Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. Chief Justice, I and Senator Collins, the junior Senator from Maine, ask unanimous consent that when the Senate consider the anticipated motion to dismiss, that it shall vote on two separate questions: First, whether to dismiss article I of the articles of impeachment; and, second, whether to dismiss article II.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. Chief Justice, I object.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of opening Senate deliberations to the public during the course of the impeachment trial against President Clinton. I will therefore support the motion to be offered by Senators Harkin and Wellstone to suspend the rules in order to open these proceedings to public scrutiny. In this trial, the United States Senate is charged by the Constitution with deciding whether to remove from office a President twice elected by the American people. Although I am certain that every member of the Senate will undertake this Constitutional responsibility with the utmost gravity and perform ``impartial justice'' as our oath commands, I am concerned that the American people will be shut out of this process at some of its most crucial moments. America's great experiment in democracy trusts the people to elect a President in a process that consists of months of public discussion, primaries, caucuses, debates, and finally an election open to everyone who chooses to participate. In stark contrast, the Senate's rules preclude the public from seeing its deliberations on whether an impeachment case will be dismissed, whether witnesses will be called or further evidence introduced, and even the ultimate debate regarding the guilt or innocence of the President. In short, Mr. President, the Constitution trusts the people to elect a President, but our current Senate impeachment rules do not trust them to have even the most passive involvement in our deliberative process, even when the debate might result in overturning the people's judgment in a national election. Let me take a moment to describe again for my colleagues how our current impeachment rules work. The Senate is not only the trier of fact in this case, but it also acts as the ultimate arbiter of law. It can overturn the Chief Justice's rulings on evidentiary questions and make decisions, which cannot be appealed to any court, on motions. But the Senate's impeachment rules, which were first drafted in connection with the Andrew Johnson impeachment and most recently revisited in 1986, do not permit the Senate to debate any of the decisions that it must make, except in closed session. In fact, the rules provide that decisions on evidentiary rulings are to be made with no debate whatsoever. Other motions can be debated, but only in private. So, for example, we expect that after the presentations are made on both sides, a motion will be made to dismiss the case against the President. Under our current rules, the House managers and the President's lawyers will argue that motion, but the Senate cannot debate it in open session. In fact, if a majority of the Senate wants to preclude debate entirely, it can do that by simply voting against a motion to take the Senate into private session for deliberations. Thus, before we vote on what could be a dispositive motion in this case, our only options are to discuss it behind closed doors or not discuss it at all. I think this is wrong. We need a chance to debate this motion as Senators. I want to hear from my colleagues before I vote, not just afterward on television. I intend to carefully and respectfully entertain my colleagues' arguments, and I refuse to rule out the possibility that a well-reasoned argument offering a different perspective will influence my decision. But the American people also deserve to hear what we say to each other as we debate this motion. I see little to be gained from closing these deliberations and much to be lost. We must do everything we can to ensure public confidence in our fairness and impartiality. How can we expect the public to have faith in us if we close the doors at the very moment when we finally will speak on the dispositive questions of this historic trial? Opponents of openness argue that in the only Presidential impeachment trial in our nation's history, that of Andrew Johnson, the Senate's deliberations were closed. While it may be tempting to rely on the precedent of the one previous Presidential impeachment trial, which occurred one-hundred and thirty years ago, I believe we should take a fresh look at this issue. In particular, we should consider how drastically the rules of the Senate and the composition of the Senate have changed. The Senators who presided over President Johnson's impeachment were not elected by the American people directly, but were chosen by the various state legislatures, and thus were not directly responsive to the popular will. Today, we as Senators represent the citizens of our state directly and we are accountable to them at the ballot box. Furthermore, until 1929, the Senate debated nominations and treaties in closed sessions; and until 1975, many committee sessions took place in private. Today, all of our proceedings are open to the public, except in rare cases involving national security. The rules governing membership in the Senate as well as the openness of Senate proceedings have consistently evolved throughout our history toward greater public involvement. The rules governing impeachment trial deliberations must move in that direction as well. Opening these proceedings as Senators Harkin and Wellstone have proposed will make the American public feel more involved in the process. With the percentage of voters who cast their ballot on election day declining in each succeeding election and polls showing that the public feels increasingly alienated from the political process; and with people openly questioning the relevance of their elected representatives and the Congress as a whole to their daily lives, we must lay open to the American people our deliberations on the most crucial decision short of declaring war that the Constitution ultimately entrusts to us. Democracy can only flourish when the people feel that they have a stake in the process. Conducting our impeachment deliberations in private sends the message that when the really important decisions need to be made, the American public is not welcome to observe. This is precisely the wrong message to send. Thus far in the impeachment process, there has been little to celebrate. Most Americans have concluded that the House of Representative's inquiry was plagued by partisanship. Many fear that the Senate will do the same. With the eyes of the country upon it, the Senate has an opportunity to restore America's trust in the constitutional process. Open deliberations will enhance the public's understanding and discussion of this case. It may even serve to chip away some of the pervasive cynicism in our country as Americans watch how their elected representatives conduct themselves during consideration of the articles. I trust that my colleagues will reach their decisions on the merits after careful, reasoned and informed consideration of the evidence and the arguments presented. If my trust in my colleagues is justified, our deliberations will be thoughtful, high-minded, vigorous, and non-partisan. And if we have that deliberation in the open, it will be remembered as one of the Senate's finest hours.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation regarding Nigeria, a country that stands today astride the border between a repressive history and a potentially productive future. As the Ranking Democrat of the Senate Subcommittee on Africa, I have long been concerned about the collapsing economic and political situation in Nigeria. Nigeria, with its rich history, abundant natural resources and wonderful cultural diversity, has the potential to be an important regional leader in West Africa, and the entire African continent. But, sadly, too many of Nigeria's leaders have squandered that potential and the good will of the world with repressive policies, human rights abuses and corruption. The Nigeria Democracy and Civil Society Empowerment Act of 1999 that I offer today provides a clear framework for U.S. policy toward that troubled West African nation. The Nigeria Democracy and Civil Society Empowerment Act declares that the United States should encourage the political, economic and legal reforms necessary to ensure the rule of law and respect for human rights in Nigeria and should aggressively support a timely and effective transition to democratic, civilian government for the people of Nigeria. This bill draws heavily from legislation introduced during the last two Congresses with the leadership of several other distinguished members of Congress. In the 104th Congress, I joined the former chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Africa, Senator Kassebaum, and 20 other Senators in introducing sanctions legislation. In the 105th Congress, I introduced an updated version of that bill, a companion measure of which was introduced in the House by the distinguished chair of the House International Relations Committee, Mr. Gilman of New York, and a distinguished member of that Committee and of the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Payne of New Jersey. I commend the help and assistance of all of my colleagues on this important issue and I appreciate the opportunity to work with them toward the broader goal of a freer Nigeria. Mr. President, the Nigeria Democracy and Civil Society Empowerment Act provides by law for many of the sanctions that the United States has had in place against Nigeria for a number of years. It includes a ban on most foreign direct assistance and a ban on the sale of military goods and military assistance to Nigeria, and suggests the reimposition of restriction on visas for top Nigerian officials. But none of these sanctions will be imposed if the President can certify to the Congress that specific conditions, which I will call ``benchmarks,'' regarding the transition to democracy have taken place in Nigeria. These benchmarks include free and fair democratic elections, the release of political prisoners, freedom of the press, continued access for international human rights monitors and the repeal of the many repressive decrees pressed upon the Nigerian people by successive military regimes. This legislation also provides for $37 million in development assistance over three years to support democracy and governance programs and the activities of the U.S. Information Agency, and mandates a larger presence for the U.S. Agency for International Development. I want to emphasize that this bill authorizes no new money. All of these funds would come out of existing USAID and USIA appropriations. Finally, the bill requires the Secretary of State to submit a report on corruption in Nigeria including the evidence of corruption by government officials in Nigeria and the impact of corruption on the delivery of government services in Nigeria, on U.S. business interests in Nigeria, and on Nigeria's foreign policy. It would also require that the Secretary's report include information on the impact on U.S. citizens of advance fee fraud and other fraudulent business schemes originating in Nigeria. The intent of this legislation is two-fold. First, it will continue to send an unequivocal message to whomever is ruling Nigeria that disregard for democracy, human rights and the institutions of civil society in Nigeria is simply unacceptable. Second, the bill provides some direction to the Clinton Administration which had considerable difficulty articulating a coherent policy on Nigeria throughout the Abacha regime, and which, I fear, has too quickly embraced the Abubakar regime despite several important outstanding problems. Nigeria has suffered under military rule for most of its nearly 40 years as an independent nation. By virtue of its size, geographic location, and resource base, it is economically and strategically important both in regional and international terms. Nigeria is critical to American interests. But Nigeria's future was nearly destroyed by the military government of General Sani Abacha. Abacha presided over a Nigeria stunted by rampant corruption, economic mismanagement and the brutal subjugation of its people. Gen. Abacha was by any definition an authoritarian leader of the worst sort. He routinely imprisoned individuals for expressing their political opinions and skimmed Nigeria's precious resources for his own gains and that of his supporters and cronies. He pretended to set a timetable for a democratic transition, but each of the five officially sanctioned parties under his plan ended up endorsing Gen. Abacha as their candidate in what would have been nothing more than a circus referendum on Abacha himself. During the dark days of the Abacha regime, any criticism of the so- called transition process was punishable by five years in a Nigerian prison. Nigerian human rights activists and government critics were commonly whisked away to secret trials before military courts and imprisoned; independent media outlets were silenced; workers' rights to organize were restricted; and the infamous State Security [Detention of Persons] Decree No. 2, giving the military sweeping powers of arrest and detention, remained in force. Perhaps the most horrific example of repression by the Abacha government was the execution of human rights and environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight others in November 1995 on trumped-up charges. Between the time of that barbaric spectacle and his death, Abacha appeared to be working even harder to tighten its grip on the country, wasting no opportunity to subjugate the people of Nigeria. But with the replacement of Abacha by the current military ruler, Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar, there has been reason to be optimistic about Nigeria's future. Although he has not yet moved to repeal the repressive decrees that place severe restrictions on the basic freedoms of Nigerians, including aforementioned Decree No. 2, Gen. Abubakar has made significant progress in enacting political reforms, including the establishment of a realistic time line for the transition to civilian rule and guidelines for political participation. According to his transition plan, power will be handed over to a civilian government of May 29, 1999, after a series of elections scheduled for December 5, 1998 (local government), January 9, 1999 (state assembly and governors), February 20 1999 (national assembly) and February 27, 1999 (presidential). Abubakar also agreed to release political prisoners, and some have indeed been released including several prominent individuals. Most Nigerians appear to have embraced this transition program, and many in the international community have welcomed Gen. Abubakar's bold statements. Nevertheless, observers remain apprehensive about the role of the security forces and of the military, perceived weaknesses in the electoral system, the lack of a clear constitutional order, and the possibility of violence during the electoral period. Nigerians also remain concerned about the important questions of federalism and decentralization--including the control and distribution of national wealth--which have yet to be satisfactorily worked out. These concerns, which remain a backdrop to the current transition, tend to dampen what is otherwise a largely optimistic and enthusiastic attitude throughout the country. Thus, as pleased as I am to see the progress being made, I remain cautious about embracing the new dispensation until we can actually see it in place. Adding to my concerns is the disturbing behavior of the military over New Year's weekend in Bayelsa state. According to unconfirmed reports, as many as 100 people may have been killed in the area around Yenagoa, and the military reinforcements have brought in a force of 10,000 to 15,000 troops to the area. The military government also declared as state of emergency for several days. While the circumstances surrounding the crackdown are unclear, it is troubling that--even during this sensitive time of political transition--the Abubakar regime would rely so heavily on hold habits. Minor disturbance? Send in thousands of troops to take care of it! I fear these troops do not know how to ``maintain public order''; rather, they know only how to implement repression. How seriously can we take Abubakar's encouraging statements about political reform, when he continues to use the instruments of repression learned under the Abacha regime? Nigeria's political transition is taking place in the context of economic and political collapse. Nigeria has the potential to be the economic powerhouse on the African continent, a key regional political leader, and an important American trading partner, but it is none of these things. Despite its wealth, economic activity in Nigeria continues to stagnate, Even oil revenues are not what they might be, but they remain the only reliable source of economic growth, with the United States purchasing an estimated 41 percent of the output. Corruption and criminal activity in this military-controlled economic and political system have become common, including reports of drug trafficking and consumer fraud schemes that have originated in Nigeria and reached into the United States, including my home state of Wisconsin. The last time Nigeria appeared posied finally to make a democratic transition, during the 1993 presidential election, the military quickly annulled the results, and promptly put into prision the presumed winner of that eclection Chief Moshood Abiola. Despite numerous domestic and international pleas for his release, he remained in prison until his tragic death in July. Years of neglect and months of solitary confinement took its toll on Chief Abiola, and barely one month after the death of General Abacha, Abiola died of an apparent heart attack during a meeting with senior American officials. It is unfortunate, but Nigeria suffers greatly from the weight of its tortured history. I truly hope the transition currently underway will have better results than previous ones, but we must not let hope and expectation cloud our standards for what is best for Nigeria. I am afraid that the international community, and particularly the Clinton administration, are so quick to reward counties for good behavior, that they then trend to ignore continuing bad behavior. I have noticed this problem in U.S. relations with Indonesia, China, and elsewhere, and it certainly is a concern with Nigeria now. It is in that light that I have decided to reintroduce my bill. This may sound odd, but I actually hope I don't need to pursue this legislation in its current form. I sincerely hope that the transition in Nigeria goes according to all our best wishes, and that there will be no need to impose these sanctions. But if it does not, the spoilers should be aware the U.S. Congress is watching, and will act. This bill provides the means for that action. We cannot let Nigeria spiral down into the quagmire that has overtaken so much of the continent. I have long urged the Administration to take the toughest stance possible in support of democracy in Nigeria. The regime in Nigeria must know that anything less than a transparent transition to civilian rule will be met with severe consequences, including new sanctions as mandated in this bill. Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today represents and effort to encourage the best that Nigeria has to offer, to support those Nigerians who have worked tirelessly and fearlessly for democracy and civilian rule and to move our own government toward a Nigeria policy that vigorously reflects the best American values. The provisions of my bill include benchmarks defining what would constitute an open political process in Nigeria. Despite all the tumultuous events that have taken place in these few months. I still believe these benchmarks are important, and I continue to call on Gen. Abubaker to implement as soon as possible these important changes, such as the repeal of the repressive decrees enacted under Abacha's rule, so that genuine reform may flourish in Nigeria. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Gaylord Nelson Apostle Islands Stewardship Act of 1999.'' I am pleased to have the Senior Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) join me as an original cosponsor of this legislation. Many outside Wisconsin may not know that, in addition to founding Earth Day, Senator Nelson was also the primary sponsor of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore Act. That act, which passed in 1970, protects one of Northern Wisconsin's most beautiful areas, at which I spend my vacation with my family every year. Though Senator Nelson has received many awards, I know that among his proudest accomplishments are those bills he crafted which have produced real and lasting change in preserving America's lands, such as the Apostle Islands. The Apostle Islands National Lakshore includes 21 forested islands and 12 miles of pristine shoreline which are among the Great Lakes' most spectacular scenery. Centuries of wave action, freezing, and thawing have sculpted the shorelines, and nature has carved intricate caves into the sandstone which forms the islands. Delicate arches, vaulted chambers, and hidden passageways honeycomb cliffs on the north shore of Devils Island, Swallow Point on Sand Island, and northeast of Cornucopia on the mainland. The Apostle Islands National Lakeshore includes more lighthouses than any other coastline of similar size in the United States, and is home to diverse wildlife including: black bear, bald eagles and deer. It is an important recreational area as well. Its campgrounds and acres of forest, make the Apostles a favorite destination for hikers, sailors, kayakers, and bikers. The Lakeshore also includes the underwater lakebed as well, and scuba divers register with the National Park Service to view the area's underwater resources. Unfortunately, the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore finds itself, nearly 29 years later, with significant financial and legal resource needs, as do many of the lands managed by the National Park Service. If we are to be true stewards of America's public lands, we need to be willing to make necessary financial investments and management improvements when they are warranted. I introduce this legislation in an attempt to resolve the unfinished business that remains at the Lakeshore, as well as to renew our Nation's commitment to this beautiful place. Mr. President, the legislation has three major sections. First, it authorizes the Park Service to conduct a wilderness suitability study of the Lakeshore as required by the Wilderness Act. This study is needed to ensure that we have the appropriate level of management at the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. The Wilderness Act and the National Park Service policies require the Park Service to conduct an evaluation of the lands it manages for possible inclusion in the National Wilderness system. The study would result in a recommendation to Congress about whether any of the federally-owned lands currently within the Lakeshore still retain the characteristics that would make them suitable to be legally designated as wilderness. If Congress found the study indicated that some of the federal lands within the Lakeshore were in need of legal wilderness status, Congress would have to subsequently pass legislation to confer such status. We need this study, Mr. President because 28 years have passed and it is time to determine the proper level of management for the Lakeshore. During the General Management Planning Process for the Lakeshore, which was completed nearly a decade ago in 1989, the need for a formal wilderness study was identified. Although a wilderness study has been identified as a high priority by the Lakeshore, it has never been funded. Since 1989, most of the Lakeshore, roughly 80 percent of the acreage, is being managed by the Park Service as if it were federally designated wilderness. As a protective measure, all lands which might be suitable for wilderness designation were zoned to protect any wilderness characteristics they may have pending completion of the study. However, we may be managing lands as wilderness in the Lakeshore that might, due to use patterns, no longer be suitable for wilderness designation. Correspondingly, some land area may have become more ecologically sensitive and may need additional legal protection. Second, this legislation also directs the Park Service to protect the historic Raspberry Island and Outer Island lighthouses. The bill authorizes $3.9 million for bluff stabilization and other necessary actions. There are six lighthouses in the Apostle Island National Lakeshore--Sand Island, Devil's Island, Raspberry Island, Outer Island, Long Island and Michigan Island. Engineering studies completed for the National Park Service have determined that several of these lighthouses are in danger of structural damage due to the continued erosion of the red clay banks upon which they were built. The situations at Outer Island and Raspberry Island, the two which this legislation addresses, were determined to be in the most jeopardy. Last year, as part of the 1999 Interior Appropriations Bill, $215,000 was provided to the Apostle Island National Seashore for the rehabilitation of the historic lighthouses. While the funding was a commendable first step, it will allow only for preliminary engineering assessments of how to best protect these landmarks. We must go further to ensure that these precious and fragile beacons do not simply crumble into Lake Superior. The Raspberry Island situation is most critical. The Raspberry Island lighthouse was completed in 1863 to make the west channel through the Apostle Islands. The original light was a rectangular frame structure topped by a square tower that held a lens 40 feet above the ground. A fog signal building was added to Raspberry Island in 1902. The red brick structure housed a ten-inch steam whistle and a hoisting engine for a tramway. The need for additional personnel at the station led to a redesign of the lighthouse building in 1906-07. The structure was converted to a duplex, housing the keeper and his family in the east half, with the two assistant keepers sharing the west half. A 23- kilowatt, diesel-driven electric generator was installed at the station in 1928. The light was automated in 1947 and then moved to a metal tower in front of the fog signal building in 1952. Raspberry Island light is now the most frequently visited of Apostle Islands National Lakeshore's lighthouses. Recent erosion is threatening the access tram and the fog signal building. The Outer Island light station was built in 1874 on a red clay bluff 40 feet above Lake Superior. The lighthouse tower stands 90 feet high and the watchroom is encircled by an outside walkway and topped by the lantern. As its name implies, the light is stationed on the outermost island of the Apostle archipelago, fully exposed to Lake Superior's gale-force storms. Historic architects have indicated to the Park Service that Outer Island lighthouse may already be suffering some structural damage due to its location on the bluff and the situation would be much worse if Lake Superior were exceedingly high. Engineers believe that preservation of these structures requires protection of the bluff beneath the lighthouses, stabilization of the banks, and dewatering of the area immediately shoreward of the bluffs. Although the projects have in the past been included within the Park Service-wide construction priorities, they have never been funded. The specific authorization and funding contained in this legislation is essential if the projects are ever to receive the attention they so urgently deserve. In keeping with my belief that progress toward a balanced budget should be maintained, I am proposing that the $4.1 million in authorized spending for the Apostle Islands contained in this legislation be offset by rescinding $10 million in unspent funds from $40 million in funds carried over for the Department of Energy's Clean Coal Technology Program in FY 99 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. The Secretary of the Interior would be required to transfer $5.9 million above the money that it needs to take actions at the Apostle Islands back to the Treasury. Mr. President, I am concerned that we have set aside such a large amount of money for the Clean Coal Technology Program, which the program has been unable to spend, when we have acute appropriations needs at places like the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. Finally, this legislation adds language to the act which created the Lakeshore allowing the Park Service to enter into cooperative agreements with state, tribal, local governments, universities or other non-profit entities to enlist their assistance in managing the Lakeshore. Some parks have specific language in the act which created the park allowing them to enter into such agreements. Parks have used them for activities such as research, historic preservation, and emergency services. Apostle Islands currently does not have this authority, which this legislation adds. Other National Park lands and lands which are managed by the Park Service, such as the Lakeshore, have such authority. Adding that authority to the Lakeshore will be a way to make Lakeshore management resources go farther. The Park Service has the opportunity to carry out joint projects with other partners which could contribute to the management of the Lakeshore including: state, local, and tribal governments, universities, and non-profit groups. Such endeavors would have both scientific management and fiscal benefits. In the past, the Lakeshore has had to forego these opportunities because the specific authority is absent under current law. In his 1969 book on the environment, entitled America's Last Chance, Senator Nelson issued a political challenge: I have come to the conclusion that the number one domestic problem facing this country is the threatened destruction of our natural resources and the disaster which would confront mankind should such destruction occur. There is a real question as to whether the nation, which has spent some two hundred years developing an intricate system of local, State and Federal Government to deal with the public's problems, will be bold, imaginative and flexible enough to meet this supreme test. Though the Apostle Islands are not, because of former Senator Nelson's efforts, ``threatened with destruction,'' they are a fitting place for us to rise to this challenge. I believe that Senator Nelson meant two things by his challenge. Not only did he mean that government must act immediately and decisively to protect resources in crisis, but he also meant that government must be responsible and flexible enough to remain committed to the protection of the areas we wisely seek to preserve under our laws. Thus, Mr. President, I am proud to introduce this legislation as a renewal of the federal government's commitment to the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to again introduce legislation terminating the U.S. Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Program. I am pleased to be joined again by Senator Lautenberg and Senator Wyden on this important legislation. Mr. President, given the Pentagon's self-reported readiness crisis, I have serious doubts as to whether we can continue funding this costly program while it fails to live up to expectations and continues to experience highly visible problems. In just the past year, we've been told that the program-threatening wing drop problem is solved, but maybe not completely. We've also learned that program officials may not have been exactly forthright in letting Pentagon superiors in on the seriousness of that problem. We've learned that the Super Hornet doesn't meet all of the performance standards expected of it. And most recently, we've learned that cracks in the aircraft's engines have forced the Navy to approach another contractor. This, Mr. President, should not be the track record of the plane that the Navy called the ``future of naval aviation.'' In fact, this history more closely resembles the previously-canceled A-12 attack plane. And I know that neither the Pentagon nor the Congress wants another debacle like the A-12. Mr. President, I began this debate over the Super Hornet in 1997 on the basis of the 1996 General Accounting Office report ``Navy Aviation: F/A-18E/F Will Provide Marginal Operational Improvement at High Cost.'' In this report, GAO studied the rationale and need for the F/A-18E/F in order to determine whether continued development of the aircraft is the most cost-effective approach to modernizing the Navy's tactical aircraft fleet. GAO concluded that the marginal improvements of the F/ A-18E/F are far outweighed by the high cost of the program. Since that time, I have offered numerous pieces of legislation that run the gamut from outright termination of the program to continued oversight of it. I asked GAO for a follow-up review. I have even asked DoD's Inspector General to investigate various aspects of the program, including testing evaluation. The one constant, however, has been the program's continuing disappointments. Mr. President, as we have all heard by now, wing drop causes the aircraft to rock back and forth when it is flying at altitudes and speeds at which air-to-air combat maneuvers are expected to occur. What really disturbs me about wing drop is that almost a year and a half went by after the discovery of the problem before the Office of the Secretary of Defense acknowledged the problem. The Pentagon's ignorance is caused either by shamefully poor communication or the withholding of program information by the Navy. For that reason, I have asked the DoD Inspector General to take a look at the wing drop fiasco. Mr. President, the Navy's Super Hornet test team discovered the wing drop problem in March, 1996. In October of that year, the Navy rated it a priority problem. On February 5, 1997, wing drop was placed on an official deficiency report. In that report, the Navy classified wing drop as a **1 deficiency. In other words, one that will cause aircraft control loss, equipment destruction, or injury. This is the most serious category that the Navy assigns to program deficiencies. In the same report, the Super Hornet's test director stated that wing drop, ``will prevent or severely restrict the performance of air-to-air tracking tasks during air-to-air combat maneuvering. Therefore, the operational effectiveness will be compromised.'' On March 12, 1997, the test team characterized the problem as being ``an unacceptable deficiency''. Two weeks later, the Navy's Defense Acquisition Board met with the test team, which failed to mention the wing drop problem at all. Following that meeting, Secretary Cohen approved the group's recommendation to spend 1.9 billion dollars for the first dozen Super Hornets. In November, 1997, the assistant secretary of Defense reportedly first informed the Navy Secretary of the wing drop problem. In December, the problem was moved to the program's high-risk category. It should also be noted that wing drop was considered by the Navy and the contractor, Boeing, to be the most challenging technical risk to the program at that time. This past February 4, Secretary Cohen stated unequivocally that the program would ``not go forward until wing drop is corrected.'' A month later, a Navy blue ribbon panel reported that the Navy does ``not have a good understanding'' of wing drop and that the current porous wing fold fix is ``not a solution''. In May, Secretary Cohen released funds for the second round of production aircraft. Through it all, the Pentagon apparently didn't think wing drop was significant enough to warrant full disclosure. Following the release of the 1998 GAO report and reports of the wing drop fiasco, I asked the Secretary to document the wing drop problem. Specifically, I asked Secretary Cohen questions on who knew of the problem and when they knew it. In April, I received the Secretary's disappointing response. The essence of his answers to my questions is that wing drop was not a significant enough issue to warrant disclosure to the Defense Acquisition Board before its decision to recommend production of the first lot of aircraft. Mr. President, given the Navy's classification of wing drop, the test director's assessment of the mission impact, and the significant efforts that were underway to resolve the problem, the Navy's failure to discuss the wing drop problem with DoD officials responsible for making the decision on whether to proceed into production of the initial Super Hornets reflects, in my view, questionable judgement at best and underscores the need for continued DoD and congressional oversight of the Super Hornet's development and production program. One final point, Mr. President. It should be made clear that DoD and the Navy did not begin openly discussing wing drop until after the assistant secretary John Douglass' November 20, 1997, memo on the issue to Navy Secretary John Dalton appeared in the press. In fact, during a February, 1998, hearing before the House National Security Committee's Research and Development Subcommittee, Chairman Curt Weldon voiced his displeasure with having to learn about the Super Hornet's wing drop problem through the media rather than from the Navy. If the chairman of the subcommittee responsible for the development of the Super Hornet has to rely on the media to learn about one of the Defense Department's costliest programs, then I think it's fairly reliable that all the information was not made available. Mr. President, the Navy has based the need for development and procurement of the F/A-18E/F on existing or projected operational deficiencies of the F/A-18C/D Hornet in the following key areas: strike range, carrier recovery payload and survivability. In addition, the Navy notes limitations of current Hornets with respect to avionics growth space and payload capacity. The Navy and Boeing call these points the ``five pillars'' of the Super Hornet program. The most recent GAO report and my review of the program show that the five pillars are weak and crumbling. GAO identifies problems with the Super Hornet in each of these five areas. Meanwhile, the Navy's responses to the criticisms are at odds with their own arguments in favor of the program. In the 1998 report, GAO identified problems that may diminish the effectiveness of the plane's survivability improvements, problems that could degrade engine performance and service life, and dangerous weapons separation problems that require additional testing. In July, 1997, the Navy's Program Risk Advisory Board stated that ``operational testing may determine that the aircraft is not operationally effective or suitable.'' That December, the board reversed its position and said the E/F is potentially operationally effective and suitable, but also reiterated its concerns with certain systems that are supposed to make the Super Hornet superior to the Hornet. These are not glowing reviews for any program, but are downright awful for an aircraft program slated to cost upwards of $100 billion. We should not gamble with our pilots' lives and more than 100 billion taxpayer dollars. These stakes are too high. Also in the report, GAO asserted the Super Hornet doesn't accelerate or maneuver as well as the Hornet. DoD readily agrees, but maintains that this is an acceptable trade-off for other capabilities. I wonder if a pilot under fire would agree. It gets better, Mr. President. The publication, Inside the Pentagon, reported last February that the Navy will not hold the Super Hornet to strict performance specifications in three areas. It published a copy of a memo written by Rear Admiral Dennis McGinn, the Navy's officer in charge of air warfare programs, that ordered the E/F would not be strictly held to performance specifications in turning, climbing and maneuvering. Everyone can agree that these are important performance criteria for a state-of-the-art fighter and attack plane. It turns out that this memo was sent to the E/F test team after the team concluded that the Super Hornet was, in some cases, not as proficient in turning or accelerating as the Hornet. The test team concluded that the single- seat E, when outfitted with a relatively light load of air-to-air missiles, is ``slightly less'' capable than the single-seat C in terms of instantaneous turn performance, sustained turn performance, and in some cases, of unloaded acceleration. Interestingly enough, the C models used in the comparisons were not even the most advanced C's available. These deficiencies haven't improved since then. GAO also said that the Navy board's program officials came to ``the realization that the F/A-18E/F may not be as capable in a number of operational performance areas as the most recently procured `C' model aircraft that are equipped with an enhanced performance engine.'' Mr. President, the Navy's own test team has stated that the new plane does not perform as well as the reliable version currently in use in key performance areas. But this isn't enough. The Navy now says these performance criteria are not important. Mr. President, this is shameful. In its 1996 report, GAO reached a number of conclusions. It found that the Super Hornet offers only marginal improvements over the Hornet, and that these are far outweighed by the high cost. It found that the Hornet can be modified to meet every capacity the Super Hornet is intended to fulfill. And GAO found that the Defense Department could save $17 billion by purchasing additional improved Hornets instead of Super Hornets. The Congressional Budget Office updated that cost savings last year to $15 billion, still a princely sum, especially given DoD's hopes of increasing defense spending by roughly that amount each year for the next six years. The report also addressed other purported improvements of the Super Hornet over the Hornet. GAO concluded that the reported operational deficiencies of the C/D that the Navy cited to justify the E/F either have not materialized as projected or that such deficiencies can be corrected with nonstructural changes to the current C/D and additional upgrades made which would further improve its capabilities. GAO even rebutted all of the claims of the Hornet's disadvantages. The report concluded that the Navy's F/A-18 strike range requirements can be met by either the E/F or the C/D, and that the E/F's increased range is achieved at the expense of its aerial combat performance. It notes that even with increased range, both aircraft will still require aerial refueling for low-altitude missions. Additionally, as I mentioned earlier, the E/F's increased strike range is achieved at the expense of the aircraft's aerial combat performance. This is shown by its sustained turn rate, maneuvering, and acceleration--critical components of its ability to maneuver in either offensive or defensive modes. GAO also disputes the Navy's contention that the C/D cannot carry 480 gallon external fuel tanks. Next, the deficiency in carrier recovery payload which the Navy anticipated for the F/ A-18C simply has not materialized. GAO notes that while it is not necessary, upgrading F/A-18C's with stronger landing gear could allow them to recover carrier payloads of more than 10,000 pounds, greater than the 9,000 pounds sought for the F/A-18E/F. Additional improvements have been made or are planned for the Hornet to enhance its survivability including improvements to reduce its radar detectability, while survivability improvements of the Super Hornet are questionable. For example, because the Super Hornet will be carrying weapons and fuel externally, the radar signature reduction improvements derived from the structural design of the aircraft will be diminished and will only help the aircraft penetrate slightly deeper than the Hornet into an integrated defensive system before being detected. Mr. President, as we discuss survivability, we should recall the outstanding performance of the Hornet in the Gulf War a few years ago. By the Navy's own account, the C/D performed extraordinarily well, and, in the Navy's own words, experienced ``unprecedented survivability.'' The Navy predicted that by the mid-1990's the Hornet would not have growth space to accommodate additional new weapons and systems under development. Specifically, the Navy predicted that by fiscal year 1996, C/D's would only have 0.2 cubic feet of space available for future avionics growth; however, 5.3 cubic feet of available space have been identified for future system growth. Furthermore, technological advancements such as miniaturization, modularity and consolidation may result in additional growth space for future avionics. Also, while the Super Hornet will provide some increase in air-to-air capability by carrying two extra missiles, it will not increase its ability to carry the heavier, precision-guided, air-to-ground weapons that are capable of hitting fixed and mobile hard targets nor to deliver heavier standoff weapons that will be used to increase aircraft survivability. So we have a plane that doesn't really do the things the Navy said it would do, and in some cases does not perform as well as the older version, but we're supposed to pay probably three times more for the Super Hornet. Mr. President, it's time we ended this fiasco once and for all. The program already costs tens of billions of dollars more than initial Navy estimates and costs continues to rise. Additionally, we must compare the estimated $73 million cost per plane for the Super Hornet to the $28 million per plane for the Hornet. And, as I have mentioned, some projections put the total program cost of the F/A-18E/F at close to $100 billion. Mr. President, let me briefly highlight the ballooning cost of the Super Hornet. Just a few years ago, the Navy, using overstated assumptions about the total number of planes procured and an estimated annual production rate of 72 aircraft per year, calculated a unit recurring flyaway cost of $44 million. However, using GAO's more realistic assumptions of the procurement of 660 aircraft by the Navy, at a production rate of 36 aircraft per year, the unit recurring flyaway cost of the Super Hornet ballooned to $53 million. Last year, the Navy used more realistic procurement figures of 548 aircraft with annual production at 36 aircraft per year, which brought the unit cost to $73 million. And I am fairly safe in assuming this figure will only rise. This is compared to the $28 million unit recurring flyaway cost for the Hornet. CBO estimates that this cost difference in unit recurring flyaway would result in a savings of almost $15 billion if the Navy were to procure the Hornets rather than the Super Hornets. Mr. President, given the enormous cost and marginal improvement in operational capabilities the Super Hornet would provide, it seems that the justification for it just isn't there. Proceeding with the Super Hornet program may not be the most cost-effective approach to modernizing the Navy's tactical aircraft fleet. In the short term, the Navy can continue to procure the Hornet aircraft, while upgrading it to improve further its operational capabilities. For the long term, the Navy can look toward the next generation strike fighter, the JSF, which will provide more operational capability at far less cost than the Super Hornet. Mr. President, by all accounts the F/A-18C/D is a top-quality aircraft that has served the Navy well over the last decade, and could be modified to meet every capacity the E/F is intended to fulfill over the course of the next decade at a substantially lower cost. Therefore, considering the Department of Defense has clearly overextended itself in terms of supporting three major multirole fighter programs, it is clear that we must discontinue the Super Hornet program before the American taxpayer is asked to fund yet another unnecessary, flawed multi-billion dollar program. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I once again come to the floor to offer a bill to terminate the Navy's Extremely Low Frequency Communication System. I am again pleased to be joined in introducing this bill with the senior Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden). Mr. President, this bill would terminate the operation of the Navy's Extremely Low Frequency Communication System, or Project ELF, as it's more familiarly known, while maintaining the infrastructure in Wisconsin and Michigan for resuming should a resumption in operation become necessary. As my colleagues are well aware, I have long opposed this needless project. Project ELF is an ineffective, unnecessary, outdated Cold War relic that is not wanted by most residents in my state. The members of the Wisconsin delegation have fought hard for years to close down Project ELF; I have introduced legislation during each Congress since taking office to terminate it; and I have even recommended it for closure to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. This project has been opposed by residents of Wisconsin since its inception, but for years we were told that the national security considerations of the Cold War outweighed our concerns about this installation in our state. As we continue our efforts to truly balance the federal budget and as the Department of Defense continues to struggle to address readiness concerns, it is clear that Project ELF should be closed down. If enacted, my legislation would save approximately $12 million a year. Project ELF is a one-way, primitive messenger system designed to signal to--not communicate with--deeply submerged Trident nuclear submarines. It is a ``bell ringer'', a pricey beeper system, used to tell the submarine when to rise to the surface to get a detailed message through a less primitive communications systems. It was designed at a time when the threat and consequences of detection to our submarines was real. But ELF was never developed to an effective capability, and the demise of the Soviet threat has certainly rendered it unnecessary. In fact, Mr. President, the submarine capabilities of our potential adversaries have noticeably deteriorated or remain far behind those of our Navy. The primary mission of our attack submarines was to fight the heart of the Soviet navy, its attack submarine force. This mission included hunting down Soviet submarines. Due to Russia's continued economic hardships, they continue to cede ground to us in technology and training. Reports even contend that Russia is having trouble keeping just one or two of its strategic nuclear submarines operational. According to General Eugene E. Habiger, USAF (Ret.) and former commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, Moscow's ``sub fleet is belly-up.'' Further, of our known potential adversaries, only Russia and China possess ballistic missile-capable submarines. And China's one ballistic missile capable submarine is used solely as a test platform. Russia's submarine fleet has shrunk from more than 300 vessels to about 100. Even Russia's most modern submarines can't be used to full capability because Russia can't adequately train its sailors. The threat for which Project ELF was designed no longer exists. Even the Pentagon and members of this body are beginning to see the need for reevaluating our strategic forces, including our Trident ballistic missile submarines. Earlier this month, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jay Johnson told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he wants to reduce the fleet from 18 to 14. And Chairman Warner agreed with the need to reevaluate priorities on strategic weapons. With the end of the Cold War, Project ELF becomes harder and harder to justify. Trident submarines no longer need to take that extra precaution against Soviet nuclear forces. They can now surface on a regular basis with less danger of detection or attack. They can also receive more complicated messages through very low frequency (VLF) radiowaves or lengthier messages through satellite systems, if it can be done more cheaply. During the 103rd Congress, I worked with Senator Nunn to include an amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994 requiring a report by the Secretary of Defense on the benefits and costs of continued operation of Project ELF. The report issued by DoD was particularly disappointing because it basically argued that because Project ELF may have had a purpose during the Cold War, it should continue to operate after the Cold War as part of the complete complement of command and control links configured for the Cold War. Did Project ELF play a role in helping to minimize the Soviet threat? Perhaps. Did it do so at risk to the community? Perhaps. Does it continue to play a vital security role to the Nation? No. In the fiscal year 1996 DoD authorization bill, the Senate cut funding for the program, but again it was resurrected in conference. I'd like to note here that Members in both Wisconsin and Michigan, the states in which Project ELF is located, support terminating the project. Also, former Commanders-in-Chief of Strategic Command, General George Lee Butler and General Eugene E. Habiger, called for an end to Cold War nuclear weapons practices, of which Project ELF is a harrowing reminder. Additionally, the Center for Defense Information called for ending the program, noting that ``U.S. submarines operating under present and foreseeable worldwide military conditions can receive all necessary orders and instructions in timely fashion without need for Project ELF.'' As I mentioned, this bill would terminate operation of Project ELF, but would call for the Defense Department to maintain its infrastructure. Should Project ELF become necessary for future military action, DoD could quickly bring it back on-line. In essence, this bill would save DoD some much-needed operations and maintenance funds without degrading its capabilities. Mr. President, I'd also like to briefly touch on the public health and environmental concerns associated with Project ELF. For almost two decades, we have received inconclusive data on this project's effects on Wisconsin and Michigan residents. In 1984, a U.S. District Court ordered that the project be shut down because the Navy paid inadequate attention to the system's possible health effects and violated the National Environmental Policy Act. Interestingly, that decision was overturned because U.S. national security, at the time, prevailed over public health and environmental concerns. More than 40 medical studies point to a link between electromagnetic pollution and cancer and abnormalities in both animal and plant species. Metal fences near the two transmitters must be grounded to avoid serious shock from the presence of high voltages. Mr. President, last year, an international committee, convened by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences urged the study of electric and magnetic fields as a possible cause of cancer. Project ELF produces the same kind of electric and magnetic fields cited by this distinguished committee. The committee's announcement seems to confirm the fears of many of my constituents. And recently, I have heard from a number of dairy farmers who are convinced that the stray voltage associated with ELF transmitters has demonstrably reduced milk production. In recent years, a coalition of fiscal conservatives and environmentalists have targeted Project ELF because it both fiscally and environmentally harmful. The coalition, which includes groups like the Concord Coalition, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National Wildlife Federation, and Friends of the Earth, took aim at about 70 wasteful and dangerous programs. I hope we take their heed and end this program. Mr. President, this bill achieves two vital goals of many of my colleagues here. It terminates a wasteful and unnecessary Cold War era program, while allowing the Pentagon to address its readiness shortfalls. This is a win-win situation and I hope my colleagues will support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation, originally introduced in the 105th Congress. This measure will give relief to the taxpayers of this country, who now pay millions every year to provide cotton producers with an expensive and unnecessary perk no other farmer enjoys. Each year, the Federal Government's Agriculture Department pays millions of dollars in storage costs for cotton farmers. Last year, this program provided more than $23 million to store the cotton crop of participating farmers. My measure puts all commodities on a more equal footing by eliminating the storage subsidy for cotton, the only commodity whose producers still enjoy this privilege. Mr. President, prior to the passage of the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill, farmers producing wheat and feed grains relied heavily on the Farmer Owned Reserve Program to assist them in repaying their overdue loans when times were tough. They would roll their non-recourse loans into the Farmer Owned Reserve Program which would allow them the opportunity to pay back their loan, without interest, and also get assistance in paying storage costs. Although cotton producers were not eligible to participate in that particular program, they were offered a similar subsidy and other perks through the cotton program. Those were the days of heavy agriculture subsidization, when the government dictated prices, provided price supports, and more often than not, had over- surpluses of wheat, corn and other feed grains--driving down domestic prices. The 1996 Farm Bill, sought to bring farm policy in line with a realistic agricultural and economic view, that the agriculture industry must be more market oriented--must not rely so much on government price interference. Mr. President, although the Farm Bill was successful in ridding agriculture policy of much of the weight of government intrusion that burdened it for years, there are still hidden subsidies costing taxpayers billions. This legislation would prevent USDA from factoring cotton industry storage costs into Marketing Loan Program calculations. This costly and unnecessary benefit is bestowed on the producers of no other commodity. Farmers, except those who produce cotton, are required to pay storage cost through the maturity date of their support loans. Producers must prepay or arrange to pay storage costs through the loan maturity date or USDA reduces the amount of the loan by deducting the amount necessary for prepaid storage. Cotton producers are not required to prepay storage costs. When they redeem a loan under marketing loan provisions or forfeit collateral, USDA pays the cost of the accrued storage. It is interesting to note, Mr. President, that in a 1994 audit of the cotton program, USDA's Office of Inspector General found no reason for USDA to pay the accrued storage costs of cotton producers. The Inspector General recommended that USDA ``revise procedures to eliminate the automatic payment of cotton storage charges by CCC and make provisions consistent with the treatment of storage charges on other program crops''. Although those in the cotton industry will argue that the automatic payments were eliminated in the Farm Bill, in reality, those payments are now simply hidden. It's true that certain provisions have been removed from the statute which mandates that USDA pay these charges. Now, USDA freely chooses to waste the taxpayers money by paying these costs, allowing cotton producers to subtract their storage costs from the market value of their cotton, providing a larger difference with the loan rate, and therefore receiving a higher return. Marketing Loan Programs are designed to encourage producers to redeem their loans and market their crops, but USDA payment of cotton storage costs discourage loan redemption. As long as the adjusted world price is at or below the loan rate, producers can delay loan redemption in the secure expectation that domestic prices will rise or the adjusted world price will decline regardless of accruing storage costs. Mr. President, its time to stop kidding ourselves. Let's eliminate this subsidy before it costs hardworking Americans any more. Let's bring equity to the commodities program. Lets finish what the Farm Bill started--a more market oriented agriculture program. One that benefits us all. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation terminating the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS), a medical school run by the Department of Defense. The measure is one I proposed when I ran for the U.S. Senate, and was part of a larger, 82 point plan to reduce the Federal budget deficit. The most recent estimates of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) project that terminating the school would save $273 million over the next five years, and when completely phased-out, would generate $450 million in savings over five years. USUHS was created in 1972 to meet an expected shortage of military medical personnel. Today, however, USUHS accounts for only a small fraction of the military's new physicians, less than 12 percent in 1994 according to CBO. This contrasts dramatically with the military's scholarship program which provided over 80 percent of the military's new physicians in that year. Mr. President, what is even more troubling is that USUHS is also the single most costly source of new physicians for the military. CBO reports that based on figures from 1995, each USUHS trained physician costs the military $615,000. By comparison, the scholarship program cost about $125,000 per doctor, with other sources providing new physicians at a cost of $60,000. As CBO noted in their Spending and Revenue Options publication, even adjusting for the lengthier service commitment required of USUHS trained physicians, the cost of training them is still higher than that of training physicians from other sources, an assessment shared by the Pentagon itself. Indeed, CBO's estimate of the savings generated by this measure also includes the cost of obtaining physicians from other sources. The House of Representatives has voted to terminate this program on several occasions, and the Vice President's National Performance Review joined others, ranging from the Grace Commission to the CBO, in raising the question of whether this medical school, which graduated its first class in 1980, should be closed because it is so much more costly than alternative sources of physicians for the military. Mr. President, the real issue we must address is whether USUHS is essential to the needs of today's military structure, or if we can do without this costly program. The proponents of USUHS frequently cite the higher retention rates of USUHS graduates over physicians obtained from other sources as a justification for continuation of this program, but while a greater percentage of USUHS trained physicians may remain in the military longer than those from other sources, the Pentagon indicates that the alternative sources already provide an appropriate mix of retention rates. Testimony by the Department of Defense before the Subcommittee on Force Requirements and Personnel noted that the military's scholarship program meets the retention needs of the services. And while USUHS only provides a small fraction of the military's new physicians, it is important to note that relying primarily on these other sources has not compromised the ability of military physicians to meet the needs of the Pentagon. According to the Office of Management and Budget, of the approximately 2,000 physicians serving in Desert Storm, only 103, about 5%, were USUHS trained. Mr. President, let me conclude by recognizing that USUHS has some dedicated supporters in the U.S. Senate, and I realize that there are legitimate arguments that those supporters have made in defense of this institution. The problem, however, is that the federal government can no longer afford to continue every program that provides some useful function. This is especially true in the area of defense spending. Many in this body argue that the Defense budget is too tight, that a significant increase in spending is needed to address concerns about shortfalls in recruitment and retention, maintenance backlogs, and other indicators of a lower level of readiness. Mr. President, the debate over our level of readiness is certainly important, and it may well be that more Defense funding should be channeled to these specific areas of concern. But before advocates of an increased Defense budget ask taxpayers to foot the bill for hundreds of billions more in spending, they owe it to those taxpayers to trim Defense programs that are not justified. In the face of our staggering national debt and annual deficits, we must prioritize and eliminate programs that can no longer be sustained with limited federal dollars, or where a more cost-effective means of fulfilling those functions can be substituted. The future of USUHS continues to be debated precisely because in these times of budget restraint it does not appear to pass the higher threshold tests which must be applied to all federal spending programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my good friend the senior Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) in introducing legislation to reduce the number of presidential political appointees. Specifically, the bill caps the number of political appointees at 2,000. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates this measure would save $333 million over the next five years. The bill is based on the recommendations of a number of distinguished panels, including most recently, the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on the Presidential Appointment Process. The task force findings, released last fall, are only the latest in a long line of recommendations that we reduce the number of political appointees in the Executive Branch. For many years, the proposal has been included in CBO's annual publication Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options, and it was one of the central recommendations of the National Commission on the Public Service, chaired by former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker. Mr. President, this proposal is also consistent with the recommendations of the Vice President's National Performance Review, which called for reductions in the number of federal managers and supervisors, arguing that ``over-control and micro management'' not only ``stifle the creativity of line managers and workers, they consume billions per year in salary, benefits, and administrative costs.'' Those sentiments were also expressed in the 1989 report of the Volcker Commission, when it argued the growing number of presidential appointees may ``actually undermine effective presidential control of the executive branch.'' The Volcker Commission recommended limiting the number of political appointees to 2,000, as this legislation does. Mr. President, it is essential that any Administration be able to implement the policies that brought it into office in the first place. Government must be responsive to the priorities of the electorate. But as the Volcker Commission noted, the great increase in the number of political appointees in recent years has not made government more effective or more responsive to political leadership. Between 1980 and 1992, the ranks of political appointees grew 17 percent, over three times as fast as the total number of Executive Branch employees and looking back to 1960 their growth is even more dramatic. In his recently published book ``Thickening Government: Federal Government and the Diffusion of Accountability,'' author Paul Light reports a startling 430% increase in the number of political appointees and senior executives in Federal government between 1960 and 1992. In recommending a cap on political appointees, the Volcker Commission report noted that the large number of presidential appointees simply cannot be managed effectively by any President or White House. The Commission argued that this lack of control and political focus ``may actually dilute the President's ability to develop and enforce a coherent, coordinated program and to hold cabinet secretaries accountable.'' Adding organizational layers of political appointees can also restrict access to important resources, while doing nothing to reduce bureaucratic impediments. In commenting on this problem, author Paul Light noted, ``As this sediment has thickened over the decades, presidents have grown increasingly distant from the lines of government, and the front lines from them.'' Light added that ``Presidential leadership, therefore, may reside in stripping government of the barriers to doing its job effectively. . .'' The Volcker Commission also asserted that this thickening barrier of temporary appointees between the President and career officials can undermine development of a proficient civil service by discouraging talented individuals from remaining in government service or even pursuing a career in government in the first place. Mr. President, former Attorney General Elliot Richardson put it well when he noted: But a White House personnel assistant sees the position of deputy assistant secretary as a fourth-echelon slot. In his eyes that makes it an ideal reward for a fourth-echelon political type--a campaign advance man, or a regional political organizer. For a senior civil servant, it's irksome to see a position one has spent 20 or 30 years preparing for preempted by an outsider who doesn't know the difference between an audit exception and an authorizing bill. Mr. President, the report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on the Presidential Appointment Process identified another problem aggravated by the mushrooming number of political appointees, namely the increasingly lengthy process of filling these thousands of positions. As the Task Force reported, both President Bush and President Clinton were into their presidencies for many months before their leadership teams were fully in place. The Task Force noted that ``on average, appointees in both administrations were confirmed more than eight months after the inauguration--one-sixth of an entire presidential term.'' By contrast, the report noted that in the presidential transition of 1960, ``Kennedy appointees were confirmed, on average, two and a half months after the inauguration.'' In addition to leaving vacancies among key leadership positions in government, the appointment process delays can have a detrimental effect on potential appointees. The Twentieth Century Fund Task Force reported that appointees can ``wait for months on end in a limbo of uncertainty and awkward transition from the private to the public sector.'' Mr. President, there have been some modest reductions in the number of political appointees in recent years, but further reductions are needed. The sacrifices that deficit reduction efforts require must be spread among all of us. This measure requires us to bite the bullet and impose limitations upon political appointments that both parties may well wish to retain. The test of commitment to deficit reduction, however, is not simply to propose measure that impact someone else. As reduce the number of government employees, streamline agencies, and make government more responsive, we should also right size the number of political appointees, ensuring a sufficient number to implement the policies of any Administration without burdening the Federal budget with unnecessary, possibly counterproductive political jobs. Mr. President, when I ran for the U.S. Senate in 1992, I developed an 82 point plan to reduce the Federal deficit and achieve a balanced budget. Since that time, I have continued to work toward enactment of many of the provisions of that plan and have added new provisions on a regular basis. The legislation I am introducing today reflects one of the points included on the original 82 point plan calling for streamlining various federal agencies and reducing agency overhead costs. I am pleased to have this opportunity to continue to work toward implementation of the elements of the deficit reduction plan. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), in offering the Social Security Trust Fund Protection Act of 1999, legislation extending our current PAYGO budget rules, and clarifying that Congress may not use so-called budget surpluses to pay for tax cuts or new spending when those surpluses are really Social Security Trust Fund balances. Mr. President, as I noted last year when I first offered this measure, it gives me particular pleasure to join with Senator Hollings in introducing this bill. Both in this body and in the Budget Committee, he has been a leading voice for fiscal prudence. While popular in theory, fiscal prudence is often less attractive in practice, but Senator Hollings has taken tough positions, even when those positions may not have been politically attractive. That is the true measure of commitment to honest and prudent budgeting, and I am proud to join him in this effort today. Mr. President, the bill we are introducing today ensures that the PAYGO rule will continue to require that any new entitlement spending or tax cuts be fully paid for. Our bill clarifies current PAYGO procedures to remove any doubt that tax cuts or increased spending must continue to be offset. It extends the PAYGO rule, which currently covers legislation enacted through 2002, until we are no longer using Social Security to mask the deficit. Under our bill, Congress could not use a so-called surplus until it is real, namely when the budget runs a surplus without using Social Security Trust Funds. Mr. President, we have entered an era of transition with regard to the Federal budget. For decades, Congress and the White House ran up huge deficits, producing a mounting national debt. Over the past few years, we have worked to bring down those deficits. Those efforts have been successful, in large part, and we are now witnessing something Congress has not seen in 30 years--actually achieving balance in the so-called unified budget. But, Mr. President, while achieving a balanced unified budget is a significant and encouraging accomplishment, it is not a final victory. We still have a way to go. Unfortunately, Mr. President, some do want to declare a final victory, and use any projected unified budget surpluses for increased spending or tax cuts. But as many have noted on this floor, projected surpluses based on a so-called unified budget are not real. In fact, far from surpluses, what we really have are continuing on- budget deficits, masked by Social Security revenues. The distinction is absolutely fundamental. As I have noted before, the very word ``surplus'' connotes some extra amount or bonus in addition to the funds we need to meet our expenses and obligations. One dictionary defines ``surplus'' as: ``something more than or in excess of what is needed or required.'' Mr. President, the projected unified budget surplus is not ``more than or in excess of what is needed or required.'' Those funds are needed. They were raised by the Social Security system, specifically in anticipation of commitments to future Social Security beneficiaries. Mr. President, let me just note that the problem of using Social Security trust fund balances to mask the real budget deficit is not a partisan issue. Both political parties have used this accounting gimmick--here in Congress and in the White House. But it must stop, and this legislation can help us stop it. Mr. President, budget rules cannot by themselves reduce the deficit, but they can protect what has been achieved and guard against further abuse. The PAYGO rule governing entitlements and taxes, along with the discretionary spending caps, have kept Congress disciplined and on track. Mr. President, earlier I said we are in an era of budget transition. With some hard work this year, we can leave the years of unified budget deficits behind us. And with some more work, we can move toward real budget balances without using Social Security revenues. Mr. President, that must be our highest priority. If Congress does not begin to rid itself of its addiction to Social Security trust fund balances, we will put the benefits of future retirees at serious risk. Fortunately, Mr. President, we are within reach of the goal of balancing the budget without using the Social Security trust funds. If we stay the course, and continue the tough, sometimes unpopular work of reducing the deficit, we can give this Nation an honest budget, one that is truly balanced. And the time to act is now. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the American campaign finance system is manifestly corrupt. So we are back. And here we will return until America's citizens regain dominion over their government. It is my great pleasure to join Sen. John McCain to once again introduce a bipartisan campaign finance reform bill in the United States Senate. This is the third Congress in which we have taken up this fight together. I want to thank my friend and colleague Senator McCain for his tireless devotion to this issue and his continued willingness to defy the leadership of his party to press it. It will take great effort to achieve consensus and pass this legislation. But I truly do believe that we can make a breakthrough this year, and the reintroduction of the McCain-Feingold bill is the first step toward making that happen. Mr. President, our democracy is sick. The corrupting influence of big money is taking a daily toll on our work here in the Congress and on the confidence of the American people in our ability to do that work fairly and in their interests. The future of our country is truly at stake in this fight for reform, and that is why, despite the setbacks we have suffered in the last two Congress, despite our inability in the last two Congresses to overcome filibusters by a minority of this body, we are back on the floor today. On the first day that bills can be introduced in the United States Senate, I am here to serve notice that reform is at the top of the list of things that we must do in this Congress. And I commit to the American people, and to my constituents in Wisconsin who reelected me to do precisely this job, that I will fight for reform throughout this year and the next year, if need be, until we win. Let me take a moment, Mr. President, to review what the McCain- Feingold bill tries to accomplish. First and foremost, we ban soft money--the unlimited contributions that corporate, labor, and very wealthy individual donors can now give to the political parties. We must bring back some sanity to the campaign finance system by making the parties and donors live once again within the rules that the Congress passed back in the 1970's after the Watergate era. Perhaps some of those rules need to be updated, but throwing the rules out is not an option. The potential for corruption of our legislative process is too great. I will return to the issue of prohibiting soft money in a moment, because it is central to the goals of our bill. Mr. President, this bill also includes the amendment dealing with abuses of ``issue advocacy'' proposed by Senator Snowe of Maine and Senator Jeffords of Vermont and adopted by the Senate last year during debate on our bill. The Snowe-Jeffords amendment is a balanced approach to the ``phony issue ad'' problem that prohibits corporations and unions from purchasing television and radio advertisements within the last 2 months of a campaign if those ads refer to a clearly identified candidate. It is designed to prevent corporate and union treasury money, which has been banned from federal elections since early in this century, from making its way back into the elections in the form of advertisements that pretend to be about issues, but instead are about elections. Advocacy groups, on the other hand, are permitted to purchase what the bill calls ``electioneering communications,'' as long as they disclose their expenditures and the major donors to the effort and take steps to prevent the use of corporate and union treasury money for the ads. Mr. President, we worked long and hard to perfect this amendment last year, to make sure that it is constitutional, and that it will be effective in combating what has become a very serious subterfuge engaged in by entities that plainly want to influence elections but don't want to abide by the election laws. It is a crucial piece of the campaign finance reform puzzle, and we are proud to have the support of Senators Snowe and Jeffords for our effort and to include their proposal in our bill. The McCain-Feingold bill also takes a further step in addressing the spending of unions in elections by codifying the so-called Beck decision. Under our bill, non-union members who are required to pay agency fees to unions under their state laws will be able to demand an accounting of the use of their fees, and to prevent those fees from being spent for electoral purposes. This provision does not go as far as some of our colleagues might like, but it is a fair and balanced provision that recognizes the need to tread lightly on this issue to maintain bipartisan support for the bill. The bill also contains important provisions designed to improve enforcement and disclosure under our campaign finance laws. It requires electronic filing and posting of campaign finance information on the Internet to make sure that the public can quickly and easily determine who the major contributors are to candidates and parties. It doubles the penalties for ``knowing and willful'' violations of Federal election laws. It provides for more timely disclosure of independent expenditures. It requires campaigns to collect all required contributor information before depositing checks. And it permits the FEC to conduct random audits at the end of a campaign to ensure compliance with the Federal election laws. Our bill also requires political advertisements to carry a disclaimer identifying who is responsible for the content of the campaign ad; and it bars Members of Congress from sending out taxpayer-financed franked mass mailings during the calendar year of their election. It also addresses two important areas where we have learned in the past few years that the law is simply not clear enough or strong enough. Our bill makes it clear that it is unlawful to raise or solicit campaign contributions on Federal property, including the White House and the congressional office buildings. And it makes it clear that contributions from foreign governments and foreign nationals are prohibited in Federal, State and local elections, including donations of soft money. Mr. President, this fight is a fight for the soul and the survival of our American democracy. This democracy cannot survive without the confidence of the people in the integrity of the legislative and the electoral process. The prevalence--no--the dominance--of money in our system of elections and our legislature will in the end cause them to crumble. If we don't take steps to clean up this system it ultimately will consume us along with our finest American ideals. We are now engaged in an historic impeachment trial, in which we are asked to determine as jurors whether the President has committed ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' and should be removed from office. The American people are divided on this question. But the American people do think it's a crime that the tobacco companies can use money to block a bill to curtail teen smoking. They do think it's a crime that insurance companies can use money to block desperately needed health care reform. They do think it's a crime that telecommunication companies use money to force a bill through Congress that's supposed to increase competition and decrease prices, but leads to cable rates that keep on rising and rising. And they do think it's a crime that corporations and unions are able to give unlimited soft money contributions to the political parties to advance their narrow special interests. They think it's a crime. But here in Washington it is business as usual--until we manage to pass meaningful campaign finance reform. Let me be clear Mr. President, I'm not suggesting that any individual Member of Congress is corrupt. I don't know that any Member of this body has ever traded a vote for a contribution. But while Members are not corrupt, the system is riddled with corruption. It is only human to want to help those who have helped you get elected or reelected, to agree to the meeting, to take the phone call, to allow the opportunity to be persuaded by those who have given money. It is true of the parties, and it is true of the Members, even those who seek always to cast their votes on the merits. The result is that people who don't have money don't get heard. And in the end, those who get heard get their way. Mr. President, as you know, I won a very hard fought campaign last year in which soft money and issue ads and campaign spending were much discussed issues. I learned a lot from that campaign, and my experience has made me even more certain that the system we now live under must be changed and can be changed. As we once again take up this charge, I can tell you how enjoyable and rewarding it can be to run a campaign where endless fundraising is not part of your daily routine. And how it is possible to run a decent campaign without getting down in this soft money swamp. Mr. President, we don't need to point fingers at one another, we just have to rise above politics and do the right thing by the American people. We must clean up our own house, Mr. President. We cannot continue to ignore the corruption in our midst, the cancer that is eating the heart out of the great American compact of trust and faith between the people and their elected representatives. We know that unlimited soft money contributions make a mockery of our election laws and threaten the fairness of the legislative process. We know that phony issue ads paid for with unlimited corporate and union funds undermine the ability of citizens to understand who is bankrolling the candidates and why. We can find bipartisan solutions to these problems that respect all legitimate First Amendment rights if we are willing to put partisan political advantage aside and sit down and work it out. Senator McCain and I are ready--we have been ready ever since we introduced our bill--to make changes to our bill that will bring new supporters on board and get us past the 60 vote threshold that the Senate rules have placed in our way, so long as we stay true to the goal of a cleaner, fairer, system in which money will no longer dominate. We will all be proud of the results if we can do that Mr. President. And the American people will be proud of us. So I look forward to working with Senator McCain and will all my colleagues who want to give the American people a campaign finance system that will protect and nurture our democracy as we enter the 21st century. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), in offering the Social Security Trust Fund Protection Act of 1999, legislation extending our current PAYGO budget rules, and clarifying that Congress may not use so-called budget surpluses to pay for tax cuts or new spending when those surpluses are really Social Security Trust Fund balances. Mr. President, as I noted last year when I first offered this measure, it gives me particular pleasure to join with Senator Hollings in introducing this bill. Both in this body and in the Budget Committee, he has been a leading voice for fiscal prudence. While popular in theory, fiscal prudence is often less attractive in practice, but Senator Hollings has taken tough positions, even when those positions may not have been politically attractive. That is the true measure of commitment to honest and prudent budgeting, and I am proud to join him in this effort today. Mr. President, the bill we are introducing today ensures that the PAYGO rule will continue to require that any new entitlement spending or tax cuts be fully paid for. Our bill clarifies current PAYGO procedures to remove any doubt that tax cuts or increased spending must continue to be offset. It extends the PAYGO rule, which currently covers legislation enacted through 2002, until we are no longer using Social Security to mask the deficit. Under our bill, Congress could not use a so-called surplus until it is real, namely when the budget runs a surplus without using Social Security Trust Funds. Mr. President, we have entered an era of transition with regard to the Federal budget. For decades, Congress and the White House ran up huge deficits, producing a mounting national debt. Over the past few years, we have worked to bring down those deficits. Those efforts have been successful, in large part, and we are now witnessing something Congress has not seen in 30 years--actually achieving balance in the so-called unified budget. But, Mr. President, while achieving a balanced unified budget is a significant and encouraging accomplishment, it is not a final victory. We still have a way to go. Unfortunately, Mr. President, some do want to declare a final victory, and use any projected unified budget surpluses for increased spending or tax cuts. But as many have noted on this floor, projected surpluses based on a so-called unified budget are not real. In fact, far from surpluses, what we really have are continuing on- budget deficits, masked by Social Security revenues. The distinction is absolutely fundamental. As I have noted before, the very word ``surplus'' connotes some extra amount or bonus in addition to the funds we need to meet our expenses and obligations. One dictionary defines ``surplus'' as: ``something more than or in excess of what is needed or required.'' Mr. President, the projected unified budget surplus is not ``more than or in excess of what is needed or required.'' Those funds are needed. They were raised by the Social Security system, specifically in anticipation of commitments to future Social Security beneficiaries. Mr. President, let me just note that the problem of using Social Security trust fund balances to mask the real budget deficit is not a partisan issue. Both political parties have used this accounting gimmick--here in Congress and in the White House. But it must stop, and this legislation can help us stop it. Mr. President, budget rules cannot by themselves reduce the deficit, but they can protect what has been achieved and guard against further abuse. The PAYGO rule governing entitlements and taxes, along with the discretionary spending caps, have kept Congress disciplined and on track. Mr. President, earlier I said we are in an era of budget transition. With some hard work this year, we can leave the years of unified budget deficits behind us. And with some more work, we can move toward real budget balances without using Social Security revenues. Mr. President, that must be our highest priority. If Congress does not begin to rid itself of its addiction to Social Security trust fund balances, we will put the benefits of future retirees at serious risk. Fortunately, Mr. President, we are within reach of the goal of balancing the budget without using the Social Security trust funds. If we stay the course, and continue the tough, sometimes unpopular work of reducing the deficit, we can give this Nation an honest budget, one that is truly balanced. And the time to act is now. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the American campaign finance system is manifestly corrupt. So we are back. And here we will return until America's citizens regain dominion over their government. It is my great pleasure to join Sen. John McCain to once again introduce a bipartisan campaign finance reform bill in the United States Senate. This is the third Congress in which we have taken up this fight together. I want to thank my friend and colleague Senator McCain for his tireless devotion to this issue and his continued willingness to defy the leadership of his party to press it. It will take great effort to achieve consensus and pass this legislation. But I truly do believe that we can make a breakthrough this year, and the reintroduction of the McCain-Feingold bill is the first step toward making that happen. Mr. President, our democracy is sick. The corrupting influence of big money is taking a daily toll on our work here in the Congress and on the confidence of the American people in our ability to do that work fairly and in their interests. The future of our country is truly at stake in this fight for reform, and that is why, despite the setbacks we have suffered in the last two Congress, despite our inability in the last two Congresses to overcome filibusters by a minority of this body, we are back on the floor today. On the first day that bills can be introduced in the United States Senate, I am here to serve notice that reform is at the top of the list of things that we must do in this Congress. And I commit to the American people, and to my constituents in Wisconsin who reelected me to do precisely this job, that I will fight for reform throughout this year and the next year, if need be, until we win. Let me take a moment, Mr. President, to review what the McCain- Feingold bill tries to accomplish. First and foremost, we ban soft money--the unlimited contributions that corporate, labor, and very wealthy individual donors can now give to the political parties. We must bring back some sanity to the campaign finance system by making the parties and donors live once again within the rules that the Congress passed back in the 1970's after the Watergate era. Perhaps some of those rules need to be updated, but throwing the rules out is not an option. The potential for corruption of our legislative process is too great. I will return to the issue of prohibiting soft money in a moment, because it is central to the goals of our bill. Mr. President, this bill also includes the amendment dealing with abuses of ``issue advocacy'' proposed by Senator Snowe of Maine and Senator Jeffords of Vermont and adopted by the Senate last year during debate on our bill. The Snowe-Jeffords amendment is a balanced approach to the ``phony issue ad'' problem that prohibits corporations and unions from purchasing television and radio advertisements within the last 2 months of a campaign if those ads refer to a clearly identified candidate. It is designed to prevent corporate and union treasury money, which has been banned from federal elections since early in this century, from making its way back into the elections in the form of advertisements that pretend to be about issues, but instead are about elections. Advocacy groups, on the other hand, are permitted to purchase what the bill calls ``electioneering communications,'' as long as they disclose their expenditures and the major donors to the effort and take steps to prevent the use of corporate and union treasury money for the ads. Mr. President, we worked long and hard to perfect this amendment last year, to make sure that it is constitutional, and that it will be effective in combating what has become a very serious subterfuge engaged in by entities that plainly want to influence elections but don't want to abide by the election laws. It is a crucial piece of the campaign finance reform puzzle, and we are proud to have the support of Senators Snowe and Jeffords for our effort and to include their proposal in our bill. The McCain-Feingold bill also takes a further step in addressing the spending of unions in elections by codifying the so-called Beck decision. Under our bill, non-union members who are required to pay agency fees to unions under their state laws will be able to demand an accounting of the use of their fees, and to prevent those fees from being spent for electoral purposes. This provision does not go as far as some of our colleagues might like, but it is a fair and balanced provision that recognizes the need to tread lightly on this issue to maintain bipartisan support for the bill. The bill also contains important provisions designed to improve enforcement and disclosure under our campaign finance laws. It requires electronic filing and posting of campaign finance information on the Internet to make sure that the public can quickly and easily determine who the major contributors are to candidates and parties. It doubles the penalties for ``knowing and willful'' violations of Federal election laws. It provides for more timely disclosure of independent expenditures. It requires campaigns to collect all required contributor information before depositing checks. And it permits the FEC to conduct random audits at the end of a campaign to ensure compliance with the Federal election laws. Our bill also requires political advertisements to carry a disclaimer identifying who is responsible for the content of the campaign ad; and it bars Members of Congress from sending out taxpayer-financed franked mass mailings during the calendar year of their election. It also addresses two important areas where we have learned in the past few years that the law is simply not clear enough or strong enough. Our bill makes it clear that it is unlawful to raise or solicit campaign contributions on Federal property, including the White House and the congressional office buildings. And it makes it clear that contributions from foreign governments and foreign nationals are prohibited in Federal, State and local elections, including donations of soft money. Mr. President, this fight is a fight for the soul and the survival of our American democracy. This democracy cannot survive without the confidence of the people in the integrity of the legislative and the electoral process. The prevalence--no--the dominance--of money in our system of elections and our legislature will in the end cause them to crumble. If we don't take steps to clean up this system it ultimately will consume us along with our finest American ideals. We are now engaged in an historic impeachment trial, in which we are asked to determine as jurors whether the President has committed ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' and should be removed from office. The American people are divided on this question. But the American people do think it's a crime that the tobacco companies can use money to block a bill to curtail teen smoking. They do think it's a crime that insurance companies can use money to block desperately needed health care reform. They do think it's a crime that telecommunication companies use money to force a bill through Congress that's supposed to increase competition and decrease prices, but leads to cable rates that keep on rising and rising. And they do think it's a crime that corporations and unions are able to give unlimited soft money contributions to the political parties to advance their narrow special interests. They think it's a crime. But here in Washington it is business as usual--until we manage to pass meaningful campaign finance reform. Let me be clear Mr. President, I'm not suggesting that any individual Member of Congress is corrupt. I don't know that any Member of this body has ever traded a vote for a contribution. But while Members are not corrupt, the system is riddled with corruption. It is only human to want to help those who have helped you get elected or reelected, to agree to the meeting, to take the phone call, to allow the opportunity to be persuaded by those who have given money. It is true of the parties, and it is true of the Members, even those who seek always to cast their votes on the merits. The result is that people who don't have money don't get heard. And in the end, those who get heard get their way. Mr. President, as you know, I won a very hard fought campaign last year in which soft money and issue ads and campaign spending were much discussed issues. I learned a lot from that campaign, and my experience has made me even more certain that the system we now live under must be changed and can be changed. As we once again take up this charge, I can tell you how enjoyable and rewarding it can be to run a campaign where endless fundraising is not part of your daily routine. And how it is possible to run a decent campaign without getting down in this soft money swamp. Mr. President, we don't need to point fingers at one another, we just have to rise above politics and do the right thing by the American people. We must clean up our own house, Mr. President. We cannot continue to ignore the corruption in our midst, the cancer that is eating the heart out of the great American compact of trust and faith between the people and their elected representatives. We know that unlimited soft money contributions make a mockery of our election laws and threaten the fairness of the legislative process. We know that phony issue ads paid for with unlimited corporate and union funds undermine the ability of citizens to understand who is bankrolling the candidates and why. We can find bipartisan solutions to these problems that respect all legitimate First Amendment rights if we are willing to put partisan political advantage aside and sit down and work it out. Senator McCain and I are ready--we have been ready ever since we introduced our bill--to make changes to our bill that will bring new supporters on board and get us past the 60 vote threshold that the Senate rules have placed in our way, so long as we stay true to the goal of a cleaner, fairer, system in which money will no longer dominate. We will all be proud of the results if we can do that Mr. President. And the American people will be proud of us. So I look forward to working with Senator McCain and will all my colleagues who want to give the American people a campaign finance system that will protect and nurture our democracy as we enter the 21st century. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a measure which will serve as a first step towards eliminating the inequities borne by the dairy farmers of Wisconsin and the upper Midwest under the Federal Milk Marketing Order system. The Federal Milk Marketing Order system, created nearly 60 years ago, establishes minimum prices for milk paid to producers throughout various marketing areas in the U.S. For sixty years, this system has discriminated against producers in the Upper Midwest by awarding a high price to dairy farmers in proportion to the distance of their farms from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. This legislation is very simple. It identifies the single most harmful and unjust feature of the current system, and corrects it. Under the current archaic law, the price for fluid milk increases at a rate of 21 cents per hundred miles from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, even though most milk marketing orders do not receive any milk from Wisconsin. Fluid milk prices, as a result, are $2.98 higher in Florida than in Wisconsin and over $1.00 higher in Texas. This method of pricing fluid milk is not only arbitrary, but also out of date and out of sync with the market conditions of 1999. It is time for this method of pricing--known as single-basing-point pricing--to come to an end. The bill I introduce today will prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from using distance or transportation costs from any location as the basis for pricing milk, unless significant quantities of milk are actually transported from that location into the recipient market. The Secretary will have to comply with the statutory requirement that supply and demand factors be considered as specified in the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act when setting milk prices in marketing orders. The fact remains that single-basing-point pricing simply cannot be justified based on supply and demand for milk both in local and national markets. This bill also requires the Secretary to report to Congress on specifically which criteria are used to set milk prices. Finally, the Secretary will have to certify to Congress that the criteria used by the Department do not in any way attempt to circumvent the prohibition on using distance or transportation cost as basis for pricing milk. This one change is so crucial to Upper Midwest producers, because the current system has penalized them for many years. By providing disparate profits for producers in other parts of the country and creating artificial economic incentives for milk production, Wisconsin producers have seen national surpluses rise, and milk prices fall. Rather than providing adequate supplies of fluid milk in some parts of the country, the prices have led to excess production. The prices have provided production incentives beyond those needed to ensure a local supply of fluid milk in some regions, leading to an increase in manufactured products in those marketing orders. Those manufactured products directly compete with Wisconsin's processed products, eroding our markets and driving national prices down. The perverse nature of this system is further illustrated by the fact that since 1995 some regions of the U.S., notably the Central states and the Southwest, are producing so much milk that they are actually shipping fluid milk north to the Upper Midwest. The high fluid milk prices have generated so much excess production, that these markets distant from Eau Claire are now encroaching upon not only our manufactured markets, but also our markets for fluid milk, further eroding prices in Wisconsin. The market distorting effects of the fluid price differentials in federal orders are manifest in the Congressional Budget Office estimate that eliminating the orders would save $669 million over five years. Government outlays would fall, CBO concludes, because production would fall in response to lower milk prices and there would be fewer government purchases of surplus milk. The regions which would gain and lose in this scenario illustrate the discrimination inherent to the current system. Economic analyses show that farm revenues in a market undisturbed by Federal Orders would actually increase in the Upper Midwest and fall in most other milk-producing regions. The data clearly show that Upper Midwest producers are hurt by distortions built into a single-basing-point system that prevent them from competing effectively in a national market. While this system has been around since 1937, the practice of basing fluid milk price differentials on the distance from Eau Claire was formalized in the 1960's, when the Upper Midwest arguably was the primary reserve for additional supplies of milk. The idea was to encourage local supplies of fluid milk in areas of the country that did not traditionally produce enough fluid milk to meet their own needs. Mr. President, that is no longer the case. The Upper Midwest is neither the lowest cost production area nor a primary source of reserve supplies of milk. In many of the markets with higher fluid milk differentials, milk is produced efficiently, and in some cases, at lower cost than the upper Midwest. Unfortunately, the prices didn't adjust with changing economic conditions, most notably the shift of the dairy industry away from the Upper Midwest and towards the Southwest, specifically California, which now leads the nation in milk production. Fluid milk prices should have been lowered to reflect that trend. Instead, in 1985, the prices were increased for markets distant from Eau Claire. USDA has refused to use the administrative authority provided by Congress to make the appropriate adjustments to reflect economic realities. They continue to stand behind single-basing-point pricing. The result has been a decline in the Upper Midwest dairy industry, not because they can't produce a product that can compete in the market place, but because the system discriminates against them. Since 1980, Wisconsin has lost over 15,000 dairy farmers. Today, Wisconsin loses dairy farmers at a rate of 5 per day. The Upper Midwest, with the lowest fluid milk prices, is shrinking as a dairy region despite the dairy-friendly climate of the region. Other regions with higher fluid milk prices are growing rapidly. In an unregulated market with a level playing field, these shifts in production might be fair. But in a market where the government is setting the prices and providing that artificial advantage to regions outside the Upper Midwest, the current system is unconscionable. This bill is a first step in reforming federal orders by prohibiting a grossly unfair practice that should have been dropped long ago. Although I understand that, because of mandates in the 1996 Farm Bill, the USDA is currently deliberating possible changes to the current system, one of the options being considered maintains this debilitating single-basing-point pricing system. This bill is the beginning of reform. It identifies the one change that is absolutely necessary in any outcome--the elimination of single-basing-point pricing. I urge the Secretary of Agriculture to do the right thing and bring reform to this out-dated system. No proposal is reform without this important policy change. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, similar to bills I offered in the two previous Congresses, to terminate funding for the non-power programs of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). In FY 99, after terminating funding for these programs in the FY 99 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, the Congress revived funding for these programs in the Omnibus Appropriations measure. The TVA was created in 1933 as a government-owned corporation for the unified development of a river basin comprised of parts of seven states. Those activities included the construction of an extensive power system, for which the region is now famous, and regional development or ``non-power'' programs. TVA's responsibilities in the non-power programs include maintaining its system of dams, reservoirs and navigation facilities, and managing TVA-held lands. In addition, TVA provides recreational programs, makes economic development grants to communities, promotes public use of its land and water resources, and operates an Environmental Research Center. Only the TVA power programs are intended to be self-supporting, by relying on TVA utility customers to foot the bill. The cost of these ``non-power'' programs, on the other hand, is covered by appropriated taxpayer funds. This legislation terminates funding for all appropriated programs of the TVA after FY 2000. While I understand the role that TVA has played in our history, I also know that we face tremendous federal budget pressure to reduce spending in many areas. I believe that TVA's discretionary funds should be on the table, and that Congress should act, in accordance with this legislation, to put the TVA appropriated programs on a glide path toward dependence on sources of funds other than appropriated funds. This legislation is a reasonable phased-in approach to achieve this objective, and explicitly codifies both prior recommendations made by the Administration and the TVA Chairman. We should terminate TVA's appropriated programs because there are lingering concerns, brought to light in a 1993 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, that non-power program funds subsidize activities that should be paid for by non-federal interests. When I ran for the Senate in 1992, I developed an 82+ point plan to eliminate the federal deficit and have continued to work on the implementation of that plan since that time. That plan includes a number of elements in the natural resource area, including the termination of TVA's appropriations-funded programs. In its 1993 report, CBO focused on two programs: the TVA Stewardship Program and the Environmental Research Center, which no longer receives federal funds. Stewardship activities receive the largest share of TVA's appropriated funds. The funds are used for dam repair and maintenance activities. According to 1995 testimony provided by TVA before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Water Appropriations, when TVA repairs a dam it pays 70%, on average, of repair costs with appropriated dollars and covers the remaining 30% with funds collected from electricity ratepayers. This practice of charging a portion of dam repair costs to the taxpayer, CBO highlighted, amounts to a significant subsidy. If TVA were a private utility, and it made modifications to a dam or performed routine dredging, the ratepayers would pay for all of the costs associated with that activity. Despite CBO's charges that a portion of the Stewardship funds may be subsidizing the power program, I have heard from a number of my constituents who are concerned that some of the TVA's non-power activities are critical federal functions. In order to be certain that Congress would be acting properly to terminate certain functions while preserving others under TVA or transferring them to other federal agencies, this bill directs OMB to study TVA's non-power programs. That study, which must be completed by June 1, 1999, requires OMB to evaluate TVA's non-power programs, describe which of those are necessary federal functions, and recommend whether those which are federal functions should be performed by TVA or by another agency. That way, Mr. President, Congress will be fully informed before making a final decision to terminate these funds. Again, while I understand the important role that TVA played in the development of the Tennessee Valley, many other areas of the country have become more creative in federal and state financing arrangements to address regional concerns. Specifically, in those areas where there may be excesses within TVA, I believe we can do better to curb subsidies and eliminate the burden on taxpayers without completely eliminating the TVA, as some in the other body have suggested. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that restores a measure of pay equity for our nation's Guardsmen and Reservists. The men and women who serve in the Guard and Reserves are the cornerstones of our national defense and domestic infrastructure and deserve more than a pat on the back. Mr. President, as I'm certain my colleagues are well aware, the Guard and Reserve are integral parts of overseas missions, including recent and on-going missions to Iraq and Bosnia. According to statements by DOD officials, guardsmen and reservists will continue to play an increasingly important role in national defense strategy. The National Guard and Reserves deserve the full support they need to carry out their duties. National Guard and Reserve members are becoming increasingly relied upon to shoulder more of the burden of military operations. We need to compensate our citizen-soldiers for this increasing reliance on the Reserve forces. Mr. President, this boils down to an issue of fairness. Mr. President, my bill would correct special duty assignment pay inequities between the Reserve components and the active duty. These inequities should be corrected to take into account the National Guard and Reserves' increased role in our national security, especially on the front lines. Given the increased use of the Reserve components and DOD's increased reliance on them, Reservists deserve fair pay. My bill states that a Reservist who is entitled to basic pay and is performing special duty be paid special duty assignment pay. Mr. President, right now, Reservists are getting shortchanged despite the vital role they play in our national defense. The special duty assignment pay program ensures readiness by compensating specific soldiers who are assigned to duty positions that demand special training and extraordinary effort to maintain a level of satisfactory performance. The program, as it stands now, effectively reduces the ability of the National Guard and Reserve to retain highly dedicated and specialized soldiers. The special duty assignment pay program provides an additional monthly financial incentive paid to enlisted soldiers and airmen who are required to perform extremely demanding duties that require an unusual degree of responsibility. These special duty assignments include certain command sergeants major, guidance counselors, retention non-commissioned officers (NCO's), drill sergeants, and members of the Special Forces. These soldiers, however, do not receive special duty assignment pay while in an IDT status (drill weekends). Between fiscal years 1998 and 1999, spending for the program was cut by $1.6 million, which has placed a fiscal restraint on the number of personnel the Army National Guard is able to provide for under this program. These soldiers deserve better. Mr. President, this bill is paid for by terminating the ineffective, unnecessary, outdated Cold War relic known as Project ELF, or the Extremely Low Frequency Communication System, which costs approximately $12 million per year. Mr. President, the differences in pay and benefits are particularly disturbing since National Guard and Reserve members give up their civilian salaries during the time they are called up or volunteer for active duty. As I'm sure all my colleagues have heard, the President will propose an enormous boost in defense spending over the next six years; an increase of $12 billion for fiscal year 2000 and about $110 billion over the next six years. I have tremendous reservations about spending hikes of this magnitude, but have no such reservations in supporting this nation's citizen-soldiers. The National Guard and Reserve deserve pay and benefit equity and that means paying them what they're worth. Mr. President, according to the National Guard, shortfalls in the operations and maintenance account compromise the Guard's readiness levels, capabilities, force structure, and end strength. Failing to fully support these vital areas will have both direct and indirect effects. The shortfall puts the Guard's personnel, schools, training, full-time support, and retention and recruitment at risk. Perhaps more importantly, however, it erodes the morale of our citizen-soldiers. Over these past years, the Administration has increasingly called on the Guard and Reserves to handle wider-ranging tasks, while simultaneously offering defense budgets with shortfalls of hundreds of millions of dollars. These shortfalls have increasingly greater effect given the guard and reserves' increased operations burdens. This is a result of new missions, increased deployments, and training requirements. Earlier this month, Charles Cragin, the assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs, presented DOD's position with regard to the department's working relationship with the National Guard and Reserve. He stated that all branches of the military reserves will be called upon more frequently as the nation pares back the number of soldiers on active duty. This has clearly been DOD's policy for the past few years, but Mr. Cragin went a little further by stating that the reserve units can no longer be considered ``weekend warriors'' but primary components of national defense. Mr. President, in the past, DOD viewed the armed forces as a two- pronged system, with active-duty troops being the primary prong, reinforced by the Reserve component. That strategy has changed with the downsizing of active forces. Defense officials now see reserves as part of the ``total force'' of the military. The National Guard and Reserves will be called more frequently to active duty for domestic support roles and abroad in various peace- keeping efforts. They will also be vital players on special teams trained to deal with weapons of mass destruction deployed within our own borders. According to many military experts, this represents a more salient threat to the United States than the threat of a ballistic missile attack that many of my colleagues have spent so much time addressing. As I'm sure my colleagues know by now, the Army National Guard represents a full 34 percent of total army forces, including 55 percent of combat divisions and brigades, 46 percent of combat support, and 25 percent of combat service support, yet receives just 9.5 percent of Army funds. Mr. President, it should come as no surprise that we have failed to invest fully in the National Guard. It's no surprise because it's the best bargain in the Defense Department. DOD has never been known as a frugal department. From $436 hammers to $640 toilet seats to $2 billion bombers that don't work and the department doesn't seem to want to use, the Department of Defense has a storied history of wasting our tax dollars. Here is an opportunity to spend defense dollars on something that works, that is worthwhile, and enjoys broad support on both sides of the aisle. The National Guard fits the bill. According to a National Guard study, the average cost to train and equip an active duty soldier is $73,000 per year, while it costs $17,000 per year to train and equip a National Guard soldier. The cost of maintaining Army National Guard units is just 23 percent of the cost of maintaining Active Army units. It is time for the Pentagon to quit complaining about lack of funding and begin using their money more wisely and efficiently. Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to see some of these soldiers off as they embarked on these missions and have welcomed them home upon their return, and I have been struck by the courage and professionalism they display. Guardsmen and Reservists have been vital on overseas missions, and here at home. In Wisconsin, the State Guard provides vital support during state emergencies, including floods, ice storms, and train derailments. Mr. President, we have a duty to honor the service of our National Guardsmen and Reservists. One way to do that is to adequately compensate them for their service. I hope my colleagues agree that our citizen-soldiers serve an invaluable role in our national defense, and their paychecks should reflect their contribution. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Civil Rights Procedures Protection Act of 1999. The 106th Congress will mark the fourth successive Congress in which I have introduced this legislation. Very simply Mr. President, this legislation addresses the rapidly growing and very troubling practice of employers conditioning employment or professional advancement upon their employees' willingness to submit claims of discrimination or harassment to arbitration, rather than pursuing them in the courts. In other words, employees raising claims of harassment or discrimination by their employers must submit the adjudication of those claims to arbitration, denying themselves any other remedies may exist under the laws of this Nation. The right to seek redress in a court of law--the right to a jury trial--is one of the most basic rights accorded to employees in this nation. In the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Congress expressly created this right to a jury trial for employees when it voted overwhelmingly to amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and other civil rights and labor laws, such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, is being circumvented by companies that require all employees to submit to mandatory, binding arbitration. In other words, the company is compelling an agreement to arbitration without regard to basic civil rights of American workers or their right to secure final resolution of such disputes in a court of law under the rules of fairness and due process. How then does the practice of mandatory, binding arbitration comport with the purpose and spirit of our nation's civil rights and sexual harassment laws? The answer is simply that it does not. To address the growing incidents of compulsory arbitration, the Civil Rights Procedures Protection Act of 1999 amends seven civil rights statutes to guarantee that a federal civil rights or sexual harassment plaintiff can still seek the protection of the U.S. courts rather than be forced into mandatory, binding arbitration. Specifically, this legislation affects claims raised under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 1977 of the Revised Statutes, the Equal Pay Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In the context of the Federal Arbitration Act, the protections of this legislation are extended to claims of unlawful discrimination arising under State or local law and other Federal laws that prohibit job discrimination. Mr. President, this bill is not anti-arbitration, anti-mediation, or anti-alternative dispute resolution. I have long been and will remain a strong supporter of ``voluntary forms'' of alternative methods of dispute resolution that allow the parties to choose not to proceed to litigation. Rather, this bill targets only mandatory binding arbitration clauses in employment contracts. Increasingly, working men and women are faced with the choice of accepting a mandatory arbitration clause in their employment agreement or no employment at all. Despite the appearance of a freely negotiated contract, the reality often amounts to a non-negotiable requirement that prospective employees relinquish their rights to redress in a court of law. Mandatory arbitration allows employers to tell all current and prospective employees in effect, ``If you want to work for us, you will have to check your rights at the door.'' These requirements have been referred to as ``front door'' contracts; that is, they require an employee to surrender certain rights in order to ``get in the front door.'' As a nation which values work and deplores discrimination, we should not allow this practice to continue. As I noted Mr. President, the 106th Congress marks the fourth successive Congress in which I have introduced this important legislation. In the past year, we have made some advances addressing the unfair use of mandatory binding arbitration clauses. Due to the attention focused on this issue through this legislation, a hearing in the Banking Committee last session, and a series of articles and editorials in prominent periodicals, the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) agreed to remove the mandatory binding arbitration clause from its Form U-4, which all prospective securities dealers sign as a condition of employment. The NASD's decision to remove the binding arbitration clause, however, does not prohibit its constituent organizations from including a mandatory, binding arbitration clause in their own employment agreements, even if it is not mandated by the industry as a whole. These changes in the securities industry are a positive development, but the trend toward the use of mandatory, binding arbitration clauses in many industries continues. This bill restores the ability of working men and women to pursue their rights in a venue that they choose and therefore restores and reinvigorates the spirit of our nation's civil rights and sexual harassment laws in the context of these employment contracts. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on October 15th, America lost it's reigning Polka King, and Wisconsin lost a beloved friend: Frankie Yankovic. From the day he debuted in the Milwaukee area at Bert Phillips Ballroom in Menomonee Falls, Frankie Yankovic has had a special place among Wisconsin's polka fans. Wisconsinites loves to polka, so much so that it's our state's official dance. And no polka musician has won more accolades, had more devoted fans, or taught more Americans to love that simple dance than Frankie Yankovic. While he was born in West Virginia and was a long-time resident of Cleveland, Frankie Yankovic felt a special connection to Milwaukee. ``I should have come here and made Milwaukee my hometown,'' he once said. There is nothing we'd have liked better, but Wisconsinites were lucky for the many chances we've had to enjoy Yankovic's music, and to pay tribute to his myriad achievements in the music world. In fact, it was in Milwaukee that Yankovic was crowned as America's Polka King in 1948. Just one year later, his ``Blue Skirt Waltz'' hit number two on Columbia Records' bestseller list, just behind Gene Autry's ``Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer,'' one of the best-selling records of all time. He was the first inductee to both the Polka Hall of Fame in Minnesota in 1988 and the Wisconsin Polka Hall of Fame in 1996. Yankovic didn't just contribute to popular music, he revolutionized it by infusing traditional polka music with a smoother style, and introducing new instruments, such as the bass fiddle, to polka arrangements. Throughout his career, Yankovic's singular style energized audiences. His compositions were legendary, including such Wisconsin-inspired tunes as the ``Kringleville Polka,'' about Racine, and ``There's No Joy Left Now in Milwaukee,'' about the Braves leaving for Atlanta. Yankovic was a man who made audiences roar and floors shake as he brought capacity crowds to their feet to do that simple step that just, as Yankovic put it, ``makes people happy.'' He often rallied audiences by asking ``What do you think this is, a concert? Let's get up and dance!'' Milwaukeeans know that Frankie Yankovic was loved coast to coast, appearing on Johnny Carson and performing with the likes of Milton Berle and Doris Day. And we know that Cleveland was his permanent address. But in Wisconsin, we proudly count him as one of our own. ``I love Milwaukee,'' he often said, and Milwaukee loved him back. On behalf of the people of Wisconsin, I thank Frankie Yankovic for the happiness he brought to Wisconsin's polka fans over the years, and I pay tribute to his memory.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to state my opposition to the omnibus appropriations bill, and outline some of my concerns with both the content of that measure, and with the process in which it was crafted. First and foremost, Mr. President, this omnibus appropriations bill shreds the tough spending limits established by last year's bipartisan budget agreement. It does so through the expedient of declaring nearly 21 billion dollars in spending as a budget emergency, thus exempting that spending from the spending caps and budget discipline that was so central to last year's budget agreement. Mr. President, as I have noted on the floor previously, the emergency exception to our budget rules was intended to allow Congress to act quickly to provide funding to assist victims of natural disasters or to help ensure an adequate and timely response to an international crisis. Sadly, that exception has now become the rule, and we now see emergency declarations attached to appropriations provisions not because those provisions were unexpected or urgent, but because doing so permitted Congress to duck its budget responsibilities. That is a gross abuse of the emergency provisions incorporated in our budget rules, and it must stop. Mr. President, of particular concern is the use of the emergency exception to add funds to an already bloated defense budget. Mr. President, the only emergency in our defense readiness is the sorry state of posturing by Congress for more defense spending. Some Members insist Congress must throw more money into the Department of Defense, even when our military leaders say they don't need it. But, Mr. President, the Pentagon does not need more money. The money going to the Pentagon needs to be spent more wisely. Unfortunately, too often Congress does everything in its power to make sure that does not happen. Congress continues to spend billions of dollars on pork-barrel projects that the Pentagon does not need and does not want. Congress bars the closing of unnecessary bases, and refuses to address accounting fraud so destructive that Senator Grassley recently stated that, ``If we put adequate controls on the money we have, there should be no need for more defense spending.'' Last week, Mr. President, the Washington Post reported there were at least 30 items that appeared for the first time in the fine print of the $250 billion defense spending bill. These included: $250,000 to study the potential uses of a caffeinated gum, reportedly slipped into the defense spending bill by a Member of the other body on behalf of the firm in his Illinois district that makes this gum; $2.4 million for a device called the American Underpressure System, reportedly another late addition to the defense spending bill pushed by the San Diego businessman who holds the patent on the device; and, $5 million to fund the purchase of electronic locks manufactured by a Kentucky firm, reportedly added by a member of that State's delegation to the defense spending bill during conference deliberations. The Washington Post story reported the Kentucky lockmaker was able to obtain still another earmark in the Energy Department spending bill for $2 million. Mr. President, this practice is an outrage, but one many in both chambers choose to ignore, or, worse, perpetuate. If we cut the pork and allowed the Pentagon to close inefficient bases, we would not even need to discuss so-called emergency spending for defense. Among the most abusive uses of the emergency exception in the defense budget is the proposed $1.9 billion in funding for U.S. troops in Bosnia. Mr. President, I have always had serious questions about U.S. involvement in this mission. I was the only Democrat to vote against the deployment of U.S. troops back in 1995, in large part because I did not believe that the United States would be able to complete the mission in the time projected and for the price tag that was originally estimated. Unfortunately, I have been proven right, and I take no pleasure in it. U.S. forces have now been in Bosnia for almost three years, much longer than the original one-year mandate, and I do not think anyone has a good idea how many more years we will be there. More significantly, the cost of our involvement in Bosnia has increased dramatically--easily more than quadrupling the original $2 billion estimate to more than $8 billion, not including the $1.9 billion now proposed to be added by the omnibus appropriations measure. But beyond the strict policy concerns of our mission in Bosnia, Mr. President, is the troubling budget maneuvering that has been done to add still more funding to this questionable mission. Mr. President, the funding for the Bosnia mission will not be forced to comply with our budget caps. The additional $1.9 billion provided in this bill is designated as emergency funding. Mr. President, our Bosnia mission can hardly be characterized as an unexpected event, something deserving of emergency funding. Far from it. Our mission in Bosnia is a substantial, long-term commitment. It is something the United States has, for better or worse, decided to do for the long-term. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines the word ``emergency'' as follows: ``an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action.'' This definition clearly does not apply to the Bosnia mission. The Bosnia mission is an emergency only in the strange language of appropriations bills. The Bosnia ``emergency'' is a legislative fiction. U.S. troops have been on the ground in Bosnia for nearly three years. In December of 1997 the President announced that he would forego imposing a deadline altogether, and opt instead for a policy of benchmarks whose definitions remain open to interpretation. Given that policy, Mr. President, how can Congress and the President possibly argue to the American people that the additional costs for the Bosnia mission constitute an emergency? On the contrary, it has been clear for quite a while now that the cost of this mission would again rise substantially. Some would say it has been clear from the start. Ironically, Congressional appropriators and our military leaders have planned for many months on obtaining these so-called emergency funds. Mr. President, the mission in Bosnia does not represent an emergency that legitimately calls for us to depart from our established, vital budget rules. Mr. President, as I noted, the Bosnia funding is only one example. What compounds this dangerous trend away from budget discipline is the reported evolution of much of the emergency spending. In particular, it has been reported that the negotiations surrounding the omnibus appropriations bill at one point centered on the insistence of some that for every emergency dollar added for one group of programs, another had to be added for a different set of programs. Essentially, the budget negotiation became a bidding contest in which deficit- financed spending was the currency. This brings me to my second serious objection to the measure before us, namely the process by which it was crafted. Mr. President, continuing resolutions and omnibus appropriations are fast becoming the standard process in Congress. Deliberate, careful, and open consideration of agency budgets, with the full participation of everyone's elected representatives in a public forum has been shunted aside, and instead we have a process of back room deals by a powerful few. Mr. President, that is not democracy in action, and it rewards those well-funded, well-connected special interests that already distort the policy agenda of the Federal government. We should not be surprised, then, when dozens of special interest earmarks and policy riders find their way into the omnibus measure with little or no public debate. The normal appropriations process is already tainted to a great extent with this kind of influence. The closed door dealings in which this legislation was developed only make that problem worse. A telling example of the policy that can result from this flawed process is the language delaying implementation of the most modest of reforms in our nation's dairy policy. Language included in this omnibus measure extends USDA's rulemaking period on Federal Milk Marketing Order reform for six months. This extension will delay implementation of the new federal milk pricing system to October of 1999, instead of the original date of April, 1999 set in the Farm Bill. Mr. President, officials at USDA have assured me that they did not request this extension nor do they need it. Mr. President, this dairy provision was included solely to intimidate and bully USDA and Secretary Glickman into an anti-Wisconsin dairy pricing reform. Instead of allowing USDA to do its job, some Members of Congress want to do it for them, and do it to benefit their own producers at the expense of dairy farmers in the Upper Midwest. It is ridiculous that today, in times of advanced technologies, Wisconsin producers receive a Class I differential of $1.20 per hundredweight, while producers in Kansas City, Missouri receive $1.92, and our friends in Miami get $4.18. Dairy farmers in Miami make nearly $3.00 more per hundredweight than farmers in the Upper Midwest for the same product. The current system just does not make sense in today's world. The extension of USDA's rulemaking had another intent as well. Extending the rulemaking period automatically extends the life of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. The 1996 Farm Bill requires a sunset of the Compact when the new federal pricing system is implemented. At the rate Congress is going, tacking this issue onto appropriations bills, there is no telling when implementation will now occur. The effects of the Compact on consumers within the region and producers outside of it are indisputable. Dairy compacts are harmful, unnecessary and a burden to this country's taxpayers. The worst part of this entire sixty-five-year dairy fiasco is its effect on the producers in the Upper Midwest. The six-month extension puts an additional 900 Wisconsin producers at risk. Wisconsin loses approximately three dairy farmers a day. Producers cannot stand six more days of the current program, let alone six more months. Mr. President, not only is legislating dairy policy on this bill inappropriate, it is bad precedent, it circumvents the appropriate committees, the Agriculture and Judiciary Committees, and circumvents USDA's authority. We ought to give USDA the opportunity to do the right thing for today's national dairy industry and put an end to the unfair Eau Claire system now, not six months from now. Mr. President, once again I urge my colleagues to take a second look at this antiquated and harmful policy. Stand up for equity, fairness, and for what is best for America's dairy industry, our consumers and our taxpayers. Mr. President, the omnibus measure is also the vehicle for a number of anti-environment riders. Here again, by burying these provisions in this mammoth appropriations bill, those promoting these anti- environmental provisions are able to avoid full and open debate of their proposals. They succeed in avoiding a separate vote on matters that are quite controversial. That is the nature of this kind of bill and this kind of process, Mr. President. An unamendable, ``must pass'' bill inevitably will be a magnet for proposals that cannot stand up to the scrutiny of open debate. Mr. President, some may blame the nature of the annual budget process for putting Congress in the position of having to pass an omnibus appropriations bill. Some might suggest the inability to pass all the appropriations bills in a timely manner is inherent in the annual budget process, and in this regard I am certainly willing to give the biennial budget process a try. I was pleased to cosponsor the measure offered by the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) to move to a biennial process. But the annual budget process is not the central problem. The central problem is the corrupting influences that permeate the entire policymaking environment, from our system of campaign finance, to the problems of revolving door hiring practices, to the inadequate lobbying and gift restrictions on Members. And the incentives in such a corrupting environment all encourage just this kind of process--back room negotiations, among only a few powerful people, with little or no outside input or public scrutiny. Mr. President, as this bill so graphically demonstrates, until the Senate and the other body do something to address that underlying problem, Congress cannot be trusted even to abide by the spending limits to which it agreed only a year ago.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to offer my best wishes to Senator Coats as he retires from the Senate this year. I have enjoyed working with him in areas where we agree, and I have always respected his viewpoint when we have differed. He is a gentleman in the best tradition of the Senate. I have appreciated Senator Coats leadership in several areas, including his commitment to the line-item veto, which I agree can be a powerful tool against wasteful spending. Senator Coats has also taken on the issue of solid waste disposal, calling for more state discretion over what types of waste are disposed of within individual states. In Wisconsin, where we have a strong recycling program and create less solid waste than many states, we share Senator Coats' belief that states deserve to be heard on this issue, and not be forced to accept unwelcome garbage. Senator Coats has also been a leader among the ``donor states'' in ISTEA funding for a more equitable distribution of highway funds, another issue of great importance to Wisconsin, where we again appreciate his commitment to fairness. Senator Coats now voluntarily walks away from the Senate, still a young man, with humility and dignity, sure to find success in private life. As he leaves the Senate, I thank him for his years of service in this body and in the House of Representatives, and I wish him all the best in his new endeavors.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I want to take this opportunity to thank Senator John Glenn for his long and distinguished service in the United States Senate. He has served this body with great dignity, and with an unparalleled commitment to our country. Of course, Senator Glenn is known for a great deal more than his Senate service, as the first man to orbit the earth and a hero in both World War II and the Korean War. But his contributions here in the Senate, all by themselves, have made for Senator Glenn the legacy of an American hero. I worked with Senator Glenn in 1993 on an amendment to the Clean Water Act, which was just one of his many efforts to focus environmental protection efforts on the Great Lakes region. The Great Lakes states owe a great debt to Senator Glenn for his work in this area, which has included chairing the Senate's Great Lakes Task Force and helping to get Great Lakes regional offices for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Fish and Wildlife Service. As the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Glenn has been fairminded and provided outstanding leadership on the committee, in particular during the recent hearings into campaign finance violations. During those hearings, Senator Glenn showed his keen understanding of the flaws in the current system and his commitment to its reform. As someone who cares deeply about campaign finance issues, I was grateful for his leadership. Senator Glenn has also worked tirelessly on nuclear proliferation issues, and been a valued member of the Armed Services Committee, the Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Special Committee on Aging. Now Senator Glenn is moving on to his newest challenge, and, as usual, making history. At the age of 77, he will again launch into space, this time for a nine-day ride on the Shuttle Discovery. Most of us would be content being the first man to orbit the earth, flying 149 combat missions, and breaking a transcontinental flight speed record in a Navy jet. But then John Glenn has more determination, more talent and more courage than most of us can imagine. He must know that he is not just respected and famous, he must know that he holds a special place in the hearts of his fellow Americans and in American culture, yet there is no humbler man in the Senate. We admire him for that, we thank him for his dedicated service to the U.S. Senate, to the people of Ohio and to America. We wish him every success on his next mission, and wish him all the best in his retirement. dan coats

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to wish all the best to Senator Kempthorne as he leaves the Senate. Senator Kempthorne and I both joined the Senate in 1992, and both, as very junior senators, initially found ourselves with offices in the basement of the Dirksen building. Senator Kempthorne has always demonstrated a strong grasp of policy issues, including his work on unfunded mandates, and has always conducted himself with the highest degree of professionalism in the Senate. I thank him for his service, and wish him well in his new endeavors. Now he returns to Idaho to seek the office of governor. Whatever happens in that race, the people of Idaho will know that he is a thoughtful man of grace and civility. john glenn

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to honor Senator Wendell Ford for his long and distinguished record of service in the United States Senate. A vigorous defender of his home state, Wendell Ford's raspy voice has spoken out for the people of Kentucky and the entire nation with intelligence, tenacity and humor, winning him the respect and affection of his colleagues. Of Senator Ford's many accomplishments during his years of public service, his positions in the Senate's Democratic leadership and as Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee stand out as invaluable contributions to his party and his country. I have greatly appreciated, as have all my Democratic colleagues, the outstanding job Senator Ford has done as the Democratic whip, and the dedication he has shown to the caucus. Here on the floor, Wendell Ford has exhibited an uncommon commitment to fairness. Kentuckians can also be proud of Senator Ford's sponsorship of the Motor Voter bill and longstanding support of government reforms, which are a testament to his commitment to the democratic principle of government. I want to wish Senator Ford all the best for his well-earned retirement, and thank him for his many contributions to American political life. dirk kempthorne

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in these last few days of the 105th Congress, when I come to the floor, I often look wistfully to the aisle just to my left here, where Dale Bumpers has trod up and down yanking the microphone cord and dispensing wisdom for just about twenty-four years now. The other day he gave his last speech here, and it was brilliant--an eloquent and moving reminder of the best purposes of politics. But now I want to look back and pay tribute to my friend Dale Bumpers for what he has done and what he has been for me, for the Senate, for his beloved Arkansas and for our country. Dale Bumpers was born in Charleston, Arkansas in 1925, and it's from that little town he first drew the values he has eloquently proclaimed on this floor for two and a half decades. In a small town in western Arkansas during the Depression, young Dale Bumpers learned about human suffering and deprivation, learned to believe that it could be defeated and came to understand, on his father's knee, that the government could be a force for good in that struggle. He saw typhoid in his hometown and saw a New Deal program put an end to it. He saw rural electrification light the countryside, projects that made the water cleaner, the roads safer, he saw the WPA and he saw the tenacity, and the ingenuity and the sense of community of the American people. One day as a boy he went to the nearby town of Booneville and saw Franklin Roosevelt himself, and he heard his father tell him that politics is an honorable profession--he took all that to heart and we are all the richer for it. He sometimes says, as his father did, ``When we die, we're going to Franklin Roosevelt.'' In 1943, Dale Bumpers joined the Marines. He shipped out to the Pacific and he expected to be a part of the invasion force that would hit the beaches of Japan. He did not expect to survive it. The invasion never came, but that experience made a profound impression on him. When I hear him speak about the Constitution, our Founding Fathers and the flag on this floor it is plain how that wartime experience helped him comprehend the true stakes of the constitutional debate, how it informed his notions of patriotism and his sense of what America means. When he returned from the service he got a first-rate education at the University of Arkansas and Northwestern University Law School, all paid for, he is quick to point out, by Uncle Sam under the GI bill. He has been returning the favor to the American people ever since. Dale Bumpers started his career as a country lawyer in Charleston, a very successful one by all reports, and he got a reputation around Arkansas, even if he was, as he says, ``the entire membership of the South Franklin County Bar Association.'' As time went by, his practice grew, he took over his father's hardware store, he taught Sunday School and sang in the church choir and he and his wonderful wife Betty started a family. But he wasn't feeling complacent. There are a lot of great Dale Bumpers stories many people don't know. In the days following the Brown v. Board of Education decision, tension was building in the South as school integration looked more and more inevitable. By 1957, we had the Little Rock Crisis, but there was one town in Arkansas that had already integrated by then, without any great trouble. It was the first in Arkansas, maybe the first in the entire south. It was Charleston, Arkansas, where Dale Bumpers was a young lawyer, representing the school board. He saw what was coming and he knew what was right. He did a little research and he found out how much the district was spending to bus its black students to Fort Smith. He made his case to the school board about the right course, working those numbers into the argument. The board then voted to do what he had advised them to do--integrate the schools. It was not long after that he helped to integrate his church--the pastor of the local black Methodist church approached the all white congregation of his Methodist church, seeking help to repair a leaky roof. Why spend all that money and have two churches, why not just join our two churches together, said Dale Bumpers, and it was done. Those are two quiet little pieces of history that tell us plenty about the principles and the persuasive powers of Dale Bumpers. Well, after a while, school board politics were getting to him, so Dale decided he would like to be the Governor of Arkansas. So off he went, eighth out of eight in the early primary polls, to do battle with Orval Faubus and other established politicians. His critics said he had ``nothing but a smile and a shoeshine.'' But then the people of Arkansas heard what he had to say. He beat everybody but Faubus in the primary, beat Faubus in the runoff and then he beat Winthrop Rockefeller. Arkansas had never seen a governor like Dale Bumpers. He reformed everything from education to heath care and gained the lasting affection of the people while doing it. After four years as Governor, he decided he wanted to go to the Senate. All that stood in his way was J. William Fulbright, an institution in his own right. But Bumpers won, and he came to the Senate. As we have seen, this chamber is the place where he always belonged. When I came to the Senate, I had heard of Senator Bumpers' intelligence, his quick wit, his impatience with wasteful spending, his vigorous defense of the environment and his role as a relentless guardian of our Constitution. When it comes to amending the Constitution. Dale Bumpers always says, ``I'm a founding member of the `Wait Just a Minute' club.'' That is a great line, but it tells of a Senator who has risked defeat, has felt real contempt from those who disagree, all because he would not stand for the political use of the Constitution. He gave a great speech once called ``The Trivialization of the Constitution'' in which he made the case that we must never casually fiddle with our Constitution for political gain or to deal with transitory policy issues. His work to defend the Constitution and inject sobriety into the constitutional debate, all by itself, qualifies him as a great patriot and senator. Let the record reflect that I too am a member of the ``Wait Just a Minute'' club. Dale Bumpers' leadership in cutting wasteful spending and his fiscal foresight are unsurpassed. In 1981, when Ronald Reagan was calling the shots in the budget debate, Dale Bumpers was one of only three Senators to oppose Reagan's tax cuts and support the spending cuts. If their position had prevailed, the budget would have been balanced in 1984. That was fourteen years ago. Now there's a fiscal role model. Senator Bumpers went after what we now call ``corporate welfare'' years before the term was coined, and years before others were willing to focus on the problem of government waste. From the international space station to the 1872 Mining Law, Senator Bumpers has been resolute in his pursuit of excesses in the federal budget. He has gone after sacred cows and hidden pork, and faced strong opposition from both sides of the aisle. But he has continued his work, tirelessly and often thanklessly, because he knows he is doing what is right for the American people. I have often felt great pride standing with Dale Bumpers on an amendment, even when we knew we would lose, because when he made a stand, his allies knew they were doing the right thing. His campaign against government waste is matched only by his efforts to protect the environment as Chairman and Ranking Member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Senator Bumpers has been an outstanding leader on the committee, and has exhibited a conservation ethic unparalleled in the U.S. Senate. Dale Bumpers was the first Senator to sound the alarm about the ozone layer and the danger of ozone-depleting gases, long before most of us had ever heard of them. And he always remembered his father's hardware store--there never was a more relentless defender of small business in the Senate. I have been honored to work with him on a number of conservation efforts, including public land reform and nuclear energy issues, and I know the Senate will miss his leadership in that area. His work to reform the 1872 mining law is the issue where his environmental stewardship and his determination to cut wasteful spending have gone hand-in-hand. I have been proud to join him in this fight, because it's a crucially important one, an ``outrage,'' as he calls it, that wouldn't be under scrutiny today if it weren't for the work of Senator Bumpers. And I am confident, Senator Bumpers, that your view will prevail on the mining law soon enough, because you are right and everybody knows you're right. Everybody thinks of Dale Bumpers first and foremost as an orator, a story teller, a raconteur and a dispenser of folk wisdom. He is common sense with a silver tongue and a sense of history. So let me finish my remarks with a tribute to his oratorical style. Dale Bumpers often decried the idea that we could eliminate the deficit by cutting taxes and raising spending, he said ``That reminds me of the combination taxidermist/veterinarian in my hometown. His slogan was `Either way you get your dog back.' '' When he saw a flaw in his opponent's argument he jumped on it like a duck on a junebug. He might declare. ``His argument is as thin as spit on a rock!'' Why is he such a masterful debater? Because he can explain the complex in a simple way, and expose the truth in uncomplicated language, without demagoguery or distortion. As he would say, ``You gotta throw the corn where the hogs can get at it.'' He hated deficit spending, and when he saw a budget full of red ink, he said, ``Well, you pass that and you'll create deficits big enough to choke a mule. That's just eating the seed corn!'' Being in this body, and having the honor of serving with Dale Bumpers, has given me an invaluable chance to get to know a remarkable man, and to understand what his legacy in this body will mean for generations to come. The greatest thing he has taught me is not to fear the tough votes. Time and again, from the Panama Canal to the flag amendment, he has cast the hard votes. Time and again, he has gone home to Arkansas and made his case, explaining his votes to the people. He didn't always persuade them all, but he convinced them that his were votes of principle--and the poeple's confidence in his integrity has sustained him in the affection of even those Arkansans who disagreed. Dale Bumpers has plenty to be proud of, but he has always remembered who he is and where he came from. He mixed it up with the best of them during debate, but never with rancor. He is quick to point out the work of other Senators and his staff when things are accomplished. The other day he stood on this floor and thanked his grade school teacher, Miss Doll, for encouraging him more than sixty years ago! He never fails to credit all his success to his remarkable wife Betty, who has achieved so much in promoting peace and the health of children. He speaks always of his family as the wellspring of his values and the source of his priorities. So now he leaves the Senate having enriched this country and this institution in a thousand ways. His wisdom and courage and his persistent voice will echo long into the future. To every member of the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, Dale Bumpers is an admired friend and colleague. To those of us who share his principles and have learned from his leadership, he is nothing less than a hero. He is one of the great ones--and you don't need to be all broke out in brilliance to know that. Thank you Dale Bumpers and good luck! I yield the floor.