Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I believe it is clear that what I am saying is not simply in the context of a debate on campaign finance reform, and that the Members of the Senate and the American people should hear and understand the kind of money that is behind legislation on the floor of the Senate. I think it is relevant to this debate. I think it is relevant to the debate on the subject matter involved. I have in the past on a number of occasions taken the opportunity to raise this issue. I have spoken about campaign money in connection with 9 or 10 other bills, without objection from anyone, to point out the money that is involved in those bills. As you know, my presentation here has not been exclusively on the topic of campaign money. I have talked about the merits as well. I believe both are relevant, and I certainly would dispute the notion that this is in any way appropriate for a point of order.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if I may be heard in response.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I believe this presentation is entirely relevant to this issue. I am going through the way in which these corporations can technically legally provide this kind of help to this cause of trying to make this change. That is merely the background I am giving at this point. So let me return to the present. Soft money has grown exponentially since those early days when corporate contributions were just going to give the parties a little breathing room to cover party-building activities, not campaigns. In the last Presidential campaign, in 1996, the parties raised $262 million in soft money, three times as much as in the 1992 election cycle. The experts project we will see perhaps as much as $500 million or even $600 million in this next election, and about 65 percent of the money is coming from corporate treasuries. So as we look at an issue, such as Senator Boxer's concern with the Hutchison amendment, we have to realize that what is before us is not simply an amendment. It is an amendment supported by interests that have been involved in an immense infusion of corporate cash that, unfortunately, is totally legal, even though I certainly don't think it should be. We wonder why the American people are skeptical of what we are doing. We have heard the horror stories again and again. Parties have special clubs for big givers and offer to the donors exclusive meetings and weekend retreats with office holders. And it is totally legal. In other cases, in other bills, so we know this isn't an isolated incident, the tobacco companies have funneled nearly $17 million in soft money to the national political parties.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, thank you. Let me get back to this point. Of the four companies I mentioned, only one of the four--that being Exxon--didn't give more soft money than they did PAC money. The point I am trying to make is a very important point about what is going on with these campaign contributions. This money came straight out of corporate treasuries. I would have thought a few years ago that these kinds of donations were illegal. They are supposed to be essentially illegal under our Federal elections law. The Tillman Act passed way back in 1907 in the Senate and in the Congress prohibited corporations from making campaign contributions. That statute, which was codified in title 2 of the United States Code, at section 441(b), reads as follows: It is unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation organized by authority of any law of Congress, to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election to political office . . . or for any candidate, political committee or other person knowingly to accept or receive any contribution received by this section. That sounds pretty simple and straightforward. Yet unfortunately, in 1978, the Federal Election Commission made a ruling that opened up this soft money loophole and allowed the political parties to begin accepting unlimited contributions of soft money from corporations such as Exxon, Chevron, and Atlantic Richfield to pay for party-building activities and things such as get-out-the-vote campaigns and voter registration. That is what it was supposed to be for. Let me remind my colleagues that we all believed, based on the Tillman Act, that contributions----

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, since we have been engaged in debate on the Interior bill, four major oil companies have reached tentative agreements with U.S. prosecutors who accused them of cooperating in schemes to shortchange the Government through their royalty payments by millions of dollars. A tentative settlement, which was filed in Federal court in Lufkin, TX, involved about $185 million in payments and would end a case that alleged that companies underpaid royalties by undervaluating oil extracted from Federal and American Indian lands. Though the settlement has not yet been finalized, it is a very serious matter. Chevron USA, Inc.; BP American Inc.; Amoco Oil Co.; and Conoco, Inc.; agreed in principle to settle for $95 million, $32 million, $32 million, and $26 million, respectively. The Wall Street Journal reported that a 1996 lawsuit by two former Atlantic Richfield employees alleges that 18 companies, their affiliates and subsidiaries, knowingly defrauded the Government on royalties derived from the production of crude oil from land spanning more than 27 million acres in 21 States. The Justice Department entered the case against Conoco; Amoco; Burlington Resources; the Shell Oil Company; Occidental Petroleum; Texaco, Inc.; and the Unocal Corporation, which resulted in the recent settlements. The Government is seeking triple damages of about $5 billion from all the companies. The Interior Department has billed the oil companies more than $400 million for the alleged underpayment of Federal royalties, stretching back two decades. The Wall Street Journal article I referred to, reports that these recent settlements aren't even the first of their kind. Several companies have been negotiating settlements. The Mobil Corporation agreed last year to pay $45 million, and Occidental Petroleum Corporation agreed in early September to pay $7.3 million. I think this is a very troubling trend as these lawsuits are settled. I am very concerned that Congress is abdicating its responsibility. Unintentionally or not, Congress is making it possible for this issue to continue to go unaddressed because the royalty underpayment situation is the issue that this rulemaking we are debating seeks to correct. The proponents of this amendment have stated their concerns that regulators are straying onto Congress' turf by amending the regulations. Proponents of this amendment say they want Congress to act on this matter; otherwise, the increase in royalties would amount to a type of ``taxation without representation.'' I have to respectfully disagree with that argument. It ignores the fact that our Government agencies regularly update their regulations and they are authorized to do so by Congress. We don't require Congress to act every single time a regulation needs to be changed. We would never be able to get to it. For example, Congress enacted the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. That law is intended to provide for orderly leasing of these lands, while affording protection for the environment and ensuring that the Federal Government receive fair market value for both lands leased and the production that might result. The Outer Continental Shelf Program is carried out by the Minerals Management Service of the Department of the Interior. Thus, Congress delegated the power to set royalties to MMS. In addition to ignoring the fact that Congress passed laws which give the MMS the ability to set royalties, this argument that has been made rings hollow when you consider that Congress is not acting to prevent the underpayment of royalties with this amendment. What it is doing is preventing the Interior Department from doing anything about it at all. So this raises the question: Why is Congress doing nothing about this problem? I think, certainly, the public will want to know why. The alleged underpayments involve more than 6,000 onshore and offshore leases in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, California, Alabama, Alaska, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Colorado, Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. So this is not just a coastal States problem, or even just a Western problem. It affects a broad number of States, and it deserves attention as a national problem, the kind of attention the Senator from California has brought to it. I have no doubt that one of the factors contributing to Congress' inaction on this issue of great importance to American taxpayers is the role of campaign contributions in the political process. So I want to review the figures I briefly presented when I ``Called the Bankroll'' last time I joined the Senator from California on the floor. I call the bankroll from time to time in this Chamber to remind my colleagues and the public about the undeniable, but sometimes hidden, role that money plays in the decisions we make. During the 1997-1998 election cycle, the very large oil companies that will benefit from this amendment gave the following political donations to the parties and to Federal candidates: Exxon gave more than $230,000 in soft money and more than $480,000 in PAC money; Chevron gave more than $425,000 in soft money and more than $330,000 in PAC money; Atlantic Richfield gave more than $525,000 in soft money and $150,000 in PAC money; BP Oil and Amoco, two oil companies that have merged into the newly formed petroleum giant, BP Amoco, gave a combined total of more than $480,000 in soft money and $295,000 in PAC money. So if you put that together, that is more than $2.9 million just from those four corporations in the span of only 2 years. They want the Hutchison amendment to be part of the Interior appropriations bill. As powerful political donors, I am afraid they are likely to get their way. You will notice that all of these companies except for Exxon gave more to the political parties in soft money than their PACs gave to individual candidates. So, remember, and this is a key thing about soft money, which I don't think everybody in the country realizes; it took me a while to get it. Soft money comes right out of the corporate treasury, right out of the treasury. This isn't money where you form a PAC and you get employees to contribute to it; it comes straight out of the corporate treasury. I am happy to yield without yielding my right to the floor. I ask unanimous consent that I can yield briefly to the Senator from North Dakota so he can make a request.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for her tremendous determination and leadership on this issue. I have watched this effort from the beginning, and her enthusiasm and determination is really making a difference. I am extremely impressed with it. My purpose is to rise again in opposition to the Hutchison amendment. Earlier in the debate on this amendment, I engaged in a colloquy with the Senator from California about the relationship between campaign contributions and the continued reappearance of this amendment. I believe this is the fourth time similar provisions have been offered or contained in the Interior appropriations bill, just since May of 1998. I will return in a minute to the issue of campaign contributions. First, I want to share a few observations that highlight the overall importance of the issue we are discussing. I ask unanimous consent that an article which appeared in the Wall Street Journal on September 10, 1999, be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Right now.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me say, because the Senator from Maryland has been very patient, I am sorry I had to delay this important legislation to this point. I am going to conclude for now. Again, I regret that this is necessary. However, as a Senator from the great State of Wisconsin, I will continue to fight for a fair national dairy policy as we await the outcome of the conference and in the days to follow. Obviously, in taking this unusual step, I am merely signaling to the Senate that there certainly will be more discussions of the same kind if this goes forward. Before I yield the floor, I see the Senator from Minnesota. I wonder if he wanted to ask me one more question.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I say to the Senator from Minnesota, that really is the fundamental question. It relates closely to what he has done such an excellent job of talking about. This isn't just about whether or not we are going to have a higher price for dairy farmers in New England or somewhat lower price in Wisconsin and the age-old regional battles. Something happens that is very dangerous to our democracy when we lose these small farms. We lose the ability to have people who own their own property produce our food. I think that is dangerous. What is happening in every sector of the economy, especially in agriculture, is the consolidation of the control of the food supply into a few hands. I think the Senator from Minnesota knows the statistics better than I do, but I think in grain, I was told that one company is going to control something like 95 percent of the grain. The Senator from Missouri, who was on the floor before, has made the point in meetings that we have a problem in this country when we go to the store and we buy some ham and we pay more for it than the farmer was getting for the whole pig for awhile. Somebody is making the money. It is not the small farmer. Dairy is only one example of this trend. What happens is, when you lose these small farms in places like Minnesota and Wisconsin, of course, milk is still being produced, but it tends to be produced in these very large corporate operations, whether they are in Wisconsin, but more likely in other places. I remember flying into a western State that I won't name and flying into an airport saying: What is that down there? It looked similar to the General Motors plant in Janesville. Somebody told me it was a dairy farm. This isn't the dairy farming that I grew up to believe not only was basic to our economy but basic to our culture, basic to our democracy, and, yes, control of our own food supply. If big corporations and multinational corporations own our land and our food supply, isn't this even a question of national security? I think it is an element of national security if we own our own food product. The best way to keep owning it is to have small, individual producers all over this country continue to survive. To me, I don't know if that is exactly what the Senator from Minnesota was getting at, but it is a fair point that this isn't just about the upper Midwest versus New England and so on. What it is really about is, can these small operators who live in Wisconsin and Minnesota continue to exist?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I say no one has made it more his business to articulate what has happened to American farmers in general, particularly in the last few years. He was an inspiration to me in that regard before I got to this body. We are proud in Wisconsin, but not too proud to look west to Minnesota for that kind of inspiration at times. Let me start with the second question. The first one involves, as you know, a lot of memories: 17 years of working with farmers. But the second question really is always a hard one. People say to me: How can it be that you have a vote, fair and square, in the body in which you have been elected to serve, and there was no vote in the other House, and somehow this committee that is appointed to get together to resolve the differences between the Houses ends up coming up with the exact opposite of what the Senate had resolved? You can say: Well, that's the way things always are. But that does not satisfy people. There are supposed to be some rules, both formal and informal, about the way business is done. It has always been my understanding, unless there is some basis in one House or the other for putting something into the conference committee, it should not be put in there. It sounds like, as they say, inside baseball. But what it really is is a cynicism that what we do out here is irrelevant to what happens in the conference committee. So I am sounding the alarm, as you suggested. I know people hate to lose. I hate to lose. I hated to lose when we won fair and square 2 years ago. I hated to lose when we begged the Secretary of Agriculture to not do this because we thought it was a lousy idea. He did not agree. Now he admits it is not a very good idea. I think it is time for those on the other side to understand that sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. There are rules, there is fairness, and there is no fairness to this process when we win this vote time and again on the floor of the Senate, and somehow we are still stuck with this thing because of a few people in the conference committee. I hope it does not happen, I say to the Senator from Minnesota, but I am worried about it. I certainly feel bad that I am compelled to do this in light of the wishes of the Senator from Maryland and people who are bringing this bill forward. It is a terribly important piece of legislation. We have to act on behalf of our dairy farmers and because of what has happened in the past. Because of the fact that fairness is not applied to our issue, we have no choice but to speak. The reason I feel so strongly is that I have watched the decimation of Wisconsin's dairy farmers. I became a State senator in 1982, just 2 years after the year I like to mention as sort of the benchmark, when we had over 45,000 dairy farmers in Wisconsin. I grew up in a family and am old enough to remember, we didn't get our milk and our eggs at the store. The milk was delivered every morning by the milkman, and we got the eggs once a week by going out to farms in the area. That, to me, was the way it was done. We knew personally many of the family farmers in our area, and they were good friends of our family. It was part of our community. There was no question in my mind, when I was elected to the Wisconsin State Senate, representing a largely rural area, that at the very top of my list had to be making sure these folks who had been providing food for us forever could continue to live. I would have been stunned and horrified to know that 17 years later I would be out here with about half of Wisconsin dairy farmers being lost. I can trace it for the Senator from Minnesota, if he would like, through the hundreds of conversations I have had. I had them as a State senator, and I have had them as a U.S. Senator. I go to every 1 of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year and hold a town meeting. We open the door, and whoever wants to come to the town hall can come in. And in every 1 of Wisconsin's 72 counties, except for possibly Milwaukee, a farmer has come in or many farmers have come in and told me about the pressure on them because of this pricing system and, in the last couple of years, because of the overproduction that this New England Dairy Compact has caused. It varies. Sometimes they are just concerned. But I say to the Senator from Minnesota, in the last 2 years I have had farmers I have known for 17 years, proud men and women, come to my town meetings and begin their presentation clearly, concisely, politely, but near the end of their presentation they have started to cry because they are sick and tired of not being able to pass on that farm to their kids. That is not a very fun thing to watch--to watch a 70-year-old man who is still working his farm take the time to come to my town meeting and to try to say how he felt and to be unable to complete the presentation and to probably feel embarrassed, but it is that bad. The hardest thing for me to hear is the farmer who says: I wanted my kids to go into farming, to go into dairy, but I cannot tell them it is a good idea. That is usually the point at which one of the farmers just can't go on. His dream, a lot of times the dream of his son or daughter, is actually to continue the family tradition, and they can't because the Federal Government is meddling in having a fair and open dairy market, the kind in which they would have done very well. That is a brief answer, and I could go on and on.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes. I thank both Senators from Minnesota for joining me. Of course, the Senator is absolutely right. This is not about a guaranteed price for the farmers. It is not about any kind of legislation, some of which I might support. This is an attempt to prevent the continuation of an absurd distortion of our dairy market in the New England Dairy Compact. We are looking for fairness both in terms of the policy and the procedure of this institution. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. Again, I thank the Senator from Maryland for, I hope, understanding. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. FEINGOLD. To answer the excellent question of the Senator from Minnesota, this makes no sense. You and I have views on the Freedom to Farm Act. I strongly oppose it. I thought it was a bad idea. In fact, the results of it are shocking. No one has been more eloquent about this than the senior Senator from Minnesota, who has pointed out the enormous tragedy that has occurred with many farmers around the country because of that law. But what is bizarre about it, as you point out, is that in one area, instead of going the Freedom to Farm route, they voted to keep not just Government regulation but to put in place a system of regulation and marketing that only dealt with one small region of the country where there are only a few thousand dairy farmers, when there are some 25,000 in Wisconsin and a substantial number in Minnesota. It is a complete opposite of the notion of a free market national system. Even for those of us who oppose the Freedom to Farm Act, those of us who oppose the Freedom to Farm Act are not proposing for wheat or corn or pork or beef or anything else that there be regional markets. Whatever philosophy you have, whether it be Government supports to guarantee our farmers do not fall below a certain level, or whether you believe in a complete freedom to farm or freedom to fail, some would say--either way--this idea of a regional market for a particular commodity is an example of ridiculous Federal interference. We need a national dairy market. Upper Midwestern farmers will do fine in a national dairy market. But one that is unfairly skewed for one region, when the underlying system is already terribly unfair, is a double whammy that has cost us far too many lives and far too many livelihoods of farmers in Wisconsin and Minnesota and throughout the upper Midwest.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his question. I note the presence of the senior Senator from Minnesota. Minnesota has fewer dairy farmers than Wisconsin, but it has a whole lot. Together, our two States comprise a tremendous percentage of dairy production in the country. We are adamant in this effort to try to stop what the Senator from Minnesota correctly points out is the same old trick. We won fair and square in 1997. There was not a vote in the House. They did not have a vote: should we have a New England Dairy Compact or not. We did. It was a tough vote. I tell you, this is a tough issue, a hard issue. One thing I like about it is that it is not about Republicans versus Democrats. It is one of those rare times when everyone in the body is open to be for something not based on their party but based on what is best for their area and what is best for the country. So we had quite a debate. We all worked together on it. As I pointed out earlier, it was a close vote, but we won--I hope I am not given the wrong number--I think with roughly a 50-46 bipartisan vote where we voted not to have the compact. It went to conference. I was in the State legislature in Wisconsin for 10 years. We had conference committees. They were often not the most attractive moments, of course, as things that go on in conference committees get a little rough. But there was a basic understanding that unless there was some basis from one house or the other for the outcome, it could not be done. That is not what was done in this conference committee in 1996. Without any justification, this compact, or the permission to allow the Secretary of Agriculture to put the compact into effect, was placed in. And yes, I fear--although I hope it does not happen--that is exactly what is happening again. There was an attempt here to force the compact continuation or extension on to the Ag appropriations bill. All three of us and Senator Kohl and others worked together and many other Senators from across the country, and they did not even come close to getting the 60 votes. So that is my concern. That is why I am out here.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Without yielding my right to the floor, I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, since the question has been raised, I think it is time to review what has happened on the floor of the Senate and in the Congress on this issue in the past. What has happened on this issue is that we have fought this battle fair and square in the Senate, won the battle, and then every time we get to conference committee, somehow the will of this body is undone. In 1996, we had the only rollcall vote on the issue of the New England Dairy Compact, the Northeast Dairy Compact. I remember staying up until late at night lobbying Members, and we had a vote fair and square on whether or not we were going to set up this actually absurd notion of a New England Dairy Compact. So what did we do? We won the vote fair and square. I think it was something like 50-46. I remember the wonderful help and support I received from the distinguished majority leader at the time, Senator Dole, in feeling it was a tough battle--one of these tough inter- regional battles--not a Republican or Democrat issue but that we had won fair and square. The House had not voted on the issue, but then they go over to the conference committee, and in the middle of the night, without any basis from the action of either House, they just stick in the conference committee the idea that the Secretary of Agriculture could create a region in New England that would establish an artificially high price for milk for only one part of the country to the disadvantage of farmers everywhere else. That is how we got here. This was part of the so-called Freedom to Farm Act. We had hopes that the Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, for whom I have great regard and have enjoyed working with, would understand what a mistake it would be to create this compact in the first place. We did everything we could to persuade him not to go down this road--that it wouldn't make sense; that it wouldn't save northeastern dairy farmers; that it wouldn't help consumers, and, in fact, would hurt consumers; that it would drive up production artificially in a way that would reduce prices for dairy farmers. I believe that is exactly what happened. Secretary Glickman is a bright guy, and he has an open mind. He watched this for a year and a half. He concluded that the New England Dairy Compact was not a good idea and proposed, along with his suggestions on changing the milk marketing order system, that we not have it anymore, that it expire. We pointed out on the floor of the Senate on many occasions how this notion of a dairy compact, a regional economy for milk, could be applied in other situations. Perhaps we should say all the maple syrup in Vermont and States in that region should be sold, bought, and consumed in that one area and not exported to the rest of the country. Others have said we could do the same thing with blueberries. There would be a southern or Georgia peanut region, and all the peanuts grown there would have to be sold and consumed there. There would be an artificially high price for peanuts there but not anywhere else. Others carried it further. Since we associate the great city of Seattle, the State of Washington, with computers, why not have computers sold in the Northwest? I found even more interesting the notion that country music should only be marketed in States such as Tennessee and Kentucky. I happen to be a fan of country music, so I find that troubling, although some of my younger staffers would be delighted if we had that kind of limitation on country music. I don't think they like it. That is what this is, an artificial corruption of what should be a national dairy system. I don't mean corruption in the sense of impropriety; I mean in the sense of undercutting the notion of free enterprise in which the dairy industry should be able to participate. The Secretary reviewed it, and he concluded we shouldn't have this anymore. There has been an effort on the Senate floor and throughout the summer on and off to attach the New England Dairy Compact to other bills, including the agricultural appropriations bill. It was a hard fought battle. I give credit to those who want to preserve the New England Dairy Compact for their willingness to continue and to fight for their cause. They thought they were going to have 60 votes. They thought they had the votes to force this on to the bill. They did not, frankly, come very close at all. As I recall, they came some seven votes short of the goal rather than one or two. It was a decisive statement that made many in Wisconsin hope that finally, instead of just the politics of this, people would listen to the Secretary of Agriculture and realize this was not a good idea. We figured it was done. We knew we couldn't be sure because of what was done in 1996 in the conference committee. But we had hopes that this would not happen again. However, this is, unfortunately, now what is happening or what we fear could be happening. In the conference committee, which I had a chance to observe last week for a while, there is a real possibility that the Secretary's reasonable recommendations to modify to some extent the milk marketing order systems and to discontinue the Northeastern Dairy Compact--those items may be reversed and placed in the agricultural appropriations bill even though there has been no vote in the Senate or in the House to continue the dairy compact. Although I certainly regret having to come to the floor and proceed in this manner, I essentially have no choice. My farmers expect me to come to Washington and fight for their rights. It won fair and square on the floor. Yet somehow in conference committee these fair votes are taken away. Once again, as has been the case over and over again, dairy farmers in the upper Midwest are given the short end of the stick. It is only because these mistakes were made in terms of putting this compact together. Even the person who approved them, the Secretary of Agriculture, now sees it was not a very good idea and should be discontinued. I say to the Senators whose bill is up--and it is an important piece of legislation--it is a matter of what is going on in the conference committee now that forces me to come to the floor and explain in more detail to my colleagues just what is at stake. I don't know how many times I will repeat this. I have already mentioned it. We had over 45,000 dairy farmers in Wisconsin around 1980. Only about 19 years later, we have fewer than 25,000. That is a huge loss not only of a way of life but of an economic base in our State. It is a tragedy for our State to have this trend continue. Let me discuss a bit about the way the dairy industry is an integral part of our Nation's culture and history. We will look at that role. Cheese, unlike its ancient cousin, yogurt, is not a novel food to Americans. It came over to America with the earliest settlers who made Cheddar cheese in their own homes. Like yogurt, though, the popularity of cheese has been steadily growing. One of the most natural and oldest of food products, dating back to the domestication of animals, about 9000 B.C., cheese was once so highly esteemed it was even used as a medium of exchange. It traveled with Greeks, the Romans and with the armies of Genghis Khan. During the Middle Ages, monks in the French monasteries developed a soft-ripened cheese, starting a cheese renaissance. Centuries later, in 1851, Jesse Williams built the first commercial cheese factory in America. Herkimer, in upstate New York, grew into the cheese center of the United States until the westward expansion of the country resulted in Wisconsin gradually exceeding New York in total annual production. As pioneer wagons moved west, boats continued to carry others from across the ocean. The immigrants introduced their own favorite cheeses to America and contributed to the ``melting (cheese) pot.'' As the number of cheeses available in the United States has enlarged, so has the consumer demand. The consumption of cheese in 1975 was 14.2 pounds per person compared to 9.1 pounds in 1965. Natural cheese is a product of milk that has been heated, pressed, and cured. In the United States, cheese is made from pasteurized cow's milk. While milk is generally used except for some varieties such as cottage cheese which uses skim milk. When milk is heated, usually with a starter of some kind, rennet or bacterial culture, it separates into soft curd and liquid whey. After the milk has been heated, but before it has started to ripen, the soft curd may be separated from the whey and with some additional treatment made into a fresh natural unripened cheese. Unripened cheeses contain relatively high moisture and do not undergo any curing or ripening. They are sold fresh and should be used within a few days after purchase. The gjetost and primost, however, because they contain very low moisture, may be kept refrigerated for several weeks or even months. Cottage cheese, is low calorie cheese, is made in different sized curds. The small-curd type is usually used in salads because it holds its shape better than the larger curds which are suitable for all other purposes. To prepare creamed cottage cheese, fresh cream is mixed with the curd to give it additional moisture and flavor. Cream cheese is of American origin and is one of our most popular soft cheeses. It is a mixture of milk and cream that is coagulated but unripened. Unripened cheese may also be divided into soft or firm types. Cream cheese and cottage cheese are examples of a soft unripened cheese. An example of firm unripened cheese is mozzarella. To make natural ripened cheese, the soft curd is taken from the liquid whey and then cured by holding it at a certain temperature and humidity for a specified period of time. Natural ripened cheeses may also be classified according to their degree of hardness. Authorities generally group natural cheese into four distinct groups of hardness: soft, semi-soft, firm, and very hard. Hardness has to do with moisture. The older the cheese, the lower its moisture content. Brie and Camembert, both of which originated in France, are ripened by mold. The curd is not cut nor is it pressed. Cheese lovers all over the world hold these two cheeses in the highest of esteem. Brie is considered to be the Queen of Cheeses. There are probably more literary references to Brie than to any other cheese. Its descriptions are often accompanied by superlatives but it is a difficult cheese to buy satisfactorily because it goes from under ripened to over ripened in a matter of a few days. It is at its peak when it has a consistency of a heavy slow-pouring liquid and a yellow sheen. Under ripe Brie is flaky and chalky. Overripe Brie is very soft and has an off-order like ammonia. Camembert is a popular cheese in France and is widely known in the United States. It has as devoted a following as Brie and also the same ephemeral quality of being ripe for only a very short time. Limburger and Liederkranz are examples of bacteria-ripened cheeses. The different bacteria used in the ripening process are responsible for their characteristic flavor and odor. Included in this category are the blue-veined cheeses. There are now over fifty varieties of blue cheeses made all over the world. However, the best known and most highly prized are Roquefort, Stiliton, and Gorgonzola. Blue cheeses are called the ``king of cheeses.'' They are made from cow's milk. Roquefort is the exception. It is made from sheep's milk and is cured in the cool damp caves of southwestern France. Bel Paese is a popular, all purpose cheese made in Italy and under license in the United States--Wisconsin, of course. It is a table cheese as well as cooking cheese. Brick is an original American Cheese whose name derives from either the shape of the cheese or, perhaps, from the brick originally used in pressing the curd. It is softer than Cheddar and less sharp. It is a strong cheese, but not as strong as Limburger. Muenster, as made in France where it is very popular, is strong cheese. It is used as table cheese. However, the American kind is much more bland and is suitable for cooking as well as for a table cheese. Port du Salut originated in a Trappist monastery in France. The French import is usually mellow with a slight edge. The hard or firm cheese list includes the two most popular cheeses in the United States, Cheddar and Swiss. Cheddar cheese accounts for almost half of all the cheese consumed in America. It ranges from a very mild cheese to a very sharp one depending upon how long it's been aged. A versatile cheese, suitable for most cheese dishes, it melts well. Canadian Cheddar is imported into the United States, but English Cheddar, by law, is not. The English relative to Cheddar, the famous Cheshire is imported. More American Cheddar cheese is made in Wisconsin than any other state. There are variations to different kinds of cheese. Colby is primarily made in the Midwest while Monterey (Jack) and Tillamook is processed on the West Coast. Colby is not as compressed as the other cheddars and it has a higher moisture content. Monterey is also a milder cheddar and has a higher moisture content. There is a more aged Monterey called ``dry Monterey'' that can be used for grating. A large amount of Cheddar cheese sold in the United States is sold as processed American cheese. Provolone and Cacciocavalle are spun cheeses. The curd is placed in either hot water or hot whey and then stretched into its desired shape or size. They are an important ingredient in Italian cooking. The Provolone is usually smoked. The Edam and Gouda cheeses are the most popular cheeses imported from the Netherlands. Similar in flavor, the Edam is made from partly skim milk and the Gouda from whole milk. In the category of very hard cheeses, Parmesan has a mild to sharp piquant flavor and is famous as a seasoning in cooking. It has the natural ability of enhancing the flavor of foods. The imported Italian Parmesan is a highly prized cheese and is used as a table cheese as well as for seasoning. The domestic varieties are primarily grated for seasoning and for cooking. Romano is a sharper cheese than Parmesan. In Italy it is usually made from sheep's milk instead of from cow's milk. It is primarily a grating cheese but the less sharp cheese may be used as a table cheese. The domestic variety is primarily a grating cheese. Sap Sago is a grating cheese from Switzerland to which has been added dried clover. It is made by mixing whey and skim cow's milk. I would like to say a little more about the process of making cheeses, butter, cream, and yogurt at home. Although animals have been milked by man almost from the dawn of civilization, there are Egyptian paintings showing cattle being milked around 2000 B.C., the use of liquid milk was almost unknown until comparatively recently. Until the beginning of the 17th century, milk drinking was considered quite injurious to health and, in view of the low standards of dairy hygiene, the incidence of cattle plague, and the fact that milk contained dangerous pathogenic factors, especially the germs of tuberculosis and typhoid, this was probably right at the time. It reminds me of a dairy farmer who came to see me after I was elected to the Senate. I met him in the reception area outside the Chamber. He told me he was going over to some of the former Soviet Republics to try to help farmers there learn some of the skills we have in dairy farming. He told me his goal was to make sure that the milk in one of these former Soviet Republics could not walk to the market by itself. I understood what he was saying. If you do not do this right, as we do in America, in Wisconsin, then we have to be concerned. That is one of the reasons milk might have gotten off to sort of a slow start in some of these countries, given the risks. The fact is, many children died of tuberculosis of bovine origin up until the late 19th century. It was not until the 1930s, when pasteurization and refrigeration of milk became accepted, and when concentrated efforts were inaugurated to eradicate the disease of bovine tuberculosis, that milk became safe and acceptable. I can tell you, growing up in Janesville, WI, we were taught about pasteurization as one of the most important events in human history. When you are from Wisconsin, that is a big deal, as it is almost anywhere.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my answer to the Senator's question is that this needs to be addressed, and that is why I am here. Mr. President, I have the floor, I believe.

Mr. FEINGOLD. My pending business that I think needs to be addressed by the Senate and the Congress is the outrageous treatment of Wisconsin dairy farmers.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Somewhere in between, probably.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, that may be determined more by factors that I can't control than my own intentions.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the answer to the question is, I intend to speak for a fair amount of time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will yield without relinquishing my right to the floor for a question.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the New York Times has written a piece about ``Bringing Markets To Milk,'' ``A Pricing Policy Was Confusing. It Still Is,'' by Mr. Weinstein. I would like to read some portions of that. He writes: Ponder a perverse question: What public policies would pummel the poor? Here is one answer: Impose a levy that falls more heavily on them than on the rich, singling out a staple in the diet of poor families and driving up its price. No one would seriously entertain such an idea--no one, that is, except members of Congress. Federal milk-pricing rules dating from the 1930's drive up the price that consumers pay for milk, in effect taking money from urban parents, among others, and handing it over to rural dairy farmers. Proponents say the rules stabilize milk prices, thereby assuring reliable supplies across the country. But opponents say the system is archaic, Byzantine and unnecessary--a giveaway to the dairy farm lobby. And it's regressive: poor families spend about twice as much of their income on milk as do other families, on average. Consumer advocates took heart three years ago when Congress told the Agriculture Department to improve the program. But their hopes were dashed recently when the department released its proposals, scheduled to go into effect on Oct. 1. The new rules, the department said, would be ``simpler, more market-oriented.'' But rather than taking a mallet to the program, the department wielded a toothpick. John M. Schnittker, an economist at Public Voice for Food and Health Policy, a nonprofit research group in Washington that plans to merge with the Consumer Federation of America, estimates that the current program raises the cost of milk an average of 18 cents a gallon. The department says its plan will cut prices by about 2 cents--a trim Mr. Schnittker calls ``almost an insult.'' The current rules impose a complex set of minimum prices that processors are requited to pay farmers in each of the 31 marketing regions. The department starts by setting a base price for milk used in the manufacture of products like cheese from a survey of prices in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Then it tacks on additional charges, mostly reflecting location, to set the minimum price for so-called fluid milk. Kenneth C. Clayton, deputy administrator of the agency that runs the system, says the controls stop milk prices from gyrating wildly and make sure that milk flows from areas where there are surplus supplies, like upstate New York and Wisconsin, to areas where there is scarcity, like Boston and Chicago. But he concedes that those flows would occur without Government guidance. What the rules do, he says, is ``divide up the pie--insuring that dairy farmers capture more of the dollar that consumers pay to processors.'' Another set of complex rules dictates how the processors' payments are divided among farmers. Many economists challenge Mr. Clayton's benign interpretation. Processors operate in reasonably competitive markets, the economists say, so if they are forced to pay more for milk, they have little choice but to pass on the added cost to customers. Mr. Schnittker points to studies that show consumer prices rising along with Government- imposed charges on processors. He also challenges another rationale for the milk-pricing rules: Preservation of the family farmer. ``Two-thirds of milk production comes from only about a quarter of the nation's dairy farmers,'' he said. ``The milk-pricing rules overwhelmingly line the pockets of mega dairy farms.'' The government's overhaul would simplify things by collapsing the 31 regions into 11. But it would also make the system more complicated, by setting the base price for milk use in manufactured products according to surveys around the country, rather than just the Midwest, and by adjusting the price to take into account the milk's protein content and other qualities using complex mathematical formulas. Add charges to take account of location and some transition rules, and out come 600-plus pages of regulations. Some economists suggest that the rule-making would fit comfortably in the playbook of the former Soviet Union. And though the proposal would bring down average milk prices a small amount, it would leave most of the high prices intact. Indeed, the proposal would actually raise the minimum price in some places, like Chicago, a decision more political than economic. Critics point out that this is not the first time the Agriculture Department has sided with dairy farmers over consumers. It also approved the creation of a dairy cartel among farmers in the Northeast that blocks low-price imports. Milk prices in New England rose about 20 cents a gallon after the compact went into effect in July 1997.