Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the legislation before us. Before I do, let me just say a word or two about the comments about the minimum wage. I am pleased that that issue is being discussed at this time. I am pleased to see the reemergence of some bipartisan support for an increase in the minimum wage. I think the time is now. Whether it be on this piece of legislation with a limited time agreement or some other piece of legislation in the near future, I think it is something we ought to take up now rather than wait until later. It is at least of as great importance as the matter before us today. But I do rise in opposition to this bill. I fear this legislation not only embraces the wrong approach to curbing illegal immigration, but I think it contradicts past efforts to reform the Federal regulatory framework and to prevent the Congress from passing unfunded Federal mandates that will needlessly burden employers and local governments alike. In 1994, we witnessed a very emotional and pointed debate in California over a ballot issue that we have all come to know and describe as proposition 187. That debate, which evolved into a rhetorical backlash against both legal and illegal immigrants, clearly demonstrated that the issue of immigration has the very strong potential to further divide and alienate those in our communities who are now faced, even more than at any time in the past, with the daily anxieties of economic insecurity and social instability. During the extensive consideration of this legislation in the Senate Judiciary Committee, I did oppose certain efforts to curtail legal immigration, whether it was an effort to prevent families from reuniting with loved ones or an effort to place additional hurdles before persons who are fleeing persecution in their home countries and have a legitimate right to ask for asylum. As I indicated then, my strong support for preserving ample levels of legal immigration does not compromise in any way my feeling, and the feeling I think of every Member of this body, that we do need to take bold and aggressive steps to curtail illegal immigration. I do believe there are reforms that are responsible and reasonable, and that we should make every effort to pursue on this bill. For example, the bill authorizes the hiring of over 4,500 new Border Patrol agents over the course of the next 5 years. This massive increase in personnel will nearly double the existing number of Border Patrol agents under the jurisdiction of the INS. I was also, therefore, pleased that an amendment I offered in committee was adopted by the committee, which provides that these many new personnel will be hired and adequately trained, pursuant to appropriate standards of law enforcement. I am also strongly supportive of provisions in S. 269, offered by Senator Kennedy, to enhance the penalties for virtually all forms of alien smuggling and document fraud, as well as related offenses. Additionally, these provisions provide stiff penalties for those individuals who operate sweatshops which force people, many in this country illegally, to work in often inhumane conditions for minimal compensation. Like these new enforcement personnel and alien smuggling penalties, it is critical that any measure we consider to curtail illegal immigration be targeted against those who are actually breaking our laws. Nothing stands in more stark contrast to this sort of targeted approach than what I believe to be the single most troubling component of this legislation and that is the creation of a new, costly and massive worker verification demonstration project which is intended by the proponents, I believe, to lead to a nationwide verification system within a few years. The worker verification proposal contained in this legislation, and the worker verification concept itself, is not a targeted approach to confronting the problem of illegal immigration. Instead, it is an approach which seeks to deputize thousands of business owners and farmers and other entrepreneurs, and virtually turn our Nation's workplaces into some kind of internal border patrol, mini-INS's, if you will. These employers are then charged with the responsibility of navigating a complex new electronic verification system in an effort to root illegal immigrants out from a massive American work force. I find it shortsighted and untenable to suggest that we cannot combat illegal immigration without requiring every person in America to have his or her identity checked by a Federal data base each time each person in this country applies for a job or for Government assistance. Despite good-faith efforts by the proponents of this provision to try to build in adequate privacy protections, the fact remains that every time an American applies for a job he or she will be stepping into a civil liberties minefield, if this system develops as I am concerned the authors intend. Who in our society will be required to have their identities verified? Potentially everyone. It could be the 40-year-old father of four, applying for an executive position with a Fortune 500 company. It could be a 20-year-old college student applying for student aid. If I am reading this bill correctly, even a 12-year-old paper boy could have to have his identity verified by a Washington official before he could be hired to deliver newspapers. That, I am afraid, is the practical effect of a national worker verification system. It is light-years away from a targeted approach. And it is based on the proposition that it is perfectly appropriate to have ID checks potentially required from 98 percent of our population, that which consists of U.S. citizens and legal immigrants, in order to root out the 2 percent of our population that is here illegally. During judiciary hearing consideration of this bill, the junior Senator from Michigan and I offered a bipartisan amendment to strike the worker verification concept from this legislation and replace it with stronger enforcement and penalties for those who break the law by overstaying their legal visas. Although the committee accepted these new provisions relating to visa overstayers, our amendment to strike worker verification proposals lost on a tie 9 to 9 vote. The original nationwide system was later replaced by the so-called demonstration projects. But make no mistake, Mr. President, the fundamental flaws contained in the original proposal remain. Only now we will go through a somewhat longer process before it is actually imposed nationwide on all Americans. Senator Abraham and I will offer an amendment later on during this debate to strike those demonstration projects and programs and will speak more on this at another time. But it is strangely ironic, Mr. President, that some of the same Senators who stood here on the Senate floor a year ago and cried out for meaningful regulatory reform legislation now are some of the strongest advocates for a massive national worker verification system and that somehow that is an appropriate solution for our illegal immigration problems. Another provision of this legislation that is troubling to me relates to birth certificates and driver's licenses. The bill currently requires all Government agencies to begin issuing uniform Federal birth certificates based on standards developed here in Washington, DC. Moreover, no Government agency may accept for official purposes a birth certificate or driver's license that does not meet the Federal guidelines established in this and presumably future legislation. Originally, this provision required agencies to collect fingerprints or other biometric data. The Department of Justice referred to these fingerprinted birth certificates as ``de facto national identification documents.'' Thankfully, we were able to delete the fingerprinting requirement in the Judiciary Committee, but I think it demonstrates the steps that some are willing to take in this area. I do not believe for 1 minute that we have seen the last of this fingerprinting idea. Even without the fingerprints, I think this provision is still distressing. For example, the bill language requires every State department of motor vehicles to begin issuing driver's licenses with safety features as prescribed by a Federal regulatory agency. This language also states that anyone applying for a driver's license must present certain information as designated by the National Department of Transportation to establish their identity. So, if the Department of Transportation elects to promulgate a regulation next year requiring every State department of motor vehicles to begin collecting fingerprints, it would be legal under this legislation. So we see the fingerprints very easily coming back in, despite our efforts in the committee, through another route. Moreover, this section seems to ignore one of the 104th Congress' few bipartisan successes so far, the enactment of legislation to stop the Federal Government from passing unfunded mandates on to local and State government agencies. I think the Chair and I both know that one of the most consistent themes you hear in our home States is that they did not want new unfunded mandates. I recently received a letter from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation outlining their very justifiable concerns with these birth certificate and driver's license provisions. They are concerned, of course, with the cost that they will incur as a result of this new Federal mandate. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation has estimated these provisions could cost my State alone up to $3 million to comply with requirements relating to a specific Federal format for these documents and antifraud security features, not to mention Federal verification of all birth certificates and driver's licenses. This letter states that the Wisconsin Department of Transportation ``views this bill as yet another unfunded Federal mandate. The costs associated with it are substantial.'' The letter also points out that this State agency has had its operating budget reduced by 6 percent by the Wisconsin State legislature and Governor and would have no means, Mr. President, no way by which to pick up these additional costs that this new Federal mandate would impose. Mr. President, that is why I and the Senator from Ohio, Senator DeWine, and others view this provision as completely contrary to the letter and the spirit of the unfunded mandates legislation passed by this body just over a year ago and signed into law by President Clinton. There is not a word in this bill, Mr. President, about how the local and State agencies are to pay for this costly new procedure of issuing uniform Federal birth certificates and driver's licenses, even though it is plainly obvious that such a process is going to be an enormous financial burden on such entities. Mr. President, let me also take this opportunity to express my concerns about provisions in the legal immigration bill that are likely to surface in the near future. Although the Judiciary Committee, on a strong vote, split the two bills, split the legal and illegal immigration bills, there may well be another attempt to put these provisions back in this bill. I hope not, because these are very different issues. In committee, Mr. President, I was a cosponsor of the Kennedy-Abraham amendment to restore adequate levels of family immigration because I consider it to be essential to allow U.S. citizens to reunite with their children, their parents, and other loved ones who may be residing in other countries. There may be some abuse of our current family immigration system, but that does not mean we should completely prohibit a U.S. citizen from reuniting with their 22-year-old daughter, their 66-year-old parent, or their 15-year-old brother. Those were in fact the so-called reforms that were included in the original Simpson legislation and later expunged from the bill during committee markup. Considering the House voted decisively to remove all cutbacks of legal immigration from their bill, it is my hope that we have seen the last of efforts to further restrict family immigration. Mr. President, I also have serious concerns with the provisions in the legal immigration bill relating to persons seeking asylum in this country. Originally the bill required anyone seeking asylum to do so within 30 days of entering the United States or their claims would be invalid. I joined the junior Senator from Ohio and others in fighting this 30-day time limit because it was harsh, it was arbitrary, and would have likely had disastrous consequences for thousands of persons who have, in most cases, fled their homelands to escape persecution, torture or worse for expressing thoughts and opinions counter to those held by those governments in other lands. We have had, no doubt, serious problems and abuses with our past asylum process. Previously, a large number of nonmeritorious claims were filed in an effort to obtain certain benefits that asylum claimants are entitled to, such as automatic work authorization. This practice did result in a mammoth backlog of pending applications that have prevented or delayed some very legitimate claims from being processed in a timely fashion. Unfortunately, though, Mr. President, lost in all the hyperbole about this problem is the fact that the Clinton administration has made tremendous progress in clamping down on asylum fraud and abuse. As a result of these new administration reforms, in the past year alone, new asylum claims have been cut in half, and INS has more than doubled their productivity in terms of processing pending claims. Mr. President, these promising reforms by the Clinton administration are in their infancy, and we should not mandate such a harsh and arbitrary deadline that is likely to not only be disastrous for legitimate asylum seekers, but also completely unnecessary. During committee markup, an amendment was adopted that extended the 30-day deadline to 1 year and also provided an exception to this time limit if the applicant had good cause to wait for more than 1 year. I found this acceptable because it provided legitimate asylum seekers a waiver if they had justifiable reasons for waiting beyond the 1-year period. Unfortunately, the committee report language is more restrictive with respect to this waiver process than I had anticipated and hoped. Mr. President, America has a proud history of representing a safe haven for those who believe in democracy and who have been tormented for embracing particular political and religious viewpoints. We should continue to do so. I intend to work with the Senator from Ohio, Senator DeWine, and others in restoring and guaranteeing a fair and suitable waiver process. Mr. President, as we debate this issue over the next few days, we must be mindful of the inherent dangers that this immigration issue encompasses. We find ourselves today in the heart of an election year. History has shown that it is not uncommon for politicians, not only here, but in many countries, to use the issue of immigration to further divide people, in this country to divide Americans along racial, ethnic, and cultural lines. Playing to the fears of the American people on this issue may only provide further ammunition to those who seek to exploit those fears and coax the American people into believing that immigrants come to the United States only to commit crimes, to collect welfare benefits, and to steal jobs away from working Americans. That is an injustice, not only to the immigrants who currently reside in the United States, but an injustice as well to the historical legacy of immigrants who came here with purpose and promise and, as we must acknowledge, built this great Nation. Let me say this at this point. I do not doubt for a minute the intentions of the Senator from Wyoming in this regard. In many ways he has been a very important source of not only expertise but moderation and thoughtfulness on this issue. I believe he has made a good-faith effort to reform a system that is clearly in need of some repair. I do regret that I have some fundamental disagreements with respect to how we should address those flaws in the current immigration system. I look forward to working with other Senators in attempts to improve this legislation and passing reforms that truly differentiate between those who play by the rules and those who choose to break them.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I want to begin by commending the Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Missouri, and others, who I believe are sincere in their belief on the need for fundamental reforms in Congress. I disagree with their approach on this issue, but it would be nearly impossible to dispute that the American people expect the Congress to pass meaningful reforms of this institution and they are expecting those reforms soon. Madam President, it is a troubling reality that more and more Americans are finding it difficult to trust their Government and their elected officials. Trusting your Government and having faith in your elected leaders is perhaps the most fundamental tenet of American democracy. Unfortunately, this trust and faith has been shattered by a culture of special interest influence that has convinced the American people that their elected representatives are no longer working in the people's interest, but rather for their own and special interests. But the proposed solution to changing those negative perceptions that we are debating today would, I believe, represent a profound retreat from the principle of representative government itself. Moreover, what we are debating is yet another proposed fundamental change to the U.S. Constitution. Consider that already in the 104th Congress we have debated and voted on a constitutional amendment to balance the budget and a constitutional amendment to prohibit individuals from dishonoring the American flag. It should be pointed out that in the entire 209-year history of our Nation that, excluding the Bill of Rights, we have amended the Constitution just 17 times. Just 17 times Mr. President, in over 200 years. And yet in the 104th Congress alone, almost 140 constitutional amendments have been introduced, from issues ranging from the balanced budget, to tax increases, to flag burning, to school prayer, to the abortion issue and so on. Madam President, I do not believe that we should seek to solve every social ill in our country by making radical alterations to a document that was so carefully crafted 200 years ago and that has provided remarkable guidance to our Nation for so long. We must find alternative solutions. It has, in fact, been well established that the Framers of the Constitution did not believe congressional term limits would be beneficial to the new nation. Let me quote James Madison, the architect of the Constitution, in Federalist Paper No. 53. He wrote the following about his vision of a Congress: A few of the members, as happens in all such assemblies, will possess superior talents; will, by frequent re- elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of public business. . . . The greater the proportion of new members and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they will be to fall into the snares that may be laid for them. It is this point of Madison's that I would like to underscore and that I believe illustrates why it is so important to have a mix of individuals--some experienced and seasoned, others newly elected-- serving in the U.S. Senate. Moreover, it is important for us to consider how the history of the U.S. Senate and this Nation might have been different had term limitations been in effect for the past 200 years. We have had some truly outstanding individuals serve in the U.S. Senate. Republican or Democratic, Conservative, or Liberal, these individuals, whether you agreed with them or not, were defined not only by their tremendous legislative accomplishments but also by their character and the principles they often stood and fought for. Had we had term limits, a great number of these individuals would have been needlessly forced out of office. I am sure that all of my colleagues at one time or another have spent time in the Senate reception room, just outside this Chamber, and noticed the magnificent portraits hanging in that room. In 1955, the U.S. Senate established a commission headed by Senator John F. Kennedy, charging that commission with the responsibility of designating the five greatest U.S. Senators in our Nation's history. After substantial input from other Senators and the academic community, the commission chose Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Robert M. LaFollette, Sr., and Robert A. Taft, Sr., Portraits of these five Senators are hanging today in the Senate reception room. Clearly, the great legislative and oratory skills exercised by these great figures can be directly attributed to their extended years of service in the U.S. Senate. Interestingly, not a single one of these five greatest Senators served in the Senate for less than 12 years. Taft was the novice, having served only 14 years. Calhoun served 19 years, LaFollette served 22 years and Clay and Webster each served 24 years. And these five Senators are certainly not alone. The history books are full of names such as Humphrey, Dirksen, Goldwater, Hart, and so on. I believe that having experienced Senators in this body is not only healthy for our democracy, but critical to our ability to responsibly carry out the constitutional duties of the legislative branch of Government. Madam President, as a relatively new Member to this body, it has been personally beneficial and an honor to serve with some of the more senior Members, such as the senior Senator from West Virginia, whose mere presence reminds us all of the importance of maintaining a sense of respect and civility and the need to pay deference to this institution and the traditions associated with it that have enduring value. And think about so many effective and honorable Members of the current U.S. Senate whose services would be lost if a term limits law was in effect. In all, 44 current Members of this body--almost half--would not have the ability to continue as U.S. Senators because they have been here for more than 12 years. Mr. President, judging an elected official's commitment, their dedication and their competence by an arbitrary time limit is senseless. Term limits supporters seem to suggest that representing the people is the one profession in America in which having experience makes you underqualified for the job. We must remember that what term limits supporters are asking us to do is to take away the cornerstone of a representative democracy--the right to vote for the candidate of your choice. More than anything else, the freedoms associated with the right to vote are what make Americans the envy of the modern world. We should not take that right away from the American people. We have heard a lot of talk, Mr. President, during this Congress about the importance of devolution, and returning control over local matters to State and local governments. The majority leader wants to ``dust off the 10th amendment'' and we have been told time after time that the Federal Government should stay out of State and local decisionmaking. Well, Mr. President, the legislation before us today makes a mockery out of that principle. The legislation before us provides that the Federal Government will automatically disqualify certain individuals from representing their States and local communities. I believe, and the Framers clearly believed, that neither residents of other States nor elected representatives of other States have the right to tell the people of Wisconsin who they can and cannot vote for, other than the qualifications that are enumerated in the Constitution. And that is what term limits is all about--telling the American people that they are prohibited from voting for a particular representative because that individual has bumped up against some arbitrary deadline. Supporters of term limits argue that if elected officials know that they are only serving for a set amount of time and do not have to be concerned with frequent campaigning, these representatives will be more apt to work in the public's interest, and not their own. Quite frankly, I find this hard to believe. Numerous historical documents demonstrate that the Framers included the concept of frequent elections to the Congress to make representatives directly accountable to those they represent. The rationale was, if a legislator did his job, and adequately represented his constituents and advanced what was in their collective best interests, that representative would be rewarded by reelection. If the legislator was irresponsible, did not perform or fulfill his duties, the voters would exercise their right to replace that particular representative. The ballot box, as it was intended to be by the Framers, is essentially a job performance review for Members of Congress. But term limits would nullify this check, taking these sort of decisions out of the hands of the voters. Moreover, if a Senator is in their final term, knowing they cannot be reelected, it would seem to me that they would be less likely to represent the best interests of their constituents and more likely to represent their own self-interests. After all, they can no longer serve in Congress, they will have to seek future outside employment--maybe with a Washington DC, special interest group or lobbying firm. The argument that term limits would make elected officials more responsible legislators was raised over 200 years ago at the New York ratification convention, to which Alexander Hamilton replied, ``When a man knows he must quit his station, let his merit be what it may, he will turn his attention chiefly to his own emolument.'' Supporters would have us believe that our current system would be supplanted with a class of citizen-legislators, who are less concerned about a career of politics and more concerned about being a truly deliberative body than they are with responding to the whims of the electorate. This line of reasoning sounds like an attempt to reinvent the wheel. First of all, the Congress of the United States is already comprised of a diverse groups of individuals with unique backgrounds in a variety of fields, including education, law, business, journalism, medicine, and yes, politics. Virtually every one of us held jobs in the private sector before we ran for public office, and we will all eventually return to the private sector either when we decide to retire or when our employers, the voters, believe we have overstayed our welcome. I would like to briefly respond to those who suggest that seeking a career in public service is somehow an inherent character flaw. First, let me say that the list of ``professional politicians'' begins with names such as Madison and Jefferson, and ends with figures such as Roosevelt and Kennedy. We should remember that these individuals were truly public servants, and gave little thought to what Alexander Hamilton referred to as ``personal emolument.'' They inspired many of us to enter into public service because we too thought it was a noble and honorable thing to do. Madam President, as I said from the outset, I agree with many of the assumptions and concerns that term limits supporters put forth in their arguments. The election scales today are unquestionably weighted unevenly toward incumbents, and challengers do not have an adequate opportunity to unseat sitting Members of Congress. One very viable alternative to term limits that does not require amending the Constitution--and what I believe represents one of the most important issues facing us today--is the opportunity to reform our campaign finance laws. I am convinced that fundamental campaign finance reform would cure the ills of incumbency that have been derided by term limits supporters and what have unquestionably contributed to the deterioration of fair and competitive congressional elections. That is why I have joined others, including some very noted term limits supporters such as the senior Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Thompson, and others in offering the first bipartisan and bicameral campaign finance reform bill in nearly a decade. This bill has an enormously broad range of bipartisan support. Fifty- six Members of the 104th Congress, including 25 Republicans and 31 Democrats, have signed on to the House and Senate bills. The President supports it. The Ross Perot organization supports it. Common Cause, Public Citizen and newspaper editorials from around the country have endorsed the McCain- Feingold-Thompson legislation. And while only 45 Senators voted earlier this year for a sense of the Senate that we should consider term limits legislation, 57 Senators voted for the resolution I offered last year stating that we should consider campaign finance reform legislation prior to the conclusion of the 104th Congress. This body recently demonstrated on the issue of health reform that Senators from the two parties can set aside their partisan and ideological differences, compromise when necessary and produce a meaningful piece of legislation that will help a great number of people. Campaign finance reform is no different, and I am convinced that there are enough Senators who care about this issue, including many of the supporters of term limits, who can come together and pass a meaningful and comprehensive reform bill. Term limits are no doubt a popular idea, but so is comprehensive campaign finance reform. And if we can solve a problem that all parties seem to agree exists--that is, the unfair advantages held by incumbents--by means other than a constitutional amendment, we should aggressively pursue that avenue before considering such a fundamental change to our Constitution. In a society that considers the right to vote its national treasure and most sacred natural resource, term limits may be the ultimate form of an intrusive and overreaching Federal Government. I urge my colleague to reject this latest proposed change to our Constitution.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Situations like Liberia--and indeed other conflicts that have not been resolved by post-cold-war politics--demand creative responses by the international community. Liberia poses challenges that do not fall under the traditional definitions of United States national security, but they do include threats to our well-being and national interests. For instance, as Liberian refugees spill over into Guinea, the stresses on some of the last remaining tropical rainforest in West Africa become untenable, and the rainforest shrinks, causing shortages of resources, food, and medicine. Large concentrations on refugees and displaced persons also heighten potential for outbreaks of disease. One case of Ebola or typhoid in a refugee camp, and we have a humanitarian disaster that can spread anywhere in just a plane ride. Unfortunately, our option is not to pull out of Liberia and wash our hands of the problem: because of regional ramifications and threats of disease and environmental degradation, the issue is whether we meet the challenge of Liberia, or invest more after more destruction in the tragedies that would unravel in Sierra Leone, Guinea, Cote D'Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Ghana, and perhaps elsewhere in West Africa. So, Mr. President, we don't really have a choice: the problem is maintaining stability in West Africa, whether we call it Liberia or Burkina. For these reasons, yesterday I introduced a resolution, Senate Resolution 248 with Senators Kassebaum, Simon, Leahy, Jeffords, and Pell, declaring the breakdown of the Abuja process would have serious ramifications for United States interests in Liberia and throughout West Africa, and urging the administration to consider a number of steps. These include scrutinizing the budget to find funding for ECOMOG; this is key. We also suggest considering the provision of excess defense articles for communications and logistical support for troops willing to participate in ECOMOG. The resolution also urges the administration to use its influence with other governments to solicit interest in ECOMOG, and finally, it calls on the administration to lead U.N. efforts to establish finally a committee to enforce the U.N. arms embargo against Liberia. These are all suggestions that the administration should consider, and it is not an exhaustive list. The point is, we need decisive and creative action in Liberia--and part of that must be real support for the west African peacekeeping force. So, once again I applaud the work of our diplomatic and military forces in Liberia today, and compliment the administration on its efforts to help calm the situation. At the same time, I urge them to focus fully on Liberia--not just to quell the current tensions, but invest in trying to prevent them from erupting again. I also want to express our gratitude to Ghana's President Jerry Rawlings and his senior diplomatic team which has worked tirelessly and somewhat successfully to negotiate a ceasefire. Other ECOWAS states, particularly Cote D'Ivoire, have been very helpful in trying to reach the same goal. We also owe a debt of gratitude to Sierra Leone for making Freetown available as a transit point for those evacuated. While multilateral efforts may have failed to this point in Liberia, with each step--as painful as it is--the United States, ECOWAS, and the rest of the international community seem to be strengthening their abilities. We must learn from the past and look creatively to the future: we have no choice, unless we are willing to confront what could be even bigger disasters in the near future.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as the United States military winds up its spectacularly successful evacuation of over 1,795 people from Liberia, I rise today to pay tribute both to our 214 soldiers who conducted this very difficult mission, and to the United States personnel, led by Charge D'Affaires Bill Mylam, who are working under dire circumstances to try to bring some stability to Liberia. These people have undertaken magnificent and courageous endeavors, endeavors of which the American people should be very proud. Today I also want to focus on the challenge that must be faced in dealing with this unfortunate turn of events in West Africa. After a few months of guarded optimism that there might be peace in Liberia, it appears that this woeful country is once again on the brink of collapse. Looting and fighting have overtaken the capital, halting implementation of the Abuja Accords, suspending humanitarian operations and limiting food and water supplies. In addition to the 1 million-odd refugees around Liberia, 60,000 people have been newly displaced in Monrovia, and 15 to 20,000 Liberians are crowded into the Barclay's Training Center [BTC], seeking protection from tribal warfare. After United States evacuation efforts, only 19 Americans remain in Liberia in an official capacity, and humanitarian efforts are endangered. The prospects look bleak, but our resolve to contain the fighting and disintegration must remain steadfast. We have so few alternatives. Since September 1995 when the Abuja Accords were signed by all the warring factions, the United States, along with other interested members of the international community, has tried to help implement them. The primary tasks were deploying West African peacekeeping forces through ECOMOG throughout the country, militarily disengaging and disarming the factions, and quickly investing in an economy that had virtually nothing to offer the citizens of Liberia. Mr. President, this has not been overly successful. While thee have been many false hopes in Liberia, Abuja represented a reasonable plan, but only if each phase of that plan was fully met. It has not been--not by the Liberian factions, not by the international community, and not by the United States. ECOMOG has never been strong enough to help create an atmosphere of stability needed for peace to survive. Nigerian elements have remained dominant in ECOMOG, while new forces--such as a Ghanaian battalion that had previously succeeded at peacekeeping missions--have not been funded. This is a failing of the international community, including the United States, that had pledged to support the Abuja Accords. At the pledging conference, the United States committed $10 million for ECOMOG--a small sum for peace in any case. We have only delivered $5.5 million of that. Mr. President, strengthening ECOMOG to help it carry out its mission is a commitment the United States made, correctly, to help prevent an explosion like the current one in Monrovia from occurring. But the fact that we barely delivered on our commitment has been damaging to the peace process. Two months ago, Senator Kassebaum and I made a proposal to transfer $20 million from democracy programs at AID to help fund a new battalion for ECOMOG. An unusual source of funding, perhaps, but indicative of the high priority we placed on the funding of ECOMOG, and a statement that ECOMOG is part of our development efforts in West Africa. The administration opposed this particular transfer, but promised to work to come up with other sources of funding for ECOMOG. Not only did the administration not find the money, but it also did little in this time frame to solicit contributions from others. Crises like these demand creative responses, so I would propose we take a hard look at other programs for this purpose. Strong cases can be made that Liberia is relevant to both these accounts. I will work with the administration to continue to look for resources which we can redirect to this cause. In theory I support the proposals I have heard about on the table today to extend communications and other logistical support and training to new battalions for ECOMOG, but I can't resist asking why the administration didn't focus on this earlier? Why did it take massive looting and displacement in Monrovia to solicit this response? And if the fighting lulls, will the interest in Liberia be sustained long enough to actually realize a support package for the Abuja Accords? I will be anxious to see what plan the European Command submits to the United States at the end of this week, and, if appropriate, will do what I can to assist the administration in making these plans operational. While I understand and sympathize with the tight budgets under which the administration must live, this is symptomatic of a larger trend to resistance to reinvent U.S. activities in the realm of peacemaking that I see. For example, at the time of the Abuja Accords, the United States pledged $75 million to help implement the peace process; $10 million of that was for ECOMOG, and $65 million for humanitarian assistance. I fully support emergency aid, Mr. President, but I think it is short- sighted--and perhaps even becomes as self-fulfilling prophecy--when we under-finance peace and development efforts, because we are invested in humanitarian funding. In Liberia, it is to some degree a chicken-and- egg scenario, given the destruction and desperation in the country. However, this should not deter us from investing in creation of an infrastructure for peace and development. As we ignore development needs, we only increase the potential for violent outbreaks, which, in turn, as we saw in Bosnia and Rwanda, could lead to the use of United States troops. While I understand that the use of United States military in Liberia is quite unlikely, if we do not invest in the peace process and in Liberia's development, we could very well face calls for United States military engagement, which in my view would be tragic and unwise. Regional peacekeeping is a peace and development idea worth investing in, Mr. President. In a post-cold-war era, as we restructure U.S. and U.N. doctrines for the use of force, it will become inevitable that regional forces, in most cases, will be the best deterrent early on to contain the spread of violence and instability. If the international community ignores, or does not work to strengthen, these organizations then it will all too often lead to pressure for the deployment of foreign--and in some cases American--troops. Bosnia is a prime example: for several years we tried to work with the Europeans to address effectively the Balkan war. But when it was clear the Europeans had completely failed, for a variety of reasons, it was U.S. troops that stepped in to fill the vacuum and lead the way to a peace implementation force. I still disagree with the decision to deploy United States troops in Bosnia, and I see the potential for calls for a similar path in Liberia if we do not support ECOMOG at this important juncture. Another serious failure of Abuja has been the process of disarmament. Under Abuja, all parties were to disengage and disarm completely by February of this year. Of course, without any economic alternative other than soldiering, or any hope of protecting themselves without their weapons, most Liberians did not disarm. The lack of logistical support also made it difficult for ECOMOG to deploy to supervise the disarmament. Then, factions such as Charles Taylor's NPFL placed conditions on disarmament--in effect, reopening the delicate Abuja Accord. Another problem in the disarmament effort has been the last of effort by Liberia's neighbors--namely Burkina Faso, Cote D'Ivoire, and Guinea--in halting the arms--on both the black and gray markets--that cross their borders into Liberia. Mr. President, this is an issue we should take quite seriously. I have raised the issue directly with parties involved in public and private, and am aware that high-ranking administration officials have done the same. Yet even as Abuja had its most reasonable chance to succeed, arms have flowed to the parties each country it favors. I will work to finally activate the U.N. Commission that was created after the U.N. arms embargo was imposed against Liberia, and establish sanctions for those flaunting the international embargo. I will also submit that if this practice continues, the United States consider sanctions of its own against those working to undermine the Abuja Accords. At a minimum, we should revive the sanctions against individuals working against democratization efforts that were lifted when Abuja was concluded. At this point, I request that an op-ed in yesterdays' New York Times by Jeffery Goldburg be printed in the Record. I do not agree with all the conclusions it draws, particularly the proposal that the preferable course of action is to have U.S. marines occupy Monrovia. However, I do recommend the article as a cogent analysis of what went wrong, and what the United States can try to do the repair the Abuja process. The article follows: [From the New York Times, Apr. 15, 1996] Lifting Liberia Out of Chaos (By Jeffrey Goldberg) George Boley stood in a clearing deep in a Liberian rain forest and said that he was misunderstood. ``I am not a warlord,'' he told me in late 1994. ``I don't know why they use this term to describe me.'' Behind the self-styled chairman of the wildly misnamed Liberian Peace Council stood 80 soldiers. Most were teen- agers, some were as young as 9. All were armed, many were drunk. ``These are professional fighting men,'' he said, without irony. Mr. Boley, who holds a Ph.D. in educational administration from the University of Akron, is most assuredly a warlord, as are the other Liberian faction leaders who last week drove their country back into chaos. Fighting in the capital, Monrovia, has killed untold numbers. United States troops have evacuated more than 1,600 Americans and other foreigners. But the United States must take stronger action to restore peace--and it can do so without endangering American troops. The civil war began in 1989 when Charles Taylor, the warlord of the National Patriotic Front of Liberia, invaded from neighboring Ivory Coast. The next year, Liberia's dictator, Master Sgt. Samuel Doe, was killed, setting off six years of gang warfare among several factions. A peace accord struck in Abuja, Nigeria, last August was supposed to end the war. It handed Monrovia over to the warlords, who agreed to share power peacefully. But they never came through on their pledge to disarm their supporters. So it was inevitable that violence would erupt this month after Mr. Taylor sent his men to arrest a rival, Roosevelt Johnson, on murder charges. Mr. Johnson's faction has indeed murdered civilians. But Mr. Taylor's fighters have also indiscriminately killed civilians, including five American nuns in 1992. The fault for this new spasm of violence rests mostly with the warlords, of course. But the United States is also to blame. Last year, it missed a chance to adequately finance a disarmament effort by the United Nations and West African Peacekeeping Force, which has been in Liberia since 1990. The peacekeeping force--with soldiers from nine countries-- successfully defended Monrovia from a 1992 attack by Charles Taylor's faction. But it is now demoralized, cashstrapped and undermanned. Its ground forces, once at 12,000, are down to 5,000 or so poorly equipped men. Their commanders are for the most part Nigerian Army generals and are widely considered corrupt. For Liberia, the best scenario would have United States Marines occupying Monrovia. But with Somalia still fresh on Americans' minds, this is probably not politically feasible. Still, a strong West African force of about 15,000 men could disarm the ragtag factions and weaken the warlords. This would take American cash and equipment--from ammunition and food to armored vehicles and helicopters. The United States would also have to send military trainers and communications equipment to Ghana and other willing and capable West African nations. All this would cost more than $20 million. But over the past six years, Washington has poured almost half a billion dollars of humanitarian aid into the country, not including the cost of the current evacuation--the third such operation since 1989. America has a special responsibility to Liberia, founded in 1847 by freed American slaves. Liberia was also an American ally in the cold war, and $500 million in American aid propped up the brutal Doe regime. The only way to end the terror of the warlords is to take their guns away. If Washington helps West African troops do so, not a single American soldier would be endangered. And it would ultimately cost less than airlifting Americans out of Monrovia every time the city explodes.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it looks like a very ambitious agenda has been announced for this session until Memorial Day. I welcome much of that agenda, and I especially welcome the type of bill that we handled yesterday, the so-called Kennedy-Kassebaum bill. That bill regarding health care reform is a classic example of a good, bipartisan effort that I think the American people are really starved for. They want nothing more than to see those of us who have the honor of being elected to Congress work together on a bipartisan basis. What we did yesterday, I think, exemplifies better than anything else the possibilities of working together in this body for the good of the country. In fact, Mr. President, in his State of the Union, President Clinton endorsed the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill, saying that that bipartisan effort was acceptable to him and that he would be happy to sign it. That gave the bill a lot of impetus, and I think it was a very important moment in the State of the Union. Mr. President, the President of the United States also endorsed another bipartisan bill that night on another topic that might be even more fundamental--I would say it is even more fundamental than the important bill we passed yesterday. The topic that the President was referring to was campaign finance reform, and the bill that he endorsed was S. 1219, the first bipartisan bill on campaign reform in this body in about 10 years. Mr. President, I rise today--and, in a moment, a couple of my colleagues will also rise--to say that the time is now to take up the issue of campaign finance reform on this floor, to take up this bipartisan effort, which, among other things, will, for the first time, voluntarily limit the overall amount a candidate can spend when they run for the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives, and for the first time say that you have to get a majority of your campaign contributions from individuals, from the people from your own home State, not from PAC's or from out-of-staters, but the majority from your own home State, if you want to get the benefits of the bill; and finally, for the very first time, some reasonable incentives to get people to not spend unlimited amounts of their own cash, so that people get the sickening feeling that elections can be bought. All of this is highlighted in S. 1219. In doing so, of course, Mr. President, I especially pay tribute to the first sponsor of the bill, who has been central to the bipartisan reform efforts in the 104th Congress, the senior Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain. He has been steadfast and very dedicated to this effort. He, I, and the others who are involved in this speak almost every day about how we can move this effort from concept to fruition during the 104th Congress. In addition, my friend who will speak next, the Senator from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, and others have worked together almost on a daily basis to try to move this issue forward. We have been very encouraged that this is not just happening in this House. It is also happening in the other body where another very similar bipartisan effort is being led by a group of people from very disparate ideological viewpoints. It is one of the rare examples, I am told, where there is not just a bipartisan effort going on but a bicameral effort, a real groundswell of effort in both Houses working together for campaign finance reform. Of course, I would be remiss not to mention the tremendous public support we are finding for S. 1219--groups like Common Cause, Public Citizens, and over 50 newspapers have endorsed the bill. So I think it is fair to say we are in an excellent position to say that the time is now to have this issue debated on the floor. So I, Senator McCain, and the others who have been working together on this bill have come to the conclusion that it may well be necessary now to seek to amend another piece of legislation, perhaps the next appropriate vehicle, to move this issue forward given the inability of having this bill scheduled on its own at this point. I would prefer--I think we would all prefer--that the bill be scheduled separately. But, given the passage of time, I think we have very little alternative. Mr. President, given the unprecedented level of bipartisan support, there is clearly a consensus among the public that S. 1219 ought to come to the floor. Admittedly, there was a time some years ago when I did not think we could, having passed campaign finance reform in both Houses in the 103d Congress and see it die. I was skeptical. When I read the Contract With America and saw the other party win the election, campaign finance reform was not even mentioned in the Contract With America. Nonetheless, Mr. President, thanks to Members of both parties, this is truly a bipartisan effort. The reform agenda has arisen in the 104th Congress. It has been proven by not just introducing but by succeeding on the issues of the gift ban and lobby reform for which my friend from Minnesota was very central to in both causes. These are among the very few real accomplishments thus far in the 104th Congress. So the reform agenda has done surprisingly well. Mr. President, I want to especially remind the body today that it is important to do this. This is not just one Senator's view of what ought to be on the floor or just the view of the cosponsors of the bill. This is the will of the body of the U.S. Senate as voted on a bipartisan basis in July of 1995. Mr. President, last July I authored a bipartisan resolution that simply said we should consider campaign finance reform during the 104th Congress. I thought it would be a quick voice vote and be put away. But it was tested. It was sorely tested. The majority leader left his office and came to the floor personally and urged that that resolution which I had proposed be defeated, and called for a rollcall. As we know, the majority leader rarely fails to prevail. The majority leader almost never fails to get a majority. But on this one he did, and 13 Republicans joined with many Democrats so that on a 57 to 41 vote the Senate voted not to table our resolution that campaign finance reform should be considered during the 104th Congress. Subsequently, in the next vote, campaign finance reform was added to a list of items that we all voted to say ought to be considered in the 104th Congress. Mr. President, I think that was a very key sign of the desire of this body to do campaign finance reform. I certainly believed that every Senator, when they said they wanted the issue considered, meant that they wanted it considered in a timely manner so that campaign finance reform could become law. In other words, I did not consider this to be something that Senators would want to do so late that it would not wind its way through this difficult process, and so that it would not get to the President who has said he is ready to sign the bill. Mr. President, since that time, many other items that were on that list that we all voted for have been passed or dealt with. Welfare reform has been dealt with, the Defense Department authorization, Bosnia arms embargo, job training, and legislative branch appropriations have all been considered on the floor of the Senate--but not campaign finance reform. Here we are in mid-April in the second year of the 104th Congress with no debate on campaign finance reform, no consideration, and thus far no votes on the issue. So this is obviously somewhat troubling, and it becomes much more troubling when we have a spate of news articles this week announcing what the agenda will be during this floor period ending with Memorial Day. In fact, we have begun the first of several days now that are going to be devoted not to campaign finance reform but just to the issue of term limits. Admittedly, many Americans want that debate on term limits. But where is the mention in the agreement about when campaign finance reform will come up? Some might say the bill need hearings. It has had extensive hearings in front of the Senate Rules Committee--helpful, meaningful hearings. But that opportunity has now been given, and the time has come to move forward. So, Mr. President, before I yield to my other colleagues, let me say that I remain very optimistic about this bill. We have preferred to go the route of a separate bill, and maybe that can still happen. But we have no choice at this point but to move forward and try to amend another piece of legislation. Some are saying that there is already not enough time to pass this bill in this Congress. But do know what that is? That is wishful thinking on the part of those who want this bill to go away. That is what you say when you hope you will try to slow the momentum of those pushing this issue. You tell everyone there is not enough time and we cannot do it until they move on to other things. But supporters of this bill all across the country know that we have bipartisan momentum and that we will come to the floor in the near future. And once that act begins, the public support and feeling about this issue will keep the issue moving in this Congress. Mr. President, on this one, the public knows because of the bipartisan support that they will reject excuses that there was not enough time. They know that 6 months remain, at least, before we adjourn, and they will certainly tell anyone who tries to tell them there was not time, they will say that, if there is a will, there is a way. So, Mr. President, I am very encouraged that we are ready to move. I now yield 5 minutes of my time to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Minnesota. I yield the remainder of my time to the junior Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate the unanimous consent to speak for 20 minutes. Let me associate myself strongly with both sets of remarks by the Senator from Connecticut--first, as to our good friend and great loss with regard to Secretary Brown, who we will miss greatly. And, second, nothing could be more on our minds today than the horror of last year in Oklahoma City. The moments of silence here and across the country were a fitting reminder of that tragedy, but also a time to feel some real gratitude toward the employees of our Federal Government, who do not always get treated with all the respect and admiration they deserve. They had a very rough year in 1995. I, for one, want to thank them for their services and the sacrifices of their families throughout the country, particularly with regard to those who suffered the loss in Oklahoma City. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his remarks.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, upon the conclusion of that time period, that Senator Dodd be recognized for the purposes of making some remarks, and following that I be recognized for 20 minutes in morning business.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am submitting a resolution today on behalf of myself, and Senators Kassebaum, Simon, Leahy, Jeffords, and Pell, which includes proposals for United States action in support of the Liberian peace process. I will be speaking at length on this later this week.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in support of this bipartisan health insurance reform bill, a measure that I was pleased to cosponsor. There are a number of reasons to support this legislation introduced by my good friends, the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Massachusetts. Let me focus my remarks on ways in which this measure should provide some meaningful help for one group in particular. That is our Nation's small businesses. From existing companies trying to maintain health care coverage to individuals who are trying to start a small business, this bill addresses several problems confronting smaller firms trying to provide health insurance for their employees. First, Mr. President, and I want to emphasize this, the measure addresses the barriers often posed by preexisting conditions. An estimated 81 million Americans have some kind of preexisting medical condition that could, unfortunately, affect their insurability. The legislation limits the ability of insurers to impose exclusions for preexisting conditions. In addition, the bill requires insurers to sell and renew group health policies for all employers who want coverage for their employees, and it prohibits group health plans from excluding any employee based on health status. Now, Mr. President, this can be especially helpful to our small businesses. The problem of getting insurance does not just affect individuals with preexisting conditions. Whole industries have been denied coverage by certain insurers because they are not to employ people who are more likely than others to get sick. A study by the Congressional Research Service found that several insurers routinely denied coverage to dozens of different types of businesses ranging from some of the following: auto dealers, barber shops, beauty parlors, hotels, lodges, and restaurants. Mr. President, even businesses and individuals that have health insurance cannot be sure of maintaining their coverage if illness strikes. Insurers can, therefore, collect premiums for years and then just suddenly refuse to renew coverage in individuals or employees who begin to incur large health care costs. So, requiring insurers to renew policies can certainly help address that problem. This bill finally helps move us down this road. Mr. President, the bill also guarantees renewability of individual policies and prohibits insurers from denying insurance to those moving from group coverage to individual coverage. We know that the inability to retain health care coverage once somebody leaves a job can trap many people in the jobs they wish to leave. This is often referred to as ``job lock,'' a problem, according to one survey, that may touch one quarter of all American workers--individuals that stay in jobs they would otherwise leave, because they fear losing their health care coverage. Mr. President, this job-lock effect has an impact on small business, as well. Unless you inherit wealth, or maybe win the lottery, the chances are pretty good that anyone who wants to start a small business will be somebody's employee--at least as they make the decision to become a small business person. If you or a member of your family have any kind of preexisting condition, you may be faced with this job lock. The inability to get health insurance prevents those individuals from leaving their existing jobs to start their new business. Mr. President, I think this barrier has a major impact on our economy by discouraging new business startups. We all know that small business is the real foundation of our economy. We have an insurance practice that discourages people from taking their good ideas and starting new businesses that will employ many more people. That is a real, real restraint on the growth of our economy. Mr. President, finally, I want to commend the authors of this measure for the provisions that help make it easier for small businesses to form private, voluntary coalitions to purchase health insurance, and to also negotiate with providers in health plans. While the economic power of big businesses has enabled many larger firms to contain health care costs and improve the quality of health care for their employees, small businesses continue to see health care costs climb. The Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee reported that while health care costs for large employers declined 1.9 percent in 1994, small employers saw an average increase of 6.5 percent. This is a very large discrepancy, and one that really discourages small business at the same time that larger businesses are benefited. By providing small employers and individuals with the kind of economic leverage in the marketplace that is currently enjoyed by large employers, these provisions should help bring the costs of health insurance down for small businesses and individuals. Mr. President, as you know, there are over 50 cosponsors of this measure, pretty evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Of course, this is an indication of the broad desire for health insurance reform. But it is also an indication of the care taken by Senator Kassebaum and Senator Kennedy in crafting a measure that, finally, has a real good chance of becoming law, at a time of very heightened political sensitivities on this issue. Before any measure is enacted, it has to navigate the choppy waters of each body, a conference committee, going back to each body again, and, finally, receive Presidential approval. That is no mean feat at any time, but it is especially difficult in the political environment of a Presidential election year. If this bill becomes law, as I hope it will, its enactment would be in no small part due to the legislative skills of the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Massachusetts, and, I might add, to the fondness and respect many of us in this body have for both of them. Mr. President, I congratulate my friends, and I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it has been nearly 1 year since America was shocked and outraged by the bombing in Oklahoma City. The anguish and the pain caused by this cowardly act left a marked impression on each of us which remains today. That which had formerly been reserved for distant parts of the globe--acts of savage terrorism--was now being visited upon the citizens of this Nation. There can be no debate that we must respond to these acts, as we must all acts of crime, with the singular and unyielding purpose of capturing, prosecuting and punishing the responsible individuals. Unfortunately, in the 12 months that has passed since Oklahoma City, this legislation has been subject to many varied interests--interests placing certain proposals above the underlying goal of responding to terrorism in the measured and focused manner necessary to protect the citizens of this Nation. Unfortunately, many of the proposals which have been offered throughout this debate to combat terrorism simply went too far and placed the civil liberties of all Americans in peril. For this simple reason I opposed language included in the Senate bill which would have expanded the scope of wiretap authority and would have injected the military into areas of law enforcement which are better left to local officials. I am concerned that these provisions move us toward unwarranted expansion of Federal power. Accordingly, I support the removal of these provisions from the final package. However, just as some of those proposals overstepped the boundaries of civil liberties, the final conference report remains flawed. Careful review of this legislation reveals that it contains very few substantive provisions which would have prevented or helped prevent the Oklahoma City tragedy. As I said when the Senate considered this legislation last summer, it is essential that law enforcement be given the resources and support necessary to investigate and prosecute terrorists. To truly protect citizens of this Nation, terrorists must be stopped before they strike--before they take innocent lives in some misguided effort to prove the validity of their agenda. That is why I am so troubled when I hear the suggestion that the single most effective antiterrorism provision in this bill is the alleged reform of habeas corpus. The link between habeas corpus and keeping the people of this Nation free from acts of terrorism is tenuous at best. The argument that these habeas provisions will prevent another Oklahoma City is one which is manufactured solely to justify inclusion of these unrelated provisions in a bill originally meant to address terrorism. These so-called habeas reforms will do nothing to rid our communities of dangerous persons who may strike against innocent people. The only time habeas corpus is even remotely related to terrorism is after the terrorist has committed an act of terrorism, has been apprehended, convicted and is sitting in a prison cell. Once again political expediency has obscured sound policy making. In the words of the New York Times, ``Members of Congress are exploiting public concerns about terrorism to threaten basic civil liberties.'' Many of my colleagues want very sincerely to address what they perceive to be abuses in the use of habeas corpus. These efforts, however, should not be hidden behind the unsustainable claim that doing so in anyway makes the people of this Nation less likely to be attacked by terrorists. Further, the provisions in the conference report go well beyond reform and eviscerate the constitutional underpinnings of habeas corpus. Just as many of the law enforcement provisions went too far, so too do the habeas provisions. By setting unreasonable limitations and standards of review available on appeal of constitutional violations, this bill greatly enhances the potential that this Nation will execute an innocent person for a crime they did not commit. I do not disagree with my colleagues who argue that justice must be served. The families of the victims and the American people deserve as much. However, the pursuit of justice does not require us, as these habeas provisions do, to depart from over 200 years of constitutional protections. Justice is not served by the execution of an innocent human being. The families of the victims and the American public will find no comfort from such an occurrence. Like so many facets of this bill, the habeas provisions of this bill lack any semblance of reasonable balance. A recent March 20 editorial from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel entitled ``A needless overreaction to terrorism'' criticized these provisions and pointed out the fallacy of the alleged link between habeas reform and terrorism or that these provisions will have any deterrent effect. In the words of the Journal; It's difficult to see how limits on appeals by prison inmates would deter terrorism. Most such prisoners have been convicted of ordinary--not political--crimes. Besides, many terrorists are willing to undergo punishment, even death, for the causes they believe in. The inclusion of habeas reform in this legislation has very little to do with terrorism and a great deal to do with advancing an agenda which has previously languished in the Congress. Just as I opposed those law enforcement provisions which raised constitutional concerns, so too do I oppose these proposals. We should be just as wary of proposals which forsake constitutional protection in the name of habeas reform as we are of those which do so in the name of expanding wiretap authority. Mr. President, it is very likely that this conference report will become law. This is unfortunate. Not simply because bad provisions of this bill will become bad law, but because this bill represents an opportunity squandered. This legislation started as an effort to address terrorism--to provide some protection for the citizens of this Nation against acts of terrorism. The American people deserve as much. Sadly Mr. President, for all the fanfare which will likely accompany this legislation, it fails to meet that laudable and important goal.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, export promotion is a critical component of both domestic economic growth in this country and of our foreign policy. One of the barriers to more trade for U.S. companies has been a virtual subsidy by the governments of many of our trade competitors for offering bribes to win foreign contracts. Of course, U.S. business is prohibited from engaging in bribery by the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. While there have been calls to repeal the FCPA, for almost 2 years, I have been working to promote universal acceptance of the principles of the FCPA. I introduced legislation and a sense of the Senate resolution last year to move forward in that direction. A version of the proposals were included in the Senate State authorization bill, but not included in the conference agreement. For a problem that no one seems to want to talk about publicly, there has been some important movement to help eradicate this practice in Europe. Two years ago the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development a group of 26 major industrialized countries, passed a resolution to ``deter, prevent, and combat bribery.'' Now it has expanded on that by recommending that members terminate the tax- deductibility of bribes, such as allowed in Germany and elsewhere. This is a significant step toward leveling the playing field for U.S. exports. It is also important that major newspapers, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, have carried opinion pieces in the past couple of days on this issue. I ask that the articles be printed in the Record and commend them to my colleagues for their review. Bribery and corruption are serious impediments to our exports, and promote bad business practice. We should be supportive of efforts, such as the recent initiatives by the OECD to help protect American business. The articles follow: [From the Washington Post, Apr. 16, 1996] An End to Corruption (By Robert S. Leiken) If a German bribes a German, he gets thrown in jail; if he bribes a foreign official he gets a tax deduction. Only American businessmen can be prosecuted at home for bribing foreigners. But the day when U.S. business was a solitary straight arrow seems to be ending. This is not because the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) has become a dead letter. IBM- Argentina, now under federal investigation, can testify to that. What may be opening a new chapter in commercial diplomacy is a revolution in public opinion, the repudiation of bribery and kickbacks by societies that once tolerated them. Last week the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the league of wealthy industrial nations, recommended that is members stop allowing tax write-offs for bribes. Sources close to those protracted negotiations said that the public reaction to recent bribery scandals helped overcome resistance to the measure led by France, Germany and Japan. The end of the Cold War, the spread of democracy, the rise of civil societies have sparked disclosure of corruption East and West. This is the case not only in the former Soviet bloc but also among Western allies where military regimes or ruling-party dominance has given way to competitive politics. An intriguing community of interests is forming between U.S. corporations and democracy. For the solution to translational bribery lies not in a futile attempt to repeal the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act but in universalizing it and supporting reforms in emerging countries. Corruption is being challenged by opposition parties, and unmuzzled press, religious groups and other nongovernment organizations, as well as prosecutors, magistrates and other civil servants. Anti-corruption movements have emerged in countries as diverse as Argentina, Cambodia, Italy, Hungary, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, El Salvador, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, New Zealand and Zimbabwe. Citizens who have silently endured corruption for generations now take to the streets to protest corrupt practices, to elect anticorruption candidates and to impeach corrupt presidents, vice presidents, premiers, cabinet ministers and party leaders. Many countries have appointed national commissions to recommend reforms and have established government agencies to prosecute abuses. Small countries are beginning to make known their anticorruption sentiments. Recently, for example, Malaysia and Singapore each declared several foreign firms caught bribing officials ineligible for bidding on future contracts. The stakes are enormous for U.S. companies and workers. As emerging nations drop trade barriers and privatize state monopolies, more than $200 billion of export and investment contracts will be open to international bidding. Our trade rivals understand that these contracts will determine who builds tomorrow's economies. The U.S. Department of Commerce has calculated that from April 1994 to May 1995 nearly 100 foreign contracts worth $45 billion were lost to foreign competitors through graft. The most egregious bribers, according to U.S. government and business officials, include companies from Japan, France, Germany, Spain, Britain, Taiwan and South Korea. These bribes cost Americans jobs, and since less competitive firms must bribe to win contracts, they cost emerging countries efficiency--which is what they need most. Studies show corrupt procurement practices deter foreign investment while as much as doubling the price that emerging countries pay for goods and services. As globalization offers corporations more options, corruption has come to be a factor in choosing where to invest. Meanwhile, emerging nations wishing to shed bad reputations have begun to court firms with ``squeaky clean'' images. In some emerging markets, U.S. firms now advertise their liability to the FCPA as surety of their integrity. Several governments have engaged the ``credibility services'' of reputable Western firms in such tasks as procurement, accounting and auditing. Bribery and corruption are no longer unmentionables in international diplomacy. A Convention Against Corruption will soon criminalize ``transnational bribery'' throughout the Western Hemisphere. The treaty provides for extradition of corrupt officials and urges transparency in hiring and procurement as well as laws against the ``illicit enrichment'' of government officials. When the United States goes to international forums to demand a level playing field it can take Canada and the developing nations of the hemisphere with it. Along with its success at the OECD, Washington is also making headway in getting the new World Trade Organization to universalize transparent procurement practices. Top administration officials want the United States to press for a recommendation at the next G-7 meeting to criminalize transnational bribery--in other words, to universalize the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The way impatience with corruption is crossing frontiers recalls the human rights campaigns of past decades. Transparency International, modeled on the human rights organization Amnesty International, was formed in Germany in 1993. Yesterday the guilty's first line of defense was that human rights was ``an internal matter.'' But dissidents welcomed and were emboldened by international attention. Human rights subsequently became a universal watchword. Today opponents of corruption insist that ``sunlight is the best disinfectant.'' During this crucial stage when democracy and must institutionalize or perish, ``transparency'' may emerge as a banner. For the first time in 60 years, there is no international danger of tyranny. Our national interest is more immediately menaced today by such ``unconventional'' dangers as international crime cartels, the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction, drug trafficking, the spread of pestilent viruses--all of which entail corrupt government officials. Corruption has been provided the pretext for tyrants to topple fledgling democracies. Already, pervasive corruption has paved the way for reaction in and around Russia. Today's decisive battles for democracy and development may be fought on the terrain of corrupt practices.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Ron Brown. Ron Brown had a remarkable career, marked by his exceptional ability to unify people from diverse backgrounds. As chairman of the Democratic National Committee, he used this talent to bring the party's factions together. Democrats and Republicans alike spoke with admiration of his aptitude as a party leader. Ron Brown's work to bridge differences helped revitalize the Democratic party and played an essential role in building the support that led to President Clinton's election. As Commerce Secretary, Ron Brown also unified individuals from different walks of life to work for American business. His aggressive efforts traveling the world promoting American goods won him uncommon praise from business leaders. It was his enthusiastic devotion to this mission of championing trade and economic development that took him to Bosnia earlier this month not only to try to build American business, but also to aid in the reconstruction of Bosnia. He made the ultimate sacrifice for these goals, giving his life in service to his country. Ron Brown's career also leaves us with an example of racial leadership, having been the first African-American to chair the Democratic Party and the first African-American Secretary of Commerce. His guidance was apparent in the way he closed divisions within the Democratic Party and in the way he brought together diverse individuals at the Commerce Department. Ron Brown provided a real life role model for aspiring young Americans as someone who rose to the highest levels of government, and who was admired and respected by those who knew him and knew of his contributions to the well-being of his nation. The loss of Ron Brown is tragic to America. His leadership will be sorely missed. My deepest condolences go to the Brown family and the families of all the other Americans who lost their lives in this terrible tragedy.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 eliminates the requirement that farmers buy catastrophic crop insurance in order to participate in other USDA farm programs. However, as I indicated in my letter to you on March 20, there is some concern that language as drafted may not technically delink the crop insurance purchase requirement for forage. The language in the bill delinks the crop insurance purchase requirement for crops planted in spring of 1996. However, forage crops, as perennials, are typically planted once every three or four years. Thus, forage crops which will be harvested in 1996 may have been planted several years ago, and may not be captured by the language in the bill. It is my understanding that it was the intent of the conference committee and the intent of this legislation to delink crop insurance purchase requirements for participation in other USDA programs for all crops, including forage. Is that correct?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, at the beginning of the 104th Congress I thought it inconceivable, given the deregulatory and market-oriented rhetoric of some of our Senate leaders, that the Northeast Dairy Compact would be granted approval. It is the antithesis of market orientation. It seeks to protect agricultural producers in one particular region by imposing artificially high costs on consumers. In fact, this compact flies in the face of the rhetoric associated with this very farm bill. I've heard so many Senators claim this bill allows farmers to make decisions based on the market, not on Government payments. But the compact attempts to insulate a small group of farmers from the very market conditions this bill embraces so tightly. Mr. President, I am opposing this farm bill for the many reasons I have outlined today. And I know this bill will pass. I intend to fight hard for the upper Midwest as both the Northeast compact and Federal order measures proceed through the administrative process. I will work with Secretary Glickman to ensure that meaningful reform of Federal milk marketing orders is implemented in a timely manner. And if, as the minority leader has suggested, this is a 1 year farm bill, I will be back on this floor trying to improve dairy farmer income which is so badly slashed in this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my colleagues have been speaking today about their frustrations with the 1996 farm bill. I share those frustrations as well as dismay about the process in which this body has been engaged. In early February we considered this legislation on the Senate floor. The specific commodity program provisions of that bill were never once the subject of a Senate Agriculture Committee markup, and in fact, were not even the subject of a single hearing in that committee. That the commodity provisions represented a drastic change from both the philosophy and mechanics of current policy appeared irrelevant to the sponsors of this bill. The process for consideration of this bill was flawed in numerous ways. For example: The text of the underlying bill considered on the floor was written in the backroom, separate even from the eyes and ears of members, of many members of the Agriculture Committee; Almost immediately after the bill was introduced, the majority leader filed cloture to limit debate on the measure before debate had even begun; This bill was considered on the floor with just 10 hours for members to offer and debate amendments prior to final passage; Farmers, the public, and even Senators were not given an adequate opportunity to review this bill before it passed on the floor of the Senate. Contrast that to consideration of the 1990 farm bill in which each title of the bill was considered separately by the Agriculture Committee during extensive public markup sessions. Consideration of the 1990 farm bill, reported on June 21, 1990, gave Senators nearly a month to study the bill and another 7 days of floor consideration before final passage. Senators were free to iron out their differences with the managers and were provided time for full and open debate with adequate opportunity to offer amendments to the bill. The 1985 and 1981 farm bills provided similar opportunities for review and debate. Senators had roughly 2 months to review the 1985 farm bill after it was reported and had 12 days of active floor debate. Following the filing of the committee report on the 1981 farm bill, Senators were provided with over 3 months to study and review the bill before its passage in September after 5 days of floor debate. It is no wonder that the general public is frustrated with Congress. Based on this farm bill process they have every right to be. The conference agreement on which we are to vote in just a few hours was printed in the Record just 2 days ago. I ask how many of my colleagues have had an opportunity to read this bill? There are numerous provisions in this bill that were in neither the House nor the Senate bill. The implications of these provisions have not been fully explored. I wonder if Senators are aware that this bill gives broad authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to propose and implement commodity promotion programs without an initial congressional authorization. In fact, producers of any commodity could be assessed a mandatory tax under this proposal for a period of 3 years before they ever get a chance to vote on the promotion program they have been forced to pay into. This bill contains no protections for consumers in the event that agricultural processors wish to establish mandatory promotion programs and pass those costs directly on to consumers. Are Senators aware that section 501 of this bill attempts to rewrite 30 years of legislative history with respect to commodity promotion programs in an effort to combat Federal court challenges to these programs? Mr. President, that language was in neither the House nor the Senate bill and has not been the subject of hearings or debate in either Chamber of Congress. I want to make clear that the legislative findings in section 501 of this bill are not indicative of the views of more than a handful of farm bill conferees. Many of these findings, in fact, do not even make sense unless one is aware of the efforts of dissenting farmers to reform programs or are familiar with the first amendment challenges to these programs. Indeed Mr. President, this bill contains some very creative language intended to rewrite an already well-established history as to the purpose and intent of these programs. I think this has been a shameful process, Mr. President, irresponsible to farmers, consumers and taxpayers, and completely inconsistent with our responsibilities to carry out a deliberative legislative process. It seems the Congress can't even decide what this farm bill is about. Since its inception, the name of this farm bill has changed 3 times. First we were told this bill was the freedom to farm bill. Then it became the Agricultural Market Transition Act--a name which perhaps most accurately described the motivation of the sponsors of this legislation: to transition farmers away from the basic safety net provided by existing programs. Now, Mr. President, it is called the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act, or FAIR. That name creates a catchy, if not superficial, acronym, but is about as inaccurate a name as could be found. It presumes this bill represents both reform and improvement of existing programs. In my opinion, this bill does neither. Even the catchy acronym is a misnomer. To whom is this bill fair? I don't see any fundamental fairness in this bill. Is it fair to the average farmer to be given an ultimatum on the very programs that help manage the vagaries of farming caused by factors beyond his control? Because that is what many farmers in Wisconsin felt they were given. They were told that Congress was going to eliminate farm programs in any case, so they had better grab the money in these transition payments while they can. However, when some of these farmers argue in favor of the bill, they really appear to be arguing for the maintenance of the safety net, not in favor of termination of these programs and the so-called transition payments. They argue that farm programs are critical in allowing family farmers to secure credit. They argue that farm programs provide them with the security to adopt forward-looking business plans. They argue that without farm programs, the attrition rate in farming will only increase while younger people will be unable to enter farming. I have not heard substantive arguments in favor of eliminating the basic safety net for farmers and replacing it with guaranteed but declining payments that aren't tied to market prices. Is it fair to small farmers who rely more on the existence of farm programs for their survival than larger corporate farms, that this declining pot of money is not targeted more toward their needs? This bill bases a farmers' payment on what he received in the past. Large farmers continue to get large payments under this bill. How does that help small farmers transition away from their reliance on Federal programs? The answer is, it doesn't, Mr. President. This bill could have provided a tremendous opportunity to reform farm programs by targeting limited Government funds to smaller farmers. While this bill takes some steps to reduce corporate welfare, Congress could have made far greater reductions in the payment limitations. Instead the bill makes a slight reduction in the maximum deficiency payments one can receive but fails to eliminate loopholes that allow large farmers to get twice that amount. Eliminating loopholes and reducing payment limitations would have likely achieved greater Federal savings in commodity programs than the commodity titles in the so- called FAIR Act without hurting America's family farms. Instead, this bill depletes the small pot of money for farmers by providing transition payments in the same proportions as they are now provided. That doesn't sound very fair to me. Is this bill fair to taxpayers who will now be asked to provide annual checks to farmers even when market prices are good? The fact is that these market transition payments cannot be justified on sound fiscal grounds. While this bill may save money over 7 years, based on CBO projections, it results in far greater costs in the next 2 years for commodity program payments compared to current law. That is because we don't make unnecessary payments under the current farm bill. Government costs are low when market prices are high. Existing programs make payments to farmers only when market conditions are poor and farm income is depressed. But market conditions are expected to be favorable in the next few years. Even so, the FAIR Act doles out the money to producers even if they are making a profit through the marketplace. This bill is fiscally irresponsible and fundamentally unfair to taxpayers. USDA reports that, based on their estimates, taxpayers will pay out $25 billion more to farmers under this bill than under current law. Every taxpayer should ask why they should pay farmers when market prices are high. Is this bill fair to consumers when the most costly programs from their perspective, such as the sugar and peanut programs, are left fundamentally untouched? Is it fair that the program which has very little effect on consumer prices, the dairy price support program, is the program eliminated in the name of consumer protection? Is it fair to consumers that this bill virtually ignores the aspects of Federal milk marketing orders that do have a substantial impact on consumers-- that is the federally established prices for fluid milk that are excessive in many parts of this country? No, Mr. President. This bill is not fair to consumers, particularly on dairy policy. It is a fraud from the standpoint of consumer protection, making only token changes in the programs that most offend the pocketbook. In my opinion this bill should be called the unfair act of 1996 because it is most unjust to dairy farmers in the upper Midwest. Fundamentally, this bill includes major provisions strongly opposed by the upper Midwest dairy industry. This bill provides congressional consent to the Northeast Dairy Compact and includes much of the House- passed Solomon amendment which the upper Midwest had opposed. The provisions of the House-passed dairy amendment were improved somewhat in the conference committee but are still devastating to America's family dairy farmers. The House passed amendment reduced dairy farmer income by $4 billion over the next 7 years by eliminating the price support program for milk. The conference agreement is expected to cause only slightly less pain because the support level is not reduced as much prior to program termination. However, the conference agreement eliminates the price support program in 1999 rather than 2000 as provided by the House bill. It is ironic the dairy price support program is eliminated in this bill given that it was the lowest cost of all commodity programs in fiscal year 1995, except for no-net cost programs such as sugar and tobacco. The program cost less than $4 million in fiscal year 1995 according to USDA. Interestingly, the no-net cost programs all operate under strict supply control mechanisms in order to extract the support price from consumers through higher market prices. The dairy price support program does not rely on supply control and has had little impact on consumer prices unlike the sugar and peanut programs. And yet, the dairy price support program is the only commodity program actually terminated in this legislation and dairy farmers the only producers not provided with transition payments. Not only do producers of other commodities continue to benefit from their underlying programs maintained in this bill, but they also receive sizable transition payments annually. As a result, most observers expect dairy farmers to suffer from a larger decrease in family farm income than producers of any other commodity affected by this bill. Producers of some other commodities will actually enjoy income increases out of this so-called reform bill, at least in the next 2 years. But dairy farmers are asked to suffer. Mr. President, I am baffled as to the reason why this was agreed to in this conference report. The dairy price support program has made great strides toward market orientation and operates truly as a safety net. While the conference agreement authorizes a processor recourse loan program for dairy after price supports are terminated, such a program can merely act as a price stabilizer, not as a price support mechanism. I am extremely concerned about the impact of terminating the price support program. Wisconsin loses over 1,000 dairy farmers annually. I am fearful that without a basic safety net, that rate will increase in the coming years, particularly if the inequities of the Federal milk marketing order system are not eliminated. I have spoken often on the floor and to the Agriculture Committee about the need to reform Federal orders to eliminate market distortions, regional inequities, and consumer-related costs caused by excessive class I differentials. Even Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman has conceded that Federal orders have created regional inequities and that upper Midwest producers have suffered as a result. I had hoped the farm bill process would ultimately provide for those much needed changes. I am concerned, however, that this bill does not ensure that such discriminatory features will be eliminated. The House bill provided exceptionally limited reform of the Federal milk marketing order system, which is among the most outrageous commodity programs in existence. Unfortunately the minimal reforms in the House bill were made only slightly stronger by the conferees. The agreement requires the Secretary to reduce the existing number of orders to between 10 and 14. That is certainly a step in the right direction. However, consolidation alone does not guarantee a fundamental restructuring of class I prices nor does it ensure that Eau Claire, WI will no longer be used as the basing point for pricing milk. These should have been simple assurances to provide if the conferees were sincere in their reform efforts as some claim. The conference agreement appears to release the Secretary from compliance with statutorily required class I differentials in the reform process, but provides no further guidance on what factors the Secretary is to consider in these deliberations. All too often, those factors are political, not economic, and they do not work in our favor. There is absolutely nothing in this bill to ensure that class I differentials will be reformed or substantially altered from their current levels. In fact, the report language appears to specifically allow for an outcome in which reformed differentials are virtually the same as the current excessive statutory minimums. I will work to ensure that does not happen. I think, however, that the greatest blow to the upper Midwest is the inclusion of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact in the conference agreement. The compact was not only defeated in the Senate, it was also excluded from the House bill. Its emergence in the final conference agreement is outrageous and unconscionable. While many might contend that the conference agreement provides a scaled back version of the compact, I am still concerned about its ultimate approval, its precedent, and its potential impact. The conference agreement gives congressional consent to the compact subject to the Agriculture Secretary's determination that it serves a compelling public interest in the Northeast. I have a number of concerns with this. First, while this may put some members at ease, I caution those who think the Secretary of Agriculture will be more resilient against the political forces that came to bear upon the entire U.S. Congress and which resulted in the inclusion of this language. Second, a finding of a compelling public interest in the compact region is not an appropriate test for approval of this compact. The U.S. Constitution requires Congress to approve interstate compacts in order to protect the national interest. We can assume that the States agreeing to the compact have already determined that this is in their States' overall public interest. That test should be irrelevant. Rather, Congress should be able to ensure that the compact serves a compelling national public interest. I think the Northeast Dairy Compact would fail that test. Third, I think it is quite cowardly for the Congress to abdicate its role in the approval of this very controversial compact by making the Secretary do the dirty work. Authority for compact approval resides in the legislative branch, not the executive branch. This is a congressional responsibility, and this bill shirks it. That the term of congressional consent for the compact is tied to the implementation of consolidated Federal orders, is somewhat of an improvement over a compact of indefinite term. I would provide two caveats to those who think this provides protection to dairy producers elsewhere, and in particular in the upper Midwest. First, once consent is provided, it will be easier to reinstate after expiration. Second, the compact could remain in place much longer than the 3-year deadline for implementation of order consolidation. Consolidation can be delayed if the Secretary is enjoined by a court order from implementing order changes, thus providing continuing consent for the compact. The conference agreement attempts to provide safeguards to prevent the compact from interfering in interstate commerce by keeping noncompact milk outside of its borders. However, the compact commission will still be able to require that anyone buying milk from outside the compact region pay the compact over-order price. That provision, coupled with transportation costs, is still an extremely effective barrier to trade. I urge my colleagues to keep in mind that the fight over the compact was not just about the regional walls it erected. It was also about the impacts the compact would have on national markets for milk and dairy products. And, Mr. President, the dairy compact will have impacts outside its region. Increasing prices in the compact States, particularly to the levels anticipated by those farmers, will cause increased production. That production will likely spill over from fluid markets into manufactured product markets. That will ultimately impact the base price that all farmers receive for their milk, since prices nationwide are linked to prices for manufactured dairy products. In fact, the conference agreement neglected to include language contained in Senate Joint Resolution 28, ensuring that such production responses would not impact the national market. Furthermore, the conference agreement will allow the compact States to provide their processors with export subsidies so that they can export their high cost product to other parts of the United States that are playing by the rules. This is the type of subsidy we are asking other countries to eliminate through our trade agreements, yet we are creating our own domestic export subsidies through this compact. The Senate made clear by voting down the compact during consideration of the farm bill that this type of price fixing compact is not acceptable. And yet here we are again, fighting the Northeast Dairy compact. Having won this issue in the Senate we will now be forced to fight this administratively as well. And if it is approved administratively, we will have to fight when the Northeast comes back to Congress seeking renewal of this consent. And finally, we will fight this battle as other regions come to Congress looking for approval of similar price fixing agreements for dairy farmers in their regions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the New York Times regarding the compact be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this issue is not simple, nor is it easy. If it were, there would be a larger consensus on how we should proceed in this area, if at all. I supported the version of S. 4 that passed this body--the so-called separate enrollment approach. Though that legislation was flawed, I was willing to support that experimental line-item veto authority to provide the President with some additional authority to eliminate inappropriate spending. I do not believe the line-item veto is the whole answer to our deficit problem, or even most of the answer, but it certainly can be part of the answer. The legislation before us today, too, is flawed, but I am willing to give this new mechanism a chance to work, and to see it tested over the next several years. Like the version of S. 4 that passed the Senate, this measure also has a so-called sunset clause which terminates the expanded veto authority unless Congress takes action. If the Congress decides, which it may well do, that we have gone too far in delegating authority to the President, the sunset clause will make it much easier to terminate the experiment, if necessary. The burden will be on those who want to retain the authority. Mr. President, in the end, that sunset clause allowed me to support a measure with which I am far from satisfied. Without a sunset clause, Congress would have to pass a bill to repeal the line-item veto authority. It is likely that any President would veto such a bill, and unless two-thirds of the members of both Houses were to override that veto, the President would retain this extraordinary new power. Mr. President, though the continuing Federal budget deficits justify granting this temporary authority to the President on a trial basis, I do have serious concerns about this proposal, which I want to highlight, and will continue to monitor. Possibly my biggest concern is the effective threshold of two-thirds vote in each House to overcome this new expanded veto authority. That kind of threshold is provided in the Constitution for entire bills, but extending that authority for individual sections of a bill may be problematic. There are many uncertainties in this new authority that we are providing the President, and no one can anticipate all the potential abuses that might flow from this new authority. Though we have no experience at the Federal level, those Members who have served in State government may have seen the use of line-item veto authority at the State level. Indeed, much of the support for a Federal line-item veto stems from the State experience. But, Mr. President, few other States, if any at all, have witnessed the abuses of line-item veto authority that we have seen in Wisconsin. That abuse has been bipartisan--Governors of both parties have used Wisconsin's partial veto authority in ways it is safe to say no one anticipated when that authority was first contemplated. For example, Mr. President, Wisconsin's current Governor, Governor Thompson, has used the veto authority not only to rewrite entire laws, but actually to increase spending and increase taxes. The two-thirds threshold compounds the uncertainty about possible abuses by making it that much more difficult for Congress to respond to that possible abuse. Mr. President, another serious flaw in this measure are the provisions relating to tax expenditures. They are far from adequate. The language in the Senate-passed version of S. 4 relating to tax expenditures has been weakened significantly, essentially blunting this authority as a tool for restraining that area of spending that is among the largest and fastest growing, and that includes unjustified subsidies to some of the wealthiest individuals and corporations in the world. Mr. President, tax expenditures contribute greatly to pressure on the deficit, and if any area should be subjected to the scrutiny of line- item veto authority, it is this one. The failure of this proposal to target abuses in this area is a serious flaw, and I regret the special interests that generated some of these abuses in the first place are exempt from this new Presidential authority. Mr. President, I was disappointed, too, that the emergency spending reforms the senior Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] and I incorporated into the Senate-passed version were dropped from this measure. That provision limited emergency spending bills solely to emergencies by establishing a new point of order against nonemergency matters, other than rescissions of budget authority or reductions in direct spending, in any bill that contains an emergency measure, or an amendment to an emergency measure, or a conference report that contains an emergency measure. The provision also featured an additional enforcement mechanism to add further protection by prohibiting the Office of Management and Budget from adjusting the caps on discretionary spending, or from adjusting the sequester process for direct spending and receipts measures, for any emergency appropriations bill if the bill includes extraneous items other than rescissions of budget authority or reductions in direct spending. As we consider ways to empower the President to veto unjustified spending through this new authority, it only makes sense to enact reforms that prevent those abuses from passing in the first place. The emergency spending reforms that Senator McCain and I included in S. 4 did just that, and I regret they were not included in this proposal. I understand, however, that commitments have been made to revisit this provision in separate legislation. The emergency spending legislation previously passed the House by an overwhelming vote and I am hopeful that we will soon be able to overcome the resistance to this provision and have it enacted into law as well. Mr. President, the basic structure of this particular line-item veto authority also raises problems. Though it may be less cumbersome than the so-called separate enrollment approach envisioned in S. 4 as it passed the Senate, the new enhanced rescission approach could provide the President with more rescission authority than was intended. In particular, the shift from Congress to the President in defining the precise material to be vetoed is potentially significant. Instead of vetoing or approving individuals minibills, as under the separate enrollment approach, the President decrees certain actions in the nature of rescissions--actions which effectively are given statutory authority because they are surmounted only by enactment of a disapproval bill. The scope of these Presidential decrees are limited by the restrictions set forth in this bill, and though the intent of those proposing this new authority may be clear enough in their own minds, there cannot be one hundred percent certainty about the true scope of this new authority until it is actually put into effect. The unintended or even unimagined consequence of this new authority may be its biggest flaw. This is just what happened in my own State. It is difficult to argue that the original sponsors of Wisconsin's partial veto authority ever intended that a future governor would be able to veto individual words within sentences or even individual letters within words, yet that is precisely what happened. Successive court decisions gradually expanded the partial veto authority for Wisconsin's Governors, to the point that whole new laws could be created with the veto pen. Mr. President, could the temporary authority which this measure grants the President be abused in this fashion? Though I do not believe it will, we cannot be certain about what some court might rule in interpreting the restrictions spelled out in the bill. In some instances, the proposal before us allows the President to exercise his new authority based on committee reports or the statements of managers, neither of which have the force of law, and neither of which have ever been the subject of a vote in either House. That is troubling. I am disturbed, too, by the language in this proposal regarding so- called items of direct spending. In defining these items, the measure refers to specific provisions of law. Mr. President, this definition is not at all self-evident. Is a provision of law a numbered section, or can it be an unnumbered paragraph as well? How small a unit of entitlement authority does the proposal intend to expose to the new Presidential authority? For example, if a clause in a sentence defines new entitlement authority in some way, can that clause be canceled without taking the entire sentence with it? Or, can new entitlement authority be limited by the selective cancellation of one word if doing so meets the other stated formal requirements of the measure? The proposal does not address that issue. It only mentions the words ``specific provision of law'' without further definition. As someone who has seen just how creative a Governor can be with partial veto authority, this is a matter of serious concern to me. Mr. President, there are a few safeguards built into this proposal that provide some comfort in this regard. As I noted before, the new authority sunsets in 8 years. We will have what amounts to an 8-year trial period in which we can monitor this new Presidential authority, and we will. Eight years represents two complete Presidential terms of office, and several election cycles within both Houses, ensuring a diverse set of partisan combinations under which this new authority can be tested, and enhancing the possibility that it will be used under different circumstances and with different ideological intent. Also, it should be noted that this new authority is established by statute, not as part of the Constitution, thus the measure avoids magnifying these potential problems by making a permanent change to our basic law. To the extent that Congress can selectively control this new authority in subsequent statutes, even prior to the expiration of the proposal before us, the statutory approach to the line-item veto or enhanced rescission authority is much less restrictive than a constitutional amendment. Nevertheless, Mr. President, we cannot be certain how this proposed authority will be used, no matter how carefully we draft the restrictions on that authority. Those who support this measure bear a special responsibility in this regard. And to that end, should this measure become law, I intend to establish a regular review process to monitor how the new authority is used, how it is misused, how much deficit reduction is produced, and lost opportunities for deficit reduction. Though temporary, this delegation of authority is significant, and close and continuing scrutiny is warranted, even necessary. Mr. President, the debate we have had on this issue for over a year has been instructive for me. For some, the passage of a line-item veto authority for the President will only mean they can scratch it off a list, and move on to another issue. But this issue does not end with our vote, it begins. We are about to embark on an important experiment. Whether for the benefit of the country and our democratic institutions remains to be seen, but I believe it is an experiment worth performing. I congratulate the senior Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] for their work on this measure. I thank them especially for their past efforts on behalf of the amendment I offered to clean up the emergency appropriations process. Though it was not included in the final version of this proposal, I very much appreciated their courtesy, and I look forward to working with them to find another vehicle for that worthy reform. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank my friend from Arizona. As we consider ways to empower the President to veto unjustified spending through this new authority, it only makes sense to enact reforms that prevent those abuses from passing in the first place. The emergency spending reforms that Senator McCain and I introduced as legislation, and included in S. 4 as it passed the Senate, did just that. Our emergency spending legislation previously passed the House by an overwhelming vote and I am hopeful that we will soon be able to overcome the resistance to this provision and have it enacted into law as well. And though I regret our reforms were not included in this proposal, I look forward to working with the Budget Committee and my good friend from Arizona to iron out any drafting problems, and find an appropriate vehicle for this needed reform.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arizona yield for a question? Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona noted in his opening statement on this measure that the emergency spending reforms he and I were able to include in the Senate-passed version were dropped in the conference committee version of this line-item veto measure. Our provision limited emergency spending bills solely to emergencies by establishing a new point of order against nonemergency matters, other than rescissions of budget authority or reductions in direct spending, in any bill that contains an emergency measure, or an amendment to an emergency measure, or a conference report that contains an emergency measure. The provision also featured an additional enforcement mechanism to add further protection by prohibiting the Office of Management and Budget from adjusting the caps on discretionary spending, or from adjusting the sequester process for direct spending and receipts measures, for any emergency appropriations bill if the bill includes extraneous items other than rescissions of budget authority or reductions in direct spending. I know he shares my disappointment that those provisions were dropped. Is it his understanding that though the emergency spending provisions were dropped from the final conference version of the line-item veto measure, we have been given assurances that the Budget Committee staff will work with our own staffs to bring this matter back on an appropriate legislative vehicle?

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concerns about the inclusion of S. 884, the Utah Public Lands Management Act, into the omnibus parks package now before the Senate. I believe that it is critically important to make my colleagues aware that this omnibus package is not simply a means to clear small measures on the docket of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Among its provisions is a measure which decides the fate of 22 million Federally owned acres of land in southern Utah. It designates a portion of the acres as wilderness and leaves vast areas free for development. This is one of the few times this session that the Senate will have the opportunity to engage in a dialog over what should happen to these and other Federal lands. The Utah provisions contained in the measure currently before the Senate are controversial provisions. Both Utah and national newspapers have been a hotbed of debate over the question of how much wilderness to protect and the process used to develop the bill. I also know that many citizens in my State are deeply concerned about aspects of this bill which would fundamentally changes the way the Federal Government will manage lands which all Americans own. Wisconsinites who care deeply about the Federal lands in Utah as well as Federal land policy in general have written to me and urge significant changes in this measure. Mr. President, a major concern about the measure currently before the Senate relates to the hard release language in the Utah provision which affects the future ability of the BLM to designate additional acres in Utah which may need protection in as wilderness. BLM is currently managing 3.2 million of the 22 million acres it holds in Utah as wilderness. The provisions of the substitute amendment relating to Utah would designate approximately 2 million acres as wilderness. They further require that any lands not explicitly designated by the bill as wilderness will be managed for multiple-use. Therefore, even if BLM finds in the future that these lands are sensitive and in need of protection, no additional lands could be designated as wilderness. The Senate has never passed a bill containing such language before, and such language is a significant departure from the tenets of the 1964 Wilderness Act. The key protection wilderness designation offers the lands in southern Utah is protection from certain kinds of development--but not from the use of the lands. Activities allowed in wilderness areas are: foot and horse travel; hunting and fishing; backcountry camping; float boating and canoeing; guiding and outfitting; scientific study; educational programs; livestock grazing if it has already been established; control of wildfires and insect and disease outbreaks; and mining on preexisting mining claims. Prohibited activities, according to the 1964 Wilderness Act include: use of mechanized transport except in emergencies, or such vehicles as wheelchairs; roadbuilding, logging, and similar commercial uses; staking new mining claims or mineral leases; and new reservoirs or powerlines, except where authorized by the President as being in the national interest. The magnificence of the wildlands that are at stake in this debate cannot really be done justice in words, Mr. President. As my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, has already shown the Senate, they include starkly beautiful mountain ranges rising from the desert floor in western Utah with ancient bristlecone pine and flowered meadows. Some areas are arid and austere, with massive cliff faces and leathery slopes speckled with pinyon pine and juniper trees. Other areas support habitat for deer, elk, cougars, bobcats, bighorn sheep, coyotes, birds, reptiles, and other wildlife. These regions hold great appeal to hikers, hunters, sightseers, and those who find solace in the desert's colossal silence. These BLM lands are truly remarkable American resources of soaring cliff walls, forested plateaus, and deep narrow gorges. This region encompasses the sculpted canyon country of the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert, and portions of the Great Basin. Some in this body may think it strange that a Senator from Wisconsin would speak on behalf of wilderness in Utah. The issue of and debate over Utah wilderness protection, Mr. President, has been one of which I have been aware since the time I joined the U.S. Senate. Many of my constituents believe that the lands of southern Utah are the last major unprotected vestige of spectacular landforms in the lower 48 States--of the caliber of lands so many nationwide already hold dear, such as Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I have received more constituent mail--over 600 pieces in all--from Wisconsin citizens concerned about wilderness lands in Utah, than I have on any other environmental issue in this Congress--including many critically important issues to my state such as clean water, safe drinking water, the protection of endangered species, and Superfund reform. A man from Menominee Falls, WI, writes about the lands of Utah: These resources are national treasures that make our country great, and once they are gone they are lost forever. A woman from Beloit added in her letter: I live in Wisconsin but my real home is the natural world . . . most voters do not concur with the irrevocable destruction that would result from (this measure) becoming law. Please: do all you can to be a voice for wilderness--not only in Wisconsin but in the fragile and gorgeous West. One of the most poignant testimonials came from an Eau Claire resident: I have not had a lot of experience writing letters to my elected representatives. However, it appears that the current priorities in Washington are shifting away from conservation towards a destructive, greed oriented approach, under the guise of economic growth and development of public lands. Given this climate, I feel I must write to express my opinion. I have had the opportunity to visit much of the West over the past 30 odd years on annual family vacations. This is truly a unique land without rival anywhere else in the world. My family and I have learned to love and respect this region and we feel that it must be protected in its natural form. I strongly urge you to oppose any compromise Utah lands bill that does not include a strong vision of conservation for future generations. Mr. President, I read from some letters from Wisconsin residents because I think it is critical to understand that the importance of protecting these lands in Utah extends beyond the borders of that State. Many Americans enjoy and treasure this area, just as they do other great American wilderness areas and it is the responsibility of all members of the Senate to be concerned about the fate of this national treasure. I have been personally touched by these appeals from residents of my State. In recognition of the importance of this issue to my constituents, on October 11, 1995 I circulated a small paperback book containing essays and poems by 20 western naturalist writers reflecting their thoughts on the protection of wilderness in Utah to all members of the Senate. The book, entitled ``Testimony,'' was released on September 27, 1995. It is modeled after the late author Wallace Stegner's 1960 Wilderness Letter to the Kennedy administration, which was a critical benchmark document in the development and eventual passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act. In his 1960 Wilderness Letter, Wallace Stegner said ``something will have gone out of us as a people if we let the remaining wilderness be destroyed.'' Mr. President, those words are echoed and reverberated by these western writers as they describe the legislation now before the Senate and its affect on Utah. The paperback was compiled during August 1995. The selections represent the opinions of the authors, written in direct response to the measure currently before Senate which would affect public lands management in Utah. The book includes writings by individuals such as: Terry Tempest Williams, Utah native and author of five books; T.H. Watkins, editor of Wilderness magazine; N. Scott Momaday, winner of the 1969 Pulitzer Prize for ``House Made of Dawn''; and Mark Strand, former Poet Laureate of the United States. 1,000 copies of the book were printed for distribution on the Hill, and I now understand that the writers intend to release this work through Milkweed Press in Minnesota for the general public. The writers donated their work to produce this small booklet and the printing costs were covered by a donation from a nonprofit foundation. I distributed this book because I felt that it was important for all members of the Senate to have a copy of this book to review in making a decision that so profoundly affects future of such a spectacular area. One of the pieces in the Testimony book that most caught my attention, Mr. President, was a selection by Stephen Trimbell. Steve Trimbell is a writer and photographer who lives in Salt Lake City, and who was instrumental in working with Terry Tempest Williams to facilitate putting the Testimony book together. Those Senators who have been following the debate over the Utah Wilderness Act are already very familiar with Mr. Trimbell's handiwork. For several months, every Friday, photographs of the areas excluded from wilderness designation under the measure before us were dropped off in every Senator's office. Many of those ``Friday pictures,'' as they have come to be known around my office, were taken by Trimbell. I wanted to share Steve Trimbell's words on this matter with the Senate. He writes: My place of refuge is a wilderness canyon in southern Utah. Its scale is exactly right. Smooth curves of sandstone embrace and cradle me. From the road, I cross a mile of slickrock to reach the stream. This creek runs year-round, banked by orchids and ferns. Entering the tangle of greenery, I rediscover paradise. The canyon is a secret, a power spot, a place of pilgrimage. I found this canyon in my youth, twenty years ago. I came here again and again. I brought special friends and lovers. When my wife and I met, and I discovered that she knew this place, I felt certain that she knew a place deep within me, as well. My children are within a year of walking into the canyon on their own. I thrill to think of that first visit with them. On those early trips, I rarely saw other people. Once, in the velvet light before dawn, I awoke, sat boldly upright. and looked past my sleeping bag into a lone ponderosa pine--a tree that brought the spicy scent of mountain forest to this desert canyon. A few seconds later, a great horned owl noiselessly landed on a branch and looked back at me with fierce eyes. The owl flew down canyon, searching for unwary mice. I lay back, fell asleep, and awoke again when the sun warmed me. I bathed in plunge pools and waded along the stream, learning to pay attention, looking for reflections and leaf patterns and rock forms to photograph--details that I would not see if the canyon had not taught me how to look. Never before had I spent so much time alone on the land, Here, I matured, as a naturalist and photographer and human being. This wilderness canyon made me whole. It can still restore me to wholeness when the stress of life pulls me thin. It bestows peace of mind that lasts for months. People smile when they remember such particular places on Earth where the seasons and textures and colors belong to them. Where they know, with assurance and precision, the place and their relationship to it. ``This is my garden.'' ``This is our family beach.'' ``I know this grove like the back of my hand.'' ``I can tell you where every fish in this stream hides.'' ``I remember this view; it takes me back to my childhood.'' These landscapes nourish and teach and heal. They help keep us sane, they give us strength, they connect us to our roots in the earth, they remind us that we share in the flow of life and death. We encounter animals in their native place and they look into our eyes with the amalgam of indifference and companionship that separates and unites us with other creatures. A garden can connect us with wildness. Wilderness connects us with our ancestral freedoms even more powerfully. Recently, we visited a canyon new to us in the southern Utah wilderness, this time with urban cousins--two girls, seven and eleven. The younger girl spotted a whipsnake, a nesting Cooper's hawk, beetles, Indian paintbrush. We painted ourselves with golden cattail pollen and launched boats we wove from rushes and milkweed leaves. Taught never to walk alone in their city, here the girls forged ahead out-of- sight, exploring, appropriating power, gathering the dependable certainties of the wilderness, building emotional bedrock, new layers of confidence and self-esteem. Perhaps this canyon will become their canyon. We need to preserve every chance to have such experiences, for ourselves, our children, and the grandchildren of our grandchildren. For we have reached the end of the gold rush. This wild country is our home, not simply one more stop on the way to the next boomtown. Respect for our home, thinking as natives, begins in our backyards, with our children. We move outward from there to local parks, to preservation of greenbelts, and from there to big wilderness. The wilderness canyons of Utah belong not to an elite cadre of backpackers, not to the cattle raising families of Escalante and Kanab, not to the Utah state legislature, not to the Bureau of Land Management. They belong to all citizens of the United States. In truth, they belong to no one. They are a magnificent expression of the powers of Earth, and we Americans hold Utah wilderness in trust for all humans and all life on our planet. The truly conservative action becomes clear: to preserve as many wildlands as possible for future generations rather than to fritter them away in casual development without even noticing. A Utah wilderness bill with too little land preserved and too many exceptions for development is unacceptable, destroying irreplaceable wild places for the short-term wealth of the few. Every year our wildlands shrink. We must act now, decisively, boldly. To save my canyon. Their canyon. Your canyon. We must preserve the wholeness of wild places that belong to everyone and to no one. In doing so, we demonstrate our trustworthiness--our capacity to take a stand on behalf of the land. On behalf of the canyons. Our canyons. That short piece of writing is so powerful, Mr. President, because it is a timeless statement about how people feel about natural places. For myself, I personally know the value of wild areas. For the last 9 years, I have spent my summer vacations on Madeline Island, immediately adjacent to the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in northern Wisconsin. I have always found the quiet beauty of the Apostle Islands refreshing and invigorating. The Apostle Islands are not a place the people in Wisconsin go for high-tech hubbub; it is a place where people go to experience nature's beauty. I want to recount a story, one perhaps several of members of the Senate may remember, from 1967, when the Senate Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation held hearings on Senator Gaylord Nelson's plan to create the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. A man named John Chapple, a newspaperman from Ashland, WI, testified at those hearings. Mr. Chapple, who spent much of his life around the Apostle Islands, related the story of a time when he and his 10-year- old son were out in a 14-foot motorboat on the waters around the Apostle Islands: On one occasion, the water was very rough, and I pulled our little boat onto a sand beach so I could put some more gas in the motor. Three men came walking out. 'Don't you know this is a private beach?' they said. 'You are not supposed to land here.' That stung, and it still stings. Twenty-five men with fortunes could tie the Apostle Islands up in a knot and post `keep out' signs all over the place. The beauty that God created for mankind would not be available to mankind anymore. These islands, with their primeval power to truly recreate, to reinvigorate, to inspire mankind with a love of peace and beauty . . . must be preserved for all the people for all the time and not allowed to fall into the hands of a few. When the Senate acted to protect this area of northern Wisconsin, they heard the voices of Wisconsinites like Mr. Chapple who knew the value of peace and beauty and of preserving our natural heritage. Though those words were spoken by man nearly 20 years ago, about an entirely different landscape, they almost sound like an addendum to Steve Tribell's story about southern Utah canyons, which is included in a new testimony. In places like the Apostle Islands and southern Utah, Wisconsinites have found opportunities to develop a consciously sympathetic relationship to the rest of the world, so that we may better live in it. These natural places are a confluence for the things we value in Wisconsin. The parallels between the Apostle Islands in my State and southern Utah, interestingly go even further than the emotions that these landscapes evoke among the people of my State. Along the Apostle Island National Lakeshore's shoreline there are the wonderful rust colored sandstone cliffs. These sandscapes serve as staging areas for birds following their ancient paths of migration in the spring and fall. Of similar appearance and construct to the landscapes of southern Utah, these cliffs are particularly impressive this time of year now that they are covered with ice. The February 28, 1996, edition of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune ran a wonderful article about these red cliffs covered in ice that states: Frozen waterfalls hide a labyrinth of nooks and crannies that kids climb through and slide down like some frozen playland. ``Awesome'' is the word muttered by many visitors to the sea caves sculpted by centuries of wind and water at Apostle Island National Lakeshore near Bayfield. In the case of the Apostle Islands, how did the Senate respond, Mr. President? And what does it tell us about the stewardship and attention we should pay here in the Senate to southern Utah. In 1967, Senator Nelson was leading the effort that led to President Nixon's signing, on September 26, 1970, of the legislation that established the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore--only a few months after the first Earth Day. Many of my constituents are concerned that perhaps there isn't that kind of momentum in this body any more. As their letters reflect, they believe that there is a concerted campaign to undermine landmark environmental legislation, such as the Clean Water Act, and to curtail or end the Federal role in protection of endangered species and their habitats. They express frustration that the Senate is responding to efforts to persuade Americans they cannot afford further environmental protection, that the idea of protecting our natural heritage is somehow an affront to the American ideal of rugged individualism. As we consider this measure we must be mindful of Wallace Stegner's words I quoted earlier, of the need to act carefully on these issues in community and with sympathy and responsibility for our place in the great scheme of things. I feel that it is exceedingly important to be actively engaged in discussing alternatives for the management of significant resources such as these. I urge my colleagues to be committed to do so in Utah, and I urge them to oppose the inclusion of the Utah measure in this Omnibus package. The Utah wilderness provisions in the legislation now before the Senate has several major weaknesses. The first major concern is the ``under protection'' of areas that are suitable for wilderness designation. The bill would protect only 2 million acres in contrast to the 5.7 million protected in a competing bill, H.R. 1500, introduced in the House of Representatives and the 3.2 million acres currently being managed by BLM as wilderness pending congressional designation. Mr. President, as other Senators have discussed, the review of public lands in Utah to determine their wilderness potential has had a long and contentious history. The BLM's initial inventory of this area to implement the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act, known as FLPMA, identified 5.5 million acres of land as having potential wilderness values. Subsequent stages of that process resulted in 2.6 million acres of land being designated as wilderness study areas [WSA's] a designation which is a precursor to wilderness designation. Utah environmental interests challenged the 2.6 million designation, urging that about 700,000 acres be reinventoried. That additional study by BLM ultimately provided WSA status to 3.2 million acres--the management situation under which BLM is currently operating. Controversies over the inventory have resulted in disagreement over how much wilderness to designate in Utah. Concerns over BLM's survey lead citizen groups to continue to conduct field based research to determine the wilderness values of other sensitive areas. These citizen group surveys lead to the development of alternative legislation to the proposal included in the omnibus package, which has been introduced in the other body by a Representative from New York, [Mr. Hinchey]. That legislation, H.R. 1500, America's Red Rock Wilderness Protection Act, would set aside 5.7 million acres of land as wilderness--even more than the BLM is currently protecting as WSA's. In addition to current congressional proposals, there have been previous administrative attempts to resolve the wilderness question in Utah. In 1991, the Bush administration recommended to Congress that 1.9 million acres be protected as wilderness. The proposal before us today has a similar acreage figure, only it recommends designation for different areas. However, the Interior Department now believes that more areas deserve wilderness designation. In her testimony on behalf of the Department before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee this past December, Silvia Baca, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management for the Department of the Interior stated: We are sure other areas, both inside and outside existing WSAs, deserve such (wilderness) status. I would remind Members of the Senate of the position taken by the Bush administration does not bind us as we consider the fate of this area, particularly given, as Ms. Baca also stated in her testimony, that: 1.9 million acres is inadequate to protect Utah's great wilderness. The second area of concern is the fact that the lands in Utah designated as wilderness in this amendment would be required to be managed in a manner inconsistent with the Wilderness Act. In short, the meaning of ``wilderness'' designation would be significantly altered in this bill for these lands. The legislation is full of these exceptions to standard wilderness management protocol. For example, under section 2002 of the amendment, roads would have to be maintained to a much greater extent than is provided for in the Wilderness Act. Access by cars, motorcycles, trucks, sport utility vehicles, and heavy equipment is guaranteed at any time of the year for water diversion, irrigation facilities, communication sites, agricultural facilities, or any other structures located within the designated wilderness areas. This type of unrestricted vehicular use is currently not allowed on lands now managed by BLM, or on many other parcels of Federal land, regardless of whether or not they are designated as wilderness. Creating an exemption to allow such activities within wilderness areas raises the question, Mr. President, what is the purpose of extending a special designation such as ``wilderness'' if we do so with so many holes that the designation is essentially meaningless or that the lack of such a designation would actually be more protective. As I said before, this bill would allow activities in a federally designated wilderness that would not be permitted on other nonwilderness Federal lands. Another example of the way this legislation would undermine the management of wilderness areas is included in section 2006 on military overflights. This section includes special language preempting the Wilderness Act and permitting low level military flights and the establishment of new special use airspace over wilderness areas. This language sets a precedent for allowing such activities, precedent which is of great concern to the citizens of my State. I have been involved, along with concerned Wisconsin citizens, in monitoring the recently proposed expansion of low level flights by the Air National Guard in Wisconsin. The path of these low level flights would cross extremely ecologically sensitive areas in my State, and the existence of those areas has been instrumental in forcing the National Guard to take a more careful look at the planning of any such flights. The third area of concern, which I highlighted earlier in my remarks, is the hard release language. This language, if enacted, would set an unacceptable precedent for the National Wilderness system. None of the more than 100 wilderness bills already enacted into law contains such language. In the past, moreover, hard release has been proposed only for lands formally studied by a Federal agency for designation as wilderness but released from the WSA study status by Congress. The language in this amendment goes even further, Mr. President, it applies to all the 22 million acres of BLM lands in Utah not just the 3.2 million WSA acres. The final area of concern is the land exchange embodied in the Utah wilderness portion of this bill. This legislation mandates that State lands within or immediately adjacent to designated wilderness areas be exchanged for certain areas now owned by BLM. Some lands to be exchanged are explicitly designated in this legislation, such as the 3,520 acres that would be given to the Water Conservancy District of Washington County, Utah for the construction of a reservoir. Other areas are not explicitly designated. The State is allowed under this measure to choose from a pool of Federal lands in different areas. As others have discussed, the Dutch-owned mining company, Andalex Resources is currently moving through the Federal permitting process to develop a coal mine on lands which the State is interested in acquiring. This exchange has significant fiscal consequences. First, the Interior Department believes the lands not to be of approximately equal value. More importantly, should the lands have been permitted for mining under Federal ownership, the taxpayers would receive the return for all such mining activities. CBO determined that the net income to the Federal Government of the lands being transferred to the State of Utah would amount to an average of almost $500,000 annually over the next 5 years, or approximately $2.5 million in Federal receipts. In contrast, the Federal receipts anticipated from the lands being traded to the Federal Government in exchange would amount to about $33,000 per year or a mere $165,000 over the same period. In comparative terms, Mr. President, for every $1 that the Federal Government gives in the lands it exchanges with Utah it only gets back 7 cents. All of these concerns, Mr. President, have led the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Babbitt to announce on March 15, 1996 that he would recommend that the President veto this omnibus package unless the Utah provisions were removed. That is a step that the Senate should take. If the Utah provisions remain in this bill as currently drafted, the bill deserves not only a Presidential veto, but a condemnation from every American who cares about protecting our natural resources.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the conference report on the Common Sense Product Liability Legal Reform Act. Supporters of this legislation have made the claim that this bill will benefit manufacturers, investors and business owners and workers. They also say it will benefit consumers. Yet, to my knowledge, this bill is opposed by virtually every group in the country that represents working people and consumers and children and the elderly. One of the reasons for this is that the claims that have been made on behalf of this bill do not really add up. The people who support this bill claim the bill would set uniform Federal standards for product liability legislation. They claim uniformity is essential and that knowing the laws are going to be the same everywhere you go is absolutely critical for business interests that might be unsure of what the marketplace and a legal system of a particular jurisdiction will hold for them. That is the whole basis of this bill. That is the core concept, that you have to have this uniformity across the board, or businesses really will not know what to do in terms of location, business location decisions. I would like to use my time to speak about two aspects of this notion of uniformity. First, let us remember that this legislation marks an unprecedented event. We are, for the first time, imposing the demands of the Federal Government in an area of law that has, for 200 years, been the sole domain, the sole province of the States. I thought this was a Congress devoted to devolution, not to the Government at Washington making mandatory rules. I thought that was the mantra of the new Republican majority, that the States know best, that most of the time the best decisions are those that are made by the folks back home and not by the decisionmakers in Washington. I remember time and time again the majority leader coming down to the Senate floor and telling us it was time to ``dust off the 10th amendment.'' I remember when the Speaker of the other body went on national TV last spring and in an address to the Nation said the following: This country is too big and too diverse for Washington to have the knowledge to make the right decisions on local matters. We've got to return power back to you, to your families, your neighborhoods, your local and State governments. Mr. President, what happened to those words? What happened to the 10th amendment? What happened to the need to address local problems on the local level? All this talk about States rights is about to go right out the window as we usurp over 200 years of State control over their tort systems. We have a bill before us that has as its central premise the notion that the Federal Government is a better administrator of justice than the States and that the U.S. Senate is better suited to determine the outcome of a civil trial than are 12 average Americans sitting in a jury box. How troubling that, at a time when Americans are so distrustful of their Government, we in Government are not willing to trust Americans to administer civil justice. But I suppose that for the sponsors of this bill, this is a reasonable price, so long as we get some uniformity in our laws. Unfortunately--and I really want to stress this--this bill has about as much uniformity as a circus parade. Look at the new punitive damage cap contained in the bill. That provision caps punitive damages in most cases at the higher of $250,000, or two times compensatory damages. That sounds pretty uniform, does it not? But read the small print. If a State has a law that is more restrictive--more restrictive--than the Federal cap, then that particular State law prevails. If a State has a law that is less restrictive than this Federal cap, then, and only then, the Federal cap prevails. Moreover, under this bill, those States that currently simply prohibit punitive damages, do not allow them at all, they would be permitted to continue to not allow any punitive damages. So what does this mean for American consumers? It means the consumers and children and the elderly living in different States with different sets of laws will have substantially different protections from injuries and defective products. Mr. President, so much for the uniform Federal standards and so much for the idea that this bill is somehow fair and equitable and beneficial to consumers. But what this really is is sort of a one-way preemption of State laws, and it is grounded on the premise that some States know better than others and that some Americans can properly serve on juries but others cannot. With this new concept of, let us call it, selective federalism, perhaps we should change the words above the Supreme Court so they read ``Equal justice under the law, unless you live in the following States,'' and then list the appropriate States. Mr. President, I also find it absolutely ludicrous that the supporters of this bill would suggest that we are providing uniformity when we are going to have completely different standards and rules throughout the 50 States. If I had to pick one provision of this bill that demonstrates how nonsensical this notion of uniformity is, I would have to choose the provisions seeking to reestablish a new Federal statute of repose. This bill creates a new Federal standard for the number of years a manufacturer or product seller can be held liable for harm caused by a particular product. Known as a statute of repose, that period is 15 years under this conference report. Why 15 years? Where did that come from? It is a good question. The product liability legislation considered in the 103d Congress, written by the same two principal authors, contained a 25-year statute of repose. Why? Well, a footnote in the committee report from that Congress justified the 25-year limit by pointing out that, according to testimony received by the Commerce Committee, and I quote, ``30 percent of the lawsuits brought against machine tool manufacturers involve machines that are over 25 years old.'' Therefore, Mr. President, presumably the authors of this bill, last time around, selected 25 years as the life expectancy of all products manufactured in the United States. So last May, we considered a product liability bill that the supporters tried to characterize as much more moderate and much narrower than the product liability bill considered in the 103d Congress. But in many cases, the bill we considered last May was worse than its predecessor. For example, they dropped the 25-year statute of repose to only 20 years. Why? Once again, good question. The committee report for the Senate-passed legislation conspicuously left out that footnote from last time about the machine tool testimony and just makes no mention whatsoever as to why 20 years was selected for that bill. Instead, the committee report promotes the consistency of the 20-year statute of repose with the General Aircraft Revitalization Act of 1994 that was passed by this body in 1994. It also justifies a Federal statute of repose on the basis that Japan is poised to enact a short 10-year statute of repose. So now, apparently, the Japanese Government knows better than the State of Wisconsin how to properly administer civil justice in cases involving Wisconsin litigants. I wonder how the Framers of the Constitution would feel about that assertion, Mr. President. What is too bad is, in this conference report before us, it does not end there because, as I said, the conference report before us does not have a 25-year statute of repose, does not have a 20-year statute of repose, it even has now a significantly shorter 15-year statute of repose. So we have gone from 25 to 20 to 15, and they call this a moderate bill. Again, what in the world is that 15 years based on? It strikes me as being completely arbitrary and it seems less concerned with what the life expectancy of certain products should be and more concerned with making sure we pass as short a statute of repose as can possibly be done politically. Finally, Mr. President, worse, this takes us back to the issue of selective preemption of State authority over liability laws. Under this conference report, if a State legislature has decided against having a statute of repose or has decided on a statute that is longer than 15 years, then this new Federal law will override the judgment of that State legislature. Again, when you really look at this bill, it is not about uniformity at all. It will lock in a lack of uniformity and different treatment throughout the States and not provide the central purpose of the bill, as I understand it, which is to provide all the businesses in the country with some kind of uniformity. So, Mr. President, on behalf of all the consumers who will be affected by this, as well as the concern about uniformity, I simply must say that this conference report should be defeated. I yield the floor. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today Tunisia celebrates its 40th anniversary of independence from French colonialism. I want to join in congratulating Tunisia on its social and economic accomplishments of the last 40 years, and to thank the Tunisians for their historic friendship with America. Two years ago I visited Tunisia with Senator Simon and Senator Reid. Initially, our visit was planned to meet with President Ben Ali, who at that time was President of the Organization of African Unity. However, we quickly learned that Tunisia itself is a story of many other achievements as well. As a small, secular Muslim country, nestled between two major, unstable powers, Libya and Algeria, Tunisia is playing an important and positive role in international politics. Because of its geography, it is a member of both the Middle East and Africa, and I am impressed how it has taken an active position in both regions. In 1982, after Yasir Arafat was driven from Beirut, Tunisia opened its doors and hosted the Palestinian Liberation Organization for 14 years. I believe that Tunisia's secular and developed society had a moderating influence on Arafat, which was a critical factor in launching the Middle East peace process. Likewise, it is no surprise to me that Tunisia was the first Arab country to host a U.N. multilateral meeting in connection with the Middle East peace process, or that it will be among the first Arab countries to establish formal diplomatic relations with Israel next month. Tunisia has also tried to help mediate some of the conflicts between its neighbors in sub-Saharan Africa. President Ben Ali served as President of the Organization of African Unity at a time when the OAU was being re-vitalized as a regional organization, and he helped begin preparations for a conflict resolution center at the OAU. Just this week, Tunisia hosted a regional conference on the Great Lakes which addressed the heated conflicts in Rwanda and Burundi, and the effects of refugees in Central Africa. Tunisia has also, by necessity, been at the forefront of the international struggle against terrorism. Out of geographic necessity, it has worked diligently and consistently in international efforts against violence and extremism. Indeed, despite the terrorist threats it faces from Algeria and Libya on all its borders, Tunisia still attended the recent international conference on terrorism in Sharm-el- Shekh, and re-affirmed its commitment to moderation. I believe Tunisia needs to be supported for these important steps. It is an invaluable partner as we form alliances for the 21st century. But Tunisia should also be congratulated for its economic and social achievements. In many areas--particularly family planning, opportunities for women, education, and economic reform--Tunisia can provide a model of development in the Mediterranean. When I was in Tunisia, I was greatly impressed by the government's commitment to family planning and the development of opportunities for women. Tunisia is one of the world's success stories in family planning: birth control is widely available for those who desire it, and government clinics are focussed on promoting women's health. This was a very far-sighted and constructive decision by the government. As a result, the country has been able to harness the potential of most of its population, and, not coincidentally, has made significant economic gains. Because of these effective programs, Tunisia was graduated from United States assistance, and is now entering an era of partnership with the United States. Indeed, in many ways, Tunisia is a fine example of a foreign aid success. Tunisia has great potential for leadership in the 21st century. But it is a country facing severe security risks. As we appreciate its accomplishments of the last 40 years, we must commit to do what we can to ensure Tunisia will continue to develop politically and economically, and enable it to continue to support United States goals of stability and democracy in the Middle East and Africa.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to support this legislation, the committee substitute amendment to S. 942, and I want to commend the distinguished chairman of the Small Business Committee, Mr. Bond, for his leadership on this bill. The measure before us contains several provisions that will afford regulatory relief to our Nation's small businesses, and will also help begin to change the attitude of Government regulators who are often viewed by small business as adversaries rather than as sources of help and guidance. I am pleased that S. 942 contains many of the provisions that are also in bills I have introduced, S. 1350, the Small Business Fair Treatment Act of 1995, and S. 554, a bill I introduced about a year ago that strengthens the Equal Access to Justice Act. Mr. President, the regulatory structure that has developed over the years performs important safety, health, and consumer protection functions. At the same time, few would dispute that the current regulatory system needs meaningful reform. Mr. President, I have held nearly 250 listening sessions in my home State of Wisconsin during the past 3 years at which many of my constituents have expressed their tremendous frustration and anger with certain aspects of the regulatory process that sometimes is impractical, impersonal, and needlessly burdensome. This body debated a regulatory reform proposal last summer that sought to respond to this widespread frustration and anger. But, in large part, that debate focused more on changes in the actual rulemaking process, and featured solutions that, if not entirely Washington-centered, at best took a Washington perspective in addressing the issue. The measure before us takes a different approach--focusing on the day-to-day, practical problems of regulation with which small businesses must contend. I want to point to just a few of the bill's provisions in which I have had a special interest, and let me begin with the language strengthening the Equal Access to Justice Act. That 1980 law that was intended to help small businesses and individuals who get into the ring with the Federal Government over enforcement of regulations by allowing them to recover their legal fees and certain other expenses if they prevail. In general, I oppose the so-called loser pays or English rule under which the loser in civil litigation must pay the costs of the prevailing party. The additional risk of those costs can act as a barrier to the courts for those who are most vulnerable. That is not true, however, for the Government. In cases where the Government brings an action against a small business or an individual, the potential cost of losing poses no such barrier to Government with its vast resources. In fact, the opposite is true. The costs confronting a small business or an individual that is the target of a Government action may become a barrier to a just outcome, possibly forcing them to concede a violation, even when none existed, just to avoid costly litigation. When I was elected to the Wisconsin State Senate, I authored our State Equal Access to Justice Act, and have been working to strengthen the Federal protections since coming to this body, introducing S. 554 to update and streamline the law. The language in this bill raises the rate at which attorney's fees may be awarded from $75 to $125 an hour. Further, it modifies the present standard by easing the requirement that a successful claimant, in addition to prevailing on the merits, show that the Government's actions were unreasonable. To its credit, this bill makes that standard easier to attain, and in turn helps small businesses and individuals to recover their attorney's fees. I am pleased they were included. Frankly, I believe that the substantial justification defense by Federal agencies should be deleted entirely and proposed doing so in my own legislation, S. 554. While I look forward to pursuing the additional reforms found in my bill in the future, I applaud the authors for the improvements they have included in this legislation. We all know how difficult it can be on a small business owner to overcome what is sometimes overbearing Government regulation. I believe that the Equal Access to Justice Act helps ease that burden and that the improvements offered in S. 942 will make the act work better in the future. Mr. President, as I noted earlier, there are a number of provisions in this bill that were the basis of many of the provisions in my own small business regulatory reform initiative, S. 1350, the Small Business Fair Treatment Act. And I was glad to see the committee retained a number of those provisions, including a modified version of the sections requiring agencies to publish compliance guides describing regulations in straightforward, understandable language, and then holding agencies to that description when they are enforcing the regulation. Beyond the obvious help these guides could provide to businesses affected by a Government regulation, requiring an agency to think out and describe a new regulation in a clear and understandable way will only enhance the ability of that agency to administer the regulation. Another provision common to S. 942 and my proposal relates to so- called No-action Letters. Again, though the provision is slightly different from the approach I took, it represents a real step forward in helping small businesses needing clarification of a law or regulation in a particular instance. I was also pleased to see the section in S. 942 requiring agencies to establish procedures under which, in some circumstances, they will waive penalties on small businesses. I had included a number of provisions in my own bill that included similar features, because it is far better to allow small firms that want to comply with laws and regulations to devote their limited resources to correcting problems rather than paying fines. Mr. President, this provision will also help improve and enhance the relationship between small businesses and Government agencies. In listening to small businessmen and women in Wisconsin, one of the most troubling complaints that is raised with respect to Government regulation is the feeling that Government agencies too often take a confrontational or adversarial approach in dealing with the business. Whether or not this feeling is justified in every instance, in many instances, or in only a few, it is honestly felt and reveals a problem that needs fixing. In one instance, the owner of a small contracting company that does construction on older houses contacted my office expressing concern that certain OSHA regulations being applied to his business were probably originally created for larger construction companies dealing with different types of structures and should be modified for companies engaged in his kind of business. He cited requirements that he prepare a safety program for every job he does--even though the homes on which he works are much the same--as being inappropriate and time-consuming, and he outlined various other concerns. After my office contacted the agency and asked its views on his suggestions, OSHA showed up at his work site to conduct a surprise inspection. Mr. President, a small business ought to be able to raise concerns about an agency's regulations without fear of triggering an enforcement action. When the relationship between those who oversee and enforce regulations and those who must observe them deteriorates in this manner, it only hinders compliance. By requiring agencies to establish procedures to waive penalties under certain circumstances, the bill can help shape the regulatory structure in a way that will begin to change the attitude of regulators to encourage cooperation rather than confrontation. The provisions establishing a Small Business and Agriculture ombudsman to review agency enforcement activities will also help in changing agency attitudes. I took a slightly different approach in my own legislation, by explicitly prohibiting agency personnel practices that reward employees based on the number of violations they can find or the fines they can levy. I included this provision in response to comments made to my office by small business people who have reported that agency personnel have felt compelled to find something wrong, even if it is small, in order to justify their visit to the firm. Again, though the provision in my own legislation differs from the bill before us, the language in S. 942 is headed in the right direction, and I commend the chairman for his leadership in advocating the kinds of structural changes that I believe will help change the relationship between regulators and small business. Mr. President, the current system is not acceptable; the need for reform is clear and imperative. And though the larger regulatory reform legislation has bogged down, I very much hope a compromise can be worked out and a meaningful reform package can be enacted into law. But, even if a compromise on the larger regulatory reform measure can be hammered out, it is likely to reflect a process-oriented approach that may provide large corporate interests with avenues for relief, but does little to address the day-to-day problems facing small business. Nor does such legislation address the very real feeling of small businesses that Government regulators too often act as adversaries rather than to provide guidance in helping firms to comply with the law. By contrast, the provisions outlined in this measure both provide some practical regulatory relief and can improve the relationship between businesses and agencies. Mr. President, I again congratulate the senior Senator from Missouri for his leadership on this measure, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I, too, would like to thank the Senator from Oregon for his leadership on this issue. Mr. President, yet again, the Senate is debating funding and restrictions on the international family planning account. In many ways it is a debate I cannot understand, for the supporters of this amendment are only ensuring that the incidence of abortion worldwide will increase, and that is a trend that would disappoint and trouble every single Member of this body. Mr. President, I rise to oppose strongly this amendment, that is, the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky, and to support Senator Hatfield's very reasonable and practical provision on population in the omnibus appropriations bill. My colleagues are all familiar with the difficult disagreements that have ensued this year over the U.S. population program. For months now, the Senate and House have lobbed amendments back and forth concerning what restrictions should be placed on family planning assistance in our foreign aid program. Unfortunately, as I have always argued, the debate in Congress has almost always been perilously miscast, as it is miscast again today. This is not, as some have portrayed it, a debate about a woman's right to abortion. The law has been on the books, Mr. President, since 1973, unchallenged, that U.S. assistance cannot be used to finance abortions. That is the law. That is the way it has been for 23 years. The problem we are addressing here is access to family planning services. The only connection this has to abortion is that more widespread voluntary family planning will reduce the number of abortions worldwide. That is a goal that everybody, I think, without question, shares. The genius of the Hatfield provision is that it spells this out clearly and precisely. It says that if the President cannot determine that our population program does not reduce the incidence of abortion, then the restrictions laid out in the continuing resolution passed in January will go into effect. Mr. President, there is an ironic and dangerous twist to this debate. The opponents of the Hatfield language seem to be caught up in a shortsighted goal to advance what is both an isolationist and antiabortion agenda. This is based on the somewhat perverse assumption and wrong assumption that population assistance increases the incidence of abortion. Mr. President, we will take a look at how wrong that reasoning is. Over 100 million women worldwide, and who knows how many couples, do not use family planning because they do not have access to basic health care. One out of five of the women will undergo unsafe abortions. Statistics indicate that some will die. Some will be disabled. Some will never be able to bear children again. Some may deliver babies that have no chance of leading a healthy life. The U.S. population program educates women and couples about family planning and increases access to contraception and basic health care. Mr. President, it saves women's lives. It is a life saver. Why would we want to cut that account by 85 percent or deeper than any other foreign aid account as currently written in January's continuing resolution? For example, Mr. President, in Africa, 1 out of every 21 women die as a result of complications of pregnancy. That is roughly 200 times the rate for European women. Mr. President, African women deserve the right to family planning. Their lives depend on it. Their nation's development depends on it. The countries of the former Soviet Union, including Russia, where women have no sustained access to family planning and virtually no access to any quality contraception, the average woman undergoes nine abortions in her lifetime. An average of nine abortions in those places where people do not have access to family planning. Our population programs in Russia and throughout Africa are designed to reduce the rate of abortion. There is no rational justification to cut these programs. Mr. President, it is a well-documented fact that when couples have access to family planning, the incidence of abortion goes down. That is the whole confusion in this debate. If you want to increase abortion, support the McConnell amendment and the language of a January continuing resolution; if you want to really and truly reduce the incidence of abortion, as I do, and if you oppose abortion outright as Senator Hatfield does, then the population program is one of the most important foreign aid accounts we have. Family planning simply stated is an important part of the solution to abortion. If this is not true, then the President cannot report it. Under the Hatfield language, the population program would be reduced. I think this is really a very good compromise, for if population programs do not reduce the incidence of abortions, then I agree, we should reexamine them. Mr. President, fact, statistics, logic and United States national interest dictate that the population program is an essential cornerstone of our goal of global development. I urge the defeat of the McConnell amendment. I sincerely thank the Senator from Oregon not only for his courage but also for his wisdom in crafting the underlying amendment.