Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Nickles, Senator Kohl and Senator Mack in supporting this amendment to strike language raising the ceiling on mortgage limits insured by the Federal Housing Administration. Mr. President, the appropriations bill we are currently considering includes language that would raise the ceiling on the Federal Housing Administration's loan limit from the current level of 75% of the conforming loan limit--approximately $170,000--to 87% of the conforming loan limit, which is approximately $197,000. Mr. President, it is--quite frankly--astounding to me that Congress is considering action that would raise the FHA loan limit. In a time when Congress needs to be focusing on balancing the budget, it is truly ironic to me that some members seem to want to increase the burden to taxpayers by expanding a government program into an area already well- served by the private sector. In case you or any of our colleagues is wondering, a $197,000 loan translates to a house worth over $200,000. To afford such a house, a family would have to have annual earnings of over $75,000--an income level that only about 16% of American families are at. I don't know about you, Mr. President, but in Wisconsin, we don't consider folks who own $200,000 homes to be ``needy.'' These upper-income families are already well-served by the private market. Mr. President, the arguments against raising FHA loan limits are overwhelming: HUD's own FY 1999 Budget proposal predicts a 100% increase in the default rate for 1998--totaling $4 billion. The very same Committee Report seeking to raise the loan limits also acknowledges, and I quote, ``concern[s] about HUD's capability to manage the FHA mortgage insurance programs and the potential exposure of the Federal Government if there is an economic downturn.'' Since 1990, while the mortgage delinquency rate in the conventional market fell by 8%, the FHA delinquency rate rose by 23%. FHA backs 100% of every loan it insures, and so those delinquencies and defaults are borne 100% by taxpayers. It would seem to me, Mr. President, that those who seek to increase FHA's loan-limits are sending a strong message that they are willing to let American taxpayers pick-up the tab. Mr. President, I have here a letter from the National Taxpayers Union to Congressman Bob Livingston, Chair of the House Appropriations Committee. The letter, which I would ask be inserted in the record, sums-up--I think very nicely--the manifold concerns with increasing the loan limit ceiling: Defenders of the FHA note that the agency provides an important resource to lower-income familes and minorities who wish to purchase a home. NTU fails to see how low-income families will be served by FHA loans to those in the middle- to upper-class income range . . . Apparently, supporters of raising the ceilings will not be happy until every wealthy American owns a home at government expense. It would seem to me, Mr. President, that rather than raising the FHA loan limits, Congress needs to be thinking critically about what steps we can take to improve the actuarial safety and soundness of FHA programs so that it can continue to help working families purchase their homes. Rather than expanding the program for the benefit of upper-income borrowers and special interest groups, we ought to be thinking about how we can make sure those working families of modest means are truly being served by the existing FHA programs. Mr. President, the amendment my colleagues and I are introducing today would remove language raising the FHA loan limit ceiling and increase the Ginnie Mae guaranty fee by 12 basis points. I believe that raising the loan limit ceiling to $197,000 is fiscally irresponsible, unnecessarily expands a government program into an area already well- served by the private sector, and distracts the FHA from its mission to serve lower-income home-buyers. I hope my colleagues will give careful consideration to these concerns and support our amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, just briefly, my amendment accomplishes three things: It provides States some modest funding to promote one of the single most effective reforms we can make to improve the education of our children, and that is smaller class size; it eliminates a notorious piece of corporate welfare in the budget; and it reduces our budget deficit by $2.1 billion over the next 5 years. The amendment authorizes a limited number of innovative demonstration grant programs to assist States in their efforts to reduce public school class size and to improve learning in the earliest grades. My State of Wisconsin has been a leader in the effort to reduce public school class size, and this amendment is modeled after Wisconsin's successful pilot program, the so-called Student Achievement Guaranty in Education, or the SAGE Program. Mr. President, we have been very proud of this program. It has worked well, and I think a model for it on the national level would be extremely helpful. The amendment is fully offset by cuts in a wasteful and unnecessary Federal subsidy that benefits research and development for the world's largest aircraft manufacturer. We can fully fund this important SAGE Program and still reduce the Federal budget by more than $2.1 billion over 5 years if this amendment is adopted. As we near the end of the 105th Congress, I fear that Congress will somehow go home having done nothing to reduce public school class size. My amendment approaches this issue without expanding the deficit and it eliminates an expensive corporate subsidy. Briefly, passage of this amendment will save $2.2 billion by dealing with certain research efforts that have the explicit goal of maintaining the company's market share in the global aircraft market. For the information of my colleagues, this company has reported profits in excess of $5 billion over the last 5 years, and I don't think there is any justification for this kind of subsidy. It flies in the face of free-market economics and it wastes billions of our constituents' tax dollars. My distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Texas, in speaking out against this subsidy, said, ``The market system is much more efficient at creating jobs and opportunities than the Government is.'' So I urge my colleagues to take his heed and eliminate this form of corporate welfare. As I noted before, we would produce in our amendment a $2.1 billion net deficit reduction over the next 5 years. To some of us, we may sometimes feel we are belaboring the obvious, but I feel constrained to point out that we still do have a deficit in our Federal budget and that this amendment will be very helpful in that regard. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma and my friend, the senior Senator from Wisconsin, for deferring to me briefly so I could have the opportunity to speak about this amendment and offer it. In light of the understanding that the Senate wants to move forward on this bill, let me, in a moment, withdraw my amendment, but indicate I hope to offer it on another appropriations bill later this year. With that, Mr. President, I withdraw the amendment and yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Members for their explanations.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Responding to several constituent inquiries on this matter, I wanted to clarify with the Subcommittee Chairman and the Ranking Member of the purposes for which the funds contained in FY 1999 Department of Veteran's Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill for Section 319 of the Clean Water Act can be used. Is this Senator correct in his understanding, Mr. Chairman, that Phase I, II, and III projects, and lake water quality assessments which were previously done under the Section 314 Clean Lakes Program may be funded with the funds provided for Section 319 grants?

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment aimed at preserving America's small farms. This amendment costs nothing and was inspired by a recommendation included in the January, 1998 publication of the National Commission on Small Farms. Mr. President, there is no question that America's small farms are struggling. Their struggle is detailed in ``A Time to Act'', the report issued by the National Commission on Small Farms, which outlines the crisis small farmers will face as they enter the next century. Mr. President, 94% of the farms in America are small farms, yet they receive only 41% of all farm receipts. Simply put 6% of our farms collect 59% of the receipts. Also, data shows that, on average, these farms actually earn a negative return on equity. Mr. President, many feel that one cause of the problem is that USDA does not emphasize the needs of small farms in its strategic plans, partly because Congress does not require that emphasis. References to small farms appear seldom in USDA policy and Congress is to blame. Lets use this opportunity to right a wrong and attempt to preserve small farms throughout the country. Mr. President, the Feingold amendment will turn the USDA's attention to the plight of the small farmer. This amendment directs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish an Office of the Small Farms Advocate within six months of enactment of the underlying bill. This office will be headed by an Administrator who will be appointed by the President and who will report directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. This office will be created without going outside current budget or personnel resources. The Office of the Small Farms Advocate will ensure that USDA and its programs work to meet the needs of today's small farmers. The Office of the Small Farms Advocate will accomplish this by: working with all USDA agencies to ensure that they consider the needs of small farmers; providing formal input on major programmatic and policy decisions by USDA agencies; developing a plan to enhance small farm program delivery at USDA; and being a constant advocate for small farms and small farm policies. Let me assure my colleagues that it is not my intention to create another layer of bureaucracy--it is my intention to coordinate USDA programs to meet small farmer needs and make the bureaucracy more responsive. Mr. President, this amendment will not increase USDA's authorized budget, but instead directs USDA to use its current financial and personnel resources. Finally, this amendment does not increase the number of political appointees within the Department of Agriculture. Mr. President, day after day, season after season, we are losing small farms at an alarming rate. In the United States, we have 300,000 less farms than we did in 1979. In 1980, there were 45,000 dairy farms in Wisconsin. In 1997, there are only 24,000 dairy farms. That is a loss of more than 3 dairy farms a day--every day for 18 years. And it does not begin to measure the human cost to families driven from the land. As small farms disappear, we are witnessing the emergence of larger agricultural operations. This trend toward fewer but larger dairy operations is mirrored in most states throughout the Nation. For many of the rural communities of Wisconsin, small family-owned farms are the key component of the community. They provide economic and social stability. The reduction in the number of small farms has hurt their neighbors as well and deprived the merchants on Main Street of many lifelong customers. We need a system in which small farms can be viable and the work of the producer can be fairly rewarded. Mr. President, many feel federal policy and federal investments focus almost solely on the needs of larger scale agricultural producers-- neglecting the specific research needs of small producers. Small producers need more Federal research and extension activity devoted to the development of these alternatives. It is my hope that this new office at USDA will be committed to help develop and promote production and marketing systems that specifically address the needs of small farms. This bias has hamstrung small farmers, depriving them of the tools they need to adapt to changes in farming and the marketplace and accelerating the trend toward increased concentration. Mr. President, this country's small producers should not be forced to become larger in order to remain competitive. Bigger is not necessarily better. Maintaining the economic viability of small operations has benefits beyond those gained by farmers and the communities in which they reside; they can also provide environmental benefits. For example, as operations expand, manure storage and management practices become more costly and more burdensome for the operator and raise additional regulatory concerns associated with runoff and water quality among State and Federal regulators. Federal policy that helps small operators to remain competitive and profitable without dramatic expansion will help minimize these concerns. And in fact, M. President, expansion is often counterproductive for small operations, requiring them to take on even greater debt. Unfortunately, federal agriculture policy has put many producers in a situation where they must choose to expand their operations or throw in the towel. Farmers should not be forced into that position. We must provide the tools necessary for farmers to survive and prosper regardless of the size of their operation. We all congratulated the USDA when it convened the National Commission on Small Farms in July 1997. We applauded the appointment of farmers, ranchers, staff of nonprofit farm and farmworker advocacy organizations, Extension professionals, current and former public officials, and philanthropic foundation program staff. We all held up the final report as our signal to rural America that we were going to do something. M. President, we haven't done anything yet. The Commission important report and recommendation have fallen by the wayside. It would be a travesty if the U.S. Government spent taxpayer money on a worthwhile project such as this--then didn't act on those recommendations. This amendment is the first step in our commitment to not preserve a large sector of our agriculture community, and an important piece of America's heritage. I urge my colleagues to support this no-cost, pro-farmer amendment and yield back the balance of my time. amendment no. 3184 (Purpose: To limit the penalty for an inadvertent violation of a contract under the Agricultural Market Transition Act) On page 67, after line 23, add the following:

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I join the National Taxpayers Union, the Friends of the Earth, Citizens Against Government Waste and other pro- consumer government watchdog groups in supporting Senator Bryan's amendment to terminate the Market Access Program. Throughout the years, this wasteful program has sometimes carelessly used taxpayer money to help those who can afford to help themselves--instead of this country's struggling small farmers. Mr. President, over the last ten years, the USDA has shelled out $1.4 billion for the Market Access Program (MAP), which is intended to promote U.S. products abroad. MAP has been roundly criticized for giving away millions of taxpayer dollars to agribusiness giants in the name of trade, but the program has managed some unusual feats, including scaring off foreign consumers. As we face the already challenging task of reducing the deficit and preserving Social Security, MAP is a program that the federal budget, and the taxpayer, can do without. I do not need to remind members of the millions of dollars wasted on MAP and the programs preceding it. In 1989, we had the Japan/California raisin fiasco. The California Raisin Board ran untranslated ads to promote their raisins in a market where raisins were rare. Baffled at the sight of these strange dancing blobs, many Japanese children were frightened. Mr. President, it's safe to say that if the California Raisin Board had done any market research, they would not have wasted $3 million on those commercials. They wouldn't have been so careless. MAP is the kind of program most taxpayers know little or nothing about, but we are paying dearly for it. Though the program has undergone some changes over the last nine years, it continues to dole out money to some of the largest agriculture companies in the country with funds that could instead be used to help small farmers. Some of the companies receiving MAP funds in fiscal year 1998 include Sunkist Growers and Blue Diamond Growers. Both are big companies that can afford to market their own products abroad without spending tax dollars. The list includes a host of other beneficiaries of MAP's 1998 $90 million dollar budget, including the California Pistachio Commission, the Mohair Council of America, Kentucky Distiller's Association and the Wine Institute. Mr. President, it is true that MAP was changed in the 1996 Farm bill to direct funds to cooperatives and trade associations instead of corporations, but a loophole still allows the companies that belong to those trade associations to continue to receive and spend taxpayer funds. Mr. President, I believe in supporting and strengthening America's position in foreign markets, but when we allocate precious tax dollars to be used toward that end, we must spend them on concrete efforts to get American products on to the shelves in those markets, instead of subsidizing advertising campaigns for major corporations. The USDA's own estimates put U.S. agricultural exports in 1998 down more than two billion dollars from the previous year. More than ever, Wisconsin farmers need the USDA to promote and place U.S. agricultural products in foreign markets through more successful export programs, not to line the pockets of big agribusiness and Madison Avenue. I urge support of the Bryan amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few moments to state my opposition to S. 2271, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 1998. First, Mr. President, on behalf of my constituents, I want to indicate my strong concerns about the manner in which this bill has come to the Senate floor, and indicate why I opposed cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill. If necessary, I will return to the floor to discuss my concerns about this legislation in greater detail. The Senate Judiciary Committee, upon which I serve, reported H.R. 1534, the Citizen's Access to Justice Act of 1997, with amendments. I voted against reporting that measure. In an effort to address concerns raised in Committee debate when the bill was reported, the Chairman and Senior Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) announced that he would work with Committee members to seek necessary improvements. The bill now before us embodies what the Chairman would have offered on the floor as a substitute amendment to H.R. 1534 as reported. Not only do I take exception to the result of this attempt to ``improve'' the bill but I am also alarmed at the speed with which this measure has been brought to the floor. The resulting bill number shuffle and procedural debate over whether or not the proponents would be offering a substitute amendment has left my constituents, on both sides of this issue, frustrated and confused. This extremely technical and complicated matter is of critical importance to a wide variety of interests in my state who have followed this legislation since the early days of this Congress. Thus, I had hoped to act with greater concern for those constituents interested in the outcome of this measure as we sought to move it to the floor. Procedurally, I am also concerned, Mr. President, that S. 2271 differs significantly from the legislation the Judiciary Committee reported. Members, for the first time, have heard about the substance of this bill through floor debate today. Given the potential impact of this legislation on both the federal government and local governments' financing and regulatory structures that we should have given members both a comprehensive written description of the changes contained in S. 2271 and additional opportunities to discuss this legislation with their constituents. I voted against this measure in Committee and oppose the bill currently before the Senate for a number of reasons. First, this bill will result in a increase in litigation over local zoning matters in federal courts. As a result of the Listening Sessions I hold in every Wisconsin county every year I have worked with constituents on a number of regulatory red tape issues. It is clear that the last thing Wisconsinites want or need is a bill that ``takes'' scarce resources away from local governments by exposing state and local officials in our state to threat of federal liability in their attempts to control local land use and follow federal law. As my colleagues have pointed out, this bill creates an opportunity for clever lawyers to profit at the expense of local ordinances to which we in the Judiciary Committee, and in this body, normally claim to defer. Certainly, this bill is not consistent with any claim of deference to state and local authority. It is an explicit transfer of power to the federal government. This bill purports to lessen the impact upon the prerogatives of local governments, but it continues to allow broad exceptions to the very abbreviation of local land use processes which the bill itself mandates, a process which can be now be the subject of federal litigation. As the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee (Mr. Leahy) has explained that S. 2271 lowers two threshold barriers to bringing takings claims against federal and local governments in federal courts. It does so by legislating both the circumstances under which courts can abstain from hearing a case and dictating when a claim may be heard by a federal court --known as ``ripeness.'' In the case of takings lawsuits against the federal government, a case is ripe for adjudication when, as the bill defines it, a federal agency has made a ``final decision.'' A ``final decision'' exists when an either an application or an appeal to use the property has been submitted but not been approved ``within a reasonable time.'' Similar language is incorporated to specify when suits can be brought against local governments, and that section is somewhat more deferential to local governments. The bill is more deferential to local land use regulatory bodies, unlike when a claim is brought against a federal agency, by arguably making it more likely that an initial application will be filed. Let me repeat that for colleagues, to make it clear. Under this legislation in certain circumstances an individual is able to sue the federal government for a taking without even submitting an application to a federal agency to determine whether the action they propose violates federal law. The bill says that the party seeking redress under this bill would not be required to submit an application or appeal if the district court holds that such actions would be futile. Futility is defined as the inability to seek or obtain approvals to use real property as defined under applicable land use or environmental law. I would point out that while futility is defined for actions in district courts, there is no definition of futility for the Court of Claims, though an individual making a claim against the federal government has the option under this legislation, which also concerns this Senator, to sue in either court. These provisions allow litigation not when a Constitutional right is deprived, that is when the government denies compensation for restricted use or condemnation of property, but rather when the use of the property itself has some conditions placed upon it. I would like my colleagues to think for a moment about what kind of anti-regulatory and anti-compliance actions the futility exemption in this legislation would encourage. Such language suggests that if one knew or might know, as an experienced developer, that a particular type of wetland filling activity would not be likely to be permitted under the Clean Water Act, then one would be free to claim that requesting a permit for such an activity would be futile and sue the federal government. Even if the government dismisses that case, as I am sure the bill's supporters argue it would, because there are no supporting facts and no application, under the language of this bill the court isn't allowed to abstain. Aren't we sending the wrong message, Mr. President? In Wisconsin, often my constituents are unaware when an action they have taken requires them to interact with a federal agency, and my office helps constituents in those circumstances. But this legislation explicitly provides that if know that an action is prohibited, you may sue to be compensated being denied the right to do it anyway. And for those who will argue that such suits won't happen, I'd reply by saying it's a genuine risk under this legislation. If an extreme suit against the government is successful, the federal government is obligated to pay the court costs of prevailing plaintiffs. These same provisions apply to suits against local governments, though courts can abstain if an initial application isn't filed and there is some discretion given about whether prevailing plaintiffs would have to be awarded court costs. I also want to make clear that this bill applies to local land use decisions because I believe there may be some Senators who are under the impression that this bill applies only to actions taken by federal agencies. However, this is not the case. S. 2271 contains additional provisions which limit local decision making, expanding upon similar provisions contained in the House-passed version of this legislation. For example it would require a land-use applicant to ``take into account'' any suggestions given by the land use agency which denied the application when reapplying before the applicant pursues federal litigation. This language is still unclear, and certainly local governments that will have their hands tied by this bill share this view. Second, I remain concerned that this bill applies to all forms of property. Proponents claim that it only applies to real property. It may indirectly expand of the definition of private property. This will undoubtedly lead to creative lawsuits and increased costs for the taxpayers. This bill allows vindication of ``all interests constituting property rights, as defined by Federal or State law, protected under the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution.'' I would remind my colleagues that ``all interests constituting property'' is a much broader category than real estate. Moreover, the bill creates the right of access to federal court for any actions taken by federal agencies as described in Section 6 that ``infringe or take'' the rights to ``use and enjoy real property.'' Starting down the road of extending litigation rights to all forms of property, and all uses of property may lead the federal government to protect interests we might otherwise not protect. Take for example contractual rights to receive water from the federal government. At present, there is no federal right to ``receive'' water except as provided by a contract, even though a supply of water clearly is related to the ability to produce crops on one's real property. The Bureau of Reclamation delivers water in 17 Western states, pursuant to contracts, for primarily agricultural purposes. Each year, it allocates water based upon supplies available in reservoirs and other storage facilities. Most contracts generally anticipate that delivered quantities may vary on an annual basis. During the drought of 1993, the Bureau of Reclamation reduced the quantities of water supplied to the Westlands Water District. It allocated a portion of the limited water available to protect fish in accordance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. When agricultural users received only 50 percent of their contract quantities, Westlands sued alleging that the liability limitations of the contract were invalid and that the agricultural users were guaranteed a fixed quantity of water at a fixed price. They contended that despite the liability limitations of the contract, the Bureau's water allocation decisions improperly deprived them of water and entitled them to compensation. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Westlands' claim, sustaining the federal government's contract defense. This legislation would create an expedited procedure for bringing takings claims, and specifically provides for causes of action when ``use'' is restricted, thus potentially compromising the federal governments' argument in the Westlands case that the government was in compliance with the contract. In response to questions I submitted about last Congress's takings legislation, which had similar definitions of ``use,'' then Counselor to the Secretary of the Interior Joseph Sax wrote explicitly about the Administration's concerns with the potential for property rights legislation to create a new category of federal water law: Where Congress has recently restructured federal reclamation projects to direct more economically and environmentally sensitive management, as it has done for example in California's Central Valley Project,. . .[a]ny steps the Department of Interior takes to implement these congressionally ratified improvements would doubtless result in demands for compensation by affected interests if these bills became law. Other portions of the bill raise similar questions. For example, is it the intent of the language to suggest that any person taking an action that causes injury to a property right, but doesn't actually take the property, creates the right of access to federal courts? Even if that action is supported or mandated by a local or state ordinance or statute? How would one substantiate an action which damages the ``right to enjoy'' one's property? This is just another example of the kinds of problems this legislation poses. And what about the distinction the bill makes by including special reference to ``real property'' without defining that term? Wisconsin communities are deeply afraid of the litigation costs and general erosion of the notion of community that will be implicit in the answers to these questions. Mr. President, I have heard almost unprecedented levels of opposition to this legislation from local governments all over my state, from large cities like Milwaukee and Madison to small communities like the Village of Park Ridge near Stevens Point and Cudahy, Wisconsin. Individuals of every political affiliation oppose this legislation, and editorials opposing similar bills have appeared all over my state. To me, however, one of the best arguments against this legislation was sent to me by the former Mayor of New London, Wisconsin, Gregory Mathewson. After the H.R. 1534 passed the other body and was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee former Mayor Mathewson wrote: Our fear with this legislation is that it tilts the current balance and increases the range of things a property owner has a right to do. Meaning that communities no longer have any clear authority to zone property or decide between conflicting interests on the basis of the best interests of the community as a whole. We often have homeowners who do not wish to see apartments of any type built near them, owners of large houses who do not want small houses built near them, and we routinely have to tell people that the City exists for all persons not a few, and that the poor, the non-land owning and others shall be welcome. We fear now that these decisions will involve us in continuous litigation in federal court, and all notions of community will be eroded as the questions and issues will be so generalized by the courts that local reasons, customs and planning will be irrelevant. I ask you to see that a balance is maintained, the community ought to have rights balances against individual rights. In its current form, H.R. 1534 appears to eliminate this balance. Everybody seeks out places to live which offer a high quality of life. It must be clear that there is no quality of life if someone can do anything they want with their property or sue over any perceived impact on their property. In either case, the individual controls the community and this is the operational definition of anarchy. Mr. President, Wisconsin communities respect property rights, and want to have well developed and well planned cities, towns, and villages. This legislation goes too far in seeking not just to clarify but to enhance the procedural rights of property owners to seek compensation under the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution. In doing it would have unintended consequences that might undo the unique character of towns across America and within my home state. It is for this reason, and the others I have described, that I oppose this legislation. I urge other Senators to join me in seeking its defeat.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is with great dismay that I wish to note the passing of Chief Moshood Abiola, the apparent winner of the 1993 presidential elections in Nigeria. Chief Abiola was apparently stricken by heart failure during a meeting with senior U.S. officials, including Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering and Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, Susan Rice, on July 7. In great ironic tragedy, the U.S. delegation was in Nigeria, in part, to push the new government of that country for the release of Abiola and dozens of other political prisoners. There was broad speculation that Abiola would have been released within days. Mr. President, Abiola's death comes during a tumultuous moment in Nigerian history, just one month after the death of military leader Gen. Sani Abacha. 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. With the replacement of Abacha by the current military ruler, Gen. Abdulsalam 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, Gen. Abubakar has taken some positive steps, including the release of several prominent political prisoners, and has indicated a willingness to move his country once and for all in the direction of democracy. But he had yet to deal with one of the more vexing issues related to such a transition, and that is the role that Chief Abiola would assume. News of Abiola's death has sent shock waves through the country. Since last night, there have been sporadic riots throughout the country, and particularly in Lagos, the center of Abiola's supporters. At least 19 people are known to have died in the ensuing violence. And, according to news reports, heavily armed police continue to patrol the streets. Abubakar is making efforts to calm the country. First, he has ordered, with the consent of the Abiola family, a complete autopsy, under the supervision of Abiola's own doctor, of the cause of death. This is extremely important in order to quell the rumors already circulating that the military injected Abiola with poison prior to his meeting with the American officials. Abubakar also today announced the dissolution of the Abacha-appointed Cabinet. These are, indeed, positive steps, but they are not enough. Earlier this session, I introduced the Nigerian Democracy and Civil Society Empowerment Act, S. 2102. 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 past few weeks, I still believe these benchmarks are important, and I continue to call on Gen. Abubakar 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 can take place in Nigeria. Finally, in this time of great uncertainty in the country, I urge all Nigerians to exercise restraint. Let's wait to see what Abubakar chooses to do next. Let's wait to evaluate the results of the autopsy. Nigeria has suffered enough already. It would be a shame if Abiola's death were to lead the country into armed conflict. Let us hope this will not be the case.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I come to the floor to lend my support to the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas. Senator Bumpers has led a long, and often lonely, battle against the International Space Station. Since I joined this body in 1993, I have supported his efforts to terminate the program on the basis of its extraordinary cost and its crushing burden on the Federal budget deficit. We now see that the space station is not only far more expensive than previous cost estimates, but also significantly behind schedule and losing the support of partner nations, including the Russians failing to keep its financial commitments. The reasons for terminating the space station are now more compelling than ever. Senator Bumpers has been prescient in his efforts to save our tax dollars on this wasteful program. In a May, 1998, report, the General Accounting Office stated that the new cost estimate for the space station had risen to almost $96 billion. And this extraordinary cost doesn't even include the cost of decommissioning and deorbiting the space station at the end of its useful life. This, in and of itself, will cost billions more. Even a NASA-appointed commission found that NASA's own cost estimates were vastly underestimated. The blue ribbon Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force recently reported that the cost of simply developing and building space station hardware will probably cost $24.7 billion. Just last year, NASA officials promised Congress that developing and building space station hardware would cost $17.4 billion. Mr. President, how in the world did cost estimates rocket up by 42 percent in the course of one year? The same blue ribbon panel also estimates it will take two years longer to assemble the space station than NASA now plans. The report pushes the completion of the space station back to early 2006. Let me remind my colleagues that in September, 1994, NASA said it would complete assembly of the space station by June, 2002. The schedule has slipped by four years, let me repeat, four years since 1994. Ironically, NASA recently announced a delay in launching the first piece of the space station by five months. According to the commission, each month of delay will add about $100 million to the final cost of the project. Finally, Mr. President, NASA enlisted the support of Russia as a means of fostering collaborative energy and as a means of defraying program cost. As we know, Russia is in the midst of economic instability and an unreliable space program, witness the problems with the Mir space station. NASA estimated that the American taxpayers would save $2 billion by working with the Russians on this new space station. That savings is already gone. On top of that, the Russian Space Agency doesn't even have the money to safely deorbit Mir. How, then, can we safely rely on Russia to fulfill its obligations for the International Space Station? Even our European partners in the European Space Agency are beginning to reconsider their commitment to the International Space Station. French Space Minister Claude Allegre said of the International Space Station project, ``People often do stupid things. There is no reason we should applaud them.'' Fortunately, Congressional leaders are growing skeptical of NASA's plans. Last month, the chairman and ranking member of the House Science Committee wrote the President asking for a plan for controlling cost growth and delays on the space station. Given the Administration's reluctance to offer such a plan and NASA's resistance to cutting back the program, I don't see how we can support putting good money after bad. Mr. President, it is time to end this program.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased that the distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Committee has agreed to cosponsor my Child Exploitation Sentencing Enhancement Amendment and add it to the authorization bill for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). As we all know, miraculous advances in computer technology have opened new worlds to citizens all across this country. It's an exciting future. But it is also a future filled with risk for vulnerable children because some in our country have chosen to exploit the new technologies to commit crimes. According to the NCMEC, criminals are increasingly using computer telecommunications technology as a means to assist in the sexual victimization of young children and teenagers. To combat this growing problem of the use of computers and the Internet to sexually exploit and abuse children, I introduced the Child Exploitation Sentencing Enhancement Act of 1997 last June. The amendment adopted by the Senate today incorporates that bill--S. 900-- which was also co-sponsored by my friend from Ohio, Senator DeWine. Mr. President, the same marvelous advances in computer and telecommunications technology that allow our children to reach out to new sources of knowledge and cultural experiences are also leaving them unwittingly vulnerable to exploitation and harm by pedophiles and other sexual predators in ways never before possible. Advances in technology should not be the shield from behind which pedophiles and sexual molesters target and prey upon our children. When new technologies are used to further the criminal sexual exploitation and abuse of children, it is essential, that this conduct be punished severely. This amendment directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to increase criminal penalties for people who use a computer to entice children into illicit sexual conduct. The amendment also directs that sentences be increased for those criminals who seek out children on the Internet and misrepresent their true identity in a knowing effort to gain the trust of the child they intend to victimize sexually. The provisions in this amendment are directed squarely at those molesters and sexual predators who go on-line and use computer chat rooms to target young victims. One distinct advantage of the Internet for criminals is that they are able to reach a much wider audience of potential victims than they would if they had to be physically present at a schoolyard or playground. Another advantage for cyber-criminals is that they have near fool-proof anonymity while they cruise the Internet looking for victims. In some cases, victims are enticed or lured to meet with the sexual molester. The opportunites for the criminal to misrepresent his true identity and thus gain the confidence of the victim is a significant aspect of these crimes. Director Freeh noted this problem last year in testimony before an appropriations subcommittee. He said: Pedophiles often seek out young children by either participating in or monitoring activities in chat rooms that are provided by commercial on-line services for teenagers and preteens to converse with each other. These chat rooms also provide pedophiles an anonymous means of establishing relationships with children. Using a chat room, a child can converse for hours with unknown individuals, often without the knowledge or approval of their parents. There is no easy way for the child to know if the person he or she is talking with is, in fact, another 14-year-old, or is a 40-year-old sexual predator masquerading as a peer. Director Freeh's testimony also noted that sexual criminals also target young victims by posing as children looking for pen pals or by posting notices on computer bulletin boards in order to facilitate and develop relationships which can in turn provide a victim for the predator's illegal sexual activity. One chilling example of this problem comes from my own state of Wisconsin. In June 1997, a federal grand jury indicted a Jacksonville, Florida man for child enticement and for traveling in interstate commerce to commit a sex act with a fifteen-year-old girl. The defendant first contacted the girl via the Internet and over time began sending her increasingly sexually explicit messages. The defendant offered to pay for the girl to visit him in Florida. The entire time, the defendant told the young girl that he was 21 years old when, in fact, he was 39. As the sexually explicit messages escalated and it became apparent that the girl would not be able to go to Florida, the man ultimately traveled to Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin to meet her. Believing she was going to meet a 21-year-old, the girl took a friend and waited for the defendant at a restaurant. Upon being confronted by the man--who was clearly not who he said he was--the young girl fled into a restroom while the defendant stood outside and demanded that she come out. Later that day, based upon information provided by the girl, the man was arrested by Sturgeon Bay police at a local motel at which he had registered under an assumed name. This is a chilling example of how criminals can use the Internet to facilitate crimes against children. Thankfully, this incident did not end in the sexual abuse of a fifteen-year-old. But it is frightening to consider what might have happened if the defendant had been able to lure her to the unfamiliar area of Jacksonville, Florida. This is not an isolated incident; there have been other similar instances in Wisconsin and across the nation. And many have not ended as happily as this one did. In addition to increasing sentences for criminal activity involving this type of conduct, my amendment expands the ``pattern of activity'' sentencing enhancement to a wider range of sexual abuse and exploitation crimes. Those criminals who have shown an ongoing pattern of sexually exploiting minors will be held accountable for their conduct through longer prison sentences. These longer sentences incapacitate the criminal for a longer period of time, reducing the potential that they will be set free to victimize again. This sentencing enhancement will now be applicable in cases of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, and the coercion and enticement of minors for an illegal sexual activity. In addition, the amendment targets repeat offenders by increasing penalties for repeat offenses and by increasing maximum penalties available under the Federal criminal code. And finally, the amendment authorizes funding to be used to appoint guardians ad litem for children who are the victims of, or witnesses to, crimes involving abuse or exploitation. Mr. President, our children are our most precious resource. I am the father of teenage children. Like any parent, I worry about the health and safety of my children. I encourage my children to utilize the Internet and to gain the benefits of these amazing new technologies-- technologies which simply did not exist just a few years ago, not to mention when I was growing up. During my tenure in this body, I have been a strong believer in the potential of the Internet and sincerely hope that as we move toward the next century that potential will be realized to the benefit of all our citizens. But I am also mindful of the dangers that arise when criminals exploit a new technology to further their illicit criminal activity. This amendment speaks directly to the small percentage of individuals who intentionally misuse the Internet to prey sexually upon children. The adoption of this amendment will send a message that the we will not tolerate the sexual exploitation of our young people on the information superhighway. Pedophiles and sexual predators are not welcome on that road. Mr. President, there are many different views on the best approach to the potential dangers of the Internet. We have disagreements in this body, as we do in the country, about the best way to protect children from sexually explicit images on the Internet. But I think we all can agree that when the Internet is used to facilitate criminal abuse of chilren, punishment should be swift and severe. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to mark the first observance of International Day in Support of Torture Victims and Survivors. This day, which was designated last year by the United Nations General Assembly, serves as a reminder to all of us that, sadly, at this very moment, somewhere in the world a prisoner is being beaten, a woman is being raped, or a child is witnessing the torture or murder of a loved one at the hands of a hostile force. Along with guns and bombs, torture unfortunately has become just another weapon in the arsenal of war. In generations past, we like to believe that wars were fought between combatants according to an unwritten code. In some conflicts of the past, fighting was suspended after dark and during the winter months so as not to give one side an advantage over the other. But the rules of contemporary wars are much less clear. Combatants fight, not merely against each other, but against civilians, including women and children, on the opposing side. War is no longer just a means to acquire territory or settle long- running disputes, but often it is used as a means to attempt to obliterate entire ethnic or religious groups. In this past decade alone, the world has been witness to inconceivable acts of horror committed against specific populations in such places as Rwanda, Sudan, Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, and Kosovo. The terms ``ethnic cleansing'' and ``genocide'' have become all too common in describing events around the world. And the stories of those torture victims who live to tell of their experiences continue to shock and horrify the international community. Earlier this month, during the National Day of Action for Tibet rally which took place on the Capitol steps, I was privileged to hear the comments of Palden Gyatso, a Buddhist monk who was imprisoned for 33 years by the Chinese force which unlawfully occupies his homeland. He told of unspeakable acts of torture that are routinely committed against the Tibetan people by the Chinese military. The myriad forms of torture he was forced to endure included being hung upside down while his naked body was repeatedly stung with an electric cattle prod and having boiling water poured over his body. That he was able to survive this brutal treatment is a testament to his faith, which his captors attempted to squelch through these and other inhuman acts. But for every person like Palden Gyatso, who somehow managed to survive such brutal treatment, there are countless others, whose names we may never know, who did not. These people endured their fate with a quiet courage that inspires hundreds of thousands worldwide to fight against the practice of torture as a weapon of war. I find it particularly ironic that the President is spending the first International Day in Support of Torture Victims and Survivors in the People's Republic of China as the guest of a government that has sanctioned the torture of its own citizens. I hope the President will mark this day by calling on Chinese leaders to open a meaningful dialogue with the Dalai Lama regarding Tibet and to gain assurances that the basic human rights of all Chinese citizens will become a top priority. Since coming to the Senate in 1993, I have been contacted by numerous Wisconsin residents who share the concern of the international community about the prevalence of torture in our world. As a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, I will continue to speak out against such reprehensible acts at every available opportunity. I look forward to the day when the use of torture as a weapon of war is consigned to history books instead of daily news reports from around the world.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that will give some relief to the taxpayers of this country, who now pay millions every year to cover the storage costs of cotton farmers. This year alone, this program has provided more than $23 million to store the cotton crop of participating farmers. This measure puts all commodities on a more equal footing by eliminating the storage subsidy for cotton, the only commodity that still enjoys that 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 the same opportunities and others through the heavily subsidized 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 up to date with prevailing modern agricultural thought--that the agriculture industry must be more market oriented--must survive with minimal 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 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 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 for 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 entire text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that will give some relief to the taxpayers of this country, who now pay millions every year to cover the storage costs of cotton farmers. This year alone, this program has provided more than $23 million to store the cotton crop of participating farmers. This measure puts all commodities on a more equal footing by eliminating the storage subsidy for cotton, the only commodity that still enjoys that 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 the same opportunities and others through the heavily subsidized 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 up to date with prevailing modern agricultural thought--that the agriculture industry must be more market oriented--must survive with minimal 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 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 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 for 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 entire text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2808 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I will be happy to yield. Amendment No. 3011 to Amendment No. 3010 (Purpose: To require separate training platoons and separate housing for male and female basic trainees, and to ensure after-hours privacy for basic trainees)

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the senior Senator from Arizona. I will use some of the 20 minutes that I have been allocated at this time and then reserve some of it in order to respond to whatever arguments are made about the position of the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to voice my support for the amendment offered by my friend from Arkansas. I am proud to have worked with the distinguished Senator on a number of issues during the past five years and I will miss his leadership and friendship. One of the many issues on which I have had the pleasure to work with him is the Defense Department's tactical aircraft programs. I am a proud co-sponsor of this most sensible amendment. I find it hard to believe that anyone could oppose an amendment that makes sure the Air Force flight tests its multi-billion dollar F-22 aircraft less than half the number of hours the Air Force itself planned to fly before moving to begin production. Just this past Monday, the DoD's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation told Congress that the F-22 will have approximately 100 hours of flight tests by December, not the 183 the Air Force expects. And that is less than one third the number of hours that the Air Force itself said was desirable just last year. In essence, Mr. President, the Air Force wants to begin producing F-22s at a cost of about one hundred billion tax dollars after completing about 7 percent of its originally planned flight tests. Does this seem like a good idea? By comparison, the F-15 flew for 975 hours before a production contract award; the F-16 for 1,115 hours; and even the much-flawed Super Hornet had 779 flight test hours before a production contract was awarded. There is a direct correlation between flying hours and expansion of an aircraft's flight envelope. It takes flying hours to explore an aircraft's performance at all airspeeds and altitudes and in various configurations. Remember, Mr. President, prototype tests, ground tests, wind tunnel tests and computer simulations did not predict the Super Hornet's program-threatening wing drop problem, which took 2,500 hours of flight tests to solve. Mr. President, this amendment just makes common sense. We need to make sure the taxpayers are getting all they're paying for. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. FEINGOLD. It is a great joy working with the distinguished Senator from Michigan, and I regret having to be on the opposite side of this amendment, especially since it is our two States that are most affected by this project--ELF. But this truly is a project in search of a justification. It had a purpose in the cold war. But when the Senator from Michigan lays out the purpose of the program, what isn't clearly identified is all this Project ELF does. He talks about the slower speeds and the fact that the submarines have to come up. But that is premised, somehow, on the notion that the submarines are being told something of any detail while they are submerged. They are not. Project ELF can only tell the submarine: ``Come up.'' It is sort of like: ``ET, phone home.'' That is all you get. ``Come up and get your messages. Check your answering machine.'' While the submarine is submerged, it cannot learn what the threat is, it cannot get instructions, it cannot get anything. All it gets is a message that it has to come up anyway, that it has to slow down anyway. For 5 years I have been searching for a justification for something that is nothing more than really a very primitive beeper system that you can't communicate back with and you can't get any real information from. The only justification for it was the fact that we had a threat from Soviet nuclear submarines. That threat is no longer there, and there is no two-way communication that comes from this. Again, this is one of the sad moments where a program comes into existence and somehow, because it once was supposed to have a justification under another set of facts, under another series of threats, it just keeps going because a couple of people in the military say it still might be handy. The problem with that is, this is real money. It is $12 million a year that could be spent on a number of things. Under my amendment, we would spend it on our true national security. This is about priorities within our national security. I believe an archaic ELF system is less important than putting $12 million a year into the National Guard, which is underfunded under this bill. The needs of the National Guard armories, the inventory, the training, are underfunded under the Department of Defense authorization bill. All I am trying to do here is to balance this, to say let's get rid of something that really isn't necessary, that really is primitive, that doesn't provide the sophisticated kind of communication that is claimed, and instead provide help to our hard-working men and women who are part of our National Guard and who now comprise a very significant part of what our Army does in this country. This is an unusual situation. Both Senators from our State and the State where this exists are saying, ``Please get rid of this program.'' How often do Senators from a State go to the base closure system and say please take something out of our State? I assure Members, neither Senator Kohl nor I would propose such a thing if we were not convinced after years of efforts that this program did not have a national security implication, that it was outdated, it was a waste of money, and the money was better used helping our National Guard. I ask our colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the remainder of our time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor. Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will use a bit more of the time I am allotted. I would like to briefly respond to the distinguished chairman. He indicated, first of all, the distinguished Senator from Michigan, who is a member of the Armed Services Committee, has been a critic of the Project ELF program long prior to the time I was serving in the Senate. Surely the Senator from Michigan would not support such a termination if it truly was a threat to our entire submarine system and our national security. In particular, Mr. President, there were apparently, at least arguably, benefits to this program at one point. But these justifications that have just been identified no longer can be defended. I tried very hard for 5 years to find exactly what it is that is so critical that this system does, and I can't find it. Let me review briefly what the problem is with this ELF program. It is an unsophisticated technology which is designed to only signal to, not actually substantively communicate with, a deeply submerged Trident submarine. It is entirely ineffective in communicating anything of substance. While Project ELF may provide an additional form of communication, it is really just redundant over the communications systems we now have at this time. Any benefit from this is just marginal. It cannot communicate messages. It can just give phonetic-letter-spelled-out messages at the rate of 1 pulse per 5 minutes. And wartime messages, except messages to strike, presumably would require more sophisticated methods. We are dismantling our first-strike capability. In order to act in combat, submarines have to come to the surface anyway, Mr. President, in order to receive messages and to launch missiles. So they are at risk of detection anyway at precisely the moment that we are talking about. Even in its optimum construction, Project ELF has no nuclear survivability; it has no nuclear dependability and, thus, it really doesn't have any wartime efficacy. The justifications that have been given again here are the old ones. They do not fit the reality of the post-Soviet submarine era, and that is the reason why there is a justification for this amendment. It saves money, and it provides funding for our National Guard that desperately needs the help. This is what is sometimes so frustrating about trying to ask the Defense Department just to give up something that they don't need. I understand criticisms of proposals for across-the-board cuts that mindlessly say, ``Let's just cut out a percentage of the defense budget.'' That can't possibly be a reflection of the needs of our national security. But when a careful effort has been made over many years by Members of both bodies of our Congress to identify a specific program as outdated and is a cold-war relic, it seems to me it is our job in this body to say, ``Wait a minute; this $12 million a year is wasted.'' I am not even asking in this amendment that it be put into some other area of Government. I am asking that it be put into our National Guard, which I can tell you, having visited several armories in Wisconsin recently, the National Guard in Wisconsin has inventory problems. They can't get the training they need, and they don't have the personnel they need. They are, unlike Project ELF, critical to our national security. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss briefly the Supreme Court's decision earlier today to strike down the line-item veto law and to a new approach to the line-item veto that aims to cut some of the vast fat contained in our annual spending bills, but will stand up to constitutional scrutiny. Though the Court found that the line-item veto legislation was flawed, I supported the experimental line-item veto authority we gave the President in 1996 as a means of controlling Congress' voracious appetite for pork. I had great concerns about many aspects of the legislation. My greatest concern was granting a greatly expanded veto authority that retained the two-thirds override threshold that the Constitution provides for the Presidential veto of entire bills. Extending that authority for individual sections of a bill worried me. And the Court found that this represented an inappropriate shift in the balance of power from the legislative branch to the executive. I do not question the Court's decision. Mr. President, I don't believe, nor have I ever believed that enhanced rescission authority, whether it be the line-item veto or some other vehicle, is the whole answer to our deficit and spending problem, or even most of the answer, but it certainly can be part of the answer. I am working on a bill that would allow expedited rescission. It promises to be a useful tool to help reduce the Federal deficit and bring the Federal budget truly into balance, and more importantly to bring reform to our appropriations process. The introduction of this bill would be extremely timely given this body's consideration of the fiscal year 1999 spending bills. Ideally, we would have an expedited rescissions law in place for this year's appropriations bills, but I know that won't happen. What surely will happen is the stealthy insertion of an extensive list of wasteful and unnecessary projects and programs that pick clean the wallets of this country's taxpayers. This bill would allow the Congress and the President to work together to exercise the kind of specific budget pruning that many of us feel is a necessary response to the budget abuses that persist in the appropriations process. Mr. President, this bill would enable the President to propose eliminating specific spending items for veto and would allow Congress to support or oppose the President's suggestions on a simple up or down vote. This bill would accomplish the objectives of the line-item veto-- eliminating wasteful and unnecessary spending--but without violating the constitutional principles of separation of power and balance of power. Mr. President, I believe this bill would be an effective means of fighting wasteful spending, certainly something everyone opposes.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the anniversary of the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the establishment of the federal minimum wage. For sixty years, this law has provided hardworking Americans a promise--a promise that, in this country, we value the labor of all of our workers. Over the last several decades, we have kept that promise by periodically raising the minimum wage. We have passed legislation six times since 1955 to ensure that this vital safety net is not just symbolic, but, instead, a true standard of decency. It is time to do this again. Just like investors who expect a fair return for the money they put into the stock market, workers should expect a fair return for the labor they invest. In today's thriving economy, investors have gotten back more than they could have hoped for. Those making minimum wage, however, have seen a declining return on their investment. An hour of work does not give back what it used to. In 1997 dollars, the minimum wage of today is more than two dollars less than what it was in the late 1960s. Our parents' generation had a minimum wage equivalent to $7.33. Now our children--despite an unparalleled booming economy--are faced with a minimum wage that places them below the poverty level. That, Mr. President, is outrageous. People who work forty hour weeks year round, trying to provide for themselves and their families, are finding that their efforts are just not enough. Perhaps, most troubling of all, this low minimum wage is having a disproportionately devastating effect on working moms. Sixty-two percent of all minimum wage workers are women, many the sole heads of their households. Where do these moms turn when they can't provide for their hungry children? Many have been forced to seek outside assistance. Last year, a US Conference of Mayors study indicated that eighty-six percent of cities reported an increased demand for emergency food assistance. Thirty- eight percent of those people seeking food at soup kitchens and shelters were employed. This is an increase of fifteen percent since 1994. This new trend is alarming. In a nation as great as ours, in a time as prosperous as this one, we should guarantee the American people that, if they are willing to work, then they will be able to live off of their income; they will be able to feed their children; they will be able to afford clothing and shelter, and they will be able to live their lives with basic dignity and fair compensation. I call upon my colleagues to raise the minimum wage so that we can help millions of working people lift themselves up from poverty. Opponents of the minimum wage claim that we cannot afford to do this. But, for the most vulnerable in America's workforce, the truth is that we simply cannot afford not to.