Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to support Senator Kohl's amendment which was included into the Juvenile Justice bill's Manager's Package. Mr. President, Senator Kohl's amendment would expand the Families and Schools Together or FAST program to reach the many at-risk students in need. FAST is an award winning drug abuse prevention program that supports and empowers parents to be the best line of defense between their children and the dangers of drug abuse. The program uses a cooperative approach that gives parents professional support to prevent and confront drug abuse in the home. I am proud to report, Mr. President, that the FAST program, which has received many awards and honors since its development 10 years ago, was founded in my home state of Wisconsin by Dr. Lynn McDonald. Dr. McDonald is one of the nation's experts on the prevention of drug abuse by young people. The unique FAST program is today being used in 484 schools in 34 states and five countries. Research indicates that to be most effective, substance abuse prevention education should be initiated when children are young. Researchers also believe that prevention efforts that focus on family and peer relationships can greatly reduce risk factors for our children. While no one solution will rid our country of the problem of youth drug abuse, it is critical that we make available to students, parents and schools successful programs that can make a difference. FAST has a proven track record: it has been tried, adapted, implemented and studied. It is clearly a program that has proven successful and should be expanded to reach more families in need. It is important to note, Mr. President, that we are not powerless to help prevent destructive behaviors, such as drug abuse, in our children. The FAST program requires a strong, committed partnership between schools and families to help the students at risk and to intervene successfully to prevent the downward cycle of drug abuse, which too often leads to youth violence. I support this amendment, Mr. President, because I know that FAST is a prevention program which helps young children at risk for developing problems later on--by working with them and their families early on. Senator Kohl's amendment is a wise investment at the front end to catch students before their risky behavior results in tragic consequences for themselves and their families. With assistance from the FAST program, families become their own child's best prevention resource.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today as an original co- sponsor of S. Res. 103, which marks the tenth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre of June 4, 1989, in China. The resolution conveys the sense of the Senate that the United States expresses its sympathy for those killed at Tiananmen Square and commends the Chinese citizens who have continued over the last decade to peacefully advocate greater democracy and respect for human rights in China. This resolution further calls on the authorities in China to reevaluate the events of June 1989, establish a commission to investigate what happened, release those still being held in connection with the democratic rally, and cease current harassment and detention of those still seeking democratic reform. This resolution makes a simple, clear request, one that the Senate has made many times before-- free the Tiananmen Square democratic protesters and accept the legitimacy of the voices that still cry out for peaceful democratic reform in China. Mr. President, first I would like this opportunity to express my deep regret at the unfortunate, and unintentional, bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Regardless of my continuing concerns with some of China's practices, I certainly feel great sorrow that innocent civilians were hurt under these circumstances. Nevertheless, we can not, we will not, let this tragic accident, nor the impact it may have on our relations with China, silence our voices on the subject of democracy and human rights in China, or cause us to overlook the continuing ramifications of the events in Tiananmen Square ten years ago. China's human rights practices remain abhorrent, and we will not allow recent events to dampen our continued vigilance and willingness to condemn such practices. It is noteworthy that the demonstrations in China in reaction to the bombing are perhaps the largest since the Tiananmen Square protests. It is ironic that public protest is OK when it serves the government's interest, and not OK when it threatens the government's hold on power. This is an unacceptable double standard, and I believe we would be derelict in our duties if we did not keep our attention focused on the lack of freedom in China. As we all know, this April, under considerable pressure from the Congress, the United States sponsored a resolution at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to condemn China's ongoing abuses of human rights. As in past years, China's leaders aggressively lobbied against efforts at the Commission earlier and more actively than the countries that supported the resolution. Once again, Beijing's vigorous efforts have resulted in a ``no action'' motion at the Commission. While I commend the Administration's actions this year, I question whether our late and halfhearted support for condemnation of China doomed that resolution to failure. We must not allow China to believe that its human rights practices are acceptable. We must remember that if was only under the pressure of previous Geneva resolutions that China signed in 1997 the UN Covenant of Social Economic and Cultural Rights and in October 1998 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We should also not overlook the fact that neither of these important international documents has yet been ratified or implemented. Mr. President, while recent attention has been drawn to the Embassy bombing, repeated allegations of espionage and of efforts to influence our elections, and the negotiations for China's entrance to the WTO, these current concerns should not obscure our views of the ongoing human rights abuses that abound throughout China and Tibet. According to Amnesty International, the human rights situation in China shows no fundamental change, despite the recent promises from the government of China. At least 2,000 people remain in prison for counter-revolutionary crimes that are no longer even on the books in China. At least 200 individuals detained or arrested for Tiananmen Square activities a decade ago are also still in prison. By China's own statistics, there are nearly a quarter of a million Chinese people imprisoned under the ``re-education through labor'' system. This situation demonstrates that China has yet to learn the lesson of Tiananmen Square--that the aspiration of the Chinese people for human rights and democratic reform will not disappear with time or repression. On this, the tenth anniversary of the traumatic Tiananmen Square massacre, we must remember the brave Chinese citizens who stood before the tanks and gave their lives to express their hopes for freedom. They breathed their last on the bloody pavement of Tiananmen, hoping that their sacrifice would help bring democratic reform and respect for human rights to their fellow countrymen. We must continue to honor those who made such dramatic sacrifices for their beliefs. In this momentous year in which China marks not only the tenth anniversary of Tiananmen Square, but also the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China, we must not choose silence on this issue. Only by repeating our demands for change, can we appropriately honor those who were willing to sacrifice all to achieve a better life for the people of China. Mr. President, I strongly commend my friends, the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone) for their leadership on this important, longstanding issue.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address a troubling--but little recognized--public health problem in this country, and that's access to dental health. Unlike many public health problems, there are clinically proven techniques to prevent or delay the progression of dental health problems. These proven techniques are not only more cost-effective, but also are relatively simple if done early. I'm specifically referring to the use of fluoride and dental sealants. The combination of fluoride and sealants is so effective against tooth decay that it has been likened to a ``magic potion.'' In fact, an article in Public Health Reports called the ``one-two combination of fluoride and sealants . . . similar to that of vaccinations.'' With such an effective prevention method in place, one might assume that dental disease is becoming increasingly rare in this country. But that's not the case, Mr. President, because, in order to receive these preventive treatments--this ``magic potion'' against dental disease-- you need to see a dentist, and there simply are not enough dentists to provide these basic services to everyone who needs them. As of September 30 of last year, the United States had 1,116 dental health professions shortage areas, or Dental HPSA's according to the Health Resources and Services Administration. The chart I have here shows the counties in Wisconsin that have areas designated as shortage areas, but every single state in our Nation has a portion designated as a dental shortage area. There are proven methods for preventing dental disease, yet 1,116 communities across our country--particularly underserved rural and inner-city communties--do not have enough dentists to provide simple preventive services. Barriers to dental care are particularly acute among lower income families, Medicaid enrollees, and the uninsured. Studies indicate that the prevalence of dental disease increases as income decreases. In many areas, there simply are not enough dentists to provide basic treatment to all who need them, and although there is a federal method for designating such areas as dental health professional shortage areas (DHPSA's) to become eligible for additional funding, the designation process can be so tedious that State dental directors simply lack the resources to complete the necessary documentation. To illustrate this problem of undercounting shortage areas, as of September 30 of last year, only eight counties in Wisconsin had portions designated as DHPSA's according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), but statewide only 23 percent of Medicaid enrollees had received dental care. As you can see from this chart, in 13 Wisconsin counties, fewer than 10 percent of Medicaid enrollees received dental care. According to Wisconsin's state dental director, Dr. Warren LeMay, 80 percent of tooth decay is found in the poorest 25 percent of children. Given the effectiveness of dental health care in preventing dental disease--particularly the combination of check-ups, fluoride, and sealants--the access problems are simply unacceptable. And the impact of so many people going without dental care is devastating. Those of us who have ever had a toothache remember how excruciating that pain can be, making it difficult if not impossible to work, go to school or otherwise go about our business. For those Americans who lack access to dental services, however, the toothache is more than a bad memory--it is the here and now. Mr. President, imagine you had a child, a daughter, in need of dental services. But you lack insurance, and cannot afford to pay out-of- pocket to see a dentist. Or you may have Medicaid, but the nearest dentist is more than 2 hours away, and you don't own a car. Since your child hasn't received the preventive care treatments, she has a lot of untreated tooth decay--decay that leads to infection, fevers, stomach aches, and, worst of all, debilitating pain, making it almost impossible for her to concentrate in school. She may also develop speech difficulties, since she may lack the teeth necessary to form certain words and sounds. When you try to get her emergency dental services, you find that the few dentists in the area have waiting lists of two months or more. Mr. President, one mother, from Rhinelander, WI--which is in Oneida County in the northern part of my state--called me to tell me about her 8-year-old daughter in just that situation. He daughter was in excruciating pain because of a severe toothache, but the one dental provider in the area had a waiting list of several weeks, so that mother had no choice but to take her child to the nearest hospital emergency room, where the child was given painkillers to use until she could be seen by a dentist. Whereas routine primary dental care could have prevented this decay altogether, this mother had to take her young child to the hospital emergency room for prescription painkillers in order to make the wait before seeing the dentist bearable. Mr. President, the unfortunate reality is that I hear such stories from my constituents on a regular basis, and I have heard enough to know that it's time to stop this needless suffering from dental disease by increasing access to dental care. The legislation I am introducing today, the Dental Health Access Expansion Act, will establish take three important steps to promote access to dental health services: First, the bill creates a federal grant program to be administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration through which community health centers and local health departments in designated dental health professionals shortage areas can apply for funding to assist in the hiring of primary care dentists. Strengthening locally run dental access programs ensures a safety net for these vitally important services. The bill also creates a grant program to give bonus payments to dentists in shortage areas who devote at least 25 percent of their practice to Medicaid patients. More than 90 percent of America's dentists are in private practice, and incentive payments for dentists to increase their Medicaid practice helps to bring needy patients into the dental care mainstream. Finally, the bill requires that HRSA work with the Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors and other organizations interested in expanding dental health access to simplify the process for designating dental shortage areas. Right now the system is so complicated that states simply don't have the resources to fill out the paperwork needed to get the designation. Mr. President, the Dental Health Access Expansion Act is meant to complement existing initiatives--such as Health Professions Training Program expansions of general dentistry residencies, and the National Health Service Corps scholarship program--to increase access to primary care dental services in underserved communities. I have supported these and other programs in the past, and will continue to do so. My legislation is also meant to complement the excellent oral health initiatives proposed by my colleague, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico. I am thankful for the good work he has done in increasing awareness about this issue, and look forward to working with him to increase access to dental health services. Through the legislation I am proposing, we can increase the number of dentists providing care to underserved communities, and in doing so strengthen our nation's existing network of Community Health Centers and local health departments. Advances in dentistry have given us the tools to eradicate most dental diseases--what we need now is to provide people with access to dental care so that they can receive the simple preventive treatments they need, and that's what my legislation can help us achieve.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address a troubling--but little recognized--public health problem in this country, and that's access to dental health. Unlike many public health problems, there are clinically proven techniques to prevent or delay the progression of dental health problems. These proven techniques are not only more cost-effective, but also are relatively simple if done early. I'm specifically referring to the use of fluoride and dental sealants. The combination of fluoride and sealants is so effective against tooth decay that it has been likened to a ``magic potion.'' In fact, an article in Public Health Reports called the ``one-two combination of fluoride and sealants . . . similar to that of vaccinations.'' With such an effective prevention method in place, one might assume that dental disease is becoming increasingly rare in this country. But that's not the case, Mr. President, because, in order to receive these preventive treatments--this ``magic potion'' against dental disease-- you need to see a dentist, and there simply are not enough dentists to provide these basic services to everyone who needs them. As of September 30 of last year, the United States had 1,116 dental health professions shortage areas, or Dental HPSA's according to the Health Resources and Services Administration. The chart I have here shows the counties in Wisconsin that have areas designated as shortage areas, but every single state in our Nation has a portion designated as a dental shortage area. There are proven methods for preventing dental disease, yet 1,116 communities across our country--particularly underserved rural and inner-city communties--do not have enough dentists to provide simple preventive services. Barriers to dental care are particularly acute among lower income families, Medicaid enrollees, and the uninsured. Studies indicate that the prevalence of dental disease increases as income decreases. In many areas, there simply are not enough dentists to provide basic treatment to all who need them, and although there is a federal method for designating such areas as dental health professional shortage areas (DHPSA's) to become eligible for additional funding, the designation process can be so tedious that State dental directors simply lack the resources to complete the necessary documentation. To illustrate this problem of undercounting shortage areas, as of September 30 of last year, only eight counties in Wisconsin had portions designated as DHPSA's according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), but statewide only 23 percent of Medicaid enrollees had received dental care. As you can see from this chart, in 13 Wisconsin counties, fewer than 10 percent of Medicaid enrollees received dental care. According to Wisconsin's state dental director, Dr. Warren LeMay, 80 percent of tooth decay is found in the poorest 25 percent of children. Given the effectiveness of dental health care in preventing dental disease--particularly the combination of check-ups, fluoride, and sealants--the access problems are simply unacceptable. And the impact of so many people going without dental care is devastating. Those of us who have ever had a toothache remember how excruciating that pain can be, making it difficult if not impossible to work, go to school or otherwise go about our business. For those Americans who lack access to dental services, however, the toothache is more than a bad memory--it is the here and now. Mr. President, imagine you had a child, a daughter, in need of dental services. But you lack insurance, and cannot afford to pay out-of- pocket to see a dentist. Or you may have Medicaid, but the nearest dentist is more than 2 hours away, and you don't own a car. Since your child hasn't received the preventive care treatments, she has a lot of untreated tooth decay--decay that leads to infection, fevers, stomach aches, and, worst of all, debilitating pain, making it almost impossible for her to concentrate in school. She may also develop speech difficulties, since she may lack the teeth necessary to form certain words and sounds. When you try to get her emergency dental services, you find that the few dentists in the area have waiting lists of two months or more. Mr. President, one mother, from Rhinelander, WI--which is in Oneida County in the northern part of my state--called me to tell me about her 8-year-old daughter in just that situation. He daughter was in excruciating pain because of a severe toothache, but the one dental provider in the area had a waiting list of several weeks, so that mother had no choice but to take her child to the nearest hospital emergency room, where the child was given painkillers to use until she could be seen by a dentist. Whereas routine primary dental care could have prevented this decay altogether, this mother had to take her young child to the hospital emergency room for prescription painkillers in order to make the wait before seeing the dentist bearable. Mr. President, the unfortunate reality is that I hear such stories from my constituents on a regular basis, and I have heard enough to know that it's time to stop this needless suffering from dental disease by increasing access to dental care. The legislation I am introducing today, the Dental Health Access Expansion Act, will establish take three important steps to promote access to dental health services: First, the bill creates a federal grant program to be administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration through which community health centers and local health departments in designated dental health professionals shortage areas can apply for funding to assist in the hiring of primary care dentists. Strengthening locally run dental access programs ensures a safety net for these vitally important services. The bill also creates a grant program to give bonus payments to dentists in shortage areas who devote at least 25 percent of their practice to Medicaid patients. More than 90 percent of America's dentists are in private practice, and incentive payments for dentists to increase their Medicaid practice helps to bring needy patients into the dental care mainstream. Finally, the bill requires that HRSA work with the Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors and other organizations interested in expanding dental health access to simplify the process for designating dental shortage areas. Right now the system is so complicated that states simply don't have the resources to fill out the paperwork needed to get the designation. Mr. President, the Dental Health Access Expansion Act is meant to complement existing initiatives--such as Health Professions Training Program expansions of general dentistry residencies, and the National Health Service Corps scholarship program--to increase access to primary care dental services in underserved communities. I have supported these and other programs in the past, and will continue to do so. My legislation is also meant to complement the excellent oral health initiatives proposed by my colleague, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico. I am thankful for the good work he has done in increasing awareness about this issue, and look forward to working with him to increase access to dental health services. Through the legislation I am proposing, we can increase the number of dentists providing care to underserved communities, and in doing so strengthen our nation's existing network of Community Health Centers and local health departments. Advances in dentistry have given us the tools to eradicate most dental diseases--what we need now is to provide people with access to dental care so that they can receive the simple preventive treatments they need, and that's what my legislation can help us achieve.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Leahy, Senator Kohl, and Senator Jeffords to introduce this important legislation, the Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999. The Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999 will make our kid's nutrition--not some economic bottom line--the priority when it comes to our nation's school meal program. Mr. President, some schools in this country, particularly high school, are providing school-aged children with free soda as part of the school lunch program. This trend is troublesome for a number of reasons: One, it is contrary to the intent of the 1946 National School Lunch Act; Two, numerous studies have demonstrated that teenagers, particularly girls, are not consuming enough calcium to prevent osteoporosis in their later years; And, three, as a representative of Wisconsin, ``America's Dairyland,'' I am concerned that the increase in school time soda consumption will inevitably mean that our children drink less milk at school. Mr. President, in 1946, Congress first made nutrition for school aged children a priority when it passed the National School Lunch Act. This measure was designed to provide school children with high quality nutritious food during the school day. In 1977, because of concerns that our country's nutritional habits had begun to slide, Congress directed USDA to take steps to restrict school children's access to foods of low nutritional value when at school. The legality regulations USDA promulgates under the 1977 law, with regard to foods of nutritional value was challenged by the National Soft Drink Association. This law banned the sale of soft drink and other ``junk foods'' in school cafeterias during the lunch hour. Congressional debates on the 1977 law ``convey an unmistakable concern that `junk foods,' notably various types of candy bars, chewing gum and soft drinks, not be allowed to compete in participating schools.'' The Federal judge observed the ``logic and common sense, as well as several studies in the [rulemaking] record, suggest that irregular eating habits combined with ready access to junk food adversely affect federal nutritional objectives.'' USDA current regulations prohibit the sale of foods of ``minimal nutritional value''--which include sodas, water ices, chewing gum, and certain candies--in the food service area during the lunch period in any school. The current regulations do not mention the distribution of free sodas, because, Mr. President, this idea never entered the minds of lawmakers during consideration of the measure. Mr. President, we have found that in schools all over the country, free sodas are being passed out as part of the school lunch program. This practice evades the current Federal ban on the sale of sodas as part of school lunches. It's bad for kids, bad for farmers who are watching milk consumption and prices decline, and bad for teachers and school administrators who are left to deal with unruly and fidgety children during the day. As a matter of fact, Mr. President, giving away free sodas in school doesn't help anybody except soda companies. Mr. President, in a report published last year by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) it was documented that one quarter of teenage boys who drink soda consume more than two 12-ounce cans per day, and that five percent drink five or more cans daily. This report was based on survey data from USDA and also indicated that in average, girls drink about one-third less--but the risks of soda consumption are potentially greater for girls. The report claims that doctors say soda has been pushing milk out of teenage diets and making girls more likely candidates for osteoporosis when they're older. The data indicated that these doctors are right. Choosing a soft drink instead of milk means that teens will have a lower level of calcium in their diets. Soft drinks provide 0% of a persons recommended daily allowance for calcium, while milk provides 30%. Low calcium intake contributes to osteoporosis, a disease leading to fragile and broken bones. Currently, 10 million Americans have osteoporosis while another 18 million have low bone mass and are at increased risk of osteoporosis. Women are more frequently affected than men. Considering the low calcium intake of today's teenage girls, osteoporosis rates may well rise in the near future. As I understand it, the risk of osteoporosis depends in part on how much bone mass is built early on in life. The CSPI report states that girls build 92 percent of their bone mass by age 18, but if they don't consume enough calcium in the teenage years, they cannot ``catch up'' later. This explains why experts recommend higher calcium intakes for youths 9 to 18 than for adults 19 to 50. Currently, teenage girls consume only 60 percent of the recommended amount; pop drinkers consuming almost one-fifth less calcium than non-consumers. The CSPI and a coalition of health advocates reported that 20 years ago, teens drank almost twice as much milk as soda pop; today, they consume twice as much soda as milk. Since 1973, soft drink consumption has risen dramatically. Americans now drink twice as much soda per person as they did 25 years ago. According to statistics from the Beverage Marketing Corp., annual soda consumption was 22.4 per person in 1970; in 1998, it was 56.1 gallons per person. Unfortunately, milk consumption has been on a steady decline. This trend is likely to continue--however, I do not feel that school administrators should encourage it. This country's dairy farmers have it hard enough. The recently announced Basic Formula Price (BFP) is lower than the cost of production in nearly every region of the country. We in dairy states are very concerned about our struggling producers. How can we stand by and watch as they struggle to locate and enter new markets abroad, while their base market--school meal programs--is being taken away? And how do the parents feel? Those that limit their children's intake of sodas and sweets at home see their efforts undermined when the school provides these items for free. This is a losing battle for them too! Mr. President, I'm not here to ban soda for school-age children--only to support a simple, sensible idea that any parent, any nutritionist, and any dairy farmer would favor--and that's giving our kids milk while they are in school. This bill restores common sense back to one aspect of our kids school nutrition programs. I urge my colleagues to support this Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999. It is supported by the National Education Association and the University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee School of Education. I ask that their letters of support be inserted into the Record. The material follows: University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, School of Education Department of Curriculum and Instruction, May 7, 1999. Senator Russell Feingold, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Feingold: I am writing to express my strong support for the ``Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999.'' My research shows that children are coming under increasing pressure to consume large quantities of soda while in school. For example, exclusive contracts between schools and bottling firms are now popular. These contracts commonly contain provisions that provide financial incentives to school districts that reward them when consumption goals are met. In other words the more of a bottling company's products are purchased the more money the school gets. This places school districts in the ethically dangerous position of promoting the consumption of products that their own health and nutrition curricula discourage students from consuming in large quantities. The distribution of free soda as part of a school lunch program, at least in my view, violates the spirit and intent of the Child Nutrition Act of 1996. Such distributions are, no doubt, useful to soda bottlers as means of promoting brand recognition and establishing brand loyalty. And as such they are little different from any number of ``free'' promotions that are a common part of product marketing campaigns. However, none of this has anything to do with promoting children's health. I believe that schools must do their utmost to promote healthful eating habits among their students. The ``Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999'' is a useful and necessary step to insure that school lunches are the healthful, nutritious meals that legislators have always intended that they be. Sincerely, Alex Molnar, Ph.D. Director, Center for the Analysis of Commercialism in Education.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Leahy, Senator Kohl, and Senator Jeffords to introduce this important legislation, the Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999. The Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999 will make our kid's nutrition--not some economic bottom line--the priority when it comes to our nation's school meal program. Mr. President, some schools in this country, particularly high school, are providing school-aged children with free soda as part of the school lunch program. This trend is troublesome for a number of reasons: One, it is contrary to the intent of the 1946 National School Lunch Act; Two, numerous studies have demonstrated that teenagers, particularly girls, are not consuming enough calcium to prevent osteoporosis in their later years; And, three, as a representative of Wisconsin, ``America's Dairyland,'' I am concerned that the increase in school time soda consumption will inevitably mean that our children drink less milk at school. Mr. President, in 1946, Congress first made nutrition for school aged children a priority when it passed the National School Lunch Act. This measure was designed to provide school children with high quality nutritious food during the school day. In 1977, because of concerns that our country's nutritional habits had begun to slide, Congress directed USDA to take steps to restrict school children's access to foods of low nutritional value when at school. The legality regulations USDA promulgates under the 1977 law, with regard to foods of nutritional value was challenged by the National Soft Drink Association. This law banned the sale of soft drink and other ``junk foods'' in school cafeterias during the lunch hour. Congressional debates on the 1977 law ``convey an unmistakable concern that `junk foods,' notably various types of candy bars, chewing gum and soft drinks, not be allowed to compete in participating schools.'' The Federal judge observed the ``logic and common sense, as well as several studies in the [rulemaking] record, suggest that irregular eating habits combined with ready access to junk food adversely affect federal nutritional objectives.'' USDA current regulations prohibit the sale of foods of ``minimal nutritional value''--which include sodas, water ices, chewing gum, and certain candies--in the food service area during the lunch period in any school. The current regulations do not mention the distribution of free sodas, because, Mr. President, this idea never entered the minds of lawmakers during consideration of the measure. Mr. President, we have found that in schools all over the country, free sodas are being passed out as part of the school lunch program. This practice evades the current Federal ban on the sale of sodas as part of school lunches. It's bad for kids, bad for farmers who are watching milk consumption and prices decline, and bad for teachers and school administrators who are left to deal with unruly and fidgety children during the day. As a matter of fact, Mr. President, giving away free sodas in school doesn't help anybody except soda companies. Mr. President, in a report published last year by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) it was documented that one quarter of teenage boys who drink soda consume more than two 12-ounce cans per day, and that five percent drink five or more cans daily. This report was based on survey data from USDA and also indicated that in average, girls drink about one-third less--but the risks of soda consumption are potentially greater for girls. The report claims that doctors say soda has been pushing milk out of teenage diets and making girls more likely candidates for osteoporosis when they're older. The data indicated that these doctors are right. Choosing a soft drink instead of milk means that teens will have a lower level of calcium in their diets. Soft drinks provide 0% of a persons recommended daily allowance for calcium, while milk provides 30%. Low calcium intake contributes to osteoporosis, a disease leading to fragile and broken bones. Currently, 10 million Americans have osteoporosis while another 18 million have low bone mass and are at increased risk of osteoporosis. Women are more frequently affected than men. Considering the low calcium intake of today's teenage girls, osteoporosis rates may well rise in the near future. As I understand it, the risk of osteoporosis depends in part on how much bone mass is built early on in life. The CSPI report states that girls build 92 percent of their bone mass by age 18, but if they don't consume enough calcium in the teenage years, they cannot ``catch up'' later. This explains why experts recommend higher calcium intakes for youths 9 to 18 than for adults 19 to 50. Currently, teenage girls consume only 60 percent of the recommended amount; pop drinkers consuming almost one-fifth less calcium than non-consumers. The CSPI and a coalition of health advocates reported that 20 years ago, teens drank almost twice as much milk as soda pop; today, they consume twice as much soda as milk. Since 1973, soft drink consumption has risen dramatically. Americans now drink twice as much soda per person as they did 25 years ago. According to statistics from the Beverage Marketing Corp., annual soda consumption was 22.4 per person in 1970; in 1998, it was 56.1 gallons per person. Unfortunately, milk consumption has been on a steady decline. This trend is likely to continue--however, I do not feel that school administrators should encourage it. This country's dairy farmers have it hard enough. The recently announced Basic Formula Price (BFP) is lower than the cost of production in nearly every region of the country. We in dairy states are very concerned about our struggling producers. How can we stand by and watch as they struggle to locate and enter new markets abroad, while their base market--school meal programs--is being taken away? And how do the parents feel? Those that limit their children's intake of sodas and sweets at home see their efforts undermined when the school provides these items for free. This is a losing battle for them too! Mr. President, I'm not here to ban soda for school-age children--only to support a simple, sensible idea that any parent, any nutritionist, and any dairy farmer would favor--and that's giving our kids milk while they are in school. This bill restores common sense back to one aspect of our kids school nutrition programs. I urge my colleagues to support this Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999. It is supported by the National Education Association and the University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee School of Education. I ask that their letters of support be inserted into the Record. The material follows: University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, School of Education Department of Curriculum and Instruction, May 7, 1999. Senator Russell Feingold, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Feingold: I am writing to express my strong support for the ``Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999.'' My research shows that children are coming under increasing pressure to consume large quantities of soda while in school. For example, exclusive contracts between schools and bottling firms are now popular. These contracts commonly contain provisions that provide financial incentives to school districts that reward them when consumption goals are met. In other words the more of a bottling company's products are purchased the more money the school gets. This places school districts in the ethically dangerous position of promoting the consumption of products that their own health and nutrition curricula discourage students from consuming in large quantities. The distribution of free soda as part of a school lunch program, at least in my view, violates the spirit and intent of the Child Nutrition Act of 1996. Such distributions are, no doubt, useful to soda bottlers as means of promoting brand recognition and establishing brand loyalty. And as such they are little different from any number of ``free'' promotions that are a common part of product marketing campaigns. However, none of this has anything to do with promoting children's health. I believe that schools must do their utmost to promote healthful eating habits among their students. The ``Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999'' is a useful and necessary step to insure that school lunches are the healthful, nutritious meals that legislators have always intended that they be. Sincerely, Alex Molnar, Ph.D. Director, Center for the Analysis of Commercialism in Education.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President. I am dismayed to report to the Senate that the situation in East Timor continued to deteriorate over the weekend. The violence has become so bad that courageous human rights activists, lawyers, health workers and others have been forced to go into hiding. There are reports that thousands of East Timorese are trapped inside what one observer has called a ``concentration camp.'' This situation comes on the heels of several new developments. Last week, we had the unfortunate and ironic coincidence of several events on one day, Wednesday, May 5. On that day, the governments of Portugal and Indonesia, under the auspices of the United Nations, signed an agreement regarding the modalities of the planned August 8, 1999, vote on autonomy in East Timor. On that same day, the New York Times published a very significant op-ed by a key human rights lawyer, Aniceto Guterres Lopes, while at the same time, his house was surrounded by armed militias. And, still on the same day, I and several other Senators introduced S. Res. 96, a resolution to push for the Government of Indonesia to make a top priority the disarming of the very militias that seem to be terrorizing the region, among other actions. Mr. President, on Sunday, May 9, 1999, the Washington Post published an excellent article that explains in horrifying detail just how bad the situation has become in East Timor. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the article be printed in the Record, and I thank the Chair. [From the Washington Post, May 9, 1999] A Campaign of Terror; Army-Backed Militias Use Violence to Sway Vote on E. Timor Independence (By Keith B. Richburg) The Indonesian military, through armed surrogates and paramilitary groups, is using intimidation, violence and the forced relocation of thousands of people to ensure that residents of East Timor do not vote for independence in a referendum Aug. 8, according to relief workers, human rights groups, Western military analysts and independent reporting here. The actions of the paramilitary groups stand in sharp contrast to the central government's commitment in a U.N.- brokered agreement last week to allow East Timor's 800,000 people to choose their own future in a referendum, even if they decide to sever ties with Indonesia and become the world's newest independent nation. The government promised a free and fair vote. Hundreds of Timorese independence activists have been killed or have gone into hiding after receiving death threats from army-backed militias. The main independence group, the National Council for Timorese Resistance has been wiped out in the capital, Dili; its downtown office is shut and its leaders are on the run. Militia members armed with machetes and homemade rifles roam the streets, carrying what is believed to be a death list with the names of prominent activists, human rights lawyers and even Catholic priests. And in the most ominous sign yet that the military intends to engineer the outcome of the vote, 20,000 people have been herded from their mountain villages and are being held in this town as virtual hostages of the militia--creating a captive bloc of votes in favor of Timor remaining a part of Indonesia. Each day, the men are separated from the women, are forced to stand and sing the Indonesian national anthem and to wear red-and-white armbands and scarves, the colors of the Indonesian flag. The police say these people are refugees fleeing the pro- independence guerrillas in the hills, who have been waging a low-level insurgency against Indonesian occupation for 24 years. But local relief workers in Dili--no foreign aid workers are allowed here--say they have been barred from traveling to Liquica to check on the condition of these people, who are living in makeshift tents, under tarps or in abandoned buildings. What little food they have is provided by the local government, and water is scarce. Last week, a small group of reporters was allowed into Liquica to see the detainees and take pictures. But interviews outside the presence of the police or militia were forbidden, and most of the people seemed too frightened to speak. A few times, someone in the crowd shouted to the journalists a line not in the official script--one shouted, for example, that they did not have enough to eat--but they were quickly silenced by militia members who raced into the crowds after them. The police commander for East Timor, Col. Timbul Silaen, had said in Dili earlier that reports of people being held captive in Liquica were untrue. ``At most, there are 100 [people being held], and they are from the pro-independence faction,'' he said in an interview. Like a Concentration Camp But when journalists arrived in Liquica, they saw what appeared to be at least 20,000 people. The Liquica police commander, Lt. Col. Adios Salova, put the number at 10,000, but he insisted, ``They can go back to their homes if they want.'' ``They've got Liquica like a concentration camp,'' said Dan Murphy, an American physician from Iowa working at a church- run clinic in Dili. ``They need help. These people are in desperate shape. . . . They're just sitting out in the open. It's a perfect setup for massive amounts of death'' from disease, with so many people without access to clean water and medical care. Other Timorese relief workers said the kind of forced relocation seen in Liquica is being repeated on a large scale elsewhere in the territory. The goal, they said, appears to be to hold the detainees captive until the referendum, to create a large bloc of voters who will support a government- sponsored package that would give broad autonomy to East Timor, but keep it as a part of Indonesia. ``Their plan is to keep the people there and make sure they vote for'' autonomy, said Estanislau Martins, an official of the Catholic charity Caritas. East Timor, a former Portuguese colony, has been a nettlesome problem for Indonesia since its troops invaded in 1975 on the pretext of stopping a civil war between rival Timorese factions. East Timor was annexed the following year as a province of Indonesia, but the United Nations never recognized the annexation. For much of the past 24 years, Indonesia refused to budge on recognizing Timorese demands for independence. Displays of defiance were crushed, including a series of army massacres that are now etched in the psyche of Timorese. Human rights groups and Timorese activists estimate the conflict has killed as many as 200,000 Timorese. But for the most part, Timor has simmered on the back burners of international diplomacy. All that changed this year, when President B.J. Habibie, who took power last May after the fall of longtime ruler Suharto, suddenly announced that Timorese could have independence if they rejected one last, broadened autonomy offer. But while the civilian government in Jakarta was eager to rid itself of the East Timor problem, the Indonesian military apparently has other concerns. Senior military officers are known to fear that granting the territory independence will fuel separatist movements across the sprawling archipelago, particularly in the mineral-rich province of Irian Jaya, and in the troubled, Muslim fundamentalist-dominated province of Aceh on Sumatra Island. Troops have been fighting insurgencies in both those provinces, and the rebels have been emboldened by the government's concessions to the Timorese. ``It's national unity, and fear of national disintegration,'' said a Western military analyst. The armed forces created the militias ostensibly to help keep the peace. But Timorese activists, human rights lawyers, and Western military analysts point to a more sinister purpose--to use them to create the appearance of a civil war in East Timor, while embarking on a campaign to terrorize and intimidate enough people to ensure a vote against independence. weapons of terror In recent weeks, the militias have rampaged unchecked in East Timor, killing and maiming suspected independence supporters and sympathizers. ``Ever since [Secretary of State] Madeleine Albright came [in March], it's been terrible,'' said Murphy, the American physician. ``Since then, they've decided to take a hard line, and bring out all the weapons of terror and intimidation.'' The most brazen attack was here in Liquica on April 6, when militiamen stormed a Catholic church sheltering hundreds of refugees. Tear gas forced the refugees into the open, where they were shot and hacked with axes and machetes; human rights groups recorded 57 deaths. On the weekend of April 17, militias rampaged through Dili, driving out most of the independence supporters after a rally at the offices of Timor's Jakarta-appointed governor. The militia members burned down homes and shops in Dili's Becora market area, injuring scores of people. ``The militia is the military; they didn't do this on their own,'' said a man named Mateus, whose house was spared but who saw his neighbors' houses reduced to smoldering rubble. ``We saw their cars, and behind them was the military.'' The Western military analyst agreed that the armed forces control the militias, and are using them as surrogates. ``There's a big disconnect between what the leadership in Jakarta is saying and what's going on on the ground,'' he said. ``If [Defense Minister Wiranto] was unhappy with what's going on in East Timor, he would have fired some people.'' There are now at least 13 militia groups in East Timor, one for each of the territory's 13 districts, with names like Red and White Iron and Aitarak. The Western military analyst said the number now could be as high as 20. The Dili police commander, Col. Timbul, said each militia has about 5,000 members. One tactic of the militia groups is intimidation of independence supporters. Militia posts have been set up just yards from the homes of human rights activists and other independence sympathizers. Last Wednesday night, the Portuguese consul general in Jakarta, Ana Gomes, telephoned journalists in Dili to tell them that the Aitarak militia had surrounded the home of a prominent human rights lawyer, Aniceto Gutteres Lopes, director of the Legal Aid, Human Rights and Justice Foundation. The journalists, arriving in taxis just before midnight, found about two dozen militiamen outside Gutteres' empty home. Gutteres and his family were discovered hiding in his back yard. He whispered to the reporters to stay and make sure he was not found, and to try to persuade the militia that he was not at home. He escaped, and has gone into hiding. That episode was not unique; dozens of independence supporters, human rights workers and others have been threatened, have fled East Timor or have gone into hiding. Those who remain say they sleep in different houses each night. Relief workers and foreign military analysts in Jakarta say the militias have a death list, with the names of prominent independence sympathizers to be killed between now and the vote, to guarantee the result the military brass prefers. Matins, of Caritas relief agency, said he knows his name is on the list. ``It's all the key persons they say have to be killed,'' he said, cowering in his office after receiving an early morning warning of an imminent attack. ``They believe if they kill them all, they can win the elections.'' He said four priests are on the list, including the Rev. Francisco Barreto who heads the Caritas office. A man stands in front of bullet holes that riddled his home during an attack by a militia group in the East Timor town of Liquica. The militias, who are believed to have the support of the Indonesian armed forces, also rounded up an estimated 20,000 villagers who are being detained in the town. Members of this family are among thousands of East Timorese being held in tents and abandoned buildings in Liquica. It is believed that they will be pressured to vote against independence.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to offer a few comments about one of the most important issues we have considered as part of the so-called financial modernization debate, namely the Community Reinvestment Act or CRA. It gives me particular pleasure to discuss CRA because it was authored by the former Senator from Wisconsin and Senate Banking Committee Chair, William Proxmire. CRA is over twenty years old now, and by all accounts it has been a success. Banks have a special role in our free market system; they are the rationers of capital. For this reason and others we grant banks a number of special privileges, such as public charters, taxpayer-backed deposit insurance, and access to the discount window at the Federal Reserve. CRA is grounded in the philosophy that we grant these privileges in part to assure that banks will serve the public--all of the public in all parts of our communities. In the context of last week's debate over so-called financial services modernization, the concept that we should require banks to actively find lending opportunities in communities they serve is all the more appropriate. The globalization of financial services, and the new structures proposed for financial institutions, increasingly means local institutions have ever expanding and increasingly distant opportunities for their loan portfolios. CRA serves as a reminder that ultimately we grant rights and privileges to banks in part to ensure consumers and businesses in our communities have access to financial services. I have been interested in CRA since the early 1980s when I became Chair of the Banking Committee in the Wisconsin State Senate, and while it is not perfect, CRA has clearly helped give under served communities increased access to financial services. And it has done a great deal to foster economic development, both for individual families, and for neighborhoods and communities through home ownership and community development financing. As noted in a recent report by the Wisconsin Rural Development Center, for many low-income and minority groups, home ownership is a way out of poverty. Equity built through home ownership can be used to finance a start-up business, pay for a college education, fund a secure retirement or consolidate high interest rate debt. The report went on to note that home ownership in low-income neighborhoods can provide stability, increase pride and property values, and attract new capital. CRA has helped foster access to financial services in each of these areas. Commitments by banks to home ownership, small business, and community development has increased because of CRA. According to 1997 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data, lending to minority and low income borrowers is increasing. Since 1993, the number of home mortgage loans to African Americans increased by 58 percent, to Hispanics by 62 percent, and to low and moderate income borrowers by 38 percent. In 1997, financial institutions subject to CRA reporting requirements made 2.6 million small business loans for a total of $159 billion, two- thirds of small business loans made that year, and more than one-fifth of those loans were made to small businesses in low and moderate income communities. And, in 1997, large commercial banks made $18.6 billion in community development investments. Altogether, nonprofit community organizations estimate that since 1992 the private sector has pledged over $1 trillion in loans going forward for affordable home ownership and community development. I have no doubt that CRA was responsible in great part for this record. And neither does Federal Reserve Board Chair Alan Greenspan. At a House Banking Committee hearing earlier this year, Chairman Greenspan testified that CRA has ``very significantly increased the amount of credit in these communities'' and that changes have been ``quite profound.'' It is important to note that CRA has succeeded in encouraging banks to serve those who have been financially under served without jeopardizing the safety and soundness of the institution. As Robert Kuttner has noted, in the decade after CRA, we learned that financial institutions often make costly mistakes, but lenders faltered in the 1980s not by being too kind to the inner city, but by making speculative loans in remote locations they knew little about, and by competing recklessly for market share. By comparison, the local Jimmy Stewart type loan looked pretty solid. As Chairman Greenspan noted, ``there is little or no evidence that banks' safety and soundness have been compromised by (low- and moderate-income) lending and bankers often report sound business opportunities.'' In fact, CRA is a tool that can help banks. As former Federal Reserve Board Governor Lawrence Lindsey said, ``CRA-related activities can help develop new markets, potentially profitable business, and improve a bank's public image.'' Let me note that there have been some improvements to CRA. In response to the very real problems facing many smaller community banks, a streamlined CRA process was approved a few years ago, and I was proud to support those changes and I understand the paperwork burden on smaller banks has been reduced as a result. Over 80 percent of banks covered by CRA qualify for the streamlined performance standards for small banks and thrifts, and I understand that actual time spent in community banks on CRA examinations has been reduced by 30 percent. CRA has helped improve financial services for under served communities, but there is still significant room for improvement. Many still have few financial options, and as the Wisconsin Rural Development Center has found, in the absence of adequate financial services from traditional lenders, there has been an increase in so- called subprime or predatory lending from lenders who target homeowners with less than perfect credit with high-cost, sometimes fraudulent, mortgage servicing products. We owe a great deal to Senator Proxmire and his creation. As we consider legislation to change the structure of our financial institutions, we must not lose sight of the original goals of CRA, namely that those institutions which enjoy the special privileges and protections afforded by the government have an obligation to ensure that the entire community has access to financial services.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank my friends, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts and Senator Wellstone of Minnesota, and commend them on the introduction of their campaign finance reform proposal, the Clean Money bill. I am very pleased that they are once again introducing this far reaching and visionary piece of legislation. I think it is important as we deal in this Senate with the more limited bill that I have proposed with the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, that the American people understand that we do not believe that the job will be completed if that bill becomes law. Of course, I also want to thank Senators Kerry and Wellstone for their strong support of the McCain-Feingold bill. I also want to make it very clear that these two pieces of legislation are completely consistent and complimentary. The Clean Money bill introduced today contains the central components of the McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan bills--a soft money ban, provisions to deal with phony issue ads, and improved enforcement and disclosure. But it adds a comprehensive system of financing Senate campaigns, based on initiatives that have been endorsed by the voters in Maine, Massachusetts, and Arizona for their state elections, to provide public funding to qualified candidates for state officeholders. Mr. President, when I first ran for the Wisconsin State Senate many years ago, my race would literally not have been possible were it not for Wisconsin's system of partial public financing. Under the state system in effect at that time, I had to raise approximately $17,500 from friends and family, and the state election fund provided a grant of the same amount. So once I raised my share, my fundraising work was done, and I could spend my time going door to door campaigning. I won that first race by only a few votes, and I'm convinced that my retail campaigning was the difference. So I believe it is fair to say that I wouldn't be in the United States Senate today if Wisconsin didn't have that system of public financing, that allowed a person of limited means to run for office, and win. Today, all over the country, citizens are coming to realize that the money chase that is required to run for office is depriving them of good candidates and representatives. Not everyone who would be a hardworking and effective public servant comes from a wealthy background or from a community of friends or business associates who can finance a campaign. And so the Clean Money movement is taking hold in state after state. Overwhelming majorities in polls taken on this issue support a Clean Money system, where candidates raise a large number of very small contributions to qualify for a limited public grant to run an adequate, but not an extravagant, campaign. These polls, and the successful ballot initiatives in Maine, Massachusetts, and Arizona show that the public is not only ready, but eager, for a new way of financing our elections. Obviously, Mr. President, a majority in the United States Senate is not yet ready for such a clean break with the current system. But I believe that over time we in the Senate will catch up with public sentiment, and this is the way we will have to go. I am convinced that Clean Money is the future of campaign financing in this country, at both the state and federal level. And so I am very pleased that Senators Kerry and Wellstone have decided to reintroduce their bill and I thank them for their leadership.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank my friends, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts and Senator Wellstone of Minnesota, and commend them on the introduction of their campaign finance reform proposal, the Clean Money bill. I am very pleased that they are once again introducing this far reaching and visionary piece of legislation. I think it is important as we deal in this Senate with the more limited bill that I have proposed with the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, that the American people understand that we do not believe that the job will be completed if that bill becomes law. Of course, I also want to thank Senators Kerry and Wellstone for their strong support of the McCain-Feingold bill. I also want to make it very clear that these two pieces of legislation are completely consistent and complimentary. The Clean Money bill introduced today contains the central components of the McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan bills--a soft money ban, provisions to deal with phony issue ads, and improved enforcement and disclosure. But it adds a comprehensive system of financing Senate campaigns, based on initiatives that have been endorsed by the voters in Maine, Massachusetts, and Arizona for their state elections, to provide public funding to qualified candidates for state officeholders. Mr. President, when I first ran for the Wisconsin State Senate many years ago, my race would literally not have been possible were it not for Wisconsin's system of partial public financing. Under the state system in effect at that time, I had to raise approximately $17,500 from friends and family, and the state election fund provided a grant of the same amount. So once I raised my share, my fundraising work was done, and I could spend my time going door to door campaigning. I won that first race by only a few votes, and I'm convinced that my retail campaigning was the difference. So I believe it is fair to say that I wouldn't be in the United States Senate today if Wisconsin didn't have that system of public financing, that allowed a person of limited means to run for office, and win. Today, all over the country, citizens are coming to realize that the money chase that is required to run for office is depriving them of good candidates and representatives. Not everyone who would be a hardworking and effective public servant comes from a wealthy background or from a community of friends or business associates who can finance a campaign. And so the Clean Money movement is taking hold in state after state. Overwhelming majorities in polls taken on this issue support a Clean Money system, where candidates raise a large number of very small contributions to qualify for a limited public grant to run an adequate, but not an extravagant, campaign. These polls, and the successful ballot initiatives in Maine, Massachusetts, and Arizona show that the public is not only ready, but eager, for a new way of financing our elections. Obviously, Mr. President, a majority in the United States Senate is not yet ready for such a clean break with the current system. But I believe that over time we in the Senate will catch up with public sentiment, and this is the way we will have to go. I am convinced that Clean Money is the future of campaign financing in this country, at both the state and federal level. And so I am very pleased that Senators Kerry and Wellstone have decided to reintroduce their bill and I thank them for their leadership.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the closing of the United States Army School of the Americas, located at Fort Benning, Georgia. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of S. 873, a bill to close this troubled school once and for all, which was introduced recently by the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin. The School of the Americas (SOA) was created in 1946 to train Latin American military officers in combat and counterinsurgency skills with the goal of professionalizing Latin American armies and strengthening democracies. Originally located in Panama, SOA moved to Fort Benning in 1984. There has been a great deal of controversy surrounding some of SOA's alumni, leading it to be called ``the School for Dictators.'' Some of SOA's notorious graduates include Manuel Noriega, Argentinian dictator Leopoldo Galtieri, at least 19 Salvadorean officers implicated by El Salvador's Truth Commission in the murder of six Jesuit priests, and two of the three officers prosecuted in Guatemala for their roles in the murder of anthropologist Myrna Mack. In 1991, following an internal investigation, the Pentagon removed certain SOA training manuals from circulation. On September 22, 1996, the Pentagon released the full text of those training manuals and acknowledged that some of those manuals provided instruction in techniques that, in the Pentagon's words, were ``clearly objectionable and possibly illegal.'' The ``techniques'' in question included such awful activities as torture, extortion, false arrest, and execution. Not only are the human costs of this training program unjustifiable, but so are its financial costs. When I first ran for this body in 1992, I included the School of the Americas as an item on my 82+ point plan for deficit reduction. With a national debt in excess of $5 trillion, we must carefully scrutinize every program to ensure that federal tax dollars are wisely spent. We certainly do not need to spend taxpayer dollars on this kind of activity. Since coming to the Senate in 1993, I have been contacted by hundreds of Wisconsinites who support closing the School of the Americas. Just this week, a number of Wisconsin residents joined scores of individuals from around the country at a protest here in Washington, D.C., against the continued operation of the school. The group from my home state included students, human rights activists, and members of several religious communities. I am pleased that so many Wisconsin residents are committed to working toward the closing of this school. Numerous organizations, including Public Citizen, the Washington Office on Latin America and Human Rights Watch also support the elimination of SOA. As a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, I am committed to promoting human rights throughout the world. In my view, our government cannot continue to support the existence of a school that counts so many murderers among its alumni. While it may be appropriate for the United States military to train its colleagues from other nations, it is inexcusable that this training should take place at an institution with a reputation as far beyond salvage as that of the School of the Americas. This legislation gives members of this body the opportunity to separate the legitimate training exercises conducted by the United States military from the sordid acts of many individuals who have been trained at SOA. We must lift the cloud of suspicion that has fallen on these programs by closing SOA. I am pleased that S. 873 includes language expressing the sense of the Congress that all foreign military training conducted by the United States should stress respect for human rights, the proper role of the military in a democratic society, and accountability and transparency in defense and security policy. This is an excellent opportunity for the Congress, which has oversight responsibilities for military training programs, to reiterate the importance of these basic principles to the Administration, the American people, and perspective candidates for military training from other countries. The bill also calls on the Department of Defense to vigorously screen all candidates for military training programs to ensure that they have not been implicated in human rights abuses, corruption, or drug trafficking. I urge my colleagues to support S. 873 and close the ``School for Dictators'' once and for all.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. On April 28th, Madison lost a dedicated advocate and a dear friend: Betty Franklin-Hammonds. Betty's life story is a catalogue of remarkable achievements. From her tenure as the executive director of the Madison Urban League, where she spearheaded a study on the gap in achievement between black and white students in the Madison school system, to her leadership at the Madison Times and the numerous awards she received for her work, there are countless examples of Betty's effectiveness as an advocate in the community. But it was her character, more than any title or award, that defined Betty and made her such a powerful presence in our community. She was a truth teller who never backed down from a fight, a woman who led by example and wasn't shy about asking others to make the commitment to change she demanded from herself. Betty was a unique combination of a quiet dignity and a fierce passion for justice that could only be quenched by constant motion. She worked tirelessly, as a social worker, at the Madison chapter of the NAACP, at the Urban League, and at the Madison Times, to make our city a better place. Her own words tell us more about Betty than any tribute ever could. After receiving an award for her humanitarian work, she once told a crowd that ``everybody can be great because everybody can serve.'' By that measure, Betty Franklin-Hammonds was great indeed.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with a heavy heart. If it hadn't happened already, the Yugoslav conflict just hit home. Early yesterday morning, NATO experienced its first fatalities in its campaign against Yugoslavia. And Chetek, Wisconsin found its way into the news. Army Chief Warrant Officer Kevin L. Reichert, of Chetek, Wisconsin, was killed aboard an Apache helicopter during a nighttime training mission in Albania. My thoughts, prayers, and sympathies go out to the friends and family of Kevin Reichert. We can all be proud of Kevin's service to his country. The 28-year old from Wisconsin's Chippewa Valley leaves behind his wife of eight years, Ridgeley, and 3 kids. I thank the proud residents of Chetek and of Barron County, Wisconsin, for helping to raise such a brave and dedicated American. I hope the Reichert family and the 1,700 people of Chetek will take solace in the gratitude of our Nation. The NATO effort in Yugoslavia has its costs. Kevin's death, and that of his co-pilot, David Gibbs, of Ohio, are sad reminders that conflicts like the one in Yugoslavia, while they seem far away, have a very real impact at home. Mr. President, I am sure my colleagues join me in paying tribute to Kevin Reichert for his dedicated service to the United States.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr President, I rise today to join my distinguished colleague from Vermont [Senator Leahy] to offer this resolution to encourage a peaceful process of self-determination in East Timor. We are introducing this resolution because of serious obstacles that have appeared en route to a ballot to determine the future status of East Timor. Earlier this year it appeared that there was finally some progress in East Timor. President Habibie announced on January 27 that the government of Indonesia was finally willing to seek to learn and respect the wishes of the people in that territory. There appears to be an agreement between the governments of Indonesia and Portugal to hold a vote, currently scheduled for August 8, to determine East Timor's future political status. This latter accord is expected to be finalized today at the United Nations. Despite this positive development, excitement and tension over the possibility of gaining independence have in recent months led to an incredible level of violence and intimidation. The situation on the ground continues to worsen as East Timor has been wracked by violence throughout the last several weeks. Militias, comprised of individuals determined to intimidate the East Timorese people into support for continued integration with Indonesia and widely believed to be supported by the Indonesian military, are responsible for a sharp increase in violence. Let me recount some of the horror stories I have heard coming out of East Timor in the last few weeks. To cite just a few examples, pro- government militias, backed by Indonesian troops, reportedly shot and killed 17 supporters of independence on April 5. Shortly thereafter, pro-independence groups reported clashes, arrests and deaths, as well as civilians fleeing violence in six cities. One of those cities was Liquica where at least 25 people were brutally murdered by pro- government militias when up to 2000 civilians sought shelter in the local Catholic church. Later, on April 17, hundreds of East Timorese fled the capital of Dili as knife-wielding militias attacked anyone suspected of supporting independence. At least 30 were killed in this incident as Indonesian troops made little effort to stop the violence. The perpetrators have not all been on the government side. Over the years there have been atrocities on the pro-independence side as well. In recent months, however, the overwhelming majority of the violence has come from army elements and militias under their effective control. Overall, hundreds of civilians have been killed, wounded or disappeared in separate militia attacks. Unfortunately, Mr. President, there is no sign that the tension will ease between now and the August ballot. Pro-integration militia leaders announced on April 29 that they reject the concept of the upcoming ballot, or anything that could be considered a referendum. They have further stated that if a ballot leads to independence, they are prepared to fight a guerrilla war for decades if necessary to defend Indonesian rule of the territory. Independent observers fear that neither side will accept a loss in the August 8 ballot, thus setting the stage for a prolonged conflict in East Timor. This type of rhetoric does not reassure us about the prospects for a successful transition for the people of East Timor, regardless of which form of government they choose. The climate in East Timor today, sadly, may have become too violent for a legitimate poll to take place. Worse yet, the agreement on the ballot process that we hope will be announced today in New York will be rendered meaningless if people will fear for their lives if they dare to participate in the process. The government of Indonesia must shoulder particular responsibility. Whether Indonesian troops have actually participated in these types of incidents or not, the authorities certainly must accept the blame for allowing, and in some cases, encouraging the bloody tactics of the pro- integration militias. As a long time observer of the situation there, I see the continuation of this violence as a threat to the very sanctity and legitimacy of the process that is underway. It is for this reason that Senator Leahy and I have submitted our resolution to encourage the government in Jakarta to do all it can to seek a peaceful process and a fair resolution to the situation in East Timor. Mr President, I believe the United States has a responsibility, an obligation, to put as much pressure as possible on the Indonesian government to help encourage an environment conducive to a free, fair, peaceful ballot process for the people of East Timor. Administration officials are saying the right things, but perhaps have not fully used the leverage we have at our disposal to make things happen. If we are ever going to resolve this issue, now is the time for us, the whole U.S. government, to act decisively. In order to further bring pressure on the government of Indonesia to ensure the conditions necessary for the ballot on a settlement for East Timor, the Leahy/Feingold resolution would link the transfer of defense articles and services to effective measures by the Indonesian government and military to ensure a stable environment in East Timor. Though non-binding, it is strongly worded. Specifically, our resolution recognizes progress in negotiations on a settlement proposal for East Timor, and the Indonesian government's apparent willingness to seek a peaceful resolution to the status of East Timor, but highlights the resultant increase in violence and human rights abuses by anti- independence militias and urges the Habibie government to curtail Indonesian military support to the militias. Nevertheless, despite that progress and the prospect of today's finalization of ballot procedures, access to East Timor by international monitors remains restricted, threatening the very environment needed to conduct a free and fair ballot Most importantly, our resolution makes positive recommendations about what the United States can do to create an environment conducive to a free election. It states that it is the Sense of the Senate that we should urge the U.S. government to contribute to the United Nations Trust Fund to provide support for the East Timor ballot process. It also encourages the Administration to urge the Indonesian government to disarm the militias and grant full access to East Timor by international monitors. Mr. President, it is not in our power to guarantee the free, fair exercise of the rights of the people of East Timor to determine their future. It is, however, in our interest to do all that we can to work with the United Nations, other concerned countries, the government of Indonesia and the people of East Timor to create an opportunity for a successful ballot process. We cannot forget that the Timorese have been living with violence and oppression for more than 23 years. These many years have not dulled the desire of the East Timorese for freedom, or quieted their demands to have a role in the determination of East Timor's status. We have to do all we can to support an environment that can produce a fair ballot in East Timor. Now. And throughout the rest of this process. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of a May 3, 1999, editorial from the Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I would like to make just a couple other points regarding my concern about supporting this resolution with respect to the substance of it, with respect to the intervention itself. This is almost a cliche--almost every Member of the Congress has said it--but it is still correct; that is, that our strategy is unclear. I don't believe the administration has fully articulated the policy which the airstrikes were intended to support. I did oppose the airstrikes. I recognize the Senate voted for them. But I didn't see the policy at the time. The goals need to be explained more fully and a better case needs to be made for our continued military involvement. Certainly, if we are going to pass a resolution of this scope, we need a far clearer understanding. I don't think the President has adequately explained the national interest and objectives and cost estimates and exit strategy in this situation. Finally, with regard to concerns in terms of whether this is a course we should follow, I have to share the view of the Senator from Arkansas, who indicated that this argument, that maybe we made a mistake in the first place but we have to finish it now that we are there, is really a terrible argument. It is a dangerous situation--we have been there before--to suggest that simply because we have gotten into a situation that we have to go full bore into it without really being sure of how far it will go or what the ultimate consequences would be. The mere fact that we started it does not mean we have to take every possible step in pursuit of a policy that had flaws from the beginning. In any event, after having listed five or six concerns about the substance of this intervention, let me conclude by making just a couple of comments about the fact that the resolution itself is too broad, even if it did support what we are doing exactly in Kosovo at this time. I am pleased the Senate is considering a resolution that would authorize the use of military force, but the resolution before us today does not define parameters of what that military involvement would be. The phrase ``blank check'' is appropriate. That is what this resolution provides. I think it would be irresponsible, very similar to what happened with regard to the Gulf of Tonkin in the Vietnam situation, if we go down this road. As we think about taking this very extensive measure, let us remember that there is a lack of consensus among the American people and the Congress about the policy to pursue with regard to Kosovo. Even under the current facts and circumstances that the American people know and that we know, this resolution is too broad. But given its breadth and the implications, we have no idea what the position will be in a few weeks, and this resolution gives a blank check. We do have to take a stand. This Senate did take a stand in favor of the bombing a few weeks ago, even though I voted no. But the fact is, only this body supported the airstrikes. Last week the other body, on a tie vote, 213 to 213, voted not to support the airstrikes, after having watched the impact and the effects of the airstrikes for the last month. So there is no joint resolution by this Congress at any point in support of even the airstrikes. There is no resolution of the kind that went through the House and the Senate in the Iraq intervention. Yes, that was a close vote in the Senate with regard to Iraq, but the difference is, both Houses sent that up to the President as a reflection of the will of Congress. I share some of the concerns with regard to some of the votes in the other body. I do recognize that it is very hard to understand how some people can vote not to go forward with this action and then in the next minute vote to put additional funding in for the action. That is very confusing as well. What I am afraid it reflects is that there is no consensus in the Congress or in the country with regard to what we have already done in Kosovo, let alone a consensus that would justify the sweeping language that we find before us today. Let me conclude by saying that I will vote to table the resolution because we should not rush into further steps in this matter, including deployment of forces, without a consensus in Congress, without a plan from the administration, and without some sense of how this decision to intervene in this tragedy fits into the broader question of what our foreign policy should be in the post-cold-war era, when we are confronted with human tragedy around the world. Let me finally say that I thank the sponsors because they have triggered events that have allowed us today to exercise our roles to reaffirm the vitality and continuing need for the War Powers Resolution and the obligations of Congress and the President to comply with them. I thank the Chair. (Ms. COLLINS assumed the chair.) Exhibit No. 1 memorandum To: Senator Feingold From: Bob Dove Re: War Powers Date: April 30, 1999 The Foreign Relations Committee met today on S. J. Res. 20--106th Cong., introduced by Senator McCain. The War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148) controls the consideration of any such joint resolution. Questions raised at Committee Meeting 4/30 1. Is a privileged joint resolution under the War Powers Resolution subject to a motion to table? Yes, and such a motion would carry with it any amendment then pending. 2. Would adoption of an amendment that stated that ``this resolution shall not be privileged under the War Powers Resolution'' kill the privilege. No. That language is not effective until enactment (no bootstrapping). What about language that cuts off funds, text of H.R. 1569 as passed by House on April 28, 1999? Yes it would. That language is as follows:

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. Let me just read to the Senate one sentence. The memo is dated April 30. The War Powers Resolution . . . controls the consideration of any such joint resolution. He was referring to the specific language of and the date of introduction of the joint resolution that is before us. Mr. President, that is important in terms of the history of the War Powers Resolution. So while this resolution does not actually make a specific reference to the War Powers Resolution, the very fact that it triggered the provisions of this law demonstrates the vitality--the vitality--of the War Powers Resolution to a degree that I think is often forgotten or ignored when we are between crises of this kind. The determination by the Parliamentarian leaves no doubt that the debate the Senate is engaged in today is an explicit and required exercise in war powers under the law of this country. I am pleased about that. But I do have a few concerns about other aspects of the process that we have undertaken. First, I am concerned about the President's action. I remain concerned that although the President did send a letter to the Congress acknowledging that hostilities had broken out, he did not submit the report required under section 4(a) of the War Powers Resolution. Now, nonetheless, as the Parliamentarian has ruled, the language of the resolution still triggered the War Powers Resolution on its own. But I believe it required, in a situation like this, the President to specifically refer to the War Powers Resolution. As a number of people have said, obviously, we are at war, or certainly we are in a situation that involves hostilities or imminent hostilities insofar as the War Powers Resolution applies. Second, I am concerned about the way the Senate has handled this matter. The resolution, of course, has been hurriedly considered. That is in part because I do not think the authors intended, and many people did not realize for a while, that the War Powers Resolution and its clock were ticking. So it was understandable that there had to be some hurry. But there was enough time, in my view, for a more thorough consideration of this matter before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. A business meeting on this was hastily scheduled. There really was no time to consider the matter except for a brief hour, hour and a half discussion. There was not really a proper markup. We did not have a chance to offer any amendments or modifications to the language of the resolution, which the distinguished chairman himself properly called one of the most important matters that had ever been taken up by the committee in his tenure on the committee--which is a lengthy tenure. And then, after all of that, the committee reported out the resolution without recommendation, without taking a stand for or against the resolution. Then, finally, it was reported out to the full Senate without a written report. I do not understand what the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is for if it is not the committee which would take a real look at and amend and mark up and consider, in some detail, a matter of this importance. Again, given the tremendous courtesy and skill of the members of the committee, this is not said out of any disrespect. We were put in a very difficult time constraint, but it seems somehow we should have had a process that was more in keeping with the importance of the resolution and its role within the War Powers Resolution law. Mr. President, I also was concerned last week that some Members were discussing propounding a unanimous consent agreement that threatened to weaken the force of the War Powers Resolution, or at least I was concerned about the fact that it might do that, by making it easier to eliminate the privileged status of future Senate actions related to war powers. I want it noted in the record that the proposed unanimous consent agreement did not prevail. It was apparently not even propounded because of concerns. And I am pleased, because I do not think we should take it upon ourselves to make exceptions or weaken the importance and binding character of the War Powers Resolution. That has been attempted far too many times in the past. We need this law that was passed to give some real content and meaning to the constitutional role of Congress under article I and throughout the Constitution with regard to the conduct of war or hostilities by the United States of America. Mr. President, I also want to agree with some comments I at least read by the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, who, of course, is doing a very, very brave job of leading this whole issue. He did comment that this problem--and correct me if I am wrong, Senator--that this is not really a long enough debate for a matter of this importance. Four hours, split between the two sides, 2 hours each, is not in keeping with the magnitude of this situation or the magnitude of this resolution. In fact, although I am certainly sometimes guilty of not always being out here on the Senate floor, the fact that I have only seen five or six Senators on the floor for what is soon to be over half of the entire debate on this matter does not remind me of the effort and the care and the listening that went into a similar debate when it came to the Iraq intervention some 8 years ago. So the debate surely should be longer. And as Senators start arriving and hope to find time to speak before 5:30, I think there may be some frustration. In any event, we certainly should all be listening to each other when it comes to a matter of this importance, as much as we were during the impeachment trial. Mr. President, finally, I also am a little troubled about the idea of the tabling of this resolution. A motion to table can be interpreted-- often is interpreted--as a procedural vote. On something this important, we should be voting on the merits of the language. I do not understand why at 5:30 tonight we are not going to just vote up or down on this resolution. A tabling motion seems, to me, to be not in keeping with the significance of this. Mr. President, as I have indicated, in the past the War Powers Resolution has sometimes been ignored, but sometimes we have come very close to getting it right. Two examples where we came close were the Lebanon intervention and the 1990-1991 Iraqi situation. In the Lebanon case, Congress actually authorized continued participation of Marines in the multinational peacekeeping force. Although the 18-month duration of the authorization represented a compromise to get the administration to agree to it, the congressional authorization represented the first time since the War Powers Resolution had become law where Congress obtained a signature by the President on legislation that actually invoked the War Powers Resolution, and also, as I just alluded to a moment ago, with regard to Iraq and the Persian Gulf. In the case of that war, President Bush actually requested congressional support, which ended up being granted. There was a problem in that case. That request, of course, came significantly after President Bush had already deployed thousands of troops to the area, but at least the President of the United States, in that situation, explicitly acknowledged the applicability of the law in that case. So despite my concerns--that I did think were important to put in the record for future reference in situations like this--in the end, consideration of this resolution remains an appropriate exercise of the Senate's responsibilities under the War Powers Resolution. We have begun to do our duty, and the vitality of the War Powers Resolution has again been affirmed and respected. President, as I said, although I would have preferred to vote up or down on the merits of the Senate joint resolution, I will support the motion to table this resolution because I do not support the scope of the resolution and I have real doubts about the policy which it seeks to endorse. Especially given the breadth of the authority that is given under the resolution I am concerned. But I have concerns about the policy in Kosovo in any event. First, Mr. President, I do not understand how this decision to intervene in Kosovo and to continue and broaden the intervention really fits in with an overall post-cold war American foreign policy strategy. I do not see how this fits in with our long-term goals. Obviously, the tragedies and the horrors that are being perpetrated in Kosovo demand a response. That response must include the United States. But I do not think the question has been well answered why in Kosovo and not in other places. I give the Senator from Nebraska credit for just attempting to address the issue. He spoke a little bit about his belief that it would be difficult for us to act in some of the places in Africa and other places where there are similar tragedies. I am not sure I agree with that. We are not limited in our ability to act only in Europe or only near our own boundaries, especially in light of the actions that were taken with regard to the Middle East and Iraq. We have shown our ability to act throughout the world. The fact is, in my mind we could have acted in Rwanda. In fact, we apologized to Rwanda for having not taken the action that we could have taken to stop the genocide in that place. In Rwanda, in Sierra Leone, in East Timor, in Sudan, there are atrocities that are comparable, in some cases arguably worse, if that is possible, than what is going on in Kosovo. Why is it that--it at least appears to some--an accident of geography is sufficient to allow inaction while Kosovo requires a huge commitment? This question needs to be answered not so much for me but for the American people, because they do not understand, and I do not understand exactly why one tragedy demands our attention and our action and another one simply does not, especially when it comes to the use of significant military force. Another concern, the Senator from Nebraska was suggesting, in effect, is that we must take a stand. He is right, but he assumes this is the only option when he says we must support this resolution. Otherwise, he seems to say, we would have to be accused of taking no action, or we would be accused of being unconcerned or not moved by what is happening in Kosovo. I am not sure all the other options have truly been explored. What about the possibility of arming the Albanian Kosovars so they have a better and legitimate chance at their own self-defense? The Secretary of State said to me at a hearing recently that they wouldn't be able to do much with the arms anyway. I question that. I bet the Kosovar Albanians would question that. I even remember a briefing the other day by some of the NATO officials indicating that resistance from some of the Kosovar Albanians had had a negative impact on the Serbian troops. This is something that we should encourage rather than simply allow people to be herded around and tortured. They have a right to self- defense like anyone else. What about support for democratic elements in Serbia, as has been suggested by some of our colleagues in the recently introduced Serbian Democracy Act? Are there further diplomatic efforts that could be taken? What about the United Nations? Have we fully explored all of the options available working with Russia? It is not so clear to me that the only way to proceed is to give a broad, open-ended blank check to the President with regard to this situation. I don't think it is the only option. I am also concerned how this fits in with our overall policy just with respect to the Balkans. I am amazed at how infrequently in this debate people even refer to the fact that we are still stuck in the Bosnia intervention. We were promised at the time of the Bosnia intervention that it would be 1 year, that the troops would be home by December 1996, that it would cost no more than $2 billion. But here we are, in 1999, it has cost, I am told, over $9 billion. We no longer even hear any talk about when the troops will come home. It is Christmas after Christmas after Christmas after the time when all of our troops were supposed to be out of Bosnia. How does this policy in Kosovo connect with the policy in Bosnia? What is the strategy for getting in and for getting out? Sometimes I believe with respect to what we are doing in Bosnia, the administration's policy is sort of a ``less said the better'' attitude. If you don't mention it, nobody is going to remind you that we have been there for an awfully long time and have not been able to get out. I am also concerned, and I say this carefully, about what I consider to be a somewhat inconsistent application of international law by the administration with regard to this action. Again, I have no sympathy for Mr. Milosevic and his regime. But the fact is, our country recognizes Kosovo as being part of Yugoslavia, and yet we proceed with this action without a real explanation of how this comports with the rules of international law. I can tell you, most experts in international don't have a good explanation of how we can go about doing this. It would be one thing if we were talking about recognizing an independent Kosovo, but we have not taken that position. I asked the Secretary of State the other day whether that might be in the offing, and she indicated that was not a likely scenario. In the same conversation, I asked her, what about lifting the arms embargo on the Albanian Kosovars? She said we couldn't do that because of international law. Well, this is sort of a cavalier attitude, where we rely on international law as an excuse to not do something we should do in one case, the case of lifting the arms embargo, but we disregard international law or suggest that it is a technicality when it comes to the idea of not recognizing an area separate from Serbia and then going ahead and proceeding to take military action with what our own policy apparently regards as, in effect, a province of Serbia. This troubles me. I ask unanimous consent that Secretary Albright's comments in this regard from an April 20, 1999, hearing of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank my good friend from Arizona. Mr. President, let me first express my feelings and those of the Senate and every American that we are so pleased that the three soldiers are freed from their captivity in Yugoslavia. But I do reiterate what the administration and others have said. Mr. Milosevic and his cohorts should get absolutely no benefit out of those incidents that led to the capture and then the release of these soldiers. I hope no step we take or no comments we make today or at any point in the next few days suggest in any way that Mr. Milosevic deserves any kind of reward for undoing something that should not have been done in the first place. We are terribly pleased that the soldiers are free. That does not change what Mr. Milosevic has done, which is unforgivable. I, of course, praise the main authors of this resolution, my friend from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and another good friend, Senator Hagel from Nebraska. These are two of the best people to work with in this entire body. I know that their goal and the goal of the other cosponsors is a very worthy one, an important one, and that is to bring clarity with regard to our policy and our military action concerning Kosovo. I rise today to make what I believe are two important points regarding S.J. Res. 20, the McCain-Biden resolution authorizing the use of force in the current conflict in Yugoslavia. First, on the one hand, I oppose this resolution because I cannot at this point wholly endorse the current means being employed by the President to carry out a still murky policy with regard to Kosovo, and I cannot, in light of that, expand the authority of the President through congressional action beyond our current vision and information and understanding, even of the facts today, let alone what the facts may be tomorrow or in a couple of weeks. This is why I cannot support the resolution today. On the other hand--and I think this is very important as well--I believe it is very important that the Senate debate this resolution now, as we are doing, because whatever our divergent views on the current crisis may be, we in Congress share a common set of duties under the Constitution and under the War Powers Resolution to do what we are attempting to do this afternoon. I begin by talking a little bit about the process. Our minds are primarily on the current intervention and involvement, and that is appropriate. We also have to take a moment at a time like this to realize how this fits into the overall context of the role of Congress, the role of the Senate, with regard to the waging of war. In certain respects, the process so far has established, or at least reiterated, important precedents. In some other ways, I regret that the Senate has at least partially ducked its weighty responsibilities in this regard. There are precedents being set by the consideration of S.J. Res. 20. Although it was apparently not the intent of the sponsors, S.J. Res. 20 has been determined to be privileged under the terms of section 6 of the War Powers Resolution. That is an important moment, because sometimes Presidents and others have attempted to not take the War Powers Resolution seriously. Not only must it be taken seriously, but because of the appropriate ruling of the Parliamentarian with regard to the meaning of the War Powers Resolution, it is being taken seriously. I would like to make note of the Parliamentarian's comments at Friday's meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which I serve. Even Chairman Helms thought it was legally important enough to have the Parliamentarian's opinion be made part of the record of that meeting, and I thought it was as well. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a memo from Mr. Dove at the conclusion of my remarks. This is a memo that I asked to be sent to me summarizing what the Parliamentarian concluded on Friday. I ask that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the Dairy Reform Act of 1999, introduced by my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Rod Grams. The Federal Dairy Program was developed in the 1930's, when the Upper Midwest was seen as the primary reserve for additional supplies of milk. The idea was to encourage the development of local supplies of fluid milk in areas of the country that had not produced enough to meet local needs. Six decades ago, the poor condition of the American transportation infrastructure and the lack of portable refrigeration technology prevented Upper Midwest producers from shipping fresh fluid milk to other parts of the country. Therefore, the only way to ensure consumers a fresh local supply of fluid milk was to provide dairy farmers in those distant regions with a boost in milk price large enough to encourage local production--that higher price referred to as the Class I differential. Mr. President, the system worked well--too well. Wisconsin is no longer this country's largest milk producer. This program has outlived its necessity and is now working only to shortchange the Upper Midwest, and in particular, Wisconsin dairy farmers. The Dairy Reform Act of 1998 is very simple. It establishes that the minimum Class I price differential will be the same, $1.80/ hundredweight, for each marketing order. As many of you know, the price for fluid milk increases at a rate of approximately 21 cents per 100 miles from Eau Claire, WI. Fluid milk prices, as a result, are nearly $3 higher in Florida than in Wisconsin, more than $2 higher in New England, and more than $1 higher in Texas. This bill ensures that the Class I differentials will no longer vary according to an arbitrary geographic measure--like the distance from Eau Claire Wisconsin. No longer will the system penalize producers in the Upper Midwest with an archaic program that outlived its purpose years ago. This legislation identifies one of the most unfair and unjustly punitive provisions in the current system, and corrects it. There is no substantive, equitable justification to support non-uniform Class I differentials in present day policy. USDA's Federal Milk Marketing Order reform proposal was recently published. Although the USDA was successful in narrowing Class I differentials, discrepancies still exist. It is long past the time to set aside regional bickering and address the problems faced by dairy producers in all regions. The Dairy Reform Act of 1999 will make a change to USDA's proposed rule which will make the entire package more palatable for Wisconsin's producers. It will take USDA's proposal a step further and lead the dairy industry into a more market oriented program. Also producers will still be able to receive payment for transportation costs and over-order premiums. This measure would finally bring fairness to an unfair system. With this bill we will send a clear message to USDA and to Congress that Upper-Midwest dairy farmers will never stop fighting this patently unfair federal milk marketing order system. After over 60 years of struggling under this burden of inequality, Wisconsin's dairy industry deserves more; it deserves a fair price.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to join the Senator from Minnesota, Senator Grams, in introducing a measure to repeal the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. The Northeast Dairy Compact was included in the 1996 farm bill during conference negotiations after it had been struck from the Senate version of the farm bill during floor consideration. Mr. President, support of this legislation is especially crucial as compact proponents have recently introduced a measure to make permanent and expand the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact and establish a southern dairy compact. In other words, a measure devised to control three percent of the country's milk is now seeking 40% of the country's milk. The cost to consumers, taxpayers, and farmers outside the compact region are enormous. Mr. President, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact bill of 1996 established a commission for six Northeastern States--Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut--empowered to set minimum prices for fluid milk above those established under Federal Milk Marketing Orders. This sort or compact was unprecedented and unnecessary because the Federal milk marketing order system already provided farmers in the designated compact region with minimum milk prices higher than those received by most other dairy farmers throughout the nation. But they wanted more. This compact not only allows the six States to set artificially high fluid milk prices for their producers, it also allows those States to keep out lower priced milk from producers in competing States and provides processors within the region with a subsidy to export their higher priced milk to noncompact States. Mr. President, the arguments against this type of price-fixing scheme are numerous: It interferes with interstate commerce by erecting barriers around one region of the Nation; It provides preferential price treatment for farmers in the Northeast at the expense of farmers nationally and may now extend that privilege to the south; It encourages excess milk production in one region without establishing effective supply control that drives down milk prices for producers throughout the country; It imposes higher costs on the millions of consumers in the Compact region; It imposes higher costs to taxpayers who pay for nutrition programs such as food stamps and the national school lunch programs which provide milk and other dairy products and as a price-fixing mechanism, the compact it is unprecedented in the history of this Nation. Most important to my home State of Wisconsin, Mr. President, is that the Northeast Dairy Compact exacerbates the inequities within the Federal milk marketing orders system that already discriminates against dairy farmers in Wisconsin and throughout the upper Midwest. Federal orders provide higher fluid milk prices to producers the further they are located from Eau Claire, WI, for markets east of the Rocky Mountains. Wisconsin farmers have complained for many years that this inherently discriminatory system provides other regions, such as the Northeast, the Southeast, and the Southwest with milk prices that encourage excess production in those regions. Of course, that excess production drives down prices throughout the Nation and results in excessive production of cheese, butter, and dry milk. Cheese and other manufactured dairy products constitute the pillar of our dairy industry in Wisconsin. Competition for the production and sale of these products by other regions spurred on by artificial incentives under milk marketing orders has eroded our markets for cheese and other products. Mr. President, my State of Wisconsin loses more dairy farms each year than any other state. A recent survey by the National Milk Producers Federation revealed that, between 1993 and 1998, Wisconsin lost over 7000 dairy farms--that's three dairy farms a day! The number of manufacturing plants has declined from 400 in 1985 to less than 230 in 1996. These losses are due in part, to the systematic discrimination and market distortions created by Federal dairy policies that provide artificial regional advantages that cannot be justified on any rational economic grounds. Lets look at their arguments: They claim this legislation is necessary to save their small dairy farmers, yet the bill does not target small operations. One year after the compact began, New England dairy farms went out of business at a 41% faster rate than in the prior two years. They also claim that consumers in their regions are willing to pay a higher price at the grocery store as a result of the compact. However, studies show that higher milk prices at the retail level result in a decline in milk consumption at home. According to economists, a 10% increase in price can lead to as much as an 8% decline in consumption. The spread of dairy compacts to include half of the U.S. population in the Northeast, the South and parts of the Midwest could drive up milk prices as much as 20%. Mr. President, my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Grams and I are on the floor today offering this legislation because the Northeast Dairy Compact reinforces the outrageous discrimination that has so wounded the dairy industry in our States. We have fought to change Federal milk marketing orders and we will fight to prevent the Northeast Dairy Compact from becoming permanent and expanding, and prevent the authorization of a southern compact. We will do all of these things in the name of basic fairness, simple justice and economic sanity in the marketplace. Upper Midwest dairy farmers have been bled long enough. When prices fall, as they have recently, all farmers feel the stress. Why should one farmer in a region arbitrarily suffer or benefit more than another farmer on a similar operation in another region because of this artificial finger on the scale called the compact. Regional inequities are the inherent assumption of compact proponents and a basic economic premise of the compact idea. Shouldn't we be working together to make conditions better for all dairy producers? Why should one region, and now multiple regions be treated differently? And yet the Northeast Compact provides price protection for dairy farmers in six States, insulating them from market conditions which ordinary noncompact farmers have to live with. Compact proponents have never been able to explain how conditions in the Northeast merit greater protection from market price fluctuations than other regions of the country. The fact that there are no compelling arguments made in favor of the compact that justified special treatment for the Northeast was emphasized by a vote in the full Senate to strike the compact from the 1996 farm bill. It was the only recorded vote on approval or disapproval of the Northeast Dairy Compact--and it killed the compact in the Senate. The way in which the compact was ultimately included in the 1996 farm bill also illustrates the weak justification for its approval. Let me remind my colleagues that the compact was never included in the House version of the farm bill and yet emerged as part of the bill after a closed door Conference negotiation. Legislation which is patently unfair and difficult to defend must frequently be negotiated behind closed doors rather than in the light of day. Even the Secretary of Agriculture, after approving the compact, was unable to come up with an economic justification for the compact. The Secretary's finding of `compelling public interest' as a basis for justifying his approval of the compact was so weak and unsupported by the public record that a suit was filed by compact opponents in Federal court charging that the Secretary violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Mr. President, authorizing dairy compacts is bad public policy because it increases costs to taxpayers and consumers and currently only benefits a few in privileged regions. It is bad dairy policy because it exacerbates regional discrimination of existing Federal milk marketing orders by providing artificial advantages to a small group of producers at the expense of all others. And it is bad economic policy because it establishes barriers to interstate trade--barriers of the type the United States has been working hard to eliminate in international markets. Mr. President, Congress should never have provided Secretary Glickman with authority to approve the compact. That in my view, was an improper and potentially unconstitutional delegation of our authority and it was irresponsible. It is the role of Congress to approve interstate compacts and we irresponsibly abrogated our responsibility in this matter. It is time to make it right. It is incumbent upon Congress to undo the mistake it made in the 1996 farm bill. It's time to repeal the Northeast Interstate Dairy compact. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the Dairy Reform Act of 1999, introduced by my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Rod Grams. The Federal Dairy Program was developed in the 1930's, when the Upper Midwest was seen as the primary reserve for additional supplies of milk. The idea was to encourage the development of local supplies of fluid milk in areas of the country that had not produced enough to meet local needs. Six decades ago, the poor condition of the American transportation infrastructure and the lack of portable refrigeration technology prevented Upper Midwest producers from shipping fresh fluid milk to other parts of the country. Therefore, the only way to ensure consumers a fresh local supply of fluid milk was to provide dairy farmers in those distant regions with a boost in milk price large enough to encourage local production--that higher price referred to as the Class I differential. Mr. President, the system worked well--too well. Wisconsin is no longer this country's largest milk producer. This program has outlived its necessity and is now working only to shortchange the Upper Midwest, and in particular, Wisconsin dairy farmers. The Dairy Reform Act of 1998 is very simple. It establishes that the minimum Class I price differential will be the same, $1.80/ hundredweight, for each marketing order. As many of you know, the price for fluid milk increases at a rate of approximately 21 cents per 100 miles from Eau Claire, WI. Fluid milk prices, as a result, are nearly $3 higher in Florida than in Wisconsin, more than $2 higher in New England, and more than $1 higher in Texas. This bill ensures that the Class I differentials will no longer vary according to an arbitrary geographic measure--like the distance from Eau Claire Wisconsin. No longer will the system penalize producers in the Upper Midwest with an archaic program that outlived its purpose years ago. This legislation identifies one of the most unfair and unjustly punitive provisions in the current system, and corrects it. There is no substantive, equitable justification to support non-uniform Class I differentials in present day policy. USDA's Federal Milk Marketing Order reform proposal was recently published. Although the USDA was successful in narrowing Class I differentials, discrepancies still exist. It is long past the time to set aside regional bickering and address the problems faced by dairy producers in all regions. The Dairy Reform Act of 1999 will make a change to USDA's proposed rule which will make the entire package more palatable for Wisconsin's producers. It will take USDA's proposal a step further and lead the dairy industry into a more market oriented program. Also producers will still be able to receive payment for transportation costs and over-order premiums. This measure would finally bring fairness to an unfair system. With this bill we will send a clear message to USDA and to Congress that Upper-Midwest dairy farmers will never stop fighting this patently unfair federal milk marketing order system. After over 60 years of struggling under this burden of inequality, Wisconsin's dairy industry deserves more; it deserves a fair price.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to join the Senator from Minnesota, Senator Grams, in introducing a measure to repeal the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. The Northeast Dairy Compact was included in the 1996 farm bill during conference negotiations after it had been struck from the Senate version of the farm bill during floor consideration. Mr. President, support of this legislation is especially crucial as compact proponents have recently introduced a measure to make permanent and expand the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact and establish a southern dairy compact. In other words, a measure devised to control three percent of the country's milk is now seeking 40% of the country's milk. The cost to consumers, taxpayers, and farmers outside the compact region are enormous. Mr. President, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact bill of 1996 established a commission for six Northeastern States--Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut--empowered to set minimum prices for fluid milk above those established under Federal Milk Marketing Orders. This sort or compact was unprecedented and unnecessary because the Federal milk marketing order system already provided farmers in the designated compact region with minimum milk prices higher than those received by most other dairy farmers throughout the nation. But they wanted more. This compact not only allows the six States to set artificially high fluid milk prices for their producers, it also allows those States to keep out lower priced milk from producers in competing States and provides processors within the region with a subsidy to export their higher priced milk to noncompact States. Mr. President, the arguments against this type of price-fixing scheme are numerous: It interferes with interstate commerce by erecting barriers around one region of the Nation; It provides preferential price treatment for farmers in the Northeast at the expense of farmers nationally and may now extend that privilege to the south; It encourages excess milk production in one region without establishing effective supply control that drives down milk prices for producers throughout the country; It imposes higher costs on the millions of consumers in the Compact region; It imposes higher costs to taxpayers who pay for nutrition programs such as food stamps and the national school lunch programs which provide milk and other dairy products and as a price-fixing mechanism, the compact it is unprecedented in the history of this Nation. Most important to my home State of Wisconsin, Mr. President, is that the Northeast Dairy Compact exacerbates the inequities within the Federal milk marketing orders system that already discriminates against dairy farmers in Wisconsin and throughout the upper Midwest. Federal orders provide higher fluid milk prices to producers the further they are located from Eau Claire, WI, for markets east of the Rocky Mountains. Wisconsin farmers have complained for many years that this inherently discriminatory system provides other regions, such as the Northeast, the Southeast, and the Southwest with milk prices that encourage excess production in those regions. Of course, that excess production drives down prices throughout the Nation and results in excessive production of cheese, butter, and dry milk. Cheese and other manufactured dairy products constitute the pillar of our dairy industry in Wisconsin. Competition for the production and sale of these products by other regions spurred on by artificial incentives under milk marketing orders has eroded our markets for cheese and other products. Mr. President, my State of Wisconsin loses more dairy farms each year than any other state. A recent survey by the National Milk Producers Federation revealed that, between 1993 and 1998, Wisconsin lost over 7000 dairy farms--that's three dairy farms a day! The number of manufacturing plants has declined from 400 in 1985 to less than 230 in 1996. These losses are due in part, to the systematic discrimination and market distortions created by Federal dairy policies that provide artificial regional advantages that cannot be justified on any rational economic grounds. Lets look at their arguments: They claim this legislation is necessary to save their small dairy farmers, yet the bill does not target small operations. One year after the compact began, New England dairy farms went out of business at a 41% faster rate than in the prior two years. They also claim that consumers in their regions are willing to pay a higher price at the grocery store as a result of the compact. However, studies show that higher milk prices at the retail level result in a decline in milk consumption at home. According to economists, a 10% increase in price can lead to as much as an 8% decline in consumption. The spread of dairy compacts to include half of the U.S. population in the Northeast, the South and parts of the Midwest could drive up milk prices as much as 20%. Mr. President, my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Grams and I are on the floor today offering this legislation because the Northeast Dairy Compact reinforces the outrageous discrimination that has so wounded the dairy industry in our States. We have fought to change Federal milk marketing orders and we will fight to prevent the Northeast Dairy Compact from becoming permanent and expanding, and prevent the authorization of a southern compact. We will do all of these things in the name of basic fairness, simple justice and economic sanity in the marketplace. Upper Midwest dairy farmers have been bled long enough. When prices fall, as they have recently, all farmers feel the stress. Why should one farmer in a region arbitrarily suffer or benefit more than another farmer on a similar operation in another region because of this artificial finger on the scale called the compact. Regional inequities are the inherent assumption of compact proponents and a basic economic premise of the compact idea. Shouldn't we be working together to make conditions better for all dairy producers? Why should one region, and now multiple regions be treated differently? And yet the Northeast Compact provides price protection for dairy farmers in six States, insulating them from market conditions which ordinary noncompact farmers have to live with. Compact proponents have never been able to explain how conditions in the Northeast merit greater protection from market price fluctuations than other regions of the country. The fact that there are no compelling arguments made in favor of the compact that justified special treatment for the Northeast was emphasized by a vote in the full Senate to strike the compact from the 1996 farm bill. It was the only recorded vote on approval or disapproval of the Northeast Dairy Compact--and it killed the compact in the Senate. The way in which the compact was ultimately included in the 1996 farm bill also illustrates the weak justification for its approval. Let me remind my colleagues that the compact was never included in the House version of the farm bill and yet emerged as part of the bill after a closed door Conference negotiation. Legislation which is patently unfair and difficult to defend must frequently be negotiated behind closed doors rather than in the light of day. Even the Secretary of Agriculture, after approving the compact, was unable to come up with an economic justification for the compact. The Secretary's finding of `compelling public interest' as a basis for justifying his approval of the compact was so weak and unsupported by the public record that a suit was filed by compact opponents in Federal court charging that the Secretary violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Mr. President, authorizing dairy compacts is bad public policy because it increases costs to taxpayers and consumers and currently only benefits a few in privileged regions. It is bad dairy policy because it exacerbates regional discrimination of existing Federal milk marketing orders by providing artificial advantages to a small group of producers at the expense of all others. And it is bad economic policy because it establishes barriers to interstate trade--barriers of the type the United States has been working hard to eliminate in international markets. Mr. President, Congress should never have provided Secretary Glickman with authority to approve the compact. That in my view, was an improper and potentially unconstitutional delegation of our authority and it was irresponsible. It is the role of Congress to approve interstate compacts and we irresponsibly abrogated our responsibility in this matter. It is time to make it right. It is incumbent upon Congress to undo the mistake it made in the 1996 farm bill. It's time to repeal the Northeast Interstate Dairy compact. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the men and women in our labor force that put their health and safety on the line every day at work. Today, we observe the passage of the landmark Occupational Safety and Health Act, signed into law 29 years ago, and the tenth anniversary of Workers' Memorial Day. Mr. President, today is a chance for all of us to celebrate, and to mourn--to recognize the strides we've made on worker safety, and to mourn those who have lost their lives while they were simply doing their job. Although the workplace death rate has been cut in half since 1970, 60,000 workers still die every year from job hazards, and six million more are injured. In Wisconsin our workplace accidents rate of 11.4 workplace accidents per 100 workers is higher than the national average. This is not a statistic anyone should be proud of, but it does help us maintain our focus as we work toward stronger laws, stricter enforcement, and safer workplaces. We need to work together to protect the workers that have built our communities and helped them thrive. Unfortunately we still hear stories of workers like Vernon Langholff, who in 1993 fell 100 feet to his death when a corroded fire escape collapsed beneath him while he was cleaning dust from a grain bin. Just this year a company in Jefferson County was convicted in a state court for the recklessness that caused Langholff's death. In 1996 the company was fined $450,000 for its deliberate indifference to worker safety--because they delayed spending the $15,000 it would have taken to fix the fire escape and prevent Langholff's death. Stories like this remind us that an unsafe workplace can mean disaster for everyone involved--it can bring untold tragedy to a family, it can bring serious, long-term financial and legal repercussions for an employer. The consequences of delaying the repair of a fire escape or ignoring safety procedures can often be tragic, and they are always preventable. To prevent more tragedies on the job, we've got to make sure workers can join unions without employer interference or intimidation, we must help protect whistleblowers who call attention to dangerous working conditions, and above all we've got to fight back against attempts in Congress to weaken OSHA laws. I do not understand the yearly assault on worker safety in Congress. Again this year, the Safety Advancement for Employees Act, or SAFE Act has been introduced. This legislation takes away a worker's right to an on-site inspection to investigate a hazard, or permitting OSHA to issue warnings instead of citations. This bill isn't OSHA re-form, it's OSHA de-form. This bill would more appropriately be named the ``UNSAFE'' act. Mr. President, I will work with my colleagues to fight back any attempt to weaken the protection of Wisconsin's workers. It's time to move the workplace forward to the 21st Century, not back to the dark ages. I am proud to stand with this country's workers in the fight for the dignity, respect and safe workplace they deserve. I urge my colleagues to join me in this important and worthy battle. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of the 1.5 million ethnic Armenians that were systematically murdered at the hands of the Ottoman Empire from 1915-1923. The 84th anniversary of the beginning of this brutal annihilation was marked on April 24. During this nine year period, another 250,000 ethnic Armenians were forced to flee their homes to escape the certain death that awaited them at the hands of a government-sanctioned force determined to extinguish their existence. A total of 1.75 million ethnic Armenians were either slaughtered or forced to flee, leaving fewer than 80,000 in what is present-day Turkey. I have come to the floor to commemorate this horrific chapter in human history each year I have been a member of this body, both to honor those who died and to remind the American people of the chilling capacity for violence that, unfortunately, still exists in the world. It is all too clear from the current ethnically and religiously motivated conflicts in such places as Kosovo, Sierra Leone, and Sudan that we have not learned the lessons of the past. The ongoing campaign of violence and hate perpetrated by Slobodan Milosevic and his thugs against the Kosovar Albanians is but the latest example of the campaigns of terror carried out against innocent civilians simply because of who they are. These people are not combatants and they have committed no crimes--they are simply ethnic Albanians who wish to live in peace in their homes in Kosovo. But, because they are ethnic Albanians, they have been murdered or driven out, their possessions have been looted, and their homes have been burned. Many more are hiding in the mountains of Kosovo, caught in a dangerous limbo, afraid to try to flee across the border to safety and unable to go home. On April 13, we marked Yom Hashoah, the annual remembrance of the 6 million Jews who were exterminated by Nazi Germany. People around the world gathered to light candles and read the names of those who died. Today, let us take a moment to remember the victims of the 1915-1923 Armenian genocide, and all the other innocent people who have died in the course of human history at the hands of people who hated them simply for who they were.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to legislation introduced today by my colleagues Senator Jeffords, Senator Leahy, Senator Cochran and Senator Specter. They have introduced a measure which will further aggravate the inequities of the Federal Milk Marketing Order system. Their legislation will make permanent and expand the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact and will authorize the establishment of a southern dairy compact. Despite the discrimination against dairy farmers in Wisconsin under the Federal Dairy policy known as the Eau Claire rule, the 1996 Farm Bill provided the final nail in the coffin when it created and authorized for 3-years, the existence of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact sounded benign in 1996, but its effect has been anything but, magnifying the existing inequities of the system. The bill which authorized the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact established a commission for six Northeastern States--Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. This commission set minimum prices for fluid milk higher even than those established under Federal Milk Marketing Orders. Never mind that the Federal milk marketing order system, under the Eau Claire rule, already provided farmers in the region with minimum prices higher than those received by most other dairy farmers throughout the nation. The compact, which controlled three percent of the country's milk, not only allowed the six States to set artificially high prices for their producers, it allowed them to block entry of lower priced milk from producers in competing States. To give them an even bigger advantage, processors in the region get a subsidy to export their higher priced milk to noncompact States. It's a windfall for Northeast dairy farmers. It's also plainly unfair and unjust to the rest of the country. Mr. President, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact (NEIDC) is set to expire at the implementation of USDA's new Federal Milk Market Order system. According to the Omnibus Appropriations measure passed last year, the expiration date of the NEIDC is scheduled for October 1, 1999. Now, Members of Congress are pushing for an extension and expansion of the existing milk cartel and for the authorization of another. To make clear the magnitude of this legislation on producers and consumers we need to only look at the numbers. Currently, three percent of milk is under a compact, conceivably, under this new measure, over 40% of this country's milk will be affected. More importantly, one hundred percent of this country's milk prices will be affected--in Wisconsin, prices will be adversely affected. These compacts amount to nothing short of government-sponsored price fixing. They are unfair, and bad policy. Now, my colleagues would like you to make this compact permanent, expand it to include other states, and authorize a southern dairy compact. After three years, we know that dairy compacts: Blatantly interfere with interstate commerce and wildly distort the marketplace by erecting artificial barriers around one specially protected region of the Nation; Arbitrarily provide 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--maybe better in Wisconsin; Irresponsibly encourage 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 everywhere else in the country; Raises retail milk prices on the millions of consumers in the Compact region; Imposes higher costs on every taxpayer because we all pay for nutrition programs such as food stamps and the national school lunch programs that provide milk and other dairy products. As a price-fixing device, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact was unprecedented in the history of this Nation. As a dairy cartel, it is a poor legislative fix and bad precedent to deal with low milk prices. Wisconsin's dairy farmers are being economically crippled by federal dairy policies. It's time to bring justice to federal dairy policy, and give Wisconsin Dairy farmers a fair shot in the market place. I urge my colleagues not to buy into the rhetoric surrounding this issue. I urge you to work together towards fair national dairy policy. A policy that provides all dairy producers a fair price for their commodity, a policy that allows all of this country's dairy producers to succeed on the basis of hard work and a good product. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and to join me in the fight against its passage.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today as an original cosponsor of the Hmong Veterans Naturalization Act of 1999. I commend the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] and our colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Vento, for their commitment to this important issue. I honor the service of the Lao and Hmong veterans to the United States, and appreciate the great personal risk they faced when they chose to help this country. I am pleased that many of them have chosen to make the United States, and my home state of Wisconsin, their adopted homeland. In my view, Mr. President, this bill, which would expedite the naturalization process for 45,000 Lao and Hmong veterans and their spouses, is the least we can for the help repay the huge debt we owe these brave individuals. I have had the opportunity to meet many Lao and Hmong veterans and their families as I travel throughout Wisconsin. I am struck by the profound importance they place on becoming citizens of the United States. This bill would help them reach that goal.