Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I introduce a sorely needed piece of foreign policy legislation, the Nigeria Democracy and Civil Society Empowerment Act of 1998. 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. The legislation I am introducing today provides a clear framework for U.S. policy toward that troubled West African nation. The Nigeria Democracy and Civil Society Empowerment Act declares that the United States should encourage the political, economic and legal reforms necessary to ensure the rule of law and respect for human rights in Nigeria and should aggressively support a timely and effective transition to democratic, civilian government for the people of Nigeria. I am pleased to have Senators Jeffords, Leahy and Wellstone join me as cosponsors of this legislation. This bill draws heavily from legislation introduced in the 104th Congress by the former chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Africa, Senator Kassebaum. I joined 21 other Senators as a proud co-sponsor of that bill. A companion measure to my bill was introduced earlier this week in the House by the distinguished chair of the House International Relations Committee, Mr. Gilman of New York, and a distinguished member of that Committee and of the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Payne of New Jersey. I commend both of my House colleagues for their strong leadership on this important issue and I appreciate the opportunity to work with them toward passage of this legislation and the broader goal of a freer Nigeria. Mr. President, the Nigeria Democracy and Civil Society Empowerment Act provides by law for many of the sanctions that the United States has had in place against Nigeria for a number of years. It includes a ban on most foreign direct assistance, a ban on the sale of military goods and military assistance to Nigeria, and a ban on visas for top Nigerian officials. It would allow the President to lift any of these sanctions if he is able to certify to the Congress that specific conditions, which I will call ``benchmarks,'' regarding the transition to democracy have taken place in Nigeria. These benchmarks include free and fair democratic elections, the release of political prisoners, freedom of the press, the establishment of a functioning independent electoral commission, access for international human rights monitors and the repeal of the many repressive decrees the Abacha regime has pressed upon the Nigerian people. This legislation also provides for $37 million in development assistance over three years to support democracy and governance programs and the activities of the U.S. Information Agency, and mandates a larger presence for the U.S. Agency for International Development. I want to emphasize that this bill authorizes no new money. All of these funds would come out of existing USAID and USIA appropriations. At the same time, the bill prohibits any U.S. resources from being used to support an electoral process in Nigeria until it is clear that any planned election will be free and legitimate. Importantly, my bill requires the President to impose additional sanctions at the beginning of 1999 if he cannot certify that a free and fair election has taken place by the end of 1998. These new sanctions, will include a ban on Nigerian participation in major international sporting events, an expansion of visa restrictions on Nigerian officials and the submission of a report that lists the senior officials that fall under such restrictions. Finally, the bill requires the Secretary of State to submit a report on corruption in Nigeria, including the evidence of corruption by government officials in Nigeria and the impact of corruption on the delivery of government services in Nigeria, on U.s. business interests in Nigeria, and on Nigeria's foreign policy. It would also require that the Secretary's report include information on the impact on U.S. citizens of advance fee fraud and other fraudulent business schemes originating in Nigeria. The intent of this legislation is two-fold. First, it will send an unequivocal message to the ruling military junta in Nigeria that it's continued disregard for democracy, human rights and the institutions of civil society in Nigeria is simply unacceptable. Second, the bill is a call to action to the Clinton Administration which has yet to articulate a coherent policy on Nigeria that reflects the brutal political realities there. Nigeria has suffered under military rule for most of its nearly 40 years as an independent nation. By virtue of its size, geographic location, and resource base, it is economically and strategically important both in regional and international terms. Nigeria is critical to American interests. But Nigeria's future is being squandered by the military government of General Sani Abacha. Abacha presides over a Nigeria stunted by rampant corruption, economic mismanagement and the brutal subjugation of its people. The abiding calamity in Nigeria occurs in the context of economic and political collapse. Nigeria has the potential to be the economic powerhouse on the African continent, a key regional political leader, and an important American trading partner, but it is none of these things. Despite its wealth, economic activity in Nigeria continues to stagnate. Even oil revenues are not what they might be, but they remain the only reliable source of economic growth, with the United States purchasing an estimated 41 percent of the output. Corruption and criminal activity in this military-controlled economic and political system have become common, including reports of drug trafficking and consumer fraud schemes that have originated in Nigeria and reached into the United States, including my home state of Wisconsin. After the military annulled the 1993 election of Moshood Abiola as Nigeria's president--through what was considered by many observers to be a free and fair election--Chief Abiola was thrown into prison, where he remains, as far as we know, on the pretext of awaiting trial. Reliable information about his situation and condition is difficult to obtain. Chief Abiola's wife, Kudirat, was detained by authorities last year and was later found murdered by the side of a road under circumstances that suggest the military may have been responsible. On October 1, 1995, General Abacha announced a so-called ``transition'' program whose goal was the return of an elected civilian government in Nigeria by October 1998. But virtually none of the institutions essential to a free and fair election--an independent electoral commission, an open registration process, or open procedures for the participation of independent political parties, for example-- has been put into place in Nigeria. Repression continues; political prisoners remain in jail; the press remains muzzled; and the fruits of Nigeria's abundant natural resources remain in the hands of Abacha's supporters and cronies. Even this flawed transition process--which in its best days moved at a snail's pace--has now been completely destroyed by the recent announcement that the fifth of the five officially sanctioned parties has endorsed Gen. Abacha as their candidate. Now, what was to have been a competitive presidential election has become a circus referendum on Abacha himself. The general will allow an election so long as his name is the only one on the ballot. This is little more than a sorry joke on the premise of democracy! Any criticism of this so-called transition process is punishable by five years in a Nigerian prison. Reports from many international human rights organizations and our own State Department document years of similar brutality. Nigerian human rights activists and government critics are commonly whisked away to secret trials before military courts and imprisoned; independent media outlets are silenced; workers' rights to organize are restricted; and the infamous State Security [Detention of Persons] Decree #2, giving the military sweeping powers of arrest and detention, remains in force. Perhaps the most horrific example of repression by the Abacha government was the execution of human rights and environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight others in November 1995 on trumped-up charges. Since that barbaric spectacle, it appears the Abacha government has been working even harder to tighten its grip on the country, wasting no opportunity to subjugate the people of Nigeria. Late last year, retired Major General Musa Yar'Adua, a former Nigerian vice president and a prominent opponent of General Abacha, died in state custody under circumstances that remain shrouded in mystery. General Yar'Adua was one of 40 people arrested in 1995 during a government sweep and sentenced to 25 years in prison for an alleged coup plot widely believed to have been a pretext to silence government critics. Just a few weeks ago, we received the disturbing news that five Nigerians had been sentenced to death by a military tribunal amid other unproven accusations of coup-plotting. The Clinton Administration response to these events has been an earnest muddle at best, and rudderless at worst. I welcome recent efforts to complete the policy review process; in fact, I have been pushing for its completion for quite some time, because I feel the perceived ``lack'' of a policy with respect to Nigeria, for the past two years or so, has been dangerous. But, unfortunately, the long-awaited and oft-postponed principals' meeting on this issue, which finally took place in April, has not yielded any firm recommendations to the President. I have long urged the Administration to take the toughest stance possible in support of democracy in Nigeria, including a clear unequivocal statement that an electoral victory for Abacha would be totally illegitimate and unacceptable. The regime in Nigeria must know that anything less than a transparent transition to civilian rule will be met with severe consequences, including new sanctions as is mandated in this bill. So I was particularly disappointed to hear the President remark during his recent trip to Africa that General Abacha would be considered acceptable by the United States if he chose to run in the upcoming election as a civilian. My shock at that remark was tempered somewhat by the efforts of numerous administration officials who struggled to clarify the President's remarks. They insist that the U.S. objective is to support a viable transition to civilian rule in Nigeria, but my worst fears about that ominous remark by the President have now come true. Abacha and his cronies seem to believe that the United States would consider an Abacha victory in the upcoming elections to be a viable, sustainable outcome. Why else would the plan once touted as the basis for a democratic competitive presidential election be downgraded into a rigged referendum on Abacha himself? As planned now, the referendum will be one in which Abacha cannot lose and the people of Nigeria cannot win. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today represents an effort to demonstrate our horror at the continued repression in Nigeria, to encourage the ruling regime to take meaningful steps at reform, to support those Nigerians who have worked tirelessly and fearlessly for democracy and civilian rule and to move our own government toward a Nigeria policy that vigorously reflects the best American values. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I hope that we will be able to consider it soon in the Committee on Foreign Relations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I introduce a sorely needed piece of foreign policy legislation, the Nigeria Democracy and Civil Society Empowerment Act of 1998. 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. The legislation I am introducing today provides a clear framework for U.S. policy toward that troubled West African nation. The Nigeria Democracy and Civil Society Empowerment Act declares that the United States should encourage the political, economic and legal reforms necessary to ensure the rule of law and respect for human rights in Nigeria and should aggressively support a timely and effective transition to democratic, civilian government for the people of Nigeria. I am pleased to have Senators Jeffords, Leahy and Wellstone join me as cosponsors of this legislation. This bill draws heavily from legislation introduced in the 104th Congress by the former chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Africa, Senator Kassebaum. I joined 21 other Senators as a proud co-sponsor of that bill. A companion measure to my bill was introduced earlier this week in the House by the distinguished chair of the House International Relations Committee, Mr. Gilman of New York, and a distinguished member of that Committee and of the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Payne of New Jersey. I commend both of my House colleagues for their strong leadership on this important issue and I appreciate the opportunity to work with them toward passage of this legislation and the broader goal of a freer Nigeria. Mr. President, the Nigeria Democracy and Civil Society Empowerment Act provides by law for many of the sanctions that the United States has had in place against Nigeria for a number of years. It includes a ban on most foreign direct assistance, a ban on the sale of military goods and military assistance to Nigeria, and a ban on visas for top Nigerian officials. It would allow the President to lift any of these sanctions if he is able to certify to the Congress that specific conditions, which I will call ``benchmarks,'' regarding the transition to democracy have taken place in Nigeria. These benchmarks include free and fair democratic elections, the release of political prisoners, freedom of the press, the establishment of a functioning independent electoral commission, access for international human rights monitors and the repeal of the many repressive decrees the Abacha regime has pressed upon the Nigerian people. This legislation also provides for $37 million in development assistance over three years to support democracy and governance programs and the activities of the U.S. Information Agency, and mandates a larger presence for the U.S. Agency for International Development. I want to emphasize that this bill authorizes no new money. All of these funds would come out of existing USAID and USIA appropriations. At the same time, the bill prohibits any U.S. resources from being used to support an electoral process in Nigeria until it is clear that any planned election will be free and legitimate. Importantly, my bill requires the President to impose additional sanctions at the beginning of 1999 if he cannot certify that a free and fair election has taken place by the end of 1998. These new sanctions, will include a ban on Nigerian participation in major international sporting events, an expansion of visa restrictions on Nigerian officials and the submission of a report that lists the senior officials that fall under such restrictions. Finally, the bill requires the Secretary of State to submit a report on corruption in Nigeria, including the evidence of corruption by government officials in Nigeria and the impact of corruption on the delivery of government services in Nigeria, on U.s. business interests in Nigeria, and on Nigeria's foreign policy. It would also require that the Secretary's report include information on the impact on U.S. citizens of advance fee fraud and other fraudulent business schemes originating in Nigeria. The intent of this legislation is two-fold. First, it will send an unequivocal message to the ruling military junta in Nigeria that it's continued disregard for democracy, human rights and the institutions of civil society in Nigeria is simply unacceptable. Second, the bill is a call to action to the Clinton Administration which has yet to articulate a coherent policy on Nigeria that reflects the brutal political realities there. Nigeria has suffered under military rule for most of its nearly 40 years as an independent nation. By virtue of its size, geographic location, and resource base, it is economically and strategically important both in regional and international terms. Nigeria is critical to American interests. But Nigeria's future is being squandered by the military government of General Sani Abacha. Abacha presides over a Nigeria stunted by rampant corruption, economic mismanagement and the brutal subjugation of its people. The abiding calamity in Nigeria occurs in the context of economic and political collapse. Nigeria has the potential to be the economic powerhouse on the African continent, a key regional political leader, and an important American trading partner, but it is none of these things. Despite its wealth, economic activity in Nigeria continues to stagnate. Even oil revenues are not what they might be, but they remain the only reliable source of economic growth, with the United States purchasing an estimated 41 percent of the output. Corruption and criminal activity in this military-controlled economic and political system have become common, including reports of drug trafficking and consumer fraud schemes that have originated in Nigeria and reached into the United States, including my home state of Wisconsin. After the military annulled the 1993 election of Moshood Abiola as Nigeria's president--through what was considered by many observers to be a free and fair election--Chief Abiola was thrown into prison, where he remains, as far as we know, on the pretext of awaiting trial. Reliable information about his situation and condition is difficult to obtain. Chief Abiola's wife, Kudirat, was detained by authorities last year and was later found murdered by the side of a road under circumstances that suggest the military may have been responsible. On October 1, 1995, General Abacha announced a so-called ``transition'' program whose goal was the return of an elected civilian government in Nigeria by October 1998. But virtually none of the institutions essential to a free and fair election--an independent electoral commission, an open registration process, or open procedures for the participation of independent political parties, for example-- has been put into place in Nigeria. Repression continues; political prisoners remain in jail; the press remains muzzled; and the fruits of Nigeria's abundant natural resources remain in the hands of Abacha's supporters and cronies. Even this flawed transition process--which in its best days moved at a snail's pace--has now been completely destroyed by the recent announcement that the fifth of the five officially sanctioned parties has endorsed Gen. Abacha as their candidate. Now, what was to have been a competitive presidential election has become a circus referendum on Abacha himself. The general will allow an election so long as his name is the only one on the ballot. This is little more than a sorry joke on the premise of democracy! Any criticism of this so-called transition process is punishable by five years in a Nigerian prison. Reports from many international human rights organizations and our own State Department document years of similar brutality. Nigerian human rights activists and government critics are commonly whisked away to secret trials before military courts and imprisoned; independent media outlets are silenced; workers' rights to organize are restricted; and the infamous State Security [Detention of Persons] Decree #2, giving the military sweeping powers of arrest and detention, remains in force. Perhaps the most horrific example of repression by the Abacha government was the execution of human rights and environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight others in November 1995 on trumped-up charges. Since that barbaric spectacle, it appears the Abacha government has been working even harder to tighten its grip on the country, wasting no opportunity to subjugate the people of Nigeria. Late last year, retired Major General Musa Yar'Adua, a former Nigerian vice president and a prominent opponent of General Abacha, died in state custody under circumstances that remain shrouded in mystery. General Yar'Adua was one of 40 people arrested in 1995 during a government sweep and sentenced to 25 years in prison for an alleged coup plot widely believed to have been a pretext to silence government critics. Just a few weeks ago, we received the disturbing news that five Nigerians had been sentenced to death by a military tribunal amid other unproven accusations of coup-plotting. The Clinton Administration response to these events has been an earnest muddle at best, and rudderless at worst. I welcome recent efforts to complete the policy review process; in fact, I have been pushing for its completion for quite some time, because I feel the perceived ``lack'' of a policy with respect to Nigeria, for the past two years or so, has been dangerous. But, unfortunately, the long-awaited and oft-postponed principals' meeting on this issue, which finally took place in April, has not yielded any firm recommendations to the President. I have long urged the Administration to take the toughest stance possible in support of democracy in Nigeria, including a clear unequivocal statement that an electoral victory for Abacha would be totally illegitimate and unacceptable. The regime in Nigeria must know that anything less than a transparent transition to civilian rule will be met with severe consequences, including new sanctions as is mandated in this bill. So I was particularly disappointed to hear the President remark during his recent trip to Africa that General Abacha would be considered acceptable by the United States if he chose to run in the upcoming election as a civilian. My shock at that remark was tempered somewhat by the efforts of numerous administration officials who struggled to clarify the President's remarks. They insist that the U.S. objective is to support a viable transition to civilian rule in Nigeria, but my worst fears about that ominous remark by the President have now come true. Abacha and his cronies seem to believe that the United States would consider an Abacha victory in the upcoming elections to be a viable, sustainable outcome. Why else would the plan once touted as the basis for a democratic competitive presidential election be downgraded into a rigged referendum on Abacha himself? As planned now, the referendum will be one in which Abacha cannot lose and the people of Nigeria cannot win. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today represents an effort to demonstrate our horror at the continued repression in Nigeria, to encourage the ruling regime to take meaningful steps at reform, to support those Nigerians who have worked tirelessly and fearlessly for democracy and civilian rule and to move our own government toward a Nigeria policy that vigorously reflects the best American values. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I hope that we will be able to consider it soon in the Committee on Foreign Relations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the National SAGE Act. This legislation would authorize a limited number of innovative demonstration grant programs to assist states in their efforts to reduce public school class size and improve learning in the earliest grades. Mr. President, my own state of Wisconsin has been a leader in the effort to reduce class size in public schools. This legislation is modeled after Wisconsin's successful pilot program, the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education of SAGE program. I am proud that my bill bears the same name as that groundbreaking program. SAGE is a very appropriate acronym for this legislation, for a sage is a teacher who imparts knowledge and wisdom through direct engagement with his or her students. By providing grants to states trying to reduce class size and implement educational reforms, the National SAGE Act would give students and teachers more opportunities to interact directly. The result will be better teacher morale, better student performance and a happier, more successful school. Mr. President, I have heard about the need for smaller classes from parents, teachers and school administrators around Wisconsin--including my mother-in-law, who has been a 1st grade teacher for more than 20 years in Waunakee. They all tell me by reducing class size students receive more attention from teachers, and it stands to reason that more attention will translate into more learning. When asked to evaluate the Wisconsin SAGE program, eight-year teaching veteran Shelia Briggs, of Glendale Elementary School in Madison, Wisconsin said, ``SAGE is just phenomenal. I have kindergarteners who are writing paragraphs. In addition, behavior is a huge benefit of SAGE. With too many little bodies, you will have difficulties. Things are so much more manageable.'' Additionally, second grade teacher Amy Kane says, ``I have taught second grade for nine years and never had this high a percentage of readers. Their writing skills are much higher, and they are able to behave better. I make contact with parents now that I could never make with 34 students.'' Wisconsin's SAGE program has again demonstrated empirically what we know instinctively: students in smaller classes get more attention from teachers, and teachers with fewer students will have more time and energy to devote to each child. In addition to vital input from these Wisconsin educators, other studies confirm that small class size promotes effective teaching and learning. The leading scientific studies of the impact of small class size, Tennessee's STAR study and its follow up, the Lasting Benefit Study, found that students in small classes in the early years earned significantly higher scores on basic skill tests in all four years and in all types of schools. Follow-up studies have shown that these achievement gains were sustained in later years even if students are placed in larger classes. While I certainly recognize that teacher quality, high expectations an parental involvement are important factors in quality education, the significance of small class size should not be underestimated and cannot be ignored. Mr. President, Wisconsin is not the only state fighting to reduce class size and implement educational reforms in its public schools. Several states have made small class size a priority, including California, Tennessee, Indiana and Nevada to name a few. My legislation, the National SAGE Act, authorizes $75 million over a period of five years to fund a limited number of demonstration grants to state that create innovative programs to reduce public school class size and improve educational performance, as Wisconsin has done. The Secretary of Education would choose the states to receive funding based on several criteria, including the state's need to reduce class size, the ability of a state education agency to furnish 50 percent of the funds and the degree to which parents, teachers, school administrators and local teacher organizations are consulted in designing the program. The funding for the National SAGE Act would be fully offset by cuts in a wasteful federal program that subsidizes research and development for a huge aircraft manufacturer. That's classic corporate welfare and by eliminating it, we can fund this important SAGE program and still reduce federal spending by more than $1.7 billion over a five year period. The National SAGE Act also includes a comprehensive research and evaluation component to document the benefit of smaller class size in the earliest grades, and support efforts to reduce class size in schools all over America. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to say how pleased I am that the Clinton Administration has been pushing the issue of class size to the forefront of the education debate. In January I wrote to the President requesting that he make reducing class size a priority in his FY 99 education budget. I was pleased that the President's budget includes an incentive to help schools provide small classes in the early grades. While I support the intent of the President's class size proposal, it is not funded. I was uncomfortable with the President's original proposal to fund a small class size initiative with money from a tobacco settlement that did not yet exist. I am hopeful that Congress will soon pass tobacco legislation, Mr. President, but it is best that we not tie class size legislation to something as controversial and decisive as the tobacco bill. My fear is that the end of the 105th session will come and Congress will go home having done nothing to assist States trying to reduce class size. My bill approaches this issue more directly, without the baggage of the tobacco bill and without expanding the deficit. I have been very active on the class size issue over the last year because again--I believe that there is a great national purpose of helping our children to learn by doing all we can to reduce class sizes for children in the earliest grades. While I embrace that national purpose, I do not seek a national mandate for smaller classes. That is not a proper federal goal. Instead, I support smaller classes as a national goal, to be achieved by the local school boards. I think we all can agree that there are no magic remedies to the problems in our public schools and no instant fix to improve learning. However, I believe that targeting federal funds matched on a 50-50 basis by state funding, to assist school districts moving toward smaller class size, is an effective use of federal dollars. At its core, Mr. President, the small class size issue is really about protecting pubic education. The promising achievements of state efforts in education reform merit strong federal support. We have an obligation to strengthen public schools, because they are the principal institution for educating American children. Public schools are all-inclusive; they accept all students, regardless of income, race, religion or ethnicity. In introducing the National SAGE Act today, I want to reiterate my strong commitment to quality public education. I am proud of the education I received from Wisconsin's public schools; proud to have graduated from them, and proud that my children attend them. I am committed to helping our public schools improve and adapt and respond to the increased burdens placed on them. I feel strongly that the federal government has a limited--but important role to play in public education. Mr. President, the Washington Post recently wrote an article about the growing number of families in the Washington area deciding to educate their children at home, rather than participate in the public school system. Mr. President, this trend is not happening in Washington alone, but around the nation. The Post article states that one of their biggest complaints for families opting out of the public schools is large class size. Parents understand the importance of a low teacher to child ratio in the classroom. They understand the critical difference additional teacher attention can make for their child's educational achievement. The parent's highlighted in the Post article, Mr. President, are fed up with public school classes made up of twenty-five to thirty students or more, fed up with the lack of individual attention their children are receiving in the classroom; and finally, Mr. President, parents are fed up with the discipline problems created by too many children and too few adults in one classroom. While I support the choices of families who send their children to public schools or home school their children, the growing trend to move public resources away from the public schools, where more than 90% of our nation's children are educated, is disturbing. Instead of abandoning public education with tax breaks for private schools or spending time and energy designing a Constitutionally flawed voucher program, Congress should be working to ensure that we target federal dollars to meet the needs of local school districts. Those of us who believe a high quality public education system is essential to the productivity of our nation should be very alarmed by this growing effort to move resources away from our public schools. Mr. President, the federal government has a responsibility during the 105th Congress to take a positive step toward helping school districts reduce class size as part of an overall effort to improve education and ensure that our children have the best chance to excel and reach their full potential. I look forward to continued debate on this issue and hope that my colleagues will consider the National SAGE Act as a reasonable, fiscally responsible proposal to assist states in their efforts to reduce public school class size and improve learning in the earliest grades. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the National SAGE Act. This legislation would authorize a limited number of innovative demonstration grant programs to assist states in their efforts to reduce public school class size and improve learning in the earliest grades. Mr. President, my own state of Wisconsin has been a leader in the effort to reduce class size in public schools. This legislation is modeled after Wisconsin's successful pilot program, the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education of SAGE program. I am proud that my bill bears the same name as that groundbreaking program. SAGE is a very appropriate acronym for this legislation, for a sage is a teacher who imparts knowledge and wisdom through direct engagement with his or her students. By providing grants to states trying to reduce class size and implement educational reforms, the National SAGE Act would give students and teachers more opportunities to interact directly. The result will be better teacher morale, better student performance and a happier, more successful school. Mr. President, I have heard about the need for smaller classes from parents, teachers and school administrators around Wisconsin--including my mother-in-law, who has been a 1st grade teacher for more than 20 years in Waunakee. They all tell me by reducing class size students receive more attention from teachers, and it stands to reason that more attention will translate into more learning. When asked to evaluate the Wisconsin SAGE program, eight-year teaching veteran Shelia Briggs, of Glendale Elementary School in Madison, Wisconsin said, ``SAGE is just phenomenal. I have kindergarteners who are writing paragraphs. In addition, behavior is a huge benefit of SAGE. With too many little bodies, you will have difficulties. Things are so much more manageable.'' Additionally, second grade teacher Amy Kane says, ``I have taught second grade for nine years and never had this high a percentage of readers. Their writing skills are much higher, and they are able to behave better. I make contact with parents now that I could never make with 34 students.'' Wisconsin's SAGE program has again demonstrated empirically what we know instinctively: students in smaller classes get more attention from teachers, and teachers with fewer students will have more time and energy to devote to each child. In addition to vital input from these Wisconsin educators, other studies confirm that small class size promotes effective teaching and learning. The leading scientific studies of the impact of small class size, Tennessee's STAR study and its follow up, the Lasting Benefit Study, found that students in small classes in the early years earned significantly higher scores on basic skill tests in all four years and in all types of schools. Follow-up studies have shown that these achievement gains were sustained in later years even if students are placed in larger classes. While I certainly recognize that teacher quality, high expectations an parental involvement are important factors in quality education, the significance of small class size should not be underestimated and cannot be ignored. Mr. President, Wisconsin is not the only state fighting to reduce class size and implement educational reforms in its public schools. Several states have made small class size a priority, including California, Tennessee, Indiana and Nevada to name a few. My legislation, the National SAGE Act, authorizes $75 million over a period of five years to fund a limited number of demonstration grants to state that create innovative programs to reduce public school class size and improve educational performance, as Wisconsin has done. The Secretary of Education would choose the states to receive funding based on several criteria, including the state's need to reduce class size, the ability of a state education agency to furnish 50 percent of the funds and the degree to which parents, teachers, school administrators and local teacher organizations are consulted in designing the program. The funding for the National SAGE Act would be fully offset by cuts in a wasteful federal program that subsidizes research and development for a huge aircraft manufacturer. That's classic corporate welfare and by eliminating it, we can fund this important SAGE program and still reduce federal spending by more than $1.7 billion over a five year period. The National SAGE Act also includes a comprehensive research and evaluation component to document the benefit of smaller class size in the earliest grades, and support efforts to reduce class size in schools all over America. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to say how pleased I am that the Clinton Administration has been pushing the issue of class size to the forefront of the education debate. In January I wrote to the President requesting that he make reducing class size a priority in his FY 99 education budget. I was pleased that the President's budget includes an incentive to help schools provide small classes in the early grades. While I support the intent of the President's class size proposal, it is not funded. I was uncomfortable with the President's original proposal to fund a small class size initiative with money from a tobacco settlement that did not yet exist. I am hopeful that Congress will soon pass tobacco legislation, Mr. President, but it is best that we not tie class size legislation to something as controversial and decisive as the tobacco bill. My fear is that the end of the 105th session will come and Congress will go home having done nothing to assist States trying to reduce class size. My bill approaches this issue more directly, without the baggage of the tobacco bill and without expanding the deficit. I have been very active on the class size issue over the last year because again--I believe that there is a great national purpose of helping our children to learn by doing all we can to reduce class sizes for children in the earliest grades. While I embrace that national purpose, I do not seek a national mandate for smaller classes. That is not a proper federal goal. Instead, I support smaller classes as a national goal, to be achieved by the local school boards. I think we all can agree that there are no magic remedies to the problems in our public schools and no instant fix to improve learning. However, I believe that targeting federal funds matched on a 50-50 basis by state funding, to assist school districts moving toward smaller class size, is an effective use of federal dollars. At its core, Mr. President, the small class size issue is really about protecting pubic education. The promising achievements of state efforts in education reform merit strong federal support. We have an obligation to strengthen public schools, because they are the principal institution for educating American children. Public schools are all-inclusive; they accept all students, regardless of income, race, religion or ethnicity. In introducing the National SAGE Act today, I want to reiterate my strong commitment to quality public education. I am proud of the education I received from Wisconsin's public schools; proud to have graduated from them, and proud that my children attend them. I am committed to helping our public schools improve and adapt and respond to the increased burdens placed on them. I feel strongly that the federal government has a limited--but important role to play in public education. Mr. President, the Washington Post recently wrote an article about the growing number of families in the Washington area deciding to educate their children at home, rather than participate in the public school system. Mr. President, this trend is not happening in Washington alone, but around the nation. The Post article states that one of their biggest complaints for families opting out of the public schools is large class size. Parents understand the importance of a low teacher to child ratio in the classroom. They understand the critical difference additional teacher attention can make for their child's educational achievement. The parent's highlighted in the Post article, Mr. President, are fed up with public school classes made up of twenty-five to thirty students or more, fed up with the lack of individual attention their children are receiving in the classroom; and finally, Mr. President, parents are fed up with the discipline problems created by too many children and too few adults in one classroom. While I support the choices of families who send their children to public schools or home school their children, the growing trend to move public resources away from the public schools, where more than 90% of our nation's children are educated, is disturbing. Instead of abandoning public education with tax breaks for private schools or spending time and energy designing a Constitutionally flawed voucher program, Congress should be working to ensure that we target federal dollars to meet the needs of local school districts. Those of us who believe a high quality public education system is essential to the productivity of our nation should be very alarmed by this growing effort to move resources away from our public schools. Mr. President, the federal government has a responsibility during the 105th Congress to take a positive step toward helping school districts reduce class size as part of an overall effort to improve education and ensure that our children have the best chance to excel and reach their full potential. I look forward to continued debate on this issue and hope that my colleagues will consider the National SAGE Act as a reasonable, fiscally responsible proposal to assist states in their efforts to reduce public school class size and improve learning in the earliest grades. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, during the last few days, both in Israel and around the world, Jews and millions of others have been celebrating the 50th anniversary of the birth of Israel. A celebration of Israel is a celebration of democracy, prosperity, faith and the fulfillment of the dream of a Jewish homeland. It was on May 14, 1948, that David Ben-Gurion announced Israel's birth to the world. Fifty years later, Israel is a mature state--a survivor of wars, assassinations and painful regional conflicts. And Israel has not only survived, it has prospered and thrived. It has bloomed in the desert, taking root against seemingly impossible odds. But it does not surprise us, for we know that overcoming the insurmountable is the story of the Jewish people. Examples of Israel's achievements abound: it is a world leader in developing agricultural techniques for arid climates, and in harnessing the power of solar energy. Ben-Gurion believed that Israel could lead the world to a better future by marrying the ethical teachings of the ancients with the discoveries of modern science. ``It is only by the integration of the two,'' he wrote, ``that the blessings of both can flourish.'' Israel ranks among the most advanced economies in the world, and is a vigorous democracy in a region of largely authoritarian regimes. Voter turnout for Israel's 1996 elections were about 80 percent, a high turnout by any standard, and one that surpasses and challenges the United States, which had just 49 percent turnout that same year. And Israel has successfully resettled Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Republics and across the globe, including absorbing 680,000 immigrants during a three year period. The culture of Israel is equally vibrant, as Israelis have drawn on their dramatic personal and national histories to create invaluable contributions to the arts. At 50, Israel has character, strength and dignity. Of course, like anyone who reaches 50, Israel is also experiencing something of a mid- life crisis. As Israelis take stock of their achievements at this important moment in their history, they find problems yet to be solved and many goals yet to be reached. Israel has not yet made peace with all of her neighbors, and difficult decisions about how to achieve peace, or whether to continue to, at this point, seek peace at all, are causing painful rifts in Israeli society. Personally, I look at Israel from many perspectives--as an American, as a Jew, as a United States Senator and as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As an American, I see Israel as a staunch ally and friend. As a Jew, I see a spiritual homeland, a place where all Jews have a claim, a right to belong. Israel is an oasis of faith for Jews in every corner of the world. As a United States Senator and member of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, I take a deep interest in Israel and the Middle East peace process. I first visited Israel when I was 19 years old. My father and mother took me as a way to educate me about the importance of Israel, and the trip had an enormously powerful impact on me. I returned two more times, in 1976 and 1977, while I was a student at Oxford University. My strongest memory of that last trip was our visit to the Western Wall, when I brushed up against a soldier carrying a machine gun under his jacket. It was then that I felt for the first time, through the cold steel of a weapon, what it was like to exist in a society where the threat of violence was a constant. At the time, I hoped upon my next return to Israel that there would be peace in the region--never realizing that we would find ourselves in the stalemate we are in today so many years later. For these 21 years since then, I was unable to return to Israel except for one time and one time only--and then only for 10 hours--for the sad occasion of Yitzhak Rabin's funeral in November 1995. I went as a very young man and returned much changed--I had become a Senator, a husband and a father--but was still awed by the powerful presence of faith and hope, violence and conflict that still characterize the Jewish state today. In between these visits, I had the opportunity to study the evolving relationship between Israel and the United States for a paper I did for a history course at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. To research this paper, I read all the comments of Members of Congress in the Congressional Record concerning Israel for the years 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973, and analyzed how those comments reflected a changing definition of U.S. interests in the region from the birth of Israel, through the Suez Crisis, the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War. In 1948, most of the talk was about the need for a homeland for the Jewish people, especially after the Holocaust. In 1956, that talk shifted to describing Israel as a blooming democracy; a small outpost of democratic values in the midst of a non-democratic region. In 1967, Israel was the non-aggressive dove who triumphed in a hostile environment. By 1973, my predecessors had shifted to speaking of Israel in a very positive geopolitical and national security terms. Today, I add my own remarks about Israel to the long chronicle of the American-Israeli relationship in the Congressional Record to those of my predecessors who came to speak in times of crisis and triumph for Israel. The U.S. has played a pivotal role in Israel's history, and our relationship has been a strong one from the beginning. Within minutes of Ben-Gurion's announcement of the birth of Israel, President Harry Truman recognized the fledgling state. Prior to Israel's founding, between the end of the Second World War and May 14, 1948, official U.S. support for a Jewish state was largely grounded in the desire to help re-settle hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees, displaced people and survivors of the Holocaust. From May 14, 1948, until today, America could always count on Israel as an island of democracy and stability in an area of the world not altogether familiar with either concept. The presence of a secure and vital Israel, in and of itself, is in America's interests. For many years, those interests included containment of Soviet expansion into the Middle East, securing access to the region's oil for the industrialized nations of the West, promoting market economies and democratic institutions and safeguarding Israel's national security. As the inter-relationship between Israel and the United States has developed, matured and adapted to political and economic developments, so too has American policy. During the tenure of President Jimmy Carter, for example, America was very active in the Middle East peace process, culminating in the signing of the Camp David accords. During the first Reagan term, the administration's priorities of combating terrorism, promoting cooperative security and confronting Soviet expansion found common ground with the perspectives of Prime Ministers Begin and Shamir, and, in general, those closer relations survived the policy differences arising over the Lebanon war in 1982. Ties between Israel and the United States grew stronger during President Reagan's second term, including the signing of several precedent-setting strategic and cooperative defense agreements. During the early Bush years, U.S.-Israel relations were marked again by tension caused by some policy disagreements, but tension eased in 1990 when--amid Iraqi threats against Israel generated by the Persian Gulf crisis--President Bush repeated the U.S. commitment to Israel's security. Confidence in U.S. support was a primary factor in Israel's decision not to retaliate against Iraq for its Scud missile attacks. Of course, the first year of the Clinton administration saw the historic signing on the White House lawn of the Declaration of Principles establishing the goals and framework for peace talks. On September 13, 1993, the world watched with hope and trepidation as Prime Minister Rabin and Yasser Arafat inaugurated a new era in the Middle East. This would soon be followed by two other major peace agreements: the May 1994 Gaza-Jericho Agreement that provided for Palestinian control over the Gaza Strip and the environs of Jericho after an Israeli withdrawal, and the September 1995 Interim Agreement that set a timetable and an agenda for final status negotiations. The Palestinians and Israelis have also agreed to other arrangements, such as the Israeli withdrawal from six Palestinian cities in December 1995, and the Palestinian elections in January 1996. As much as we hoped the historic moment on the White House lawn would bring an end to terrorism, bloodshed and occupation, we all knew just as well that the road to peace would not be that simple. Years of bitter experience also told us the road would not be that short. But 1994 and 1995 were relatively good years. The peace process was progressing, and, by late 1995, it seemed relations between Rabin and Arafat were warming. Then, of course, as we can never forget, extremism struck again with the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish radical. It is important to note that this was a terrorist attack like so many in the new Middle East, where extremism and violence of every stripe lashes out against any sign of peace and tolerance. Today, this extremism and violence present perhaps the greatest and most persistent threat to peace. Just before he died, Rabin said, ``Peace is the future.'' We must remain faithful to the memory of Rabin and all those who had the courage and the abiding discipline to put ancient hatreds aside and made peace their priority, because Rabin had no illusions about the difficulty of the peace process. Someone who witnessed Rabin in a meeting on the peace process said to the prime minister, ``I can see I'm talking to the converted.'' Rabin's reply was, ``You're talking to the committed, not the converted.'' It was commitment that peace required of him and requires of all of us. As we look forward to Israel's next 50 years, we must be able to look forward to a future that gives every Israeli, and every Jew, a peaceful homeland. But the Palestinians are also clearly key to peace in the region, and that is why it is so important to get the current negotiations back on track. Although our priorities and perceptions on the path to peace sometimes differ, America and Israel have, by and large, moved forward together, and I believe that partnership will continue. Earlier this month, in honor of this 50th anniversary, Congress unanimously passed a resolution which read, in part, ``The United States commends the people of Israel for their remarkable achievements in building a new state and a pluralistic democratic society in the Middle East in the face of terrorism, hostility and belligerence by many of her neighbors.'' The resolution reaffirmed the bonds of friendship between Israel and the U.S., and extended best wishes for a peaceful, prosperous and successful future. The key to continued success and prosperity in Israel will be a lasting peace, and the United States clearly has an interest in taking an active role in the peace process, as it has done throughout the years. Helping facilitate the peace process is one facet of U.S. relations with Israel, and another is foreign assistance. Since 1976, Israel has been the largest recipient of U.S. foreign assistance. Over the past 10 years, Israel has annually received about $3 billion in economic and military grants, refugee settlement assistance, and other aid, from the United States. Recently, we have seen a movement to gradually reduce that level of aid, beginning with the declaration by Prime Minister Netanyahu that Israel should reduce its dependence on the United States when he addressed a joint session of Congress two years ago. Negotiations have since been conducted with the goal of reducing the overall level of American assistance and to gradually phase out economic aid while increasing military aid. Specifically, the Clinton administration and the Congress are currently reviewing an Israeli proposal to reduce the $1.2 billion in U.S. economic assistance to Israel to zero over 10 years, and to increase U.S. military aid to Israel from $1.8 billion to $2.4 billion per year. I am intrigued by this idea, and am glad to see Israel taking the lead in this regard. Israel has recognized that in its 50-year history, it has made enormous strides in economic development and, as a result, now boasts a relatively healthy economy. At the same time, Israel recognizes--as I think we all do--that it still faces a substantial security threat, and so must maintain a robust military and access to state-of-the-art weaponry. The proposal to change our aid relationship reflects this reality. It is an Israeli plan, and as such reflects Israeli priorities, including a desire to decrease its dependence on the United States, and boost its own self-sufficiency. I am concerned about potential unintended consequences of hasty action by the Congress, and so, I, along with others in this body are still considering our legislative response. But by and large I believe these are worthy goals that we should support, just as we have supported Israel in the past. Ben-Gurion envisioned many achievements for Israel, including one I mentioned earlier, the idea of building a successful nation by marrying scientific advances with ancient Hebrew traditions. He believed that by drawing on the strength, wisdom and skill of a nation of faith and accomplishment, Israel could build a lasting peace with its neighbors. Israel deserves that peace at last. Just over 100 years ago, the First Zionist Congress convened in Basel, Switzerland. Under the leadership of Theodore Herzl, the participants announced their desire to reestablish a Jewish homeland in the historic land of Israel. Herzl once said that ``If you will it, it is not a dream.'' Israel is a testament to the will of a people who believed those words and proved them true. It would be 51 years until the dream expressed at the First Zionist Congress would become reality, until Holocaust survivors and other Jews persecuted around the world could have a homeland where they could seek refuge and build a life. And 50 years after that founding, Israel has taken root in the desert soil and it has thrived. The United States has built an alliance and friendship with Israel that has enriched American life and helped Israel thrive, and I hope that partnership will continue for the next 50 years and beyond. But as Israelis well know and all of us must recognize, the dream of those at the First Zionist Congress and of other Jews for centuries, to have a homeland, cannot be truly fulfilled until peace is attained. Violence and conflict are a constant threat to the people of Israel, and to the Nation of Israel itself. As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the birth of Israel, we have every right to wish for something more. Not just for a Jewish homeland, but a homeland at peace. As Theodore Herzl said, ``If you will it, it is not a dream.''

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from New York who, I think, has given a very sympathetic listen to what we are trying to accomplish here. This issue, in fact, emanates in large part originally from his State and from some of the practices in his State that are now becoming nationwide. I think he has shown here, in his comments, already a keen understanding of what is involved here. Even though this issue has not been presented formally to his committee, he clearly understands that what is being requested of some of these individuals is simply unreasonable in light of American traditions of protection from discrimination and sexual harassment. So, even though I think this bill is a very appropriate vehicle to offer this amendment, I am grateful the chairman of the Banking Committee has agreed to hold a hearing in which he will be personally involved, in which I will have the opportunity to testify, prior to the end of July, on this bill. I look forward to being able to participate in helping to select some of the witnesses. I agree with the Senator very strongly that there are people on both sides, as well as those in the middle such as the SEC, who are seriously looking at this. This would be a useful hearing to move this issue along. I happen to be a member of the Judiciary Committee as well, so I certainly regard this as an appropriate forum as well. But I think this committee, in light of the fact these agreements started in securities firms, is a place where a hearing would be appropriate. I also understand the Senator does not expect in any way I would be prevented from offering this to other bills at any point. But, in light of all that and his assurances--which have always been extremely secure whenever I have dealt with him in the past, for the last 5\1/2\ years--in light of all that, I look forward to the hearing, I look forward to working with him. I hope that he can support this legislation after he has had a chance to review it. Given all that, at this point, Madam President, I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment, which is actually a bill I have worked on for some time, the Civil Rights Procedures Protection Act, S. 63, a measure cosponsored by Senators Kennedy, Leahy, and Torricelli. What this legislation does is address the rapidly growing and troubling practice of employers conditioning employment or professional advancement upon their employees' willingness to submit claims of discrimination or harassment to arbitration, mandatory arbitration, rather than still having the right to pursue their claims in the courts. In other words, in too many cases employers are forcing their employees to ex ante agree to submit their civil rights claims to mandatory binding arbitration irrespective of what other remedies may exist under the laws of this Nation. So to address this growing trend of mandatory binding arbitration, this measure, the Civil Rights Procedures Protection Act, amends seven civil rights statutes to guarantee that a civil rights plaintiff can still seek the protection of the U.S. courts. The measure ensures that an employer cannot use his or her superior bargaining power to coerce her or his employees to, in effect, capitulate to an agreement which diminishes their civil rights protection. To be specific, this legislation affects civil rights claims brought under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans With Disabilities Act, section 1977 of the revised statutes, the Equal Pay Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Federal Arbitration Act. In the context of the Federal Arbitration Act, the protections in this legislation are extended to claims of unlawful discrimination arising under State or local law, and other Federal laws that prohibit job discrimination. Madam President, I want to be clear, because it is important that we promote voluntary arbitration in this country, that this is in no way intended to hinder or discourage or bar the use of arbitration on conciliation or mediation or any other form of alternative dispute resolution short of litigation resolving those claims. I think it is tremendous that we try to encourage people to voluntarily avoid litigation. I have long been a strong proponent of voluntary forms of alternative dispute resolution. The key, however, is that, in those cases that I can support alternative dispute resolution, it is truly voluntary. That is not what we are talking about here. What is happening here is that these agreements to go to arbitration are mandatory, they are imposed upon working men and women, and they are required prior to employment or prior to a promotion. Mandatory binding arbitration allows employers to tell all current and prospective employees, in effect, if you want to work for us, you will have to check your rights as a working American citizen at the door. Indeed, these requirements have been referred to recently as front-door contracts; that is, employers require that employees surrender certain rights right up front in order to get in the front door. Working men and women all across the country are faced with a very dubious choice, then, of either accepting these mandatory limitations of their right to redress in the face of discrimination or harassment, or being placed at risk of losing an employment opportunity or professional advancement. As a nation that values work and deplores discrimination, I don't think we can allow this situation to continue. The way I like to describe it is, what this expects a person to do is to sign an agreement that they will not go to court even before they feel the sting of discrimination. They have to sign this deal before they even sit down to their desk and do their first work for an employer. So, in conclusion, allow me to stress that this practice of mandatory binding arbitration should be stopped now. If people believe they are being discriminated against or sexually harassed, they should continue to retain all avenues of redress provided for by the laws of this Nation. This amendment will help restore integrity and balance in relations between hard-working employees and their employers. But I think more important, this amendment will ensure that the civil rights laws this Congress passes will continue to protect all Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. At this point I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. I thank the manager, the Senator from New York. Amendment No. 2394 (Purpose: To amend certain Federal civil rights statutes to prevent the involuntary application of arbitration to claims that arise from unlawful employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability, and for other purposes)

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, the Senate passed the conference agreement on S. 1150, the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998. I am pleased that this important legislation, containing several amendments I authored, has seen its way to the Senate floor for proper and overdue consideration and passage. Mr. President, the agricultural provisions of this bill are important for all farmers but I am especially proud of the provisions targeted to support our endangered small farmers. Mr. President, this country is facing a national farming crisis. Day after day, season after season, we are losing small farms at an alarming rate. In 1980, there were 45,000 dairy farms in Wisconsin. In 1997, there are only 24,000 dairy farms. That is a loss of more than 3 dairy farms a day-everyday for 17 years. And it does not begin to measure the human cost to families driven from the land. As small farms disappear, we are witnessing the emergence of larger agricultural operations. This trend toward fewer but larger dairy operations is mirrored in most States throughout the Nation. Mr. President, 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 wrench themselves from the land. The reduction in farm numbers has hurt their neighbors as well and deprived the merchants on the main streets of their towns of many lifelong customers. For many of the rural communities of Wisconsin, small family-owned farms are the key component of the community. They provide economic and sound stability. They are good people and we need a system in which their farms are viable and their work can be fairly rewarded. Many feel that basic research is a necessary and underutilized tool that can help to save this dying breed of farmers. There have been plenty of Federal investments in agricultural research, past and present, focusing almost solely on the needs of larger scale agricultural producers-neglecting the specific research needs of small producers. This research bias has hamstrung small farmers, depriving them of the tools they need to adapt to changes in farming and the marketplace and accelerating the trend toward increased concentration. To address this concern, I worked with the conference committee to include a provision which authorizes a coordinated program of research, extension, and education to improve the viability of small- and medium- size dairy and livestock operations. Among the research projects the Secretary is authorized to conduct are: Research, development, and on- farm education, low-cost production facilities, management systems and genetics appropriate for these small and medium operations, research and extension on management intensive grazing systems which reduce feed costs and improve farm profitability, research and extension on integrated crop and livestock systems that strengthen the competitive position of small- and medium-size operations, economic analyses and feasibility studies to identify new marketing opportunities for small- and medium-size producers, technology assessment that compares the technological resources of large specialized producers with the technological needs of small- and medium-size dairy and livestock operations, and research to identify the specific research and education needs of these small operations. The provision allows the Secretary to carry out this new program using existing USDA funds, facilities and technical expertise. Dairy and livestock producers should not be forced to become larger in order to remain competitive. Bigger is not necessarily better. And in fact, M. President, expansion is often counterproductive for small operations, requiring them to take on even greater debt. Farmers need more help in determining other methods of maintaining long-term profitability. For example, small dairy farmers may find adoption of management-intensive grazing systems, combined with a diversified cropping operation a profitable alternative to expansion. But there has been far too little federally funded research devoted to alternative livestock production systems. Small producers need more Federal research and extension activity devoted to the development of these alternatives. This amendment is a good first step in establishing the Federal research commitment to help develop and promote production and marketing systems that specifically address the needs of small producers. Using research dollars to help maintain the economic viability of small- and medium-size dairy and livestock operations has benefits beyond those gained by farmers and the communities in which they reside. Keeping a large number of small operations in production can provide environmental benefits as well. As livestock operations expand their herd size without a corresponding increase in cropping acreage, manure storage and management practices become more costly and more burdensome for the operator and raise additional regulatory concerns associated with runoff and water quality among State and Federal regulators. Research that helps dairy and livestock operators remain competitive and profitable without dramatic expansion will help minimize these concerns. Mr. President, also incorporated into the bill is language requiring the Secretary to fund research on the competitiveness and viability of small- and medium-size farms under the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems--a new research program authorized by S. 1150 and funded at a total of $600 million for fiscal years 1999 through 2002. With the inclusion of my amendment, the Secretary is directed to make grants for research projects addressing the viability of small- and medium-size farming operations with funding made available under the Initiative in fiscal years 1999-2002. This amendment ensures that the research needs of small dairy, livestock, and cropping operations will be addressed under the substantial new funding provided for agricultural research in this bill. Finally, Mr. President, the conference committee also accepted important language regarding precision agriculture. Precision agriculture is a system of farming that uses very site-specific information on soil nutrient needs and presence of plant pests, often gathered using advanced technologies such as global positioning systems, high performance image processing, and software systems to determine the specific fertilizer, pesticide and other input needs of a farmer's cropland. This technology may have the benefit of lowering farm production costs and increase profitability by helping the producer reduce agricultural inputs by applying them only where needed. In addition, reducing agricultural inputs may minimize the impact of crop production on wildlife and the environment. While precision agriculture, generally defined, encompasses a broad range of techniques from high-technology satellite imaging systems to manual soil sampling, it is most frequently discussed in terms of the use of capital intensive advanced technologies. Precision agriculture may result in production efficiencies and improved profitability for some farms, yet many in agriculture are concerned that, because of the capital intensive nature of precision agriculture systems, this new technology will not be applicable or accessible to small or highly diversified farms. It is unclear whether precision agriculture services, even if provided by input suppliers, will be available at affordable rates to small farms. Furthermore, some observers are concerned that private firms may find that marketing efforts directed at small farms are not lucrative enough and thus may avoid efforts to apply the technology to small operations. In addition to concerns about the applicability and accessibility of precision agriculture to small farms, many are concerned that precision agriculture may not be the most appropriate production system for small farms given the costs of acquiring new technology or contracting for additional services. There may be other production systems, such as integrated whole farm crop, livestock, and resource management systems, that allow small farmers to reduce input costs, improve profitability, and minimize environmental impacts of agricultural production that are more appropriate for smaller operations. To address this concern, accepted language allows USDA to fund studies evaluating whether precision agriculture technologies are applicable or accessible to small- and medium-sized farms. The amendment also allows USDA to conduct research on methods to improve the applicability of precision agriculture to these operations. It is critical that USDA's research investment in this new technology not exclude the needs of small farmers. If it does, this new research program could ultimately affect the structure of agriculture, potentially providing disproportionate advantages to large scale farming operations, accelerating the trend to fewer and larger farms. My amendment will allow USDA to conduct research on low cost precision agriculture systems that do not require significant financial investments by farmers and that may be more appropriate to small or highly diversified farming operations. Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation of the chairman, Mr. Lugar, and the ranking member, Mr. Harkin, of the Agriculture Committee and their staff in addressing the important research needs of small- and medium-size farms by maintaining these amendments during conference committee consideration of this bill. These amendments will ensure that research money is directed at the interests of the small farmer providing the tools to make these operations viable to survive the riggers of farming in the next century.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I rise to speak in support of the anti-slamming bill, S. 1618. I want to commend Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, and the rest of the Commerce Committee for bringing this bill to the floor, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bill. Slamming is an important and widespread consumer problem, and it is high time that the Congress takes action to stop it. Slamming, as most people now know, is a practice carried out by some telecommunications companies to switch a consumer's long distance or local exchange carrier without the consumer's knowledge or consent. Only a few years ago this practice, while persistent and frustrating for some consumers, appeared limited in scope. However, in more recent years this type of consumer fraud appears to have grown into a common profit-making scheme of some telecommunications companies carried out at the consumer's expense. The rise in slamming complaints has been absolutely astonishing. The Federal Communications Commission reports that the 11,000 slamming complaints they received in 1995 represented a sixfold increase in the number of complaints received in 1993. By 1996, slamming complaints rose by an additional 42 percent over 1995, with the FCC receiving more than 16,000 complaints. And in 1997, the FCC received 44,000 complaints from consumers, nearly triple the 1996 total. But these numbers only begin to tell the story. In Wisconsin, slamming is the number one telecommunications complaint, and telecommunications is the single largest category of consumer complaints that the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection received last year. That agency reports that slamming complaints were up 400 percent in 1997. The National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates estimates that as many as one million consumers each year have their long distance carrier or local provider switched without consent. In September of 1997, the National Consumers League polled telecommunications consumers in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Chicago, Illinois, and Detroit/Grand Rapids, Michigan. The poll showed that of the 1500 individuals surveyed, three out of 10 reported that they, or someone they know, had been slammed. In Milwaukee, of those who said they had experience with slamming, 41% said their own telephone carrier had been changed without their consent. Even more disturbing, the survey provided evidence that slammers appear to be targeting consumers who have high long distance bills, raising privacy concerns regarding billing information. Mr. President, this is consumer fraud of monstrous proportions. It causes extra cost and inconvenience to consumers, and it also distorts telecommunications markets and discourages legitimate competitive practices. The prevalence of slamming and the lack of any strong disincentives against it rewards companies that use this fraudulent practice and penalizes those that seek new customers through legitimate and honest means. The 1996 Telecommunications Act recognized the slamming problem and broadened the scope of FCC's regulatory authority over slamming to cover all telecommunications carriers rather than just long distance service providers. The Act also provided that a carrier that violates the FCC's verification requirements is liable to the customer's original carrier for all charges paid by the customer after he or she had been slammed. The FCC now has rules prohibiting slamming and requires companies to verify the customer's authorization of any switch in carriers, but these rules obviously haven't done the trick. For one thing, the penalties for slamming just aren't tough enough. While the FCC has taken enforcement action against a number of telecommunications companies, the tremendous profit opportunities from slamming overwhelm the threat of FCC enforcement. The Consumer Anti-Slamming Act should be an effective antidote to this problem. It establishes minimum verification requirements for submitting changes in local or long distance telephone service. The requirements apply when service is first requested as well. The bill also bans so-called ``negative option'' marketing--this is where a company sends you a letter that says your service will be switched unless you send back a reply card to say no. With all the junk mail that people now receive, this is a particularly reprehensible business practice, and I am pleased that this bill outlaws it. The bill also addresses the problem that many people do not even know that when they have been slammed by requiring the new telecommunications company to notify a consumer within 15 days of a change in service. The notification must indicate the name of the person who requested the change and inform the consumer that he or she may request further information about when and how the change was authorized. It must also contain information about how to pursue a complaint if the customer believes he or she has been slammed. Penalties are also significantly increased in this bill. The FCC may award damages of $500 or the actual damages incurred, whichever is greater, directly to the consumer. And the FCC can fine carriers who violate the anti-slamming regulations $40,000 for a first offence and $150,000 for additional offences. These significant penalties should eliminate the economic incentives to engage in these illegal practices. Mr. President, the information age has now arrived. Technological advances hold out great promise for making our daily lives easier and more enjoyable. Competition is the driving force in bringing those advances to the consumer at ever more affordable prices. Allowing consumers to choose between competing long distance and local service providers should improve service and lower prices. But when irresponsible or even criminal elements seek to take advantage of unsuspecting consumers through activities like slamming, forceful regulation is necessary. The unethical and illegal practices of companies who seek to victimize consumers to enhance their own profits must not be tolerated. Protecting consumers from those who engage in these practices is one of my most important responsibilities as a United States Senator. I believe that this bill gives the FCC the tools it needs to crack down on the slamming problem once and for all. I am proud to vote for it.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as we take up this important anti- slamming bill, which of course deals with consumer problems with telephone service, I am pleased that the Senate has agreed to this amendment to provide a practical solution to the all too common problem of interference with residential home electronic equipment caused by unlawful use of citizens band [CB] radios. I want to thank the Chairman of the Committee, Senator McCain, and the ranking member, Senator Hollings, for agreeing to include this amendment in the slamming bill. The problem of CB radio interference can be extremely distressing for residents who cannot have a telephone conversation, watch television, or listen to the radio without being interrupted by a neighbor's illegal use of a CB radio. Unfortunately, under the current law, those residents have little recourse. The amendment I offered today will provide those residents with a practical solution to this problem. Up until recently, the FCC has enforced its rules outlining what equipment may or may not be used for CB radio transmissions, how long transmissions may be broadcast, what channels may be used, as well as many other technical requirements. FCC also investigated complaints that a CB radio enthusiast's transmissions interfered with a neighbor's use of home electronic and telephone equipment. FCC receives thousands of such complaints annually. For the past 3 years, I have worked with constituents who have been bothered by persistent interference of nearby CB radio transmissions in some cases caused by unlawful use of radio equipment. In each case, the constituents have sought my help in securing an FCC investigation of the complaint. And in each case, the FCC indicated that due to a lack of resources, the Commission no longer investigates radio frequency interference complaints. Instead of investigation and enforcement, the FCC is able to provide only self-help information which the consumer may use to limit the interference on their own. I suppose this situation is understandable given the rising number of complaints for things like slamming. The resources of the FCC are limited, and there is only so much they can do to address complaints of radio interference. Nonetheless, this problem is extremely annoying and frustrating to those who experience it. In many cases, residents implement the self- help measures recommended by FCC such as installing filtering devices to prevent the unwanted interference, working with their telephone company, or attempting to work with the neighbor they believe is causing the interference. In many cases these self-help measures are effective. However, in some cases filters and other technical solutions fail to solve the problem because the interference is caused by unlawful use of CB radio equipment such as unauthorized linear amplifiers. Municipal residents, after being denied investigative or enforcement assistance from the FCC, frequently contact their city or town government and ask them to police the interference. However, the Communications Act of 1934 provides exclusive authority to the Federal Government for the regulation of radio, preempting municipal ordinances or State laws to regulate radio frequency interference caused by unlawful use of CB radio equipment. This has created an interesting dilemma for municipal governments. They can neither pass their own ordinances to control CB radio interference, nor can they rely on the agency with exclusive jurisdiction over interference to enforce the very Federal law which preempts them. Let me give an example of the kind of frustrations people have experienced in attempting to deal with these problems. Shannon Ladwig, a resident of Beloit, WI has been fighting to end CB interference with her home electronic equipment that has been plaguing her family for over a year. Shannon worked within the existing system, asking for an FCC investigation, installing filtering equipment on her telephone, attempting to work with the neighbor causing the interference, and so on. Nothing has been effective. Here are some of the annoyances Shannon has experienced. Her answering machine picks up calls for which there is no audible ring, and at times records ghost messages. Often, she cannot get a dial tone when she or her family members wish to place an outgoing call. During telephone conversations, the content of the nearby CB transmission can frequently be heard and on occasion, her phone conversations are inexplicably cut off. Ms. Ladwig's TV transmits audio from the CB transmission rather than the television program her family is watching. Shannon never knows if the TV program she taped with her VCR will actually record the intended program or whether it will contain profanity from a nearby CB radio conversation. Shannon did everything she could to solve the problem and a year later she still feels like a prisoner in her home, unable to escape the broadcasting whims of a CB operator using illegal equipment with impunity. Shannon even went to her city council to demand action. The Beloit City Council responded by passing an ordinance allowing local law enforcement to enforce FCC regulations--an ordinance the council knows is preempted by Federal law. Last year, the Beloit City Council passed a resolution supporting legislation I introduced, S. 608, on which my amendment is modeled, which will allow at least part of that ordinance to stand. The problems experienced by Beloit residents are by no means isolated incidents. I have received very similar complaints from at least 10 other Wisconsin communities in the last several years in which whole neighborhoods are experiencing persistent radio frequency interference. Since I have begun working on this issue, my staff has also been contacted by a number of other congressional offices who are also looking for a solution to the problem of radio frequency interference in their States or districts caused by unlawful CB use. The city of Grand Rapids, MI, in particular, has contacted me about this legislation because they face a persistent interference problem very similar to that in Beloit. In all, FCC receives more than 30,000 radio frequency interference complaints annually--most of which are caused by CB radios. Unfortunately, FCC no longer has the staff, resources, or the field capability to investigate these complaints and localities are blocked from exercising any jurisdiction to provide relief to their residents. My amendment attempts to resolve this Catch-22, by allowing States and localities to enforce existing FCC regulations regarding authorized CB equipment and frequencies while maintaining exclusive Federal jurisdiction over the regulation of radio services. It is a commonsense solution to a very frustrating and real problem which cannot be addressed under existing law. Residents should not be held hostage to a Federal law which purports to protect them but which cannot be enforced. Now this amendment is by no means a panacea for the problem of radio frequency interference. It is intended only to help localities solve the most egregious and persistent problems of interference--those caused by unauthorized use of CB radio equipment and frequencies. In cases where interference is caused by the legal and licensed operation of any radio service, residents will need to resolve the interference using FCC self-help measures that I mentioned earlier. In many cases, interference can result from inadequate home electronic equipment immunity from radio frequency interference. Those problems can only be resolved by installing filtering equipment and by improving the manufacturing standards of home telecommunications equipment. The electronic equipment manufacturing industry, represented by the Telecommunications Industry Association and the Electronics Industry Association, working with the Federal Communications Commission, has adopted voluntary standards to improve the immunity of telephones from interference. Those standards were adopted by the American National Standards Institute last year. Manufacturers of electronic equipment should be encouraged to adopt these new ANSI standards. Consumers have a right to expect that the telephones they purchase will operate as expected without excessive levels of interference from legal radio transmissions. Of course, Mr. President, these standards assume legal operation of radio equipment and cannot protect residents from interference from illegal operation of CB equipment. This amendment also does not address interference caused by other radio services, such as commercial stations or amateur stations. Mr. President, last year, I introduced S. 2025, a bill with intent similar to that of the amendment I am offering today. The American Radio Relay League [ARRL], an organization representing amateur radio operators, frequently referred to as ``ham'' operators, raised a number of concerns about that legislation. ARRL was concerned that while the bill was intended to cover only illegal use of CB equipment, FCC-licensed amateur radio operators might inadvertently be targeted and prosecuted by local law enforcement. ARRL also expressed concern that local law enforcement might not have the technical abilities to distinguish between ham stations and CB stations and might not be able to determine what CB equipment was FCC-authorized and what equipment is illegal. I have worked with the ARRL and amateur operators from Wisconsin to address these concerns. As a result of those discussions, this amendment incorporates a number of provisions suggested by the league. First, the amendment makes clear that the limited enforcement authority provided to localities in no way diminishes or affects FCC's exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of radio. Second, the amendment clarifies that possession of an FCC license to operate a radio service for the operation at issue, such as an amateur station, is a complete protection against any local law enforcement action authorized by this amendment. Amateur radio enthusiasts are not only individually licensed by FCC, unlike CB operators, but they also self-regulate. The ARRL is very involved in resolving interference concerns both among their own members and between ham operators and residents experiencing problems. Third, the amendment also provides for an FCC appeal process by any radio operator who is adversely affected by a local law enforcement action under this amendment. FCC will make determinations as to whether the locality acted properly within the limited jurisdiction this legislation provides. The FCC will have the power to reverse the action of the locality if local law enforcement acted improperly. And fourth, my legislation requires FCC to provide States and localities with technical guidance on how to determine whether a CB operator is acting within the law. Again, Mr. President, my amendment is narrowly targeted to resolve persistent interference with home electronic equipment caused by illegal CB operation. Under my amendment, localities cannot establish their own regulations on CB use. They may only enforce existing FCC regulations on authorized CB equipment and frequencies. This amendment will not resolve all interference problems and it is not intended to do so. Some interference problems need to continue to be addressed by the FCC, the telecommunications manufacturing industry, and radio service operators. This amendment merely provides localities with the tools they need to protect their residents while preserving FCC's exclusive regulatory jurisdiction over the regulation of radio services. I am very pleased that this amendment has been accepted, and I hope it will become law along with the anti-slamming bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as we approach so-called Tax Freedom Day, I rise to offer some comments about the IRS Reform measure before us, and to address some more general issues on the state of our tax code. Mr. President, let me begin by especially commending the senior Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Kerrey, for his efforts to bring IRS reform before the body. His long involvement in this issue, and his unflagging efforts to bring these reforms before us deserve our highest praise. This bill is very much the product of Senator Kerrey's work, and American taxpayers are fortunate to have his gifted advocacy. Mr. President, there are many significant reforms included in the bill before us, but one that I was especially interested to see included mirrors legislation I was pleased to join in introducing with the senior Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) . Our measure would extend the protections of the Equal Access to Justice Act to taxpayers who have had actions brought against them by the IRS. Mr. President, for those who are not familiar with this important Act, it was established in response to the dilemma individuals and small businesses face when the government brings an unjustified action against them that may be relatively expensive to contest. Even though they may feel very strongly that they are right and they did nothing wrong, they feel they cannot pay the costs associated with it. Too often, an individual or a small business may feel forced to forgo contesting the government's action, feeling that any potential fine or forfeiture would be less expensive than the cost of fighting the government in court. Mr. President, I saw this long before I entered the political world as an attorney representing small business people who faced this frustration and feeling that they really couldn't fight the Government in these cases because of the problems with fines, and especially attorneys' fees. Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, those individuals and small businesses are entitled to recover their court costs if they are successful in fighting the government action. Mr. President, as a member of the Wisconsin State Senate, I worked to establish an Equal Access to Justice law for Wisconsin, and since coming to this body, I have offered measures to further strengthen the Federal law in this regard. This bill, the IRS bill, is a golden opportunity for us to improve this law by including in large part the provisions of the bill Senator Leahy and I introduced that would make the IRS have to play by these rules as well. I also want to thank the managers of the bill for accepting the amendment my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, and I offered regarding the equal employment opportunity problems that were brought to our attention by IRS employees in Wisconsin. This matter came to the attention of the Finance Committee at a recent hearing, and I very much hope the action we are taking in this legislation will help resolve those problems. Mr. President, the IRS reform bill before us is by and large a good response to many of the problems with our current tax collection system. The tax collection system is a vitally important issue, and it certainly contributes to the larger issue surrounding the Tax Code itself. Of course, the problems with the Tax Code are likely to be much thornier to address, and as we approach what has been called Tax Freedom Day, I want to offer a few comments on the challenges we face in taking the next step beyond this bill in reforming the Tax Code itself. We have all heard about this Tax Freedom Day. There is some dispute about when it really is, but it is supposed to be the day by which we have worked enough to pay our taxes for the year. The Tax Foundation maintains that the date is May 10. Other organizations question that and point to other dates. One says Tax Freedom Day is really April 22. Looking just at the Federal personal income tax, some say Tax Freedom Day for the typical taxpayer is really January 20. So it may be interesting to examine all of these estimates and compare the differences in the way we calculate Tax Freedom Day. But without trying to argue which day is the right day, I think we can at least agree there probably is not anyone who, if told their own tax freedom day was this Sunday, wouldn't prefer that it was Saturday instead. No one likes to pay taxes and everyone would like to pay less than they do now. For most people this would be a key part of tax reform, and I think they are right. Although we may not be voting on a significant overhaul of the Tax Code this year, I really hope that serious debate of various tax reform proposals can begin. This was something that was identified as one of the very top four or five priorities after the 1994 election, to have a debate about tax reform. But we have never had that debate over the past 4 years. The work that has gone into the IRS reform bill, and especially the leadership of Senator Kerrey, shows how much can be done if this body actually works toward reform. And I think the same would be true if we really dedicated ourselves to tax reform legislation. While we may not be voting on tax reform this year, we are certainly likely to be taking actions, including apparently passing tax bills, that will have a direct bearing on tax reform when it does finally come before us. With this in mind as we take actions that are likely to have this downstream effect on tax reform, I hope we keep various principles in mind. We should promote equity and fairness; we should resist complexity; and we should insist on fiscal responsibility. An aspect of the current Tax Code that really strains each of these principles, and which contributes to our having a later Tax Freedom Day for most of us, is, in fact, the huge number of special interest provisions that appear throughout the Tax Code. It is riddled with them. These provisions, often called tax expenditures, have been enacted over the years to help specific groups of taxpayers but they have come at a cost. They come at a cost of lost revenue, and that ends up being a burden that other taxpayers are left to bear through higher taxes. While some tax expenditures are justified, many are not. And they can combine to produce significant tax avoidance by some of the biggest and most profitable financial interests in the world. One example related to me recently concerned one of our largest automakers, a firm that is obviously one of the largest and most successful corporations in our Nation's history. This enormous corporation reportedly had billions in U.S. profits for 1995 and 1996. But they didn't pay one penny of Federal income tax. In fact, they actually got refunds totaling over $1 billion. In a case like this, for a company like this, Tax Freedom Day isn't in May or April or March or even January 1. It must be last December because they were getting a refund. That is a real freedom from taxation. This kind of special treatment is, unfortunately, all too common, and while Tax Freedom Day may not be in the previous tax year for all of these interests as in the example I gave, it is certainly the case that while many of us have to work until the flowers are blooming to pay our taxes for the year, many special interests get their tax freedom at least by Groundhog Day. Thousands and thousands of interests have been able to slip special provisions into the Tax Code over the years, increasing the tax burden for the rest of us and further complicating the Tax Code. I am sorry to say that in the past few years Congress has not stopped this trend. It has not slowed this trend. Congress has continued down this path. On an almost annual basis, Congress passes more and more of these special provisions. And these special provisions not only add to the Tax Code's complexity while shifting a greater tax burden on the rest of us, they actually also undermine our ability to get to that genuine tax reform that all of us are talking about. Again, sorry to say, although I believe it is correct, last year's so-called tax cut bill was a prime example of this sort of abuse. First and foremost, it was premature. It was not fiscally responsible. Despite all of our recent good economic news and the windfalls to the Government's bottom line, according to the most recent CBO estimate, we are still nearly $100 billion short of a truly balanced budget. We have not balanced our books, unless you are somehow willing to again and again, as has been done for far too many years, use the Social Security trust fund balances to, in effect, mask the currently existing deficit. The real budget is still in deficit, and last year's tax cut bill has made it harder to finish our most important task, and that is to actually balance the Federal budget. Making matters worse, the cost of that tax bill was heavily back loaded, putting even more pressure on our budget just when the baby boomers begin to retire. That tax bill, of course, added even more layers of complexity to a Tax Code that was already thick with it, and that complexity was not only to the entire code, it reached down to the level of the individual taxpayer. Anyone who had to fill out some of the tax forms that were changed because of the 1997 tax bill knows just how much more complex taxes became because of last year's legislation. Mr. President, I use last year's tax bill as an example only because I want to make the point that these problems not only are reason to fault that specific legislation, they also, again, undermine our ability to get anywhere near genuine tax reform. Tax reform inevitably creates winners and losers. But we have a better chance of enacting reform if at the time of doing the reform we can increase the number of winners and decrease the number of losers by cutting taxes at the same time that you enact reform. Do not do the complex and all the things that mess it up first and then expect the resources to be available when we have to do tax reform. We have to link the effort to simplify the Tax Code and give some people tax relief. Simply put, if you could lower taxes while you reformed the code, you sure would have a better chance of enacting real reform. Unfortunately, what last year's tax bill did was commit hundreds of billions of dollars that could have gone to help us achieve true tax reform. It also, unfortunately, created several new classes of winners under the current system, groups that will benefit from the specific provisions in the bill. Why do I say ``unfortunately''? Because these winners, and these winners were only a very few among us--there were far more losers than winners--these few winners now have a bigger stake in the current tax system and they will now be less likely to want to give up their gains or will again require greater tax cuts to allow us to move to a new system. We keep creating our own inertia against reform by giving out more of these tax break goodies. And, as the history of our Tax Code has shown, special tax provisions lead to even more special tax provisions. So, as we approach what I hope is a real effort to achieve significant tax reform, and as we consider those tax bills that will work their way to us prior to that larger debate, I hope we will, again, keep three principles in mind: We should use our Tax Code to promote equity and fairness, we should resist complexity in the Tax Code, and we should insist on fiscal responsibility when we are taking actions with respect to the Tax Code. Adhering to these three principles will not only result in better tax bills, it will also pave the way for truly significant tax reform, tax reform that will move Tax Freedom Day back for all American families. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of the Craig amendment that would require specific congressional authorization for the deployment of troops to Bosnia. However, I would like to make clear that I am supporting this amendment for reasons that I think differ slightly from the intentions of its author, the distinguished Senator from Idaho. As my colleagues in this Chamber know well, I have always had serious questions about U.S. involvement in this mission. I was the only Democrat to vote against the deployment of U.S. troops back in 1995, in large part because I did not believe the United States would be able to complete the mission in the time projected and for the price tag that was originally estimated. Now--more than two years later--I think I have been proven right, and I take no pleasure in it. But, regardless of my objections to the mission, I have always felt it is vitally important that when large-scale deployment of U.S. troops is involved, it is necessary to have specific congressional authorization for it. And I have tried on several occasions to move the Congress to enact such authorization. In that light, I view the Craig amendment as another such attempt. Unlike Senator Craig, however, I support the expansion of NATO and do not feel this amendment is inconsistent with that support. Unlike Senator Craig, I am not necessarily opposed to the involvement of NATO in peacekeeping missions. There may be times in the future when it would be appropriate for NATO to become involved in peacekeeping missions when conflicts threaten the security of NATO members. But I do agree with Senator Craig that if and when these situations arise, if the deployment of U.S. troops is proposed, it will be necessary to get specific Congressional authorization for such deployment. It is for this reason that I support Senator Craig's amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I rise in support of S. 1982, the Dairy Reform Act of 1998, introduced by my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Rod Grams. The Federal Dairy Program was developed in the 1930's, when the Upper Midwest was seen as the primary reserve for additional supplies of milk. The idea was to encourage the development of local supplies of fluid milk in areas of the country that had not produced enough to meet local needs. Six decades ago, the poor condition of the American transportation infrastructure and the lack of portable refrigeration technology prevented Upper Midwest producers from shipping fresh fluid milk to other parts of the country. Therefore, the only way to ensure consumers a fresh local supply of fluid milk was to provide dairy farmers in those distant regions with a boost in milk price large enough to encourage local production--that higher price referred to as the Class I differential. Mr. President, the system worked well--too well. Wisconsin is no longer this country's largest milk producer. This program has outlived its necessity and is now working only to shortchange the Upper Midwest, and in particular, Wisconsin dairy farmers. The Dairy Reform Act of 1998 is very simple. It establishes that the minimum Class I price differential will be the same, $1.80/ hundredweight, for each marketing order. As many of you know, the price for fluid milk increases at a rate of approximately 21 cents per 100 miles from Eau Claire, WI. Fluid milk prices, as a result, are nearly $3 higher in Florida than in Wisconsin, more than $2 higher in New England, and more than $1 higher in Texas. This bill ensures that the Class I differentials will no longer vary according to an arbitrary geographic measure--like the distance from Eau Claire Wisconsin. No longer will the system penalize producers in the Upper Midwest with an archaic program that outlived its purpose years ago. This legislation identifies one of the most unfair and unjustly punitive provisions in the current system, and corrects it. There is no substantive, equitable justification to support non-uniform Class I differentials in present day policy. USDA's Federal Milk Marketing Order reform proposal is currently being considered. It is long past the time to set aside regional bickering and address the problems in both options presented under the proposed rule. The Dairy Reform Act of 1998 will not adversely affect the modest reform of Option 1B as offered by Secretary Glickman. It will take Option 1B a step further and lead the dairy industry into a more market oriented program. Also producers will still be able to receive payment for transportation costs and over-order premiums. This measure would finally bring fairness to an unfair system. With this bill we will send a clear message to USDA and to Congress that Upper- Midwest dairy farmers will never stop fighting this patently unfair federal milk marketing order system. After over 60 years of struggling under this burden of inequality, Wisconsin's dairy industry deserves more; it deserves a fair price.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators Collins, Chafee, Jeffords, Leahy, Reid and others in introducing the Home Health Medical Equity Act of 1998. I especially want to compliment the Senator from Maine, who has taken the lead on this issue. It is a matter of enormous concern in her State and also in mine. I think it is worth taking a moment just to acknowledge how useful the Senate Aging Committee is, to be able to highlight an issue like this. I wonder whether this issue would have gotten the attention it deserves had it not been for that forum, where we were able to have an excellent hearing and hear from Senators all over the country whose States are very negatively affected by the rules that were put into place. I congratulate the Senator from Maine for taking the initiative out of that hearing to introduce legislation. This legislation is a crucial step in ensuring that the Medicare Home Health Care program's Interim Payment System does not penalize regions of the country that have been providing home health services efficiently. Mr. President, I have been working to promote the availability of home care and other long-term care options for my entire public life because I believe strongly in the importance of enabling people to stay in their own homes. For seniors who are homebound and have skilled nursing needs, having access to home health services through the Medicare program is the difference between staying in their own home and being moved into a nursing facility. Home care offers feelings of security, dignity and hope. Where there is a choice, we should do our best to allow patients to choose home health care. Mr. President, I recognize that there are situations when one's ability to conduct the activities of daily living are so limited, and the medical needs are so great, that the patient would be better served, in some cases, in a skilled nursing facility. I also want to recognize that my State of Wisconsin has a very, very good network of caring and high-quality nursing homes. Without a doubt, there is a need for these services. But, Mr. President, as I travel throughout Wisconsin's 72 counties every year, what seniors tell me again and again is that, to the extent possible, and as long as it is medically appropriate for them to do so, they would like to remain in their own homes. I think seniors need and deserve that choice. Mr. President, seniors clearly prefer to remain in their own homes rather than be moved to a nursing home. Their medical needs can often be met through home health services. Despite these facts, the implementation of the Medicare Home Health Interim Payment System as passed in last year's budget could create serious access problems for seniors in States like Wisconsin and Maine when they seek the home health benefit. The cuts to the Medicare Home Health program imposed by the Interim Payment System are so severe that home health agencies will have no choice but to reduce dramatically the amount of services provided. Some home care agencies may get out of the home care business altogether. But, Mr. President, the real impact of the Interim Payment System will not be simply to reduce payments to home care providers and force some out of business, what it will really do and what really concerns me is it will drastically reduce the options that homebound seniors now have today with respect to whether they will remain in their home in the community or whether they will be forced into a nursing home situation that is not necessarily the best place for them. As of right now, Mr. President, the Interim Payment System for Medicare home health care is a system that pays agencies the lowest of the following three measures: (1) actual costs; (2) a per visit limit of 105% of the national median; or (3) a per beneficiary annual limit, derived from a blend of 75% an agency's costs and 25% regional costs. Now, these measures are pretty technical and I will not go into any more of the specifics about them. But suffice it to say that the net effect of the Interim Payment System will be to penalize severely agencies who have been operating efficiently all these years. Since the Interim Payment System will pay the agency the lowest of the three measures that I mentioned, agencies in areas where costs have been kept lower will be disproportionately and unfairly affected. Mr. President, according to the Health Care Financing Administration, just in Wisconsin alone, there are currently 181 home health care agencies that participate in Medicare. Of these, two-thirds of them are operated as nonprofit entities. These nonprofit home health care providers are often county health departments and visiting nurse organizations; these are not entities out to make a fast buck on the backs of homebound seniors. According to administrators of Valley Visiting Nurse Association in Neenah, WI, the average, per patient Medicare home care cost in Wisconsin is $2,586, compared to $5,000 in other parts of the country. Let me repeat that, the statistics, because it is really quite striking. The average, per patient Medicare home care cost in Wisconsin is only $2,586, compared to often over $5,000 or more in other places in the country. These nonprofit providers in Wisconsin are already as lean as they can be. I am fairly convinced they don't have any ``fat'' to cut from their programs. The Visiting Nurse Association Home Health of Wausau showed me some figures demonstrating that, over the past 5 years, their services have averaged 30 percent below limits imposed by the Health Care Financing Administration, with 36 percent fewer visits per beneficiary than the national average. Mr. President, the effect of the deep reductions imposed by the Interim Payment System will be, quite simply, a devastating blow to these types of agencies, and, in turn, will seriously impact the availability of home health care services to many people in Wisconsin. This devastating blow is dealt not because Wisconsin has been providing too many services too expensively. It is just to the contrary. States like Wisconsin and others are being penalized more precisely because they have always operated efficiently. Moreover, on a national level, with a reduced per-patient limit, home health agencies have a disincentive to take more seriously ill patients onto their rolls. Mr. President, the legislation my colleagues and I introduce today will change the Interim Payment System to bring about greater payment equity for Medicare home health providers in different parts of the country. The bill, as the Senator from Maine outlined, would create a new formula for the per-patient limit that reflects a higher percentage of national data rather than relying solely on regional and local data. The change in payment calculation would enable high-efficiency, low- cost home health agencies to continue providing services efficiently and cost-effectively. But, Mr. President, the most important impact of the Medicare Home Health Equity Act will be to make sure that seniors who are homebound and have skilled nursing needs will retain for as long as possible the right to decide to stay in their own homes. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators Collins, Chafee, Jeffords, Leahy, Reid and others in introducing the Home Health Medical Equity Act of 1998. I especially want to compliment the Senator from Maine, who has taken the lead on this issue. It is a matter of enormous concern in her State and also in mine. I think it is worth taking a moment just to acknowledge how useful the Senate Aging Committee is, to be able to highlight an issue like this. I wonder whether this issue would have gotten the attention it deserves had it not been for that forum, where we were able to have an excellent hearing and hear from Senators all over the country whose States are very negatively affected by the rules that were put into place. I congratulate the Senator from Maine for taking the initiative out of that hearing to introduce legislation. This legislation is a crucial step in ensuring that the Medicare Home Health Care program's Interim Payment System does not penalize regions of the country that have been providing home health services efficiently. Mr. President, I have been working to promote the availability of home care and other long-term care options for my entire public life because I believe strongly in the importance of enabling people to stay in their own homes. For seniors who are homebound and have skilled nursing needs, having access to home health services through the Medicare program is the difference between staying in their own home and being moved into a nursing facility. Home care offers feelings of security, dignity and hope. Where there is a choice, we should do our best to allow patients to choose home health care. Mr. President, I recognize that there are situations when one's ability to conduct the activities of daily living are so limited, and the medical needs are so great, that the patient would be better served, in some cases, in a skilled nursing facility. I also want to recognize that my State of Wisconsin has a very, very good network of caring and high-quality nursing homes. Without a doubt, there is a need for these services. But, Mr. President, as I travel throughout Wisconsin's 72 counties every year, what seniors tell me again and again is that, to the extent possible, and as long as it is medically appropriate for them to do so, they would like to remain in their own homes. I think seniors need and deserve that choice. Mr. President, seniors clearly prefer to remain in their own homes rather than be moved to a nursing home. Their medical needs can often be met through home health services. Despite these facts, the implementation of the Medicare Home Health Interim Payment System as passed in last year's budget could create serious access problems for seniors in States like Wisconsin and Maine when they seek the home health benefit. The cuts to the Medicare Home Health program imposed by the Interim Payment System are so severe that home health agencies will have no choice but to reduce dramatically the amount of services provided. Some home care agencies may get out of the home care business altogether. But, Mr. President, the real impact of the Interim Payment System will not be simply to reduce payments to home care providers and force some out of business, what it will really do and what really concerns me is it will drastically reduce the options that homebound seniors now have today with respect to whether they will remain in their home in the community or whether they will be forced into a nursing home situation that is not necessarily the best place for them. As of right now, Mr. President, the Interim Payment System for Medicare home health care is a system that pays agencies the lowest of the following three measures: (1) actual costs; (2) a per visit limit of 105% of the national median; or (3) a per beneficiary annual limit, derived from a blend of 75% an agency's costs and 25% regional costs. Now, these measures are pretty technical and I will not go into any more of the specifics about them. But suffice it to say that the net effect of the Interim Payment System will be to penalize severely agencies who have been operating efficiently all these years. Since the Interim Payment System will pay the agency the lowest of the three measures that I mentioned, agencies in areas where costs have been kept lower will be disproportionately and unfairly affected. Mr. President, according to the Health Care Financing Administration, just in Wisconsin alone, there are currently 181 home health care agencies that participate in Medicare. Of these, two-thirds of them are operated as nonprofit entities. These nonprofit home health care providers are often county health departments and visiting nurse organizations; these are not entities out to make a fast buck on the backs of homebound seniors. According to administrators of Valley Visiting Nurse Association in Neenah, WI, the average, per patient Medicare home care cost in Wisconsin is $2,586, compared to $5,000 in other parts of the country. Let me repeat that, the statistics, because it is really quite striking. The average, per patient Medicare home care cost in Wisconsin is only $2,586, compared to often over $5,000 or more in other places in the country. These nonprofit providers in Wisconsin are already as lean as they can be. I am fairly convinced they don't have any ``fat'' to cut from their programs. The Visiting Nurse Association Home Health of Wausau showed me some figures demonstrating that, over the past 5 years, their services have averaged 30 percent below limits imposed by the Health Care Financing Administration, with 36 percent fewer visits per beneficiary than the national average. Mr. President, the effect of the deep reductions imposed by the Interim Payment System will be, quite simply, a devastating blow to these types of agencies, and, in turn, will seriously impact the availability of home health care services to many people in Wisconsin. This devastating blow is dealt not because Wisconsin has been providing too many services too expensively. It is just to the contrary. States like Wisconsin and others are being penalized more precisely because they have always operated efficiently. Moreover, on a national level, with a reduced per-patient limit, home health agencies have a disincentive to take more seriously ill patients onto their rolls. Mr. President, the legislation my colleagues and I introduce today will change the Interim Payment System to bring about greater payment equity for Medicare home health providers in different parts of the country. The bill, as the Senator from Maine outlined, would create a new formula for the per-patient limit that reflects a higher percentage of national data rather than relying solely on regional and local data. The change in payment calculation would enable high-efficiency, low- cost home health agencies to continue providing services efficiently and cost-effectively. But, Mr. President, the most important impact of the Medicare Home Health Equity Act will be to make sure that seniors who are homebound and have skilled nursing needs will retain for as long as possible the right to decide to stay in their own homes. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for Senate ratification of the Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty on accession of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. I have been privileged to participate in the historic debate on the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations. Since last October, the committee has held 8 hearings on this issue and heard testimony from 37 witnesses with a variety of opinions on NATO enlargement. I will take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the committee, the Senator from North Carolina, and the committee's ranking member, Senator Biden, for the balanced manner in which these hearings were conducted and for their support for expeditious consideration of this important matter. As we all know, Mr. President, NATO has been the most important factor in maintaining peace in Europe since the devastation of World War II. As we prepare to mark the alliance's 50th anniversary next year, it is appropriate to look back on its successes and look forward to see what role NATO will play in the next 50 years. The world will be a much different place in 1999 than it was in 1949 when this alliance was formed as a buffer against Soviet aggression and as a means of protection for nations whose people had just emerged from one of the costliest wars, in both human and financial terms, in our history. But to fully understand and appreciate what the security of NATO represents to the people of Eastern Europe, we must first remember what they have endured in the years since we celebrated V-E Day. At the same time the people of Western Europe were working to found an alliance that would ensure security and were fighting to rebuild their countries and the economies after the fall of the Third Reich, a new threat was emerging on the other side of the continent. The Soviet Union, which had been our ally against Hitler, was about to become our foe in a cold war that would last almost a half century and result in the sacrifice of lives, traditions, and religious liberty throughout Eastern Europe. The people of Eastern Europe barely had time to recover from the devastation of a world war when they were faced with Soviet tanks. Foreign subjugation was, of course, nothing new for the people of Eastern and Central Europe. For centuries, Mr. President, this part of the world had been a battleground where people and territory seemed little more than spoils in a seemingly endless series of bloody fights. Bit by bit, the Soviet Union redrew Europe's map until it swallowed up the entire eastern and central region. Under the reign of the Communist Party, people lived in fear that they would be accused of being disloyal to the party. Religion was outlawed, and the myriad beautiful places of worship in the Soviet Union were left vacant; many were destroyed. In spite of the treatment they were forced to endure at the hands of the Soviet regime, the people of Eastern Europe never lost their will to be free, as demonstrated by events such as the Prague Spring and the Solidarity movement. By the mid-1980s, the Soviet Union was beginning to crumble and the people of Eastern Europe yearned to satisfy their hunger for democracy and freedom. Beginning in 1989, the people of Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia peacefully ousted their Communist governments and replaced them with democracy. It was, in the words of Vaclav Havel, a ``velvet revolution.'' Because of modern technology, the world community has had a front-row seat for the transformation of Eastern Europe. We literally watched the Berlin Wall fall and marveled at cranes dismantling statues of Lenin and laying low the hammer and sickle. Today, nearly a half a century after World War II, the Iron Curtain is gone and the Soviet regime is no more. The changing face of Europe is marked by newly-independent countries eagerly embracing democracy for the first time in more than two generations. But the people of these former Soviet satellite countries still live in the shadow of the history of Soviet domination. These nations and their people seek to rejoin the West, and seek a means to ensure that they will never again fall victim to a Soviet-style regime. The lingering memory of Soviet domination was evident at the Winter 1998 Olympic Games, where a player on the Czech Republic's hockey team wore the number 68 to mark the February 25, 1968, invasion of his country by the Soviet Union. When the Czech Republic's hockey team beat the Russian team for the gold medal, many Czechs felt that the victory represented more than athletic excellence. It also symbolized their country's freedom from the Soviet domination of the past. Now, there is a new, democratic Russia, and the nations of Eastern Europe, which have become our friends and trading partners, are caught, both literally and figuratively, between this new Russia and the West. This is a critical time for the newly-independent states of Eastern Europe to establish themselves as countries in their own right, finally free of the yoke of Soviet domination. It is only natural that these Eastern European countries would seek to join NATO, an alliance which shines as a beacon of democracy and security on the European continent. The proposed enlargement of this alliance represents a crossroads in American foreign policy, and, indeed, in the fragile balance of power in Europe. Some opposed to enlarging this alliance have said that it would create a new series of dividing lines in Europe, between NATO, Russia, and those countries which are caught in the middle--neither members of NATO nor under the sphere of Russian influence. Others have argued that all countries meeting the criteria for membership in NATO should be allowed to join. Opponents fear that this would lead to a different dividing line --one between Russia and the rest of Europe. Many of my constituents, and indeed many people around the world, have a special interest in the debate over NATO enlargement due to their ethnic heritage or their memories of the iron fist of Soviet rule in Eastern Europe. I share their commitment to a Europe which will never again fall victim to such oppression. The proposed enlargement embodied in the protocols currently before this body leads to many questions: How many countries? How many rounds of enlargement? What about Russia? What about those that may be left out? It is my view that the newly-independent countries in Europe should not be forever caught between Russia and the West. It is also my strong view that the United States must proceed carefully so that we do not damage our relationship with a democratic Russia. Unfortunately, parts of the debate over NATO enlargement have taken on an ``us versus them'' quality. We must not forget that the Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union, and that we should encourage democracy wherever it takes root. Instead of the ``us versus them'' of the Cold War era, this debate should be about the new landscape of Europe. We must not make Russia feel as if it is being ganged up on by the West. We must encourage democracy there as we do elsewhere on the globe, and we must encourage the newly-independent states to take control of their own futures. That is why the Administration helped to successfully negotiate the NATO-Russia Founding Act. And that is why the language in the resolution of ratification currently before this body encourages the continuation of a constructive relationship between NATO and Russia. I support the fundamental goals of NATO enlargement, and believe it is in America's national interest to pursue this first round, as it has. However, I do have some concerns, that I know are shared by many other Members of Congress, about the commitment--financial and otherwise--the United States will undertake as it pursues enlargement of the alliance. On that point, Mr. President, I would like to speak for a moment on one of my concerns about this debate: the disparity among the various estimates on the financial commitment the United States would be undertaking if NATO enlargement were to proceed. There have been at least three major studies conducted on this subject, each of which has taken a different approach with respect to the basis for their estimates. While I understand that it is impossible to account for all of the different variables that will be included in this endeavor, each study assumes a different set of costs, and thus reaches very different cost projections for the U.S. share of this undertaking--any- where from $2 billion to $7 billion. I am pleased that I was able to get clarification on this issue through the hearings we held in the Foreign Relations Committee, and I am pleased that the members of the Committee devoted so much time to this important aspect of NATO enlargement. The Committee based its evaluation of the estimated cost of NATO enlargement on the following four assumptions that can be found in the Department of Defense and NATO studies: First, because there is no immediate threat to NATO, the alliance will continue to operate in the current strategic environment for the foreseeable future. Second, NATO will not station substantial forces on the territories of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Third--and this is a key point for me--NATO's standard burdensharing rules will apply to the costs of enlargement. Fourth, the modernization of the United States military is considered to be a strictly American project that will not be funded through the NATO common budget, and, thus, NATO enlargement will not require the United States to undertake any new force modernization initiatives beyond those already planned. Mr. President, I believe that these four assumptions are at the heart of the debate over the cost of NATO enlargement. While, in my view, the enlargement of the alliance is in the best interest of the United States, I remain committed to ensuring that the federal government achieves--and maintains--a balanced federal budget. The Committee's careful analysis of the costs involved in NATO enlargement addressed many of my concerns in this regard. I agree with the language included in the Committee Report which states that the Committee ``stresses the importance of all current and future allies to meet their commitments to the common defense. Anything less will result in a hollow strategic commitment.'' At the same time, I will look carefully at any of the amendments before us that seek to control the costs to the U.S. taxpayer of this enlargement. Because of the necessity of all NATO members to meet their commitments to the common defense, I asked Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, at a February 24, 1998, Foreign Relations Committee hearing, if Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic would be prepared to take on these commitments. She told me that ``We are confident that Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic will take on the financial commitment involved in NATO membership. Indeed, to prepare for this commitment, all three have increased their defense budgets to fund necessary defense reforms, and to bring them in line with the standard outlays of NATO Allies. . . . Moreover, the cost of defense would undoubtedly be higher if these countries did not join NATO.'' In addition, I have been assured by both Secretary Albright and Secretary of Defense William Cohen that the United States share of NATO enlargement costs will not exceed $7 billion over ten years. They have insisted that the wide range of cost estimates can be attributed to the use of varying data and the fact that the original estimates assumed the admission of four new countries into the alliance. I respect the views of the Department of Defense and the General Accounting Office in explaining the differential, and will continue to monitor revised cost estimates as they become available. The many cost estimates involved in this first round of NATO enlargement also lead me to wonder if we will have a clearer picture of the cost of future rounds, or if we will be faced with the same financial uncertainties that loom before us today. This is an issue the Senate will be looking at closely as the Alliance develops its policies regarding future enlargement. This is also the subject of at least one amendment to the resolution of ratification currently before this body. I also have concerns about the impact of new U.S. commitments to NATO on America's general military readiness, especially at a time when so many of our forces are deployed around the world in Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, Korea, and other posts. I asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Hugh Shelton, about this concern when he testified before the Committee on Foreign Relations. He said, ``I see nothing in the NATO enlargement concept that will detract from our overall readiness. To the contrary, the additional troops, military equipment and capabilities that the three new countries bring to the Alliance can only reduce the demands on current members.'' I am encouraged by his answer, and I am also encouraged by the willingness of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to participate in NATO's Partnership for Peace. All three countries were original members of this program, and all have provided troops and equipment for NATO missions. In my view, the willingness of these three countries to participate in NATO efforts will only strengthen the alliance. As I stated earlier, I share the Administration's basic views on the merits of enlarging this alliance. The people of Eastern Europe must never again be subjected to the conditions they were forced to endure under Soviet rule. They see NATO membership as a means to ensure their future safety. My concern is about the extent of the commitment the United States will be making, and the uncertainty regarding the price tag that American taxpayers will be asked to pay in this time of fiscal restraint and personal sacrifice. But voting in favor of NATO enlargement should not be considered a blank check for military or other spending in the region. Should the Senate ratify the protocols we are considering today, I and my colleagues in both the House and the Senate will continue to monitor the new U.S. commitments to NATO-- financial and otherwise--through the regular congressional budget and appropriations process. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution of ratification. I yield the floor. Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of the ethnic Armenians who died at the hands of the Ottoman Empire from 1915-1923. Last week, we marked the 83rd anniversary of the beginning of a systematic, officially-sanctioned genocide that would eventually claim 1.5 million lives and force more than 250,000 to flee their homeland. As a result, there are fewer than 80,000 Armenians remaining in present-day Turkey. I have spoken about these events every year of my term, on or near this date, in order to remind the Senate--and to remind the American people--of the sacrifice of these 1.5 million people who were murdered simply because of their ethnicity. In a country where we cherish the ethnic diversity of our citizens and welcome legal immigrants from around the globe, we sometimes forget about the ethnic strife that existed--and continues to exist--all over the world. Unfortunately, ethnic conflict has led to genocide all too often, as we have seen during this decade in Bosnia, Rwanda, and elsewhere. More recently, there has been a resurgence of ethnic fighting in Kosovo, where the minority Serb population seeks to control the majority Albanian population. Mr. President, human rights violations have become all too commonplace in the modern world. Beatings, rapes, murders, and ``disappearances'' have become routine weapons of war in battles where the perpetrators are rarely brought to justice. It is my strong view that the United States must continue to lead the fight for global human rights. The recent death of Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot--who died before he could be tried for the murders of millions of Cambodians--reinforces the urgency of bringing those responsible for genocide to justice. I applaud the efforts of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal which is currently working to prosecute those responsible for the atrocities committed in Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia. As we honor the memory of the 1.5 million Armenians whose annihilation began 83 years ago, we must also remember the countless other victims of ``ethnic cleansing'' around the globe, and recommit ourselves to the effort to punish those responsible for these unspeakable crimes.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the State Department authorization conference report debated on Friday and to be voted on tomorrow. Unfortunately, I was unable to participate in the debate on Friday, and I appreciate the chance to take the time now to express my views on this legislation. I would like to express my extreme regret and disappointment that the debate over the important issues of the long-overdue payment of our arrears to the United Nations and the reorganization of the U.S. Department of State has once again become a sideshow to an exercise by some Members of Congress regarding the issue of reproductive choice. I find it astounding that these members insist on holding our international commitments hostage to a desire to score political points on a domestic issue. We should be on the floor talking about the important foreign policy priorities that were articulated during the Senate debate on S. 903. Instead, we are spending the majority of our debate time on this measure talking about one narrow issue that shouldn't even be in here in the first place! As we all know, a minority of our colleagues in the other body successfully inserted language in this conference report that would impose severe restrictions on U.S. assistance to foreign non- governmental organizations engaged in family planning activities. These restrictions were inserted without consultation with the Democratic conferees. They were not consulted because they surely would have objected to these provisions. The restrictions fall into two basic categories. First, the conference report would mandate that no U.S. population assistance may be given to any foreign non-governmental organization unless that organization certifies that it will not use its own funds to perform abortions during the period in which it receives U.S. funds. If the President chooses to waive this restriction, which I am sure President Clinton would do, funding for family planning-related activities would then be capped at $356 million. The second category of restriction would prohibit funding for organizations that lobby to change abortion laws in their own countries. Mr. President, the authors of these restrictions see this version, that is, the provisions as written in this conference report, as a compromise of earlier iterations of restrictions on family planning. But--let us be very clear here--not only is this not a compromise, but the language is actually more restrictive than what we have seen before. First of all, unlike the so-called ``Mexico City'' language, which has been considered each year as a rider to appropriations bills, the restrictions in this conference report would become permanent statutory changes. That is a rather disturbing concept. Second, the waiver provision included for the President would result in a greater decrease in funding for family planning than we have seen in earlier versions. Many observers believe that the $356 million cap amounts to a decrease of $29 million, a cut that would come solely out of USAID's family planning account. But, the language in this conference report would also apply to ``all funds for programs and activities designed to control fertility or to reduce or delay childbirths or pregnancies, irrespective of the heading under which such funds are made available.'' What this means is that the cap would also apply to certain birth-spacing related programs that currently fall under other USAID accounts, and in fact, would represent a larger total decrease than is immediately evident--about $44 million. That represents an 11 percent decrease in funding for these programs, which, Mr. President, I think we all would agree is rather substantial. Third, the definition of ``lobbying'' that is used in the second restriction is disturbingly broad in that it would ban all sorts of public statements or the participation of individuals at public meetings. It is so bad that many of us call it ``the global gag rule.'' Finally, the President would have no waiver authority over this gag rule provision. Let me turn for a moment to the substance of these provisions. While proponents of the Mexico City language say they do not want U.S. dollars to pay for abortions overseas, the adoption of the restrictions in this conference report would actually increase the number of unintended pregnancies worldwide, and, correspondingly, the number of abortions and deaths of mothers and children due to high-risk pregnancies. The funding at issue here has nothing to do with performing abortions and everything to do with preventing them. It is about family planning, and about a woman's right to know about all options that are legally available to her. It is about helping non-governmental organizations educate women around the world about family planning and other health care issues. I firmly oppose all of these restrictions and will oppose this conference report because of them for several reasons, which I will discuss in turn. First, U.S. assistance for family planning initiatives abroad is a sound investment that pays dividends including healthy women and children. According to the Johns Hopkins Population Information Program, approximately 120 million women in developing countries who need family planning services do not have access to them. Family planning services educate women about contraception, pre-natal care, birth spacing, the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, and other important, life-saving issues. These programs have proven to be enormously effective--not only in improving the health of hundreds of thousands of women and children, but also in reducing the pressures that rapid population growth places on food and water, housing and education, and the environment in developing countries. Second, this language reinstates--and expands--the Mexico City policy that prevents U.S. population assistance from being disbursed to non- governmental organizations that use other funds to engage in abortion- related activities. This restriction does not prevent abortions, Mr. President, it increases their likelihood by cutting off funds to reputable family planning organizations which happen also to use their own money for abortion-related activities. Finally, this language contains a troubling restriction on the freedom of speech of those working for family planning programs which receive U.S. funding. By linking funding for much-needed family planning assistance to the stifling of freedom of speech, the language runs counter to the very principles upon which our own nation was founded. We cherish our right to freedom of speech in this country, and the promotion of democracy and respect for basic freedoms around the globe represent an important aspect of our foreign policy. The language in this conference report is an assault on free speech, one of the most fundamental human rights. In this country, citizens are encouraged to speak their minds and participate in the political process. In fact, the First Amendment states that ``Congress shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom of speech * * * or the right of the people * * * to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'' If the language in this conference report were adopted, it would mean U.S. citizens who have this constitutionally-guaranteed right would be forcing people in other countries to give up similar rights if they wish to keep receiving U.S. funding for family planning programs. The only way I can interpret this, Mr. President, is as an attempt by some Members of Congress to control the free speech of people in foreign countries relating to one particular issue about which they may not agree: abortion. In essence, this language tells foreign non-governmental organizations which seek family planning assistance that they will get it if, and only if, they comply with a restrictive set of rules for how they may use their own money. It is a thinly veiled threat to pull much-needed funding if the word ``abortion'' is uttered to any woman seeking counseling at any foreign family planning agency that receives U.S. funds. This language violates the spirit of the Constitution which we have all sworn to uphold. I would like to talk about two family planning programs that would be jeopardized if this conference report were to become law. The humanitarian organization CARE is working with a local non- governmental organization that promotes dialogue within local communities and at a national level regarding important issues facing Bolivian women, such as violence against women, sexual harassment and lack of appropriate medical services. One of the most critical issues for discussion is the alarmingly high rate of maternal mortality in Bolivia--the highest in Latin America. According to the World Health Organization, a women in Bolivia has a 1 in 27 chance of dying from a pregnancy-related cause. This compares to women in the U.S., who have a 1 in 3,500 chance of dying from such circumstances. CARE's Bolivian partner works to educate women and men about the importance of family planning and the dangers of illegal abortion and how it contributes to Bolivia's appalling rate of maternal mortality. Under the language in the conference report, U.S. funding for this Bolivian organization would be at risk because the organization makes ``public statements'' about women's health issues that may be construed as lobbying for abortion rights. This is a capable, effective organization that is addressing real needs within Bolivia. My second example relates to South Africa. As Ranking Member on the African Affairs Subcommittee, I have had the opportunity to learn much about the success of family planning programs in Africa and, indeed, of U.S. assistance to such programs in Africa. We all watched with awe and amazement as South Africans of all races participated in the first multiparty elections in that country in 1994. We were further inspired by the country's adoption of its first permanent, post-apartheid constitution which was signed into law on December 10, 1996, by President Nelson Mandela, one of the greatest heros of our time. The Government of South Africa continues to consider various proposed amendments to the constitution on outstanding issues, and is also working on the implementation of many of its provisions. Not surprisingly, the Government is consulting widely with a variety of groups and interested parties from around the country. Why, you may ask, am I talking about the South African constitution and South African legislation during a debate over family planning assistance? Because, the language of this conference report would actually put limitations on the ability of South Africans to participate in the democratic process in their country. The Government has asked Dr. Helen Rees, president of the Planned Parenthood Association of South Africa, to become an advisor to the National Department of Health and a member of the country's Medical Advisory Board to assist the Government in its implementation of a law enacted in 1996 concerning access to safe abortion during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. Prior to this law's enactment, Dr. Rees had also helped in its drafting. Had this conference report been law at the time of Dr. Rees' participation in the drafting of that law, the Planned Parenthood Association of South Africa would have lost its U.S. family planning assistance, even though her activities related to the drafting process were conducted without U.S. funds. In other words, the Association might have been forced to suffer simply because the South African government chose to invest in Dr. Rees' expertise. Dr. Rees would have been forced to choose between allowing her organization to receive much-needed U.S. assistance or to become an active participant in the political process of her country. This is a totally unfair choice, and one that we, members of the U.S. Congress, should not be forcing foreign citizens to make. In fact, it contradicts what the Congress worked so actively for over the last several decades, and that is the freedom of all South Africans to be able to participate in their own political process. I want to make my last point very clear, Mr. President. The language contained in this conference report would be unconstitutional if this were a piece of domestic legislation because it violates the First Amendment. I repeat, this language would be unconstitutional if this were domestic legislation. Mr. President, the United States has a long history of promoting democracy and basic freedoms around the world. This global gag rule runs counter to that tradition. If adopted, this language would not encourage free speech--it would squelch it. None of these restrictions belong in this legislation in the first place, but now that they are there, I encourage all of my colleague, who all profess to support free speech and our constitutionally- guaranteed liberties, to defeat this conference report. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a February 27, 1998, editorial from the Washington Post, which makes some excellent arguments as to why this report should be defeated, be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr, President, I rise today to commend the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) for introducing S. Con. Res. 90, which acknowledges the historic Northern Ireland peace agreement, and congratulates the individuals who made the agreement possible. Just today, in my home state of Wisconsin, leaders representing all sides of the Northern Ireland peace process gathered in Milwaukee for a National Symposium on Prospects for Peace in Northern Ireland, sponsored by the George F. Kennan Forum on International Affairs. Mr. President, this conference was planned long before the historic peace agreement was announced. I am pleased that the attendees were able to come to Milwaukee with a viable agreement already on the table. The speakers at today's conference, who were involved in the negotiations of the peace agreement, discussed both the agreement itself and prospects for a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. In light of this resolution, I want to repeat some of my remarks for the peace symposium. The recent agreement reached by the parties to the conflict in Northern Ireland offers real hope for an end to three decades of violence in that troubled land. This historic step is the product of a new commitment to peace by parties on all sides of this longstanding conflict. It is proper that this resolution commends President Clinton for making the search for an end to the conflict in Northern Ireland a top foreign policy priority. My former colleague, Senator George Mitchell, deserves special recognition from this body for his leadership in helping move the parties to an agreement. Above all, we commend the leaders from all sides of this conflict, many of whom worked tirelessly on this agreement, and had the will to put ancient hatreds aside and make peace their priority. Now the success of the agreement rests in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland, who continue to review the details and, eventually, will have the opportunity to express themselves democratically through a referendum. Let us hope that all the parties will be able to commit to this process and that none will turn to the sectarian violence of the past. It is now the duty of all who seek peace to resist the efforts of those who may seek to undermine the accords through violence. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I believe this agreement signals new hope for longstanding conflicts around in the world. Just a few years ago, many saw the conflicts in South Africa and Northern Ireland as intractable, but today one has been peacefully resolved and the other has made tremendous progress, as we recognize with this resolution. So, Mr. President, I am happy to support this resolution with hope for the future, and commend the brave leaders who have taken a risk for peace in Northern Ireland.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Gaylord Nelson Apostle Islands Stewardship Act of 1998.'' I am very pleased that my senior colleague from Wisconsin joins me as an original author of the bill, and also that my colleague in the other body, Congressman Obey is joining me in introducing the companion legislation as he represents the area of Wisconsin where the Apostle Islands are located. Mr. President, on this Earth Day, the 29th Earth Day, I have chosen to name this legislation in recognition of the accomplishments of Earth Day's founder, a former member of this body and former Governor of my state, Gaylord Nelson. Many outside Wisconsin may not know that, in addition to founding Earth Day, Senator Nelson was also the primary sponsor of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore Act. That Act, which passed in 1970--the same year Earth Day was founded, protects one of Northern Wisconsin's most beautiful areas, and it is a place where every year my family and I spend our favorite vacation. Though Senator Nelson has received many awards, I know that among his proudest accomplishments are those bills he crafted which have produced real and lasting change in preserving America's lands, such as the Apostle Islands. The Apostle Islands National Lakeshore includes 21 forested islands and 12 miles of pristine shoreline which are among the Great Lakes' most spectacular scenery. Centuries of wave action, freezing, and thawing have sculpted the shorelines and nature has carved intricate caves into the sandstone which forms the islands. Delicate arches, vaulted chambers, and hidden passageways honeycomb cliffs on the north shore of Devil's Island, Swallow Point on Sand Island, and northeast of Cornucopia on the mainland. The Apostle Islands National Lakeshore includes more lighthouses than any other coastline of similar size in the United States, and is home to diverse wildlife including: black bear, bald eagles and deer. It is an important recreational area as well. Its campgrounds and acres of forest, make the Apostles a favorite destination for hikers, sailors, kayakers, and bikers. The Lakeshore also includes the underwater lakebed as well, and scuba divers register with the National Park Service to view the area's underwater resources. I also know that Senator Nelson, if he were still a member of this body, would have been wholeheartedly pursuing the full implementation of the ecological vision that Wisconsinites and all Americans share for the Lakeshore. Unfortunately, as do many of the lands managed by the National Park Service, the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore finds itself, now 28 years later, with both some significant financial and legal resource needs. If we are to be true stewards of America's public lands, we need to be willing to make necessary financial investments and management improvements when they are warranted. Thus, I am introducing this legislation in an attempt to resolve the unfinished business that remains at the Lakeshore, as well as to renew our Nation's commitment to this beautiful place. Mr. President, the legislation has three major sections. First, it directs the Park Service to conduct a wilderness suitability study of the Lakeshore as required by the Wilderness Act. The legislation authorizes $200,000 for that purpose. This study mandate is needed to ensure that we have the appropriate level of management at the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. The Wilderness Act and the National Park Service policies require the Park Service to conduct an evaluation of the lands it manages for possible inclusion in the National Wilderness system. Such a study would result in a recommendation to Congress about whether any of the federally- owned lands currently within the Lakeshore still retain the characteristics that would make them suitable to be legally designated as wilderness. The Congress would then have an opportunity to review such information. If Congress found that such information indicated that some of the federal lands within the Lakeshore were in need of legal wilderness status, Congress would have to subsequently pass legislation to confer such status. We need this study, Mr. President because, though 28 years have passed, we are not certain whether we are under- or over-managing the Lakeshore. During the General Management Planning Process for the Lakeshore, which was completed nearly a decade ago in 1989, the need for a formal wilderness study was identified. Although a wilderness study has been identified as a high priority by the Lakeshore, it has never been funded. Since 1989, most of the Lakeshore, roughly 80 percent of the acreage, is being managed by the Park Service as if it were federally designated wilderness. As a protective measure, all lands which might be suitable for wilderness designation were zoned to protect any wilderness characteristics they may have pending completion of the study. However, we may be managing lands as wilderness in the Lakeshore that might, due to use patterns, no longer be suitable for wilderness designation. Correspondingly, some land area may have become more ecologically sensitive and may need additional legal protection. Second, this legislation also directs the Park Service to protect the historic Raspberry Island and Outer Island lighthouses. The bill authorizes $3.9 million for bluff stabilization and other necessary actions. There are six lighthouses in the Apostle Island National Lakeshore--Sand Island, Devil's Island, Raspberry Island, Outer Island, Long Island and Michigan Island. Engineering studies completed for the National Park Service have determined that several of these lighthouses are in danger of structural damage due to the continued erosion of the red clay banks upon which they were built. The situations at Outer Island and Raspberry Island, the two which this legislation addresses, were determined to be in the most jeopardy. The Raspberry Island situation is most critical. The Raspberry Island lighthouse was completed in 1863 to mark the west channel through the Apostle Islands. The original light was a rectangular frame structure surmounted by a square tower that held a lens 40 feet above the ground. A fog signal building was added to Raspberry Island in 1902. The red brick structure housed a ten-inch steam whistle and a hoisting engine for a tramway. The need for additional personnel at the station led to a redesign of the lighthouse building in 1906-07. The structure was converted to a duplex, housing the keeper and his family in the east half, with the two assistant keepers sharing the west half. A 23- kilowatt, diesel-driven electric generator was installed at the station in 1928. The light was automated in 1947 and then moved to a metal tower in front of the fog signal building in 1952. Raspberry Island light is now the most frequently visited of Apostle Islands National Lakeshore's lighthouses. Recent erosion is threatening the access tram and the fog signal building. The Outer Island light station was built in 1874 on a red clay bluff 40 feet above Lake Superior. The lighthouse tower stands 90 feet high and the watchroom is encircled by an outside walkway and topped by the lantern. Historic architects have indicated to the Park Service that Outer Island lighthouse may already be suffering some structural damage due to its location on the bluff and the situation would be much worse if Lake Superior were exceedingly high. Engineers believe that preservation of these structures requires protection of the bluff beneath the lighthouses, stabilization of the banks, and dewatering of the area immediately shoreward of the bluffs. Although the projects have in the past been included within the Park Service-wide construction priorities, they have never been funded. Finally, this legislation adds language to the act which created the Lakeshore allowing the Park Service to enter into cooperative agreements with state, tribal, local governments, universities or other non-profit entities to enlist their assistance in managing the Lakeshore. Some parks have specific language in the act which created the park allowing them to enter into such agreements. Parks have used them for activities such as research, historic preservation, and emergency services. Apostle Islands currently does not have this authority, which this legislation adds. Other National Park lands and lands which are managed by the Park Service, such as the Lakeshore, have such authority. Adding such authority to the Lakeshore will be a way to make Lakeshore management resources go farther. The Park Service has the opportunity to carry out joint projects with other partners which could contribute to the management of the Lakeshore including: state, local, and tribal governments, universities, and non-profit groups. Such endeavors would have both scientific management and fiscal benefits. In the past, the Lakeshore has had to pass over opportunities because the specific authority has been absent. In his 1969 book on the environment, entitled America's Last Chance, Senator Nelson issued a political challenge: ``I have come to the conclusion that the number one domestic problem facing this country is the threatened destruction of our natural resources and the disaster which would confront mankind should such destruction occur. There is a real question as to whether the nation, which has spent some two hundred years developing an intricate system of local, State and Federal Government to deal with the public's problems, will be bold, imaginative and flexible enough to meet this supreme test.'' Though, fortunately, the Apostle Islands are not, because of former Senator Nelson's efforts, ``threatened with destruction,'' I believe that Senator Nelson meant two things by his challenge. Not only did he mean that government must act immediately and decisively to protect resources in crisis, but he also meant that government must be responsible and flexible enough to remain committed to the protection of the areas we wisely seek to preserve under our laws. Thus, Mr. President, on this Earth Day I am proud to introduce this legislation as a renewal of the federal government's commitment to the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be printed in the Record.