Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. If the Senator wants to proceed, I have no objection.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Feingold-Durbin-Kerry amendment would increase funding for the Global Fund for AIDS, TB, and Malaria by $593 million, and it would offset that increase in funding by rescinding funds from the Navy V-22 Osprey aircraft procurement account. This is a chance for this body to move beyond rhetoric and take action in a fiscally responsible fashion to address the greatest health crisis of our time, a pandemic that has killed 22 million people and may infect 100 million by the year 2005. U.S. leadership in the fight against AIDS is desperately needed now. Obviously, there are problems with the Osprey program. Thirty Marines have died in Osprey crashes since 1991. This troubled program is currently suspended, pending the outcome of investigations and further research, testing, and evaluation. My amendment does not endanger the integrity of the Osprey production line. Let me repeat this. This amendment does not kill the Osprey program and does not affect the ongoing construction of planes that are being built with money from fiscal years 1999 and 2000. What we have here is a clear choice, to use funds that are currently allocated somewhat irrationally and to redirect them towards fighting AIDS, an unquestionably worthwhile purpose that reflects our values, serves our interests, and may well be the greatest challenge confronting the world today. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and oppose the motion to table.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Illinois not only for his tremendous eloquence but for his genuine compassion and commitment on this issue. It is moving to me to see a Senator stick to this effort and be willing to race down to the Chamber and speak in such a moving way. I thank him and hope we get the kind of vote this clear choice deserves. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. If the other Senators yield their time, I will yield mine.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I reserve my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, this amendment strengthens America's contribution to the Global Fund for HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, the plagues of the 21st century, and some of the foremost threats to security in the world. To pay for this funding increase, my amendment would make additional rescissions in procurement funds for the troubled V-22 Osprey program. The global HIV/AIDS pandemic threatens security and stability around the world in a chillingly comprehensive way. As Dr. Donald Berwick movingly wrote last month in the Washington Post: The earth has AIDS; 36.1 million people at the end of the year 2000. In Botswana, 36 percent of adults are infected with HIV; in South Africa 20 percent. Three million humans died of AIDS in the year 2000, 2.4 million of them in sub- Saharan Africa. That is a Holocaust every two years; the entire population of Oregon, Iowa, Connecticut or Ireland dead last year, and next year, and next. More deaths since the AIDS epidemic began than in the Black Death of the Middle Ages. It is the most lethal epidemic in recorded history. The International Crisis Group, or ICG, is a well-respected private, multinational organization founded to build international capacity to prevent and contain conflict. Many of my colleagues are familiar with their reports on international hot spots from Macedonia to Burundi. The ICG recently released a report entitled ``HIV/AIDS as a security issue.'' This report states: Where it reaches epidemic proportions, HIV/AIDS can be so pervasive that it destroys the very fibre of what constitutes a nation: individuals, families and communities; economic and political institutions; military and police forces. It is likely then to have broader security consequences, both for the nations under assault and for their neighbors, trading partners, and allies. The report goes on to note that the crisis also affects personal security. As was noted on this floor recently, some reports indicate that if current trends continue, 15-year-olds in some of the most severely-affected countries will actually be more likely than not to die of AIDS. The crisis affects economic security. Analysts predict that in Botswana, the pandemic will reduce government revenues by 7 percent, while the costs of fighting the disease increase by 15 percent. The crisis affects communal security. In Lusaka, Zambia, I visited an orphanage, of sorts, where committed volunteers worked by day with nearly 500 children orphaned by AIDS. But by night, there was space for only fifty of these children. The rest were on the streets. By 2020, some 40 million African children will have lost one or both parents to the disease. In Zimbabwe, even the healthy find it increasingly difficult simply to attend the many funerals of their families and friends and still fulfill their job responsibilities. The crisis affects national security. According to UNAIDS, in sub- Saharan Africa, some military forces have infection rates five times higher than those of their civilian populations. The crisis affects international security. Sub-Saharan Africa is in the midst of an urgent crisis. Infection rates are on the rise in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, South Asia, and the Caribbean. The consequences of this pandemic at all societal levels poses a serious threat to international peace and stability. Our country's prosperity and progress cannot be divorced from the global context in which we live. That HIV/AIDS is a security issue is no longer revolutionary thinking. In January of last year, the National Intelligence Council produced an intelligence estimate entitled ``The Global Infectious Disease Threat and Its Implications for the United States,'' a report which framed the issue in much the same fashion. Secretary of State Colin Powell said recently that he ``know[s] of no enemy in war more insidious or vicious than AIDS, an enemy that poses a clear and present danger to the world.'' But while many have absorbed the astounding--in many ways terrifying--statistics about this crisis, and many, including our Secretary of State, appear to have grasped its terrible implications, the U.S. policy response remains woefully inadequate. We have all talked about the need to do more. Today we have an opportunity actually to do it. Of course, addressing AIDS takes leadership, and as the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Africa, I am aware of the difference that energized leadership, such as that exhibited in Uganda and Senegal, makes and that it makes a critical difference when countries take on in a meaningful manner the fight against AIDS. But America's leadership is required as well. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called for a global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. This is a true emergency affecting national security. The United States must answer the call. My amendment would increase funding for this vital effort by $593 million. And the funding in this amendment is completely paid for. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this amendment is budget neutral. The amendment offsets the increased funding, dollar for dollar, with reductions in procurement of the troubled V-22 Osprey program. Over the last 2 decades, HIV/AIDS has infected 60 million people, killed more than 20 million people, slashed life expectancies, and has left millions of orphans in its wake. We now know to a certainty the national security reality of the AIDS pandemic. But even after 20 years of research, development, and testing, we still don't know if the V-22 Osprey will work. This amendment would not endanger the integrity of the Osprey production line, nor would it affect money that has been obligated as of April 2001. But serious questions and concerns continue to cloud the Osprey program. Thirty Marines have died in Osprey crashes since 1991. Unanswered questions remain regarding the validity of maintenance records and the safety and viability of this aircraft. The final report of the blue ribbon panel appointed by former Secretary of Defense William Cohen to review the program recommended a ``phased approach'' to proceeding with the Osprey program. The blue ribbon panel concluded that the Osprey ``is not ready for operational use.'' I agree with that conclusion. I also concur with the panel's recommendation that procurement should be reduced to the minimum necessary to maintain the production line until the myriad design and safety problems are addressed and further testing is done to ensure that this aircraft is safe. My amendment does just that. The underlying bill rescinds $513 million in Osprey procurement funds--$150 million from the Navy and $363 million from the Air Force. While I am pleased that the underlying bill zeros out the Air Force procurement budget for the Osprey, it still leaves about $944 million in the Navy's aircraft procurement account for a program that has been grounded indefinitely and that is headed back into the research, development, testing, and evaluation stage for the foreseeable future. The committee report accompanying this bill says that this funding will be used to procure eleven of the Marine Corps version of the aircraft, the deeply flawed MV-22. This is five fewer Ospreys than were authorized for fiscal year 2002, but in my view, it is still eleven more than we should build this year. My amendment would rescind an additional $594 million intended for the Osprey from the Navy's aircraft procurement account. It leaves enough funding in place to maintain the integrity of the production line, and it does not affect the funding that the Navy has obligated for this program as of April 2001. Based on the formula that was used when the Navy suspended production on two other troubled aircraft programs, the T-45A and the SH-60F, the minimum required to sustain the production line for the MV-22 is about $350 million. In the case of the T-45A, the Navy maintained the production line with 28 percent of its original funding; 34 percent of the funding was maintained for the SH-60F. The $350 million that my amendment would leave in place is the average of what the Navy left in place to maintain the production lines for these two programs. We know the Osprey is broken. The Navy and Marine Corps are working on ways to fix it. And we should allow that process to move forward. But, we should not spend scarce taxpayer resources on building new Ospreys that will require costly and extensive retrofitting later. So I think this is a great example of where we have to make a choice, and I think the choice is clear. My amendment would scale back funding on a troubled program that plainly needs a thorough review. And it would increase our response to the world's greatest urgent threat to human life, the AIDS pandemic. AIDS is a security issue, but it is also unquestionably a moral one. Our response is a measure of our humanity. We are not civilized, we are not just, and we cannot lay claim to common decency, if we simply accept millions of deaths and dismiss them as simply the problem of another continent. Sadly, we are living in a time of plague. We have an obligation to fight it. History will judge us all. Last month, the UN General Assembly conducted a special session on the pandemic. Let us begin today to match our response to our rhetoric. This amendment is fiscally responsible, it is the right thing to do, it is in the U.S. interest, and it reflects our national values. I urge my colleagues to support it. I reserve the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, be added as original cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, of course, I have enormous regard for both speakers in opposition, the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii, but I want them to know how carefully we crafted this amendment to avoid the consequence they both mentioned. This amendment does not kill the Osprey program. It is not inconsistent with the statement of the Senator from Alaska that this may well turn out to be the best new technology. It is not inconsistent with the Commandant's letter where he says this is the No. 1 priority of the Marines. We do not contradict that at all. In fact, I respect the fact there is a real effort out there to try to fix the problems with the Osprey. This does not kill the Osprey program. I understand some of our people sadly have died in these helicopters, but I also know yesterday there was an unfortunate accident involving the helicopters they want to replace. I want to be candid about this. There may well be a need for an improved helicopter. This amendment does not kill the Osprey program, and that is the only argument that has been made against the amendment. The amendment is carefully crafted. What this amendment allows is to have the research and the consideration that needs to be done on the Osprey actually completed, to have the tests done, to make sure people are going to be safe in this helicopter, and at the same time allow Senators to vote to do what they must do: To enhance the international effort against the AIDS pandemic. It is truly a win-win proposition that does not threaten the Osprey. Specifically, in response to the Commandant's letter that was just printed in the Record, it simply is incorrect in terms of the budget implications. This amendment does not shut down the production line. That is what is being suggested, but it does not. There are still Ospreys in various stages of construction that are being built with both fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 resources. We do not impact those Ospreys. They will continue to be produced on the production line. More important, the experts at the GAO have specifically stated a very different conclusion. According to the GAO, the Osprey production line is currently being maintained with the completion of between four and seven planes per calendar year. Four planes were delivered to the Marines in 1999; five were delivered in 2000; six planes have been completed since December 2000 but have not yet been delivered because the fleet remains grounded and no flight testing of those planes can take place. Each Osprey costs about $83 million to produce. This amendment carefully leaves in place--it does not wipe out the program--$350 million in fiscal year 2001 money, plus the $102 million the Navy has already obligated, for a total of $452 million remaining in the program. At $83 million per aircraft, this $452 million would purchase five Ospreys, and given the current production rate, as I just pointed out, no more than seven Ospreys have been delivered in any one calendar year anyway. In my view and in the view of the blue ribbon panel, this program should be reduced to the minimum necessary to maintain production until the aircraft undergoes redesign and further testing. It is still unclear how much retrofitting will need to be done on the existing Ospreys and how much it will cost or if it will be cost-effective or even possible to retrofit the existing Ospreys. The Department of Defense has said it will take about 1 year to do the additional research and testing needed to determine the status of the Osprey program. Clearly, if we are talking about budget prudence and caution and making sure we do not waste millions of dollars, this amendment is the way to go. It is prudent to wait and see what the results of the tests are, obviously, before we increase the rate of production above the current five to seven per year. I reiterate, we do not kill the Osprey program. We do not stop it. We simply make sure we only use it at the minimum level that it is currently at and maintain the production line so it can be studied and so the additional resources that would have gone to it make a serious contribution to the fight against HIV/AIDS around the world. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain be permitted to offer his amendment upon completion of debate on the Feingold amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to my amendment, No. 863.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, ``The system may well be allowing some innocent defendants to be executed.'' Were these the words of Governor George Ryan, the Illinois Governor who placed a moratorium on executions last year? They could have been, but they were not. Were these the words of an attorney defending someone facing the death penalty? They could have been, but they were not. Rather, these were the remarkable words of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor--the same Justice O'Connor who has generally supported the death penalty during her twenty years on the Court, the same Justice O'Connor who has championed states' rights, including the right to carry out executions, the same Justice O'Connor who joined or wrote key opinions that made it more difficult for defendants facing the death penalty to have their state sentences overturned in federal court, and the same Justice O'Connor who voted in favor of allowing executions of teenage children who committed crimes at age 16 or 17. Justice O'Connor said, ``After 20 years on the high court, I have to acknowledge that serious questions are being raised about whether the death penalty is being fairly administered in this country.'' She uttered these words at a meeting before the Minnesota Women Lawyers in Minneapolis last Monday. Coincidentally, Justice O'Connor made these remarks on the 25th anniversary of the Supreme Court's 1976 Gregg v. Georgia decision, which reinstated the death penalty as we know it today. Only four years earlier, in 1972, the Court had found the death penalty unconstitutional. But in Gregg, the Court found that sufficient safeguards had been implemented to allow states to resume use of the death penalty. Since the Gregg decision, over 700 people have been executed in the United States and today over 3,700 people sit on death row awaiting execution. Since the Gregg decision, the rate of executions have increased: from one execution in 1981 to 98 executions in 1999, 85 in 2000, and 39 so far this year. Justice O'Connor also said, ``Unfortunately, as the rate of executions have increased, problems in the way which the death penalty has been administered have become more apparent.'' She also said, ``Perhaps most alarming among these is the fact that if statistics are any indication, the system may well be allowing some innocent defendants to be executed.'' Justice O'Connor now joins Supreme Court Justices Harry Blackmun and Lewis Powell, who also late in their lives came to reconsider their support of the death penalty. But most importantly Justice O'Connor now joins the growing chorus of Americans who are concerned about the risk of executing the innocent and the fairness of the administration of the death penalty. Congress can and should play a role in ensuring fairness. We can create an independent, blue ribbon panel to review the fairness of the administration of the death penalty at the state and federal levels. With so many serious concerns about how the death penalty is applied by the States and Federal Government, a simple, yet necessary, step is to create a commission to review these concerns. In addition, the Federal Government and all States that authorized the use of capital punishment should suspend executions while a thorough review of the death penalty system is undertaken. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of legislation introduced by Senator Leahy that will take some important steps towards reducing the risk of executing the innocent, the Innocence Protection Act. But more can be done and Congress should do more. Congress should create a national commission on the death penalty and support a moratorium on executions while the commission conducts its work. If we can agree that the system is flawed and runs the risk of executing innocent people, then we can also agree that we should undertake a thorough top-to-bottom review of the death penalty system. And while we do so, it is simply unjust to proceed with executions. I urge my colleagues to sponsor the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act. Congress should do everything it can to prevent even one innocent person from being sentence to death. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank my colleagues, the prime sponsors of this legislation for these clarifications. Based on these assurances, I will not offer my amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the lobbying on this bill has been intensive. There's been a great deal of coverage in recent weeks about the wealthy interests that have collided over whether the nation should have a Patients' Bill of Rights, and what that bill should look like. I think even the media has had a tough time figuring out which side of this debate has the power of the ``special interests'' on their side. Some have said the money is on the side of the McCain-Kennedy- Edwards bill, since interests supporting the bill include the American Association of Trial Lawyers, the American Medical Association, and labor unions like AFSCME. Others say that the special interests are weighing in against the Patients Bill of Rights, because of the powerful business and insurance coalitions fighting to defeat this legislation. So who is right. Where is the money in this debate? The answer is simple, there are donors on both sides. Wealthy interests aren't aligned exclusively on one side or the other. So for the information of my colleagues and the public, I thought I would take a moment to call the bankroll by examining the donations the interests on both sides have given in the last election cycle. I will start with massive effort to defeat this legislation, brought to us by a coalition of insurance and business interests that represent some of the most powerful donors in the campaign finance system today. Opposition to McCain-Edwards-Kennedy is being spearheaded by the Health Benefits Coalition. An analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics puts the cumulative donations of the members of the Health Benefits Coalition at $12.9 million in the last election cycle. That figure includes soft money, PAC money and individual contributions made by the members of the Coalition. The Coalition includes corporate members such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Aetna Inc., and Humana Inc. But perhaps more importantly, the Coalition also includes major business and insurance associations. These organizations include the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the American Association of Health Plans, the Health Insurance Association of America, the National Retail Federation, the National Restaurant Association, and the Food Marketing Institute, to name just a few. And of course whenever organizations like these join together in a legislative fight, they carry with them the collective clout of all the major political donors they represent. The Health Insurance Association of America is an enormous coalition of the insurance industry. The insurance industry itself gave nearly $40.7 million in PAC, soft, and individual donations in the 2000 election cycle. The American Association of Health Plans, the trade association for HMOs and PPOs, spent a total of nearly $2.5 million on lobbying in 1999 alone. According to a recent New York Times article, AAHP has budgeted $3 to $5 million to make their case against the Patients' Bill of Rights, and they are willing to spend, quote, ``whatever it takes,'' unquote, to get the job done. The Business Roundtable also has spent money on an ad campaign against the bill, and so has the Health Benefits Coalition itself. The cumulative clout of these expenditures, lobbying expenditures, soft money, PAC money and ad campaigns, from some of the biggest and most powerful organizations in Washington, hasn't gone unnoticed. This is an all-out blitz. And this bankroll wouldn't be complete without a description of some of the interests giving their support to provisions in this bill: The American Medical Association, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, and labor unions, including the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, AFSCME gave more than $8.5 million in soft, PAC and individual contributions in the last election cycle. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America gave more than $3.6 million in PAC, soft and individual contributions during that same period, and the AMA gave more than $2 million. We don't know yet whether the will of the people will be heard above the din of lobbying calls, TV ad blitzes and the cutting of soft money checks to the political parties. I hope we pass a strong Patients' Bill of Rights. But whatever the outcome of this bill, we have to ask ourselves if this is the way we want to legislate, and the way we want our democracy to function. I think when the public hears that this debate pits wealthy interests against each other--in some kind of showdown at Gucci Gulch--they tune us out, because suddenly it's no longer about them, it's just another story about how big money rules American politics. And when that's the case, all of us lose, no matter which side of this debate we're on, because our legislative process is diminished, and the American people's faith in us is diminished along with it. I thank the chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I was prepared to offer an amendment to S. 1052 concerning mandatory arbitration to ensure that HMOs are held accountable for their actions, which after all is one of the primary purposes of this bill. I have been asked not to offer that amendment, so I wanted to discuss it with the lead sponsors of the bill and ask them to clarify their intent. Some managed care organizations currently require patients to sign mandatory binding arbitration contracts before any dispute arises. These provisions effectively deny injured patients the right to take their HMO to court. Instead they are forced to go into binding arbitration, which can be a stacked deck against patients. We have spent much of the past 10 days debating whether injured patients should be able to go to court to vindicate their rights. It is clear that a majority of the Senate supports such rights, otherwise we would not be about to pass this legislation. So I am asking my colleagues to clarify that it is the intent of the sponsors that injured patients are granted legal rights under this legislation that permit them to go to either state or federal court to pursue compensation and redress, notwithstanding a mandatory arbitration provision in an HMO contract. Can they further clarify that it is not the intent of the sponsors of this legislation that patients can lose the legal rights we are providing in this bill by being forced into mandatory binding arbitration? In these arbitrations, the HMO chooses the arbitrator, there are substantial up-front costs that the patient has to bear, there is limited discovery, no right to appeal, and no public record or precedential value of the decision.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with my distinguished colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, the Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act of 2001. I want to recognize the efforts of the Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley, in advancing this legislation in the last Congress, and note how pleased I am that the distinguished ranking member and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee has decided to take the lead on this bill this year. By the time the 106th Congress concluded, we had the support of 56 Senators for this bill. So I believe we have an excellent opportunity to pass this bill this year, and I look forward to working with the Senator from Utah to make that happen. While alternative methods of dispute resolution such as arbitration can serve a useful purpose in resolving disputes between parties, I am extremely concerned about the increasing trend of stronger parties to a contract forcing weaker parties to waive their rights and agree to arbitrate any future disputes that may arise. In every Congress since 1994, I have introduced the Civil Rights Procedures Protection Act, which amends certain civil rights statutes to prevent the involuntary imposition of arbitration to claims that arise from unlawful employment discrimination and sexual harassment. A few years ago, it came to my attention that the automobile and truck manufacturers, which often present dealers with ``take it or leave it'' contracts, are increasingly including mandatory and binding arbitration clauses as a condition of entering into or maintaining an auto or truck franchise. This practice forces dealers to submit their disputes with manufacturers to arbitration. As a result, dealers are required to waive access to judicial or administrative forums, substantive contract rights, and statutorily provided protection. In short, this practice clearly violates the dealers' fundamental due process rights and runs directly counter to basic principles of fairness. Franchise agreements for auto and truck dealerships are typically not negotiable between the manufacturer and the dealer. The dealer accepts the terms offered by the manufacturer, or it loses the dealership, plain and simple. Dealers, therefore, have been forced to rely on the States to pass laws designed to balance the manufacturers' far greater bargaining power and to safeguard the rights of dealers. The first State automobile statute was enacted in my home State of Wisconsin in 1937 to protect citizens from injury caused when a manufacturer or distributor induced a Wisconsin citizen to invest considerable sums of money in dealership facilities, and then canceled the dealership without cause. Since then, all States except Alaska have enacted substantive law to balance the enormous bargaining power enjoyed by manufacturers over dealers and to safeguard small business dealers from unfair automobile and truck manufacturer practices. A little known fact is that under the Federal Arbitration Act, FAA, arbitrators are not required to apply the particular Federal or State law that would be applied by a court. That enables the stronger party, in this case the auto or truck manufacturer, to use arbitration to circumvent laws specifically enacted to regulate the dealer/ manufacturer relationship. Not only is the circumvention of these laws inequitable, it also eliminates the deterrent to prohibited acts that State law provides. The majority of States have created their own alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and forums with access to auto industry expertise that provide inexpensive, efficient, and non-judicial resolution of disputes. For example, in Wisconsin, mandatory mediation is required before the start of an administrative hearing or court action. Arbitration is also an option if both parties agree. These State dispute resolution forums, with years of experience and precedent, are greatly responsible for the small number of manufacture-dealer lawsuits. When mandatory binding arbitration is included in dealer agreements, these specific State laws and forums established to resolve auto dealer and manufacturer disputes are effectively rendered null and void with respect to dealer agreements. Besides losing the protection of Federal and State law and the ability to use State forums, there are numerous reasons why a dealer may not want to agree to binding arbitration. Arbitration lacks some of the important safeguards and due process offered by administrative procedures and the judicial system: 1. arbitration lacks the formal court supervised discovery process often necessary to learn facts and gain documents; 2. an arbitrator need not follow the rules of evidence; 3. arbitrators generally have no obligation to provide factual or legal discussion of the decision in a written opinion; and 4. arbitration often does not allow for judicial review. The most troubling problem with this sort of mandatory binding arbitration is the absence of judicial review. Take for instance a dispute over a dealership termination. To that dealer, that small business person, this decision is of commercial life or death importance. Even under this scenario, the dealer would not have recourse to substantive judicial review of the arbitrators' ruling. Let me be very clear on this point; in most circumstances an arbitration award cannot be vacated, even if the arbitration panel disregarded state law that likely would have produced a different result. The use of mandatory binding arbitration is increasing in many industries, but nowhere is it growing more steadily than the auto/truck industry. Currently, at least 11 auto and truck manufacturers require some form of such arbitration in their dealer contracts. In recognition of this problem, many States have enacted laws to prohibit the inclusion of mandatory binding arbitration clauses in certain agreements. The Supreme Court, however, held in Southland Corp. v. Keating, 104 S. Ct. 852 (1984), that the FAA by implication preempts these State laws. This has the effect of nullifying many State arbitration laws that were designed to protect weaker parties in unequal bargaining positions from involuntarily signing away their rights. The legislative history of the FAA indicates that Congress never intended to have the Act used by a stronger party to force a weaker party into binding arbitration. Congress certainly did not intend the FAA to be used as a tool to coerce parties to relinquish important protections and rights that would have been afforded them by the judicial system. Unfortunately, this is precisely the current situation. Although contract law is generally the province of the States, the Supreme Court's decision in Southland Corp. has in effect made any State action on this issue moot. Therefore, along with Senator Hatch, I am introducing this bill today to ensure that dealers are not coerced into waiving their rights. Our bill, the Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act of 2001, would simply provide that each party to an auto or truck franchise contract has the option of selecting arbitration, but cannot be forced to do so. The bill would not prohibit arbitration. On the contrary, the bill would encourage arbitration by making it a fair choice that both parties to a franchise contract may willingly and knowingly select. In short, this bill would ensure that the decision to arbitrate is truly voluntary and that the rights and remedies provided for by our judicial system are not waived under coercion. In effect, if small business owners today want to obtain or keep their auto or truck franchise, they may be able to do so only by relinquishing their legal rights and foregoing the opportunity to use the courts or administrative forums. I cannot say this more strongly, this is unacceptable; this is wrong. It is at great odds with our tradition of fair play and elementary notions of justice. I therefore urge my colleagues to join in this bipartisan effort to put an end to this invidious practice.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with my distinguished colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, the Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act of 2001. I want to recognize the efforts of the Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley, in advancing this legislation in the last Congress, and note how pleased I am that the distinguished ranking member and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee has decided to take the lead on this bill this year. By the time the 106th Congress concluded, we had the support of 56 Senators for this bill. So I believe we have an excellent opportunity to pass this bill this year, and I look forward to working with the Senator from Utah to make that happen. While alternative methods of dispute resolution such as arbitration can serve a useful purpose in resolving disputes between parties, I am extremely concerned about the increasing trend of stronger parties to a contract forcing weaker parties to waive their rights and agree to arbitrate any future disputes that may arise. In every Congress since 1994, I have introduced the Civil Rights Procedures Protection Act, which amends certain civil rights statutes to prevent the involuntary imposition of arbitration to claims that arise from unlawful employment discrimination and sexual harassment. A few years ago, it came to my attention that the automobile and truck manufacturers, which often present dealers with ``take it or leave it'' contracts, are increasingly including mandatory and binding arbitration clauses as a condition of entering into or maintaining an auto or truck franchise. This practice forces dealers to submit their disputes with manufacturers to arbitration. As a result, dealers are required to waive access to judicial or administrative forums, substantive contract rights, and statutorily provided protection. In short, this practice clearly violates the dealers' fundamental due process rights and runs directly counter to basic principles of fairness. Franchise agreements for auto and truck dealerships are typically not negotiable between the manufacturer and the dealer. The dealer accepts the terms offered by the manufacturer, or it loses the dealership, plain and simple. Dealers, therefore, have been forced to rely on the States to pass laws designed to balance the manufacturers' far greater bargaining power and to safeguard the rights of dealers. The first State automobile statute was enacted in my home State of Wisconsin in 1937 to protect citizens from injury caused when a manufacturer or distributor induced a Wisconsin citizen to invest considerable sums of money in dealership facilities, and then canceled the dealership without cause. Since then, all States except Alaska have enacted substantive law to balance the enormous bargaining power enjoyed by manufacturers over dealers and to safeguard small business dealers from unfair automobile and truck manufacturer practices. A little known fact is that under the Federal Arbitration Act, FAA, arbitrators are not required to apply the particular Federal or State law that would be applied by a court. That enables the stronger party, in this case the auto or truck manufacturer, to use arbitration to circumvent laws specifically enacted to regulate the dealer/ manufacturer relationship. Not only is the circumvention of these laws inequitable, it also eliminates the deterrent to prohibited acts that State law provides. The majority of States have created their own alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and forums with access to auto industry expertise that provide inexpensive, efficient, and non-judicial resolution of disputes. For example, in Wisconsin, mandatory mediation is required before the start of an administrative hearing or court action. Arbitration is also an option if both parties agree. These State dispute resolution forums, with years of experience and precedent, are greatly responsible for the small number of manufacture-dealer lawsuits. When mandatory binding arbitration is included in dealer agreements, these specific State laws and forums established to resolve auto dealer and manufacturer disputes are effectively rendered null and void with respect to dealer agreements. Besides losing the protection of Federal and State law and the ability to use State forums, there are numerous reasons why a dealer may not want to agree to binding arbitration. Arbitration lacks some of the important safeguards and due process offered by administrative procedures and the judicial system: 1. arbitration lacks the formal court supervised discovery process often necessary to learn facts and gain documents; 2. an arbitrator need not follow the rules of evidence; 3. arbitrators generally have no obligation to provide factual or legal discussion of the decision in a written opinion; and 4. arbitration often does not allow for judicial review. The most troubling problem with this sort of mandatory binding arbitration is the absence of judicial review. Take for instance a dispute over a dealership termination. To that dealer, that small business person, this decision is of commercial life or death importance. Even under this scenario, the dealer would not have recourse to substantive judicial review of the arbitrators' ruling. Let me be very clear on this point; in most circumstances an arbitration award cannot be vacated, even if the arbitration panel disregarded state law that likely would have produced a different result. The use of mandatory binding arbitration is increasing in many industries, but nowhere is it growing more steadily than the auto/truck industry. Currently, at least 11 auto and truck manufacturers require some form of such arbitration in their dealer contracts. In recognition of this problem, many States have enacted laws to prohibit the inclusion of mandatory binding arbitration clauses in certain agreements. The Supreme Court, however, held in Southland Corp. v. Keating, 104 S. Ct. 852 (1984), that the FAA by implication preempts these State laws. This has the effect of nullifying many State arbitration laws that were designed to protect weaker parties in unequal bargaining positions from involuntarily signing away their rights. The legislative history of the FAA indicates that Congress never intended to have the Act used by a stronger party to force a weaker party into binding arbitration. Congress certainly did not intend the FAA to be used as a tool to coerce parties to relinquish important protections and rights that would have been afforded them by the judicial system. Unfortunately, this is precisely the current situation. Although contract law is generally the province of the States, the Supreme Court's decision in Southland Corp. has in effect made any State action on this issue moot. Therefore, along with Senator Hatch, I am introducing this bill today to ensure that dealers are not coerced into waiving their rights. Our bill, the Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act of 2001, would simply provide that each party to an auto or truck franchise contract has the option of selecting arbitration, but cannot be forced to do so. The bill would not prohibit arbitration. On the contrary, the bill would encourage arbitration by making it a fair choice that both parties to a franchise contract may willingly and knowingly select. In short, this bill would ensure that the decision to arbitrate is truly voluntary and that the rights and remedies provided for by our judicial system are not waived under coercion. In effect, if small business owners today want to obtain or keep their auto or truck franchise, they may be able to do so only by relinquishing their legal rights and foregoing the opportunity to use the courts or administrative forums. I cannot say this more strongly, this is unacceptable; this is wrong. It is at great odds with our tradition of fair play and elementary notions of justice. I therefore urge my colleagues to join in this bipartisan effort to put an end to this invidious practice.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Craig and Senator Kohl to introduce a modified version of the ``Dairy Promotion Fairness Act,'' which I introduced earlier this year. This legislation provides equity to domestic producers who have been paying into the Promotion Program while importers have gotten a free ride. I introduce a revised version of this legislation, after I received suggestions on how to improve this legislation from America's dairy farmers. Their input is vital to enacting effective dairy legislation, and I thank all the dairy producers of my State not only for their views, but also their work to strengthen Wisconsin's rural economy. Since the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board conducts only generic promotion and general product research, domestic farmers and importers alike benefit from these actions. The Dairy Promotion Fairness Act requires that all dairy product importers contribute to the program. Unlike other agricultural commodity checkoff promotion programs, such as beef, cotton and eggs, the dairy checkoff program collects funds solely from domestic producers. Importers of dairy products do not have to pay into the program, yet they reap the benefits of dairy promotion. I would also like to make sure my colleagues are aware that June is Dairy Month. This tradition of honoring our hard working dairy farmers, began as ``National Milk Month'' first held in the summer of 1937. Wisconsin celebrates this proud heritage every June by honoring our past accomplishments of Wisconsin as America's Dairy State. Wisconsin became a leader in the dairy industry after the first dairy cow came to Wisconsin in the 1800's and by 1930 it earned the nickname, America's Dairyland. Dairy history and the State's history have been intertwined from the beginning. The people of Wisconsin are defined by the image of dairy farmers: hardworking, honest and the heirs of a great tradition. I would like to share with you some of the accomplishments of Wisconsin's Dairy Farmers. Wisconsin is the No. 1 cheese-producing State in the country, with 28 percent of the total annual U.S. cheese production. Wisconsin's 130 cheese plants produce more than 350 varieties, types and styles of Wisconsin cheese. We produce more than 2 billion pounds of cheese annually. We have more licensed cheese makers than any other state with some of the most stringent state standards for cheesemaking and overall dairy product quality. We lead the nation in the production of specialty cheeses, such as Gorgonzola, Gruyere (gru-yure), Asiago, Provolone, Aged Cheddar, Gouda, Blue, Feta and many others. In fact, we are the only producer of Limburger cheese in the country. Colby, Wisconsin is the home Colby cheese. And Brick cheese was invented in Wisconsin, Brick is named for its shape, and because cheese makers originally used bricks to press moisture from the cheese. Wisconsinites have recognized this proud tradition by holding over 100 dairy celebrations across our State, including dairy breakfasts, ice cream socials, cooking demonstrations, festivals and other events. These events are all designed to make the public aware of the quality, variety and great taste of Wisconsin dairy products and to honor the producers who make it all possible. We must follow the lead of Wisconsin, and honor our dairy farmers by passing this legislation and halting the free ride dairy importers currently receive. The Dairy Promotion Fairness Act supports the dairy marketing board's efforts to educate consumers on the nutritional value of dairy products. It also treats our farmers fairly by asking them not to bear the entire financial burden for a promotional program that benefits importers and domestic producers alike. We have put our own producers at a competitive disadvantage for far too long. It's high time importers paid for their fair share of the program.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Craig and Senator Kohl to introduce a modified version of the ``Dairy Promotion Fairness Act,'' which I introduced earlier this year. This legislation provides equity to domestic producers who have been paying into the Promotion Program while importers have gotten a free ride. I introduce a revised version of this legislation, after I received suggestions on how to improve this legislation from America's dairy farmers. Their input is vital to enacting effective dairy legislation, and I thank all the dairy producers of my State not only for their views, but also their work to strengthen Wisconsin's rural economy. Since the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board conducts only generic promotion and general product research, domestic farmers and importers alike benefit from these actions. The Dairy Promotion Fairness Act requires that all dairy product importers contribute to the program. Unlike other agricultural commodity checkoff promotion programs, such as beef, cotton and eggs, the dairy checkoff program collects funds solely from domestic producers. Importers of dairy products do not have to pay into the program, yet they reap the benefits of dairy promotion. I would also like to make sure my colleagues are aware that June is Dairy Month. This tradition of honoring our hard working dairy farmers, began as ``National Milk Month'' first held in the summer of 1937. Wisconsin celebrates this proud heritage every June by honoring our past accomplishments of Wisconsin as America's Dairy State. Wisconsin became a leader in the dairy industry after the first dairy cow came to Wisconsin in the 1800's and by 1930 it earned the nickname, America's Dairyland. Dairy history and the State's history have been intertwined from the beginning. The people of Wisconsin are defined by the image of dairy farmers: hardworking, honest and the heirs of a great tradition. I would like to share with you some of the accomplishments of Wisconsin's Dairy Farmers. Wisconsin is the No. 1 cheese-producing State in the country, with 28 percent of the total annual U.S. cheese production. Wisconsin's 130 cheese plants produce more than 350 varieties, types and styles of Wisconsin cheese. We produce more than 2 billion pounds of cheese annually. We have more licensed cheese makers than any other state with some of the most stringent state standards for cheesemaking and overall dairy product quality. We lead the nation in the production of specialty cheeses, such as Gorgonzola, Gruyere (gru-yure), Asiago, Provolone, Aged Cheddar, Gouda, Blue, Feta and many others. In fact, we are the only producer of Limburger cheese in the country. Colby, Wisconsin is the home Colby cheese. And Brick cheese was invented in Wisconsin, Brick is named for its shape, and because cheese makers originally used bricks to press moisture from the cheese. Wisconsinites have recognized this proud tradition by holding over 100 dairy celebrations across our State, including dairy breakfasts, ice cream socials, cooking demonstrations, festivals and other events. These events are all designed to make the public aware of the quality, variety and great taste of Wisconsin dairy products and to honor the producers who make it all possible. We must follow the lead of Wisconsin, and honor our dairy farmers by passing this legislation and halting the free ride dairy importers currently receive. The Dairy Promotion Fairness Act supports the dairy marketing board's efforts to educate consumers on the nutritional value of dairy products. It also treats our farmers fairly by asking them not to bear the entire financial burden for a promotional program that benefits importers and domestic producers alike. We have put our own producers at a competitive disadvantage for far too long. It's high time importers paid for their fair share of the program.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on April 2 of this year, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to pass the McCain-Feingold bill and ban soft money. Even before the roll was called on final passage and 59 Senators voted ``aye,'' the Senate's foremost opponent of reform declared that he relished the opportunity to bring a constitutional challenge to the bill. ``You're looking at the plaintiff,'' the Senator from Kentucky announced. Opponents of reform have consistently expressed confidence that the courts will strike down our efforts to clean up the campaign finance system. They regularly opine that the McCain-Feingold bill is unconstitutional, and, despite clear signs to the contrary in the Court's opinion last term in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, express great certainty that the Supreme Court will never allow our bill to take effect. Well, in its decision yesterday morning in FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, the Court again dumped cold water on that certainty. The court held that the coordinated party spending limits now in the law--the so-called ``441a(d) limits''--are constitutional. It ruled that the coordinated spending limits are justified as a way to prevent circumvention of the $1,000 per election limits on contributions to candidates that the Court upheld in the landmark Buckley v. Valeo decision in 1976. In my view, the decision makes it even more clear that the soft money ban in the McCain-Feingold bill will withstand a constitutional challenge. The first thing to note about the Court's ruling is that it reaffirms the distinction the Court has drawn between contributions and expenditures and the greater latitude that the Court has given Congress in the case of restraints on contributions. The Court noted that the law treats expenditures that are coordinated with candidates as contributions, and the Court has upheld contribution limits in previous cases with that understanding. It agreed with the FEC that spending by a party coordinated with a candidate is functionally equivalent to a contribution to the candidate, and that the right to make unlimited coordinated expenditures would open the door for donors to use contributions to the party to avoid the limits that apply to contributions to candidates. The Court rejected the Colorado Republican Party's argument that party spending is due special constitutional protection. Instead, the Court found that the parties are in the same position as other political actors who are subject to contribution limits. Those actors cannot coordinate their spending with candidates. The Court noted that under current law and the Court's previous decision in the first Colorado case, the parties are better off than other political actors in that they can make independent expenditures and also make significant, but limited, coordinated expenditures. The limits on coordinated expenditures have not prevented the parties from organizing to elect candidates and generating large sums of money to efficiently get out their message, the Court noted. After determining that limits on party coordinated spending should be analyzed under the same standard as contribution limits on other political actors, the Court had little trouble in deciding that there was ample justification for those limits based on the need to avoid circumvention of the contribution limits in the federal election laws. It pointed to substantial evidence of circumvention already in the current system, and the near certainty that removing the 441a(d) limits would lead to additional circumvention. The Court held: [T]here is good reason to expect that a party's right of unlimited coordinated spending would attract increased contributions to parties to finance exactly that kind of spending. Coordinated expenditures of money donated to a party are tailor-made to undermine contribution limits. Therefore, the choice here is not, as in Buckley and Colorado I, between a limit on pure contributions and pure expenditures. The choice is between limiting contributions and limiting expenditures whose special value as expenditures is also the source of their power to corrupt. Congress is entitled to its choice. So, Mr. President, I am pleased that the Court upheld Congress's right to limit the coordinated spending of the parties. But even more than that, I am pleased at the way that the Court looked at the constitutional issues in the case and the arguments of the parties. The Court's analysis demonstrates an understanding of the real world of money and politics that gives me great confidence that it will uphold the soft money ban in the McCain-Feingold bill against an inevitable constitutional challenge. As my partner and colleague, Senator McCain, pointed out to me prior to my taking the floor, of course this decision was about hard money; but if you really read it, it isn't so much about hard money or soft money, it is just about money and the corrupting influence it has on our political process. For example, the Court noted that ``the money the parties spend comes from contributors with their own interests.'' And the Court recognized that those contributors give money to parties in an attempt to influence the actions of candidates. The Court said: Parties are thus necessarily the instruments of some contributors whose object is not to support the party's message to elect party candidates across the board, but rather to support a specific candidate for the sake of a position on one, narrow issue, or even to support any candidate who will be obliged to the contributors. This is precisely the point that we who have fought so hard to ban soft money have been making for years. These contributions are designed to influence the federal officeholders who raise them for the parties, and ultimately, to influence legislation or executive policy. The Court shows that it understands this use of contributions to political parties when it states: Parties thus perform functions more complex than simply electing candidates; whether they like it or not, they act as agents for spending on behalf of those who seek to produce obligated officeholders. The Court also recognized that the party fundraising, even of limited hard money, provides opportunities for large donors to get special access to lawmakers. The Court states: Even under present law substantial donations turn the parties into matchmakers whose special meetings and receptions give the donors the chance to get their points across to the candidates. In a footnote, the Court notes evidence in the record of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee establishing exclusive clubs for the most generous donors. These special clubs and receptions are even more prevalent in the world of soft money fundraising. Both parties sell access to their elected officials for high dollar soft money contributions. This week a Republican fundraiser featuring the President and the Vice President is expected to raise over $20 million. The corrupting influence of soft money, or at least the appearance of corruption created by the extraordinary sums raised by party leaders and federal officeholders and candidates, is an argument for the constitutionality of a ban on soft money that those who support the McCain-Feingold bill would have made even if the Colorado II case had come out the other way. But the Court's decision itself is solid support for another independent reason that the soft money ban is constitutional. Corporations and unions are prohibited from contributing money in connection with federal elections. And individuals are subject to strict limits on their contributions to candidates and parties. The soft money loophole allows those limits to be evaded. This is not just a theoretical possibility, as in the Colorado case. There is a massive avoidance of the federal election laws going on today, as there has been for over a decade. The evidence of this is overwhelming. Soft money is being raised by candidates for the parties, and it is being spent in a whole variety of ways to influence federal elections. In recent years, the parties have used soft money to run ads that are virtually indistinguishable from campaign ads run by the candidates. That is what is going on in the real world. A soft money ban will end the circumvention of these crucial limits in the law, limits that date back to 1907 in the case of corporations, 1947 in the case of unions, and 1974 in the case of individuals. The Supreme Court's decision yesterday tells us that Congress can constitutionally act to end that evasion. The remaining question, of course, is whether we will do it. Our vote in this body on April 2 was the first step. When the House returns from the July 4th recess it will take up campaign finance reform, and I am hopeful that it will act decisively to pass a bill that is largely similar to the McCain-Feingold bill. Then it will be up to the Senate to act quickly and send the bill to President Bush for his signature. We are getting close, Mr. President, to finally cleaning up the corrupt soft money decision. The Supreme Court's decision yesterday, unexpected as it was to many in the Senate and in the legal community, is a major boost for our efforts. The Court has spoken. Now Congress must act. I yield the remainder of the time under my control to the Senator from New York.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, here we go again. Late last week, senior Administration officials indicated that the Bush Administration plans to submit to Congress, several months late, a budget request for the Department of Defense that increases the already bloated fiscal year 2001 spending level for that department by $18.4 billion. I find it interesting that the Administration has yet to provide the details of this request to the Congress, to the dismay of both parties, but that the dollar amount increase over last year's $310 billion appropriation is already being widely reported. This is in addition to the $6.5 billion supplemental appropriations request that the Senate may consider later this week, most of which is for the Department of Defense. Where will it end, Mr. President? While I commend Secretary Rumsfeld for undertaking a long-overdue comprehensive review of our military, I also urge him to consider carefully the impact that any proposed defense increases will have on the rest of the federal budget. We are already feeling the impact left by the $1.35 trillion tax cut that this Administration made its number one priority. That tax cut virtually ensures that there can be no defense increases without making deep cuts in other parts of the budget. And the top priorities of the American people, such as saving Social Security and Medicare and providing a Medicare prescription drug benefit, will be that much harder to accomplish. But it appears that the Administration will propose an increase in defense spending. I fear that this pending request, coupled with the massive tax cut that has already been signed into law, will lead us down a slippery slope to budget disaster.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. About 6 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I certainly thank the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Pennsylvania for the courtesy in allowing me to speak at this point. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the importance of passing a meaningful Patients' Bill of Rights that will provide patients access to the health care that they need. A real Patients' Bill of Rights is absolutely vital to protecting the quality of health care for all Americans. I would like to make my colleagues aware of what I have been hearing from Wisconsinites about the importance of protecting patients' rights. At my listening sessions across Wisconsin, I often hear about the grim reality that the American health care system is no longer controlled by those who best understand how to treat patients--our physicians. Instead, managed care companies, primarily HMOs but also other health insurance providers, have become so involved in the business of health care that they control nearly every aspect of health care including where care is provided, and by whom. Of greatest concern to me is that these managed care organizations can decide whether that health care can be provided at all--they make the key medical decisions. In other words, regardless of whether that care is determined to be medically necessary by the physician who is treating you, managed care administrators can override your doctor's medical decisions and refuse to cover the care that you need. How does this happen? Well, managed care companies control costs by limiting supply--screening of the health care providers its enrollees are permitted to see, requiring patients to go through insurance company gatekeepers prior to seeing a specialist, tracking physician proactive patterns to ensure that doctors are complying with HMO's cost-control efforts. Some HMOs go so far as to impose a gag-rule on doctors, prohibiting physicians in their system from discussing treatment options that the HMO administrators deem too expensive. I want to highlight two aspects of this legislation that are important examples of the need to ensure access to vital medical treatment--access to live-saving prescription drugs and clinical trials. Perhaps nowhere has there been more advancement in medical technology than in prescription drugs. They provide patients with cures to life- threatening diseases, and are vital to restoring a patient back to health. Unfortunately, some HMOs limit the type and amount of medications to cut down on their cost. While I understand that these costs lead to savings in our health care system, we must ensure that patients can get the drugs if they truly need them. I commend Senators McCain, Edwards, and Kennedy for reaching a middle ground in the tug of war between cost control and access. Congress must pass legislation that ensures that physicians and pharmacists participate in the decision making process of who has access to prescription drugs. Congress must not forget in this debate that this input is vital for those with allergies to a given medicine. We must remember that we are considering a lifesaving measure for those who have found ineffective the prescription drugs that the health plan authorizes. Another vital provision of this legislation is that it protects the rights of patients who want to participate in lifesaving clinical trials. The McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill would ensure that routine health care costs associated with participation in clinical trials would provide all patients with reasonable access that could potentially save their lives. Health insurance and managed care plans must encourage good science and help define quality care by reimbursing routine patient care costs for those with life threatening diseases who wish to participate in approved clinical trials. Right now only 3 percent of adult cancer patients are enrolled in clinical trials and lack of insurance reimbursement is often a major obstacle to their participation. We must remedy this problem, and under the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill, Congress can do just that. These patient protections ought to be part of the deal when you enroll in health insurance. These are pretty basic concerns, Mr. President, concerns that I think may get lost in all the political rhetoric. When we speak about protecting patients' rights, I want to be clear that we are talking about how to make sure that corporate cost-control concerns don't result in people being denied the care that they need. What we need is some thoughtful, reasoned debate and deliberation of the proposals, not stonewalling and stalemates. I hope that we can work together to craft bipartisan legislation that makes the difference in the lives of patients across America. Mr. President, I again thank the Senators from Tennessee and Pennsylvania for their courtesy, and I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Federal Government's execution today of Juan Raul Garza. This is a sad day for our Federal criminal justice system. The principle of equal justice under law was dealt a severe blow. The American people's reason for confidence in our Federal criminal justice system was diminished. And the credibility and integrity of the U.S. Department of Justice was depreciated. President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft failed to heed the calls for fairness. Instead, the Government put Juan Garza to death. Now, no one questions that Juan Garza is guilty of three drug-related murders. And no one questions that the Government should have punished him severely for those crimes. But serious geographic and racial disparities exist in the Federal Government's system of deciding who lives and who dies. The government has failed to address those disparities. And President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft failed to recognize the fundamental unfairness of proceeding with executions when the Government has not yet answered those questions. No, the government put Juan Garza to death. Today, most of those who wait on the Federal Government's death row come from just three States: Texas, Missouri, and Virginia. And 89 percent of those who wait on the Federal Government's death row are people of color. But President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft failed to recognize the fundamental unfairness of executing Juan Garza, a Hispanic man from Texas, before the Government had answered why those disparities exist. On December 7, President Clinton stayed the execution of Juan Garza ``to allow the Justice Department time to gather and properly analyze more information about racial and geographic disparities in the federal death penalty system.'' That day, President Clinton said, ``I have . . . concluded that the examination of possible racial and regional bias should be completed before the United States goes forward with an execution in a case that may implicate the very questions raised by the Justice Department's continuing study. In this area there is no room for error.'' But today, the thorough study that President Clinton and Attorney General Reno ordered is nowhere near completion. Even so, the Government put Juan Garza to death. It now appears that, until recently, this administration's Justice Department had no plans to proceed with this thorough study. We now see that, on June 6, the Justice Department released a report that contained no new analysis but nonetheless reached the conclusions that they wanted to reach. Yes, after I called for a hearing and demanded that the thorough study resume, the Justice Department did agree to renew its thorough examination of racial and geographic disparities in the Federal death penalty system. But even so, the Government put Juan Garza to death. Experts at that hearing of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution testified that the facts did not support the conclusions that the Justice Department reached in its June 6 report. Experts testified that more information is needed before the Justice Department could credibly conclude that racial bias is absent from the Federal death penalty system. But even so, the Government put Juan Garza to death. The Justice Department now acknowledges that it has not conducted a complete review and that more study is needed. Before the Department completes that thorough review, and before it finishes that study, the Federal Government should not execute one more person. I once again call on the President to implement a moratorium on executions by the Federal Government. I call for it in the name of the credibility and integrity of the Department. I call for it in the name of justice. And I call for it in the name of equal justice under law.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, to introduce the Automatic Defibrillators in Adam's Memory Act, or the ADAM Act, which would help schools across America implement public access defibrillation programs. I am especially proud that the concept of this legislation came from my home state of Wisconsin, where a similar program has saved the lives of a number of students. Heart disease is not only a problem among adults. I recently learned the story of Adam Lemel, a 17-year-old high school student and a star basketball and tennis player in southeastern Wisconsin. Tragically, during a timeout while playing basketball at a neighboring Milwaukee high school, Adam suffered sudden cardiac arrest, and died before the paramedics arrived. The following November, a Milwaukee Technical High School football player died of Sudden Cardiac Arrest while playing basketball with his friends. And in April 2000, two more Milwaukee-area deaths were attributed to sudden cardiac arrest: a Marquette University senior and a visiting 12-year old from Illinois who was playing basketball. These stories are incredibly tragic. These young people had their whole lives before them, and could have been saved. In fact, we have seen a number of examples in Wisconsin where early CPR and access to defibrillation have saved lives. Seventy miles away from Milwaukee, a 14-year-old boy, collapsed while playing basketball. Within three minutes, the emergency team arrived and began CPR. Within five minutes of his collapse, the paramedics used an automated external defibrillator to jump start his heart. Not only has this young man survived, they have identified his father and brother to have the same heart condition. To prevent cardiac deaths, internal defibrillators were implanted in both men. I also recently met Heather Rahn who on March 19, was at a church concert in the gymnasium of Good Hope Christian Academy. She told her friends that her heart was racing, and she felt nervous. In the middle of running across the gym, she collapsed on the ground from cardiac arrest. She was down for about three and a half minutes when an ambulance arrived, bringing a defibrillator that would save her life. It took two shocks to bring her back. These tragic stories help to underscore three issues. First, although cardiac arrest is most common among adults, it can occur at any age, even in apparently healthy children and adolescents. Second, early intervention is essential, a combination of CPR and use of AEDs can save lives. Third, some individuals who are at risk for sudden cardiac arrest, can be identified to prevent cardiac arrest. After Adam Lemel tragically suffered his cardiac arrest two years ago, his friend David Ellis joined forces with Children's Hospital of Wisconsin to initiate Project ADAM to: bring CPR training and public access defibrillation into schools, educate communities about preventing sudden cardiac deaths, and save lives. Today, Project ADAM has introduced AEDs into several Wisconsin schools, and has been a model for programs in Washington, Florida, Michigan and elsewhere. I had the chance to visit with Dave Ellis, Adam's parents, and the dedicated people at Children's Hospital of Wisconsin, especially Karen Bauer and Dr. Stu Berger. And let me tell you, there are no better advocates for saving the lives of cardiac arrest victims. I want to commend them for their service, and efforts to save the lives of sudden cardiac arrest victims. I strongly believe that the Federal Government should support local efforts to equip more people in our communities, including younger generations, with the necessary skills to deal with life-threatening emergencies like cardiac arrest. And there is no better way to support local efforts than by following the lead of a successful local effort such as Project ADAM. Over two hundred twenty thousand Americans die each year of sudden cardiac arrest, including between 5000 and 7000 children. About 50,000 of these victims lives could be saved each year if more people implemented the ``Chain of Survival,'' which includes an immediate call to 911, early CPR and defibrillation, and early advanced life support. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the number of sudden cardiac deaths of people between the ages of 15 and 34 years old has increased over 10 percent in the past 10 years. The research also shows that sudden cardiac death has increased by 30 percent in young women. Without any training, kids would never know what to do in the face of such an emergency. As a matter of fact, many adults wouldn't know what to do either. That lack of knowledge is a break in the chain of survival, but that break can be repaired through the right training. A number of localities have pushed for increased CPR training and public access to defibrillation in schools. The ADAM Act will help strengthen the Chain by establishing a national Project ADAM resource center. The center would provide schools with information to help them implement public access defibrillation programs. The ADAM Center would also provide support to CPR and AED training programs, and help foster new community partnerships among public and private organizations to promote public access to defibrillation in schools. Finally, the ADAM Act would create a way to track cardiac arrest among children and to conduct further research into this serious health threat. This clearinghouse responds to the growing number of schools that have the desire to set up a public access defibrillation program, but often don't know where to start. If the ADAM Act becomes law, schools across the country will have a place to turn as they work to establish public access to defibrillation programs in more schools across America. The Project ADAM resource center will help schools give victims of cardiac arrest a fighting chance.