Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Earlier this year, a coalition of fiscal conservatives and environmentalists targeted, among other programs, Project ELF, because it harms both the Federal budget deficit and the environment. 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, and this was one of them. I hope we heed their suggestion and end this program. This amendment achieves two vital goals of many of my colleagues here. It terminates a wasteful and unnecessary cold-war era program, while providing funding increases for the National Guard. It is truly a win/win situation and I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. Exhibit 1 Health Panel Urges Power Line Studies--Electric, Magnetic Fields Termed ``Possible Human Carcinogen'' (By Curt Suplee) The kind of electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) that typically surround electric power lines should be regarded as a ``possible human carcinogen,'' a federally sponsored advisory panel concluded yesterday. The 29-member international committee, convened by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and meeting outside Minneapolis, voted 19 to 9 to consider power- line EMFs as a possible cause of cancer. Eight members found that the fields could not be classified as causing cancer, and one decided that EMFs are probably not carcinogenic in humans. In a statement, NIEHS said that the majority was most influenced by epidemiological studies that ``showed a slight increase in childhood leukemia risk from power-line/ residential exposures, and an increase in chronic leukemia risk in adults in electricity-intensive industries.'' The possible link between EMFs and cancer is highly controversial. Some other advisory groups, including panels of the National Cancer Institute and National Academy of Sciences, have noted the same association but found it inconclusive. The panel's recommendation will be included in a report that NIEHS, which is part of the National Institutes of Health, is scheduled to present to Congress and regulatory agencies in coming months. ``This report does not suggest that the risk is high,'' said committee chairman Michael Gallo of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-Robert Wood Medical School. ``It is probably quite small, compared to many other public health risks. However, I strongly believe that additional . . . research should be pursued to reduce uncertainties in this arena.''

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my amendment terminates the Navy's Extremely Low Frequency Communications System and uses the savings from it to offset funding increases for our National Guard. I am very pleased to be joined in introducing this amendment by our senior Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl. Mr. President, the amendment would limit funds appropriated in this bill for the Navy's Extremely Low Frequency Communications System or, as is it called, Project ELF, and it involves the termination of this program. It is time to mothball the project and use the savings to correct a significant shortfall that we have in this authorization bill in the funding for the National Guard's operations and maintenance account. Project ELF is in Wisconsin, but it is an ineffective, unnecessary, outdated, cold-war relic that is not wanted by most residents of our State. The members of the Wisconsin delegation have consistently fought for years to close down this Project ELF. I have introduced legislation during each Congress that I have been here to terminate it. And I have also attempted and have, in fact, 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 having this installation in our State. As we continue our efforts to reduce the Federal budget deficit and as the Department of Defense continues to struggle to meet a tighter budget, it is just absolutely clear that Project ELF should be closed down. If enacted, this amendment would save approximately $12 million a year. Project ELF is simply a one-way, primitive messenger system designed to signal to but not actually communicate with deeply submerged Trident submarines, so it is really just a bellringer. It is like a pricy beeper system used to tell the submarine when it should rise to the surface to get the actual detailed message through real communications systems. This was designed a long time ago. It was designed 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 at least this program unnecessary. With the end of the cold war, Project ELF has become harder and harder to justify. Trident submarines no longer need to take this extra precaution against Soviet nuclear forces. They now can surface on a regular basis with less danger of detection or attack. They also receive more complicated messages through very low frequency, or VLF, radio waves or lengthier messages through satellite systems if it can be done more cheaply. During the 103d Congress, Mr. President, I worked with our former colleague, Senator Nunn from Georgia, and included an amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 that required a report by the Secretary of Defense on the benefits and the costs of continued operation of this 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 somehow continue to operate after the cold war as part of the complete complement of command and control links that were configured with the cold war in mind. So if the question is, Did Project ELF play a role in helping to minimize the Soviet threat? Perhaps. Did it do so at risk to the community? Perhaps. But does it continue to play a vital security role to this Nation? No, it doesn't. It does not have that role. In the 1995 rescissions bill, the Senate, as a whole, recommended the termination for Project ELF. Somehow again, though, the program survived when some conference committee members claimed to have ``newly released, highly classified justifications'' for the program's continuation. When I looked into these claims and was assured by the Navy and Strategic Command that no new classified justifications existed, I continued my effort to try to get rid of this program. Again, the Senate cut funding for the program in 1996 in the DOD authorization bill but somehow it was again resurrected in conference. I would like you to know that both congressional representatives who have ELF installations in their areas, Representatives Obey and Stupak, support getting rid of this project. Also, former commander in chief of the Strategic Command, General George Lee Butler, called for an end to the 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, Mr. President, the savings from terminating this Project ELF would offset increases for National Guard operations and maintenance, O&M. As we all know, the National Guard expects this year a $594 million budget shortfall for the coming year, almost a $600 million shortfall for our National Guard, and this follows fast on the heels of a $743 million shortfall for the National Guard during the current fiscal year. According to the National Guard, these shortfalls are, in fact, compromising the Guard's readiness levels, capabilities, force structure, and end strength. The National Guard's O&M account shortfall directly affects surface operations tempo, real property maintenance, depot maintenance, information and telecommunications management, and medical support. The President's 1999 budget request leaves the National Guard's O&M account a significant $450 million below what it really must be in order to meet the needs of the Guard and, therefore, the needs of our military and our country. The shortfalls have increasingly greater effect given the National Guard's increased operations burdens. This is a result of new missions and increased deployments and training requirements, including the National Guard's critical role in places like Bosnia, the Iraq situation, Haiti and Somalia. Just to give my colleagues some background, as of now the Army National Guard represents 34 percent of all--total Army forces, including 55 percent of combat divisions and brigades, 46 percent of the combat support, and 25 percent of combat service support. And, yet, despite these very high figures of the critical and central role of the National Guard, the National Guard just gets 9.5 percent of the Army's funding. In total numbers, the National Guard receives just 71 percent of its requested funding as opposed to the Active Army getting 80 percent and the Army Reserves getting 81 percent. It is time we moved toward giving the National Guard adequate and equal funding. While this amendment would certainly not achieve funding equity for the National Guard, it is a step in the right direction. It does increase funding for the nation's only constitutionally mandated defense force, the National Guard. Finally, I would like to briefly mention the public health and environmental concerns that have sometimes been 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 the project be shut down because the Navy paid inadequate attention to the system's possible health effects and violated the national environmental policy. Interestingly, that decision was overturned because U.S. national security at the time, Mr. President--at the time--prevailed over public health and environmental concerns. Obviously, at that time the cold war was still occurring. 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, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues this article from this morning's Washington Post. An international committee, convened by the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences undertook 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, and the committee's announcement seems to confirm some of the fears of many Wisconsinites. At this point, I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed, also to follow my remarks in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on the provisions of the Department of Defense authorization bill relating to the United States military mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond) expresses the sense of the Congress that United States ground troops should not remain in Bosnia indefinitely. The amendment offered by the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Smith) would have required that none of the funding authorized or appropriated for the Bosnia mission under this bill be expended after March 31, 1999, unless both Houses of Congress had voted on the continued deployment of U.S. ground troops in Bosnia. I supported both of these amendments because I firmly believe that it is of paramount importance for the Senate to go on record at every opportunity with respect to the U.S. mission in Bosnia. It is especially important that the Senate go on record as a part of the Department of Defense authorization bill, which is perhaps the most important piece of defense-related legislation that this body debates each year because it is the framework under which our military will be funded over the next fiscal year. I have opposed the Bosnia mission since its inception because I did not believe then--and I do not believe now--that the Administration has presented a list of clear, achievable objectives and a definite exit strategy to the American people. To date, taxpayers have paid more than $9 billion for this ill-defined mission. I am pleased that the second-degree amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) to the Thurmond amendment calls upon the President to submit a report on the status of the Bosnia mission with each future request for additional funding for this mission. To date, the Administration has repeatedly come to the Congress seeking more and more money for this mission and offering little justification in return. The McCain language asks the Administration, with each additional funding request, to provide specific information on the Bosnia mission, including objectives for reaching a self-sustainable peace and a schedule for achieving them, and future cost and risk assessments involved with this mission. Of course, I support our men and women in uniform and the commendable job they have done to help to implement the Dayton Accords and to achieve a lasting peace in Bosnia. What I cannot accept is the mission creep and uncertainty that these men and women are forced to live with, and the hefty price tag the American people have been forced to pay. While I supported the Thurmond amendment, I would have liked to see stronger language, including calling on the President to devise an exit strategy that included a date certain for the transfer of chief responsibility for this mission from United States forces to European forces. It is my firm belief that the longer U.S. troops remain in the region, the harder it will be for them to leave. We must call upon our NATO allies to assume responsibility for this mission. In the past, I have supported both a date certain for troop withdrawal, and efforts to cut funding for this mission. I also have come to the floor to express my concerns about the expanding nature of this mission. I would also like to express again my continuing frustration with the emergency designation for the funding for this mission, which is clearly no longer an emergency. I regret that the Administration chose to deploy troops to Bosnia in 1995 without seeking prior congressional approval. I also regret that this mission has continued far past its original one-year time frame, and that our troops have been asked once again to continue down an uncertain path toward an ill-defined goal. In December 1997, the President abandoned the purported June 1998 exit date and replaced it with a series of so-called ``benchmarks'' for U.S. withdrawal. Today, on the 25th day of June 1998, the end of this mission is nowhere in sight. I hope that the Administration will hear clearly the sentiments expressed by the Senate through the Thurmond amendment, which has been adopted overwhelmingly by this body. prohibition on expansion of sale of alcohol

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in light of the fact that the managers are working out an agreement on the amendment, I am wondering if I could simply address the bill itself for just a few moments. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to register my opposition to the fiscal year 1999 Department of Defense Authorization Act. I have numerous concerns with the bill, especially the continued spending of billions of dollars on wasteful and unnecessary programs. In a time when we are cutting programs and fighting for a truly balanced budget, we cannot really afford to insulate any department of our Government from scrutiny as we seek to reduce the Federal debt. I think it is very ironic that programs like health care for veterans and social services were put on the chopping block to offset increased funding for our highways and transit systems but we did not have an attempt to use defense spending for transportation. It was not even considered. The message we are clearly sending is that roads and overpriced weapons systems are more important than the people who are actually living in this country: We will give you roads and planes, but we will have to take away your health care and programs that serve ordinary human needs. Mr. President, there are a number of provisions in the DOD bill that I oppose and I will continue to oppose. One is the subject of some of the discussion we have been having this afternoon. And that is the $1.9 billion ``emergency'' supplemental appropriations recently passed by the Congress. The Congress has never developed firm rules on how we should define an emergency. Everybody assumes, I guess, that we will use common sense when deciding when to grant special emergency treatment to certain expenditures. And of course common sense tells us that things like floods and tornadoes clearly are unanticipated emergencies. In my view, however, the mission in Bosnia is not. It is a substantial, long-term commitment. It is something the United States has, for better or worse, decided to do for quite a long term. If events there take an unexpected turn for the worse, of course, we could have some kind of emergency on our hands, but as we stand here today and debate this bill, the Bosnia situation is not really something you can call an emergency. The line items in the law--military personnel, operations and maintenance, and contingency funds--are really standard military costs that would be part of any military mission. United States troops have been on the ground in Bosnia for more than 2 years. The change in designation from IFOR to SFOR was made more than a year ago and is scheduled to continue through June of this year. Then, last December, the President announced he would forgo imposing a deadline altogether and opted instead for a policy of benchmarks whose definitions remain open to interpretation. Mr. President, how can Congress and the President possibly profess to the American people that the additional costs for the Bosnia mission constitute an emergency? On the contrary, it has been quite clear for a while now that the cost of this mission would rise continuously and substantially. And I would say, to me at least, that was really clear from the start. This was never going to be a temporary emergency situation. Ironically, congressional appropriators and our military leaders have planned for many months, Mr. President, on obtaining these funds in this emergency spending bill. So that invites my next question: What are these funds doing in the bill? I just do not think you can equate the long-anticipated needs of the operation in Bosnia with the urgent, unexpected needs of the farmers in California or homeowners in Florida who have been devastated by natural disaster. Another matter, Mr. President, in the bill, that concerns me is that $3.3 billion authorized for the Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet program. It is no secret that I have some questions about this program. But I am also troubled by the activities of the Pentagon and the Navy in moving the Super Hornet airplane forward. And my concerns are not addressed in the least in this bill. The current Hornet program has proven reliable and cost effective. Why do we want to replace the Hornet with a bloated, cost-prohibitive aircraft that offers only marginally greater benefits over the current reliable fighter? Third, I am concerned that the DOD authorization bill shortchanges our National Guard by at least $594 million. The National Guard is an immense source of pride throughout the country, and especially in my State of Wisconsin. As I travel across the State, I frequently have the privilege of meeting the men and women who compose the Wisconsin Guard, and I have been very impressed with the tremendous degree of professionalism and proficiency with which they complete a wide range of missions. They are well-trained, dedicated, professional soldiers who earn rave reviews from the Governor's office, down to the villages and municipalities who often are the principal beneficiaries in regard to assistance. Since I arrived in the U.S. Senate more than 5 years ago, my driving objective has been to reduce the Federal deficit and achieve a balanced budget. We have made great progress in that regard. While we continue to run a deficit while using the Social Security trust fund to mask the deficit, we have almost overcome the hangover of our 1980 spending binge. A large part of that success has been due to the willingness of both the Congress and the President to do more with less, to trim excessive spending wherever possible, and maintain important services but with fewer resources. And we have succeeded in almost every area of government to do this--in education, in health care, in veterans' care, in welfare benefits, and in environmental programs. We have succeeded virtually everywhere, except defense spending, where we continue to build destroyers the Navy does not ask for and we continue to build bombers the Air Force does not want. Balancing the budget, as you well know, is about making difficult choices. Sure, the Navy would rather have a Super Hornet, and if we were in a radically different budgetary position I could possibly support giving them 300 of those airplanes instead of the 30 they are receiving in this legislation. But can we afford 30 of these new tactical fighters when a more affordable and equally effective alternative aircraft is readily available? How that question is answered is the difference, that is the difference between fiscal excess and fiscal responsibility. So we have to make smart choices. A truly balanced Federal budget is almost, unbelievably, in sight for the first time in three decades. But we are not going to be able to get the balanced budget or maintain a balanced budget, let alone starting to bring down the Federal debt and protect Social Security, so long as we continue to commit to programs and force structures that are so blatantly unaffordable. We must continue to fight for further spending reductions until we achieve the most effective and cost-efficient military which serves our national security interests. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senator Torricelli, Senator Gorton, and others in introducing legislation to delay the effective date of the final rule promulgated by the Secretary of HHS regarding the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. This legislation is a crucial step in ensuring that implementation of the Department of Health and Human Services' Interim Final Rule regarding does not jeopardize patients' access to life-saving human organs in regions of the country that have been providing organ transplantation services efficiently. Mr. President, organ donation, allocation and transplantation are extremely sensitive issues. They are issues that patients, families and health professionals agonize over because they quite literally can determine who lives and who dies. They agonize over these decisions because there are so many more people in need of organs than there are organs to transplant. Mr. President, I want to share with my colleagues a fact that may not be well known, and that is that, according to statistics gathered by the United Network for Organ Sharing, UNO, Wisconsin's two organ procurement organizations--or ``OPOs'' as they are called--are two of the most successful in the entire country with respect to the ratio of organs procured per million in the population. Those two OPOs, one at the University of Wisconsin Medical School in Madison, the other at Froedtert Hospital in Milwaukee, have a truly impressive track record for conducting the community education and outreach that is so important in helping people make the decision about whether or not to donate organs. Through the tremendous work of Wisconsin's OPOs and our 4 transplant centers, nearly 700 Wisconsinites received life-saving kidney, heart, liver, lung and pancreas transplants in 1997 alone. Mr. President, as you and many other colleagues may already know, the Secretary of Health and Human Services proposed a rule earlier this year to revamp the way the nations donated organs are allocated. Mr. President, the legislation my colleagues and I are introducing today would delay implementation of the Department of Health and Human Services' final rule on organ allocation pending further, more detailed examination of the impact of that rule on regional dislocation, transplantation outcome and survival rate, and waiting list time. While I have the highest regard for the intent behind the rule's issuance-- the promoting of fairness--I nevertheless have serious concerns about the impact many of the proposed changes are going to have for states like Wisconsin that are served by smaller, community-based transplant centers. It is simply not clear to me that using a so-called ``National list'' for potential organ recipients would improve upon the current system for allocation or make the system more ``fair.'' In fact, what specialists in the Wisconsin transplant community have told me is that the opposite is true: that a ``National list'' could dramatically increase ``cold ischemic time'' leading to higher rates of transplant rejection, and that a ``National list'' would likely result in longer waiting times in areas such as Wisconsin that have operated efficiently and successfully. Mr. President, additionally study prior to implementation of the rule is vitally important to ensure that a federal agency doesn't take action that--while well-intentioned--inadvertently harms populations served by smaller, community-based organizations. My hope is that further study over the course of the one year delay, combined with further cooperation between HHS, professional and community-based organizations will result in a final rule whose implementation will not harm regions of the country that--because of a tremendous amount of grassroots work, patient and family education, and deep personal involvement by health care professionals--are currently well-served under the current system.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senator Torricelli, Senator Gorton, and others in introducing legislation to delay the effective date of the final rule promulgated by the Secretary of HHS regarding the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. This legislation is a crucial step in ensuring that implementation of the Department of Health and Human Services' Interim Final Rule regarding does not jeopardize patients' access to life-saving human organs in regions of the country that have been providing organ transplantation services efficiently. Mr. President, organ donation, allocation and transplantation are extremely sensitive issues. They are issues that patients, families and health professionals agonize over because they quite literally can determine who lives and who dies. They agonize over these decisions because there are so many more people in need of organs than there are organs to transplant. Mr. President, I want to share with my colleagues a fact that may not be well known, and that is that, according to statistics gathered by the United Network for Organ Sharing, UNO, Wisconsin's two organ procurement organizations--or ``OPOs'' as they are called--are two of the most successful in the entire country with respect to the ratio of organs procured per million in the population. Those two OPOs, one at the University of Wisconsin Medical School in Madison, the other at Froedtert Hospital in Milwaukee, have a truly impressive track record for conducting the community education and outreach that is so important in helping people make the decision about whether or not to donate organs. Through the tremendous work of Wisconsin's OPOs and our 4 transplant centers, nearly 700 Wisconsinites received life-saving kidney, heart, liver, lung and pancreas transplants in 1997 alone. Mr. President, as you and many other colleagues may already know, the Secretary of Health and Human Services proposed a rule earlier this year to revamp the way the nations donated organs are allocated. Mr. President, the legislation my colleagues and I are introducing today would delay implementation of the Department of Health and Human Services' final rule on organ allocation pending further, more detailed examination of the impact of that rule on regional dislocation, transplantation outcome and survival rate, and waiting list time. While I have the highest regard for the intent behind the rule's issuance-- the promoting of fairness--I nevertheless have serious concerns about the impact many of the proposed changes are going to have for states like Wisconsin that are served by smaller, community-based transplant centers. It is simply not clear to me that using a so-called ``National list'' for potential organ recipients would improve upon the current system for allocation or make the system more ``fair.'' In fact, what specialists in the Wisconsin transplant community have told me is that the opposite is true: that a ``National list'' could dramatically increase ``cold ischemic time'' leading to higher rates of transplant rejection, and that a ``National list'' would likely result in longer waiting times in areas such as Wisconsin that have operated efficiently and successfully. Mr. President, additionally study prior to implementation of the rule is vitally important to ensure that a federal agency doesn't take action that--while well-intentioned--inadvertently harms populations served by smaller, community-based organizations. My hope is that further study over the course of the one year delay, combined with further cooperation between HHS, professional and community-based organizations will result in a final rule whose implementation will not harm regions of the country that--because of a tremendous amount of grassroots work, patient and family education, and deep personal involvement by health care professionals--are currently well-served under the current system.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, this is a whole new procedure invented, I have to assume, because some Members of Congress are, in effect, out to ``get'' Mr. Noble and Mr. Surina. Oh, and by the way, there is not a single agency where the Staff Director is a political appointee or has to be reappointed by the commissioners themselves after a set term. Not one. Frankly, Madam President, the inclusion of the Staff Director in this provision in the House Appropriations bill seems to me to be a smokescreen designed to make this provision seem even-handed. What is really going on here, I believe, is that some in the Congress are trying to send a message to Mr. Noble, the General Counsel, and through him, to the Commission. Some powerful members of Congress don't like some of the cases that Mr. Noble has recommended bringing. So they want him out. In recent years, the FEC has undertaken a number of controversial actions in an attempt to enforce the law that the Congress has written. Some of these cases have taken on powerful political figures or groups. The FEC pursued a highly publicized case against GOPAC, a group closely connected to the Speaker of the House. It has an ongoing action against the Christian Coalition alleging that that group illegally coordinated its activities with Republican candidates. And, of course, it has pursued cases and rulemaking proceedings under a more expansive definition of what constitutes express advocacy than some in this Congress believe is appropriate. All of these actions are objectionable to people on the Republican side of the aisle. But let's remember that there is a flip side. The Commission has assessed significant fines against the 1992 Clinton campaign and the Kentucky Democratic Party. It has pursued litigation against the National Organization for Women and has pending cases against the California Democratic Party concerning its use of soft money, and the advocacy group Public Citizen, alleging that it coordinated its activities with a primary opponent of the Speaker of the House. The bottom line, Madam President, is that the FEC is trying to do its job, even when we in Congress don't give it adequate resources to do it. And there is another crucial point about these actions. Each and every one of the cases or rulemakings I have mentioned was approved by a majority of the Commission. Now that is significant, Madam President, because unlike most agencies, the FEC is evenly balanced with Republican and Democratic members. It was carefully designed not to allow either party to have control. So a General Counsel can't just work with one party. In order to file a case, he must get at least four votes from the Commission, including at least one from each party. Now that leads to problems sometimes, because if the Commission deadlocks, a General Counsel recommendation cannot go forward. But the bottom line is that every official action of the FEC must be bipartisan. So what we have here, Madam President, is an effort to intimidate. The proponents of this firing want to punish the FEC's General Counsel for bringing forward recommendations to enforce the law. Even though in all of the cases I have mentioned, a bipartisan majority of the Commission has agreed with him. I should mention one other recommendation that Mr. Noble has made that has not received a majority vote of the Commission, and so is not going forward yet. Mr. Noble has recommended that the Commission takes steps to reduce or eliminate certain kinds of soft money contributions. And we know there are some powerful Members of this body who disagree with that idea. You know, it is really fascinating that some of the same people who are pushing this provision, trying to remove the current General Counsel say that we don't need to enact campaign finance reform, we just need to enforce current law. Well, you can't argue that we need to enforce current law and at the same time be trying to fire the chief law enforcement officer of the agency. That just doesn't make sense. If this provision goes through, and Mr. Noble is relieved of his duties at the end of the year, it may be months before a new General Counsel can be chosen that will get the bipartisan support that is required. So right after the 1998 elections, there will be no one to head up the crucially important enforcement functions of the FEC. Madam President, we cannot let that happen. We need to let the professional staff of the FEC do its job. Surely the 3 to 3 party split on the Commission is enough to make sure that the Commission doesn't go off on a partisan vendetta. Now we need to stop the partisan vendetta that this proposal represents. That is why I intend to offer an amendment when the FEC's appropriation bill comes to floor to make clear that the Senate does not want this House proposal to be part of the final bill. And I will urge the President to veto this bill if it is included. I certainly hope, Madam President, that those who want to see our election laws enforced will vote with me when that amendment is offered. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise to talk about an effort under way in this Congress to hamstring the agency charged with enforcing the Federal election laws--the Federal Election Commission. This effort is happening very quietly under the guise of routine agency appropriations, but it has deadly serious consequences in terms of the independence of the Federal Election Commission. I think it is important to call the Senate's attention to it and give notice that I intend to do everything in my power to make sure it doesn't happen. Here is what is happening. The Appropriations Committee of the other body has included a provision in the funding bill for the FEC that would result in the firing of the Commission's general counsel and staff director. That's right, Madam President. The Congress is now going to get involved in the personnel decisions of the FEC, the agency that we have charged with overseeing us and the way we conduct our reelection campaigns. Some in the Congress want to fire two career civil servants who are simply trying to do their job to make campaign information available to the public and enforce the election laws. Lawrence Noble, the General Counsel, has served the agency since 1987. John Surina, the Staff Director, has been in that position since 1983. These are not political appointees. They were put in their jobs by a bipartisan majority vote of the Commission, as required by law. In fact, both of these individuals were unanimously approved by the FEC when they were appointed. They provide crucial institutional continuity, especially now that, as of last year, we have put a one- term limit on the Commissioners themselves. But now, unfortunately, some members of Congress apparently don't like some things that the Commission has done. And so they are trying to engineer, what I would call, a quiet coup. They want to require that these two staff positions be refilled every four years by an affirmative vote of four Commissioners. And they specify that this requirement will apply to the current occupants of the positions. So Mr. Noble and Mr. Surina will lose their jobs at the end of this year, unless the Commission votes to reappoint them. Of course, the Commission itself is in great turmoil. Only two members are serving the terms to which they were appointed. Two members are holdovers, their terms having expired in April 1995. A fifth member is also a holdover, although the President has resubmitted his name. And the sixth slot has been vacant since October 1995. So the Congress has hardly been blameless if the Commission seems at times to be at sea. And now here we are about to create two other vacancies, more turmoil and lack of direction at this crucial agency. Madam President, specifying by law that top staff positions in the agency must be refilled every four years is unprecedented. The Congressional Research Service has told me that there are three independent agencies--the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, and the National Labor Relations Board--where the General Counsel is actually a political appointee, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. In each of these cases, the General Counsel has direct statutory authority. But in every other independent agency, including the FEC--and there are lots of agencies, Madam President--the FCC, the SEC, the CPSC, the FTC, the CFTC, and many more. In all of these agencies, the General Counsel is appointed by either the Chairman or the entire body. And guess how many of those General Counsels are required to be fired after four years unless they are reappointed and reconfirmed by the appointing entity. The answer is none. Not one. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a memorandum from the Congressional Research Service on this issue be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I object.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today to discuss our archaic and unjust Federal Dairy Policy: it is hopelessly out-of-date, completely out-of-touch with reality and an outrageous way to treat the hard-working dairy farmers of the Upper Midwest, particularly Wisconsin. Federal dairy policy has been putting small dairy farms out of business at an alarming rate, Madam President. The Northeast loses 200 dairy farms per year, which is bad enough. Meanwhile, Wisconsin is losing 200 per month, which is disastrous. That's about 5 dairy farms per day! The greatest force driving Wisconsin's dairy farmers out of business and off the land is the current structure of the Federal Dairy Program. The Federal Dairy Program was developed back in the 1930's, when the Upper Midwest was seen as the primary producer of fluid milk. The idea was to encourage the development of local supplies of milk in other areas of the country that had not produced enough to meet local needs. It wasn't a bad idea for the 1930's, but those days are gone. Six decades ago, the poor condition of America's transportation infrastructure and the lack of portable refrigeration technology prevented Upper Midwest producers from shipping fresh fluid milk to other parts of the country. Providing an artificial boost to milk prices in other regions to encourage local production made sense, in the 1930's, that is. So, in 1937, we passed legislation authorizing higher prices outside the Upper Midwest. These artificial bumps in prices are referred to as Class I differentials. Mr. President, this system is sometimes referred to as the ``Eau Claire'' system. Do you know why? Believe it or not, it's called the Eau Claire system because it allows dairy farmers to receive a higher price for their milk in proportion to the distance of their farms from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. So the farther away you are from Eau Claire the better off you are. A dairy farmer, as any dairy farmer from Wisconsin, would tell you that a better name really for this system is the anti-Eau Claire system, because it doesn't treat farmers very well who live close to Eau Claire, Wisconsin. The system's entire purpose was designed to put dairy farmers in Wisconsin and its neighboring states at a disadvantage. And unfortunately it worked well--too well. Now, we look on as trucks from other regions of the country come into Wisconsin, historically America's dairyland, with milk to be processed into cheese and yogurt. The current Federal Dairy Program is now working only to shortchange the Upper Midwest, and in particular, Wisconsin dairy farmers. Madam President, it's time to change a system that is completely out of date and is short-changing upper Midwest dairy farmers to the brink of extinction. But, instead, we have further aggravated the inequities of the Federal milk marketing orders system. Despite the discrimination against dairy farmers in Wisconsin under the Eau Claire rule, the 1996 Farm Bill provided the final nail in the coffin when it authorized the formation of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. Madam President, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact sounds benign, but its effect has been anything but, magnifying the existing inequities of the system. It establishes a commission for six Northeastern States--Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact Commission is empowered to set minimum prices for fluid milk higher even than those established under Federal Milk Marketing Orders. Never mind that the Federal milk marketing order system, under the Eau Claire rule, already provided farmers in the region with minimum prices higher than those received by most other dairy farmers throughout the nation. The compact not only allows the six States to set artificially high prices for their producers, it allows them to block entry of lower priced milk from producers in competing States. To give them an even bigger advantage, processors in the region get a subsidy to export their higher priced milk to noncompact States. It's a windfall for Northeast dairy farmers. It's also plainly unfair and unjust to the rest of the country. Who can defend this system with a straight face? This compact amounts to nothing short of government-sponsored price fixing. It's outrageously unfair, and it's also bad policy: It blatantly interferes with interstate commerce and wildly distorts the marketplace by erecting artificial barriers around one specially protected region of the Nation; it arbitrarily provides preferential price treatment for farmers in the Northeast at the expense of farmers in other regions who work just as hard, who love their homes just as much and whose products are just as good or better; it irresponsibly encourages excess milk production in one region without establishing effective supply control. This practice flaunts basic economic principles and ignores the obvious risk that it will drive down milk prices for producers everywhere else in the country; you don't often hear about it but the compact imposes higher retail milk prices on the millions of consumers in the Compact region; it also imposes higher costs on every taxpayer because we all pay for nutrition programs such as food stamps and the national school lunch programs that provide milk and other dairy products. As a price-fixing device, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact is unprecedented in the history of this Nation. In its breadth and its disregard for economic reality, it's in a class by itself. Madam President, in addition to the current problems, language in the reported Agriculture Appropriations bill in the other body extends USDA's rulemaking period by six months, thereby extending the life of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact by six months. Wisconsin's producers cannot withstand another six months of these unfair pricing policies. Wisconsin's dairy farmers are being economically crippled by these policies. It's time to bring justice to federal dairy policy, and give Wisconsin dairy farmers a fair shot in the market place. In an effort to repair some of the damage that sixty years of this awful system has caused, I have worked with colleagues to bring the true nature of this system to light and offer some alternatives. To strike at the heart of the problem, I have introduced legislation in the Senate to kill the notorious Eau Claire system. The measure simply would forbid USDA from using Eau Claire, Wisconsin as the sole basing point when pricing milk. And I am cosponsoring legislation to repeal the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. I'm working hard to prevent the compact's extension and expansion, and to prevent the formation of other regional dairy compacts. Compacts of this kind are unfair and they need to be abolished along with this entire system which has been plaguing Wisconsin farmers for more than sixty years. Also, I have cosponsored the Dairy Reform Act of 1998, introduced by Senator Grams, which establishes that the minimum Class I price differential will be the same for each marketing order at $1.80/ hundredweight. What could be more fair than that? Given a level playing field, I know Wisconsin farmers can compete against any farmers in the nation. The Dairy Reform Act ensures that the Class I differentials will no longer vary according to an arbitrary geographic measure--like the distance from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. This legislation identifies one of the most bizarre and unjustly punitive provisions in the current system, and corrects it. There is no justification to support non- uniform Class I differentials in present day policy. I first learned of the profound inequity of the Federal dairy program when I served in the Wisconsin State Legislature. There, I spearheaded the effort to provide state funds for a lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture. Challenging the system, we argued that USDA had no sound and justifiable economic basis for their milk pricing system. The states of Wisconsin and Minnesota, working together, repeated that argument relentlessly in the courts for over ten years in an effort to beat back the system. In November of last year, the people of Wisconsin and Minnesota won that case. Federal District Judge David Doty ruled in favor of a more equitable dairy pricing system and enjoined the Secretary of Agriculture from enforcing USDA's ``arbitrary and capricious'' Class I differentials. Madam President, in other words, a federal judge could find no rational justification for this archaic system and ruled the whole scheme illegal. Although the case is now in the appellate court, I am optimistic that Doty's ruling will be upheld. As I said, Judge Doty found the current pricing system ``arbitrary and capricious.'' Most recently, the USDA came up with a proposed rule that included two different options to replace the old system: Option 1A is virtually identical to the status quo and is totally unacceptable to the majority of Wisconsin dairy farmers. Option 1B is a modest step in the right direction and a good place to begin reform efforts. I was optimistic when Secretary Glickman announced USDA's proposed rule for milk marketing order reform and his stated preference for Option 1B. If there was any question of the intense, personal effect this discriminatory policy has on Wisconsin's dairy farmers, I would hope, after visiting with over 500 producers, consumer advocates, and local officials at an informal hearing in Green Bay, that USDA's doubts could be put to rest. At the USDA listening session in Green Bay, more than 500 people showed up, demanding a fair shake. At the sessions in New York, Georgia and Texas, a total of 240 people showed up. Wisconsin had more than double the attendance than the other locations combined. That difference in attendance didn't happen just because of Wisconsin's tradition of good citizenship. They showed up in Green Bay by the hundreds because they know they are getting a raw deal. Those Wisconsinites showed up to demand reform. They showed up to demand a better system, a chance to preserve economic viability and the opportunity to continue their way of life. Day after day, season after season, we are losing small farms at an alarming rate. While these operations disappear, we are seeing the emergence of larger dairy farms. The trend toward fewer but larger dairy operations is mirrored in most States throughout the Nation. The economic losses associated with the reduction in the number of small farms go well beyond the impact on the individual farm families who must wrest themselves from the land. The loss of these farms has hurt their rural communities, where small family-owned dairy farms are the key to economic stability. They deserve better: we need a system in which their farms are viable and their work can be fairly rewarded. In conclusion, I will continue to work with Wisconsin family farmers and other concerned Wisconsinites in the fight to preserve and protect our family dairy farms by restoring some semblance of fairness and economic integrity to our outdated, out-of-touch, milk pricing system. In the process, we will save an important piece of American agricultural history and a priceless part of Wisconsin's culture. As USDA considers Federal Milk Marketing Order reform, I urge the Department to set aside 60 years of inequality and senseless regionalism to do what is best for this nation's dairy industry. These policies are out-of-date, out-of-touch and, frankly, an outrageous way to treat Wisconsin dairy farmers. For those farmers, who are watching as their neighbors sell their livestock to cover their bills and abandon the land of their parents and grandparents, USDA's decision could mean the demise or the survival of their way of life. It is time to do the right thing on dairy pricing policy. Wisconsin farmers demand it, Wisconsin's consumers demand it, and, above all, Justice demands it.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as if in morning business.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wanted to make a statement on a matter of concern to me in the FY 99 Energy and Water Appropriations legislation. As my colleagues know, I have long been active in raising Senate awareness about the financial costs of moving forward with development and construction of the full-scale version of the Animas-La Plata project. I am concerned that Section 505 of the legislation before us may require the federal government to proceed with construction of the full-scale project, just at the time when the Congress is about to get additional information from the Bureau of Reclamation about alternatives to that project. As my colleagues will recall from the debate on an amendment I offered to the FY 98 Energy and Water Appropriations legislation on this matter, the currently authorized Animas-La Plata project is a $754 million dollar water development project planned for southwest Colorado and northwest New Mexico, of which federal taxpayers are slated to pay more than 65% of the costs. As described in the Committee Report on the legislation now before this body on page 80, the total federal cost associated with this project is now more than $512 million. Section 505 of this bill starts out sounding like a prohibition on funds for the Animas-La Plata project. It states that none of the money in this bill is to be used ``to pay the salary of any officer or employee of the Department of the Interior may be used for the Animas- La Plata Project.'' However, the bill goes on to say that none of the money may be used for the Animas-La Plata project except in two cases: ``(1) activities required to comply with the applicable provisions of current law; and (2) continuation of activities pursuant to the Colorado Ute Settlement Act of 1988.'' Mr. President, let me be clear, the applicable provisions of current law require the construction of the full project. And though Section 505 of the bill before us is similar to language added by the other body to the FY 98 Energy and Water Appropriations legislation and retained by the Conferees, it was never considered by this body. Subsequently, Mr. President, I do not believe, as I will discuss in greater detail, that Section 505 reflects either the position of this body or the current status of Animas-La Plata. I am concerned with Section 505 for two reasons. First, it is not consistent with the activities proposed to be conducted by the Administration with the $3 million in funds it requested for Animas La Plata, funds which are included in this bill. As I described on the floor last year, in an attempt to resolve the disputes surrounding Animas La Plata, Colorado Governor Roy Roemer and Lieutenant Governor Gail Schoettler convened a discussion process in October of 1996 to resolve issues involving the principal parties in a dialogue about the Animas project in order to reach consensus. The Roemer-Schoettler process produced two major alternatives for consideration, one construction alternative and one non-construction alternative. As stated in the FY 99 Budget Justification issued by the Department of the Interior for the Animas La Plata project on page 223, ``appropriate implementation activities'' for these alternatives ``will likely depend upon further direction from Congress.'' This body knew that. At the time members voted on the amendment I offered last year to ensure a thorough evaluation, Roemer-Schoettler was concluding and the Interior Department was about to embark on an evaluation of the Roemer-Schoettler alternatives. That evaluation has not yet been completed and given to Congress. In fact, Mr. President, the Interior Department's Budget Justification for FY 99 makes clear that these analyses are not yet finished. On page 226, it states that ``work proposed for the Animas-La Plata project includes analysis of alternatives developed during the Roemer-Schoettler process and other subsequent activities.'' It continues, ``depending on actions taken subsequent to the development of alternatives through the Roemer-Schoettler process, FY 1999 work could include finishing a study of alternatives, preparing cost share agreements, water rights settlement agreements, and repayment contracts and NEPA, Clean Water Act and other environmental compliance processes.'' Mr. President, this justification specifically says that the Interior Department is not intending to proceed with the original full-scale Animas-La Plata Project in FY 99. The Interior Department, it says, instead wants $3 million in FY 99 to finish a study of alternatives and, depending upon Congressional action and direction, it could undertake a number of activities related to the implementation of alternatives in FY 99. Not only does Section 505 require the Interior Department to go back to planning and evaluating the old full-scale project, it also fails to recognize the strong message that the Congress, project proponents and project opponents all recognize the full-scale project is dead. After 30 years, and now more than $70 million in appropriations to date, the project costs of full-scale Animas-La Plata are too great, and there are too many lingering substantive questions to proceed with the original design. The other body has twice voted to terminate funds for the full-scale Animas La Plata project. Last year, 42 members of this body supported my amendment to require the Interior Department to provide a report to Congress on a revised project plan for Animas-La Plata that would reduce the total cost of the program to the Federal Government, satisfy the Ute water rights claims, and ensure that no funds were expended for construction until a revised project had been authorized by Congress. The Senior Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell) has legislation before this body (S. 1771) to modify the Colorado Ute Water Rights Settlement of 1988 so that the Ute's claims would be satisfied by the construction of only a portion of the facilities that are proposed to be built in the full-scale project. The Senate Indian Affairs Committee and the Senate Energy Committee are expected to hold a joint hearing on that legislation next week. I have concerns about whether that legislation will actually restrict the obligation the federal government to the construction of only a portion of the original project, but I was looking forward to having that discussion in the appropriate venue. Mr. President, I too have legislatively supported the search for an alternative to Animas-La Plata. In fact, legislation that I introduced on March 13, 1997 cosponsored by the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) and sponsored in the other body by my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the Congressman from New York (Mr. DeFazio), deauthorizes the current Animas-La Plata project and directs the Secretary of the Interior to work with the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain tribes to find an alternative to satisfy their water rights needs. With all this focus on an alternative, the Senate should not be requiring the Interior Department to proceed with the current project. So why is Section 505 in the bill, Mr. President? The legislative language seems to cast doubt on the Senate's intentions, and this Senator can only assume that we are appropriating money for the original project because there is some need to provide those who support a construction alternative with the ultimate insurance that it will be built. Should a construction alternative be infeasible, and from a policy perspective it may be so, continuing to sock money away for the original full-scale project provides a rationale for proceeding with the project. Mr. President, I am not certain how Congress ultimately will decide to proceed on this matter, but we are now engaged in evaluation of alternatives to the full-scale Animas project. I am certain, moreover, that it is within the jurisdiction of this body's Energy Committee to determine the benefits of an alternative Reclamation project. Additionally, it is the responsibility of this body's Indian Affairs committee to make certain that the federal government's legal responsibilities to the Ute tribes under any sort of revised agreement are met. We should let these hearings move forward without legislatively trumping any potential for implementing an alternative through Section 505. This Senate should not go backward and require the Interior Department to proceed with the full-scale Animas project. We have the potential, if we carry on with the activities the Interior Department proposes to conduct, to achieve significant savings and settle the Ute's claims. The Roemer-Schoettler process generated two alternatives, which the Interior Department is studying. What is clear is that these alternatives have the potential to save the taxpayers between $500-$600 million. These savings will certainly not be realized if we proceed with the full-scale Animas project as required by Section 505.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to mark the United Nations World Day to Combat Desertification and Drought, which took place on June 17, 1998. This date is important because it is the fourth anniversary of the United Nations General Assembly's adoption of the Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa. The United States has signed this treaty, but the Senate has yet to exercise its advice and consent responsibilities on this important convention. The World Day to Combat Desertification and Drought should serve as a reminder to this body that we should honor our constitutional responsibilities and act on this convention in a timely manner. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, I have had the opportunity to see first-hand how valuable the provisions of this convention will be to the people of Africa. It is a mechanism by which the people of Africa will be assisted in preserving and protecting their land, which is a vital link in Africa's fight to become self- sufficient. This convention is particularly important for Africa because more than two-thirds of the land comprising that continent is desert or dry land, and almost three-quarters of the dry land used for farming is in danger of becoming unusable. The Sahelian droughts of 1971-73 and 1984- 85 contributed to the deaths of thousands and spurred migration that put further stress on already taxed land around Africa. This Convention to Combat Desertification, which has already been ratified by 120 countries, establishes a framework to promote land and soil health in developing countries, in order to halt the kind of neglect that eventually leads to land that is unusable for farming. This convention is innovative because it requires participation from all segments of the population, from the farmers and herders who work the land, to local governments and environmental organizations, to those who affect environmental and agricultural policy at the national and regional levels. I hope that the Senate will act on this convention in a timely manner, and that next year's anniversary of the Convention to Combat Desertification will be marked by progress in the world's efforts to protect the land and soil that sustains life in developing countries.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise for the second time in less than two weeks to comment on the extraordinary events taking place in Nigeria. Earlier this week, Nigeria's new leader, Gen. Abdulsalam Abubakar, released nine of the country's best known political prisoners. I welcome this step, with the hope that the release of these individuals demonstrates a commitment to enact true democratic reform in this troubled West African country. These individuals include some of Nigeria's top political, labor and human rights leaders. For the record, I will list their names here. General Olusegun Obassanjo (rt.), a former head of state and the only military leader to turn over power to a democratically elected civilian government and who has played a prominent role on the international stage as an advocate of peace and reconciliation. He had been sentenced following a secret trial that failed to meet international standard of due process over an alleged coup plot that has never been proven to exist. Frank Kokori, Secretary General of the National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG). He was arrested in August 1994, although charges have never been filed. Chris Anyanwu, Editor-in-Chief and publisher of The Sunday Magazine. Human rights activist Dr. Beko Ransome-Kuti. Milton Dabibi, Secretary General of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association (PENGASSAN), who was arrested in January 1996 for leading demonstrations against the canceled 1993 elections and against government efforts to control the labor unions. Politician Olabiyi Durojaye. Former Sultan of Sokoto, Ibrahim Dasuki. Former state governor Bola Ige. Uwen Udoh, democracy campaigner. Mr. President, these individuals have all played an important role in Nigeria, and were all arrested under circumstances that confirm our worst fears of the overarching power of the military in Nigeria. Their release is significant. That said, I do not want to become overly enthusiastic about the situation in Nigeria. For despite this great gesture, hundreds of other political prisoners remain in detention--often without charge. Prominent among these remaining prisoners, is, of course Chief Moshood Abiola, presumed winner of the 1993 presidential election, who was thrown in jail on charges of treason. Whatever his role might be in any upcoming transition process, his release and some meaningful acknowledgment of his annulled mandate is key to that process. On top of that, numerous repressive decrees remain in force, including the infamous State Security [Detention of Persons] Decree #2, which gives the military sweeping powers of arrest and detention. The existence of such decrees would allow the military to rearrest any of the prisoners released this week at any time. Mr. President, I recently introduced S. 2102, The Nigerian Democracy and Civil Society Empowerment Act of 1998, which calls on the United States to encourage the political, economic and legal reforms necessary to ensure the rule of law and respect for human rights in Nigeria and to aggressively support a timely and effective transition to democratic, civilian government for the people of Nigeria. Among other policy initiatives, this bill establishes a set of benchmarks regarding the transition to democracy. These benchmarks include a call for the release of ``individuals who have been imprisoned without due process or for political reasons.'' The release this week of nine prisoners is a start. Let's hope Nigeria's new leader continues to implement policies that move the country in the right direction. Nigeria's people deserve no less. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record a New York Times piece from June 17, 1998, that presents an excellent overview of the reaction inside Nigeria over Abubakar's actions. The article follows: [From the New York Times, June 17, 1998] For Nigeria's Leader, Offense is the Best Defense (By Howard W. French) From the moment Gen. Abdulsalam Abubakar was selected last week to succeed the late ruler, Gen. Sani Abacha, Nigerians began speculating whether a reformist era might be at hand after years of ruinous dictatorship. After all, General Abubakar was long reputed to be a prim professional among Nigeria's politicized and immensely rich generals. With his order on Monday to release a core group of the country's best-known political prisoners, including an internationally respected former head of state, General Abubakar sent the first clear signal of his intention to bring about an overhaul in the way his country is run, and more than that, conveyed a sense of urgency in the matter. Though the general's position is precarious, Western diplomats and Nigerian analysts say he has decided to move decisively and not wait to consolidate his power. To delay, the say, would risk falling victim to powerful enemies at opposite extremes of his country's no-holds-barred politics. ``General Abubakar had no choice but to move forward if he wanted to salvage his country and protect himself,'' said one Western diplomat. ``To have postponed making difficult decisions about democracy and prisoners, or to defer the issue of a transition to civilian rule, would have been to play the game of his enemies. The army would have devoured him itself, and failing that there would have been a major risk of a civilian uprising.'' On one side, General Abubakar faces his own army, an institution whose top officers have grown fat on years of power, and many of whose younger leaders have climbed the rungs of power awaiting their turn at the trough. As army chief of staff, General Abubakar had no direct command over the mechanized units that typically determine who holds or takes power in the country. Moreover, the new head of state had none of the huge personal wealth of his predecessors, having avoided the kinds of army jobs that allow top brass to dole out lucrative contracts to other officers, siphoning off kickbacks and purchasing staff loyalty. On the other side, Nigeria's large and well-developed opposition was emboldened by the death of General Abachar, who had a reputation as the most iron-fisted leader his country of 105 million people had ever known. And because General Abacha and his military predecessors had so regularly flouted their pledges to restore democracy or arrange a transition to civilian rule, General Abubakar could promise little that would make a dent in the distrust of a hardened political class. For many veterans of Nigeria's democracy movement, the only acceptable tactic is to take on the army head on, and with the army divided, they feel the future is now. People both inside the army and out say that General Abubakar's best hope--and decisive test--of engineering a transition to civilian rule is to work with the man believed to have won the country's only democratic election, in 1993, Moshood K. O. Abiola. The last military Government annulled the vote and threw Mr. Abiola in jail, where he remains. In this scenario, General Abubakar would involve Mr. Abiola in negotiations aimed at easing the military out of power, in much the same way Nelson Mandela helped work out a soft landing for South Africa's apartheid rulers before his release from prison in 1990. It is too early to say whether this hope will come about in Nigeria, and many hurdles remain. General Abubakar's first gesture upon taking power, in an unusual post-midnight swearing in ceremony less than 24 hours after General Abacha's death, was to commit himself to his predecessor's previously declared but widely discounted deadline for an Oct. 1 handover to an elected civilian government. Experts on the Nigerian military say that this pledge was intended more as a bid to outflank the army, whose powerful factions are known to oppose any democratic change, than as an effort to placate a deeply skeptical civilian opposition. The new leader's second hurdle, these experts say, was to prevent a showdown with pro-democracy groups sworn to carry out a series of protests linked to the fifth anniversary last Friday of the elections apparently won by Mr. Abiola, a millionaire businessman from the south. The opposition ignored calls to cancel Friday's demonstrations, but security forces were relatively restrained in putting the protests down, marking a sharp turn from the wanton brutality of the Abacha years. With the threat of strife defused, General Abubakar then freed the former head of state--a retired general, Olusegun Obasanjo--and seven other prominent prisoners, buying international praise and a more forgiving attitude from the opposition. ``A clash between an overzealous army and the June 12 protesters would have badly undercut Abubakar,'' said Walter Carrington, a former American ambassador to Nigeria. ``The restraint that the army showed and the subsequent release of the prisoners suggests strongly that the new leadership has gained control over hard-liners in the army. What we will likely see now is a progressive release of more and more political prisoners.'' By far the country's most important political prisoner is Mr. Abiola, the jailed presidential candidate. And ultimately, both the opposition and much of the outside world's judgment of General Abubakar will depend on his handling of Mr. Abiola, whose claim to the presidency is considered by most to be legitimate. Whatever the opposition demands now, almost no one in Nigeria expects the military to simply surrender power. For one thing, Nigeria's military high command is dominated by northerners, including the new head of state himself, who after years of control are wary of an outright takeover by southerners. Still, for many in the south, and beyond, no credible election in Nigeria can be organized until the nation comes to terms with the cancellation of Mr. Abiola's mandate. Regional and ethnic antagonisms like these could scuttle any negotiated arrangements with Mr. Abiola. But many Nigerians suspect that discussions may already be under way to secure his release in a negotiated framework, providing him some recognition and perhaps a large role in transitional arrangements while keeping the field open for other candidates in a fresh election. ``There is no point in pretending that Abiola didn't win an election any longer,'' said one senior Nigerian military adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity. ``What will have to be worked out is an arrangement with Abiola that allows the country to move forward.''

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to note the death of Nigeria's military ruler, Gen. Sani Abacha, yesterday in Abuja, the capital city of Nigeria. Although the circumstances surrounding his death remain unclear, it is my hope that his death will provide an opportunity for a new era in Nigeria. 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. But, sadly, it has squandered that potential and the good will of the world with repressive policies, human rights abuses and corruption, all of which proliferated during Abacha's tenure. Although there was no clear line of succession, Nigeria's top military leaders met into the night yesterday to select Gen. Abdulsalam Abubukar as the new head of state. We do not know much about Gen. Abubukar, but we know that he has an historic opportunity to effect real political change for the country. Last month, 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. I call on Gen. Abubukar to implement as soon as possible some of these important changes, such as the repeal of the repressive decrees enacted under Abacha's rule, so that genuine reform can finally take place in Nigeria. The new leadership should demonstrate respect for the rights of all Nigerians to express their views. Most importantly, Gen. Abubukar should take advantage of this opportunity to immediately move toward free and fair elections and unconditionally release all political prisoners, including the winner of the annulled 1993 elections, Chief Moshood K.O. Abiola. Abacha's death should represent not just a change in leadership, but ought to result in real change for the average Nigerian. Finally, I believe the United States should take a clear and public stand to demonstrate its support for a clear transition to civilian rule in Nigeria. Now is the time for the United States to make unequivocally clear that the military should exercise restraint in the near and long term, begin to build bridges to the pro-democracy forces, and do everything possible to end the current political crisis and restore legitimacy to the Nigerian government. I urge the Administration to communicate these sentiments quickly to Nigeria's new leadership.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my grave concern, and that of my constituents, regarding the escalating violence in Kosovo. Fighting between Serbs and the majority ethnic-Albanian population in Kosovo has been on-going since Kosovo was declared to be part of Serbia in 1989. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about the safety of ethnic Albanians, many of whom have been murdered or forced to flee their homes by the ethnically-motivated attacks by the minority-Serb population. I am also concerned that this latest round of ethnic fighting in the Balkans could reignite unrest throughout the region. The fighting intensified in late February of this year, and has been spiraling across Kosovo ever since. During the weekend of February 28 alone, approximately 30 people were killed there. When ethnic Albanians marched in the provincial capital of Pristina to protest these killings, they were met by Serb riot police armed with water cannon, clubs, and tear gas. Since this latest wave of fighting began, a total of more than 200 ethnic Albanians, including women and children, have been killed, and more than 10,000 have fled into neighboring Albania. In early March, 22 members of the Jashari family were massacred on their farm in Prekaz. During the last weekend in May, at least 39 people were killed. These are but a few examples of the senseless bloodshed that has occurred in Kosovo during the last three months. Day after day, the world is witness to this brutal fighting through television and print media coverage of the events in Kosovo. We saw the pictures from the massacre at Prekaz. We have seen soldiers in helicopters shooting at people trying to flee across the border into Albania. These pictures have an eerie resemblance to those from Bosnia, Rwanda, and other places where ethnic fighting has occurred in this decade. The latest wave of fighting in Kosovo has been marked by an increase in violence and militancy. There is no question that there have been casualties on both sides of this conflict. What is troubling, however, is that very few of these casualties have been combatants fighting for their cause. Instead, the majority of the dead have been innocent civilians, many of them women and children. And most of these civilians have been killed simply because they happened to be Albanian. I am pleased that the United States has contributed funding to the Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal to begin an investigation into the involvement of Serbian forces in the violence in Kosovo. I am also pleased that U.S. envoys Richard Holbrooke and Robert Gelbard, who traveled to the region last month, have been able to bring the two sides to the table to discuss their differences. I was pleased that the first round of talks between Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic and Kosovo Albanian leader Ibrahim Rugova, which took place on May 15, opened a dialogue between the ethnic Albanians and the Serb government in Belgrade. I was also hopeful that the May 29 meeting between President Clinton and Mr. Rugova would bolster attempts to reach a diplomatic solution to this on-going crisis. Unfortunately, the promise of the May 15 talks has been followed by continuing violence and attacks on civilians by the Serbian police and military. Today, the United States joined the European Union in issuing a ban on all new investment in Serbia and by freezing the assets of the Milosevic government. The U.S. had delayed the implementation of these sanctions prior to the May 15 talks, but now there is little choice but to impose these sanctions. I hope that these sanctions will help to stem the violence and bring the two sides back to the table. The leaders on all sides of this conflict should not allow the escalating violence to derail plans for negotiations. While there remain many issues to resolve, I believe that only through continuing negotiations can a sustainable settlement be ironed out. I hope that people on all sides of this conflict are able to put aside their feelings of nationalism and ethnic pride and work together to achieve a peaceful solution to this situation before more innocent blood is shed, and before the fighting spreads into other areas of the Balkans.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join in marking the ninth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, a tragic day when a still unknown number of Chinese--some say hundreds, others, thousands--died at the hands of the People's Liberation Army, and perhaps thousands more were placed in detention. Despite this monumental tragedy, China's leaders remain unwilling to re-examine the events of June 4, 1989. Indeed, they would like nothing more than to have Tiananmen fade from the world's memory. But today, the spirit of Tiananmen lives in our memory in the strongest way. We have recently welcomed to the United States two key pro-democracy leaders who were released from Chinese prisons. But as lucky as we are to have Wei Jingsheng, Wang Dan, and others in our midst, we are all well aware that they are not yet free; they remain in the United States because they cannot return freely to their homeland. Moreover, at least 158 people remain in prison for their role in the 1989 demonstrations. Certainly for these people and their families, Tiananmen remains a part of daily life. For those of us who are concerned about human rights in China, the very date of June 4th remains a powerful reminder that the Chinese Government has not changed. But despite the lack of progress, the executive branch of our government continues to pursue a policy of constructive engagement with China, a policy that will be capped off by the President's visit to Beijing at the end of the month. This upcoming summit is yet another in a long line of unwise steps that the Administration has taken with respect to China. I have generally opposed all of these steps because I do not see that progress has been achieved on human rights in China. This includes the October 1997 state visit of Chinese President Jiang Zemin. That was a mistake. We should challenge China's leaders rather than toast them. The failure of the United States to sponsor a resolution condemning human rights abuses in China and Tibet at the most recent meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights was also a mistake. The Administration made this decision despite the overwhelming support in the Senate of a resolution that urged the United States to ``introduce and make all efforts necessary to pass a resolution'' at the Commission on Human Rights. I was proud to co-sponsor that resolution. As we all know, for the past few years, China's leaders have aggressively lobbied against resolutions at the UN Human Rights Commission earlier and more actively than the countries that support a resolution. In 1997, China threatened Denmark, which had made a difficult and courageous decision to sponsor a resolution on human rights in China. This year, Chinese officials played a diplomatic game with various European governments, and succeeded in getting European Union foreign ministers to drop any EU co-sponsorship of a resolution. The complete failure of the United States and the EU to push for a resolution at the Commission was, in my mind, gravely unfortunate. The multilateral nature of the Commission makes it an appropriate forum to debate and discuss the human rights situation in China. By signing international human rights treaties, China has obliged itself to respect international human rights law. One of the basic purposes of the Commission is specifically to evaluate China's performance with respect to those commitments. The Commission's review has led to proven, concrete progress on human rights elsewhere, and the expectation has been that such scrutiny would lead to concrete progress in human rights in China, but China's rulers cynically ignore their legal and moral duty to respect the human rights of their own citizens. And they do it with impunity. Despite China's announcement last year that it would sign the United Nation's Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and take a few other token steps, I see no evidence of real human rights improvement on the ground in China. The fact that human rights conditions in China are growing worse, not better, demands that human rights continue to be a top priority in our China policy-- but it is not a priority, and the rulers in Beijing know that. Nearly four years after the President's decision to de-link most- favored-nation status from human rights--a decision I have always said was a mistake--we cannot forget that the human rights situation in China and Tibet remains abysmal. Hundreds, if not thousands of Chinese and Tibetan citizens are detained or imprisoned for their political and religious beliefs. The press is subject to oppressive restrictions. And monks and nuns in Tibet are harassed for showing reverence to the Dalai Lama. In a well-quoted sentence, the most recent State Department human rights report notes that ``the Government of China continued to commit widespread and well-documented human rights abuses, in violation of internationally accepted norms, including extra-judicial killings, the use of torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, forced abortion and sterilization, the sale of organs from executed prisoners, and tight control over the exercise of the rights of freedom of speech, press and religions.'' If that shameful litany is not grounds for a tougher policy, please, somebody, tell me what is! Today, on the ninth anniversary of one of the most traumatic events in the modern history of China, we remember the courageous people who stood before the tanks, who gave their lives for bravely choosing to express their notions of freedom and breathed their last on the bloody paving stones of Tiananmen, and we honor those heroes who continue to take risks to struggle for real change in China and Tibet. It is unfortunate, then, that the President's proposed trip to Beijing, which will take place in just a few weeks, will send the wrong signal--not only to China's leaders, but also to those in China and Tibet who have worked so tirelessly to achieve the basic freedoms that we, as Americans, take for granted. In particular, in a move that almost adds insult to injury, the President has agreed to stage his arrival ceremony in Tiananmen Square itself. If ever a moment cried out for a gesture, Mr. President, that will be the moment. That will be the chance for our President to restore some small moral weight to our China policy. Mr. President, if the President of the United States feels he must go to Beijing, if he feels he must go there this month, a month when we remember and honor the heroes of Tiananmen, and if he feels he must visit the site of that horrible 1989 massacre, I hope he will take the time to visit with the families of the victims--a suggestion I made to Assistant Secretary of State Stanley Roth in a recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. Finally, it is imperative that throughout his visit to China, the President send a clear unequivocal message about the importance of human rights, of the rule of law and of democracy. The students at Tiananmen erected a goddess of democracy. Our China policy worships trade and pays short shrift to the ideal of freedom. Our policy has got to change. We owe as much to the victims, to the champions of democracy in China today, and to the American people.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate National Dairy Month and the great history of the dairy industry in our nation. As many of you know, even before the inception of National Dairy Month, in 1937, Wisconsin was historically the national leader in milk and cheese production. Even today, Wisconsin leads the nation in cheese volume and variety, offering more than 300 varieties, types and styles of cheese. Mr. President, during June Dairy Month, we celebrate America's dairy industry and Wisconsin dairy's proud tradition and heritage of quality. It provides Wisconsin's dairy farmers a special time to reflect on their accomplishments and those of their ancestors, and to look forward to continued success in the future. As I mentioned, Mr. President, Wisconsin was nicknamed America's Dairyland in the 1930s, but it became a leader in the industry soon after the first dairy cow came to Wisconsin in the 1800's. This year's celebration of National Dairy Month, is especially important for the people of my home state of Wisconsin because this is also the year we are celebrating our sesquicentennial--150 years of Wisconsin statehood. Dairy history and the state's history have been intertwined from the beginning. Why, before Wisconsin was even declared a state, Ms. Anne Pickett established Wisconsin's first cheese ``factory'' when she combined milk from her cows with milk from her neighbor's cows and made it into cheese. Other Wisconsin dairy firsts include: the development of Colby cheese in 1874, the creation of brick cheese in 1875, the first dairy school in America- established in 1891 at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, the first statewide dairy show in the U.S. in 1928, and the creation of the world-record holding 40,060 pound, Grade-A Cheddar cheese in 1988. And Wisconsin also can claim one of the best-tasting inventions in the history of dairy industry: the creation of the first ice cream sundae in 1881. Wisconsin cows produce more than 22.4 billion pounds of milk a year, nearly 90 percent is processed into cheese and other products. Wisconsin leads the nation in the production of cheese and are the top producer of many varieties including Cheddar, American, Muenster, Brick, Blue and Italian--not to mention the ONLY U.S. producer of the famous Limburger cheese variety. Also, Wisconsin buttermakers produce nearly 25 percent of America's butter supply. National Dairy Month is the American consumer's oldest and largest celebration of dairy products and the people who have made the industry the success it is today. During June, Wisconsinites will hold nearly 100 dairy celebrations across our state, including dairy breakfasts, ice cream socials, cooking demonstrations, festivals and other events. These events are all designed to make consumers aware of the quality, variety and great taste of Wisconsin dairy products and to honor the producers who make it all possible. I am proud to honor this great American tradition--proud to honor the dairy producers not only in Wisconsin, but also those across this great nation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, Congress finally completed its work on a six-year bill to reauthorize the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act today. This bill has been a long time coming. I'm pleased that Wisconsin will now have a chance to address our state's vital transportation needs for the next year and plan its priorities for the next six years. This bill moves Wisconsin a long way toward achieving fairness in Federal transportation spending, and I cannot overlook this dramatic step forward. While the bill is not perfect and includes a number of items I would not support individually, it goes a long way toward ending Wisconsin's decades-long legacy as a donor state. Historically, Wisconsin's taxpayers have received about 78 cents for every dollar we have paid into the Highway Trust Fund. As a result, we have lost more than $625 million since 1956. Under this bill, Wisconsin will receive approximately 99 cents for every dollar it contributes to the Highway Trust Fund, beginning next year. I applaud the efforts of Wisconsin's delegation in achieving a greater measure of fairness for Wisconsin's taxpayers. On this travel weekend that many believe will be the biggest in history, the people of Wisconsin should be happy to see that their tax dollars will be used to improve Wisconsin's roads and rails. Finally, I urge the President to use his line-item veto authority to strike the pork-barrel spending projects inserted into the House reauthorization bill and included in this conference report. We should allow states and localities to decide on how best to address transportation needs. The Senate decided to use more than $2 billion on block grants to states instead of earmarks for particular projects. I am certain that Wisconsin, and other donor states, could have reached even greater equity had the House followed the Senate's lead.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, over the past few days, the world has watched in disbelief as Indonesia has unraveled. Barely two days ago, in response to mounting domestic and international pressure, President Suharto, Indonesia's authoritarian ruler for 32 years, announced his resignation. For the moment, power has been transferred to Suharto's longtime confidant, the former Minister of Research and Technology, Vice President, B.J. Habibie. Mr. President, it is too soon to tell whether this transition will satisfy the demands of the students and other Indonesians who have been protesting Suharto's rule for the past three months. To be honest, I doubt it. These students want real political reform, and I believe all of Indonesia's people deserve such reform. I hope Indonesia's new leadership will exercise restraint during this period of transition, and will use the present circumstances to enact policies that appropriately address the needs of all Indonesians. At the same time, I think these circumstances present a unique opportunity to deal with one of Indonesia's most vexing problems, and one that I have been actively engaged in since before I joined the Senate--the question of the political status of East Timor. Mr. President, today my colleague from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] and I are submitting a resolution encouraging a solution to the political status of East Timor. This resolution is similar to H. Con. Res. 258, introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Nita Lowey and others. This resolution says simply: the United States should support an internationally supervised self-determination referendum in East Timor. Indonesia has sustained a brutal military occupation of East Timor for more than 20 years, and thousands of East Timorese have lost their lives as a result. Human rights organizations from around the world, as well as our own State Department, continue to report substantial human rights violations by the Indonesian military--including arbitrary arrest and detention, curbs on freedom of expression and association, and the use of torture and summary killings of civilians. Immediately after the Indonesian occupation of East Timor in 1975, and again in 1976, the United Nations Security Council called for Indonesia to withdraw from the region and called for the recognition of East Timorese self-determination. From 1976 to 1982, the U.N. General Assembly adopted eight separate resolutions calling for the withdrawal of Indonesian armed forces from the territory. In the past few years, several nations, including the European Union and the Australian Senate, have delivered strong statements condemning the actions of the Indonesian government in East Timor and calling for a process of self- determination. As you know, Bishop Carlos Ximenes Belo, co-winner with Jose Ramos Horta of the 1996 Nobel Peace Prize, has long called for the self- determination of his people and reiterated his plea for a self- determination referendum immediately after receiving news of his Nobel prize. Even President Clinton, who has not engaged on this issue in the past, expressed interest in the idea of a United Nations-sponsored self-determination referendum in a December 1996 letter to me. Mr. President, as we know, although the larger political crisis in Indonesia has been brewing for sometime now, events of recent days have taken on a surreal intensity. Since the early part of this year, there had been relatively peaceful protests taking place largely in Jakarta, the capital. For the most part, these demonstrations were led by students and confined to university campuses. But while the protests were triggered in response to the economic turmoil caused by the larger financial crisis in Asia, they quickly gave voice to political dissent of a sort not seen in Indonesia for decades. As the students slowly realized they had a political voice, they began to speak out more forcefully, and the demonstrations increased--moving out to more cities and spilling off of the campuses. Now, the situation has become dangerous, fatal for some, as widespread riots and looting have spread across Jakarta and elsewhere. The economy is nearing a standstill and the military is beginning to show signs of stress and fracture. Reports of the dead and injured continue to grow. Hundreds of people have been arrested. And of course no one really knows what to expect during the unfolding political drama of Indonesia. This crisis clearly has affected all of Indonesia and will have serious implications for the country's future, but I am particularly concerned about the impact of these recent events on East Timor. As my colleagues well know, I have been monitoring the situation in East Timor for more than six years. What particularly worries me now, given this larger political crisis, are reports of increasing numbers of troops in some of East Timor's major cities. This is extremely destabilizing, coming on the heels of a dire humanitarian situation on that captive island because of poor access to food. The resolution Senator Reed and I are submitting today is important at this time because it is clear that whatever happens in Jakarta over the next weeks and months will no doubt have profound implications for political and military development in East Timor. The great irony of the latest crisis in Indonesia is that it may actually present us with an opportunity once and for all to help the people of East Timor exercise their right to self-determination. Habibie, or any other leader that succeeds him--through legitimate means or by brutal coup-- will have to reevaluate Indonesia's relationship with East Timor. It is my sincere hope that any successor will recognize that Indonesia's brutal occupation of the territory is entirely unsustainable and will look to the natural solution of a self-determination referendum to help determine East Timor's political status. Mr. President, the East Timorese deserve the support of people of conscience all over the world, and the United States should use it world leadership position on their behalf. The United States should begin immediately to encourage the process of self-determination in both Indonesia and in East Timor. It is long overdue.