Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that Juan Alsace be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of this bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Helms bill on Cuba. As I have said on the floor several times before, it advances the wrong policy at the wrong time. Fidel Castro is finally, reluctantly, finding that his government must accept the realities of the 1990's: that free trade and political liberalization are fundamental to the promotion of enlightened self- interest. As we have seen time and again, once a people have tasted the fruit of freedoms they invariably demand the only atmosphere in which free markets and human rights flourish. That, of course, is democracy and a government protective of a phalanx of rights: the free exchange of ideas and information; respect for human rights; the right to seek one's livelihood unhindered by government fiat. We are seeing the first tentative steps toward an emerging market economy in Cuba; the first steps, we can all agree and hope, which point towards and end of this dictatorship. So I find it ironic that at the very moment when the United States is presented with the best opportunity in nearly four decades to encourage and influence the move toward positive change in Cuba, the Senator seeks to legislate that opportunity out of existence. Rather than encourage the Cuban Government to move into the 1990's, the Helms bill would have it slide back into the 1960's, dragging the administration as well into continuing and, indeed, strengthening a fossilized policy of isolation that did not work even when, it could be argued, a bipolar world justified such short-term thinking. In fact, rather than seek to promote the kind of positive change administrations, Republican and Democratic, have sought for decades, and which at long last holds out the promise to lift the Cuban people out of the misery visited on them by Castro's totalitarian regime, the Helms bill, incredibly, would increase their pain by further isolating Cuba. It is wishful thinking--nearly 40 years of wishful thinking--that a tightened embargo will provide the final push leading to the downfall of the Castro regime. We can be certain, rather, that Castro will put this pain to good effect: if the history of recent Cuban-American relations has taught us anything, it is that to this day Castro can still rally a proud people against the bogeyman of Yanqui imperialism. But Senator Helms' bill does not stop at increasing the hardship of Cuba's people. It seeks to impose on other nations--close allies in many cases--extraterritorial provisions which conflict with international law and various treaties to which the United States is party. I note that the embargo is already considered by many of our allies to be a hopelessly out-dated affront to their sovereignty: the Helms proposal will only lead to retaliation at a time when we seek their cooperation on issues of greater complexity and, frankly, of more immediate import to our national interests. I would add, as well, that our Latin American friends see efforts such as the Helms bill as a vestige of the gunboat diplomacy which, to this day, leaves them wary of our intentions. But it is not enough that this bill would hurt the average Cuban, enrage our allies, and renew the suspicions of our Latin American friends. It would also strike at the American taxpayer. Senator Helms would have the administration seek--in vain, in my opinion--to expand TV Marti, a failed program which figuratively and literally crashed in a Florida swamp. The Cuban people have not seen the truth from TV Marti, because they never see TV Marti. Rather, the truth is more likely to come to them as Cuba gains more access to international television, engages in dialogs about the rest of the world, and integrates into the international community. Therefore, we should encourage policies and dialogs which will lead to the political changes and freedoms sought by the Cuban people. The administration's October 5 announcement that it will seek to put in place measures designed to promote the flow of information into and out of [[Page S 15211]] Cuba is a step in that direction. To further promote, rather than strangle, democratic transition in Cuba, United States NGO's would now be authorized to help independent Cuban NGO's provide training to Cuban human rights activists. Without employing the expensive baloondoggle of taxpayer-funded TV Marti, for example, United States news bureaus would set up shop directly in Cuba and Cuban news agencies here in the United States. The new regulations are also family friendly, easing procedures for Cuban-Americans who want to visit relatives in Cuba. However, the proposed policy will not reward a totalitarian regime which continues to violate basic human rights with impunity. In fact, the administration proposes enhanced enforcement of the embargo and the U.S. Neutrality Act. This mixed bag approach--injecting into Castro's system the poison of free thought while continuing to restrict his access to the relief found in free trade--may not be the perfect solution. I think it is time for a new strategy in Cuba, rather than more of the same, which the Helms bill advocates and which has clearly failed. I believe an incremental approach, which minimizes the pain to the Cuban people and the cost to the American taxpayer, while making clear our determination to not do business as usual with the Castro regime, offers the best current hope of effecting change. The Helms amendment does everything but that, so I urge its defeat. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask the Senator from Connecticut, through the Chair, if he would yield me time to speak in opposition to the motion.

Mr. FEINGOLD. What is the amount of time for the opponents?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I assume the proponents as being those seeking cloture?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time be equally divided between the two sides in the usual form.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today the Senate appointed Members to the House-Senate conference committee on telecommunications reform. The historic nature of this legislation and its effect on the lives of every citizen of this country goes well beyond the issues associated with regulation of telephony, cable rates, and other forms of communications. Mr. President, this legislation has dramatic implications for the first amendment rights of every American. Mr. President, I am referring to the precedent-setting provisions in S. 652 and H.R. 1555 regarding indecency on the Internet. I am here today to urge each Senate conferee to take the first amendment issues of these bills seriously and to consider the ramifications of these provisions not just for speech on the Internet but for all speech in this country. During conference deliberations, I urge Senate conferees to strike the potentially unconstitutional provisions regarding on-line indecency contained in both the Senate and House versions of this legislation. The issue of Government censorship of the Internet is a critical first amendment matter. Guaranteeing the Internet is free of speech restrictions, other than the statutory restrictions on obscenity and pornography on the Internet which already exist, should be of concern to all Americans who want to be able to freely discuss issues of importance to them regardless of whether others might view those statements as offensive or distasteful. Specifically, Mr. President, the Exon-Coats amendment, added to S. 652 on the Senate floor, included provisions which I believe violate the first amendment rights of Internet users and will have a chilling effect on further economic and technological development of this exciting new form of [[Page S 15153]] telecommunications. When this matter was considered on the Senate floor, I urged my colleagues to reject the Exon-Coats amendment in favor of legislation requiring the Department of Justice to carefully study the applicability of existing obscenity statutes to computer networks, which Senator Leahy and I offered as an alternative. Specifically I have objected to the indecency provisions of S. 652 for the following reasons: First, indecent speech, unlike obscenity, is protected under the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution; second, an outright ban on indecent speech on computer networks is not the least restrictive means of protecting children from exposure to such speech on the Internet. There are a number of existing tools available today to allow parents to protect their children from materials which they find inappropriate; third, a ban on indecent speech to minors on the Internet will unnecessarily require adults to self-censor their communications on the Internet; fourth, since indecency will be defined by community standards, protected speech by adults will be diminished to what might be considered decent in the most conservative community in the United States and to what might be appropriate for very young children; fifth, the on-line indecency provisions will establish different standards for the same material that appears in print and on the computer screen. Works that are completely legal in the bookstore or on the library shelf would be criminal if transmitted over computer networks; sixth, the Supreme Court has ruled that the degree to which content can be regulated depends on the characteristics of the media. The unique nature of interactive media must be considered when determining how best to protect children. S. 652 ignores the degree to which users have control over the materials to which they are exposed as well as the decentralized nature of interactive technology which liken it more to print media than broadcast media. Mr. President, the Senate was not alone in its rush to judgment on the controversial and highly emotional issue of pornography accessed via computer networks. Section 403 of H.R. 1555, known as the Hyde amendment, raises equally serious concerns with respect to the first amendment and appears antithetical to other provisions contained in the House bill. The prohibitions against on-line indecency contained in the Hyde language will have a similar chilling effect on the on-line communications of adults. The Hyde amendment is also inconsistent with the more market oriented and less intrusive provisions of section 104 of H.R. 1555, the On-Line Family Empowerment Act introduced by Congressmen Cox and Wyden, as adopted by the House. Section 104 recognizes that first amendment protections must apply to on-line communications by prohibiting FCC content regulation of the Internet. The Cox-Wyden provisions also promote the use of existing technology to empower parents to protect their children from objectionable materials on the Internet, and encourages on-line service providers to self- police offensive communications over their private services. In addition, the Hyde amendment is incompatible with the pro-first amendment provisions of section 110 of H.R. 1555, which requires a report by the Department of Justice [DOJ] on existing criminal obscenity and child pornography statutes and their applicability to cyber-crime. Section 110 also requires an evaluation of the technical means available to enable parents to exercise control over the information that their children receive on the Internet. Perhaps most significantly, section 110 embraces the application of first amendment speech protections to interactive media. H.R. 1555, while embracing the principles of restraint with respect to new criminal sanctions on protected speech and the promotion of a free-market parental empowerment approach, simultaneously ignores both of those axioms with the Hyde provision. By imposing new criminal sanctions on indecent speech and amending existing criminal statutes, the Hyde amendment rushes to judgment before the DOJ study has even begun. Mr. President, recently the Senate Judiciary Committee held the first ever congressional hearing on the issue of cyberporn. Based on the testimony of the witnesses, which included parents as well as victims of cyberporn, it became clear that the objectionable communications on the Internet are already covered by existing criminal statutes. The concerns raised at the hearing centered upon trafficking of child pornography, the proliferation of obscenity, and the solicitation and victimization of minors via the Internet. However, those offenses are already violations of criminal law. Indeed, recent press accounts indicate that law enforcement officers are already aggressively prosecuting on-line users for violations of criminal law relating to obscenity and child pornography. It is critical that we use law enforcement resources to prosecute criminal activity conducted via the Internet and not be distracted by the issue of indecency which has not been identified as a serious concern by users or parents. It was clear, during our recent Senate hearing, that the witnesses' concerns about the Internet did not relate to indecent speech or the so-called seven dirty words. It is incumbent upon Congress to wait for the results of the study required by H.R. 1555 before embracing overly restrictive, potentially unnecessary, and possibly unconstitutional prohibitions on indecent speech contained in both versions of telecommunications reform legislation. Mr. President, I urge the conference committee to reject the Exon- Coats and Hyde provisions during its deliberations and to maintain the Cox-Wyden amendment adopted overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives. If the United States is to ever fully realize the benefits of interactive telecommunications technology, we cannot allow the heavy hand of Congress to unduly interfere with communications on this medium. Furthermore, Mr. President, I urge Senate conferees to recognize that if the first amendment has any relevancy at all in the 1990's, it must be applied to speech on the Internet. As Members of this body sworn to uphold the Constitution we cannot take a cafeteria style approach to the first amendment, protecting the same speech in some forms of media and not in others. Shifting political views about what types of speech are viewed as distasteful should not be allowed to determine what is or is not an appropriate use of electronic communications. While the current target of our political climate is indecent speech--the so- called seven dirty words--a weakening of first amendment protections could lead to the censorship of other crucial types of speech, including religious expression and political dissent. I believe the censorship of the Internet is a perilous road for the Congress to walk down. It sets a dangerous precedent for first amendment protections and it is unclear where that road will end.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to extend congratulations to Gaylord Nelson, a former Member of this body and a distinguished former Governor of the State of Wisconsin, who is receiving America's highest civilian honor today--the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Gaylord Nelson receives this award in recognition of his lifelong commitment to leadership on issues of environmental protection, and his tremendous efforts to ensure that both our country's public policy and its citizens sustain and preserve America's invaluable natural resources. Nelson's career is truly a remarkable one, and I am proud to now hold the Senate seat he held with distinction from 1963 to 1981. Gaylord Nelson began his political career in 1948, when he became the first Democratic State senator elected from Dane County in this century. He served three terms in the Wisconsin State senate from 1948 to 1956, acting as the Democratic floor leader for 8 of those years. He was a two-term Governor of my State, elected in 1958, and like the noteworthy accomplishment of his election to State senate, Nelson was Wisconsin's second Democratic governor in this century and, upon reelection in 1960, he became the only Democrat in Wisconsin to win two terms at Governor since 1892. During his gubernatorial tenure, the environment became a priority for the State with the creation of a $50 million outdoor resources acquisition program, putting Wisconsin far ahead in recreational opportunities for the general public. As those who served with him in this body remember well, Nelson is best described like the main character in Dr. Seuss' children's story The Lorax--the man ``who speaks for the trees.'' During his 18 years of service in the Senate, Gaylord Nelson affected significant change for the ``greener'' in both our Nation's law and the institution of the Senate itself. He is the co-author of the Environmental Education Act, which he sponsored with the senior Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and sponsored an amendment to give the St. Croix and the Namekagon Rivers scenic protection. In the wake of Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring, Gaylord Nelson, along with Senator Philip Hart of Michigan, ushered in national attention to the documented persistent bioaccumulative effects of organochlorine pesticides used in the Great Lakes by authoring the ban on DDT in 1972. He was the primary sponsor of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore Act, one of Northern Wisconsin's most beautiful areas at which I spend a portion of my vacation time with my family every year, and an area which just celebrated its 25th anniversary last month with an event at which Nelson and I both spoke. Nelson, of course, is best remembered as being the founder of Earth Day. As one of the first Senators to oppose the U.S. military buildup in Vietnam, Gaylord Nelson took his inspiration for Earth Day from the anti-war teach-ins on college campuses. He described in a floor statement on the development of the event: It suddenly occurred to me, why not have a nationwide teach-in on the environment. Gaylord Nelson announced the idea at a speech in Seattle in 1969, and the idea has been a sustained vision for 25 years. Earth Day is an event which in addition to changing the environmental consciousness of the country, as colleagues who were present will remember, literally stopped the Senate. Members of both bodies voted to adjourn their respective houses in the middle of the legislative week to attend Earth Day events, an adjournment that would be extremely rare today. Here in this body, the Congressional Record indicates, at 3:31 p.m. on Tuesday, April 20, 1970, our colleague the senior Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] adjourned the Senate until Friday, April 23, 1970. In the other body, chamber action was adjourned from the middle of the day on April 21, 1970, the actual date of the first Earth Day, through April 23 of that year. Gaylord Nelson's environmental activism also changed the way we in Congress run our personal offices. Last year, in an E Magazine interview which Nelson gave for the 25th Anniversary of Earth Day, he described that back in 1970 he believed he was the only person in the Senate to have a full time environmental staffer. In 1995, it is difficult to imagine that there is any Member of this body or the other that does not have a member of their staff designated to handle environmental issues. After his defeat in the race for a fourth Senate term in 1980, Nelson joined the national conservation group, the Wilderness Society. In 1990, Nelson founded another group in Washington called Green Seal, which he created to certify the environmental claims of consumer products by developing innovative environmentally based product standards and comparing classes of marketed products to those standards. Mr. President, leadership is not only the willingness to assume the role of being a primary spokesperson on important issues, but what one actually says and does about those issues. With a combination of words and activism, Gaylord Nelson actively used his position to make changes for the better. In a 1994 Chicago Tribune article, Thomas Huffman, a professor of history at St. John's University in Collegeville, MN, observed about Gaylord Nelson: Almost every campaign speech he [Nelson] gave from 1960 on had an environmental component. Often times that was the whole speech. There were many in his party who thought he was crazy, that it was not really an issue. Despite the fact that some were skeptical about Nelson's message at first, the directness and forcefulness of his statements are undeniable. In his 1969 book on the environment, entitled America's Last Chance, written after 6 years of service in the Senate, Nelson issues a political challenge: Through the past decade of work in this field, I have come to the conclusion that the number one domestic problem facing this country is the threatened destruction of our natural resources and the disaster which would confront mankind should such destruction occur. There is a real question as to whether the nation, which has spent some two hundred years developing an intricate system of local, State and Federal Government to deal with the public's problems, will be bold, imaginative and flexible enough to meet this supreme test. Nelson's message was one of urgency and of bipartisanship. His time in the Senate saw this body establish, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, an Environment and Public Works Committee, pass the majority of our Federal environmental statutes with significant bipartisan support, and create the Environmental Protection Agency. In his speech at the University of Wisconsin on the first Earth Day, Nelson said: [[Page S 14768]] Our goal is an environment of decency, quality, and mutual respect for human creatures and all other living creatures. An environment without ugliness, without ghettos, without discrimination, without hunger, without poverty, and without war. In recognizing Gaylord Nelson's accomplishments, I hope that all in this body will be mindful of the need to be committed to the protection of the environment and to work in a bipartisan fashion toward that end. I believe that to have this body embrace and resonate his enthusiasm on these issues would be a fitting tribute.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about and oppose elimination of the Post-Conviction Defender Organizations. This debate is not, as some would have you believe, about the death penalty. It is about common sense and fiscal responsibility. The benefits of eliminating these centers are allegedly two-fold; one, it will save taxpayers $20 million and two, it will sped up executions by eliminating lawyers who, under the guise of providing effective counsel to men sentenced to death, allegedly work only to delay executions. While these arguments may, on the surface, be appealing to some, they are both inherently flawed. Elimination of these centers will do nothing to expedite the rate of executions in this Nation, nor will the American taxpayers save any money whatsoever. In fact, the costs of providing these services will increase if these centers are eliminated. Chief Judge Richard Arnold, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and chair of the budget committee of the U.S. Judicial Conference has testified before Congress that these centers are the most economical method of providing these essential services. The attorneys who presently work in the 20 post-conviction defender centers across this Nation do so at substantially less pay per hour than their counterparts in private practice will require to take their place. Resource center attorneys receive $55 an hour while court-appointed lawyers receive an average hourly rate of $138 an hour. Therefore, private attorneys will increase the costs of these services even if they work exactly the same amount of hours as the current resource center attorneys. However, this is highly unlikely. The complexity of these cases requires highly specialized skills which, frankly, you will not find in an attorney who does not devote their full-time practice to this area of the law. Therefore, not only will we be paying private lawyers more per hour, they will have to work additional hours just to get up to the speed of the attorneys who will be displaced when the centers are eliminated. GAO has reported that the cost of representing men on death row was nearly $20,000 more when a private attorney was used as opposed to a lawyer from the resource centers. We will be paying private attorneys at a higher rate to work longer hours. This is hardly the formula for saving taxpayer dollars. Furthermore, under the present system, private attorneys are often assisted by resource center lawyers in preparation for handling these complex cases. The ability to attract private attorneys to handle these cases cannot conceivably be enhanced by removing the support these resource center lawyers offer. In short Mr. President, the alleged savings of roughly $20 million will quickly be consumed by the increased cost of attaining private representation. Furthermore, the argument that eliminating these centers will expedite the imposition of the death penalty is equally without merit. Our system of justice calls for representation of those sentenced to death. In the absence of this representation, the system is delayed--it does not move ahead. As was reported recently in the National Law Journal, these centers: Came about precisely because delays in finding lawyers for post-conviction appeals delayed executions. Cases could not proceed unless the condemned had representation. The simple fact of the matter is that it will not be possible to find enough attorneys to handle the post-conviction caseload particularly when one considers the fact that the caseload will increase in coming years rather than decrease. In fact, since these centers were created in 1988, 900 men have been placed on death row. To suggest that the private sector can fill the void resource center attorneys will leave overlooks the practical realities of what this litigation involves. Eliminating these centers will not expedite the appeals process nor will it expedite imposition of the death penalty. Although critics may argue that these resource centers slow the process, the simple fact is that the delays will be worse if these centers are eliminated. Furthermore, there is also a larger issue. The credibility of our system of criminal justice is imperilled when we apply the sanction of death but at the same time fail to provide adequate representation to those condemned. Regardless of our respective views on the appropriateness or effectiveness of the death penalty, we should all be offended by even the possibility that death would be administered in anything less than a fair and equitable manner. Many of the so-called habeas corpus reforms which were pushed through this body earlier this year are predicated upon the presence of competent counsel. The attorneys who work at the post conviction resource centers embody the competence that our system of justice requires. The post conviction resource centers provide a vital service and they do so at the most efficient level. If my colleagues look closely at the practical effects the committee language will have, not only on the efficient administration of justice, but also on the costs that taxpayers will incur, they will see that this effort will not achieve either of its stated goals. The committee language is ill-conceived and misguided. It will attain neither of its stated goals. We should not eliminate these centers based on a specious premise. Acting attorney general of Pennsylvania, Walter Cohen recently stated that if these centers are eliminated it will: * * * Take away the capability of the system to provide adequate counsel to death row defendants * * * You're not going to have the death penalty carried out. This is one of those cases where Members of Congress can talk tough but end up with a very weak result. Mr. President, we should avoid such a result, and retain the post- conviction defender organizations.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment to restore funding to the Community Policing Program which serves as the cornerstone of the crime law passed last Congress. Under this program, the Clinton administration has already approved funding to hire and place over 25,000 police officers on American streets. In just over 1 year, they are over a quarter of the way to fulfilling the President's promise of putting 100,000 additional police into cities and towns across this Nation. It is ironic, and in my estimation, unfortunate, that barely 1 year after President Clinton signed this program into law we are forced to revisit and attempt to preserve a program which the American public, as well as law enforcement across this Nation, strongly support. However, the fact that we must do so, particularly under the guise of an appropriations bill, speaks more clearly about the partisan nature of this debate than it does the merits of community policing. As has been stated many times previously on this floor, the premise behind community policing is very simple and very sound. When local police agencies increase their physical presence on the streets and in the communities they protect, they not only deter crime, they forge community wide bonds between the police and the citizenry--bonds which will help combat criminal activity. The Community Policing Program has to date provided funding necessary to place an additional 297 police officers on the streets of cities and towns all across the State of Wisconsin. The response of Wisconsin law enforcement to this program has not simply come from the large urban centers like Milwaukee, but has also come from rural communities from across the State. In fact, of the 297 additional officers provided to Wisconsin law enforcement a great many, 188 officers, have gone to cities and towns with populations under 50,000. While the popular misconception may be that crime affects only large inner city neighborhoods, a visit to small towns all across this Nation paints a very different picture. Mr. President, crime does not discriminate based upon population density. It is a problem for everyone in this Nation, regardless of where they live. The COPS Program recognized the needs of smaller communities and tailored the grant application for communities with populations under 50,000 to one page, so that the limited time and resources of these towns would not be squandered writing grant applications. Doing so is but one example of how the emphasis under this program has, from the very outset, been to get police into communities across this Nation. We should not be too quick to dismiss the value of having a visible law enforcement presence on our streets. The men and women of law enforcement can and should serve as positive influences, particularly in regard to our young people. The need for this positive voice is even more important than last year at this time, because the legislation we are considering today fails to fund most prevention programs created under the crime bill. This conscious failure to do so will have, in my opinion, two detrimental effects--one, it will make the job of law enforcement even more difficult than it currently is, and two, it will eliminate many of the positive influences that these prevention programs have on the young people of this Nation. The failure to fund prevention magnifies the importance of putting the police in the community working to offset the negative influences of drug-dealers and criminals--influences which we all must admit are a day to day part of the lives of many of our young people. To leave these corrupting voices unanswered is a formula for disaster. As I meet with members of law enforcement from across Wisconsin they repeatedly extol the value and importance of prevention programs--not just in keeping young people out of trouble, but also in making the job of law enforcement easier. The police of this Nation intuitively understand what this legislation chooses to ignore--you cannot fight crime without prevention. While it is an abdication of our responsibility to defund prevention programs, the failure to do so only serves to heighten the importance of integrating law enforcement into our communities. However, the bill before us today chooses a different, and in my view ill-conceived, response--a so-called block grant. Unlike the targeted community policing program, the proposal before us does not promise even one additional police officer will be placed on the streets. The money provided under the block grant may be utilized for any purpose ranging from prosecutors to secretaries to radios. Not one additional police officer is assured under the block grant. There is no guarantee that any of this money will even filter down to the local police department. While prosecutors clearly play an important role in our criminal justice system, and have my support, they cannot help you until you, or your family, have been victimized. The basis of the COPS Program is to attack crime at the source--on the streets. This program does not fund police to answer phones or work at a desk--it funds cops to work the streets. The Republican proposal we are asked to accept in its place has no focus, no objectives, and apparently no parameters. It simply allocates billions of dollars to be used for any function which is arguably related to fighting crime. Past history tells us that programs such as are proposed here today will not work. One need look no further than the LEAA, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, for evidence of the potential for abuse. LEAA poured massive amounts of Federal aid into cities and towns to fight crime. These unchecked funds garnered the citizens of this Nation such prudent crime fighting weapons as encyclopedias on law enforcement, tanks, consultants, and land. I want to be very clear, Mr. President, as I cross the State of Wisconsin and hear from the fine people of my State, I hear about the need for flexibility in fighting crime. I hear about the need for communities to target community specific problems. I think we should heed the concerns of the people who live with and fight crime everyday across this Nation. But this need for flexibility should not be a pretext for an open-ended, ill-defined block grant offered solely to undermine a successful program administered by a Democratic administration. If we are truly concerned about flexibility--if we are truly concerned that the needs in places like Woodruff, WI are different than the needs in Milwaukee, we should fund the rural crime [[Page S 14695]] component of the crime bill. But this legislation fails to do that. If we are truly concerned, we should fund drug courts and prevention programs. But this legislation also fails to fund those proposals. The crime law contained many facets which could be used to respond to differing needs. And yet, this legislation fails to fund many of them. Furthermore, it eliminates one of the most successful and popular programs, the COPS program, despite the fact that response has been overwhelming. In addition to the 168 Wisconsin jurisdictions which have already received grants, there are over 100 pending applications from Wisconsin communities requesting funding under the COPS Program. These communities have made the conscious decision that they want more police on their streets. If we abandon this program, these communities will be forced to hope that their proportional block grant allocation is sufficient to cover all their law enforcement needs. Mr. President, the COPS Program is working. Cities and towns have responded and are working with the Federal Government to put more police officers on American streets. They are doing so because they know that it is a far more effective response to try and stop crimes before they occur. And they know that putting police on the streets, working with the community, is the best way to prevent crime and take back our neighborhoods. The American public cannot be pleased to see that once again this body is debating a policy which took 6 years of partisan wrangling to develop in the first place. The American public wants us to quit talking and start responding to their needs. The community policing program does just that. Although it might cause some of my colleagues discomfort, the Clinton administration has developed and is implementing a sound anti-crime strategy which addresses this Nation's needs from many different perspectives. Although I clearly do not agree with each and every portion of the plan, I do support putting 100,000 additional police on our streets. The ink is barely dry on the crime law, and today we are asked to repeal most of it. This despite the fact that in only 1 year the COPS Program has provided funding for over 25,000 additional police officers. Mr. President, the American people support this program. The men and women of law enforcement support this program and so should this body. We should not abandon it for the failed promise of an ill-defined block grant. I urge my colleagues to support putting 100,000 police on the streets of this Nation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the Senators from New Mexico and South Carolina. This amendment will allow continuation of legal services to low-income individuals. The credibility of the American legal system demands that all Americans, regardless of their economic station in life, have access to the courts. To put the promise of justice beyond the reach of a group of people because they cannot afford proper representation defies the notion of equal justice for all. Since its inception in 1974, the Legal Services Corporation has worked to provide equal access to the justice system to a group of Americans which is sadly growing larger in number and increasingly disenfranchised from our democratic way of life. An editorial in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel recently noted that the Legal Services Corporation helps people in very basic, and important ways. They help: . . . the child who needs health care, the elderly couple negotiating their way through Medicare, the battered woman who needs help getting a divorce and child custody, the victims of consumer fraud. I think we would all agree that these are all laudable goals. And yet, if you look at the language contained in H.R. 2067, you will see that the battered woman who needs help getting a divorce and child custody is foreclosed from utilizing Legal Services for that purpose. What could be so controversial about helping a battered woman and her children out of a violent and abusive situation? Nothing. And yet, the language contained in the bill currently being considered, prohibits the use of funds to obtain a divorce. However, Mr. President, this very troubling provision is but one example of the shortsightedness of eliminating the Legal Services Corporation. Although it is not without its detractors, the Legal Services Corporation provides basic legal services to the poor of this Nation in an efficient, cost-effective manner. As has been noted many times, only 3 percent of the total Legal Services appropriation is used for administrative purposes. The remainder is sent out to the various legal service organizations throughout this Nation. Ninety-seven percent of the Legal Services Corporation's funding goes directly to local programs to address priorities established at the local level. Throughout this Congress we have heard time and time again that decentralization is the key to many of our problems--let the people in the communities make the decisions. Legal Services does that now and this bill eliminates it. Ninety-seven percent of the Corporation's funds are distributed directly to organizations like Legal Action of Wisconsin, Western Wisconsin Legal Services, Wisconsin Judicare, and Legal Services of Northeastern Wisconsin. All of these local organizations know and understand the needs of the poor throughout the State of Wisconsin and are dedicated to addressing them. Under the present system, they make the decisions, they set the priorities. Not only does the language in the bill eliminate the decentralized system that exists today, it replaces it with a more onerous and traditional inside the beltway style bureaucracy. Under the proposed language, the Department of Justice would become the primary grant administrator to the States. The money no longer goes directly to the providers, it goes to the States. The States in turn establish their own administrative structure to oversee and administer the money to the local organizations, which ultimately provide legal services for the poor. These additional layers of bureaucracy will increase administrative costs and result in less money being available to help the poor. If the goal of this body is to slow delivery of legal services to the poor and to create more bureaucracy, then we should support the proposed block grant. However, if the goal is, as it should be, to maintain a workable delivery system of legal services to the poor in this Nation, then the efficiency, flexibility and the decentralization of the current Corporation is the obvious choice. Mr. President, we often hear about the need for private enterprise to pick up where Government leaves off. The citizens of Wisconsin are very fortunate to have a private bar dedicated to ensuring legal representation to all people. I know that other Senators can say the same of their home States. But we delude ourselves if we think these dedicated private attorneys alone can meet the enormous needs of the poor. I have been contacted by many organizations from Wisconsin, all concerned about, and working to help, the poor in our State. Each of these groups, be it the Wisconsin State Bar, the Association for Women Lawyers, the Milwaukee Bar Association or any of the others that contact me, knows that the elimination of the Legal Services Corporation will seriously hamper the ability of this Nation's poor to obtain legal representation. If we follow the committee language, and effectively exclude millions of poor Americans from one of this Nation's most important institutions--the justice system--we risk creating a society where justice exists only for those above the poverty line. Such a result is unacceptable. I appreciate that no one approves of every case that legal services undertakes, but the proposed amendment seeks to address some of the concerns that people have raised regarding the scope of Legal Services activities. Some may think the restrictions in the amendment go too far, others, not far enough. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that our goal should be to maintain a system of legal representation for the poor that allows them to avail themselves of the protections of the American justice systems. Protections that many of us, the more fortunate in our society, may take for granted. However, imagine the importance we all would place in these protections should they disappear or be placed just beyond our grasp. And yet, the language in this bill potentially subjects millions of poor people in this Nation to just such a reality. The amendment offered by the Senators from New Mexico and South Carolina acknowledges the essential fact that we must preserve the access of the poor in this Nation to the judiciary. This amendment allows this Nation to move ahead toward equal justice for all, rather than retreat from this noble goal. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that an article in the July 19 edition of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel entitled ``Legal Services for Poor Need Protection'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania very much. Mr. President, I voted ``no'' on the motion to proceed to consideration of the Labor-HHS appropriations. A number of problems in this measure have been highlighted in the debate, but I would like to focus on one [[Page S 14454]] particular provision, the attempt to override the President's Executive order banning the use of permanent replacements for striking workers employed by Federal contractors. We had a long debate about this a few months ago, and I had a chance the speak at length. So I will be brief today. But this is an issue that I feel very strongly about, and I fully support President Clinton's efforts in this area to halt the erosion of workers' rights. I had a chance to work on this issue for many years when I was in the Wisconsin State Senate and tried to pass a Wisconsin law on this issue. But throughout the process it was very clear that what had happened in the early 1980's with the PATCO strike led to an avalanche, really, of the use of permanent replacement workers across this country in a way that had never happened before. It has had serious consequences for working people throughout Wisconsin and across the country. Mr. President, earlier this month, just a few weeks ago, I had the painful experience of meeting with workers who had just gone on strike against a large employer in a rural Wisconsin community. These workers came to one of the listening sessions or town meetings that I hold every year in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties. I would like to read, to highlight this issue, from a statement of James Newell, the principal officer for the Teamsters Union, on this issue. I can think of no more eloquent testimonial than the words of Mr. Newell that day, in a small townhall in Wisconsin, just a couple of weeks ago. He said: Sir, you have entered into a community today that has been infected with a disease that has become much too prevalent in American society over the past few years. Just a few blocks from here, there are more than 100 hard-working men and women engaged in a struggle with this community's largest industrial employer. The flashpoint of this firestorm was not the traditional economic issues of higher wages and benefits--although Lord knows they are desperately needed here and will be at issue before this battle is over. He continued to say: This controversy was ignited by issues which transcend price tags; the issues of fairness, safety, job security, and basic human rights to self-respect and dignity on the workshop floor. Mr. President, Mr. Newell continued by describing what is happening all too often across this country in the use of strike breakers. Three (3) years ago, this community faced a major loss of employment at this facility brought on by its intended closure by a national conglomerate which owned and operated it at that time. The work force gave tremendous concessions, both in economics as well as job security provisions, to allow present ownership to acquire and build the business and to preserve those jobs in the Owen community. Now, after we have done our part and contributed to the new company's success, we are told that some of our basic requests for a return of rights previously given up is somehow un- American in light of global competition and the employer's interest in maximizing profits. Mr. Newell described in his statement about the events that followed. He testified that since the confrontation began, We have not been greeted by any desire from this employer to return to the bargaining table and work out these disputes, but rather by the employer's unilateral cancellation of two (2) scheduled bargaining sessions this past week and the veiled threat of canceling a third (3rd) session scheduled for the coming weeks. We have seen our lost wages being utilized to pay for an unnecessary insulting security guard force. We have witnessed safety shortcuts being implemented at the potential peril of those few who are still working in the plant. And, perhaps most outrageous of all, we have witnessed this employer stoop to the level of enticing high school students-- High school students-- to cross the picket line and perform the work. We wonder what kind of society we have evolved into when schoolchildren can become pawns to break labor disputes. Mr. President, Mr. Newell concluded with an observation about what is happening across America today. He said: What is happening in this community today is a microcosm of what has been slowly eating away at the American fabric for years . . . Progress and efficiency cannot be had at the expense of basic human dignity. Over the past few days, the workers became aware that plans were being made by the company to bring on permanent replacement workers. Those hired during the strike are going to be considered permanent. The strike ended. There is little doubt that the threat of hiring permanent replacement workers shifts the balance at the bargaining table. That is an unfair leverage that was imposed upon this community. That is not what bargaining is supposed to be about. When one party is given a tool like this, there is little realistic hope that a fair result will ensue. It may mean higher profits today, but in the long run, it is a bad result for a community, for America's work force and for our entire country. America's workers, Mr. President, should not be treated like disposable goods. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today, with my colleague Senator Kohl to offer an amendment that requires the Department of Housing and Urban Development to report on the impact of the use of Federal community development funds on plant relocations and the resultant job dislocation. Our concern was generated by an announcement made in 1994 by a major employer in Wisconsin, Briggs & Stratton, that a Milwaukee plant would be closed, and 2,000 workers would be permanently displaced. The actual economic impact upon this community is even greater since it is estimated that 1.24 related jobs will be lost for every 1 of the 2,000 Briggs jobs affected. The devastating news was compounded by the subsequent discovery that many of these jobs were being transferred to plants, which were being expanded in two other States, and that Federal community development block grant, CDBG, funds were being used to facilitate the transfer of these jobs from one State to another. Our initial response was to introduce legislation prohibiting the use of such funds for the relocation of plants and the resultant job dislocation. The House of Representatives agreed with the approach and approved an identical amendment to the housing reauthorization bill. We believed at the time, and now that the CDBG program was designed to foster community and economic development; not to help move jobs around the country. Obviously, during a period of permanent economic restructuring, which results in plant closings, downsizing of Federal programs and defense industry conversion, there is tremendous competition between communities for new plants and other business expansions to offset other job losses. States and local communities are doing everything they can to attract new business and retain existing businesses. But we believe it is simply wrong to use Federal dollars to help one community raid jobs from another State. There is no way we can justify to the taxpayers in my State that they are sending their money to Washington to be distributed to other States so that it can be used to attract jobs out of Wisconsin, leaving behind communities whose economic stability has been destroyed. Thousands of people whose jobs are directly, or indirectly lost as a result of the transfer of these jobs out of our State are justifiably outraged by this misuse of funds. However, Madam President, after further consideration, and consultation with the floor managers we recognize that indeed the underlying issue is complex. Wisconsin, as are other States, is regularly involved in the activity of attracting new business to the State, and retaining existing businesses. We recognize that economic incentive proposals developed to enhance the State's opportunity often include a wide variety of financial combinations including job training funds, tax incentives, infrastructure improvements and other financing tools. These combinations often obscure the leveraged value of the Federal funds in the package in convincing a company to make a decision to move out of State. However, recognizing these factors does not clear the picture, but begs the question of what is the impact of the Federal dollar in these situations in influencing the decisions of the targeted company. This amendment would address the issue by directing the HUD Secretary to conduct a study over the next year, and report back to Congress with recommendations on what would be a sensible legislative approach to both protecting the workers and communities that lose businesses and employment to other States, and how Federal funds might be appropriately utilized in developing economic opportunity for communities across the Nation, without placing other communities in jeopardy. The study would examine and investigate the extent to which Federal community development funds are used in combination with other Federal, State or local revenue sources in attracting new business from other States. The study would also examine and assess the degree to which Federal community development funds are key to a company's decision to move--are they incidental to the decision, a factor, a key decision point, or the linchpin of the deal? An examination of the findings by the Congress upon completion of such a study would then become the basis for further legislative action if necessary. We thank the floor managers for recognizing our legitimate concerns, and for their willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion to help perfect this amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield myself a moment to say that I certainly thank the Senator from Montana for his great courtesy in yielding some of his time. I will now yield 7 minutes to the junior Senator from Illinois.

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

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 3 minutes to the senior Senator from Illinois.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield to the Senator from Illinois 4 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FEINGOLD. That will be fine. I thank the manager.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. Under our time agreement, our time is 45 minutes. My understanding is we would have 30 minutes on our side. Is that inconsistent with the Senator's understanding?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I simply wanted to ask clarification with regard to the unanimous-consent request. I was only attempting to make sure that I can make that clarification before the unanimous-consent agreement is entered into. I ask unanimous consent to ask a question of the manager with regard to this request.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I object. I simply want to clarify a point with the manager. Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object.