Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 20, 2002, at 9:30 a.m. on competition in the local telecommunications marketplace.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 20, 2002 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing to receive testimony on legislative initiatives that would impose limits on the shipments of out-of-State municipal solid waste and authorize State and local governments to exercise flow control. The hearing will be held in SD-406.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 20, 2002, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on national security space programs and strategic programs in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2003. Witnesses Panel 1: The Honorable E. C. ``Pete'' Aldridge, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; the Honorable Peter B. Teets, Under Secretary of the Air Force and Director, National Reconnaissance Office; and General Ralph E. Eberhart, USAF, Commander in Chief, United States Space Command. Panel 2: Admiral James O. Ellis, Jr., USN, Commander in Chief, United States Strategic Command; Major General Franklin J. Blaisdell, USAF, Director, Nuclear and Counterproliferation, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Air and Space Operations, United States Air Force; and Rear Admiral Dennis M. Dwyer, USN, Director, Strategic Systems Programs, United States Navy.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if I could speak just for a moment--and I thank the minority leader--just to make it clear, the cloture motion has been filed. It will ripen tomorrow. Regardless of the other discussions and negotiations, our understanding is that will go forward. There are, however, negotiations going on with regard to some technical aspects, and we hope that can be worked out. I want to be clear because sometimes it seems as if, in these conversations, people think the two are linked and nothing will move forward. The campaign finance bill is going forward and it will be voted on tomorrow, as a cloture vote, unless there is some agreement. But, yes, as the minority leader has suggested, there are some conversations and discussions going on that we hope will be fruitful.

Mr. FEINGOLD. That is correct.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, there have been good-faith negotiations. I agree with the Senators from Arizona and Kentucky that we have finally reached agreement on the technical amendments package. There is a different Member of the Senate who has a concern about it. Because we are operating on the basis of a unanimous consent, we have to deal with that. But we have finally reached the point where the actual provisions are something we can agree on, and we are hoping we can work this out. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, the debate is finally here. Our bipartisan coalition is strong and resolute. And the moment for reform has arrived. After 6\1/2\ years of work on this bill, and more than a decade of scandals that have threatened the integrity of our legislative process, I do believe this body is ready to get the job done for the American people. I believe the American people have waited long enough. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit No. 1 The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002--Section by Section Analysis

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today with the opening of this debate, we take the first step toward passing the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan bill in the Senate and take one of the final steps toward banning soft money. I am grateful for all the hard work that has brought us to this moment--of course, the work done by the reform community, the work done by the outstanding leaders in the other body to pass this bill last month, and, most of all, the work done by my colleagues here in the Senate, under the leadership of Senator McCain of Arizona. A year ago, we had an excellent debate about campaign finance reform here on this floor. In fact, it began almost exactly a year ago, on March 19. We had an outstanding exchange of ideas, we held numerous votes, and we worked hard on both sides of the issue. I believe that that debate enriched this body, and that it enriched the McCain- Feingold bill. In the end, the will of the Senate was done, and we passed the bill in a strong bipartisan vote of 59-41. A year later, we are here again on the floor working to pass reform. But this time it is different. This time, we already know where the Senate stands. And we know that all that stands between this bill and the President's desk is the Senate's final consideration of the bill this week. With the strong vote for McCain-Feingold last year, the Senate recognized the importance of our responsibility as representatives of the people and as stewards of democracy. As long as we allow soft money to exist, we risk damaging our credibility when we make the decisions about the issues that the people elected us to make. The people sent us here to wrestle with some very tough issues. They have vested us with the power to make decisions that have a profound impact on their lives. That is a responsibility that we take very seriously. But today, when we weigh the pros and cons of legislation, many people think we also weigh the size of the contributions we got from interests on both sides of the issue. And when those contributions can be a million dollars, or even more, it seems obvious to most people that we would reward, or at least listen especially carefully to, our biggest donors. So a year ago we voted to change the system. And now, both bodies have fully and fairly debated the issues and discussed the merits of this bill. We have given this important issue the time and consideration it deserves. Now, very simply, it is time to get the job done. It is time to get this bill to the President. I believe the Senate is ready to repair a broken system. And make no mistake about it, the way the soft money and issue ad loopholes are being abused today has devastated the campaign finance system. More than that, these loopholes have weakened the effectiveness of this body and cast doubt on the work we do. They have weakened the public's trust in government; in a very real sense, they have weakened our democracy. I know many of us here are tired of seeing headlines that imply that legislative outcomes here are not a result of our own will or good judgment, but a result of our desire to please wealthy donors. We are tired of those headlines, and so are the American people. The people know that the system can function better when soft money doesn't render our hard money limits meaningless, and when phony issue ads don't make a joke of our election laws. And they also know that this is our best chance in years to do something to effect real change. This week we can show them, just as we did a year ago in this Senate, that we are ready for change, and that we are going to make that change happen. As we embark on this discussion about campaign finance reform on the floor today, it is remarkable how much has changed since the Senator from Arizona and I introduced this bill in September of 1995, and even since we stood here a year ago. Both sides of Capitol Hill have finally acknowledged the demand of the American people that we ban soft money contributions, after years of soft money scandals and embarrassments that have chipped away at the integrity of this body. As many commentators have noted, the collapse of Enron gave the campaign finance reform issue momentum prior to the House vote in February. But I would note that our effort has been given momentum by many other campaign finance scandals that have occurred just in the last few years. I think they are actually more than we care to remember. Soft money has had an increasingly prominent role in party fundraising over the last 12 years. In 1988 the parties began raising $100,000 contributions for the Bush and Dukakis campaigns--an amount unheard of before the 1988 race. By the 1992 election, the year I was elected to this body, soft money fundraising by the major parties had doubled, rising to $86 million. In successive election cycles the amount of soft money raised by the parties has simply skyrocketed. In 2000 soft money totals were more than five times what they were in 1992. It was already a lot in 1992. In 2000, it was five times already what it had been 8 years earlier. And along with the money, came the scandals--soft money and scandals have gone hand in hand for more than a decade now. First, the mere fact that soft money was being raised in such enormous amounts was a scandal in the early 1990s. But then we had the Lincoln Bedroom, and the White House Coffees, and Charlie Trie and John Huang and Johnny Chung. And then, of course, the Presidential pardons coming under suspicion at the conclusion of the Clinton administration. We faced questions in this body as we considered bills regulating tobacco and telecommunications and the Patients' Bill of Rights, while at the same time we raised soft money from the industries and interest groups that had a huge stake in those bills. The public watched with increasing skepticism as we appeared to act--or fail to act--on legislation based on the demands of wealthy soft money donors. With the enormous influx of soft money being raised by both parties, with every vote we cast the public wondered, and had reason to wonder, was it the money? Of course of late we have seen yet another scandal take shape--the Enron debacle. As the Enron story unfolded, I think many of us were reminded why the Supreme Court, in its famous 1976 Buckley versus Valeo decision, said that the appearance of corruption, not just corruption itself, justifies congressional action to place some limits on our campaign finance system. In the Buckley case, the Supreme Court understood that public mistrust of government is destructive to democracy. From a constitutional point of view, it hardly matters whether that mistrust is based on actual misconduct or simply its appearance. In the case of Enron's collapse, the need to address public mistrust has been paramount for Congress and the administration as they have investigated the company's alleged wrongdoing. When a corporation such as Enron leaves devastated employees and fleeced shareholders in its wake, the public depends on us--on Congress and the administration--to determine what went wrong and defend the public interest. But the potential for a conflict of interest in a case such as this is clear: Many of the elected officials who were asked to sit in judgment of Enron, including Members of Congress, the Attorney General, and the President of the United States, have been accepting, and even asking for, campaign contributions from Enron for years. And the political parties have pocketed more than $3.5 million in unregulated, unlimited soft money from Enron since 1991. Congress has moved forward with the investigations into Enron's conduct, despite the potential conflict of interest the political contributions might pose. The reality is that this is all too familiar territory for Congress. Every day Members of Congress accept huge campaign contributions with one hand and vote on issues affecting their contributors with the other. And, every day the public naturally questions whether their Representatives are giving special treatment to the wealthy interests that fund their campaigns and bankroll their political parties. The Enron scandal, and all the soft money scandals that have come before, illustrate the permanent conflict of interest--the permanent conflict of interest--that unlimited soft money contributions to the parties have created for elected officials in the Capitol and at the White House. Both parties have gladly accepted Enron's soft money contributions over the years, and now those contributions are compromising our ability to address the Enron collapse, and countless other issues that come before the Congress. More than that--more than that--they compromise the public's confidence in our ability, and our will, to do anything about it. While eliminating soft money will not cure the campaign finance system of every ill, it will, in fact, end a system of unlimited donations that has blatantly put political access and influence up for sale. Enron is just one in a long line of corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals that has exploited the soft money loophole to buy influence with Congress and the executive branch at the very highest levels. So banning soft money will help to untangle the web of money and influence that has made Congress and the White House so vulnerable to the appearance of corruption for far too long. In the coming days we will face the final test of this long legislative battle and take our final steps toward enacting these hard- fought reforms into law. Passing campaign finance reform is within our grasp, and so, finally, is a renewed integrity for our democratic process. Of course, while the soft money ban is central to the bill, and is the most important feature of the bill, this bill contains reforms on a variety of other issues. I say to the Presiding Officer, of course, you were one of the principal authors of very important provisions relating to so-called phony issue ads that make the bill even stronger. A number of amendments were added on the Senate floor last year that improved and strengthened the bill. Almost all of them are in the bill now before us that we hope, by the end of the week, will be sent to the President. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record immediately following my statement.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. We thank the Senator from Nevada for his extremely kind words and we thank the majority leader for his firm resolve in a very reasonable timeframe to bring this matter to a conclusion. I also thank the Senator from Nevada for the many hours he has been here with us on this issue. He has been extremely helpful. I look forward to the final stages with the Senator from Nevada and my colleague.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am voting in favor of the Levin-Bond amendment, and I want to explain my views in detail. Fuel efficiency is a critically important issue for our country, for my home State of Wisconsin, and for our future. I remain committed to the goal that significant improvements in automobile and light truck fuel efficiency can be achieved over an appropriate time frame. Some will argue that my vote for Levin-Bond is a vote against increasing the corporate average fuel economy, CAFE. I do not share that view. The Levin-Bond amendment seeks to renew the Department of Transportation's role in setting CAFE standards acting through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, part of the Federal Department of Transportation, DOT. If Congress does not act today to try to restore normalcy to the NHTSA process, Congress will always either block or act to set CAFE standards, every 20 years or so, when the political will is sufficient to do so. NHTSA will never be able to carry out the normal process of reviewing and incrementally improving fuel efficiency for automobiles and light trucks, as Congress originally intended when it passed the CAFE law in the 1970s. Both interest groups battling over the CAFE issue, the auto manufacturers and the environmental community, have switched their positions in this debate on this bill. The auto industry, who once wanted CAFE perpetually frozen with a rider, now support the Levin amendment. The environmental community, who once opposed the rider and wanted NHTSA to act, now wants Congress to set the standard rather than NHTSA. With my vote, I am committing to a consistent position. Let me explain the evolution of that position. Months prior to the midterm elections in 1994, NHTSA published a notice of possible adjustment to the fuel economy standards for trucks before the end of the decade. The following year, however, the House- passed version of the FY1996 Department of Transportation Appropriations bill prohibited the use of authorized funds to promulgate any CAFE rules. The Senate version did not include the language, but it was restored in Conference. Much the same scenario occurred in the second session of the 104th and the first session of the 105th Congresses. In both those sessions, a similar rider was passed by the House and not by the Senate, but included by the Conferees and enacted. However, the growth in gasoline consumption and the size of the light-duty truck fleet were concerns cited behind introduction in the Senate of an amendment to the bill expressing the Sense of the Senate that the conferees should not agree to the House- passed rider for FY2000. The amendment, sponsored by the former Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton, and the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, was defeated in the Senate on September 15, 1999, by a vote of 55-40, and the rider was once again enacted into law. As I stated on the Senate floor in the debates on the CAFE rider on June 15, 2000, my vote was about ``Congress getting out of the way and letting a federal agency meet the requirements of federal law originally imposed by Congress.'' I supported removing the rider because I was concerned that Congress has for more than 5 years blocked NHTSA from meeting its legal duty to evaluate whether there is a need to modify fuel economy standards. As I made clear then, I have made no determination about what fuel economy standards should be, though I do think that an increase is possible. NHTSA has the authority to set new standards for a given model year, taking into account several factors: technological feasibility, economic practicability, other vehicle standards such as those for safety and environmental performance, the need to conserve energy, and the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences. I want NHTSA to fully and fairly evaluate all the criteria, and then make an objective recommendation on the basis of those facts. I expect NHTSA to consult with all interested parties--unions, environmental interests, auto manufacturers, and other interested Wisconsin citizens in developing this rule. And, I expect NHTSA to act, and if it does not, this amendment requires Congress to act on a standard. In opposing the Levin-Bond amendment, some subscribe to the view that NHTSA has a particular agenda and will recommend weak standards. I do not support that view, just as I could not support retaining the CAFE rider in law. NHTSA should be allowed to set this standard. Congress is not the best forum for understanding whether or not improvements in fuel economy can and should be made using existing technologies or whether emerging technologies may have the potential to improve fuel economy. Changes in fuel economy standards could have a variety of consequences. I seek to understand those consequences and to balance the concerns of those interested in seeing improvements to fuel economy as a means of reducing gasoline consumption and associated pollution. In the end, I would like to see that Wisconsin consumers, indeed all consumers, have a wide range of new automobiles, SUVs, and trucks available to them that are as fuel efficient as they can be while balancing energy concerns with technological and economic effects. That balancing is required by the law. I fully expect NHTSA to proceed with the intent of the law to fully consider all those factors, and this amendment ensures they do so. In supporting this amendment, I maintain the position that it is my job to ensure that the agency responsible for setting fuel economy be allowed to do its job. I expect them to be fair and neutral in that process, and I will work with interested Wisconsinites to ensure that their views are represented and that the regulatory process proceeds in a fair and reasonable manner toward whatever conclusions the merits will support.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I rise to commemorate International Women's Day. For nearly a century, women's groups worldwide have paused on this day to celebrate the achievements and contributions of women around the globe. It is a special occasion to remember the progress women have made and to reflect upon the injustices and hardships women still face in the struggle for total equality. International Women's Day is recognized in many countries around the world, and in some cases, is celebrated as a national holiday. This past week, the Senate has marked this holiday with a Senate resolution urging the President to designate March 8 as International Women's Day in the United States. Also, in honor of this day, there have been series of briefings and discussions about violence and discrimination against women for Members of Congress and their staff. I hope my colleagues have had an opportunity to participate in these discussions and view the exhibits. Women have made tremendous strides in the last century. In the United States, more and more women are attending college and earning post- graduate degrees. Consequently, more women are entering the workforce, and starting their own companies. Women all over the world are increasingly becoming more active in the political process, having earned the right to vote, being elected to office, and appointed to positions of power. In the year 2000, 11 countries were lead by women. In our own country, while much progress has been made in the struggle for equality, there are many cases where women are still at a disadvantage. Women continue to earn less than men. Equal pay for equal work is the law of the land, but that promise remains unfulfilled for many. Although some progress has been made in narrowing the gender wage-gap since Congress enacted the Equal Pay Act in 1963, unfair wage disparities continue to be a problem. Wage discrimination is costing families thousands of dollars each year. I am proud to support legislative efforts to correct his discrepancy. We cannot forget women and children when the Senate considers reauthorization of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families later this year. Too often, women and children fall through the cracks of the system. While many women are going to work, many have to sacrifice time spent with their children in order to afford child care, education, and health care for their kids. Unfortunately, violence against women is still all too prevalent in our country. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury among women of child-bearing age. One out of every six American women have been victims of a rape or an attempted rape. Many rapes go unreported, and more than half of the women attacked knew their assailant. Only recently have states begun to recognize crimes such as stalking or marital rape. Today, we must also consider the challenges facing women abroad. Women in the developing world are more likely to live in poverty, suffer from malnutrition and lack access to education. Despite the expansion of women's health care research and practices in the last two decades, women still have unequal access to these services. The HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa is particularly alarming. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on African Affairs, I have had the opportunity to travel to numerous countries in Africa and see firsthand the devastating toll that HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases are taking on the people of this continent. According to United Nations reports, over 25 million adults and children in Africa are infected with the HIV virus, the majority of them in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa is the only region in which women are infected with the virus at a higher rate than men. UNAIDS, the United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS, reports that women make up an estimated 55 percent of the HIV-positive adult population in this region, as compared to 47 percent worldwide. Young women are especially at risk. The United Nations reports that in the region girls age 15-19 are infected with HIV at a rate of 15 percent to 23 percent, whereas infection rates among boys of the same age group are 3 percent to 4 percent. Women in other countries suffer tragic human rights abuses as well. They are victims of domestic violence and illegal trafficking of persons for slavery and prostitution. In some countries, women fall victim to ``honor killings,'' a deplorable practice whereby women are murdered by male relatives for actions that are perceived to bring dishonor to the family. Rape and sexual assault have often been used as weapons of war. The international tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda are setting legal precedents in convicting men for rape, torture, and enslavement of women during times of war or regional conflict. These convictions set an international legal precedent for rape to be considered a crime against humanity. In the last few months, the whole world has come to understand the treatment and status of Afghan women under the reign of the Taliban. Now, as the Afghan people begin to rebuild and reconstruct their country, it is imperative that women play an integral role in that effort. International aid should be given to help women regain their rights to an education, access to quality health care, and involvement in the political process. Women should be included in all levels of government for the future of Afghanistan. Restoring human rights, and, in particular, women's human rights, is key to Afghanistan's successful reconstruction and the transition to democracy. The protection of women's rights is vital to the success of promoting fundamental human rights. The United States Senate can work towards protecting women's rights and improve the status of women domestically and internationally by acting upon the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, or CEDAW. CEDAW is the most comprehensive treaty on women's human rights addressing almost all forms of discrimination in areas such as education, employment, marriage and family, health care, politics and law. It has been over two decades since the United States signed this treaty, and it still awaits consideration before the United States Senate. Once again, I urge the Committee on Foreign Relations to take up this treaty and finally allow the Senate the opportunity to offer its advice and consent on this important convention. In conclusion, today, as we honor women everywhere and celebrate their accomplishments and contributions to history, we must recognize that there is still more to be done in the struggle for gender equity. Discrimination and violence against women still exist here at home and abroad. The United States and the rest of the international community must reaffirm their commitment to promote gender equality and human rights around the world.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on the nonproliferation programs of the Department of Energy and the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program of the Department of Defense in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2003.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Public Health, be authorized to meet for a hearing on ``Health Tracking: Improving Surveillance of Chronic Conditions and Potential Links to Environmental Exposures,'' during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 10 a.m.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 10 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on Department of Defense financial management.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct an oversight hearing on ``Reauthorization of the HUD McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act Programs.''

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to conduct a nomination hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to consider the following nominations: Thomas Dorr the nominee for Under Secretary of Rural Development; Nancy Bryson, the administration's nominee to serve as general counsel for USDA; and Grace Daniel and Fred Dailey who are nominated to serve on the Board of Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 10 a.m., to conduct an oversight hearing on ``Accounting and Investor Protection Issues Raised by Enron and Other Public Companies; Oversight of the Accounting Profession, Audit Quality and Independence, and Formulation of Accounting Principles.''

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environmental and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing to receive testimony on S. 975, the Community Character Act of 2001; and S. 1079, the Brownfield Site Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2001. The hearing will be held in SD-406.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing titled, ``Dirty Bombs''. Agenda Witnesses Panel 1: Dr. Steven E. Koonin, Provost, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA; Dr. Harry C. Vantine, Division Leader, Counter- terrorism and Incident Response, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA; Dr. Henry C. Kelly, President, Federation of American Scientists, Washington, DC; and Dr. Donald D. Cobb, Associate Laboratory Director for Threat Reduction, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM. Panel 2: Dr. Richard A. Meserve, Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Who's Doing Work for the Government?: Monitoring, Accountability and Competition in the Federal and Service Contract Workforce.''

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today to voice my support for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda which is the often- neglected sister court to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at the Hague. While the international media carries regular coverage of the Milosevic trial and the NATO efforts to arrest individuals wanted by the ICTY, much of the world, it seems, has forgotten about the ICTR. This week, as the UN's fifth committee considers the tribunal's budget, I want to make plain my continuing concerns about the tribunal, but I also want to be crystal clear about my continued support for its work. In 1994, an unspeakable horror unfolded in the tiny central African site of Rwanda. Despite the initial references to ``ancient tribal hatreds'' at the source of violence, we now know that the genocide was not a series of spontaneous acts; it was not about crowds gone wild or tribal bloodlust. It was carefully planned and centrally directed. Extra machetes had been imported, militia groups were in place, and incitements to murder had become a regular element of programming on the hate-radio station. The planners targeted not only ethnic Tutsis, but also politically moderate Hutus who threatened their grip on power. We know today that individual people--leaders and planners--are responsible for the deaths of some 800,000 people, and that the blame for these atrocities cannot be heaped on some imagined cultural failing. Two weeks ago, I had an opportunity to visit the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha during a weeklong trip to Kenya, Tanzania, and Mozambique that I undertook in my capacity as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on African Affairs. During my brief visit, I was able to meet with the Deputy Registrar, with Judge Navanetham Pillay, who is the President of the ICTR, and with some members of the Prosecutor's office. I was also able to sit in on one of the trials underway--that of Laurent Semanza, a former mayor of Bicumbi who is charged with several counts of genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide and crimes against humanity, including rape. I heard some of the wrenching testimony in that case, and was astounded at the strength of the tribunal officials, whose work requires them to confront the horrible facts of the Rwandan genocide every day of their work. For many years, I have strongly supported accountability measures in cases where crimes against humanity have occurred, and I think that international support for such measures is particularly important in Africa, where too often the international community fails to respond to atrocities the way we would if such acts occurred in Europe or North America. For this reason, I have been a supporter of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. I have long supported the ICTR. In the last Congress, I authored legislation that was signed into law that would extend the U.S. rewards program to allow our government to offer and pay rewards for information about individuals wanted by the tribunal. The reason that we did this is because this provision had already existed for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia--an example of how a double standard relating to the courts was at one time institutionalized in our government. What had happened since the Arusha tribunal's inception is nothing short of groundbreaking. The ICTR was responsible for the very first international convictions for the crime of genocide. Many people do not realize this, although the international community adopted the definition of the crime of genocide following the holocaust, it was the ICTR that launched the first successful investigation and prosecution for that crime. It was the first-ever international tribunal to convict an individual of rape as a crime against humanity and to rule that rape can be a crime of genocide. The Tribunal was the first such institution to actually convict a national leader, the former Prime Minister of Rwanda, of genocide. The court has established principles of international law that will be studied in law schools around the world for generations to come. And more importantly, it is establishing, in the minds of African leaders and African elites and African societies, the possibility that those responsible for crimes against humanity may one day be held accountable for their actions. In central Africa in particular, this goal is essential to ending the culture of impunity for gross violations of human rights, whether they occur in Rwanda or Burundi or eastern Congo. The people who have been laboring in Arusha to hold those most responsible for the genocide and for crimes against humanity in Rwanda in 1994 deserve recognition, and respect, and support. Now, there are a number of steps that the international community can take to help this worthy effort. First, we can ensure that the prosecutor's office is adequately staffed. It is almost appalling that the post of Deputy Prosecutor has been vacant since the middle of last year. I was informed that vacancies exist throughout the office. The UN has to speed up its recruitment process, priortizing the expeditious placement of competent applicants in important jobs, rather than starving the court of staff for the overriding goal of even geographic distribution of personnel. UN member states must also help to address another problem--that of sentence enforcement. Currently, few of the African countries willing to house persons convicted by the ICTR in their jails can meet international standards for prison conditions. Of course I am not suggesting that the international community refurbish the prisons of an entire continent. But I am suggesting that perhaps there are small and reasonable steps that we can take to help. And the US and the rest of the international community I think should support the tribunal's request for ad litum judges. They have already supported a similar request for the ICTY for the former Yugoslavia. All observers have been concerned about the pace of the tribunal. It makes sense to provide it with the capacity to move more quickly through its work. Mr. President, must has been made in recent days of the Administration's decision to publicly push for the ICTR and ICTY to finish their work in the next few years. And the need to wrap- up the Tribunal's work is not in dispute--in my meetings with Tribunal officials, no one suggested that the Tribunal should not aim to finish its work by 2008. This consensus, however, does not change the fact that much important still remains to be done, and the tribunals will need continued support to complete it. Some have also suggested that the existence of tribunals has given the international community a rationale for neglecting developing of indigenous justice systems in countries subject to the tribunals. And I agree that this is a pitfall that must be avoided, and I strongly support efforts to strengthen the capacity and independence of the judiciary in countries that have suffered from wide-scale human rights violations. Last week, Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Pierre Prosper told the House International Relations Committee that ``the United States stands prepared to assist the states in rebuilding their shattered judicial systems to make them capable of dispensing truth- based justice and establishing systematic respect for the rule of law.'' I certainly hope he is right, because this is an indispensable element in the global effort to bring some stability to the heart of Africa. But I am not yet convinced that our actions will match this rhetoric, and I am specifically concerned that no funding is being requested in 2003 for the Great Lakes Justice Initiative. And while I am encouraged by the Rwandan Government's efforts to address the massive backlog of genocide-related cases through a system of community courts known as gacaca and believe that the international community should help the government in Kigali to ensure the integrity and efficacy of this effort, I also respect the Rwandan's decision not to attempt to try those most responsible for the genocide--known as Category One suspects--in these untested courts in which judges have very little training and where only limited safeguards exist for victims and for the accused. Madam President, it is important to acknowledge that much of the criticism that has been leveled at the tribunal is fair, and it reflects real, and in some cases ongoing problems with the ICTR. Too often in the past, allegations of waste and mismanagement proved to be accurate, and the tribunal must exercise constant vigilance to fight corruption and abuse. Decisive steps must be taken to address the issue of fee-splitting between those on trial and defense counsel. I was pleased to learn about some of the efforts currently underway during my visit. I have raised these issues with the Chief Prosecutor, I have raised them with U.N. officials in New York, I raised them in Arusha, and I will continue to raise them. And overall, the tribunal simply has to pick up the pace of its work. I believe that this, too, is being addressed. During my visit there were three cases being heard simultaneously. And as I have mention, providing additional judges to the ICTR will help to address this problem. Madam President, because this tribunal is so important, the international community must keep working to get it right. The ICTR still has a great deal of work to do, and the international community, including the United States, must ensure that they are operating with all the necessary support, and operating under clear demands for accountability and integrity. These two initiatives--supporting the court and demanding an end to corruption and waste--are not contradictory, they are complementary. I urge my colleagues and the administration to pursue both with equal vigor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. (The remarks of Mr. Feingold are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

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