a strong positive vote of putting the Senate in favor of ending discrimination in that area. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my strong support for the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. I want to commend my colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, and my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, as well as my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, for their dedication to bringing this important piece of legislation before this body and to the attention of the American people. I am a cosponsor of this legislation and believe it should be adopted for very simple, but important and fundamental reasons. Mr. President, there can be no doubt that the history of this Nation is marked by our continuing efforts to stop discrimination--be it in the work-place, in our schools, or in our places of public accommodation. It is also equally true that this Nation's history is marked by the simple notion that if one works hard and keeps their nose to the grindstone, then they too may share in the American dream. Yet, in this country today, these simple but important foundations of our culture are denied to gay and lesbian Americans for no other reason than that they are in fact, gay or lesbian. Mr. President, this legislation would attempt to stop that practice and prohibit employment discrimination against individuals because of their sexual orientation. To date only nine States, including my home State of Wisconsin, have passed comprehensive legislation to ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. In the 41 remaining States, however, it is permissible to discriminate against a worker based upon that workers sexual orientation irrespective of their qualifications, dedication to their job, or work performance. What this legislation would do is to simply ensure that basic American right to fair and just treatment in the employment arena cannot be denied based solely upon a person's sexual orientation. It provides, in essence, the right for gay and lesbian workers to be treated like everyone else--to be judged on the merits of one's contributions, not their sexual preference. Mr. President, it is essential to note that this bill confers no special or preferential rights upon gays and lesbians. It exempts small businesses, the military, and religious organizations and explicitly prohibits preferential treatment, including quotas. The focus of this effort is directed at stopping employment discrimination which exists today. The discrimination targeted by this measure is real. It is not speculative or merely a possibility at some point in the future--it is, in fact, occurring today. If this Nation is to reach its full potential in these ever changing economic times, then we must acknowledge and welcome the contribution of all hard-working Americans in the workplace. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act does just that. It is a sound, and in my view, necessary step to helping ensure the opportunity for millions of Americans to earn a living free of the fear of discrimination. It has the support of Members of both political parties, church and civic leaders, the President, as well as major corporations--corporations which know first hand the value of a discrimination free workplace. We should learn from their experiences. The notion that someone could be fired solely because they are gay or lesbian should be offensive to each of us. Just a few weeks ago, for 8 days of political conventions, both major political parties spent countless hours in a battle to seem more inclusive, more tolerant, more fair than the other. This legislation offers Members of both parties a legitimate opportunity to move from rhetoric into action and provide gay and lesbian Americans the opportunity to work and earn a living free of the fear of losing their jobs solely because of their sexual orientation. The very premise of job discrimination contradicts traditional American values and we must do all we can to stop it. We should adopt this legislation. I thank the Chair. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the legislation before this body obviously touches upon a deeply personal and emotional area. The institution of marriage is a vital foundation of any ordered society including this one. However, I think it is important amid a great deal of talk about the need to defend marriage, that we look at the context in which this legislation is brought before this body. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I recently had an opportunity to attend a hearing on this legislation and review the arguments made by both sides. Based upon that record, it was obvious that both sides feel very strongly about the positions they hold. However, having reviewed the arguments, I have reached the conclusion that this legislation is neither necessary nor appropriate for the Federal Government to enact at this time. First, it is not clear that this is even an appropriate area for Federal legislation. Historically, family law matters, including marriage, divorce, and child custody laws, have always been within the jurisdiction of State governments, not the Federal Government. Throughout my tenure in this body, I have opposed legislation which needlessly extends Federal jurisdiction into issues that have traditionally been the domain of the State and local governments. For this reason, I opposed crime legislation that expanded Federal law enforcement into areas traditionally handled by the State and local law enforcement. Similarly, I opposed efforts to federally mandate helmets for motorcycle riders, because I believed that States should retain that authority. This legislation is yet another example of a continuing trend of the Federal Government needlessly injecting itself into areas of the law which have been historically left to the States. Second, and perhaps more telling, the alleged urgency of this Federal intervention is wholly unwarranted. The simple and undeniable fact is that no State currently recognizes same-sex marriage, nor does it even remotely appear that any State legislature may be contemplating doing so. While some of my colleagues voice a concern over a court case in the State of Hawaii, resolution of that trial will not determine this matter with any finality. There will be a series of appeals, no doubt. Even if the Hawaiian State courts find the Hawaiian constitution compels recognition of same-sex marriage, final resolution of this issue is at least a couple of years away. Somehow, this is still deemed a priority in the waning days of the 104th Congress. It is ironic that this Congress would set aside time needed for addressing issues such as the Chemical Weapons Treaty and funding for Head Start, to address a perceived problem which does not exist today and will not exist, if ever, for at least 2 years. And this is from the same Congress that, for the second year in a row, will likely fail in its fundamental responsibility to pass all of the appropriations bills necessary to keep the Government operating. The same Congress that stalled passage of health insurance reform for nearly 9 months and took nearly as long to give the working families of this Nation a much-deserved and overdue raise in the minimum wage has somehow made this issue a priority. Mr. President, even at some point in the future the Hawaiian State courts reach the conclusion that same-sex unions must be recognized under their constitution, there is a great deal of uncertainty as to what effect, if any, that decision might have on other States. Legal opinions vary on this, but there is plenty of legal opinion that the States simply would not be compelled to give recognition to these marriages from other States. A number of legal scholars believe that States already have the authority, under traditional conflict of laws doctrines, to refuse to recognize marriages which are contrary to their own laws or public policy. If this is the case, States do not need the Federal Government granting them permission to exercise a right which they already hold. Until that view is resolved differently, it seems to me we should defer to the power of the States to address this issue on their own. Some scholars believe that States would be compelled to recognize these unions by the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, irrespective of this statutory effort to say otherwise. And still others oppose this bill because it, seemingly for the first time, assumes that Congress has the power to determine the applicability and scope of the full faith and credit clause, a position which would signal a significant change in the traditional application of this provision. The degree of uncertainty surrounding the constitutional implications of this legislation is striking. That uncertainty, coupled with the fact same-sex marriage is not legal anywhere in this country, suggests to me we should move with caution. It is far more prudent, in my opinion, given the personal and divisive nature of this issue, to wait until a real, not a speculative, conflict arises between the States. So, in my opinion, this legislation is unwarranted. Congress and the American people face many pressing challenges, challenges we all heard so much about at the recent conventions, challenges ranging from the need to reduce the Federal deficit to increasing educational opportunities and job security for all Americans and preventing the spread of drugs and crime in our country. Real problems which affect the lives of millions of Americans today. (Mrs. KASSEBAUM assumed the chair.)

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern with language that appears in the committee report on the fiscal year 1997 VA-HUD appropriations bill. Last year, when we debated the fiscal year 1996 version of this legislation, I and the junior Senator from Illinois Senator Moseley- Braun, offered an amendment to strike a provision in that bill that would have effectively barred HUD from investigating complaints of discrimination in the sale of property insurance. Mr. President, this issue, commonly known as insurance redlining, is nothing new. Redlining derives its name from the practice of literally drawing red lines around certain minority and low-income neighborhoods and treating the residents of those neighborhoods differently. In the case of insurance redlining, agents refuse to sell homeowners policies in these neighborhoods, or if they do sell policies, they are policies that provide significantly less coverage than a policy that might be sold for a similar house in a more upscale neighborhood. The ramifications of reducing access to affordable and adequate homeowners' insurance have proven severe for urban areas with large minority communities. As we all know, without property insurance an individual cannot obtain a home loan. And without a home loan, an individual cannot obtain a home. Thus, refusing to provide property insurance to an individual because he or she lives in a predominantly minority community is a clear violation of the civil rights protections of the Fair Housing Act. My interest in this issue grew out of widely-reported redlining abuses in the city of Milwaukee, WI, where it was well documented that insurance redlining was occurring on a widespread basis. I was deeply concerned that this sort of documented discrimination was occurring not only in my home State, but apparently in many others as well, including Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio. Early in 1995, as well as in the 103d Congress, I introduced legislation that would have required insurance companies in our Nation's largest urban areas to collect and report certain information about their underwriting practices to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This information, including the number and type of policies written, where such policies are written, and certain loss claims data, would have then been made available to State regulators, civil rights organizations, and other groups interested in combating property insurance discrimination. Mr. President, it is important not to forget who these redlining victims are--they are hard-working Americans, who have played by the rules and are trying to simply buy a home. They are trying to bring a sense of stability and vitality to their families and their communities. Unfortunately, as happened in Milwaukee, they often run into a brick wall of ignorance and injustice. The pattern of discrimination in Milwaukee led seven Milwaukee residents to join with the NAACP and file suit against the American Family Insurance Co. An unprecedented and historic out-of-court settlement was reached in this case between the parties where the insurance company agreed to spend $14.5 million compensating these and other Milwaukee homeowners who had been discriminated against, as well as for special housing programs in the city of Milwaukee. But for those of my colleagues who might think such discrimination in the insurance market is limited to Milwaukee, WI, I assure you that is not the case. Extensive studies conducted by consumer and civil rights organizations, as well as a recent study conducted by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, have found insurance redlining to be a widespread phenomenon, national in scope. Strong evidence of property insurance discrimination has been reported in cities across the country, including St. Louis, Chicago, New Orleans, Kansas City, Detroit, Dallas, and many others. Mr. President, there is ample reason to believe that insurance redlining does occur, it occurs all across this country, and we should be taking steps to enhance the government's ability to combat this form of discrimination. Unfortunately, we're not taking those steps forward. And last year, the Appropriations Committee, which to my knowledge had not held a single hearing on this issue, sought to prohibit HUD from expending funds on the adjudication of property insurance discrimination complaints. The provisions in that bill were a direct attempt to stop HUD from investigating complaints of discrimination under the Fair Housing Act. HUD would have been barred from spending any money investigating any complaints of insurance redlining. They would not have been allowed to investigate the over 10,000 property insurance complaints that are filed with HUD each year. Thankfully, when it became clear that there was a bipartisan majority in favor of protecting our civil rights laws, our amendment was agreed to and the language was stricken from the bill. Although this year's VA-HUD bill does not include this language restricting HUD's enforcement of our fair housing laws, the committee report does include some language that I believe is rife with inaccuracies and mischaracterizations. The report language claims that the Fair Housing Act does not say one word about property insurance. The language states that ``neither it [the FHA] nor its legislative history suggests that Congress intended it to apply to the provision of property insurance''. It is true the original Fair Housing Act does not address property insurance. But as a result of the Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988--signed into law by President Reagan--HUD promulgated regulations that specifically placed property insurance under the umbrella of the Fair Housing Act. These regulations were promulgated by the Bush administration. Let me repeat that: If anyone is under the impression that HUD's involvement in combating property insurance discrimination is a Clinton administration initiative, that is categorically wrong. The regulations were the result of a law that passed Congress with strong bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Reagan. The regulations were promulgated by the Bush administration. So let's set aside the faulty assertion that HUD's role in enforcing the Fair Housing Act as it applies to property insurance is some new effort to expand the Federal Government regulatory powers over a particular industry. The supporters of this new language also say that regulating the insurance industry is the sole domain of the States as mandated under the McCarran-Ferguson Act. This, Mr. President, is a diversionary tactic. This is not an issue of regulating the insurance industry. The States are the regulators of the insurance industry. This is an argument about whether the Federal Government has the ability to enforce the civil rights of those who have been discriminated against when they are attempting to purchase a home. This argument also fails to recognize that virtually every Federal court that has ruled on this issue, including the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Nationwide Insurance Co. versus Cisneros, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in NAACP versus American Family Insurance, have held that the Fair Housing Act applies to property insurance and that HUD was legally authorized to enforce the FHA as it relates to homeowners insurance. Moreover, the Supreme Court has specifically refused to review these cases. There is clearly another attempt to undermine HUD's efforts to do its job. Over the last several years, time and time again, HUD has uncovered incidents and patterns of discrimination in the sale and availability of homeowners insurance. And that is precisely why we are debating this issue today. It is because HUD has been too effective in enforcing our civil rights laws. Look at last year's settlement between American Family Insurance Co. and the people of Milwaukee. And just weeks ago, it was announced that State Farm Insurance Co., long under investigation by HUD for property insurance discrimination, had agreed to completely restructure their underwriting procedures, add new sales and service centers in urban communities, and invest over $1 million in first-mortgage financing in urban Toledo, OH. As I have said repeatedly in the past, I do not mean in any way to throw a blanket indictment at the insurance industry. I know many individuals in my home State who work in the insurance industry, and it is my firm belief that the vast majority of those individuals are decent, hard-working Americans who would join with myself and others in condemning this sort of bigotry and discrimination. Unfortunately, it is evident that these sort of abuses do occur, and the Federal Government must do all it can to aggressively enforce the Fair Housing Act. As was demonstrated last year and in years past, this is not an inherently partisan issue. This Congress has in fact, demonstrated time and time again that it will stand up to mindless bigotry and discrimination in whatever form it might take. The language contained in the committee report represents a threat to a longstanding bipartisan commitment to protecting and enforcing civil rights in this country and battling the various forms of bigotry and discrimination that continue to pervade this Nation. The committee report language, obviously, does not have the force of law and it should be disregarded.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by the distinguished Democratic leader, Mr. Daschle. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this amendment. Mr. President, many statements have been made here on the Senate floor over the years about the need to honor the debt we owe our Nation's veterans. If there ever was a nonpartisan issue, it is the need to keep the promises we made to those who sacrificed by defending this great Nation and the principles it stands for. We have a long and proud history of compensating our veterans for injuries and wounds they sustained in combat situations. Millions of veterans have had to endure sickness, disability, and even paralysis as a result of their military service and we must continue to ensure that there is adequate funding for research as well as for the facilities and medical care needed to care for these men and women. During the course of the Vietnam war, thousands of our service personnel who returned from Southeast Asia were stricken with ailments associated with exposure to the chemical herbicide known as agent orange. After years of pressure from veterans organizations and distinguished Americans such as Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, Jr., the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Government finally began to provide health care and other important benefits to veterans suffering from exposure to agent orange. That is why Vietnam veterans have been eligible for free VA health care for agent orange-related conditions since 1985 and that is why disability compensation has been provided to Vietnam veterans for ailments that are believed to be directly related to exposure to agent orange such as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and respiratory cancers. Today, I join the distinguished minority leader in offering the U.S. Senate an opportunity to make another down payment on that often talked about debt that we owe our veterans. The amendment that we are offering today will extend health care and related benefits, including a monthly monetary allowance, to the children of Vietnam veterans suffering from spina bifida. Spina bifida is a neural tube birth defect that requires lifelong care. As has already been pointed out, a recent report from the National Academy of Sciences has provided new evidence demonstrating a link between the occurrence of spina bifida in the children of veterans to a veteran's exposure to agent orange and other toxic herbicides in Vietnam. In light of the empirical data that does indeed demonstrate a correlation, I believe it is the Federal Government's responsibility to ensure that these children receive the necessary medical care to treat this ailment. We will surely hear criticism today on the Senate floor that this legislation will create another entitlement program that the Government cannot afford. Mr. President, this Nation made a decision long ago that our courageous service members were entitled to certain benefits, most importantly access to quality medical care for health problems that arise as either a direct or indirect result of their service to this country. We are talking about innocent children here, who have been stricken with a serious, disabling condition as a result of their father's service in Vietnam. Is there definitive proof of this? No. Is there a strong likelihood that this is the case? Yes, and so long as the evidence suggests such a correlation exists, we must continue to fulfill our obligation to our veterans and their families. I am also pleased that this legislation is fully funded with a cost offset. By reforming the Gardner decision--a move that even the major veterans organizations recognize needs to be made --this legislation is fully paid for with additional savings being dedicated to reducing the Federal budget deficit. Mr. President, this legislation has the strong backing of a number of organizations, including the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, the Spina Bifida Association of America, and the Clinton administration. I want to commend the Democratic leader for his longstanding leadership on this and other issues important to our Nation's veterans. Our veterans have fulfilled their commitment to this Nation, and we must fulfill our commitment to them. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. On August 19, the Department of Commerce announced that it would initiate a formal antidumping investigation. The following day, Dr. Neal Lane, Director of the National Science Foundation announced that the NSF was halting action on the supercomputer procurement. Dr. Lane said in a written statement, ``It would be inappropriate for NSF to approve this procurement until the dumping issue has been resolved.'' I would ask the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee if she agrees with Dr. Lane's view.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I would like to continue this debate by first thanking the Senator from New Hampshire. I am very pleased to be working jointly with him and several other Senators on this matter. I believe that is important to pursue matters legislatively when there is unusual agreement on both sides of the aisle. And in this case there is that agreement between many of us on both sides of the aisle that this program needs to be reevaluated. I want to add a little bit to what the Senator from New Hampshire has said. My colleague from New Hampshire and I are moving to table the committee amendment which would strike language that passed the House as an amendment to the VA-HUD appropriations bill on June 26, 1996 by a vote of 244 to 171. The amendment was sponsored by Representatives Roemer and Ganske. The Senate Appropriations Committee, in preparing the VA-HUD bill for the floor, has recommended that this language be struck from the bill. The language would explicitly prohibit the National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] from expending any funds on the Bion 11 and Bion 12 missions. I believe that the committee's amendment to strike this language should not prevail. That is why the Senator from New Hampshire, I, and others will move to table. As I said, Mr. President, this move to save this money passed on a bipartisan basis in the House and in this body. It has the support of not only the Senator from New Hampshire and myself but also the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], and the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato]. As the Senator from New Hampshire indicated, it would be pretty hard to come up with a more diverse group of Senators from a political point of view than that combination. So what is this all about? Under this program, NASA transfers money to Russia to launch the Bion 11 and Bion 12 capsules, and also funds United States researchers to be involved in designing the experiments and interpreting the results. The Bion Program gets its name from the small crewless Russian Bion satellite it uses to launch biological experiments into near-Earth orbits to study the physiological effects of space flight. Since 1973, Russia has launched 10 Bion satellites. The last was done with NASA participation for space flights of between 5 and 22 days. In fiscal year 1993, $35.1 billion was appropriated to support this whole program. At present, $15.5 million remains in the Bion account for the next two flights. So when the Senator from Missouri correctly points out that a little over $6 million will be involved in terms of this fiscal year, there is still more to come--and still more in my view and in the view of the Senator from New Hampshire to be wasted if we do not take the steps that we recommend today. Bion 11 and Bion 12 are the last of these flight missions, scheduled to fly in October 1996 and July 1998 respectively with United States, French, and Russian participation. Two Russian-owned rhesus monkeys will fly on each of the missions, scheduled to last 14 days, to study the effects of microgravity on bone loss, muscle deterioration, and balance. I oppose the committee amendment to strike the Roemer-Ganske language because I believe that these funds could be allocated for higher priority science at NASA or preferably for deficit reduction. I am also concerned that the scientific justification for the program is questionable and the results redundant, given that NASA has both previous Bion experiment data and significant human data on the effects of space flight. Since the Apollo missions humans have stayed in space for months at a time, and on July 16, 1996, Shannon Lucid set the U.S. record for the longest space flight aboard the space station Mir at 115 days, and as of last Friday has now spent 5 months orbiting the Earth. There is substantial information and data with regard to the humans involved, which is obviously our ultimate concern. In addition, Mr. President, the last Columbia shuttle mission, which lasted 17 days, included an experiment similar to those proposed for Bion and in that case was done on actual human astronauts. The termination of expenditures on the Bion Program is supported by a coalition of taxpayer and animal welfare groups, not simply animal welfare groups. It includes Citizens Against Government Waste and Taxpayers for Common Cause, who have found a common ground on this issue and believe that the money can be saved from these missions. Mr. President, the Bion Program, to quote, according to the February 1996 Bion 11/12 Science Assessment, is ``very important for future long-term manned space flights and life on a space station.'' Let me emphasize this statement. It says the Bion Program, and arguably NASA's entire life sciences program, exists to support the continuation of the pursuit of long-term manned space flight and the development of the space station. That is really the context in which we should be evaluating Bion and NASA's continued participation in it. It is not simply a crusade of animal rights activists, as proponents would have you believe and as the Senator from Missouri at least suggested in his remarks. There is much more involved for those of us who are concerned about waste in Government, and I think that includes everyone in this body. Of course, there may be issues pertaining to humane treatment and the future of the Bion protocol, but for the Members of this body who do not support the space station for fiscal reasons--and there are a number of Senators, including myself--Bion is really an outgrowth of space station development and for that reason, as well, ought to be terminated for fiscal reasons. For those who support manned space flight, I believe that the research which will be conducted on Bion 11 and 12, despite the Bion Program having cleared a fourth reevaluation of the experiments, is arguably duplicative. So it may well be something that standing alone can be argued to have merit, but if it is already adequately being done, it is still duplicative and it is still wasteful. I say this despite the fact that individuals from two very well- respected research institutions in my State of Wisconsin, Marquette University and the Medical College of Wisconsin, have participated in the Bion Program and one of the individuals actually will be directly involved in interpreting data from Bion 11. I ask those in this body who support manned space flight to ask themselves this question: Despite the scientific merit of the study design, will the termination of the Bion 11 and 12 flights keep the United States from sending astronauts into space if we cannot find the mechanisms behind bone calcium loss and the deterioration of muscles that help humans fight gravity and stand upright? The answer is obvious. It is resounding. It is an empirical no. This will not make the difference. So the proponents of this program then make four primary arguments in support of the continuation of Bion. Let me just mention what their arguments are and respond briefly. First, they say the scientific and humane concerns are overblown and have been addressed. Second, they say the Bion Program results are important for manned space flight. Third, they say we are likely to get useful domestic byproducts from Bion research for osteoporosis and other disease sufferers. Finally, they say with regard to the fiscal issues that the savings figures are not savings at all. I will try to address all of these, and of course some of this has already been addressed by the Senator from New Hampshire, but I want to add to it. I think the strongest argument against the Bion missions is the question of whether or not the experiments are redundant, which, of course, speaks to their importance to manned space flight. That is a distinct question from whether or not the scientific study methods and the experiment design will produce legitimate and scientifically valid results. Let me say a bit about them. Four of the rookie astronauts from the July 7, 1996, shuttle Columbia mission, which had a total crew of seven, participated both prior, during, and after the flight as, in effect, human guinea pigs in the study on the effect of human space travel on the body. Within an hour of touchdown, as reported on July 8, 1996, by the Chicago Tribune, ``The four astronauts who had endured medical poking and prodding in orbit were in a clinic at Kennedy Space Center undergoing painful muscle biopsies and other tests. NASA wanted to examine the men before their bodies had adjusted to gravity.'' The Houston Chronicle also provided additional detail on the mission on July 8, 1996. NASA ``billed the mission as a preview of its operations aboard the U.S.-led international space station.'' Following landing, the Chronicle continues, ``The crew were ushered into medical facilities at Kennedy for evaluation of their muscle, skeletal and respiratory and balance systems. The test included biopsies of their calf muscles with large gauge needles and full body scans with a magnetic resonance imaging device.'' So the contention of the supporters of Bion has been that the Bion tests are too invasive to be done on humans and thus should be done on rhesus monkeys. As Charles Brady, a physician and one of the rookie astronauts, stated about the test as reported in the Orlando Sentinal on July 7, 1996: ``Having had to subject many patients to things I wouldn't rather do at the time, I think it is appropriate that I have to go through with it.'' Now, why do I provide all this detail on the recent Columbia mission experiments on astronauts? It is because NASA's real justification for the Bion experiments is not that they are collecting data from the rhesus monkeys they are not collecting from astronauts. They are. It is that they feel that the monkey studies will help them better interpret the changes in humans from the biopsy studies and the studies in the noninvasive tests they conducted on the Columbia astronauts. The astronauts' biopsies are limited in size, and allegedly the Bion monkeys could provide more samples from more muscles. The Bion monkeys will provide bone biopsies, to which astronauts would not submit, and the Bion monkeys' results will be compared with the astronauts' results. Why do this? Because those involved in the experiments want to confirm that, indeed, the same changes occur in immobile rhesus monkeys that occur in reasonably active astronauts. What does this say in response to those who argue that these tests are not really that invasive and should proceed on rhesus monkeys. But to return to the main point, Mr. President, this is research designed to confirm that what we know about the body, that what we know about the effect of space flight on the body is indeed what we already know. We already know it. And this apparently is just an attempt to spend some of our tax dollars to confirm it. I am concerned about this, given the amount that has already been spent to collect the astronaut data. The Rocky Mountain News reported on June 21, 1996, that the Columbia shuttle astronaut study on the effect of space travel on the human body cost $138 million. And this expenditure on the rhesus monkeys procedures will simply add to that figure, I think that is unnecessarily, and would be redundant. Let me return to the second issue. The second issue I want to address is the issue of humane treatment, because Senators will likely hear that the Bion experiment animal treatment protocol has been reviewed several times--most recently in early July 1996. In April 1996 NASA Administrator Dan Goldin set up an independent panel, chaired by the head of surgery at Yale, Dr. Ronald Merrell, to review the care and treatment of the Bion monkeys, the fourth such review. But, as the Bion launch is scheduled for October 1996, and the panel could not meet until July 1, the surgical procedures to implant monitoring wires and the steel cranial caps on the monkeys went ahead in Kazakhstan in June at the Institute for Biomedical Problems in Moscow. NASA was then in the awkward position of agreeing to allow the Russians to proceed with the surgery even though it had not yet decided to support the mission. What happened in the interim? The House agreed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan vote to prohibit the continued spending of NASA funds on Bion. The independent panel met on July 1, 1996 and issued a letter the day after the meeting. The letter does say that the proposed science will ``likely yield meaningful results,'' the animal welfare proposal meets ``U.S. legal standards,'' and that rhesus monkeys are appropriate surrogate human animal subject for these types of experiments. I am concerned the previous argument by the Senator from Missouri did not include in his verbal statement, although he may have included it in the Record, the rest of the story, if you will, the rest of the letter. I am concerned by how the Merrell panel letter concludes: However, we were sensitive to the concerns raised by the public and within our committee about divisive opinions over animal research. . . . Therefore, we strongly urge NASA to devise and implement a bioethics review policy for animal experimentation to include participation of a professional bioethicist. This group should begin its activities before Bion 12 is activated. We believe it is not morally justified to proceed otherwise. The conclusion of the Merrell panel has led some to believe that the panel really met just for show, and that the pressure of having already implanted wires in the monkeys made the recommendations what they were. As the associate director for Life Sciences at the Ames Research Center was reported as having said in a July 12, 1996, Science article announcing the Merrell panel decision and reporting the House vote ``we have to turn this [House vote] around in the Senate.'' On July 23, 1996 I received a letter in support of the Bion project from the Americans for Medical Progress Educational Foundation. The letter makes several arguments on the need for continuation of Bion, most which I have previously described, but adds an additional one that I would like to share with colleagues--``the animal subjects in Bion are treated well and, upon return, will be retired in Russia and idolized as space heroes.'' I am sure the monkeys are very excited about that, but I am not certain that the authors realized how concerning and bizarre that statement sounds, particularly as a justification for spending $15 million over the next 2 fiscal years. Odder still, is that the statement has some basis in fact. NASA staff, in meeting with my staff, described that the chairs in which the monkeys are restrained are actually lined with bear fur, the same as the seats of the Russian cosmonauts. This is done because the Russian cosmonauts believe such seat covering is thought to be more comfortable. Finally, I believe that question about whether the Russians might be able to financially support these missions without United States involvement is unclear. On May 24, 1996, in a Science magazine article on the Bion project, the director of biomedical and life sciences at NASA is quoted as saying ``if NASA were to pull out, Russia could proceed on its own. If they can afford to do it, they will. It's their animals and their capsule.'' The July 12, 1996, Science paints a different picture. Quoting the head of the Bion Program at the Institute for Biomedical Problems in Moscow, Science reports that he is concerned about the fate of Bion 12. ``Given Russia's cash strapped space program,'' he says, ``if any partner pulled out it would pose a serious problem.'' In the end, either situation concerns me and I think it concerns the Senator from New Hampshire and the rest of us who are working on this. I believe it confirms why colleagues should oppose the committee amendment and table it. If Russia can afford this experiment, then Russia should conduct it. If Russia can't support it, and the United States is funding the lion's share of the program, then we should not proceed with a program about which there are serious lingering concerns about humane treatment of the animal subjects as well as the necessity for the program. The Merrell panel specifically calls for an additional ethicist to be added to the research team, and I believe casts doubt on Bion 11. I can assure Senators that if we ignore the action of the House, we will be asked to terminate Bion 12 next year. Instead, I think we should act now to end our involvement and to reinstate the House-passed language. Everyone knows the Federal budget has constant pressure from numerous competing needs, and NASA itself is facing significant pressures. For example, last Friday's--August 30, 1996--Washington Post reported that there is an ongoing dialog among top officials at Kennedy Space Center about significant civil service cuts that may number as many as 1,445 people with 547 layoffs at that site which now employs approximately 2,100 Federal workers. Given those kind of pressures, this project makes little sense. It cannot be fiscally justified. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire and urge my colleagues to support the motion to table, which will have the effect of supporting the committee amendment and opposing spending additional dollars on the Bion Program. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which creates a commonsense solution to a growing problem in U.S. cities and towns--the Federal preemption of State and municipal regulation of citizens band [CB] radio frequency interference with residential home electronic or telephone equipment. This problem can be extremely distressing for residents who cannot have a telephone conversation or watch television without being interrupted by a neighbor's citizen band radio [CB] conversation. Under the current law, those residents have little recourse. Interference of CB radio signals with household electronic equipment such as telephones, radios, and televisions has been regulated by the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] for nearly 30 years. Up until recently, the FCC has enforced rules outlining what equipment may or may not be used for CB radio transmissions, what content may or may not be transmitted, how long transmissions may be broadcast, what channels may be used, as well as many other technical details. FCC also investigated complaints that a personal radio enthusiast's transmissions interfered with a neighbor's use of home electronic and telephone equipment. FCC receives nearly 45,000 such complaints annually. Mr. President, for the past 3 years I have worked with constituents who have been bothered by persistent interference of nearby CB radio transmissions. In each case, the constituents have sought my help in securing an FCC investigation of the complaint. In each case, Mr. President, the FCC indicated that due to a lack of resources, the Commission no longer investigates radio frequency interference complaints. Instead of investigation and enforcement, the FCC is able to provide only a packet of self-help information for the consumer to limit the interference on their own. Municipal residents, after being denied investigative or enforcement assistance from the FCC, frequently contact their city or town government and ask them to police the interference. However, the Communications Act of 1934 provides exclusive authority to the Federal Government for the regulation of radio, preempting municipal ordinances or State laws regulating radio frequency interference. This has created an interesting dilemma for municipal governments. They can neither pass their own ordinances to control CB radio interference, nor can they rely on the agency with exclusive jurisdiction over interference to enforce the very Federal law which preempts them. In Beloit, WI, as in many Wisconsin communities, this dilemma has been extremely frustrating for local residents who have been powerless to prevent the transmissions of a neighboring CB enthusiast from interfering with their home electronic equipment. One Beloit resident, after having adopted every form of filtering technology for her telephone and other electronic equipment, still experienced persistent interference. Her answering machine picks up calls for which there is no audible ring, and at times records ghost messages. Often, she cannot get a dial tone when she or her family members wish to place an outgoing call. During telephone conversations, the content of the nearby CB transmission can frequently be heard and on occasion, her phone conversations are inexplicably cur off. Her neighbors have experienced similar problems and have complained to the Beloit City Council. Last month, the Beloit City Council, exasperated by FCC inaction on this matter, passed an ordinance allowing the city to enforce FCC regulations on this type of inference. While the council knew that, if challenged under current law, their ordinance would likely not be upheld by the courts, they felt they had little choice if they wished to address their constituents concerns. Mr. President, it is not fair that municipalities and their residents should be hamstrung by an outdated Federal preemption of laws the Federal Government no longer has the resources to enforce. The legislation I am introducing today will help the city of Beloit, and many other municipalities like it, to regulate CB radio transmissions and to enforce those regulations. My bill provides a limited exception to the Federal preemption of State or local laws on radio frequency interference. It simply allows State and local governments to regulate CB radio interference when that interference results from a violation of FCC rules. Thus, States and municipalities can use their enforcement resources to investigate and enforce Federal law thereby protecting the rights of their residents. Even the FCC recognizes that States and localities need to be able to protect their citizens. Mr. President, this bill simply allows common sense to prevail. If Federal regulators cannot enforce the rules over which they have exclusive jurisdiction, States and localities should be given the authority to investigate and enforce those regulations for them. I hope my colleagues will support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the deployment to Bosnia of the International Force [IFOR] has passed its midway mark and I would like to review with my colleagues what I believe has been accomplished to date, the many questions yet unanswered by the Administration, as well as the dangerous pitfalls I see on the road ahead. Mr. President, I was one of those who voted against the deployment of U.S. troops to Bosnia, to take part in the NATO-led effort to enforce the military provisions of the Dayton Accord. I was skeptical then, and remain so today, of Administration assertions that U.S. strategic interests in Central Europe or in the ``future of NATO'' justified this costly investment of troops and resources abroad. I took with a grain of salt Administration promises that U.S. troops would be out of Bosnia in a year's time and Administration assurances that it would work to level the military playing field between Serbs and Muslims. I maintained then--I reiterate today--that it is the Congress--the Congress--which had to authorize the deployment, after thorough consultation with the Administration. From all reports coming out of Bosnia, we are now paying the piper for moving without the careful deliberation and consideration of pros and cons that a real policy debate would have engendered. If the Administration had truly consulted with the Congress--and not simply presented us with a fait accompli--we might have been able to anticipate many of the problems now facing IFOR and its parallel civilian institutions. I recognize that the issues and problems are complex and I do not mean to suggest that I or the Senate would have all or even some of the answers. But I did pose a number of questions to the Administration during last year's all-too-brief hearings on the deployment and in the subsequent cursory debate on the Senate floor, in an attempt to focus priorities and anticipate problems. But as you know, the decision had already been made to move forward and the Congress sidelined, a sad fact I blamed as much on our timidity as the Administration's circumvention of constitutional process. I recognize, Mr. President, that the Dayton Accord and the IFOR deployment to enforce its provision has not been without some real benefit. We can all be grateful that people are no longer dying en masse in Bosnia; U.S. and other IFOR troops are to be applauded for having largely succeeded in enforcing the military aspects of the agreement. The head of the Defense Intelligence Agency [DIA], Lt.Gen. Patrick Hughes, testified earlier this year that he expected that the parties would continue generally to comply with the military aspects of the Dayton Accord and with IFOR directives. Hughes ``did not expect'' U.S. or allied forces to face organized military resistance; any ``modest'' threat remained limited to mines and sporadic low-level violence, such as terrorism. NATO commander Joulwan recently confirmed that many of the peacekeeping tasks delegated to IFOR have been completed, including overseeing the transfer of territory, the demobilization of troops and the storage of heavy weapons. But there are disturbing signs, Mr. President, that the progress is transitory and perhaps even an illusion. Compliance is begrudging; ``the spirit of Dayton'' encouraged at the point of NATO arms. In an October 19, 1995 letter to Secretary Perry, I asked just how durable an IFOR-enforced peace would be. Specifically, I asked for some assurance that the Serbs had abandoned their quest for a ``Greater Serbia'' and that the territorial integrity of Bosnia would be protected. The facts on the ground provide the disturbing answer. General Hughes, for one, was troubled by the ``fundamentally'' unchanged strategic political goals of the former warring factions; that is, eventual permanent partition. Upon IFOR's withdrawal, Hughes foresaw: Bosnian Serbs seeking political confederation with Yugoslavia; Bosnian Croats with Zagreb; resistance by Serbs and Croats to efforts of the Muslim-led government to assert its authority; collapse of the ``Federation'' of Croats and Muslims, intended as a counterweight to the Serbian entity created by Dayton, under the mutual hostility of Muslim and Croat; and delay or stymie of civil affairs, such as elections. In short, Mr. President, there is the real possibility that after a nearly $2.8 billion investment just for the deployment of our troops to Bosnia, we will be back at square one: hostile, ethnically-divided factions facing off at tenuous borders under unstable military, economic and social conditions. In my letter to Secretary Perry and during floor debate, I also raised the question of cost, especially in light of how this expensive deployment would undermine efforts to balance the budget. In December, the Congress was told the cost would be roughly $2.0 billion. I predicted then that the bill would be a lot more. Now, because of unexpected costs and delay associated with a winter deployment, intelligence gathering and engineering efforts, the most recent DoD estimate of which I am aware is for $2.8 billion. Just how reliable is this estimate, or will there be more unexpected costs? I suspect it is hardly prophetic if I venture that the tab presented to the American taxpayer--just for the military side of this adventure--will top $3 billion, if not more. I asked the Administration back in October if the U.S. would withdraw regardless of whether the mission was a success. I asked because I had my doubts that the stated goal--ending the fighting and raising an infrastructure capable of supporting a durable peace--was doable in twelve months 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. It should be no surprise then, Mr. President, that European diplomats are questioning whether IFOR should exit on schedule--claiming success--if the ``fundamental'' nation-building task of elections has not been completed. We know from press reports that the Europeans are pressuring the U.S. to stay on as well, in an undefined role and for an uncertain period of time. While I welcomed Vice President Gore's declaration that our troops would be withdrawn on schedule, I also note that only yesterday Secretary of State Christopher testified before the SFRC that ``final decisions'' on withdrawal would have to await the results of the September elections and then qualified that by stating the military mission would be completed ``roughly'' by the 1-year deadline. In short, the very spectre I envisioned 7 months ago may be coming to haunt us. Speculation that IFOR (and U.S. troops) will extend beyond one year is worrisome, given the assurances we heard last December that this deployment was limited in time. Even the weak resolution passed by the Senate accepting the deployment did not envision an open-ended affair. I urge the Administration to heed the sage observation of Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Shalikashvili, who has reiterated that U.S. troops will be out of Bosnia by December. He said that if the factions wanted peace, then a one year IFOR deployment was enough; an extended mission would not alter the intentions of the parties. In any event, the Pentagon has also apparently modified the President's promise that our troops would be home by December 20. Now, I understand, exit will begin on or around that date, ensuring that some of our men and women will be in Bosnia well into 1997. Another option I have heard mentioned is having a reduced IFOR force-- principally British and French troops--remain in Bosnia after December, under U.S. air cover. Let me say now, Mr. President, that I am opposed to the continued deployment of U.S. ground forces in Bosnia after December 1996. I do not think they should be there now and I expect the Pentagon to brief us on its plans for a timely exit. That said, I am not necessarily opposed to a limited U.S. support role. I remain deeply concerned that Dayton produced a Muslim geographic entity essentially DOA. If ethnic partition is inevitable, the Muslim rump state likely to emerge will have no coastline, be an economic basketcase for the foreseeable future, and remain surrounded by hostile neighbors. Our political, moral, financial and strategic investment in Dayton and in IFOR requires that we not allow the Muslim entity to wither on the vine. The dividends--stability in Europe, enhanced credibility in the Muslim world, undermining Iranian inroads, economic opportunities for U.S. business--outweigh the costs. Which brings me, Mr. President, to the next question I raised in October: what provision had the Administration made for the arming and training of Bosnia's Muslims? I have argued almost from the moment I first entered the Senate that we should arm and train the Muslims, permitting them to adequately defend themselves. If we had done so three years ago, we would likely not have found ourselves in a position of enforcing a peace that the factions may not want. I am pleased to note President Clinton's July announcement that the military assistance program for the Bosnian-Muslim federation is finally scheduled to begin. A contingent of Bosnian soldiers--all Muslims--reportedly arrived in Turkey in June for training and $98.4 million in U.S. arms are scheduled to be shipped to the Bosnian army, including M60 tanks, armored personnel carriers and antitank weapons in the next several weeks. Turkey has reportedly matched the U.S. pledge and U.S private contractors will assist the Turks in improving command- and-control and other military procedures. I hope that this marks the genesis of a Muslim force capable of defending itself against the better-armed Serbs, should the peace collapse, a not unforeseeable possibility. But I wonder, Mr. President, where are our European allies? Even with the U.S. and Turkish pledges, there remains a $600 million shortfall on the amount needed to adequately equip and train the Muslims. The Europeans--especially the French and British--have contributed nothing and their support for Dayton Accord provisions calling for adequate arming and training of the Muslims, are lukewarm, at best. Yet while they continue to view sending Western arms to Bosnia as destabilizing, they do not seem to object to having Iran--an otherwise hostile state with which they wish to trade--arm the Muslims. I had thought that we had received assurances from the Europeans that they would support the arm and train provisions of Dayton. Have we been bamboozled? What is the Administration doing to press the issue? Yet another question I asked of Secretary Perry last year regarded U.S. treatment of indicted war criminals, such as General Mladic and Mr. Karadzjic. The issue of dealing with persons today government officials responsible for effecting Dayton's provisions, but who yesterday were mass murderers, is not an easy one. All the factions in Bosnia harbor such men and each of the ethnic communities--especially the Muslims--suffered grievously at their hands. Some argue that the process of reconciliation would be better served by putting the past behind us. I disagree wholeheartedly. The international community has made a judgment that those involved in genocide must be brought before a court of justice. Certainly in investigating these cases and prosecuting these men we risk exacerbating old wounds. But I believe the healing process is better served by bringing these crimes out into the light of day and punishing those responsible. Otherwise, the victims families will allow the resentments to fester and the cycle of violence inevitably erupt anew. I understand the view of the IFOR military commanders, who are reluctant to involve themselves and their troops in this sort of distasteful civilian task and in the dangers of ``mission creep.'' In a cauldron such as Bosnia, the last thing the peace enforcers want is to be perceived as taking sides. But I believe that the higher moral and practical obligation involved requires that IFOR troops vigorously protect those seeking to uncover evidence of these crimes. The presence of a protective cordon of IFOR troops at Srebrenica, where the first solid evidence of mass murder and atrocities on an appaling scale is now being exhumed, is a welcome development. I note, however, that the two most prominent war criminals, Karadzic and Mladic, continue to flout their disdain for such pronouncements. Karadzic, for example, dismissed the moderate Serbian prime minister, Rajko Kasagic, in mid-May. That act seems to me to be an act of real political power and certainly not in keeping with State Department assessments that the man is being ``sidelined.'' Karadzic's June 30 transfer of power to a political flunky was merely another transparent attempt to avoid punishing economic sanctions. And despite Ambassador Holbrooke's efforts last month to strip Karadzic of political influence, I think we all understand that Karadzic continues to call the shots, which are aimed at the underpinnings of Dayton. There are other problems, of course. Carl Bildt, the High Representative for implementation of Dayton has noted that while the formal structures of civilian implementation are in place, the political will to make Dayton work is clearly missing. Conditions are nowhere near settled enough to conduct ``free and fair'' elections; absent are freedom of movement, freedom of association, a balanced media, and the right to vote in secret near one's home. Ambassador Frowick, the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) mission head in Bosnia, even went so far as to admit July 29 that, at best, the elections could be expected to be ``reasonably democratic,'' adding that ``free and fair is a stretch.'' Frankly, I'm puzzled as to how elections neither free nor fair can ever be reasonably democratic. Yet, the OSCE certified June 25 that such elections can be held by September 14. The chief of staff of the OSCE, William Steubner, resigned in June, reportedly over a disagreement as to whether Bosnia is anywhere near being ready for an election. The continued influence of thugs such as Karadzic, the reports that Serbian goons are preventing Serbs from voting in the their former home districts--one Serb official reportedly dismissed objections by stating: ``Who cares where they want to vote; they'll vote where we say.'' It was only in June that another 100 Muslims were forced out of their homes in Bosnian Serb territory. In the suburbs of Sarajevo and in countless villages across the former Yugoslavia the triumph of ethnic cleansing is apparent. All prisoners of war have not been released, as required by Dayton. Foreign forces remain in Bosnia long after the deadline for their departure; indeed, despite the Administration's certification that these people have left, the Washington Post reported July 8 that some Islamic fighters are burrowing in, creating mischief and posing a potential threat to IFOR troops. If true, how will this affect the Administration's pledge that the arm and train program will not come up to speed until those forces are gone? These political problems--which certainly threaten the long term health of Dayton--are compounded by economic difficulties. A question I did not ask in October, but which looms now over the process, is that of paying for the reconstruction of Bosnia? How realistic is the expectation that the international community will pony up the estimated $5.1 billion necessary over three years to put Bosnia back on the road to recovery? In April, in Brussels, World Bank and EU officials requested $1.8 billion in reconstruction aid for 1996. Donors have pledged barely one-third of that amount and the World Bank has received only one-half (or $300 million) of that in actual commitments. Is it any wonder that the Sarejevo government may look again to Tehran, which recently offered $50 million in assistance? Which leads me Mr. President, in a roundabout way back to the first and most important question I put to Secretary Perry back in October, and which I discussed at length during the December floor debate: why would the Administration not seek Congressional approval and support for the deployment to Bosnia? As I said then, it is through the authorization process--a procedure mandated by the Constitution--that a deployment is explained and refined; that questions are answered; fears alleviated; and the American people given an opportunity to air their views on what the mission is worth to them. This first and last question, Mr. President, has never been answered. The result has been uncertainty and more questions. To date, we have been fortunate that the results have not been more tragic, the sad circumstances surrounding Secretary Brown's mission notwithstanding. I remain unconvinced that the IFOR-imposed ceasefire masks anything more than an inevitable slide towards permanent partition; if that is the case--and I hope I am wrong--then I and the American people want to know how this costly deployment furthered the national interest. Mr. President, I hope we will have public hearings soon on the status of the deployment and that the Administration will answer the questions I put forward in October and repeated here today. I acknowledge again the Congress' own culpability in not forcing the issue and asserting its constitutional authority and responsibility on the deployment. I hope that the lessons learned here will lead to more backbone in the future.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which creates a commonsense solution to a growing problem in U.S. cities and towns--the Federal preemption of State and municipal regulation of citizens band [CB] radio frequency interference with residential home electronic or telephone equipment. This problem can be extremely distressing for residents who cannot have a telephone conversation or watch television without being interrupted by a neighbor's citizen band radio [CB] conversation. Under the current law, those residents have little recourse. Interference of CB radio signals with household electronic equipment such as telephones, radios, and televisions has been regulated by the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] for nearly 30 years. Up until recently, the FCC has enforced rules outlining what equipment may or may not be used for CB radio transmissions, what content may or may not be transmitted, how long transmissions may be broadcast, what channels may be used, as well as many other technical details. FCC also investigated complaints that a personal radio enthusiast's transmissions interfered with a neighbor's use of home electronic and telephone equipment. FCC receives nearly 45,000 such complaints annually. Mr. President, for the past 3 years I have worked with constituents who have been bothered by persistent interference of nearby CB radio transmissions. In each case, the constituents have sought my help in securing an FCC investigation of the complaint. In each case, Mr. President, the FCC indicated that due to a lack of resources, the Commission no longer investigates radio frequency interference complaints. Instead of investigation and enforcement, the FCC is able to provide only a packet of self-help information for the consumer to limit the interference on their own. Municipal residents, after being denied investigative or enforcement assistance from the FCC, frequently contact their city or town government and ask them to police the interference. However, the Communications Act of 1934 provides exclusive authority to the Federal Government for the regulation of radio, preempting municipal ordinances or State laws regulating radio frequency interference. This has created an interesting dilemma for municipal governments. They can neither pass their own ordinances to control CB radio interference, nor can they rely on the agency with exclusive jurisdiction over interference to enforce the very Federal law which preempts them. In Beloit, WI, as in many Wisconsin communities, this dilemma has been extremely frustrating for local residents who have been powerless to prevent the transmissions of a neighboring CB enthusiast from interfering with their home electronic equipment. One Beloit resident, after having adopted every form of filtering technology for her telephone and other electronic equipment, still experienced persistent interference. Her answering machine picks up calls for which there is no audible ring, and at times records ghost messages. Often, she cannot get a dial tone when she or her family members wish to place an outgoing call. During telephone conversations, the content of the nearby CB transmission can frequently be heard and on occasion, her phone conversations are inexplicably cur off. Her neighbors have experienced similar problems and have complained to the Beloit City Council. Last month, the Beloit City Council, exasperated by FCC inaction on this matter, passed an ordinance allowing the city to enforce FCC regulations on this type of inference. While the council knew that, if challenged under current law, their ordinance would likely not be upheld by the courts, they felt they had little choice if they wished to address their constituents concerns. Mr. President, it is not fair that municipalities and their residents should be hamstrung by an outdated Federal preemption of laws the Federal Government no longer has the resources to enforce. The legislation I am introducing today will help the city of Beloit, and many other municipalities like it, to regulate CB radio transmissions and to enforce those regulations. My bill provides a limited exception to the Federal preemption of State or local laws on radio frequency interference. It simply allows State and local governments to regulate CB radio interference when that interference results from a violation of FCC rules. Thus, States and municipalities can use their enforcement resources to investigate and enforce Federal law thereby protecting the rights of their residents. Even the FCC recognizes that States and localities need to be able to protect their citizens. Mr. President, this bill simply allows common sense to prevail. If Federal regulators cannot enforce the rules over which they have exclusive jurisdiction, States and localities should be given the authority to investigate and enforce those regulations for them. I hope my colleagues will support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, just a month ago we had a discussion here on the Senate floor about the issue of campaign finance reform. I think a lot of us worked hard on the effort. We have taken a bit of a breather for the last month and assessed the situation, and we are ready to consider resuming the fight for this very important issue. Although the debate was abbreviated, it was a pretty good debate. We certainly did not suffer from any shortage of speakers offering their ideas on how we could best reform our campaign finance laws. In the end, I was pleased the bipartisan reform bill offered by myself and the senior Senator from Arizona was able to receive the support of the majority of this body, actually a bipartisan vote, obtaining 54 votes. So I feel very strongly, although we did not complete the task, we are well on our way. And even though we fell 6 votes short necessary to ward off a well- staged filibuster, I think it is clear that there is a bipartisan majority in favor of acting on campaign reform, and many of us intend to press forward on this issue in the coming months and into the 105th Congress. The vast, vast majority of the American people want the Congress to act on campaign finance reform and we cannot allow a small minority of Senators to thwart the will of the American people and wage a stealth attempt to sweep this issue under the rug. Interestingly, less than 24 hours after the Senate voted against further debating the issue of campaign finance reform, the Supreme Court handed down a much anticipated decision that will undoubtedly affect the Federal election landscape. The case was Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee versus Federal Election Committee. It arose out of a 1986 incident in Colorado, in which the Colorado State Republican Party made some $15,000 worth of expenditures on radio advertisements attacking the likely Democratic candidate for a Senate seat. The FEC had charged that this expenditure had violated the Federal limits on so-called coordinated expenditures and the tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the FEC's assessment. The Federal coordinated expenditure limit is the amount of money the national and State parties are permitted to spend on express advocacy expenditures for the purpose of influencing a Federal election. The coordinated expenditure limit is based on the size of each State. It is important to understand what the litigants were arguing before the Court, because many people have tried to interpret this decision as something other than what it is. The Colorado Republican Party, joined by the Republican National Committee, argued that the Federal limits on coordinated expenditures were unconstitutional on their face and an infringement on the First Amendment rights of the political parties to participate in the Federal election process. In other words, these parties wanted the Federal spending limits on coordinated expenditures tossed out completely, not just the narrow ruling that was handed down. The FEC, on the other hand, argued that the Federal spending limits helped prevent both actual corruption and the appearance of corruption. In short, the FEC argued that these spending limits were necessary and valid for the same reasons that the Supreme Court found Federal contribution limits constitutional and necessary in the Buckley decision some 20 years ago. Who won, Mr. President? Really, no one won. The Court, in a 7 to 2 decision, found that this particular case out in Colorado was a unique situation. At the time the expenditures in question were made, there was neither a Democratic nor Republican nominee for the open Senate seat. Moreover, the expenditures were made some 6 months before the date of the general election. And finally, and perhaps most importantly in the Court's eyes, there was no demonstrable evidence that there was any coordination between the Colorado State party and any of the Republican candidates vying for that party's nomination. That is the key. That, Mr. President, is what these Federal limits on coordinated expenditures are supposed to be about. The word ``coordinated'' implies that there is some sort of cooperation between the party and the candidate in making the expenditure, and in this particular case the Court found that there had been virtually no coordination whatsoever. The lack of any coordination led the Court to decide that this was an express advocacy, independent expenditure, much like the independent expenditures we see so often made by organizations such as the National Rifle Association, the National Right to Life Committee, and the AFL- CIO. In the landmark Buckley decision and subsequent decisions such as the 1986 decision in FEC versus Massachusetts Right to Life, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Government cannot limit independent expenditures which the Court found to be pure expressions of political speech protected by the first amendment. These rulings are the basis for the absence of Federal limits on independent expenditures made by individuals, organizations, and political action committees. The key determination in the Colorado decision was that the Court found that this particular expenditure was an independent expenditure, and an independent expenditure made by a political party is entitled to the same constitutional protections as an independent expenditure made by anyone else. In short, political parties may make unlimited independent expenditures in Federal elections in the same manner other organizations are free to make such expenditures. In addition, the Supreme Court, unfortunately, did leave certain key questions unanswered. For example, the Court found the Colorado expenditure to be an independent expenditure largely because it was 6 months before the general election and there was no Democratic nominee and no Republican nominee, to make an express, coordinated attack on. What would happen if the same expenditure was made 1 month before election day, when both the Democratic and Republican nominees had been chosen? The Court did not address this question. Instead, the Court elected to issue an extremely narrow ruling by focusing on the peculiar circumstances relevant in the Colorado decision. The Court simply ruled that an expenditure made without coordination, made far in advance of an election and before there are any nominees of either party must be treated as an independent expenditure and is therefore not subject to limit. Mr. President, for the 80 percent of the American people who want us to reduce the role of money in congressional elections, this is not the best news. What it means is that the parties are free to independently pour millions and millions of dollars into each State months and months before the voters are to go the polls. It will open the door to more expensive campaigns, longer campaigns and if current trends continue, increasingly negative campaigns. It can mean a proliferation in everything that repulses Americans about our campaign finance system. That is bad news Mr. President. But it must be understood and the reason I am speaking today, so that this is clarified, this decision could have been far worse. The Colorado Republican Party had advocated that the Court strike down the actual Federal limits on coordinated expenditures, and in fact, many of the so-called legal experts had predicted that this conservative court would do just that. But they did not. But the Supreme Court specifically refused to strike down these limits. The Court ruled that this issue needed to be addressed further by the lower courts before the high court could adequately issue a determination of whether such limits are constitutional. That, Mr. President, is why this was such a narrow ruling. It only affects a certain type of expenditure made by a political party. The Federal limits on coordinated expenditures were left in place and are still a part of the current election system. Some have suggested that this decision will allow the parties to play a greater role in the election process. I agree. The question is, in the end, will this have a positive or negative effect on our political system. I think it could go either way. For example, the parties may decide to use this decision to run negative television ads against a particular candidate 8 months before election day. I do not think that is a positive contribution to the process, and in fact, I think it is exactly the type of activity that has turned the American people against our current political system. I am hopeful, Mr. President, that the American people will reject those kinds of tactics, if they are, in fact, used by the parties. On the other hand, on a brighter note, there is a possibility that this decision could have a positive impact on the system. If, for example, a challenger is severely underfunded and is facing an incumbent with a colossal war chest, expenditures made by the parties could aid the challenger in running a competitive race. But I do not think this is the best approach to the very real problem of an uneven electoral playing field. Why shouldn't we instead empower the challenger to make such reasonable expenditures in this situation in his or her own favor? Why not, in this particular situation, allow the candidate, rather than the party, to play a somewhat greater role in the election process? That is precisely the approach advocated by the senior Senator from Arizona and myself and many others and was embodied in the bipartisan legislation we offered just a couple of weeks ago. Our proposal created a mechanism that offered candidates who agreed to a reasonable set of limits on their campaign spending the tools to run an effective, credible, and competitive campaign for the U.S. Senate. I want to make something very clear, Mr. President. The effect of the Colorado decision on the McCain-Feingold legislation, or any legislation like that legislation, is, at best, nominal. I realize that many have tried to say just the opposite, somehow suggesting that the Colorado decision contradicts everything in the McCain-Feingold bill or other reform bills. Mr. President, that is not true. It is wishful thinking on the part of those very same people who have done everything they can to kill campaign finance reform. The Colorado decision has nothing to do with any of the key components of our proposal, whether it is the voluntary spending limits, the broadcast and postage discounts, the PAC restrictions, bundling restrictions, franking reforms or any other provision. None of these are affected by the Colorado decision. Some have said that the spending limits in our bill will prevent a complying candidate from responding to an attack made by these new party-independent expenditures. There is concern expressed that a candidate who has agreed to abide by the voluntary spending limits who is then hit with $100,000 worth of television ads bought by the national party will be unable to respond effectively. That is a fair concern to raise. But, Mr. President, the answer is the same as it was when we debated the proposal 2 weeks ago. There is a provision in our bill that provides that if any complying candidate is the target of an independent expenditure, that candidate's spending limits are raised in proportion to the amount of independent expenditures made against them. So candidates would not be restrained from reasonably responding to an independent expenditure by the voluntary spending limits that they have agreed to. It is really that simple. So, Mr. President, I am confident that this legislation will be debated again, if not this year, then early in the 105th Congress. It doesn't matter whether the Senate is under Republican or Democrat control next year, but the American people will surely reject what I like to call the two escape hatches of campaign finance reform, in addition to saying the Supreme Court has foreclosed the matter. The first escape hatch, which will allow the Congress to talk the talk without walking the walk, is to create yet another commission to study this problem. I say ``another'' because it has already been done a few years ago. Commissions are meritorious when a relatively new issue needs to be studied, but that is not the situation when it comes to campaign finance reform. In fact, this issue has been the subject of more congressional hearings and testimony than the vast majority of the issues debated on the Senate floor. Clearly, at a time when so much is known about the issue and when so many creative ideas have been offered, establishing another commission to study the problem is unwarranted and nothing more than a dodge. The other escape hatch, which has turned into the escape hatch for seemingly every other issue that the Senate has debated in the 104th Congress, is to call again for yet another constitutional amendment. This particular constitutional amendment would allow Congress to set mandatory spending limits on campaign expenditures. Mr. President, I have no doubt that the people who are supporting this concept are sincere. At one brief moment, I supported such a constitutional amendment before I realized that the 103d Congress will be followed by a 104th Congress that seems to be trying to turn the Constitution into a billboard for every imaginable campaign slogan. Let's be honest here. A constitutional amendment requiring 67 votes is not going to pass before the turn of the century and, frankly, I don't think would pass by the turn of the next century. We could not even get 60 votes for a modest bipartisan and bicameral bill that had an unprecedented level of public support. Moreover, even if such a proposal were to somehow miraculously receive 67 votes in the Senate and 291 votes in the House of Representatives, then it has to be ratified by three-fourths of the States. So I think it is clear that anyone who suggests that a constitutional amendment is the solution to our campaign finance problems must also admit that sort of solution is years and years and years away from realistically coming into play. We just cannot put off a decision any longer, Mr. President. No games, no side shows. The American people are tired of campaigns in which issues and ideas have become secondary to dollars and cents. They view our electoral system not as part of the American dream, but just another chapter in the ``lifestyles of the rich and famous.'' The voters have become inherently mistrustful of any individual elected to public office because they know that individual is now part of the Washington money chase, where their principal goal as an elected official sometimes looks like not representing their communities but, instead, raising the requisite millions of dollars for their reelection efforts. Those are the trademarks of a dysfunctional campaign finance system that is crying out for meaningful bipartisan reform. I remain optimistic that early next year, this Senate can come together on a bipartisan basis and pass the sort of comprehensive reforms that the American people have been demanding for so many years. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 20 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote for the welfare reform conference report. I do so with grave reservations about many specific provisions. Like President Clinton, I think the cuts in nutrition programs are too deep and they can and should be corrected. Like President Clinton, I am concerned about the treatment of legal immigrants--people who followed the rules and came here under our legal immigration laws. Many have contributed in numerous ways to their communities. They are taxpayers and workers who, like all of us, may become ill or unemployed. This bill slams the door on them to a variety of programs in a manner that is neither appropriate nor necessary. There are other provisions of the final bill that I feel are too harsh and should be changed. But the overall effort at reforming the current welfare system is one that I support. When I campaigned for the U.S. Senate in 1992, I said then, and I continue to strongly believe, that if people can work, they should work. The focus of this bill is to encourage people to work, rather than remain on welfare. I support that goal. I also believe that the States should have more flexibility to design programs to meet the needs of their residents. I do not believe that detailed prescriptions from Washington, DC are the answer to the problems afflicting the current welfare system. Nationwide, the current welfare system is a disaster. It keeps families trapped in poverty. It discourages self- sufficiency. It creates unnecessary barriers to those trying to move from welfare to the work force. It forces recipients and local officials to wade through piles of bureaucratic red-tape. It fosters dependency, discourages initiative, and dampens the spirits of those in need. We must do better. We must change the status quo. We must provide a new, flexible approach that will help people work and get off welfare. This bill has improved dramatically from the original Republican proposal of last year. Many of the draconian provisions have been dropped. The Medicaid safety net has been restored for vulnerable children, the aged and disabled. Child care funds have been significantly increased and efforts to roll back Federal health and safety standards for child care were defeated. Attempts to dismantle the food stamp program and child protection programs failed. The effort to impose a family cap--a penalty for having a child when on welfare--was rejected by a bipartisan majority in the Senate. Maintenance of effort provisions were retained, helping to assure that Federal dollars do not simply replace State dollars. There are other provisions of the bill that I am disappointed about. I am disappointed that the conference agreement did not include an important improvement made during the Senate debate which expanded the educational activities that welfare recipients could take part in. In addition, the bill is too punitive on mothers who cannot work because of lack of affordable child care. There are vast areas that should have been improved. I believe that those of us who vote for this measure have an obligation to watch closely as it is being implemented to make sure that it works, works fairly, and that if changes are needed, they are enacted. I am deeply concerned about the opposition of many individuals whose opinions I respect. I share their concerns that in an effort to get able-bodied adults to enter the workforce, we do not inadvertently punish innocent children. But we are faced with the choice of supporting this bill or maintaining the current system. I vote to change the system.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to salute the 160,000 international members of the Experimental Aircraft Association, based in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, on the opening day of their 43rd annual ``Fly In'' convention, the single largest aviation event of its kind in the world. Mr. President, the Fly In, held at the Wittman Regional Airport in Oshkosh, is the stage for 12,000 experimental aircraft, vintage warplanes, showplanes, ultralights and rotorcraft. More than 700 exhibitors will present examples of cutting edge aviation technology, and more than 500 workshops, seminars and forums will feature many of the leading figures in aviation passing along their knowledge and experience on subjects covering the whole spectrum of flight. More than 800,000 people from all over the world will attend the Fly In. This year's program includes a salute to test pilots, the people who strap into the latest aviation designs and push them as far and as fast and as high as they can possibly go, pushing the performance envelope in the continuous quest for better aircraft. There will also be a salute to Korean War and Vietnam War veterans. Mr. President, the Fly In is a terrific show, but it is only part of the ongoing work of the EAA. The Experimental Aircraft Association works both to preserve aviation's heritage and promote its future. If you are interested in designing, building, restoring, maintaining or flying airplanes, or if you simply take pleasure in watching aircraft perform, the EAA offers something for you through programs at the state, regional, national and international level, all aimed at making flying safer, more enjoyable and more accessible for anyone interested. The EAA supports a foundation dedicated to the education, history and development of sport flying. It maintains a large collection of aircraft, a portion of which is on display at the EAA Air Adventure Museum in Oshkosh. EAA has created the Young Eagles program to give a free flight experience to young people, and there's a scholarship program for young people interested in aviation careers. All this began, Mr. President, in January, 1953, a little less than 50 years after the Wright brothers flew at Kitty Hawk. Paul Poberezny and a group of flying enthusiasts met at Milwaukee's Curtiss Wright field, now known as Timmerman Field. The first Fly In was held nine months later at Curtiss Wright, drawing fewer than 40 people and a handful of aircraft. Mr. Poberezny was elected the group's first president, and he held that post until 1989, when his son, Tom, took the reins. For the first 11 years of its existence, EAA was run out of the basement of Mr. Poberezny's home in Hales Corners, Wisconsin, near Milwaukee. Now it operates from its headquarters in Oshkosh. Mr. President, flight has fascinated the human race for centuries. Less than a century ago, powered flight became a reality. Sixty-six years later, we landed on the moon. Still, the wonder of traveling among the clouds remains, and that spirit, along with the inventiveness and daring of pilots, designers and engineers, is nurtured by the Experimental Aircraft Association.