Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will reassure the Senator that this is merely to offer an amendment, and it will take 30 seconds.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside.

Mr. FEINGOLD. It is the amendment I discussed during the time of the Senator from Texas that removes the emergency designation for the Bosnia money. I indicated that I would offer that amendment later this morning, and I simply want to offer it, call for the yeas and nays, and not discuss it further at this time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside for 1 minute so that I can simply offer the amendment I referred to earlier, and I won't discuss it right now.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, at the appropriate time I will send an amendment to the desk with regard to Bosnia, but let me take this opportunity to thank the Senator from Texas once again for her leadership on this issue. I have enjoyed working with her on the issue. I think the only thing that is regrettable is, we still have to be working on it so many years later, after we identified the problem in the misrepresentations that have been demonstrated in this Bosnia mission. I am hearing more and more concern back in my State of Wisconsin about the unlimited nature of this engagement. It troubles me a good deal that my constituents feel they were told that this was going to be a 1-year mission, that it was only going to cost $2 billion, and if this didn't work out we would be out of there. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. President, I hope that either on this bill or in the bills that come later this year we have an opportunity to get some clarity and some time line and some absolute definition to this operation, because the American people are just saying, ``Why? Why is it that we are bearing this entire burden, or such a huge percentage of this burden, when it seems that the European countries could do so much more to provide for the needs of this area?'' I will say a word or two about an amendment I intend to offer later. The amendment is a little unusual and requires a little explanation. What my amendment would do is strike the ``emergency'' designation from each of the line items in this supplemental appropriations bill that provide funds to support U.S. peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, but it would leave such designation intact for funds to support our additional military needs in the southwest Asia area, which, as we know, refers to the U.S. military buildup in the Persian Gulf. I will offer this amendment for two reasons. First and foremost, I have always had serious questions about our involvement in the Bosnia mission. I was the only Democrat to vote against the deployment of U.S. troops back in 1995, in large part because I did not believe that the United States would be able to complete its mission there within the time and within the financial constraints that have been identified. I am sorry to say that I have been proven right. I take absolutely no pleasure in this. It has been very expensive and very dangerous. U.S. forces have now been in Bosnia for more than 2 years--much longer than the original 1-year mandate--and I don't think anyone has a good idea about how much longer we will be there. More significantly perhaps, the cost of our involvement hasn't been $2 billion, it has actually been quadrupled from that figure; it has been $8 billion. And now Congress is being asked to fork over another half a billion, with no end in sight. There is a second reason for this amendment, and that is that the legislation before the Senate today, S. 1768, is an emergency appropriations bill. The President has submitted a supplemental appropriations request, and we are debating this bill today precisely because we have been faced with some unforeseen emergencies. There have been floods in California, tornadoes in Florida, a typhoon in Guam, and ice storms in many areas of the Northeast. The showdown with Saddam Hussein took on new and frightening intensity in the past 6 months, and the United States came very close to carrying out airstrikes on a scale that was at least somewhat reminiscent of Desert Storm. We have all faced the unforeseen consequences of the so-called ubiquitous El Nino effect which has had bizarre and sometimes tragic influences on our weather patterns nationwide. The Congress has never developed firm rules on how we should define an ``emergency.'' Everybody assumes that we will use common sense when deciding when to grant special emergency treatment to certain expenditures. And common sense tells us that floods and tornados clearly are emergencies. In my view, however, the mission in Bosnia, is not. It is a substantial, long-term commitment. It is something the United States has, for better or worse, decided to do for the long-term. If events there take an unexpected turn for the worse, it may become an emergency. But as we stand here and debate this spending bill, it is not an emergency. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines the word ``emergency'' as follows: ``an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action.'' This definition clearly does not apply to the Bosnia mission. The Bosnia mission is an emergency only in the strange language of appropriations bills. The Bosnia ``emergency'' is a legislative fiction. The line items in this bill--military personnel, operations and maintenance, and contingency funds--are standard military costs that would be part of any military mission. U.S. troops have been on the ground in Bosnia for more than two years. The change in designation from IFOR [eye-fore] to SFOR [ess-fore] was made more than a year ago and is scheduled to continue through June of this year. Then, last December, the President announced that he would forego imposing a deadline altogether, and opt instead for a policy of benchmarks whose definitions remain open to interpretation. How can Congress and the President possibly profess to the American people that the additional costs for the Bosnia mission constitute an emergency? On the contrary, it has been clear for quite a while now that the cost of this mission would again rise substantially. Some would say it has been clear from the start. Ironically, Congressional appropriators and our military leaders have planned for many months on obtaining these funds in this emergency spending bill. So that invites my next question: What are these funds doing in this bill? I just do not think that you can equate the long anticipated needs of the operation in Bosnia with the urgent, unexpected needs of the farmers in California or homeowners in Florida who have been devastated by natural disaster. Despite my long-standing opposition to the mission in Bosnia, I believe the Congress should take up and debate the additional appropriations needed to advance the administration's goals in that war-torn region, but not on an ``emergency'' bill. In the proper context of an ordinary appropriation, subject to ordinary budget rules, I will state my own reservations about this mission and will listen carefully to my colleagues who have supported this mission. Then we can decide whether to spend this money and where to get it without increasing the deficit. This supplemental appropriation, which represents so many dire and urgent needs, is not the appropriate legislative vehicle for Bosnia spending. Now, I considered offering an amendment that would have stricken all of the funds designated for the Bosnia mission based on this same rationale. I am not doing that today, because I recognize there is little support in the Senate for such an abrupt funding cut-off. My amendment is neutral as to the merits of the mission in Bosnia. It simply requires us to fund it in a responsible manner. This bill should be limited to the true emergencies represented by the bulk of the remaining $2 billion and should not include the non- emergency that is the Bosnia mission. But as important as that technical change may be, this amendment has some real substantive teeth. By changing the designation in this way, Congress will be mandating that funds used to support the Bosnia operation fall under the same budgetary scrutiny and discipline that other spending does. If this amendment is adopted, and the Senate decides the Bosnia appropriations do not merit the special treatment an emergency designation confers, the Bosnia-related appropriations would be subject to the same budget discipline we impose on all other non-emergencies. Congress would have to cut enough spending to offset the cost of this new Bosnia money. If that did not happen, OMB would trigger an across- the-board sequester--in effect doing the work for us. The mission in Bosnia does not represent an emergency that legitimately calls for us to depart from these, established, vital budget rules so casually. We must separate the Bosnia money from the true emergencies funded in the rest of this bill. I urge my colleagues to think carefully about my amendment, because this speaks to our commitment to truly balance the budget. Any Senator can support this amendment, and then consider funding for Bosnia operations in a more fiscally responsible way, without stepping away from any existing commitment to the troops and the mission in Bosnia. I thank the chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me first take this opportunity to----

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I very much would like the opportunity to speak on the subject of Bosnia. Does the Senator from Texas control the time?

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to urge the Senate to exercise its role to advise and consent on international treaties and take up consideration of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, which the President submitted to this body in 1996. The purpose of the Convention is to combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought on arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid land. The Convention addresses the fundamental causes of famine and food insecurity in Africa by encouraging partnerships between governments, local communities, nongovernmental organizations and aid donors. As Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on African Affairs, I feel it is especially important that the Senate exercise its advice and consent on this Convention. It is a mechanism by which the people of Africa will be assisted in preserving and protecting their land, which is a vital link in Africa's fight to become self-sufficient. As Americans, we understand the importance of land and what land can bring us: food, a place to live, and, perhaps most importantly, a place to call home. Whatever their political differences, the people of Africa can agree that protecting the land from drought and erosion is a priority. The consideration of this Convention will also refocus the Senate's attention on the plight of the African people. Unlike the other environmental conventions on which the Senate has focused attention in recent years, the Convention on Climate Change and Biological Diversity, the Convention on Desertification does not establish a new financial ``mechanism'' to administer funds for convention-related projects and activities. Instead, it emphasizes the need to mobilize substantial funding from existing sources and to rationalize and strengthen their management. In light of the President's visit to Africa, which began today, it is especially important that the Senate be actively engaged regarding Africa. This Convention is a perfect opportunity for the Senate to go on record in support of programs that are both vital to the African continent and consistent with United States foreign, economic, and environmental policy. I hope that the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and the full Senate, will consider this Convention in the near future.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my friend from Arizona, Mr. McCain, in offering this amendment to strike a number of extraneous provisions from the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. These provisions are only the most recent example of the abuse of our emergency appropriations process. In general, the rules require that new spending, whether through direct spending, tax expenditures, or discretionary programs, be offset with spending cuts or revenue increases. However, the rules provide for exceptions in the event of true emergencies. The deliberate review through the federal budget process, weighing one priority against another, may not permit a timely response to an international crisis, a natural disaster, or some other emergency. We do not ask that earthquake victims find a funding source before we send them aid, though that should not, even in dire circumstances, be read to imply we must not find ways to pay for emergencies, rather than simply add their costs to the deficit. But, Mr. President, the emergency exception to our budget rules, designed to expedite a response to an urgent need, has become a loophole, abused by those trying to circumvent the scrutiny of the budget process, in particular, by adding non-emergency matters to emergency legislation that is receiving special, accelerated consideration. One former Member of the other body, who was especially skilled at advancing spending items, was quoted as saying, ``I never saw a disaster that wasn't an opportunity.'' That, in a nutshell, is still the unfortunate attitude of a few. Mr. President, there is a long history of adding non-emergency special interest items to emergency supplemental measures. Just last year, a number of items were included in the disaster relief bill that had absolutely nothing to do with the need for emergency relief: an additional $35 million available for new grants under the Advanced Technology Program; a $5 million earmark for study of water allocation issues in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia; $15 million for research on environmental factors affecting breast cancer; $650,000 for the National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education; $16 million for continued development of Automated Targeting System for the Customs Service; a $12.3 million set-aside for construction of a parking garage at a VA medical center in Cleveland; and, a $500,000 earmark for a parking garage in Ashland, Kentucky. Mr. President, we even used the emergency relief bill to give the Secretary of the Senate $5 million for the development of a Legislative Information System. In the 103rd Congress, when the appropriations bill to provide relief for the Los Angeles earthquake was introduced, it initially did four things: provided $7.8 billion for the Los Angeles quake, $1.2 billion for the Department of Defense peacekeeping operations; $436 million for Midwest flood relief, and $315 million more for the 1989 California earthquake. But, Mr. President, by the time the Los Angeles earthquake bill became law, it also provided: $1.4 million to fight potato fungus; $2.3 million for FDA pay raises; $14.4 million for the National Park Service; $12.4 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs; $10 million for a new Amtrak station in New York; $40 million for the space shuttle; $20 million for a fingerprint lab; $500,000 for United States Trade Representative travel office; and $5.2 million for the Bureau of Public Debt. Mr. President, we now come to this year's model, and not much has changed. The Senator from Arizona's amendment seeks to eliminate a number of extraneous provisions in the current emergency supplemental appropriations bill, including: $7.5 million to begin repair and rehabilitation of the Capitol Dome; $4 million for development and demonstration of dielectric wall accelerator technology for remote explosive detonation, radiography, and fusion applications; and, $2 million for payments to counties to replace funds expected from timber road construction projects. Mr. President, some of these projects may well be worthy. In fact, the last provision I mentioned, providing $2 million in payments to counties to replace funds expected from timber road construction projects, is something I believe may have great merit. But, Mr. President, just because a provision may be worthwhile does not justify using an emergency appropriations bill to skirt normal budget scrutiny. Mr. President, though non-emergency matters attached to emergency bills are still subject to the spending caps established in the concurrent budget resolution, as long as total spending remains under those caps, these unrelated spending matters are not required to be offset with spending cuts. Some might suggest that new spending is less a problem on emergency supplemental appropriations when it is offset with spending cuts. But, Mr. President, in such instances, we miss an opportunity to use those rescissions to reduce the deficit, having instead to use them just to stay even. Moreover, by using emergency appropriations bills as a vehicle, these extraneous proposals avoid the normal scrutiny through which legislative proposals must go to justify Federal spending. Mr. President, those who add unrelated provisions to disaster relief measures are engaging in a game of chicken--daring the body to oppose the emergency relief that may be desperately needed. I urge my colleagues to reject this reckless approach, and support the McCain amendment to strip out the unrequested provisions added to this emergency supplemental appropriations measure.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to tell a story that perhaps will intrigue and may be worthy of Tom Clancy's best novel. The story has a little bit of deception and what might be called good old- fashioned Government coverup. Maybe if we could get Alec Baldwin and Sharon Stone, we might even have a halfway decent movie to boot. But the unfortunate aspect of this story is that it is true and that the American people are the ones who I think are getting duped. Mr. President, the Navy's F/A-18 E/F ``Super Hornet'' program is foundering and the Defense Department is doing everything in its power to keep it afloat. Last April I requested a review of this program by the General Accounting Office. Just this week the GAO finished its work on this report. The report itself raises numerous questions regarding the aircraft and also the Navy's judgment in developing, producing, and testing the aircraft. Perhaps even more telling, though, is the Navy aircraft's testing team's efforts to keep this wasteful and unnecessary program alive. The new GAO report makes the following recommendations: First, that the Department of Defense and the Navy adopt a more cautious approach as they make funding decisions and prepare for the operational testing of the Super Hornet; No. 2, that the Department of Defense direct the Secretary of Navy not to approve contracting of additional F/A-18E/F aircraft beyond the first 12 for the first low-rate production phase until the Navy demonstrates through flight testing that these deficiencies that we are talking about are corrected; and, No. 3, that the Navy not begin operational testing and evaluation of these planes until the corrections are incorporated into the aircraft used for operational testing and evaluation. These GAO recommendations seem reasonable. Even DOD has agreed in part with the first two recommendations. But DOD resists agreeing to anything that could delay the development process. They are so adamant in ramming this program through that they decided to cut out valuable data-gathering requirements so they could still maintain their test schedule. As our first chart shows, the new report quotes the Navy's Program Risk Advisory Board, which states that the current F/A-18C is actually better than the E/F in some performance areas, including some acceleration and maneuvering. What that means is the current plane, the one the Navy says we have to switch from, from the current plan for the Super Hornet, actually may do better in some of these areas than the plane that would come in the future. The report also states that the Navy will likely exceed the $4.88 billion development cost cap on this program. This report falls on the heels of another GAO report on this subject in late 1996 which concluded that the only marginal improvements of the F/A-18E/F are far outweighed by the much higher cost of the E and F planes as compared to the C/D planes. The revelation in these reports force us, the President, and the buyers of this aircraft to cast a wary eye on the Super Hornet program. Let me back up for a minute to put this recent series of recommendations by the GAO into context. The Super Hornet, the F/A-18E/ F, is just one of three costly new fighter programs that the Department of Defense has on the drawing board right now. In addition to the Super Hornet, there is the Air Force's F-22, and also the Joint Strike Fighter. The Joint Strike Fighter is intended to perform virtually every type of fighter aircraft mission in today's force structure. The Joint Strike Fighter is expected to be a stealthy strike aircraft built on a single production line with a high degree of commonality of parts and cost. The Navy plans to procure 300 JSF's, with a projected initial operational capability beginning around the year 2007. Demonstration studies indicate that the JSF--this is as compared to the Super Hornet--will have superior or comparable capabilities in all Navy tactical mission aircraft areas, especially range and survivability, at far less cost than the Super Hornet or any other existing or planned carrier-based tactical aircraft. The Navy's JSF variant is expected to have longer ranges than the Super Hornet to attack high-value targets without having to use external tanks. Unlike the Super Hornet, which would carry all of its weapons externally, the Navy's Joint Strike Fighter will carry internally at least four weapons for both air-to-air and air-to-ground combat. That, of course, would maximize its stealthiness. Finally, the JSF would not require jamming support from the EA-6B Prowler aircraft as does the Super Hornet in carrying out its mission in the face of integrated air defense systems, and, while the Joint Strike Fighter is expected to have superior operational capabilities as compared to the Super Hornet, it is expected that it can be developed and procured at far less cost than the Super Hornet. However, there are few who look at this whole picture of how much we are talking about for all three of these new planes and who can honestly say we can afford all three tactical fighter programs. This chart that we have up now shows the total estimated cost for all three of these planes--the F-22, the Super Hornet, and the JSF. That total figure is an astonishing $397 billion. That is enough to pay for the fiscal year 1998 appropriations for the Department of Defense plus Veterans Affairs plus Housing and Urban Development plus Treasury plus Energy plus Military Construction and the Legislative Branch Appropriations thrown in as well. With the money we would spend on these three tactical fighter programs, we could pay for all of those things and we would still have $1 billion change back in your pocket, as they might say at McDonald's. The GAO, the CBO, the National Defense Panel, and many others agree that the likelihood that all three of these plane programs can be fully funded with the planned number of aircraft buys is virtually nil. Interestingly, the Marine Corps has decided not to purchase any of the Super Hornets. The Marine Corps has decided that the E/Fs are too expensive and that the Super Hornets--the F/A-18Cs and Ds, the planes currently flown by marine aviators--are up to their mission. They know, and say, that the C/D is adequate for what they have to do now and so they have wisely opted to wait--not have the current C/D, then go to the Super Hornet, and then go to the Joint Strike Fighters. What the Marines are apparently saying is they will wait for that Joint Strike Fighter instead of putting us to the enormous expense of moving up to the Super Hornet. Given our fiscal constraints, we cannot afford to finance three separate fighter planes that accumulate to the final costs that these three programs involve. Over the next few minutes, I will just cite a few of the many reasons that we really ought to put an end to the Super Hornet E/F program. The Navy and the planes' manufacturer, Boeing, base their argument for the need to develop and procure the Super Hornet on existing or projected operational deficiencies of the C/D plane in five different areas: strike range, carrier recovery payload, survivability, avionics growth space, and payload capacity. The Navy and Boeing like to call these five points the ``five pillars'' of the Super Hornet program. But the new GAO report and my own review of the program show that these five pillars of the Super Hornet are actually weak and crumbling. GAO identifies problems with E/ F in each of these five key areas, and the responses that the Navy has to each of these concerns are actually at odds with their own arguments in favor of the E/F program. In the report, GAO identifies problems that could diminish the effectiveness of the plane's survivability improvements, problems that could degrade engine performance and service life, and dangerous weapons separation problems that do require additional testing. As recently as July 1997, the Navy's Program Risk Advisory Board stated that ``operational testing may determine that the aircraft is not operationally effective or suitable.'' In December, the board reversed its position and then said the following, that the E/F is potentially operationally effective and suitable, but also reiterated that it did have quality concerns with certain systems that are supposed to make the E/F Super Hornet superior to the current C/D. Mr. President, these are not the words of a glowing review for any program, but they are downright awful for an aircraft program some estimate will cost over $106 billion. We should not gamble with our pilots' lives. We should not gamble with more than $100 billion of taxpayers' money. These stakes are too high. Also, in the new report GAO asserts that the E/F doesn't accelerate or maneuver as well as the current C/D plane. DOD agrees with this point but says that this is an acceptable tradeoff for an E/F that is more capable in other respects. I wonder if the pilot flying the E/F would agree with that kind of a tradeoff. It gets better--or, really, worse. The publication ``Inside the Pentagon'' reported in its February 19 issue that the Navy will not hold the Super Hornet to strict performance specifications in three areas. It published a copy of a memo written by Rear Adm. Dennis McGinn, the Navy's officer in charge of air warfare programs, that ordered the Super Hornet would not be strictly held to performance specifications in turning, climbing and maneuvering. Everyone can agree that these are important performance criteria for a state-of-the-art fighter and attack plane. It turns out that the memo was sent to the E/F test team after, Mr. President, after the team concluded that the E/F was, in some cases, not as proficient in turning or accelerating as the current C/D version of the plane. Keep in mind that the C models used in these comparisons were not even the most advanced examples of the current C models. In its new report, the GAO said that the Navy board's program officials came to ``the realization that the F/A-18 E/F may not be as capable in a number of operational performance areas as the most recently procured C model aircraft that are equipped with an enhanced performance engine.'' The Navy's own test team has now stated that the new plane does not perform as well as the reliable version currently used in key performance areas. The Navy now is somehow apparently saying that these performance criteria are suddenly not important. This strikes me as a little shameful. In its 1996 report, the GAO reached a number of conclusions. It found that the E/F Super Hornet offers only marginal--marginal--improvements over the C/D and that these are greatly outweighed by the far greater cost of the new plane, the E/F. It found that the current plane, the C/ D, can be modified to meet every capacity that this new E/F is intended to fulfill. Let me just say it another way. A modified C/D would meet the performance specifications that the E/F was built to meet. The GAO found and put a figure on this that was very troubling to me at the time and still is. They said that the Defense Department could save $17 billion by purchasing more of the current improved C/D planes instead of creating this entirely new plane that isn't clearly better than the C/D, a difference of 17 billion-taxpayer-dollars. The report also addressed other purported improvements of the Super Hornet over the C/D. The GAO concluded that the reported operational deficiencies of the C/D that the Navy cited to justify the Super Hornet either have not materialized as projected or that such deficiencies can be corrected with nonstructural changes to the current C/D and additional upgrades to further improve its capability. In effect, the GAO has rebutted all of the Navy's claims about what disadvantages the current C/D plane supposedly has. So, we have a plane that doesn't really do the things the Navy said it would do and, in some respects, it does not perform as well as the current older version, but we are supposed to pay double for these new planes anyway. Caveat emptor, indeed. Mr. President, I now would like to address an additional newer problem that has come out, and that is the issue known as the wing-drop problem. In its new review, the GAO reports a wing-drop problem that threatens this entire E/F program. This issue has garnered the most publicity recently and presents a major problem for the Navy. I want to reiterate, because I devoted most of my talk discussing all the problems that existed with this plane before this wing-drop problem came up, but this is a very serious problem indeed. Wing drop causes the aircraft to rock back and forth when it is flying at the altitude and speed at which air-to-air combat maneuvers are expected to occur. Obviously, this is not a good situation for a fighter pilot. GAO reports that the Navy and Boeing think wing drop is unacceptable and presents the program's most challenging technical problem. DOD claims to have a variety of promising solutions that will mitigate the wing-drop problem, but it is very interesting to note what the Defense Department does not say. They are not saying that they will have a complete fix to the wing-drop problem. Additionally, these potential solutions will negatively affect the already very marginal benefits of the Super Hornet over the C/D. The Navy's solutions affect the plane's speed, maneuverability and stealthiness, and I think these tradeoffs are clearly unacceptable, given the Navy's position so adamantly adhered to that somehow this E/F is better than the C/D. It will be interesting to observe how DOD handles this situation given its past performance. This chart shows the progression of the wing-drop problem from the flight test team to the Secretary of Defense. On March 4, 1996, the Navy's test team first discovered the E/F's wing-drop problem. In November of that year, the Navy classified the wing drop a priority problem. On February 5, 1997, the test team noted wing drop in an official deficiency report. On March 12, the Navy reported that wing drop ``adversely impacts the minimum acceptable operational performance requirement.'' Two weeks later, Secretary Cohen approved the recommendation of Paul Kaminski, the Navy's chief procurement officer, to go ahead and purchase the first dozen production versions of the E/F for a figure of $1.9 billion. Kaminski's decision followed a meeting with the Navy's test team in which this wing-drop problem apparently wasn't even mentioned. On November 20, almost a year and a half after this wing-drop problem was first discovered, John Douglas, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition, then informed Navy Secretary John Dalton of the wing-drop problem. This program-threatening wing- drop problem seems to have been kept, Mr. President, from the top Defense Department staff, including the Secretary, until after the decision was made to initially procure the first 12 aircraft. If this sort of manipulation of the process is really taking place, it is obviously totally unacceptable. I have asked a full account of the discovery and progression of the wing-drop problem from the Secretary of Defense. In light of these allegations, I also urge the Department of Defense to fully consider the panel's findings and halt the purchase of any additional Super Hornet aircraft scheduled for this month until this wing-drop problem is fully understood and corrected. To do otherwise would compromise the safety of our Navy's pilots and the integrity of the Department of Defense. Having mentioned a number of issues, including this very serious wing-drop problem, I want to briefly conclude my remarks by reemphasizing the exorbitant cost of this new Super Hornet aircraft. The Navy initially plans to procure 62 aircraft in three separate procurement lots. Secretary Cohen is delaying procurement of the second round of 20 aircraft pending identification of a solution to this wing- drop problem. The final aircraft buy is scheduled for late 1998 or early 1999. DOD claims that failure to provide full funding for the second round of planes would result in a production break and then would involve considerable additional costs. The total cost, though, of these planes is already $15 billion more than estimates that were given just 2 years ago--$15 billion more from just 2 years ago. How much worse can this get? The original cost estimates were based on unrealistically large projections of the number of aircraft to be purchased, low inflation assumptions for later years, and the Navy's failure to factor in the effect of its decision to buy more of the higher cost F models of the Super Hornets. GAO estimates that the Navy could save almost $17 billion if the Navy were to simply procure the F/A-18 C/Ds rather than the E/Fs. This savings alone could have easily paid for the fiscal year 1998 Transportation or Interior appropriations in their entirety. I know that some of my colleagues will say that by halting production of the Super Hornet and instead relying on the current C/D, we will somehow be mortgaging the future of our naval aviation fleet, but GAO clearly states that this is not the case. Given the program-threatening design problems and its enormous cost and marginal improvement in operational capabilities that the Super Hornet would provide, it seems that this new airplane is just not justified. Operational deficiencies in the current C/D aircraft either have not materialized or they could be corrected with nonstructural changes to the plane. The question is whether the current C/D can serve that function as it has demonstrated or whether we should proceed with an expensive new plane for a very marginal level of improvement. The $17 billion difference in projected costs does not seem to provide a significant return on our investment. The Super Hornet is, in effect, a solution in need of a problem. The Super Hornet program should be ended. The Defense Department and the Navy should also remain above board with the taxpayers when problems arise during the development of a new aircraft. As a result, proceeding with the Super Hornet program is not the most cost-effective approach to modernizing the Navy's tactical aircraft fleet. In the short term, it has been made very clear the Navy can continue to procure F/A-18 C/D aircraft while upgrading it to further improve its operational capabilities. For the long term, the Navy can look forward to the next generation of strike fighters, the joint strike fighter, which will provide more operational capability at far less cost than this Super Hornet that they want to go through with right now. The most efficient and fiscally appropriate bridge is an upgraded C/ D. The question is whether we can afford a $17 billion hit that can't be justified. We should discontinue the E/F program before the American taxpayers are asked to shell out additional tens of billions of dollars for an unnecessary and flawed program. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman's remarks and respectfully request 30 minutes as in morning business. I have no intention of introducing any amendment on this bill at this time.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am proud to take this opportunity to honor my good friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator John McCain in the twenty-fifth anniversary of the homecoming of our American prisoners of war from Vietnam. What a career our friend John McCain has had: A graduate of the Naval Academy, twenty-two years as a naval aviator, a prisoner of war for five years, a recipient of numerous awards including the Purple Heart and Silver Star and a member of this body since 1986. I am honored to have worked so closely with him in the past and look forward to joining forces with him again in the future. John, I join with others in the Senate in celebrating the anniversary of your coming home and the coming home of those who served with you. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss my vote against the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, also known as ISTEA. As we all know, the ISTEA bill is vital to the transportation needs of each state in the nation. Not only does the bill affect highway construction, but it supports mass transit, highway safety, and many other important programs. The original ISTEA bill of 1991 was a landmark in transportation policy. In Wisconsin, it was a blighted landmark. That bill continued Wisconsin's historical standing as a state that contributed more in Federal gas taxes than it received in return. Unfortunately, this bill continues this sorry legacy. With this bill, certain states continue and make out like bandits when we allocate transportation money. Other states continue to be denied a fair share. Wisconsin is one of the states getting an unfair shake. The senior Senator from Wisconsin and I worked hard to improve this bill and get Wisconsin a fair share of Federal transportation money. We were successful in getting almost $130 million per year more than we received last year. That is certainly a great win for Wisconsin, but we must do more. While greatly increasing the total dollars coming to Wisconsin, this bill actually decreases Wisconsin's share of Federal transportation money. We get a smaller piece of a bigger pie. That is unacceptable. As the House works on its bill, and the Senate and House work to reach a compromise, I will continue to work vigorously to get Wisconsin a fair shake. Mr. President, there are other objectionable provisions in this bill as well. This bill creates more Federal mandates. I want to speak briefly to the amendment offered, and passed, by Senators Lautenberg and DeWine. I commend their desire to reduce the incidence of drunk driving and the tragedies it breeds. I disagree, however, with their methods. Establishing national blood alcohol content standards and blackmailing states into complying is simply not the method by which the Federal government should work. Wisconsin and the other states can make those decisions for themselves. I agree that drunk driving must be eliminated and we must do everything in our power to increase highway safety. As a father of four, I shudder at the thought of any of my children being behind the wheel or a passenger in a car sharing the road with a drunk driver. I believe the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the state and local police should be given full authority to get these thoughtless people off the roads. Let me repeat, the state and local authorities should get these drivers off the road, not the Federal government. Mr. President, under the proposed sanctions in this amendment, Wisconsin would have to give up almost $14 million in the year 2001 if it does not pass this Federally mandated law. In later years, Wisconsin would lose $29 million. This blood alcohol content issue raises the fundamental question of the Federal government's appropriate role in policy areas traditionally reserved to the states. The relationship between the Federal government and the States has required a delicate balance since the founding of this nation. The practical and legal consequences of the Constitutional division of state and Federal powers continue to fuel debate. Having served in the state legislature for ten years, I know quite well the frustrations of state officials at the sometimes incomprehensible Federal bureaucracy. This much-debated relationship is frequently at issue in the discussion of Federal requirements on seatbelts, helmets, speed limits, and, now drunk driving. Mr. President, I have opposed certain legislation mandating Federal transportation standards for the States, such as requiring a uniform national speed limit or drinking age, or the mandatory use of seatbelts and motorcycle helmets. I feel most strongly about that principle when States are, in effect, ``blackmailed'' with the threat of losing Federal transportation dollars if they don't bow to the Federal will. I believe this sort of decision-making is generally best made at the state and local level and therefore, oppose Federal legislation mandating a national blood alcohol standard. It is unfortunate that this important bill continues to compromise our Federal system with the BAC amendment and the ban on open containers. Mr. President, there are numerous positive elements to the bill. The transit program is supported like never before. Safety programs are given the assistance they deserve. We take a small ax to some pork- barrel projects, known as demonstration projects. These projects disadvantage many states, including Wisconsin, because the projects are funded not on merit, but on which state is represented at the bargaining table. As a donor state that has historically done poorly with demonstration projects, this is a much-needed boost. It is my hope that the House corrects many of the inequities and problems not addressed in our bill. I will continue to work for a fair national transportation policy that delivers back to Wisconsin taxpayers more than 90 cents on the dollar. I look forward to working with our state's delegation to get that fair shake and I hope to support the conference report that comes back to the Senate.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield such time as I require. I rise today in strong support of S. Res. 187, a resolution introduced by the Senator from Florida and the Senator from Minnesota. I am grateful for their leadership on this and feel they have done a real service by bringing this issue forward to the floor with regard to human rights in China. The resolution states that it is a sense of the Senate that the United States initiate active lobbying at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights for a resolution condemning human rights abuses in China. It calls specifically for the United States to introduce and make all efforts necessary to pass a resolution on China and Tibet at the upcoming 54th session of the Commission, which is due to begin very soon in Geneva. It is a nonbinding resolution, but it makes a simple, clear statement of principle: The Senate believes that there should be a China resolution in Geneva, period. As we all know, for the past few years, China's leaders have aggressively lobbied against such efforts earlier and more actively than the countries that support a resolution. Last year, they actually threatened the country of Denmark, which had made a difficult decision to sponsor a resolution. This year, Chinese officials have deftly played a diplomatic game with various European governments and basically succeeded in getting the European Union Foreign Ministers to drop, at least temporarily, any European cosponsorship of a resolution. In the past, China's vigorous efforts have resulted in a ``no action'' motion at the Commission. With events proceeding the way they are now, I fear we will have the same result again at the upcoming meeting. This would be unfortunate because it is essential to have a resolution on China under the auspices of the Commission on Human Rights. The multilateral nature of the Commission makes it a very appropriate forum to debate and discuss the human rights situation in China. By adopting international human rights treaties, China has made a commitment to international human rights law, and one of the basic purposes of the Commission is to specifically evaluate China's performance with respect to these commitments. The Commission's review has led to proven and concrete progress on human rights in other countries, and the expectation is that such scrutiny would lead to progress in human rights in China. Mr. President, here is where I don't understand the argument of the junior Senator from Minnesota. He is suggesting you can only go forward if you list all the countries in the world that have human rights violations. That doesn't make any sense with regard to the way we have to do business in this body. Sometimes we have to identify a particular country--whether it be Russia or Nigeria or Indonesia--and say in this particular instance there is a problem. To be required to make a statement about all countries in the world where there is a problem at one time, reduces what we are doing to a meaningless exercise and a general statement. Some observers want to question the viability of the human rights resolution at this time. Despite China's announcement last year that it would sign the U.N. Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, I don't see real evidence of real human rights improvements in China. That human rights conditions in China are growing worse, not better, indicates that human rights continue to demand top priority. Nearly 4 years after the President's decision, which I regretted, to delink most-favored-nation status from human rights, we cannot forget that human rights in China and Tibet remain abysmal. Hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals are detained or imprisoned for their political and religious beliefs. Monks in Tibet are harassed for showing reverence to the Dalai Lama. And the press is subject to tight restrictions. The most recent State Department human rights report notes that ``the Government of China continued to commit widespread and well-documented human rights abuses in violation of internationally accepted norms, including extrajudicial killings, the use of torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, forced abortion and sterilization, the sale of organs from executed prisoners, and tight control over the exercise of the rights of freedom of speech, press, and religion.'' Mr. President, the situation is just as bad in Tibet. I am going to make sure my remarks are brief so the Senator from Minnesota can speak some more. Let me just say last month the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, John Shattuck, testified, ``We did not see major changes. We have not characterized China as having demonstrated major changes.'' Mr. President, these reports are indeed troubling. The United States has a moral responsibility to take the lead in sponsoring and pushing for a resolution at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. I was delighted yesterday with such an overwhelming vote under the leadership of Senator Wellstone from Minnesota and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a 16-1 bipartisan vote, that indicated there is a strong bipartisan consensus in the Foreign Relations Committee--and I predict on the floor--that we must send a message to China and that this is the appropriate forum in time to do it. I strongly commend my friends, the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Florida, for their leadership on this terribly important issue. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair very much.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for 20 minutes in morning business.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, recently the senior Senator from Wisconsin and I introduced a resolution congratulating the State of Wisconsin on the 150th anniversary of its statehood. We will celebrate that great occasion on May 29. The sesquicentennial of Wisconsin's statehood is both a time to reflect on the distinguished history of the State and a time to look ahead to the promise of the next 150 years. Mr. President, every year that I have been a Member of this body, I have traveled to each of Wisconsin's 72 counties to hold what I call ``listening sessions.'' These meetings allow me to learn more about what my constituents think about what is going on in Washington, and they also afford me the opportunity to continue to learn more about the unique character of the people of my home State and its history and traditions. In honor of this historic anniversary, Mr. President, I have asked children from each of Wisconsin's 72 counties to construct a cloth panel which features a person, place, or event of historical significance for the county in which they live. These panels will be combined to form a quilt to commemorate this milestone. I have already been presented with some of these panels during my trips through the State this year, and I am pleased by the interest that the children have taken in learning about the history of their counties and of the whole State of Wisconsin. Mr. President, as I travel through Wisconsin I am struck by the amount of history that is present in every corner of the State. From the city of Green Bay, the first permanent European settlement in the State of Wisconsin, which was founded by Charles de Langlade in 1764, to Menominee County, the State's newest county, which was established in 1961, there are a myriad of larger cities and small towns, villages and Native American communities which, together, form the foundation of the State of Wisconsin. It is this sense of community that binds Wisconsin's more than 4.8 million people. I am also struck by the commitment of the people of Wisconsin to the State's motto, ``Forward.'' While there is no question that the residents of Wisconsin cherish the State's rich history, they never stop looking forward to find ways to build on that solid foundation to ensure that Wisconsin continues to grow and prosper well into the next century and beyond. This forward-looking thinking, rooted in the State's progressive tradition, is evident in many areas, including education. America's first kindergarten was founded in 1856 by Margarethe Meyer Schurz, a German immigrant who settled in Watertown in Jefferson County. More than 140 years later, Wisconsin is still working to ensure that its children get the best possible start in education through the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education program, the SAGE program. One aspect of this program seeks to reduce class size in kindergarten through grade three to 15 students per class. This forward-thinking approach to educating our children I think is a model that I hope will be expanded to the rest of the country. Mr. President, Wisconsin has also been a pioneer in the area of higher education. The University of Wisconsin was the first in the United States to offer correspondence courses. This effort opened up the world of higher education to people all over the State--and all over the country. Under the leadership of one of our presidents of our university, President Charles R. Van Hise, the university began its long tradition of working with elected officials at all levels of the State and Federal Government. Another area in which the people of Wisconsin continue to look forward is in their commitment to serving their fellow Wisconsinites, and their fellow Americans. Wisconsinites have served the United States in all levels of Government from Congress, to the President's Cabinet, to the Supreme Court; they have explored the unknown as astronauts and have represented their State and their country as ambassadors. I am, of course, very honored to follow in the tradition of such Wisconsinites as Robert M. LaFollette, Sr., William Proxmire and Gaylord Nelson as a Member of this body. While there is no doubt that Wisconsin's representatives to the U.S. Congress have not always agreed on matters of policy, we do all share a very strong commitment to the people of our State. The progressive tradition of politicians such as Robert M. LaFollette is embodied in Charles R. McCarthy's work called ``The Wisconsin Idea,'' which was published in 1912. This book espoused the benefits of returning Government to the people through such reforms as a direct primary system and the popular referendum. ``The Wisconsin Idea'' also touched on Government regulation and promoted benefits such as workers' compensation for job-related injuries. In that vein, Wisconsin passed the first unemployment compensation law in the country in 1932. Wisconsin's progressive tradition was evident when on June 10, 1919, it earned its place in suffrage history by becoming the first to deliver to our Nation's capital its ratification of the 19th amendment to the Constitution which granted women the right to vote in this country. The struggle by women in Wisconsin for full participation in Government is only a piece of the history of my State, which is so well renowned for reform. Many know of Wisconsin's reputation for progressivism; but few are aware of the belief of Crystal Eastman, a Wisconsin suffragist who wrote in 1912, ``The last thing a man becomes progressive about is the activities of his own wife.'' Even fewer are aware of the significant role of Wisconsin women in bringing about this Federal amendment, a quest that took more than 70 years, in light of the public cynicism about the benefits of women's suffrage that actually existed during the early part of this century. Mr. President, Carrie Chapman Catt, a native of Ripon, WI, was the last president of the National American Women Suffrage Association, and the founder and first president of the National League of Women Voters. Her influence on the direction and success of the suffrage movement and her legacy in grassroots organizing is undeniable, as is the role of many other Wisconsin women in this area. Mr. President, like every State, Wisconsin has been home to many memorable people. It is hard to pick which ones to mention, but among them are the great architect Frank Lloyd Wright, World War II heroes Mitchell Red Cloud and Richard Bong, author Thornton Wilder, escape artist Harry Houdini, and artist Georgia O'Keeffe, just to name a few. One person in particular who exemplified the determination and commitment to the greater good shared by the people of Wisconsin was Asaph Whittlesey, one of the founders of the city of Ashland which is in northern Wisconsin. In January 1860, Whittlesey was chosen to represent his region in the Wisconsin legislature, which was located very much to the south of Ashland in Madison. Even though it was the middle of winter, Mr. Whittlesey was determined to get to Madison, so he walked--on snowshoes--to the nearest train station in the town of Sparta, a mere 240 miles from where he was in Ashland. His determination to do the job for which he was selected is indicative of the spirit of the people of Wisconsin. Another such person was Bernard Cigrand, a teacher at Stony Hill School in Waubeka, who led the first recognized observance of Flag Day on June 14, 1885. Cigrand worked diligently for 31 years for the establishment of a national Flag Day observance, which was proclaimed by President Woodrow Wilson on June 14, 1916. Mr. President, Wisconsin is a patchwork of races and ethnicities and is home to 11 Federally recognized tribal governments. The influence of the immigrants who have come to Wisconsin and the Native Americans who have lived in Wisconsin for many years is evident in the names of our cities and towns, lakes and rivers, and counties and parks. Wisconsin has played an integral role in American agriculture. As is proudly proclaimed on our license plates, Wisconsin is ``America's Dairyland.'' According to the United States Department of Agriculture, in 1996, Wisconsin's 1.45 million milk cows produced 22.4 billion pounds of milk, 2.10 billion pounds of cheese, 295 million pounds of butter, 31.8 million pounds of yogurt, and 21.3 million gallons of ice cream and lowfat ice cream. The state's first cheese factory was built in the town of Ladoga, in Fond du Lac County, by Chester Hazen in 1864. Other dairy firsts that took place in Wisconsin include the first ice cream sundae, which was invented by Two Rivers resident Edward Berner in 1881, and the first simple test for determining the butterfat content of milk, which was developed by Stephen Babcock in 1890. The United States' first Secretary of Agriculture was former Wisconsin Congressman and Governor Jeremiah Rusk. In addition to its dairy industry, Wisconsin is also a top producer of cranberries. The State of Wisconsin is blessed with many unique geographical features and has been home to many noted conservationists, among them John Muir and Aldo Leopold. The passenger pigeon, which, in 1871, numbered over 136 million in the central part of the state, became extinct in Wisconsin in 1899 when the last one was shot. Wisconsin resident John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, wrote of the passenger pigeon, ``of all God's feathered people that sailed the Wisconsin sky, no other bird served us so wonderful.'' A monument to this bird is located in Wyalusing State Park in Grant County. Portage resident Aldo Leopold, author of the seminal environmental work ``A Sand County Almanac,'' wrote, ``the oldest task in human history [is] to live on a piece of land without spoiling it.'' Some of the ``unspoiled'' pieces of land in Wisconsin include the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, the Nicolet and Chequamegon National Forests, and the 40,000-acre Necedah National Wildlife Refuge, which is home to almost 200 species of birds, including sandhill cranes, bald and golden eagles, and wild turkeys. Roche a Cri State Park, located in Adams and Juneau Counties, includes examples of rocks carved by the erosion of water and wind, including Castle Rock, Mill Bluff, and Friendship Mound. Over the past 150 years, Wisconsin has also amassed an impressive list of inventions and industrial and business credits. In my own hometown of Janesville, George Parker was granted a patent for his fountain pen in 1889. The first typewriter was patented by Christopher Latham Sholes in Milwaukee in 1868. The first snowmobile was invented in the town of Sayner and Kleenex was invented in Neenah. The Ringling Brothers Circus began in Baraboo in 1884. Many Wisconsin companies are household names: Lands' End, Oshkosh B'Gosh, the Kohler Company, Oscar Meyer, Johnson Controls, Harley Davidson, S.C. Johnson Wax, Miller Brewing Company, Snap-On Tools, and many more. In addition to its success in business, the state has enjoyed success in sports. Names like Vince Lombardi and Erik and Beth Heiden evoke memories of championships won and Olympic glory. The Badgers, Packers, Brewers and Bucks, and many other professional and amateur teams throughout the state, are examples of the determination and dedication, teamwork and sacrifice that are representative of the competitive spirit of Wisconsin. Mr. President, as is evident in these examples, Wisconsinites have greatly contributed to the history and prosperity of the United States over the last 150 years. I am proud to be a Wisconsinite, and I am honored to represent the people of Wisconsin in the United States Senate. I congratulate the people of Wisconsin on this historic anniversary, invite them to reflect on the state's distinguished past, and encourage them to remain committed to our state motto by looking ``Forward'' to the next 150 years. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this weekend, on Sunday, March 8, 1998, the world community will celebrate International Women's Day. This day is a time to mark the achievements and progress of women around the world, but also to consider the long road we still have to travel to reach equality and respect for the basic human rights for all women. Many women and men will mark this day by reflecting on how far women have come in many societies and by continuing to work toward true equality for women all across the globe. The United States has a lot to be proud of in this regard. Women make significant contributions at every level of our society, including in this distinguished body. Unfortunately, a large number of women will not even know of this day, which is meant to be a celebration of their achievements and accomplishments. On International Women's Day, many women will continue to be subjugated by their husbands or their governments, and many will be unaware of the basic human rights to which they are entitled as members of the world community. In cities and towns all over the world--including in the United States--International Women's Day will be just another day in the long struggle for women to achieve equal pay for equal work, full political and religious rights, access to adequate health care and child care, and the right to control their own destinies. It is troubling that, while women make up approximately 51 percent of the world's population, many of them have little or no civil or political rights. As Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on African Affairs of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, I have had no opportunity to learn much about the status of women on that continent. The conditions into which women are born in Africa vary from country to country and impact greatly on their chances for a successful, happy life. According to the United Nations, baby girls born between 1995 and 2000 in the West African country of Sierra Leone can expect to live approximately 39 years, the lowest for women born on that continent. In this small, war-torn nation, the infant mortality rate is 169 per 1,000 live births, the highest in Africa. By contrast, the United Nations says, baby girls born in the United States during the same period, 1995-2000, can expect to live 80 years, more than twice as long as baby girls born in Sierra Leone. The infant mortality rate in this country is seven per 1,000 live births--162 less than that of Sierra Leone. The vast majority of baby girls born in the United States have a bright future ahead of them; their counterparts in Sierra Leone face instability and the constant threat of war. A baby girl born today in Wisconsin will share approximately 39 of her birthdays with a baby girl born today in Sierra Leone--sadly, it is unlikely that the baby girl in Sierra Leone will reach her 40th birthday. In another war-torn African nation, Angola, the conditions are not much better. The thousands of unmarked landmines that riddle that country have contributed to the low 48-year life expectancy of Angolan women. According to the United Nations, women make up 46 percent of the nation's workforce, and 73 percent of women 15 and over contribute to the nation's economy. These women are indicative of those all over the African continent--and indeed all over the world. They literally carry the economy on their backs by producing handmade products and carrying them to markets, or single-handedly transporting bundles of wood or vessels of water for their families. But, fortunately, not all of the women in Africa or the rest of the world experience such bleak circumstances. For example, women around the world have made great strides in business with the help of microcredit programs. These programs extend loans, often less than $100, to women who need assistance starting or expanding a small business. The benefits of these loans, which are almost always repaid, far exceed their monetary worth. Domestic and international microcredit programs have enabled thousands of women to find the confidence necessary to become self-sufficient and to support their families without government assistance--often for the first time. In a 1997 speech commemorating International Women's Day, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright said, ``Advancing the status of women is not only a moral imperative; it is being actively integrated into the foreign policy of the United States. It is our mission. It is the right thing to do, and, frankly, it is the smart thing to do.'' I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. I am pleased that the United States is taking an active role in the worldwide promotion of the rights of women. These efforts include working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to establish guidelines to protect female refugees from sexual and physical assault and exploitation. The United States is also working to ensure that the War Crimes Tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia will vigorously prosecute rape as a war crime. Too often, women have been the forgotten casualties of war. I am pleased that the United States government is working to ensure that female refugees are protected and that those who would use rape as a tactic of war are punished. So, Mr. President, as the world prepares to celebrate International Women's Day, we should honor the achievements of women around the world, but we should not forget those who have little to celebrate.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a Senate resolution regarding smaller classes in our public schools. This resolution expresses the Senate's strong sense that experiments in reducing class size in the earliest grades demonstrate a proven educational benefit. Accordingly, the Senate should assist States in their efforts to reduce class size and assess the benefits of such reductions. Mr. President, yesterday I visited the Parkview Elementary School in Cudahy, a community near Milwaukee, where I had the chance to read Dr. Seuss' classic children's story, ``Green Eggs and Ham,'' to a group of 15 first-grade students. It was exciting to watch their faces come alive with curiosity as they listened. Parkview Elementary is a special school because it is one of 30 Wisconsin schools in 21 school districts that are participating in the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education program, or the SAGE program. It is a very popular pilot program and, according to an independent evaluation being conducted by the University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee's, Center for Urban Initiatives and Research, it's been very effective at reducing the size of elementary school classes. SAGE is a very appropriate acronym, for a sage is a teacher who imparts knowledge and wisdom through direct interaction with his or her students, and the SAGE program in Wisconsin is trying to give students and teachers more opportunities to interact directly, which improves learning. SAGE is a pilot program created by the Wisconsin legislature in 1995. The specific objective of the program is to improve student achievement through four reform strategies: (1) reducing student/teacher ratios to a maximum of 15-to-1, which was the size of the first-grade class I visited yesterday; (2) increasing cooperation between schools and their surrounding communities; (3) implementing a rigorous academic curriculum stressing achievement; and, finally, (4) improving staff development and evaluation. A modest amount of state aid is available to schools who adopt the SAGE program, which currently covers kindergarten through the second grade, and which is scheduled to be expanded to cover third grade in the near future. SAGE has proven to be very popular with parents, teachers, school administrators and students. Reports from Wisconsin educators indicate improvements in classroom environment and academic performance in schools participating in this program. A December 1997 study found that first-graders participating in SAGE scored higher on standardized tests than other students in comparison schools. The SAGE program has demonstrated again what we know instinctively: students in smaller classes benefit from more attention from teachers, and teachers with fewer pupils will have more time and energy to devote to their jobs. Class size has been proven to be one of the crucial factors in the quality of a child's education, along with teacher quality and parental involvement. The SAGE program and this resolution will reinforce what should be good, common sense. If you have smaller classes, children get more attention from teachers, and it stands to reason that more attention will translate into more learning. Mr. President, I think the Wisconsin experience with this kind of common-sense educational reform is instructive. That is why, last fall, I included an amendment to the Labor and Health and Human Services Departments' 1998 appropriation bill requiring the Department of Education to study the costs and benefits of reducing class size in the earliest grades. My amendment also required the Department to prepare cost estimates of growing enrollments and to follow-up with policy recommendations. In addition, I wrote earlier this year to President Clinton in January requesting that he make reducing class size a priority in his FY 99 education budget. I was pleased that the President's FY 99 budget includes an initiative to help schools provide small classes with qualified teachers in the early grades. Mr. President, in an effort to spread the message of the successful SAGE pilot program, I recently invited Education Secretary Richard Riley to come to Wisconsin for a tour of several SAGE schools. And, finally, most recently, I have written to the chairman and ranking member of the Labor and Human Resources Committee requesting that the committee hold a hearing to examine the options available to schools as they plan for smaller class size with higher anticipated student enrollment looming. A recent Department of Education report states that this year's elementary and secondary student enrollment will soon be at record levels. School districts are going to need to adapt to these increases while many of them rightly will be investing as much as they can in the creation of smaller classes for early elementary students. Addressing the problem of increasing enrollment and the desire to reduce class size presents a great challenge to our communities, our States and our Nation. As I say that, I want to be very clear that I believe that the American public school system is rooted in the vision of Thomas Jefferson. He saw a future where every child in the Nation could look forward to a thorough public education, comparable in quality but under local control. I want it to be clear that when I speak about small class size as a national goal, it is in the context of local control. So I do not support a national mandate for smaller class size. I believe that any distribution formula for the funds should give credit to and not penalize those States, such as Wisconsin, which have gotten ahead of this and have invested some resources. I also believe very firmly that any national funding in this area has to be paid for. It cannot be done on the basis of deficit spending or, in effect, borrowing from Social Security. But with those qualifications, I reiterate that there is a great national purpose in trying to reduce class sizes for children. Therefore, the Federal Government has a limited but important role in ensuring that the Nation makes the proper investments in students today so that it can meet the challenges of the 21st century. Mr. President, we should take the necessary steps now to help school districts reduce class size as part of an overall effort to improve education and ensure that our children have the best chance to excel and reach their full potential.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Feingold pertaining to the submission of legislation are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'') Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the remainder of our time to the distinguished Senator from Oregon.