Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield such time as he wishes to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, who has truly been a great leader on this issue, making not only an effort on the Senate floor but a personal effort to visit and see exactly what is happening in East Timor itself. I yield the Senator from Rhode Island such time as he needs.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. I intend to withdraw this amendment after I and other Senators interested in the amendment have had a chance to talk within the 30-minute period. As I said late last year, this amendment is considerably different from my original bill, S. 1568, the East Timor Self-Determination Act. I made significant alterations to it in order to respond to changing events and the concerns of other Senators and the administration. My amendment would have suspended all military and security assistance to Indonesia until clear steps had been taken to stop the harassment of East Timorese refugees, to end the collusion between violent militia groups and the Indonesian military, and to hold those responsible for recent atrocities accountable for their actions. My amendment would have put this body on the record in recognition of the need to use United States military and security assistance responsibly in Indonesia. My original bill, which passed the Foreign Relations Committee on September 27 by an overwhelming vote of 17-1, was introduced in the wake of the violence that erupted after the results of East Timor's historic referendum were announced on September 4. It was cosponsored by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, as well as many other Members of the Senate. I took that action, in cooperation with my colleagues, because events in East and West Timor demanded it. While I am very pleased to have the opportunity to finally call up my legislation on the Senate floor, it is unfortunate that this is being squeezed in to a debate on the bankruptcy bill rather than standing alone. It is unfortunate that we are here debating this amendment more than 4 months after the events in East Timor that gave rise to it. It is unfortunate and it is inappropriate, because the events in East Timor that originally cried out for this legislation are deadly serious. And the encouraging events that justified changes in the legislation are critically important. Both deserved thoughtful consideration from the Senate. On August 30, well over 99 percent of registered voters in East Timor courageously came to the polls to express their will regarding the political status of that territory. More than 78 percent of those voters marked their ballot in favor of independence. But weeks of violence dampened the jubilation that immediately followed the vote, as the Indonesian military--a military that the United States has long supported--colluded with militia groups in waging a scorched earth campaign throughout the territory. Thousands of people were forced to leave, and many were killed. But for the East Timorese run out of their homes in the fray, the nightmare did not end there. Just days ago, the Independent newspapers of London reported on the horrible conditions in the remaining refugee camps in West Timor. In one part of West Timor, UNICEF has found that 25 percent of refugee children are malnourished. To this day, militia members harass and intimidate East Timorese in West Timor's refugee camps. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, between 100,000 and 150,000 refugees remain, in many cases against their will, in the refugee camps. But some will say that we should remain silent on these matters, and continue to let events in Timor and Indonesia unfold without comment. Some will say that the time for action has passed. They will point to the recent democratic elections in Indonesia, and to the Indonesian government's stated willingness to accept the results of the August 30 ballot. They will note the many encouraging steps that President Wahid has taken in the direction of reform. And they will point to President Wahid's most recent, public commitment to holding military officers accountable for their actions--actions now described in both Indonesian and U.N. investigations. They are right to emphasize the positive signals coming from the new government, and they are right to point out that the situation in Indonesia has changed significantly in the past four months. I recognize those changes, and I have tried to respond to them as my legislation has wended its way through this body. Make no mistake--the Indonesians were aware of the original legislation. And over the last few months they have undoubtedly taken note of the changes that were made in this amendment--changes that sent a clear signal that the United States recognizes that the government of Indonesia is moving toward democracy and accountability, and we are very interested in partnership with that kind of Indonesia. While I support the notion that now is an important time to reach out toward the new government in Jakarta, I reject the idea that we should no longer maintain intense pressure on the Indonesian military. Whether or not the Indonesian military is committed to serving under the new, promising, democratically-elected regime remains to be seen. Recently, rumors of coup plots and a possible military takeover of this fledgling democracy circulated in Jakarta and abroad. In recent months, ethnic and religious violence erupted in Aceh, the Spice Islands, and elsewhere in Indonesia. Many reports indicate that elements of the Indonesian military continue to stand by and do nothing to help the people they are supposed to protect. So as we extend a welcome to Indonesia's new government, we must send a strong message about the kind of behavior that we do not welcome, and about the kinds of abuses that we will not ignore. It remains as crucially important today as it ever was to pressure violent elements in Indonesia to do the right thing. And I serve notice to my colleagues and to the administration--I stand ready to do just that. If U.S. policy fails to send a strong message in favor of reform and accountability, I will seize any legislative opportunity necessary to fight for a responsible policy--one that serves United States and Indonesian interests in stability and justice. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as I understand it, I have 30 minutes under my control for purposes of this amendment.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2667.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Tim Sparapani, a legal intern on my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the Senate's consideration of S. 625, the bankruptcy reform bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Wellstone amendment be set aside so I may offer an amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, it is very much to my satisfaction. I am delighted to know we are going to look at a variety of contexts at this hearing, including this one with the credit card companies but also the one my colleague and I have had so much interest in regarding motor vehicles and also the employment discrimination area. To me, although I would be pleased to have this amendment on this bill, I think that is a good opportunity to point out the overall problem we have had, what my colleague described as the possibility arbitration would be used in a way that neither of us would like, that it would somehow become a method of unfairness instead of what we both hope, which is a way to resolve disputes more efficiently or economically, sometimes, than when you go to court. I think it is an excellent idea. I look forward to working with the chairman in preparation for the hearing. I think it is a good way to work out all these issues, and, again, I thank the Senator from Iowa for being very easy to work with on this and being very serious about getting something done.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I withdraw the amendment and yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today to introduce an amendment to the bankruptcy reform bill that will protect and preserve the American consumers' right to take their disputes with creditors to court. There is a troubling trend among credit card companies and consumer credit lenders of requiring customers to use binding arbitration when a dispute arises. Under this system, the consumer is barred from taking a dispute to court, even a small claims court. While arbitration can certainly be an efficient tool to settle claims, it is credible and effective only when customers and consumers enter into it knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening in the credit card and consumer credit lending business. One of the most fundamental principles of our civil justice system is each American's right to take a dispute to court. In fact, each of us has a right in civil and criminal cases to a trial by jury. A right to a jury trial in criminal cases is contained in the sixth amendment to the Constitution. The right to a jury trial in a civil case is contained in the seventh amendment, which provides, ``In suits at common law where the value and controversy shall exceed $20, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.'' It has been argued that Americans are overusing the courts. Court dockets across the country are said to be congested with civil cases. In response to these concerns, various ways to resolve disputes, other than taking a dispute to court, have been developed. Alternatives to litigating in a court of law are collectively known as ``alternative dispute resolution,'' or ADR. Alternative dispute resolution includes mediation and arbitration. Mediation and arbitration can resolve disputes in an efficient manner because the parties can have their cases heard well before they would have received a trial date in a court. Mediation is conducted by a neutral third party, the mediator, who meets with the opposing parties to help them find a mutually satisfactory solution. Unlike a judge in a courtroom, the mediator has no independent power to impose a solution. No formal rules of evidence or procedure control mediation. The mediator and the parties mutually agree on how to proceed. In contrast, arbitration involves one or more third parties--an arbitrator or arbitration panel. Unlike mediation but similar to a court proceeding, the arbitrator issues a decision after reviewing the merits of the case as presented by all parties. Arbitration uses rules of evidence and procedure, although it may use rules that are simpler or more flexible than the evidentiary and procedural rules that a party would follow or be subjected to in a court proceeding. And arbitration can be either binding or nonbinding. Nonbinding arbitration means the decision issued by the arbitrator or arbitration panel takes effect only if the parties agree to it after they know what the decision is. In binding arbitration, parties agree in advance to accept and abide by the decision, whatever it is. In addition, there is a practice of inserting arbitration clauses in contracts to require arbitration as the forum to resolve disputes before a dispute has even arisen. Now, this is called mandatory arbitration. This means that if there is a dispute, the complaining party cannot file suit in court, and instead is required to pursue arbitration. It is binding, mandatory arbitration, and it therefore means that under the contract the parties must use arbitration to resolve a future disagreement, and the decision of the arbitration panel is final. The parties have no ability to seek relief in court or through mediation. In fact, if they are not satisfied with the arbitration outcome, they are probably stuck with the decision. Even if a party believes the arbitrator did not consider all the facts or follow the law, the party cannot file a lawsuit in court. A basis to challenge a binding arbitration decision exists only where there is reason to believe the arbitrator committed actual fraud, which is a pretty unlikely scenario. In contrast, if a dispute is resolved by a court, the parties can potentially pursue an appeal of the lower court's decision. Madam President, because binding mandatory arbitration is so conclusive, this form of arbitration can be a credible means of dispute resolution only when all parties know and understand the full ramifications of agreeing to it. I am afraid that is not what is happening in our Nation's business climate and economy in a variety of contexts ranging from motor vehicle franchise agreements, to employment agreements, to credit card agreements. I am proud to have sponsored legislation addressing employment agreements and motor vehicle franchise agreements. In fact, I am the original cosponsor, with my distinguished colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, the manager of the bankruptcy reform bill, of S. 1020, which would prohibit the unilateral imposition of binding, mandatory arbitration in motor vehicle dealership agreements with manufacturers. Many of our colleagues have joined us as cosponsors. Similar to the problem in the motor vehicle dealership context, there is a growing, menacing trend of credit card companies and consumer credit lenders inserting binding, mandatory arbitration clauses in agreements with consumers. Companies such as First USA Bank, American Express, and Green Tree Discount Company unilaterally insert binding mandatory arbitration clauses in their agreements with consumers, often without the consumers' knowledge or consent. The most common way the credit card companies have done so is often through the use of a ``bill stuffer.'' Bill stuffers are the advertisements and other materials that credit card companies insert in envelopes with the customers' monthly statements. Some credit card issuers such as American Express have placed fine-print, mandatory arbitration clauses on bill stuffers. Let's take a look at what I am talking about. I have in my hand a monthly statement mailing from American Express. Let's look inside. First, we have the return envelope to pay your bill. And look at what is on the envelope. They have attached an advertisement. So before you can mail your payment, you have to tear this advertisement off the back of the envelope. Otherwise you won't be able to seal it shut. Then, if you look at what else is in the envelope, here is the monthly statement. It is a multipage printed form, front and back. On this occasion, even though there was very little activity on this particular account--one charge and one credit--the statement is six pages long. The first page contains information about how much you owe American Express, charges made, payments received, finance charges applied, and so on. The reverse side of the first page also contains some fine print information about the account. Then, if you look at pages 3 and 4 they contain additional fine-print information about the account; for example, what to do if your card is stolen or lost, and a summary of your billing rights. If you keep reading at this point, you look at pages 5 and 6. They are chock full of advertising material. Target stores urge you to shop with them. The State of North Carolina encourages you to plan your next holiday in North Carolina. This past spring, in addition to an American Express cardholder being bombarded with all of this information, American Express cardholders also received this--For Your Information, ``FYI, A Summary of Changes to Agreements and Benefits.'' The summary is 10 pages long. In addition to the multipage statement of charges, terms, and advertising material, the cardholder received another multipage document with fine-print terms and conditions. If my colleagues are like me and most Americans, I review the statement of charges for accuracy, look at how much I owe, rip off the bottom portion, stick it and my check in the return envelope, and mail it to American Express. I don't spend a lot of time reading all of the fine-print information about the account or the ad. I certainly would not spend time reading a 10-page summary of changes to my statement. At most, I might scan these other pages and bill stuffers, but I would not spend time reading them in detail. Let's look at the summary of changes. As I said, it is called, ``FYI, A Summary of Changes to Agreements and Benefits.'' When you look at their summary, there are two things that hit you: The cartoon in the middle and the big letters, ``FYI'' in the upper left side of the first page. FYI, for your information, to me and most Americans means that it contains some information that may be of interest to me but nothing that requires serious thought or action from me. In reality, however, the summary of changes is a complex, fine-print document that almost reads like a legal document. It talks about changes to various privileges of the American Express card membership, American Express Purchase Protection Plan, Buyer's Assurance Plan, Car Rental Loss and Damage Insurance Plan, and Credit Protection Plan. In addition, the summary contains an arbitration provision on page 2. Even though the document contains changes to the terms of the agreement with the cardholder--it actually changes the contract between the parties--it is simply labeled as an FYI, for your information, document. I find that troubling. If we take a closer look at the arbitration provision, this arbitration provision is in condensed, fine print, to say the least. It is not exactly easy to read, even though this is an enlarged version of the original. The key clause in this arbitration provision is the following: If arbitration is chosen by any party with respect to a claim, neither you nor we will have the right to litigate that claim in court or have a jury trial on that claim. I will repeat that. If the cardholder has a dispute with American Express, the cardholder cannot take the claim to court or have a jury trial on the claim. This provision took effect on June 1 of last year. So if you are an American Express cardholder and you have a dispute with American Express, as of June 1999, you can't take your claim to court--even small claims court. You are bound to use arbitration, and you are bound to live with the final arbitration decision. In this case, you are also bound to use an arbitration organization selected by American Express, the National Arbitration Forum. Unfortunately, American Express isn't the only credit card company imposing mandatory arbitration on its customers. First USA Bank, the largest issuer of Visa cards, with 58 million customers, has been doing the same thing since 1997. Here is the bill stuffer distributed by First USA. This is the inside of a folded, one-page insert. As you can see, similar to the American Express summary, this is another fine-print, condensed set of terms and conditions. It covers a wide variety of topics, including information on finance charges, termination and foreign currency transactions. Here in the last column are the three paragraphs on the arbitration provision. The language is similar to the American Express language and states that the cardholders' dispute will be resolved by arbitration. The cardholder will not be able to go to a court to resolve the claim. No ``if's,'' ``and's,'' or ``but's'' about it. Just plain and simple. The cardholder, by virtue of continuing to simply use the First USA card, gives up the right to go to court, even small claims court, to resolve the dispute. Unfortunately, this problem also extends beyond credit cards. It is also a growing practice in the consumer loan industry. Consumer credit lenders such as Green Tree Consumer Discount Company are inserting mandatory arbitration clauses in their loan agreement. The problem is these loan agreements are usually adhesion contracts, which means that the consumer must either sign the agreement as is or forego a loan. In other words, the consumer lacks the bargaining power to have the clause removed. More importantly, when signing on the dotted line of the loan agreement, the consumer may not even understand what mandatory arbitration means. The consumer in all likelihood does not understand that he or she has written away his or her right to go to court to resolve a dispute with the lender. Arbitration in some ways, of course, is an efficient way to settle disputes. But it has to be entered into knowingly and voluntarily. That is not what is happening in either the consumer loan or credit card industries. You might say that if consumers are not pleased with being subjected to a mandatory arbitration clause, consumers can cancel their credit card, or not execute on their loan agreement, and they can take their business elsewhere. Unfortunately, that is easier said than done. As I mentioned, First USA Bank, the Nation's largest Visa card issuer, is part of this questionable practice. In fact, the practice is becoming so pervasive that consumers may soon no longer have an alternative unless they forego use of a credit card or a consumer loan entirely. I think that is kind of a hefty price to pay to retain the longstanding right to go to court. In my opinion, this is a decision that consumers should not be forced to make. Companies such as First USA, American Express, and Green Tree argue that they rely on mandatory arbitration to resolve disputes faster and cheaper than court litigation. The claim may be resolved faster, but is it really cheaper? Is it as fair as a court of law? I don't think so. Arbitration organizations can charge exorbitant fees to the consumer who brings a dispute--often an initial filing fee plus hourly fees to the arbitrator or arbitrators involved in the case. These costs to consumers can be higher than bringing the matter to small claims court and paying a court filing fee. For example, the National Arbitration Forum, the arbitration entity of choice for American Express and First USA, the National Arbitration Forum charges fees that are likely greater than if the consumer brought a dispute in small claims court. For a claim of less than $1,000, the National Arbitration Forum charges the consumer a $49 filing fee. In contrast, the consumer could have brought the same claim, in small claims court here in the District of Columbia and would have paid a fee of no more than $10. In other words, the consumer pays a fee to the National Arbitration Forum that is nearly five times more than the fee for filing a claim with small claims court. That is bad enough, but the National Arbitration Forum's competitors are even worse. The American Arbitration Association charges a $500 filing fee for claims of less than $10,000, or more if the claim exceeds $10,000, and a minimum filing fee of $2,000 if the case involves three or more arbitrators. In addition to the filing fee, they also charge a hearing fee for holding hearings other than the initial hearing--$150 to be paid by each party for each day of hearings before a single arbitrator, for $250 if the hearing is held before an arbitration panel. The International Chamber of Commerce requires a $2,500 administrative fee plus an arbitrator's fee of at least $2,500, if the claim is less than $50,000. These fees are greater if the claim exceeds $50,000. This $5,000 or more fee could very well be greater than the consumer's entire claim. So, as you can see, the consumer's dispute is not resolved more efficiently with arbitration. It is resolved either at greater cost to the consumer or not at all, if the consumer cannot afford the costs, or the costs outweigh the amount in dispute. The unilateral imposition of mandatory arbitration also raises fairness concerns. As I demonstrated earlier, typical cardholders are not likely to ever notice the arbitration provision. But even if they notice the provision and read the fine print, consumers nevertheless may not understand that their right to court has just been stripped away. So, what we have here is a small number of people who will actually read the bill stuffer and an even smaller number who will understand what it means. Another problem with mandatory, binding arbitration is that the lender gets to decide in advance who the arbitrator will be. In the case of American Express and First USA, they have chosen the National Arbitration Forum. All credit card disputes with consumers involving American Express or First USA are handled by them. What does this mean? If you think about it, the arbitrator has a financial interest in reaching an outcome that favors the credit card company. If the National Arbitration Forum develops a pattern of reaching decisions that favor the cardholder, wouldn't American Express or First USA strongly consider taking their arbitration business elsewhere? I think there is a very good chance, I would say there is a significant chance that would happen. There has been one important ruling on the enforceability of mandatory arbitration provisions in credit card agreements. That ruling involved a mandatory arbitration provision announced in mailings to Bank of America credit card and deposit account holders. In a 1998 decision by the California Court of Appeals, which the California Supreme Court refused to review, the court ruled that the mandatory arbitration clauses unilaterally imposed on the Bank's customers were invalid and unenforceable. As a result of that decision, credit card companies in California cannot impose mandatory arbitration in their disputes with customers. In fact, the American Express notice recognizes this fact and notes here at the bottom that the provision will not apply to California residents until further notice from the company. I think that was a wise, well-reasoned decision by the California appellate court, but Americans have no assurance that all courts will reach the same fair and reasonable decision. My amendment extends the wisdom of the California appellate decision to every credit cardholder and consumer loan borrower in the country. It amends the Federal Arbitration Act to prohibit the unilateral imposition of mandatory, binding arbitration in consumer credit transactions. Let me be clear. I believe that arbitration can be an efficient way to settle disputes. I agree we ought to encourage alternative dispute resolution. But I also believe that arbitration is a fair way to settle disputes only when it is entered into knowingly and voluntarily by both parties to the dispute. My amendment does not prohibit arbitration of consumer credit transactions when entered into voluntarily and knowingly. It merely prohibits binding, mandatory arbitration imposed unilaterally without the consumer's knowledgeable and/or voluntary consent. Credit card companies and consumer credit lenders are increasingly slamming the courthouse doors shut on consumers, often unbeknownst to them. This is grossly unjust. Let's restore fairness to the resolution of consumer credit disputes. At some point I hope that my colleagues will join me in keeping the doors to the courthouse open to all American credit card users and consumer credit borrowers. At this time, however, I will not push for a vote on this issue. I have agreed to withdraw this amendment with the understanding from my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, the manager of this bill and the chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, that the issue of mandatory arbitration in consumer credit agreements will be part of a hearing to be held in the Courts Subcommittee on March 1. That hearing will address the Federal Arbitration Act and the problem of mandatory arbitration clauses inserted in contracts unilaterally. I appreciate Senator Grassley's leadership and cooperation in reaching this accommodation. I look forward to working with him on this issue, as well as the broader issue of the growing, problematic trend of the unilateral imposition of mandatory arbitration in a variety of contracts. I admire the leadership of the Senator on the overall issue in addition to the fact it has come up and is a serious problem in the consumer credit agreement area. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair. Amendment No. 2747 Withdrawn

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. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 8 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, earlier today, Governor George Ryan of Illinois made an announcement that is absolutely unprecedented for a sitting governor since the reinstatement of the modern death penalty almost 25 years ago. Governor Ryan plans to effectively block executions in Illinois by granting stays of all scheduled executions on a case-by-case basis until a State panel can examine whether Illinois is administering the death penalty fairly and justly. Governor Ryan is right to take this step, because real questions are being raised about whether innocent people are being condemned to die. Since the U.S. Supreme Court's 1976 Gregg decision finding the death penalty constitutional, Illinois has executed 12 people and and found 13 people on death row to be innocent. This is truly extraordinary. After condemning people to death, Illinois has actually found more death row inmates innocent than it has executed! Some of the innocent were exonerated based on a new DNA test of forensic evidence. Others successfully challenged their convictions based on inadequate representation by disbarred or suspended attorneys or a determination that crucial testimony of a jailhouse informant was unreliable. Illinois has exonerated 13 individuals but the numbers are sure to grow, as other cases continue to be investigated and appeals make their way through the courts. What is even more troubling is that the lives of some of these 13 innocent people were saved not by the diligence of defense counsel or a jury or judge, but by a group of students taking a journalism class at Northwestern University. These Northwestern University students uncovered evidence, which led to the exoneration of people like Anthony Porter, who spent 15 years on death row and came within 2 days of execution. The criminal justice system failed to do its job. These students and their journalism professor--actors very much outside the criminal justice system--did the footwork to uncover exculpatory evidence. Governor Ryan supports the death penalty as a form of punishment in Illinois. I do not. But he has courageously acknowledged what many lawyers, scholars, and journalists have argued for some time: the criminal justice system in Illinois is broken and it must be fixed. I applaud Governor Ryan for what is unfortunately unusual courage. Many political leaders, even those who may be personally opposed to the death penalty, nevertheless feel it is somehow ``political suicide'' to support a moratorium on executions. They fear being labeled ``soft on crime.'' But, last year, the Nebraska legislature passed a moratorium initiative, unfortunately, it was only to be vetoed later by the governor. But Governor Ryan--a Republican Governor and the Illinois chair of Republican Presidential hopeful George W. Bush's campaign--has decided he will lead the people of Illinois to expecting more from their criminal justice system. He has decided to hold out for what should be the minimum standard of any system of justice: that we do all that we can not to execute an innocent person. As a result of the Governor's action, Illinois is the first of the 38 States with the death penalty to halt all executions while it reviews the death penalty procedure. But the problems of inadequate representation, lack of access to DNA testing, police misconduct, racial bias and even simple errors are not unique to Illinois. These are problems that have plagued the administration of capital punishment around the country since the reinstatement of capital punishment almost a quarter century ago. I hope the Federal government and the other 37 States with capital punishment follow the wisdom of Illinois and halt executions until they, too, review their administration of the death penalty. At the Federal level, I call on the President and the Attorney General to suspend executions until the Federal government reviews the administration of the Federal death penalty. Are we certain that the Federal death penalty is being applied in a fair, just and unbiased manner? Are we certain that the Federal death penalty is sought against defendants free of even a hint of racial bias? Are we certain that the Federal death penalty is sought evenly from U.S. Attorney district to U.S. Attorney district across the Nation? I don't think we have a clear answer to these questions. Yet, these are questions, literally, of life or death. There isn't room for even a simple mistake when it comes to the ultimate punishment, the death penalty. For a nation that holds itself to principles of justice, equality and due process, the Federal government should not be in the business of punishing by killing. As Governor Ryan's spokesperson aptly noted, ``It's really not about politics. How could anyone be opposed to this when the system is so clearly flawed?'' Let us not let one more innocent person be condemned to die. Let us demand reform. In a moment, I intend to offer an amendment to the bankruptcy bill. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a titan in our nation's naval history. Early this year, during our recess, Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr. passed away. Admiral Zumwalt led a disciplined, dedicated, and directed life and career as a leader and, sometimes, as an iconoclast. Mr. President, Admiral Zumwalt's meteoric rise through the ranks began at the U.S. Naval Academy, where he graduated in just three years, yet ranked seventh in his class. Following his graduation from the academy, Zumwalt began a lengthy career on a number of surface warships. Among those ships was the U.S.S. Wisconsin, one of four Iowa-class battleships, the largest battleships ever built by the Navy. The four vessels, the Wisconsin, the Iowa, the New Jersey and the Missouri, served gallantly in every significant United States conflict from World War II to the Persian Gulf War. Future Admiral Zumwalt, the Wisconsin's navigator when the Korean War broke out, extolled her ``versatility, maneuverability, strength, and power.'' Unbeknownst to him, this would not be the last time that he would leave his indelible mark on the great state of Wisconsin. Following his service in the war, Zumwalt shuttled between the Pentagon and the sea. He excelled in both arenas, but in entirely different ways. In 1970, President Nixon appointed Zumwalt the youngest Chief of Naval Operations in our history. As CNO, Admiral Zumwalt tackled some of the most divisive and challenging issues not just to hit the Navy, but society at large. And we're still trying to conquer some of them. Admiral Zumwalt crusaded for a fair and equal Navy. He fought to promote equality for minorities and women at a time of considerable racial strife in our country and at a time of deeply entrenched institutional racism and sexism in the Navy. He pushed so hard against the establishment that he almost lost his job. But thanks to the support of some like-minded reformers, including our esteemed colleague, the late John Chafee, who was then the Secretary of the Navy, Zumwalt prevailed and instituted a host of personnel reforms. Mr. President, Admiral Zumwalt's efforts to promote equality addressed, in part, an issue that we are tackling anew. Many in Congress and in the Defense Department seem to think that recruitment and retention can be improved simply by increasing pay and benefits. They could learn much from Admiral Zumwalt, who understood the importance not only of boosting pay, but also of changing the service to reflect the wants and needs of service members. We should follow Admiral Zumwalt's example and take a broader view when we look to improve the lives of our military personnel. Mr. President, in his later years, Admiral Zumwalt dedicated himself to assisting Vietnam War era veterans who had been exposed to Agent Orange. He played an instrumental role in getting Agent Orange-exposed veterans with cancer a service-connected illness designation. I had the honor of meeting with him to discuss his efforts to increase research funding for Agent Orange related illnesses and to explore options for international cooperation in that research. Admiral Elmo Zumwalt was a great naval leader, a visionary and a courageous challenger of the conventional wisdom. We will not see the likes of him again. We mourn his passing and salute his accomplishments.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this morning the Supreme Court issued the most significant ruling in the area of campaign finance and election law since the 1976 landmark decision in Buckley v. Valeo. I am happy to report the Court reaffirmed the core holding of Buckley: The public's elected representatives have the constitutional power to limit contributions to political campaigns in order to protect the integrity of the political process from corruption or the appearance of corruption. It is most fitting that this ruling came down this morning as the Senate prepares to return from its long recess. As you know, Mr. President, one of the most important unfinished pieces of business on our agenda is campaign finance reform and the McCain-Feingold bill. The House passed a reform bill last year by a wide bipartisan margin, and now today's Court decision leaves no doubt that a soft money ban, which is the core provision of that bill and of our bill in the Senate, is constitutional. Today's decision has dispatched one of the most persistent and most erroneous arguments against reform. The Court did it by a decisive vote of 6-3. We, as a legislative body, must step up and do what is right, what is constitutional, and what is demanded by the public and pass a ban on soft money. I will take a minute to discuss this important Supreme Court decision and its implications for our work in this body. The case is Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC. It was an appeal of the decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that struck down contribution limits enacted by the Missouri Legislature to cover State elections. Those limits were modeled on the Federal limit--$1,000 per candidate per election in a statewide election, somewhat lower for candidates for the State legislature. The State statute includes an inflation adjustment so that the limit for statewide races had become $1,075 per election by the time this challenge was filed. The Missouri limits were upheld by the district court, but they were struck down by the court of appeals. The court of appeals held that the State had not provided adequate evidence of actual or apparent corruption stemming from large contributions to justify the restrictions. It also suggested that the limits were too low and therefore unconstitutional because inflation has eroded the value of a $1,000 contribution since 1974, when the Congress chose that limit for Federal elections. Today the Supreme Court squarely and decisively rejected the court of appeals analysis. It did so by a 6-3 vote. I might note that it did so by a 4-3 vote of Justices appointed by Republican Presidents. The Court held that there was more than adequate evidence of actual or apparent corruption on which the State legislature could base its judgment that contributions should be limited. The Court noted that the Buckley decision itself provides that evidence. It said: Buckley demonstrates that the dangers of large, corporate contributions and the suspicion that large contributions are corrupt are neither novel nor implausible. The opinion noted that the deeply disturbing examples surfacing after the 1972 election demonstrate that the problem of corruption is not an illusory one. In essence, the Court today rejected the notion that legislatures must amass conclusive evidence of actual corruption in order to justify contribution limits and that each State or Federal legislature must reinvent the wheel each time it passes a new limit. The Court concluded: [T]here is little reason to doubt that sometimes large contributions will work actual corruption of our political system, and no reason to question the existence of a corresponding suspicion among voters. The Court thus found, as advocates for reform have argued for years, that it is reasonable for Congress to conclude that large contributions are corrupting our system. The question has been asked not too long ago in this Chamber, where is the corruption? Today Justice Souter has provided the answer: It is in the big money. The Court also rejected the argument that because the passage of time has eroded the value of a $1,000 contribution, somehow that limit is now unconstitutionally low, even though it was acceptable in 1974. We have heard this argument time and again on the floor of the Senate. It has been rejected by the Supreme Court. The Court specifically held that Buckley did not establish a constitutional minimum. Instead, the relevant question in Buckley was ``whether the contribution limitation was so radical in effect as to render political association ineffective, drive the sound of a candidate's voice below the level of notice, and render contributions pointless.'' The Court concluded: Such being the test, the issue in later cases cannot be truncated to a narrow question about the power of the dollar but must go to the power to mount a campaign with all the dollars likely to be forthcoming. As Judge Gibson, the dissenting judge in the court of appeals, put it, ``the dictates of the first amendment are not mere functions of the Consumer Price Index.'' I have quoted the decision at some length because I think it is crucial that my colleagues hear and understand the very clear and very direct statements of the Supreme Court on questions that were not only at issue in this case but that we have been debating in this body over the past few years. No longer can my colleagues come to this floor and say they would love to support a ban on soft money but it would violate the first amendment for Congress to outlaw unlimited corporate and labor contributions to political parties. This favorite figleaf clutched by opponents of reform was snatched away today by the Supreme Court. That emperor now has no clothes. Just as 126 legal scholars said over 2 years ago when they wrote to us, today's decision confirms that Congress may constitutionally outlaw soft money in this country. Justice Breyer's concurrence today, joined by Justice Ginsburg, says that explicitly. He writes: Buckley's holding seems to leave the political branches broad authority to enact laws regulating contributions that take the form of soft money. We have more than adequate evidence of at least the appearance of corruption in these unlimited contributions. Furthermore, if Congress can limit individual contributions and ban corporate and labor contributions in connection with Federal elections, surely it can eliminate the soft money loophole through which corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals evade those limits. The constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold bill to ban soft money is simply no longer an open question. The support of the American people for taking such a step is not in doubt either. What is in doubt is the courage and will of the Senate to do what has to be done. Now that we are back in session, and with the encouragement of the Supreme Court of the United States, we must act. The reason we must act was made very clear by the Supreme Court today. The survival of our democracy depends on our citizens having confidence that their elected officials will vote in accordance with the public interest rather than the interest of their contributors. The appearance of corruption inherent in unlimited contributions calls that confidence into grave question. As the Court said in its opinion today: Leave the perception of impropriety unanswered, and the cynical assumption that large donors call the tune could jeopardize the willingness of voters to take part in democratic governance. Democracy works only if people have faith in those who govern. That faith is bound to be shattered when high officials and their appointees engage in activities which arouse suspicions of ``malfeasance and corruption.'' I urge all of my colleagues to read and digest the opinion of the Court in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC. The Court has done its duty and spoken in a clear voice. Now we must do ours. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about a piece of legislation that is not moving this year. I want to speak about it because it deals with an extremely important topic, one that has not received the attention and commitment that it deserves from this body. That topic is the appropriate state of U.S.-Indonesian relations today. Mr. President, I introduced S. 1568, the East Timor Self- Determination Act of 1999, on September 8--well over two months ago. That legislation, which passed the Foreign Relations Committee on September 27 by an overwhelming vote of 17-1, was cosponsored by the Chairman of that Committee as well as many other Members of the Senate. I took that action, in cooperation with my colleagues, because events in East and West Timor demanded it. On August 30, well over 99% of registered voters in East Timor courageously came to the polls to express their will regarding the political status of that territory. More than 78% of those voters marked their ballot in favor of independence. But weeks of violence immediately followed the vote, as the Indonesian military--a military that our country has long supported-- colluded with militia groups in waging a scorched earth campaign against the East Timorese people and their democratic aspirations throughout the territory. Hundreds of thousands of people were forced to flee, and many were killed. But for the East Timorese run out of their homes in the fray, the nightmare did not end there. There seems to be a perception out there that all is well in Indonesia today, and that the East Timor crisis is over. Unfortunately, that is simply not true. Last week, the Associated Press reported on the public comments of the spokesperson for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The spokesman said that many East Timorese are being forced at gunpoint to remain in camps that lack food, sanitation and medical care. He said, and this is a direct quote, that ``the moment an East Timorese expresses a desire to leave the camps and go home their life is in danger.'' And the UNHCR spokesperson noted, in last week's AP report, that many relief organizations have received reports of refugees being raped and beaten by militiamen. Mr. President, to this day, militia members harass and intimidate East Timorese in West Timor's refugee camps. Only about 56,000 refugees have returned home to East Timor. Approximately two hundred thousand remain, in many cases against their will, in the refugee camps of West Timor. To this day, humanitarian organizations do not have the access that they need to all of the refugee camps to which East Timorese fled. Throughout all of this pain, throughout the destruction of lives and property, throughout this brutal retaliation for courageous acts of democratic expression, this Senate has been silent. We have had no floor debate and no vote. My original bill, despite being voted out of committee with only one dissenting vote, has languished on the calendar for weeks. In response to that silence, Mr. President, I negotiated an arrangement to introduce an amendment to the bankruptcy bill addressing this issue. Squeezing this important topic into the middle of a debate on an unrelated bill was certainly not the most desirable approach, but I was determined to pursue this legislation. The amendment I had planned to offer was considerably different from my original bill. I made significant alterations to it in order to respond to changing events and the concerns of other Senators and the Administration. Mr. President, I wanted to pursue this legislation to encourage democracy and accountability in Indonesia, and to hold out clear incentives for a policy of accountability and cooperation. And I wanted to hold this Administration to its word, ensuring that passing political whims do not soften America's rejection of the kind of methods that the Indonesian military used in East Timor. The amendment would have reached out to the Indonesian government, celebrating its democratic transition and recognizing its economic needs, while keeping the pressure on elements in Indonesia that are moving in the opposite direction--elements moving away from democracy, reform, and accountability and moving toward repression, violence, and impunity. With its clear message and incentives, this amendment would have set the stage for a responsible and strong partnership between the U.S. and Indonesia. Mr. President, it concerns me that the Administration has behaved as though they wish this legislation would just go away, although it is a codification of their own policy. The Administration has told me that they desire more flexibility-- particularly with regard to licensing defense related articles for export to Indonesia--than this amendment would allow. Despite the fact that I worked closely and carefully with the State Department to develop a reasonable list of conditions that must be met in order to re-establish miliary and security relations, in the end, the Administration did not want to be pinned down to any standards at all. Mr. President, I will speak frankly. The Administration's unwillingness to commit to a responsible policy and to a solid series of prerequisites for resuming military and security ties concerns me, and convinces me that vigilance will be necessary in the months ahead. And so Mr. President, while I foresee no opportunity to move this legislation this year, I want to remind this Senate and this Administration that my amendment will remain in order when we return to the bankruptcy bill, and I am prepared to take up this issue again in January, or at any other time the circumstances warrant it. I will continue to be certain that this Senate has a voice in the future of U.S.-Indonesian relations. I will continue to push for accountability for the abuses perpetrated by the Indonesian military and militia groups. And I will continue to insist that U.S. engagement with the Indonesian miliary is contingent upon an end to the harassment and intimidation of East Timorese refugees with impunity. I pledge to my colleagues and to this Administration that I will monitor this matter, and monitor it closely in the weeks and months ahead. I will stand by, ready with several versions of my legislation, should the Indonesian military fail to take the steps toward reform and accountability that are absolutely essential prerequisites to a military and security relationship with the United States. And make no mistake, I will come to the floor again and again should this Administration appear ready to engage with and support an Indonesian military that has not seriously lived up to its own commitment to respect the rights of ordinary East Timorese civilians who seek only to live their lives in peace and security. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as some of my colleagues know, I have been posted, here on the Senate floor, day after day this week because of my concerns about the dairy provisions that are included in the budget package, and I know other Senators support those provisions because of the States they represent. For now, I just want to comment more broadly on the budget package and how we got here. Mr. President, we have before us a measure that we are told will direct something like $400 billion in spending in such areas as the Justice Department including the FBI, Education including funding for local school districts, increased security for our foreign embassies, the Interior Department including our national parks system, Health and Human Services including critical funding for aging programs like the congregate and home delivered meals programs, and much more. But, Mr. President, you would not know that by reading this bill. That roughly $400 billion in spending is distributed in a few pages of text. With the exception of District of Columbia funding, it's all on one page--the last page. I have not been here as long as some of my colleagues, but I cannot recall ever seeing anything like this. Last year's omnibus appropriations bill was bad enough. It, too, lumped several appropriations bills together into one giant omnibus appropriations measure. It, too, was loaded with special interest measures that were slipped in, never having been debated, and unlikely to pass on their own. But at least, Mr. President, the spending done in that bill was explicitly a part of the document formally placed before the Senate. If you took the time to read the several thousand page appropriations bill, you would have found those items last year. Mr. President, the bill before us is another matter entirely. It legislates by reference. Other than the DC Appropriations bill, there are no details provided in this document that indicate how those hundreds of billions of dollars are to be spent, only references to other bills. Mr. President, when this bill goes to the President for his approval, what will he be signing into law? Essentially, he will be signing into law little more than a glorified table of contents. Mr. President, this is a horrible precedent. This kind of gimmick may have been used before, but never on anything so momentous as an omnibus appropriations bill. And it is perhaps fitting that this piece of legislation should be structured the way it is. This bill is the ``poster child'' of the 106th Congress. Unable to meet the budget deadline, we are once again presented with an omnibus appropriations bill, laden with the kind of special interest provisions that undermine our budget as well as the confidence of the public. And unwilling to bring any but a handful of authorizing bills to the floor for open debate, the leadership has now crammed this perverse bill full of legislation that has no business in an appropriations measure. Mr. President, earlier this year this body voted to restore some order to the appropriations process by re-establishing the point of order against legislating on appropriations. This bill renders that exercise utterly meaningless. Worse, it means that while the Senate is precluded from adding authorizing language after thorough debate on the floor, a few people in a backroom are free to add anything they wish, with no debate and out of public view. Mr. President, the 106th Congress is not yet half over a but it has already earned itself a sorry reputation. This is the Congress of Convenience. The 106th Congress found it inconvenient to finish the simple job of passing appropriations bills before the end of the fiscal year, so it cuts a few backroom deals and lumps five appropriations bills together. The 106th Congress found it inconvenient to debate authorizing bills fully and openly, so it bundled several together and shoved them into this omnibus appropriations bill. And now, the 106th Congress finds it inconvenient to provide even the details of this $400 billion compost heap, so it engages in some drafting gymnastics, and gives the public little more than a glorified table of contents. Mr. President, I realize there are some strong feelings about the provisions of this bill. I know that some of my colleagues support some of the provisions in this measure. Chances are there are provisions in this measure that I, too, would support, but how would I know? But I hope that a few weeks from now, after this thing is enacted, my colleagues will consider just what has been wrought this week and this past year. The normal procedures of the Senate and the other body have been run over by a steamroller in the name of political expediency and convenience, and that cannot be good, even for those who may have gained a temporary victory. In the play A Man for All Seasons, there is an exchange between Sir Thomas More and his son-in-law, Roper. More asks Roper--``What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?'' Roger responds--``I'd cut down every law in England to do that!'' More then replies--``Oh? And when the last law was down, and the devil turned round on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? * * * This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down--and you're just the man to do it--d'you really think you could just stand upright in the winds that would blow then?'' Mr. President, the 106th Congress has done more than its share of flattening our rules and procedures. Those of us in the minority on the issue before us today perhaps feel it most keenly, but let me suggest that many more may come to regret the precedents set by the Congress of Convenience.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to this legislation, which would revive an arcane and unjust federal dairy policy that has destroyed thousands of family dairy farms. Once again, the Senate is faced with dairy riders that fly in the face of recommendations from the Secretary of Agriculture, our nation's dairy farmers, and numerous taxpayer and consumer groups. It seems that political favors are more important to some in this Congress than policy decisions that help our nation's dairy farmers. During the last four years neither of these two harmful provisions-- Option 1A or the Northeast dairy compact--has won Senate approval. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: why must Senate and House leaders continue to play political games at the expense of our nation's dairy farmers? Mr. President, these backdoor deals must stop. America's dairy farmers deserve a national dairy policy that ensures that all dairy farmers receive a fair price for their milk. Unfortunately, the House and Senate leadership went into a back room, and snuck in these two riders that step up the attack on our dairy industry. These decisions were separate even from the eyes and ears of members, and most members of the Senate Agriculture committee. With the proliferation of these backroom deals, it is no wonder that the general public is frustrated with Congress. The simple fact is that neither of these two dairy riders has been approved by both chambers of Congress, or the President. I would like to make my colleagues aware of the history behind these two provisions. During the last four years, the only Senate vote explicitly on the Northeast dairy compact resulted in a resounding rejection. This year, the Senate again voted on a package containing the Northeast dairy compact, and it again failed to gain enough support to invoke cloture. Mr. President, the House has yet to take a single vote specifically on the Northeast dairy compact. Compared to the record of the House, these two votes make the Senate look like experts on the Northeast dairy compact. Furthermore, Mr. President, the 1996 farm bill required that the Northeast dairy compact expire upon implementation of USDA's reforms. Unfortunately these dairy riders seek to defy the will of Congress, and give the back of their hand to America's dairy farmers. After tens of thousands of comments, USDA came up with a modest plan to reform our 30-year-old milk marketing order structure. More than 59,000 dairy farmers from all over the United States participated in a USDA national referendum and 96% voted in favor of the United States Department of Agriculture's final rule to consolidate the current 31 federal milk marketing orders into 11, and to reform the price of Class I milk. USDA's proposal garnered nearly uniform support in each of the 11 regions, including the Southeast, Midwest, and Northeast. The second of these harmful dairy riders, would overturn these reforms. Well, Mr. President, I take the floor today to deliver a simple message: Congress should not renew a milk marketing order system that devastates family farmers, and imposes higher costs on consumers and taxpayers. There has been a great deal of confusion over the effects of these harmful dairy provisions. Some say that mandating Option 1A and a two year extension of the Northeast dairy compact simply preserves the status quo. This legislation does much more than simply extend the 60-year milk marketing system. A new forward contracting provision in this dairy rider enables processors to pay farmers much less than the federal blend price for their milk. This forward contracting provision will also make the market less competitive for all other producers by reducing demand on the open market. Since it is likely that forward contracts would be offered to only the largest producers, this provision will result in losses to small and medium-sized producers, who will become residual suppliers. Mr. President, these dairy provisions shift the attack on our nation's dairy farmers into overdrive. This harmful legislation will continue to push our nation's dairy farmers out of business, and off their land. For sixty years, dairy farmers across America have been steadily driven out of business, and disadvantaged by the very Federal dairy policy this legislation seeks to revive. In 1950, Wisconsin had over 143 thousand dairy farms. After nearly 50 years of the current dairy policy, Wisconsin is left with only 23 thousand farms. Let me repeat: 23 thousand farms. Why would anyone seek to revive a dairy policy that has destroyed over 110 thousand dairy farms in a single state? That's more than five out of six farms in the last half-century. This devastation has not been limited to Wisconsin. Since 1950, America has lost over three million dairy farms. And this trend is accelerating, since 1985, America has lost over half of its dairy producers. Day after day, season after season, we are losing small farmers at an alarming rate. While these operations disappear, we are seeing the emergence of larger dairy farms. The trend toward a few large dairy operations is mirrored in States throughout the nation. The economic losses associated with the reduction of small farms goes well beyond the impact on the individual farm families that have been forced off their land. The loss of these farms has devastated rural communities where small family-owned dairy farms are the key to economic stability. Option 1A also hurts these communities in other ways: through higher costs passed on to both consumers and taxpayers. Option 1A would increase prices for milk and cheese in virtually every state in the country. Low income families and federal nutrition programs, which rely heavily on milk and cheese, will be seriously hurt by the price increases mandated by this legislation. The poor and elderly will be especially burdened by higher costs. Under Option 1A and the Compact food stamp recipients would lose $40 million a year due to increases in beverage milk prices and another $18 million a year due to increased cheese prices. This legislation also soaks taxpayers with a milk tax by imposing higher costs on every taxpayer because we all pay for nutrition programs such as food stamps and the national school lunch program. According to USDA, Option 1A alone would increase the average beverage milk price by nearly five cents a gallon and the cost of milk used for cheese by about two cents a gallon. If we add up these costs to all of the federal nutrition programs, the costs mount up quickly. Option 1A would cost the school lunch and school breakfast programs $19 million a year in higher beverage milk prices and cheese prices. The WIC program would face over $16 million in higher cheese and milk prices. Mr. President, the loss caused by Option 1A to the three major nutrition programs is $93 million. These regressive taxes unfairly burden children and the elderly. These hidden penalties on America's children and elderly must not be allowed to continue. The fact is, we need a new national dairy policy that stops devastating small farmers, and imposing higher costs on taxpayers and consumers. During my six years in the United States Senate, and twelve years in the Wisconsin State Senate, the overwhelming message I hear from dairy farmers in Wisconsin, Minnesota and throughout the Midwest, is that we need milk marketing order reform. Congress recognized the need for a new national dairy policy, and in 1996, mandated that USDA reform the Federal milk marketing order system. Well, let's take a look at why farmers across the U.S. support USDA's reforms. This chart compares Class I milk prices under the final rule and the current pricing system. Under USDA's final rule dairy farmers in New England would receive 19.29 per hundredweight, a $.26 increase over the current system. Farmers in eastern New York and Northern New Jersey would receive $19.04 per hundredweight, an $.11 per hundredweight increase. In Northern Florida, farmers would receive $20.34, a $.97 increase over the current system. These statistics underscore the importance of USDA's reforms for dairy farmers across the nation. As this chart makes clear, USDA's reforms provide relief to America's dairy farmers, and begin to re-institute fairness into our dairy pricing structure. Perhaps even more compelling is this simple bar graph that illustrates the national average Class I milk price that farmers receive under the final rule and the current pricing system. As you can see farmers would have received 58 cents more per hundredweight under USDA's final rule. Farmers, consumer advocates, and taxpayer groups support USDA's reforms, and oppose these harmful dairy riders. Mr. President, America's farmers demanded USDA's reforms. We should heed their call and support USDA's final rule. Unfortunately, supporters of this legislation feel that they know better than America's dairy farmers, and wish to prevent USDA's moderate reforms. Ironically, one of the few changes to Federal dairy policy over the last 60 years has accelerated the attack on small farmers. Despite the discrimination against Wisconsin dairy farmers under the Eau Claire rule, backdoor politicking during the eleventh hour of the conference committee for the 1996 farm bill, stuck America's dairy farmers with the devastatingly harmful Northeast Dairy Compact. This provision further aggravated the inequities of the Federal milk marketing order system by establishing the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. While the Compact may sound benign, it establishes a price fixing entity for six Northeastern States--Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact Commission is empowered to set minimum prices for fluid milk higher than those established under Federal milk marketing orders. Never mind that farmers in the Northeast already receive higher minimum prices under the antiquated, 60 year old Eau Claire rule. The compact not only allows these six States to set artificially high prices for their producers, it permits them to block entry of lower- priced milk from producers in competing States. Further distorting the markets are subsidies given to processors in these six States to export their higher-priced milk to non-compact States. Who can defend this system with a straight face? This compact amounts to nothing short of government-sponsored price fixing. It is outrageously unfair, and also bad policy. The compact interferes with interstate commerce and wildly distorts the marketplace by erecting artificial barriers around one specially protected region of the nation. The compact arbitrarily provides preferential price treatment for farmers in the Northeast at the expense of farmers in other regions who work just as hard, who love their homes just as much and whose products are just as good or better. It also irresponsibly encourages excess milk production in one region without establishing effective supply control. This practice flaunts basic economic principles and ignores the obvious risk that it will drive down milk prices for producers outside the compact region. Despite what some have argued, the Northeast Dairy Compact hasn't even helped small Northeast farmers. Since the Northeast first implemented its compact in 1997, small dairy farms in the Northeast, where this is supposed to help, have gone out of business at a rate of 41 percent higher than they had in the previous 2 years--41 percent higher. In fact, compacts often amount to a transfer of wealth to large farms by affording large farms a per-farm subsidy that is actually 20 times greater than the meager subsidy given to small farmers. We need to support USDA's moderate reforms, reject these harmful dairy riders and let our dairy farmers get a fair price for their milk. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank all the people that have participated in the colloquy for their kind words about our effort and for coming to the floor to say it. My primary purpose in rising at this point is to praise my senior colleague, Senator Kohl. The words that have been said about many in this effort are true. But I want everyone to know that this was not an effort that he initiated a week ago, or 2 weeks ago, or 2 years ago. Every single day since I have been in the Senate I have found working with Senator Kohl on this critical issue to be one of the best opportunities to work with another Senator together for our State. This has been certainly the most dramatic example. But it is an example also of the tenaciousness that Senator Kohl has on behalf of our dairy farmers. Both he and I spent our entire youth in Wisconsin. He and I both know that in 1950 there were 150,000 dairy farms in this Wisconsin. Now there are less than 23,000. Over that time you begin to realize that some of the old dairy policies maybe once worked but now, frankly, are absurd. The notion of having this difference between the class I milk across the country based on issues that refrigeration and transportation that stopped existing decades ago makes no sense. The idea of a dairy cartel in one part of the country and a system that is supposed to be based on national economy and free enterprise is also ridiculous. We know this Congress asked that the Department of Agriculture take a look at these issues, and said: What do you think we ought to do? They came back with a conclusion to narrow those differentials and get rid of the compact. Over 90 percent of the producers in the country said that is the right idea. That is why Senator Kohl and I fought so hard, because it wasn't just our idea. It wasn't just Wisconsin. It was a national consensus. Unfortunately, I think this Congress has very inappropriately overturned that. And Senator Kohl and I will not give up until we have had the opportunity to reverse this unfortunate decision. But I want to join with my senior colleague in thanking everyone for their courtesies on this. We obviously could have taken this to an even greater extent, and we realize the issues that are involved in that. This is a very important issue to not only Wisconsin, but to Minnesota, and to other States. We certainly will be back early next year to continue the battle. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999. I voted against this bill when it was brought to the floor last year as an amendment to an appropriations bill and again this year when it came through the Judiciary Committee. I am pleased to see that Senator Kyl was able to reach an agreement with Senator Campbell and others to address Indian gaming issues. The bill's special treatment of certain forms of gambling was one of the reasons I voted against this bill when it was before the Judiciary Committee. It allowed state lotteries, fantasy sports leagues, and horse and dog track racing to continue to operate over the Internet, but prohibited use of the Internet for Indian gaming, which is expressly authorized by federal law. Under Senator Campbell's amendment to S. 692, Indian gaming can continue to operate over the Internet under certain circumstances. While I am glad to see the Indian gaming issue addressed, I nevertheless remain concerned with the fact that this bill singles out one emerging technology, the Internet, to try to attack the broad, complex social problems associated with gambling. The Internet is an evolving technology, and its full potential as a medium of expression has not been reached. While I share some of the concerns about the dangers of gambling that have inspired the sponsors of this legislation, I am reluctant to start down the path of restricting the use of the Internet for any particular lawful purpose. Once we have prohibited gambling on the Internet, what will be the next on-line activity that we will try to ban? We need to be very careful not to create a precedent that might stifle the commercial and educational development of this very exciting technological tool with unhealthy implications for the First Amendment. I fear that this bill starts us down a road in that direction. Mr. President, in light of the expressed sentiment of this body last year, I did not object to the unanimous consent request to pass this bill in the closing days of this session, but I would like the record to reflect my continuing opposition to this bill. Thank you. I yield the floor.