Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Senate is about to vote on one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will debate this year. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act has provided the framework for the Federal role in education for more than 35 years. The bill currently before us, the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, will chart the course for the Federal role in education for the next seven years and beyond. I strongly support maintaining local control over decisions affecting our children's day-to-day classroom experiences. The Federal Government has an important role to play in supporting our States and school districts as they carry out one of their most important responsibilities the education of our children. Every child in this country has the right to a free public education. Every child. That is an awesome responsibility, and one that should not have to be shouldered by local communities alone. The States and the Federal Government are partners in this worthy goal, and ESEA is the document that outlines the Federal Government's responsibilities to our Nation's children, to those who educate them, and to our States and local school districts. It is with this bill that we must find the right balance between local control and Federal targeting and accountability guidelines for the Federal dollars that are so crucial to local school districts throughout the United States. Ninety percent of American children attend public schools. More than 879,000 young people in my home state of Wisconsin are enrolled in public schools, from pre-school through grade twelve. I am a graduate of the Wisconsin public schools, and I am proud to say that all four of my children have attended them as well. The legislation before us has generated vigorous debate in Wisconsin. I have heard from parents, teachers, school board members, school administrators, school counselors and social workers, state officials, and other interested observers. And their comments are clear: they say that the Congress must not undermine the targeted measures aimed at improving education for disadvantaged students. They say that we must live up to our commitment to fully fund the Federal share of elementary and secondary education programs. If we are, as President Bush has said, to ``leave no child behind,'' we should ensure that the programs created to help the most vulnerable children are fully funded. We should fully fund title I, we should fully fund the Federal share of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), we should fully fund Head Start, we should fully fund Impact Aid, and we should fully fund these programs in a fiscally responsible manner. For too long, the Federal Government has failed to live up to its promise to fund these and other important education programs. During this debate, some of our colleagues have argued that money is not the only answer, and they are partially correct. In Wisconsin, however, where the State imposes limits on the amount of money that school districts can raise and spend annually, Federal funding is absolutely critical. I have heard time and again from frustrated school board members who have to make the tough decisions about which programs to fund and which programs to cut. In this time of economic prosperity, we should not pit groups of students against each other for scarce education dollars. In that regard, I am pleased that the Senate has passed amendments to this legislation that authorize the full funding of title I and of IDEA. Nevertheless, I cannot support a bill that includes a new, largely unfunded Federal mandate for annual testing in grades 3-8. As I noted earlier in this debate, the response to this proposal from the people of my state is almost universally negative. My constituents oppose this proposal for many reasons, including the cost of developing and implementing additional tests, the loss of teaching time every year to prepare for and take the tests, the linking of success on these tests to ESEA administrative funds, and the pressure that these additional tests will place on students, teachers, schools, and school districts. I am pleased that the Senate adopted amendments to help to ensure that these tests are of a high quality, to award bonuses to States for developing high quality tests rather than for the speed with which the testing program is implemented, and to require a study by the General Accounting Office on the true costs of these tests to the States. I am also pleased that the Senate adopted an amendment to increase the funding provided for these tests by the Federal Government, but I remain concerned that this bill still falls far short of authorizing enough funding for this new Federal mandate. I am concerned that this bill does not do enough to ensure that local school districts will have the resources to help students be successful on these tests. I am disappointed that the Senate failed to adopt an amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, of which I was an original cosponsor, which would have modified the annual testing provisions to clarify that States would not have been required to implement the annual tests unless title I is funded at $24.7 billion by July 1, 2005, funding levels consistent with the Dodd-Collins amendment adopted by the Senate. I was also pleased to cosponsor an amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Hollings, which would have allowed a State to opt out of the new federal testing requirements if the State already has comparable accountability measures in place. Many States and local school districts around the country, including Wisconsin, have such programs. We should leave the means and frequency of assessment up to the States and local school districts who bear the responsibility for educating our children. Every State and every school district is different. A uniform testing policy may not be the best approach. I have also heard from a number of my constituents that this Congress should do nothing that would undermine the good that the Federal Government's support has done to help states and local school districts over the last several years. They told me that we should not undermine the progress that we have made in smaller class sizes, in technology education, in standards-based reform, and in accountability for results. I regret that this bill does not authorize class size reduction as an independent program. And I particularly regret that the amendment to reinstate this program that was offered by the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, was defeated. I am baffled by the argument put forth by some of our colleagues that smaller classes mean less to students than the presence of a good teacher in the classroom. I would argue that both are important. Of course, a good teacher makes a huge difference. But even the best teacher in the country will have far better results with 18 students instead of 50. My home state of Wisconsin is a leader in the effort to reduce class size in kindergarten through third grade. The Student Achievement Guarantee in Education, SAGE, program is a statewide effort to reduce class size to 15 students in kindergarten through third grade. The SAGE program began during the 1996-1997 school year with 30 participating schools. Now in the program's fifth year, there are nearly 600 participating schools. According to the recently-released program evaluation for the 1999- 2000 school year, conducted by the SAGE Evaluation Team at the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee: ``When adjusted for pre-existing differences in academic achievement, attendance, socioeconomic status and race, SAGE students showed significant improvement over their Comparison school counterparts from the beginning of first grade to the end of third grade across all academic areas.'' The study also found that ``teaching in reduced size classrooms is characterized by more individualization, time spent on teaching rather than disciplining, class discussion, hands on activities, content coverage, and teacher enthusiasm.'' The results speak for themselves. Smaller classes translate to better instruction and better achievement. The education community in my State is also deeply concerned and I share this concern about proposals that would shift scarce Federal tax dollars away from the public schools they are intended to support. I commend the work of the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, and others who have worked so diligently these past weeks to negotiate compromise language with the Administration on many of the issues that remained outstanding following the HELP Committee's mark-up of this legislation. I regret that I am unable to support this compromise for a number of reasons. I am troubled by language in this compromise that would require school districts to use up to 15 percent of their Title I money to pay for supplementary services or transportation for public school choice for students in schools that have failed to make adequate yearly progress for three years. This provision would mean that a school that is already in trouble would have as little as 85 percent of its Title I money available for school programs. If Congress agrees to divert badly-needed Title I money for supplemental services, it is all the more urgent that we fully fund the Title I program. I am also concerned about the so-called ``Straight A's'' performance agreement pilot program that is included in the bill. This provision would allow seven States and 25 districts in effect to block grant most of their ESEA funding. I am pleased that this provision stipulates that this funding cannot be used for private school vouchers and that it can only be used for specified activities. I am also pleased that individual school districts within the seven States that participate in this program may apply to opt out of the State's performance agreement. Supporters of this provision use terms like ``consolidation of Federal funds'' and ``flexibility,'' but let's be honest. This is a block grant. This new version of the Straight A's proposal is an improvement over earlier versions, but I remain concerned about the impact this consolidation of funds will have on proven programs such as class size reduction, 21st Century Community Learning Centers, and Safe and Drug Free Schools; and on professional development for teachers and other school professionals. I regret that the Senate did not adopt an amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, to remove the 21st Century Community Learning Centers from this block grant, an amendment which I supported and which was supported by many of my constituents. Another reason I will oppose this bill is the inclusion of an amendment offered by the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, pertaining to discipline procedures for special education students. This amendment is a huge step backward in the fight to protect the civil rights of disabled students, and I hope that the conferees on this bill will work to improve this language to ensure that those rights continue to be protected. In closing, this debate gave us the opportunity to strengthen public education in America. Unfortunately, many of the provisions contained in this bill may, in fact, undermine public education by blurring the lines between public and private, between church and State, and between local control and Federal mandates. I must therefore oppose the bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. in support of our nation's teachers

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.

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.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on this day, my thoughts are with the victims of Timothy McVeigh, and with their families. I hope that the spectacle of these last few weeks, leading to this execution, has not caused them further pain. McVeigh was cowardly and cruel, and I shall not dwell upon his memory or indulge his desire to be seen as a martyr. I rise today to speak on his execution not because I wish to add to the burdens of this day, but because I do not want it said that those of us who oppose the death penalty stood silently by. Today, the question we need to ask is not: Was McVeigh a despicable killer, of course he was. Rather, the questions we should ask are these: Does the death penalty serve us and our best American ideals, does it always serve justice, is it administered fairly, is it sometimes imposed upon people who are innocent. The records will note that the cause of McVeigh's death was homicide, the intentional killing of one human being by another. The execution of even this most notorious murderer should prompt us anew to reconsider the idea of our government killing people in our name, and perhaps to begin to acknowledge the growing American belief that the time has come to stop and learn the answers to the questions that plague the death penalty, before we proceed with any further executions. We have an opportunity to turn another way on the death penalty. The next scheduled federal execution is that of Juan Raul Garza. His execution has been stayed until June 19 in light of the questions raised about regional and racial disparities in the federal death penalty system. But the Justice Department now has declared that it will not wait until those questions are answered by an ongoing National Institute of Justice study before proceeding with his execution. They have gone so far as to declare that there is no bias in the system, even though the study has not come close to completion. Until we are certain of the fairness of the process and these questions are resolved, Garza should not be executed in our name. That's the real and difficult test that President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft must face in the next few days. On this day, I hope that they will turn to it in earnest.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today to speak with grave concern about a report released by the Justice Department yesterday on our Federal Government's administration of the death penalty. In that report and in his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee yesterday, Attorney General John Ashcroft said that he now concludes that ``there is no evidence of racial bias in the administration of the federal death penalty.'' I am seriously, seriously concerned about and, frankly, disappointed by the Attorney General's statements. The report he released yesterday is not the in-depth analysis of the federal death penalty ordered by his predecessor, Attorney General Reno, and President Clinton. This is a very urgent matter because the Federal Government, in a matter of days, is about to resume executions for the first time in decades, including that of Juan Raul Garza. He is scheduled to be executed by the United States of America on June 19. Mr. Garza's case has not received the level of intense scrutiny or legal representation that his more notorious death row colleague, Timothy McVeigh, has received. But Mr. Garza's case, and his possible execution, should cause the Attorney General, President Bush, and our Nation even deeper soul-searching than that which has begun with respect to the scheduled execution of Mr. McVeigh. A survey on the Federal death penalty system was released by the U.S. Department of Justice in September 2000. That report showed racial and regional disparities in the Federal Government's administration of the death penalty. In other words, who lives and who dies in the Federal system appears to relate to the color of the defendant's skin or the region of the country where the defendant is prosecuted. Attorney General Reno, Deputy Attorney General Holder, and President Clinton all said they were ``troubled'' or ``disturbed'' by the results of that report. In fact, Attorney General Reno was so troubled by the report that she immediately ordered the collection of additional data from U.S. attorney offices and, most importantly, the National Institute of Justice to conduct an in-depth examination in cooperation with outside experts. I would like to take a moment to read what Attorney General Reno said that day in September: There are important limitations on the scope of our survey. The survey only captures data currently available beginning when a U.S. attorney submits a capital eligible case to the review committee and to me for further review. This survey, therefore, does not address a number of important issues that arise before the U.S. attorney submits a case: Why did the defendant commit the murder? Why did the defendant get arrested and prosecuted by Federal authorities rather than by state authorities? Why did the U.S. attorney submit the case for review rather than enter a plea bargain? . . . More information is needed to better understand the many factors that effect how homicide cases make their way into the Federal system, and once in the Federal system, why they follow different paths. An even broader analysis must therefore be undertaken to determine if bias does, in fact, play any role in the Federal death penalty system. I've asked the National Institute of Justice to solicit research proposals from outside experts, to study the reasons why, under existing standards, homicide cases are directed to the state or Federal systems, and charged either as capital cases or non-capital cases, as well as the factors accounting for the present geographic pattern of submissions by the U.S. Attorney's Offices. The department will also welcome related research proposals that outside experts may suggest. In December, President Clinton, citing this ongoing review by the Justice Department, then delayed the execution of Mr. Garza until June 19 to allow the Justice Department time to complete its review. President Clinton also ordered the Justice Department to report to the President by April of this year on the results of its further review. President Clinton anticipated that this would have been sufficient time for the President to review the results of the review before deciding whether to proceed with Mr. Garza's execution on June 19. On January 10 of this year, before the new administration took office, the NIJ began its in-depth analysis by convening a meeting of outside experts, defense counsel and prosecutors to discuss the questions that should form the basis for the research proposals. Later in January, during his confirmation hearing, Attorney General Ashcroft promised to continue and not terminate the NIJ study. At that hearing, I asked him if he would support the effort of the National Institute of Justice already underway to undertake the study of racial and regional disparities in the Federal death penalty system that President Clinton deemed necessary. Attorney General Ashcroft said, unequivocally and emphatically, ``yes.'' I then asked him whether he would continue and support all efforts initiated by Attorney General Reno's Justice Department to undertake a thorough review and analysis of the Federal death penalty system. Attorney General Ashcroft said, ``. . . the studies that are under way, I'm grateful for them. When the material from those studies comes, I will examine them carefully and eagerly to see if there are ways for us to improve the administration of justice.'' I then followed up with yet a third question on this subject: ``So those studies will not be terminated?'' Attorney General Ashcroft responded: ``I have no intention of terminating those studies.'' In response to written questions I provided to him following his live testimony, I asked the Attorney General a number of related questions about the need to eliminate racial or regional bias from our system of justice. He replied that he believed the Department of Justice should undertake ``all reasonable and appropriate research necessary to understand the nature of the problem.'' It is clear that Attorney General Ashcroft said he would continue and not terminate the NIJ study initiated by the Reno administration. I was pleased to hear him make this commitment. But, since the new administration took office, no steps have been taken to move forward with the NIJ study. Rather, the Attorney General now believes it would take much too long to conduct this in-depth analysis of disparities and that it would provide indefinite answers. To say that the NIJ research should not be undertaken because it may take more than a year and provide inconclusive answers is just baffling. I am absolutely confounded by the Attorney General's unwillingness to take such a simple step to ensure fairness and to promote public confidence in the Federal system. Now, Attorney General Ashcroft did say yesterday that he would order the National Institute of Justice to study the effectiveness of Federal, state and local law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of murder in American and how death penalty cases are brought into the Federal system. While this review may provide some additional insight into the functioning of our criminal justice system, it is not the NIJ review of racial and geographic disparities ordered by Attorney General Reno. The supplemental report released yesterday lacks credibility: it is a case of ``we looked at ourselves and there's no evidence of bias.'' Instead of completing a thorough analysis of the racial and regional disparities with outside experts, as outlined by Attorney General Reno, Attorney General Ashcroft collected the additional data--also ordered separately by Attorney General Reno--threw in some statements that there is no evidence of bias and released it as a supplemental report. This report does not dig behind the raw data in the way that an in- depth research and analysis could do. To her credit, Attorney General Reno recognized the need for input from outside experts. That is why she ordered the National Institute of Justice to undertake the review of racial and regional disparities. While I commended Attorney General Reno for her action in ordering further studies, I thought she should have gone one step further and establish an independent, blue ribbon commission to review the Federal system. That's what Governor George Ryan did in Illinois, and the independent panel there has been doing some goodwork. I've introduced a bill that applies Governor Ryan's example to the Federal Government, the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act. We should demand the highest standards of fairness and credibility in our Nation's administration of the ultimate punishment. Attorney General Ashcroft's actions are wholly unsatisfactory and inconsistent with the promises he made to the Senate and the Nation during his confirmation hearing. I was pleased to hear Attorney General Ashcroft say on Friday, May 11: Our system of justice requires basic fairness, evenhandedness and dispassionate evaluate of the evidence and the facts. These fundamental requirements are essential to protecting the constitutional rights of every citizen and to sustaining public confidence in the administration of justice. . . . It is my responsibility to promote the sanctity of the rule of law and justice. It is my responsibility and duty to protect the integrity of our system of justice. The basic fairness, evenhandedness and dispassionate evaluation of the evidence and facts, about which he spoke, extend to the troubling racial and regional disparities in the Federal system, as documented by the Department of Justice September 2000 report. As my colleagues are aware, I oppose the death penalty. I have never made any bones about that. But this is not really about just being opposed to the death penalty. This is about bias-free justice in America. I am certain that not one of my colleagues in the Senate--not a single one--no matter how strong a proponent of the death penalty, would defend racial discrimination in the administration of that ultimate punishment. The most fundamental guarantee of our Constitution is equal justice under law, equal protection of the laws. To be true to that central precept of our national identity, we have to take extremely seriously allegations that the death penalty is being administered in a discriminatory fashion. So I urge the Attorney General, in the strongest possible terms, to reconsider his actions and direct the National Institute of Justice to continue its study, with outside experts, of the racial and regional disparities in the Federal death penalty system. I also urge him to provide the NIJ whatever resources may be needed to complete this study. This is the only course consistent with the promises he made during his confirmation hearing. Furthermore, with Mr. Garza's execution still scheduled to take place and the NIJ study at a standstill, I urge the Attorney General to postpone Mr. Garza's execution until these questions of fairness are fully answered. The case of Mr. Garza--a Hispanic and convicted in Federal court in Texas--implicates the very issues at the center of the unfairness reflected in the DOJ report. It would be wholly illogical and unjust to go forward with plans for the execution of Mr. Garza and subsequent executions until the NIJ's study is completed and fully reviewed. It would be a great travesty of justice, as well as a great diminution in the public's trust in the Federal criminal justice system, if the Federal Government executed Mr. Garza and the NIJ later completed its study, which corroborated racial or regional bias in the administration of the Federal death penalty. The integrity of our system of justice demands no less. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I cannot help but notice, as I look at the Presiding Officer and the Senator from New Jersey, how fortunate we are to have new Members who have immediately come to the Senate and exerted leadership--the Presiding Officer on education, as well as other issues; and the Senator from New Jersey, his determination and hard work on this has been truly striking. I am just delighted to be working with him on this. I also thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his courtesy in allowing us to interrupt the education bill for this purpose.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I rise along with the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine, and the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, and others, to introduce the End Racial Profiling Act of 2001. This bill is a package of steps to eliminate racial profiling once and for all. Congress should protect the rights of all Americans to walk, drive, or travel on our streets and highways and through our airports free of discrimination. It is time for us to act. I am very pleased to be joined by a number of distinguished colleagues. I simply have to point out that I think almost minutes after Senators Corzine and Clinton were sworn in, they were already talking to me and Representative Conyers of the House about how we could introduce a strong bill to deal with this problem. I thank them and appreciate the strong work and support they have given. They have made significant contributions and have offered good ideas to strengthen the legislation. I also acknowledge our long-time leader on this issue, Representative John Conyers, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. He is introducing the companion bill in the House today. This is the third Congress in which Representative Conyers has introduced legislation on racial profiling. He has fought long and hard to educate the Congress and all Americans about racial profiling. Before he took on the issue, I don't think many of us knew what racial profiling was. I thank Representative Conyers for his tremendous leadership. It is an honor to be working with him on this bill. Those who have experienced racial profiling suffer great harm. They are unfairly treated as suspect, humiliated, and can feel fear, anxiety or even anger. It is a grave indignity. U.S. Army Sergeant Rossano Gerald testified during a hearing in the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution last year about his personal experience as a victim of racial profiling. Sergeant Gerald is a veteran of the Persian Gulf war and a law-abiding citizen. In August 1998, he was driving along a major highway in Oklahoma with his 12- year-old son when he was pulled over and handcuffed. Both he and his son were thrown into the back seat of a state trooper's car while the trooper extensively searched Sergeant Gerald's car. When the entire episode was over, the trooper gave Sergeant Gerald a warning ticket for changing lanes without signaling and left his car with over $1,000 of damage. In moving testimony before the subcommittee, a hearing which then- Senator Ashcroft chaired and has said influenced his thinking on the issue, Sergeant Gerald said, I was very humiliated by this experience. I was embarrassed and ashamed that people driving by would think I had committed a serious crime. It was particularly horrible to be treated like a criminal in front of my impressionable young son. Robert Wilkins also testified before the subcommittee. He and his family were stopped along a highway in Maryland. He described his experience as ``humiliating and degrading.'' He said: So there we were. Standing outside the car in the rain, lined up along the road, with police lights flashing, officers standing guard, and a German Shepard jumping on top of, underneath, and sniffing every inch of our vehicle. We were criminal suspects; yet we were just trying to use the interstate highway to travel from our homes to a funeral. It is hard to describe the frustration and pain you feel when people presume you to be guilty for no good reason and you know that you are innocent. I particularly remember a car driving past with two young children in the back seat, noses pressed against the window. They were looking at the policemen, the flashing lights, the German Shepard and us. In this moment of education that each of us receives through real world experiences, those children were putting two and two together and getting five. They saw some black people standing along the road who certainly must have been bad people who had done something wrong, for why else would the police have them there? They were getting an untrue, negative picture of me, and there was nothing in the world that I could do about it. Mr. President, as Americans, we take great pride in our freedom and independence. Central to our sense of who we are is our firm belief that we are free to walk the paths of our own choosing, free to move about as we please, and free from the intrusion of the government in that movement. Immigrants came to our nation's shores to escape arbitrary government. Fleeing the British Government's discrimination based on religion in the 1600s, Puritans came to Massachusetts, Quakers came to New Jersey and then Pennsylvania, Catholics came to Maryland, and Jews came to Rhode Island. And responding to indiscriminate searches and seizures conducted by the British, our Founders adopted the fourth amendment, which states: ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . .'' It is thus fundamental to American history and rooted in American law that the officers of the state may not arrest or detain its citizens arbitrarily or without cause. But this is not the case for all Americans today. Some Americans still cannot walk where they choose. Some Americans cannot travel free from the harassment of the government. Some Americans still do not receive the full benefit of their civil rights. Although many did come to these shores as immigrants, many came in chains, because of the color of their skin. They and their descendants endured our nation's long struggle against slavery and discrimination. Sadly, even now, skin color alone still makes too many Americans more likely to be a suspect, more likely to be stopped, more likely to be searched, more likely to be arrested, and more likely to be imprisoned. Mr. President, I believe that the vast majority of law enforcement agents nationwide discharge their duties professionally, without bias, and protect the safety of their communities. But I also believe that racial profiling is a very real problem. The use by law enforcement officers of race, ethnicity or national origin in deciding which persons should be subject to traffic stops, stop and frisks, questioning, searches and seizures is a problematic law enforcement tactic. Mr. President, the bill that Representative Conyers first introduced in the 105th Congress, and which we introduced again in the 106th Congress, was a traffic stops study bill. It would have required the Attorney General to conduct a nationwide study of traffic stops based on existing data and a sampling of jurisdictions that would provide additional data to the Attorney General. We proposed a study bill because, at that time, there was still very much education that needed to take place in Congress and America. We thought that a study would provide the facts to show people that racial profiling indeed is very real in America today. Mr. President, we no longer need, just a study. We now have facts that show us that racial profiling is a problem. Statistical evidence from a number of jurisdictions across the country demonstrates that racial profiling is a real and measurable phenomenon. For example, data collected under a federal court consent decree revealed that between January 1995 and 1997, 70 percent of the drivers stopped and searched by the Maryland State Police on Interstate 95 were black, while only 17.5 percent of drivers and speeders were black. A 1992 study of traffic stops in Volusia County, Florida revealed that 70 percent of those stopped on a particular interstate highway in central Florida were black or Hispanic, although only 5 percent of the motorists on that highway were black or Hispanic. Further, minorities were detained for longer periods of time per stop than whites, and were 80 percent of those whose cars were searched after being stopped. We also know that racial profiling is a problem not only for motorists on our nation's highways. Racial profiling, unfortunately, extends to racial and ethnic minority Americans as pedestrians or travelers through our nation's airports. A December 1999 report by New York's Attorney General on the use of ``stop and frisk'' tactics by the New York City Police Department revealed that between January 1998 through March 1999, 84 percent of the almost 175,000 people stopped by NYPD were black or Hispanic, despite the fact that these two groups comprised less than half of the city's population. A March 2000 GAO report on the U.S. Customs Service found that black, Asian, and Hispanic female U.S. citizens were 4 to 9 times more likely than white female U.S. citizens to be subjected to X-rays after being frisked or patted down. Many of those who deny that racial profiling is a problem have argued that these discrepancies can be justified by the fact that blacks and other minorities are more likely to commit crimes--especially drug- related crimes--than whites, and that profiling therefore amounts to a rational law enforcement tactic. The statistics refute this argument. Although black motorists were disproportionately stopped on I-95 by the Maryland State Police, the instances in which police actually found drugs were the same per capita for white and black motorists. In Volusia County, Florida, where 70 percent of more than 1000 traffic stops of motorists on an interstate highway were of minority drivers, only 9 stops resulted in so much as a traffic ticket. The New York Attorney General's report on NYPD stop and frisk tactics revealed that stops of minorities were less likely to lead to arrests than stops of white New Yorkers--the NYPD arrested one white New Yorker for every 8 stops, one Hispanic New Yorker for every 9 stops, and one black New Yorker for every 9.5 stops. The General Accounting Office found that while black female U.S. citizens were nine times more likely than white female U.S. citizens to be subjected to x-ray searches by the Customs Service, black females were less than half as likely to be found carrying contraband as white females. In my home state of Wisconsin, racial profiling has touched the lives of many law abiding citizens, including African Americans, Latino Americans, and Asian Americans. My state is home to one of the largest Hmong and Lao populations in the country. They came to our country seeking safety and freedom. But their dreams of freedom have somehow been tarnished by unfair stops by police officers. I am very pleased that during the last year, a Task Force appointed by former Governor Tommy Thompson developed a set of recommendations for combating racial profiling and restoring the important trust that must exist between law enforcement officials and the communities they are charged to protect and serve. Because, as we know, racial profiling undermines the willingness of people to work with the police. As one victim of racial profiling in Glencoe, Illinois, said: ``Who is there left to protect us? The police just violated us.'' Mr. President, current efforts by state and local governments to eradicate racial profiling and redress the harms it causes, while laudable, have been limited in scope and insufficient to address this problem nationwide. During his confirmation hearing, Attorney General Ashcroft said: I think racial profiling is wrong. I think it's unconstitutional. I think it violates the 14th Amendment. I think most of the men and women in our law enforcement are good people trying to enforce the law. I think we all share that view. But we owe it to provide them with guidance to ensure that racial profiling does not happen. This February in his Address to Congress, President Bush said, ``It's wrong, and we will end it in America.'' At remarks marking Black History Month this February in Washington, DC, President Bush said that he would ``look at all opportunities'' to end racial profiling. Attorney General Ashcroft then wrote Congress to say that the traffic stops statistics study bill that we wrote and supported in the last Congress ``is an excellent starting place for such an enterprise.'' While I welcome the administration's statements, it is now no longer time simply to study. It is time to move beyond studying whether racial profiling exists. We know it exists. Now, let's take the right steps to eliminate it and protect the rights of all Americans to walk or travel free of discrimination. It is time to act. I urge the Attorney General and President to support this bill as the best opportunity to translate our nation's promises into action. Representative Conyers and I have taken a fresh look at the role Congress can play in eliminating racial profiling by all law enforcement agencies. Our bill reflects the President's and Attorney General's view that racial profiling is wrong and should end. This bill has two major components. First, the bill explicitly bans racial profiling. Second, the bill sets out several steps for federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to take to eliminate racial profiling. The bill takes a ``carrot and stick'' approach. It conditions federal funds to state and local law enforcement agencies on their compliance with certain requirements, but also authorizes the Attorney general to provide incentive grants to assist agencies with complying with this Act. The bill requires federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to adopt policies prohibiting racial profiling; implement complaint procedures to respond to complaints of racial profiling effectiely; implement disciplinary procedures for officers who engage in the practice; and collect data on stops. Grants awarded by the Attorney general could be used for training to prevent racial profiling; the acquisition of in-car video cameras and other technology; and the development of procedures for receiving, investigating, and responding to complaints of racial profiling. Finally, the bill would require the Attorney General to report to congress two years after enanctment of the Act and each year thereafter on racial profiling in the United States. These are the right steps to take in the interest of better police practices and increased accountability. Mr. President, this bill is a priority for the civil rights community. It has the support of the Leadership Conference on Civil rights and its member organizations like the NAACP, National Council of La Raza, and ACLU. This bill reflects a new political reality: both Republicans and Democrats can agree that racial profiling is wrong and should be eliminated. Congress can play a role in ensuring that all police departments do their part and give them the financial assistance they may need to get the job done. I urge my colleagues to join with me, Senators Corzine, Clinton, Kennedy, Torricelli, Schumer, Durbin, and Stabenow in supporting the End Racial Profiling Act of 2001. We Americans take great pride in our freedom and independence. Central to our sense of who we are is our firm belief that we are free to walk the paths of our choosing, free to move about as we please, and free of the intrusion of the Government in that movement. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record immediately following my statement.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I cannot help but notice, as I look at the Presiding Officer and the Senator from New Jersey, how fortunate we are to have new Members who have immediately come to the Senate and exerted leadership--the Presiding Officer on education, as well as other issues; and the Senator from New Jersey, his determination and hard work on this has been truly striking. I am just delighted to be working with him on this. I also thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his courtesy in allowing us to interrupt the education bill for this purpose.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I rise along with the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine, and the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, and others, to introduce the End Racial Profiling Act of 2001. This bill is a package of steps to eliminate racial profiling once and for all. Congress should protect the rights of all Americans to walk, drive, or travel on our streets and highways and through our airports free of discrimination. It is time for us to act. I am very pleased to be joined by a number of distinguished colleagues. I simply have to point out that I think almost minutes after Senators Corzine and Clinton were sworn in, they were already talking to me and Representative Conyers of the House about how we could introduce a strong bill to deal with this problem. I thank them and appreciate the strong work and support they have given. They have made significant contributions and have offered good ideas to strengthen the legislation. I also acknowledge our long-time leader on this issue, Representative John Conyers, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. He is introducing the companion bill in the House today. This is the third Congress in which Representative Conyers has introduced legislation on racial profiling. He has fought long and hard to educate the Congress and all Americans about racial profiling. Before he took on the issue, I don't think many of us knew what racial profiling was. I thank Representative Conyers for his tremendous leadership. It is an honor to be working with him on this bill. Those who have experienced racial profiling suffer great harm. They are unfairly treated as suspect, humiliated, and can feel fear, anxiety or even anger. It is a grave indignity. U.S. Army Sergeant Rossano Gerald testified during a hearing in the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution last year about his personal experience as a victim of racial profiling. Sergeant Gerald is a veteran of the Persian Gulf war and a law-abiding citizen. In August 1998, he was driving along a major highway in Oklahoma with his 12- year-old son when he was pulled over and handcuffed. Both he and his son were thrown into the back seat of a state trooper's car while the trooper extensively searched Sergeant Gerald's car. When the entire episode was over, the trooper gave Sergeant Gerald a warning ticket for changing lanes without signaling and left his car with over $1,000 of damage. In moving testimony before the subcommittee, a hearing which then- Senator Ashcroft chaired and has said influenced his thinking on the issue, Sergeant Gerald said, I was very humiliated by this experience. I was embarrassed and ashamed that people driving by would think I had committed a serious crime. It was particularly horrible to be treated like a criminal in front of my impressionable young son. Robert Wilkins also testified before the subcommittee. He and his family were stopped along a highway in Maryland. He described his experience as ``humiliating and degrading.'' He said: So there we were. Standing outside the car in the rain, lined up along the road, with police lights flashing, officers standing guard, and a German Shepard jumping on top of, underneath, and sniffing every inch of our vehicle. We were criminal suspects; yet we were just trying to use the interstate highway to travel from our homes to a funeral. It is hard to describe the frustration and pain you feel when people presume you to be guilty for no good reason and you know that you are innocent. I particularly remember a car driving past with two young children in the back seat, noses pressed against the window. They were looking at the policemen, the flashing lights, the German Shepard and us. In this moment of education that each of us receives through real world experiences, those children were putting two and two together and getting five. They saw some black people standing along the road who certainly must have been bad people who had done something wrong, for why else would the police have them there? They were getting an untrue, negative picture of me, and there was nothing in the world that I could do about it. Mr. President, as Americans, we take great pride in our freedom and independence. Central to our sense of who we are is our firm belief that we are free to walk the paths of our own choosing, free to move about as we please, and free from the intrusion of the government in that movement. Immigrants came to our nation's shores to escape arbitrary government. Fleeing the British Government's discrimination based on religion in the 1600s, Puritans came to Massachusetts, Quakers came to New Jersey and then Pennsylvania, Catholics came to Maryland, and Jews came to Rhode Island. And responding to indiscriminate searches and seizures conducted by the British, our Founders adopted the fourth amendment, which states: ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . .'' It is thus fundamental to American history and rooted in American law that the officers of the state may not arrest or detain its citizens arbitrarily or without cause. But this is not the case for all Americans today. Some Americans still cannot walk where they choose. Some Americans cannot travel free from the harassment of the government. Some Americans still do not receive the full benefit of their civil rights. Although many did come to these shores as immigrants, many came in chains, because of the color of their skin. They and their descendants endured our nation's long struggle against slavery and discrimination. Sadly, even now, skin color alone still makes too many Americans more likely to be a suspect, more likely to be stopped, more likely to be searched, more likely to be arrested, and more likely to be imprisoned. Mr. President, I believe that the vast majority of law enforcement agents nationwide discharge their duties professionally, without bias, and protect the safety of their communities. But I also believe that racial profiling is a very real problem. The use by law enforcement officers of race, ethnicity or national origin in deciding which persons should be subject to traffic stops, stop and frisks, questioning, searches and seizures is a problematic law enforcement tactic. Mr. President, the bill that Representative Conyers first introduced in the 105th Congress, and which we introduced again in the 106th Congress, was a traffic stops study bill. It would have required the Attorney General to conduct a nationwide study of traffic stops based on existing data and a sampling of jurisdictions that would provide additional data to the Attorney General. We proposed a study bill because, at that time, there was still very much education that needed to take place in Congress and America. We thought that a study would provide the facts to show people that racial profiling indeed is very real in America today. Mr. President, we no longer need, just a study. We now have facts that show us that racial profiling is a problem. Statistical evidence from a number of jurisdictions across the country demonstrates that racial profiling is a real and measurable phenomenon. For example, data collected under a federal court consent decree revealed that between January 1995 and 1997, 70 percent of the drivers stopped and searched by the Maryland State Police on Interstate 95 were black, while only 17.5 percent of drivers and speeders were black. A 1992 study of traffic stops in Volusia County, Florida revealed that 70 percent of those stopped on a particular interstate highway in central Florida were black or Hispanic, although only 5 percent of the motorists on that highway were black or Hispanic. Further, minorities were detained for longer periods of time per stop than whites, and were 80 percent of those whose cars were searched after being stopped. We also know that racial profiling is a problem not only for motorists on our nation's highways. Racial profiling, unfortunately, extends to racial and ethnic minority Americans as pedestrians or travelers through our nation's airports. A December 1999 report by New York's Attorney General on the use of ``stop and frisk'' tactics by the New York City Police Department revealed that between January 1998 through March 1999, 84 percent of the almost 175,000 people stopped by NYPD were black or Hispanic, despite the fact that these two groups comprised less than half of the city's population. A March 2000 GAO report on the U.S. Customs Service found that black, Asian, and Hispanic female U.S. citizens were 4 to 9 times more likely than white female U.S. citizens to be subjected to X-rays after being frisked or patted down. Many of those who deny that racial profiling is a problem have argued that these discrepancies can be justified by the fact that blacks and other minorities are more likely to commit crimes--especially drug- related crimes--than whites, and that profiling therefore amounts to a rational law enforcement tactic. The statistics refute this argument. Although black motorists were disproportionately stopped on I-95 by the Maryland State Police, the instances in which police actually found drugs were the same per capita for white and black motorists. In Volusia County, Florida, where 70 percent of more than 1000 traffic stops of motorists on an interstate highway were of minority drivers, only 9 stops resulted in so much as a traffic ticket. The New York Attorney General's report on NYPD stop and frisk tactics revealed that stops of minorities were less likely to lead to arrests than stops of white New Yorkers--the NYPD arrested one white New Yorker for every 8 stops, one Hispanic New Yorker for every 9 stops, and one black New Yorker for every 9.5 stops. The General Accounting Office found that while black female U.S. citizens were nine times more likely than white female U.S. citizens to be subjected to x-ray searches by the Customs Service, black females were less than half as likely to be found carrying contraband as white females. In my home state of Wisconsin, racial profiling has touched the lives of many law abiding citizens, including African Americans, Latino Americans, and Asian Americans. My state is home to one of the largest Hmong and Lao populations in the country. They came to our country seeking safety and freedom. But their dreams of freedom have somehow been tarnished by unfair stops by police officers. I am very pleased that during the last year, a Task Force appointed by former Governor Tommy Thompson developed a set of recommendations for combating racial profiling and restoring the important trust that must exist between law enforcement officials and the communities they are charged to protect and serve. Because, as we know, racial profiling undermines the willingness of people to work with the police. As one victim of racial profiling in Glencoe, Illinois, said: ``Who is there left to protect us? The police just violated us.'' Mr. President, current efforts by state and local governments to eradicate racial profiling and redress the harms it causes, while laudable, have been limited in scope and insufficient to address this problem nationwide. During his confirmation hearing, Attorney General Ashcroft said: I think racial profiling is wrong. I think it's unconstitutional. I think it violates the 14th Amendment. I think most of the men and women in our law enforcement are good people trying to enforce the law. I think we all share that view. But we owe it to provide them with guidance to ensure that racial profiling does not happen. This February in his Address to Congress, President Bush said, ``It's wrong, and we will end it in America.'' At remarks marking Black History Month this February in Washington, DC, President Bush said that he would ``look at all opportunities'' to end racial profiling. Attorney General Ashcroft then wrote Congress to say that the traffic stops statistics study bill that we wrote and supported in the last Congress ``is an excellent starting place for such an enterprise.'' While I welcome the administration's statements, it is now no longer time simply to study. It is time to move beyond studying whether racial profiling exists. We know it exists. Now, let's take the right steps to eliminate it and protect the rights of all Americans to walk or travel free of discrimination. It is time to act. I urge the Attorney General and President to support this bill as the best opportunity to translate our nation's promises into action. Representative Conyers and I have taken a fresh look at the role Congress can play in eliminating racial profiling by all law enforcement agencies. Our bill reflects the President's and Attorney General's view that racial profiling is wrong and should end. This bill has two major components. First, the bill explicitly bans racial profiling. Second, the bill sets out several steps for federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to take to eliminate racial profiling. The bill takes a ``carrot and stick'' approach. It conditions federal funds to state and local law enforcement agencies on their compliance with certain requirements, but also authorizes the Attorney general to provide incentive grants to assist agencies with complying with this Act. The bill requires federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to adopt policies prohibiting racial profiling; implement complaint procedures to respond to complaints of racial profiling effectiely; implement disciplinary procedures for officers who engage in the practice; and collect data on stops. Grants awarded by the Attorney general could be used for training to prevent racial profiling; the acquisition of in-car video cameras and other technology; and the development of procedures for receiving, investigating, and responding to complaints of racial profiling. Finally, the bill would require the Attorney General to report to congress two years after enanctment of the Act and each year thereafter on racial profiling in the United States. These are the right steps to take in the interest of better police practices and increased accountability. Mr. President, this bill is a priority for the civil rights community. It has the support of the Leadership Conference on Civil rights and its member organizations like the NAACP, National Council of La Raza, and ACLU. This bill reflects a new political reality: both Republicans and Democrats can agree that racial profiling is wrong and should be eliminated. Congress can play a role in ensuring that all police departments do their part and give them the financial assistance they may need to get the job done. I urge my colleagues to join with me, Senators Corzine, Clinton, Kennedy, Torricelli, Schumer, Durbin, and Stabenow in supporting the End Racial Profiling Act of 2001. We Americans take great pride in our freedom and independence. Central to our sense of who we are is our firm belief that we are free to walk the paths of our choosing, free to move about as we please, and free of the intrusion of the Government in that movement. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record immediately following my statement.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be recognized as in morning business in order to introduce a bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I must oppose the amendment to S. 1, the BEST Act, offered by the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich. This amendment would require the State educational agencies, SEAs, to ``jointly prepare a plan to carry out the responsibilities of the State . . . including carrying out the State educational agency's statewide system of technical assistance and support for local educational agencies.'' This would clearly supercede the Wisconsin State Constitution. Article X, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution states: ``The supervision of public instruction shall be vested in a state superintendent and other officers as the legislature shall direct; and their qualifications, powers, duties and compensation shall be prescribed in law. The state superintendent shall be chosen by the qualified electors of the state at the same time and in the same manner as member of the supreme court, and shall hold office for 4 years. . . .'' The Federal Government should not supersede the Wisconsin Constitution by requiring the duly elected Superintendent of Public Instruction to have the Governor sign off on proposals submitted to the federal Department of Education. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I supported the amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, which would provide for coordination between the SEA and the Governor without infringing on the independence of the SEA.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am proud to once again be an original cosponsor of the Grassley-Schumer bill on cameras in the courtroom. I strongly support allowing cameras in federal courtrooms for a simple reason. Trials and court hearings are public proceedings. They are paid for by the taxpayers. Except in the most rare and unusual circumstances, the public has a right to see what happens in those proceedings. We have a long tradition of press access to trials, but in this day and age, it is no longer sufficient to be able to read in the morning paper what happened in a trial the day before. The public wants to see for itself what goes on in our courts of law, and I think it has a right to do so. Experience in the state courts--and the vast majority of states now allow trials to be televised--has shown that it is possible to permit the public to see trials on television without compromising the rights of a defendant to a fair trial or the safety or privacy interests of witnesses or jurors. Concerns about cameras interfering with the fair administration of justice in this country I believe are overstated. Let me note also that I believe the arguments against allowing cameras in the courtroom are the least persuasive in the case of appellate proceedings, including the Supreme Court. I had the opportunity to watch the oral argument at the Supreme Court late in 1999 in an important case dealing with campaign finance reform. It was a fascinating experience, and one that I wish all Americans could have. Of course, the entire country was able to hear audio feeds of the two oral arguments in Bush v. Gore only hours after those arguments were completed. Hearing those arguments directly was an important and positive public educational experience. Seeing the arguments live would have been even better. I do not believe that a discreet camera in that courtroom would have changed the argument one iota. There is no question in my mind that the highly trained and prestigious judges and lawyers who sit on and argue before our nation's federal appellate courts would continue to conduct themselves with dignity and professionalism if cameras were recording their work. These proceedings are where law is made in this country. The public will benefit greatly from being able to watch federal judges and advocates in action at oral argument. The bill that my friends from New York and Iowa are introducing today is a responsible and measured bill. It gives discretion to individual federal judges to allow cameras in their courtrooms. At the same time, it assures that witnesses will be able to request that their identities not be revealed in televised proceedings. This bill gives deference to the experience and judgment of federal judges who remain in charge of their own courtrooms. That is the right approach. My state of Wisconsin has a long and proud tradition of open government, and it has served us well. Coming from that tradition, my approach is to look with skepticism on any remnant of secrecy that lingers in our governmental processes at the federal level. When the workings of government are transparent, the people understand it better and can more thoroughly and constructively participate in it. And they can more easily hold their elected leaders and other public officials accountable. I believe this principle can and should be applied to the judicial as well as the legislative and executive branches of government, while still respecting the unique role of the unelected federal judiciary. Cameras in the courtroom is an idea whose time came some time ago. It is high time we brought it to the federal courts. I am proud to support the Grassley-Schumer bill, and I hope we can enact it this year.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am proud to once again be an original cosponsor of the Grassley-Schumer bill on cameras in the courtroom. I strongly support allowing cameras in federal courtrooms for a simple reason. Trials and court hearings are public proceedings. They are paid for by the taxpayers. Except in the most rare and unusual circumstances, the public has a right to see what happens in those proceedings. We have a long tradition of press access to trials, but in this day and age, it is no longer sufficient to be able to read in the morning paper what happened in a trial the day before. The public wants to see for itself what goes on in our courts of law, and I think it has a right to do so. Experience in the state courts--and the vast majority of states now allow trials to be televised--has shown that it is possible to permit the public to see trials on television without compromising the rights of a defendant to a fair trial or the safety or privacy interests of witnesses or jurors. Concerns about cameras interfering with the fair administration of justice in this country I believe are overstated. Let me note also that I believe the arguments against allowing cameras in the courtroom are the least persuasive in the case of appellate proceedings, including the Supreme Court. I had the opportunity to watch the oral argument at the Supreme Court late in 1999 in an important case dealing with campaign finance reform. It was a fascinating experience, and one that I wish all Americans could have. Of course, the entire country was able to hear audio feeds of the two oral arguments in Bush v. Gore only hours after those arguments were completed. Hearing those arguments directly was an important and positive public educational experience. Seeing the arguments live would have been even better. I do not believe that a discreet camera in that courtroom would have changed the argument one iota. There is no question in my mind that the highly trained and prestigious judges and lawyers who sit on and argue before our nation's federal appellate courts would continue to conduct themselves with dignity and professionalism if cameras were recording their work. These proceedings are where law is made in this country. The public will benefit greatly from being able to watch federal judges and advocates in action at oral argument. The bill that my friends from New York and Iowa are introducing today is a responsible and measured bill. It gives discretion to individual federal judges to allow cameras in their courtrooms. At the same time, it assures that witnesses will be able to request that their identities not be revealed in televised proceedings. This bill gives deference to the experience and judgment of federal judges who remain in charge of their own courtrooms. That is the right approach. My state of Wisconsin has a long and proud tradition of open government, and it has served us well. Coming from that tradition, my approach is to look with skepticism on any remnant of secrecy that lingers in our governmental processes at the federal level. When the workings of government are transparent, the people understand it better and can more thoroughly and constructively participate in it. And they can more easily hold their elected leaders and other public officials accountable. I believe this principle can and should be applied to the judicial as well as the legislative and executive branches of government, while still respecting the unique role of the unelected federal judiciary. Cameras in the courtroom is an idea whose time came some time ago. It is high time we brought it to the federal courts. I am proud to support the Grassley-Schumer bill, and I hope we can enact it this year.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend from Maine, Senator Collins, to introduce the Dental Health Improvement Act. This legislation will improve access to dental services by strengthening the deal workforce in under-served areas. While the scope of the dental access problem is very wide reaching, this legislation takes an important step in the right direction by improving the dental workforce in under-served areas. According to the Surgeon General, an estimated 25 million Americans live in areas lacking adequate dental care services, and as many as 11 percent of our Nation's rural population have never been to a dentist. This problem will only get worse since more than 20 percent of dentists will retire in the next 10 years, and the number of dental graduates by 2015 may not be enough to replace these retirees. While dentists have increased their productivity, they are still distribution problems in specific geographic areas. For too long, oral health has been overlooked and excluded from important public policy discussions of how to improve health and health care around the country. Some contend that oral health care has been a lower priority because advances in dentistry--most notably the expanded use of sealants and fluoridated water--are such that we are nearly a ``cavity free society.'' Yet the truth is that while oral health has certainly improved dramatically among those who are insured, and those who have reliable access to a dentist, there is a tragic disparity in health status between the haves and the have nots. This disparity between the poor and everyone else exists in general medical health measures, such as infant mortality, low birth weight, blood lead levels and so on. But what I have learned since I first became interested in this issue is that the disparity is disturbingly stark in oral health. Surgeon General David Satcher framed this issue well at his May 2000 release of his report, Oral Health in America, that ``Tooth decay remains the single most common chronic disease of childhood--five times more common than asthma.'' While this fact is certainly true--that the prevalence of dental disease remains high among children--its burden within the population of US children has shifted dramatically. I would like to make sure that my colleagues are aware of this horrifying statistic that helps to outline the scope of the problem: 80 percent of dental disease is found in the poorest 25 percent of children. This figure helps to illustrate the broad scope of the problem. And we all know that the problem is even more disturbing when we look at the ways these vulnerable children suffer from lack of dental care. Preschoolers living in poverty have twice the odds of having decaying teeth, twice the extent of decay when they have disease, and twice the pain experience of their most affluent peers. These children are already at a disadvantage in so many ways. And just the most basic dental care could make a difference in their lives. But our health care system allows this problem to fall through the cracks. Over the past few years these and similar statistics have been chronicled by numerous entities including the Surgeon General, the General Accounting Office, and the National Institutes of Health. This legislation will help strengthen the dental workforce that delivers vital oral health care services by improving the workforce in under-served areas. By providing States and communities with sufficient flexibility to address the unique needs of their under-served areas, I believe that this legislation will take an effective approach to meeting the needs of communities in Wisconsin and across the Nation. The first part of this legislation would establish a new State-based grant program to help states explore innovative ideas for increasing access to dental care in under-served areas. This grant program would be directed through the Health Resources and Services Administration at the Department of Health and Human Services and support the efforts of States to develop and implement innovative programs to address the dental workforce shortage that are appropriate to their individual needs. For example, States could tailor loan forgiveness and repayment programs for dentists practicing in areas designated as dental health professional shortage areas by either the Federal Government or the State. This program could also help with recruitment and retention efforts by providing grants or low interest loans to help practitioners in designated dental health professional shortage areas equip a dental office or share in the overhead costs of an operation. The second component of our legislation would increase participation of the dental workforce in the National Health Service Corps. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, the number of dentists and dental hygienists with obligations to serve in the National Health Service Corps falls far short of meeting the total identified need: only about 6 percent of the dental need is currently being met by this program, and outreach and development are critical to future opportunities for strengthening the dental workforce in designated under-served areas. Our legislation would develop and implement a plan for increasing the participation of dentists and dental hygienists in the National Health Service Corps scholarship and loan repayment programs and report back to Congress on their progress after three years. This legislation follows a series of recommendations by the American Dental Association and the American Dental Educators Association, who both strongly support this legislation. I hope my colleagues will join the Senator from Maine and me in our ongoing efforts to increase access to dental care and promote greater oral health. We must change America's approach to oral health, especially when it comes to some of the most vulnerable members of our communities--low income children. These kids deserve quality dental care. Right now, too many kids are suffering. It is my hope that Congress will work on a bipartisan basis to promote greater oral health.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, a great educator and a dear friend of my family died earlier this month. Fred R. Holt was a school superintendent in my hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin from 1959 to 1978, and as the Janesville Gazette noted, his influence will echo in Janesville classrooms for years. He oversaw the Janesville school system during one of its most challenging times, when the baby boom generation was rapidly increasing the school population. His gifted leadership helped to foster a climate that was supportive of students and teachers alike. As Fred's secretary for many years, Carol Smith, said, he cared for everyone on his staff as well as the students, and always did his best for them. Fred was deeply committed to our schools. He attended school in Janesville, and was a teacher himself, in Edgerton, Wisconsin and in other districts before becoming Janesville's superintendent, and he knew how valuable a good teacher is. As a Janesville Gazette article recalled, Fred would send his administrators to teacher-training institutions across the Midwest to recruit top teaching prospects. As products of Fred Holt's Janesville schools, my brother, sisters, and I can attest to the success of his efforts. Thousands of Janesville families were the beneficiaries of Fred Holt's foresight and initiative. I had the privilege of working with Fred after he retired when I served in the Wisconsin State Senate. He was an enormously effective advocate, and generously shared his time counseling troubled youth, heading a volunteer service bureau, and helping to renovate the Janesville Senior Center. In 1987, his work was recognized when he was named one of Wisconsin's 10 admired seniors. Fred Holt's legacy is evident in Janesville and across the country. I am a part of that legacy. And so are tens of thousands of business people and auto workers, physicians and police officers, artists and plumbers, educators, machinists, farmers, and others who have become who they are in large part because of the education they received growing up in Janesville. We owe him an enormous debt.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend from Maine, Senator Collins, to introduce the Dental Health Improvement Act. This legislation will improve access to dental services by strengthening the deal workforce in under-served areas. While the scope of the dental access problem is very wide reaching, this legislation takes an important step in the right direction by improving the dental workforce in under-served areas. According to the Surgeon General, an estimated 25 million Americans live in areas lacking adequate dental care services, and as many as 11 percent of our Nation's rural population have never been to a dentist. This problem will only get worse since more than 20 percent of dentists will retire in the next 10 years, and the number of dental graduates by 2015 may not be enough to replace these retirees. While dentists have increased their productivity, they are still distribution problems in specific geographic areas. For too long, oral health has been overlooked and excluded from important public policy discussions of how to improve health and health care around the country. Some contend that oral health care has been a lower priority because advances in dentistry--most notably the expanded use of sealants and fluoridated water--are such that we are nearly a ``cavity free society.'' Yet the truth is that while oral health has certainly improved dramatically among those who are insured, and those who have reliable access to a dentist, there is a tragic disparity in health status between the haves and the have nots. This disparity between the poor and everyone else exists in general medical health measures, such as infant mortality, low birth weight, blood lead levels and so on. But what I have learned since I first became interested in this issue is that the disparity is disturbingly stark in oral health. Surgeon General David Satcher framed this issue well at his May 2000 release of his report, Oral Health in America, that ``Tooth decay remains the single most common chronic disease of childhood--five times more common than asthma.'' While this fact is certainly true--that the prevalence of dental disease remains high among children--its burden within the population of US children has shifted dramatically. I would like to make sure that my colleagues are aware of this horrifying statistic that helps to outline the scope of the problem: 80 percent of dental disease is found in the poorest 25 percent of children. This figure helps to illustrate the broad scope of the problem. And we all know that the problem is even more disturbing when we look at the ways these vulnerable children suffer from lack of dental care. Preschoolers living in poverty have twice the odds of having decaying teeth, twice the extent of decay when they have disease, and twice the pain experience of their most affluent peers. These children are already at a disadvantage in so many ways. And just the most basic dental care could make a difference in their lives. But our health care system allows this problem to fall through the cracks. Over the past few years these and similar statistics have been chronicled by numerous entities including the Surgeon General, the General Accounting Office, and the National Institutes of Health. This legislation will help strengthen the dental workforce that delivers vital oral health care services by improving the workforce in under-served areas. By providing States and communities with sufficient flexibility to address the unique needs of their under-served areas, I believe that this legislation will take an effective approach to meeting the needs of communities in Wisconsin and across the Nation. The first part of this legislation would establish a new State-based grant program to help states explore innovative ideas for increasing access to dental care in under-served areas. This grant program would be directed through the Health Resources and Services Administration at the Department of Health and Human Services and support the efforts of States to develop and implement innovative programs to address the dental workforce shortage that are appropriate to their individual needs. For example, States could tailor loan forgiveness and repayment programs for dentists practicing in areas designated as dental health professional shortage areas by either the Federal Government or the State. This program could also help with recruitment and retention efforts by providing grants or low interest loans to help practitioners in designated dental health professional shortage areas equip a dental office or share in the overhead costs of an operation. The second component of our legislation would increase participation of the dental workforce in the National Health Service Corps. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, the number of dentists and dental hygienists with obligations to serve in the National Health Service Corps falls far short of meeting the total identified need: only about 6 percent of the dental need is currently being met by this program, and outreach and development are critical to future opportunities for strengthening the dental workforce in designated under-served areas. Our legislation would develop and implement a plan for increasing the participation of dentists and dental hygienists in the National Health Service Corps scholarship and loan repayment programs and report back to Congress on their progress after three years. This legislation follows a series of recommendations by the American Dental Association and the American Dental Educators Association, who both strongly support this legislation. I hope my colleagues will join the Senator from Maine and me in our ongoing efforts to increase access to dental care and promote greater oral health. We must change America's approach to oral health, especially when it comes to some of the most vulnerable members of our communities--low income children. These kids deserve quality dental care. Right now, too many kids are suffering. It is my hope that Congress will work on a bipartisan basis to promote greater oral health.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have so far voted for all of President Bush's nominees for positions in the Department of Justice and other executive branch departments. As I have explained before, I believe that the President's choices for executive positions are due great deference by the Senate. I am very reluctant to vote against a qualified nominee for such a position. I have been criticized for some of my votes on this President's nominations, including my vote for Attorney General Ashcroft, and I'm sure I will take criticism for some of my votes in the future. But, I have never said I will vote for every executive branch nominee, and today I must vote ``No'' on the nomination of Theodore Olson to be Solicitor General of the United States. I am disappointed that the Senate is moving so quickly to a vote on this nomination. I believe that serious questions exist about Mr. Olson's candor in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Although there has been some further inquiry about these matters in the past week, after the Judiciary Committee voted 9-9 on Mr. Olson's nomination, the Senate has not had time to review and digest even the limited additional information that the inquiry uncovered. Without further time to resolve the questions that our committee's work has raised, I cannot in good conscience vote for Mr. Olson. Simply put, I am concerned that Mr. Olson was not adequately forthcoming in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee particularly on the issue of his involvement with the so-called ``Arkansas Project,'' which was an effort to unearth scandals involving former President Clinton and his wife, undertaken by the American Spectator magazine with funding from Richard Mellon Scaife. Let me emphasize that I am not alleging that Mr. Olson committed perjury or told an out and out lie. But it seems to me that Mr. Olson was attempting to minimize his participation in the Arkansas Project and portray it in the least objectionable light to those of us on the Democratic side, rather than simply answering the questions forthrightly and completely. As the dispute developed, Mr. Olson's supporters have gone to great lengths to argue that he answered truthfully when he said: ``I was not involved in the project in its origin or its management.'' But Senator Leahy did not ask if he was involved in the origin or management of the Arkansas Project. He asked: ``Were you involved in the so-called Arkansas Project at any time.'' Mr. Olson was not adequately forthcoming in his answer to that question. The Solicitor General of the United States is an extremely important position in our government. It is not only the third ranking official in the Justice Department, it is the representative of the executive branch before the Supreme Court of the United States. I want the person in that position to be not just technically accurate and truthful in answering the questions of the Justices, but to be forthcoming. I want the Solicitor General to answer the Justices' questions not as a hostile witness would, narrowly responding only to the question asked and revealing as little information as possible, but as a trusted colleague would, trying to give as much relevant information as possible in response not only to the question as framed, but to the substance of the question that the Justice might have been asking, but might not have precisely articulated. That is also how I want nominees before Senate committees to answer questions. Our questions at nominations hearings are not a game of ``gotcha.'' We are not trying to trap nominees. We are attempting to elicit information that is relevant to our decision as to whether a nominee should serve in the office to which he or she has been nominated. We deserve forthcoming and complete answers, not just technically truthful answers. We shouldn't have to frame our questions so precisely as to preclude an evasive or disingenuous answer. We are not in a court of law. We don't ask leading questions of nominees in order to pin them down to ``yes'' or ``no'' answers. We want and expect nominees to give us complete and open answers, to put on the record all the information they have at their disposal that will help us exercise our constitutional duty to advise and consent. Many Senators were concerned about Mr. Olson's highly partisan writings about the previous Administration, and particularly about the Department of Justice under the previous Attorney General. They were concerned about Mr. Olson's association with an organized and well- funded attempt to dig up dirt on the President of the United States. They asked questions to find out what Mr. Olson did, and what he knew. It was not just a question of whether Mr. Olson did something illegal or improper. Each Senator was and is entitled to make his or her own judgment about whether Mr. Olson's involvement with the Arkansas Project, whatever it was, is relevant to his fitness to serve as Solicitor General. We were entitled to complete and forthcoming answers to the questions that were asked. We did not get them. Mr. Olson's failure to be forthcoming in his testimony has led me to have concern about his ability to serve as Solicitor General, especially given the special duties of that office. I would not vote against him simply because of his conservative views and record. I am concerned about his fitness to be Solicitor General. Mr. Olson testified that the Solicitor General owes the Supreme Court ``absolute candor and fair dealing.'' I think that nominees owe Senate committees that same duty when they testify at nominations hearings. I do not think that Mr. Olson met that standard and I don't think the process surrounding this nomination has allowed Senators adequately to consider this important exercise of their duty to advise and consent. I therefore, with regret, must oppose his nomination.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote against this tax bill because it is not fiscally responsible. This enormous tax cut may end up raiding the Medicare and Social Security Trust Fund balances. It risks a return to the annual budget deficits Congress worked so hard to eliminate. It will cause our Nation to miss what may be a once-in-a- lifetime opportunity to put our fiscal house in order by paying down debt, strengthening Social Security, and modernizing Medicare. And it does not fairly distribute its benefits. For these reasons, I must oppose it. This is the most momentous budgetary vote in two decades. For with this vote, Congress appears poised to turn its back on 8 years of fiscal responsibility. With this vote, Congress appears willing to return to the deficit spending days of the 1980s. I do believe that taxpayers deserve tax relief. With the favorable surpluses before us, we should cut taxes. I supported Senator Conrad's proposal to cut taxes by $745 billion over the next 10 years. With its associated interest costs, that package would have devoted roughly $900 billion to tax relief. But the tax cut in this conference report is too large relative to the surpluses that economists have projected. It seeks to devote $1.35 trillion to this one purpose. Interest costs could add another $400 billion to the cost. We should not commit to tax cuts of this size before the projections of future surplus dollars have proved real, before we have ensured the long-term solvency of the vital Medicare system, before we have brought that program up-to-date with needed prescription drug and long-term- care benefits, and before we have done one single thing to prepare the vital Social Security safety net for the impending retirement of the baby boom generation. With this bill, the Congress appears headed toward repeating the fiscal mistake it committed in 1981. Recall that back in 1981, they had surplus projections, too. In President Reagan's first budget, incorporating his major tax cut, the administration projected a $28 billion surplus in the fifth year, 1986. In the actual event, the Federal Government ran up a $221 billion deficit in 1986. The 1980s saw the accumulation of more than $1.5 trillion in deficits and the tripling of the Federal debt held by the public. The Congress's decision to cut taxes too deeply in 1981 thus robbed the Nation of fiscal policy tools, and unduly constrained the Federal Reserve Bank in its monetary policy. We risk committing that same error again today. As I have noted, the bill before us will cost at least $1.35 trillion in its first 10 years. And during this bill's second 10 years, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that it will cost more than $4 trillion. And those costs will come just as the Nation faces growing costs for Medicare and Social Security with the retirement of the baby boom generation. In their 2001 annual report, concluded under the Bush administration, the Trustees of the Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund project that its costs will likely exceed projected revenues beginning in the year 2016. The Trustees say: ``Over the long range, the HI Trust Fund fails by a wide margin to meet our test of financial balance. The sooner reforms are made the smaller and less abrupt they will have to be in order to achieve solvency through 2075.'' Similarly, Social Security's Trustees remind us again this year that when the baby-boom generation begins to retire around 2010, ``financial pressure on the Social Security trust funds will rise rapidly.'' The Trustees project that, as with Medicare, Social Security revenues will fall short of outlays beginning in 2016. The Trustees conclude: ``We should be prepared to take action to address the OASDI financial shortfall in a timely way because, as with Medicare, the sooner adjustments are made the smaller and less abrupt they will have to be.'' This bill robs the nation of resources to deal with these important challenges. As well, the bill before us is tilted heavily toward high-income taxpayers. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, when this bill's tax cuts are fully phased in, the highest-income one percent of taxpayers would receive 35 percent of the benefits of the bill. The majority of taxpayers in the bottom three-fifths of the population would get only a little more than 15 percent of the bill's benefits. When this bill's tax cuts are fully phased in, the one percent of taxpayers with the highest incomes would receive an average tax cut of more than $44,000, while taxpayers in the middle fifth of the population would receive an average tax cut of less than $600. This is not a balanced bill. It is not balanced fiscally. And it is not fairly balanced in its benefits. I will therefore vote against it, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it as well.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I regret that I opposed a number of amendments to this legislation that I might otherwise support because they are not adequately offset. The legislation before us already puts us at risk of raiding the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds. We spent much of the past 8 years working to climb out of a deficit ditch, and this bill steers us right back toward it. This is not authorizing legislation subject to the further scrutiny of an appropriations process. Unlike other measures that come before us, this bill and the amendments to it have a direct and immediate impact on our budget. A number of amendments have been offered to this measure that, while laudatory in their goals, further aggravate the fiscal position in which the underlying bill puts us. Without language offsetting the cost of the proposal, the amendments only add to the already fiscally irresponsible cost of the bill. For that reason, I have opposed many otherwise worthy amendments.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to add my support to the nomination of Howard H. Baker, Jr., to be the U.S. Ambassador to Japan. Howard Baker has an outstanding record of serving the people of the United States as an officer in the U.S. Navy, as a Senator, as White House Chief of Staff to President Reagan, and as a member of numerous Presidential Advisory Boards. During the nearly 20 years that he represented Tennessee in the U.S. Senate, he served as both the minority and majority leader, earning the respect of his colleagues and a reputation as a talented, fair leader, and consensus builder. Senator Baker also served on the Foreign Relations Committee and was a Congressional Delegate to the United Nations General Assembly. The experience and the skill that Senator Baker has developed as a long time public servant will be valuable as he takes on the important role of working to strengthen U.S. relations with Japan. Howard Baker succeeds a long and illustrious line of envoys to Japan including former House Speaker Tom Foley, former Vice President Walter Mondale, Michael Hayden Armacost, and former Majority Leader Mike Mansfield. I am sure that he will represent the United States with honor, in a manner that reflects well upon his predecessors. I am also especially pleased that the United States will benefit from the wisdom and expertise of Nancy Kassebaum Baker, our former colleague, who will accompany her husband in this important endeavor. I had the pleasure of working with Senator Kassebaum on many issues and know that America is getting a truly excellent team to represent our country in Japan.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my next amendment eliminates the estate tax repeal for estates larger than $100 million and uses the savings to give tax cuts to all income-tax payers. Last year, the Treasury Department said for 1998, 35 estates amounted to more than $100 million. Thirty-one of those estates paid $1.4 billion in taxes or 7 percent of all estate taxes. Repealing the estate tax for those estates would have given those estates a tax cut averaging $45 million each. My amendment by contrast would preserve the estate tax for these very wealthy estates and apply the savings to an across-the- board tax cut for all taxpayers by expanding the amount of income subject to the 10- percent tax bracket. Too often the choices we have to weigh here are heartbreakingly difficult. This is not one of those cases. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, No. 726 is next.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the estate tax provisions are a major source of the unfairness in this bill. But even within the estate tax provisions themselves, this bill tilts to the very wealthiest. The bill would increase the unified credit exemption up to $4 million a person, or $8 million a couple. This change alone will exempt all but the very wealthiest. But the bill would also reduce the rate of taxation that the few extremely wealthy families who still have to pay the estate tax would pay. It thus focuses tax cuts on the very pinnacle of wealth. My motion would spread the estate tax relief in this bill more broadly. My motion would recommit the bill to committee to strike all the estate tax rate reductions in the bill and use the savings to expand the amounts of the estate tax unified credit exemption amounts. Thus under my amendment, more relatively smaller estates would be exempted from taxation altogether. This would allow the unified credit to increase to $5 million, or $10 million a couple. I urge colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my motion.

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