Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to my friends, the Senators from Vermont, Mr. Leahy and Mr. Jeffords, who just spoke with regard to a recent decision by the Federal District Court of Minnesota. It also gives me an opportunity to not only present a different perspective on that ruling, but to also hail the ruling, which is the first ray of hope that the dairy farmers in the upper Midwest, and in particular the farmers in my home State of Wisconsin, have had for a very, very long time. I think the judge in this case ruled correctly. In the Minnesota Milk Producers versus Dan Glickman, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Federal Judge David Doty finally said what Wisconsin dairy farmers have long known is the case, and that is that the current Federal milk marketing order system is outdated and is, in fact, illegal, given the realities of our national dairy market today. This system was set up some 60 years ago, because at that time it was not always possible for consumers in other parts of the country, particularly the South and the Southeast, to get fresh milk because of inadequate refrigeration and transportation technology. So this system was set up on the basis of how far a farmer lived from Eau Claire, WI-- the supposed reserve supply of milk in the United States. In other words, the closer a farmer lived to Eau Claire, WI, the less he got as an add-on for his class I fluid milk. The system worked, and it certainly provided the needed fresh milk for virtually every marketing order in the country east of the Rocky Mountains. Times have changed. During the past 60 years these areas, such as the Northeastern, Southwestern and Southcentral regions of the United States, are now able to produce enough milk to provide for their fluid milk needs and then some. Yet there is still a gross discrepancy between what a dairy farmer gets, let's say in Texas or Vermont, for his or her class I milk, and what a farmer in Wisconsin gets for the same type of milk. For example, farmers in Wisconsin may receive $1.20 per hundredweight in addition to the base price for milk, but in other regions more distant from Wisconsin, dairy farmers might receive $2 or $3 or even $4 more than Wisconsin farmers. These are very serious disparities and these differentials have led to an extremely unfair situation to the dairy farmers in the upper Midwest. The decision by the district court this week finally says, ``Enough is enough.'' It takes note, in effect, of the fact that in the last 17 years, Wisconsin alone has gone from having 45,000 dairy farms to less than 25,000. We have lost over 1,000 dairy farms per year each year. And when upper Midwest dairy farmers talk about all of the problems facing their industry, the complaint that arises most often is the unfairness of the Federal milk marketing order system. In contrast to what the two Senators from Vermont were saying--one of them actually indicated there had to be these disparities in order for milk to be supplied to consumers--the fact is, current market conditions and existing technologies no longer necessitate a system that prices milk based on distance from Eau Claire. In fact, in recent years, when our dairy farmers have tried to sell their milk in Chicago, have been beaten out of that market by milk from southcentral and southwestern producers. How can that be if these regions can't produce enough milk for their own needs in that area? Obviously, they can meet their needs and still afford to export milk to other regions because they are receiving a higher class I milk price. And the result is that this system subsidizes the farmers in the Southeast, Northeastern, and regions of the United States and provides them an unfair advantage and competitive advantage over our farmers in the upper Midwest. It has had a lot to do, in my view and the view of almost every farmer in Wisconsin, with the loss of so many of our dairy farms in our State. It is ironic, at a time when the Federal Government, including Congress with the passage of the 1996 farm bill, has made it a policy to reduce Government pricing interference in agricultural markets, that it is still interfering in a very serious and detrimental way with a free and open national dairy market. This decision by the judge in the U.S. District Court of Minnesota--a Federal court--is an excellent decision. It is a decision that finally tells it like it is--and that is that there is no legitimate basis for these discriminatory class I price differentials which provide one farmer in the Northeastern part of the United States and another farmer in Texas far more for the same type of milk than the hard-working farmers in Wisconsin or Minnesota. Mr. President, we in Wisconsin and the upper Midwest praise this court ruling. We believe it is an important, proper and very overdue decision. It gives us some hope that the remaining farmers in our State, in the upper Midwest, will be allowed to survive without the interference of an outdated and unfair system--in fact, as now indicated by the court, a system that is unlawful, given the changes in the dairy market and given the changes in the times. Mr. President, this court decision was, at long last, the right one and I look forward to the positive consequences that can flow from it. I yield the floor. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern about the current financial crisis in Indonesia and the decision of the United States and the international financial community to provide bailout assistance. As you know, Mr. President, the International Monetary Fund announced on October 31 that it was putting together a $23 billion aid package for Jakarta. This money will allow Indonesia to defend its currency, which has depreciated severely in the last few months. The IMF, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the Indonesian government will together provide this $23 billion in financing. In addition to the IMF package, several countries, including the United States, are offering ``second-line'' loan guarantees that Indonesia can use if needed. The Administration has guaranteed a $3 billion loan to Indonesia as part of the Treasury Department's exchange stabilization fund. This fund is the same one used to loan $20 billion to Mexico during the peso crisis of 1994 and 1995. Mr. President, I understand that the Administration hopes the $23 billion IMF financing will be enough for Indonesia to overcome the present crisis and that Jakarta will not need to draw on the $3 billion ``second-line'' loan from the United States. Nevertheless, American taxpayer money is being put on the line both through the direct loan guarantee and indirectly through the US contributions to the IMF, the World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank. While there is clearly a need to help avoid a financial collapse in Indonesia that could spill over into other areas of Asia and even to the United States, the US taxpayer has a right to know what kind of government they are helping to support. Mr. President, many of Indonesia's present economic problems are the result of rampant corruption and nepotism in the country. Indonesia is ruled by a single man, President Suharto, and his relatives and friends traditionally enjoy many business perks. Using their connections, this group has engaged in highly risky and speculative business deals that have exacerbated the present financial crisis. The Financial Times reports that of the 16 insolvent banks that Indonesia has been forced to close since last week, three are owned by Suharto's children, relatives, or close business associates. The link between the financial crisis and Indonesia's present political system, where power rests in the hands of Suharto's inner circle, is inescapable. The IMF has placed tough economic conditions on the $23 billion. To qualify for this funding, Indonesia must enact serious financial reforms, dismantle monopolies, and liberalize its trading regime. The IMF has also asked for greater transparency in Indonesia's business and financial markets. But I believe that the IMF and the United States should use the opportunity of this bailout to make all assistance conditional on Indonesia undertaking specific and verifiable measures to ensure that a newly structured system in Indonesia will be free from corruption and graft. In addition, I strongly feel that Indonesia's need for financial support gives the world community leverage to ask for long-needed political reforms. So long as Indonesia is run by a corrupt elite, its economy will never reach its full potential. The present authoritarian system has bred political instability that will ultimately limit Indonesia's economic potential. I read with alarm about the many riots and hundreds of deaths that occurred in Indonesia during the May elections. This is the result of a system that works largely for the benefit of President Suharto and his family. Finally, I am concerned about the role of the military in Indonesia, which has sustained a brutal occupation of East Timor for more than 20 years. Press reports indicate that Indonesia maintains more than 20,000 armed troops in East Timor. Just because President Suharto's government has boosted the economy in recent years does not mean it has the right to murder and torture Indonesians and East Timorese. Economic success does not excuse you from answering to your own citizens. Political tension in Indonesia will only subside after President Suharto initiates real democratic change and, for example, allows all parties to compete equally in the political process. Indonesian authorities try to argue that greater democracy will lead to instability which in turn will impede economic development. But, Mr. President, clearly the problem in Indonesia is not too much democracy, but too little. Mr. President, I urge the administration to use the influence it has in the IMF and the other international financial institutions to insure that this $23 billion package contains demands for real anti-corruption and political reform measures. At the very least, such conditions must be placed on the $3 billion direct loan the US has offered. These issues--of transparency, of human rights, and of good governance--are too important for the United States to ignore as we bail Indonesia out of this mess.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I intend to oppose H.R. 1119, the Department of Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1998, and would like to take a few moments to explain my disagreement with this authorization bill. Mr. President, there are a multitude of reasons for opposing this legislation. First and foremost is the $268.2 billion in overall funding this bill provides for our Armed Forces, an amount that is not only substantially higher than the amount we authorized last year, but $2.6 billion more than the Pentagon itself has requested. Additionally, this legislation continues the funding of a host of highly questionable and outright unaffordable programs. For example, the bill includes $331 million--$157 million more than the Pentagon requested--for the B-2 bomber, a program that scores of budgetary and military experts, not to mention numerous Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, have concluded does not serve our national security interests and does not merit any additional funds. The legislation includes $2.4 billion for 20 new F/A-18 E/F SuperHornet tactical fighters for the Navy. My colleagues may recall that the General Accounting Office and other experts have made repeated, convincing recommendations that we shelve this program in favor of the more affordable F/A-18 C/D, the Navy's current top-of-the-line tactical fighter capable of providing nearly all of the benefits of the E/F version but at a savings of billions of dollars to the taxpayer. These are just two examples, Mr. President, of billions of dollars that are being needlessly spent in this bill for programs that have encountered enormous criticism and steadfast opposition from across the political spectrum. Despite these questions and opposition, the gravy train continues to chug along unabated from the Congress to the Pentagon. For many years Congress has failed to sufficiently control the flow of deficit dollars to the Defense Department, clinging to a conviction that having a less expensive military structure will consequently leave us with a less effective military structure. That is an absurd correlation, Mr. President. There is no question that if we invest our defense dollars wisely we can have a leaner military without compromising either efficiency or effectiveness. Since I arrived in the U.S. Senate almost five years ago, my driving objective has been to reduce the Federal deficit and achieve a balanced budget. We have had enormous success in that regard, passing hallmark legislation in 1993 that drove down the deficit to a point where we could pass further legislation in 1997 that will finally allow us to reach a balanced Federal budget in a few short years. A large part of that success has been due to the willingness of both the Congress and the President to do more with less, to trim excessive spending wherever possible and maintain important services but with fewer resources. We have succeeded almost everywhere in government-- education, health care, veterans' care, welfare benefits, environmental programs--everywhere except defense spending where we continue to build destroyers the Navy does not ask for and continue to build bombers the Air Force does not want. Balancing the budget is about making difficult choices, Mr. President. Sure the Navy would like to have the F/A-18 E/F fighter, and if we were in a radically different budgetary position I might support giving them 200 of those airplanes instead of the 20 they are receiving in this legislation. But can we afford 20 of these new tactical fighters, when a more affordable and equally effective alternative aircraft is readily available? How that question is answered, Mr. President, is the difference between fiscal excess and fiscal responsibility. We have to make smart choices Mr. President. A balanced Federal budget is in sight for the first time in three decades. But we are not going to be able to maintain a balanced budget, let alone start bringing down the Federal debt, so long as we continue to commit to programs and force structures that are so blatantly unaffordable. In this context, I would like to discuss the role of the National Guard in our force structure and how the Guard will be affected by this conference report. Mr. President, the National Guard is a source of immense pride in my State of Wisconsin. As I travel across the State, I often have the privilege of meeting the men and women who compose the Wisconsin Guard and have been impressed with the tremendous degree of professionalism and proficiency with which they complete a wide range of missions. These are well-trained, dedicated, professional soldiers who earn rave reviews from the Governor's office down to the villages and municipalities who are often the principal beneficiaries of the Guard's assistance. The mission list of the Wisconsin Guard is impressive: Just last spring, the 115th Fighter Wing based in Madison and comprised of Fighting Falcon F-16's, participated in Operation Northern Watch, enforcing the no-fly zone the United Nations imposed over northern Iraq. In addition, 181 Wisconsinites attached to the 128th Air Refueling Wing stationed at Mitchell Field in Milwaukee recently returned from Turkey where they too participated in Operation Northern Watch, providing air refueling support to the fighters enforcing the no-fly zone. As much as some perceive the Guard as mere weekend warriors, we must remember that these individuals are performing missions both domestically and abroad that pose as great a risk to their lives as any active duty personnel. But what makes the National Guard so unique is the traditional role they have played in our democratic system dating back to our Nation's infancy. In Wisconsin, we can trace the history of the Guard to 1837, when Governor Henry Dodge appointed a new commander of the Green Bay Rangers Volunteer Company, enlisting the men of that unit to serve the Territory of Wisconsin. Today, over 10,000 men and women serve in the Wisconsin Guard, generating more than $125 million in annual Federal income. The Wisconsin Army National Guard has 96 units located in 67 communities throughout the State, while the Air Guard has four units in Madison, Milwaukee, and Volk Field. The National Guard has traditionally served both a Federal and a State mission, providing ready, trained units to the active Army and Air Force in time of war or national emergency, and assisting State authorities in protecting life and property and preserving peace, order, and public safety. Unfortunately, the legislation before us includes provisions that are troubling to those who support a meaningful role for the National Guard in our Nation's defense. These provisions were recently brought to my attention by Maj. Gen. James G. Blaney, adjutant general of the Wisconsin National Guard, who raised concerns not only about the impact these changes would have on the readiness of the Guard, but also about how such changes undermine the traditional and constitutional roles the Guard has always been intended to fill. First, the legislation includes a reduction in the Army National Guard's end strength by 5,000 troop slots. This reduction reflects a compromise agreement that was reached with the active Army, which also agreed to reduce its end strength by 5,000 soldiers in the upcoming fiscal year. However, though this legislation includes the reduction for the National Guard, it does not include the reduction for the active army--a reduction that was also recommended by the Quadrennial Defense Review. Second, the legislation before us establishes a new mobilization category that would allow the President, under the Presidential Selective Reserve Call-Up Authority, to mobilize up to 30,000 Individual Ready Reserve [IRR] troops before mobilizing the National Guard for contingency operations. Mr. President, the IRR is composed of inactive military members who are awaiting their final discharge. Although current law permits the President to call on these troops only after he has called on the Guard, the DOD Authorization Conference Report would elevate this new category of IRR forces to a higher position than that of the Guard. That is a senseless exercise, Mr. President. The members of the National Guard are continually training for such deployments, and yet this legislation proposes to call up 30,000 inactive, nontraining troops before the Guard is mobilized. It is little wonder that the National Guard perceives these changes as a direct assault on the traditional role of the Guard in our Armed Forces. But what is even more troubling is how contrary these proposed changes are to the constitutional role that the Guard and the State militias are designed to fulfill. Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution provides Congress with the power to ``raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years''. I find that extraordinary, Mr. President. Why did the Founding Fathers prohibit Congress from appropriating funds for a standing army beyond 2 years? Not surprisingly, Americans of the late 18th century were highly suspicious of standing armies. They had witnessed firsthand the power and intrusiveness of such an army and how it could be used by a monarch or a central government to suppress the rights and sovereignties of the people. The Framers of the Constitution wisely decided that if there was going to be a standing army in a free democracy, it would only be through the ongoing approval and purse strings of the representative branch of government. Article I, section 8 continues, granting Congress the power: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions [and] provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. In short, Mr. President, the Framers not only held a standing army suspect, they recognized the importance of defining a role for a citizen militia to be maintained, led and trained not by the central government, but by the States. Interestingly, although the Constitution makes no mention of what capacity a standing army is designed to serve, it does specifically hold the militias responsible for executing our laws, suppressing insurrections, and repelling foreign invasions. This leaves little doubt that the Founding Fathers were substantially more trusting of the State militias, and were far more willing to assign responsibilities for the defense of the Nation to these militias than they were any standing army. Of course, Article I of the Constitution is not the only component of the Constitution that is relevant to today's National Guard. The second amendment to the Constitution provides: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Whatever advocates and opponents of gun control construe these words to mean in 1997, the aim of the first part of the second amendment is evident: Our Founders were making a penetrating statement that a strong militia was imperative to the security of a free State. What the Framers of the Constitution recognized over 200 years ago with respect to the vital importance of the militias remains true today. That is certainly not to suggest that there is no purpose or merit in maintaining a standing army. On the contrary, we have learned in this century that a free and democratic society cannot sustain itself without self-protection, and Republicans and Democrats alike can agree that we should have--and do have--the strongest and best-trained active duty force structure in the world. But to simultaneously and needlessly diminish the strength and role of the National Guard is, I believe, to tarnish many of the underpinnings of our great democracy. Today's men and women of the National Guard represent what our Founders envisioned in terms of a citizen militia. Members of the Guard are sprinkled throughout our communities. They are teachers, firefighters, doctors, nurses, business owners, police officers, farmers, and yes, even Members of Congress. And just like our active duty personnel, the men and women of the National Guard can be called upon on a moment's notice to be placed in harm's way. From the Civil War to the Persian Gulf, the State militias and the National Guard have consistently played a central role in protecting our Nation's security, both at home and abroad. But the Guard does much more as well. They participate in youth programs, such as the highly successful, low-cost Badger Challenge program in Wisconsin where the Guard takes at-risk kids and helps them obtain their GED's while teaching them discipline and respect for themselves and others. The Guard supports medical outreach programs. They are involved in counterdrug efforts, working with the Department of Justice and local law enforcement agencies through aerial observations, ground surveillance, and cargo inspections. All of this is accomplished, Mr. President, in a highly cost- effective manner. A comparison of the costs of active duty personnel and Guard personnel demonstrates the sharp differences in costs. According to one study, on average, it costs $73,000 per year to train and equip an active duty soldier. The cost of training and equipping one National Guard soldier--$17,000, almost one-fifth the cost. Projected on a larger scale, an estimate recently prepared for the National Defense Panel found that the Government could save roughly $1 billion per year for every active division whose responsibilities it shifts to the eight divisions of the National Guard. Another analysis finds that a Guard unit can cost anywhere from 25 to 80 percent less to maintain than an active duty unit. In other words, Mr. President, with little sizable military threat to the United States today, we can shift many of the warfighting responsibilities--not to mention responsibilities for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations--from the active forces to the National Guard at a substantial savings to the taxpayer while losing little in skills, readiness, and training. There are a host of missions today that the National Guard can fulfill and should fulfill, providing a less expensive but highly effective complement to our active forces. As we reassess what our strategic blueprint for our future Armed Forces should look like, and as we begin the process of conducting a comprehensive review of our inventories and projected needs, it is my hope that the there will be renewed focus on the advantages of a properly funded, well-maintained National Guard. Such a focus presents us an opportunity not only to ensure that we have a highly efficient and cost-effective military, but that we are also adhering to some of the most fundamental constitutional principles established by our Founding Fathers.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with my colleague, the senior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl] as an original co-sponsor of the Federal Energy Bank Act. The idea of the Federal Government leading by example in the area of energy efficiency has made sense to me for a long time, so much so, in fact, that in campaigning for the Senate in 1992, I included energy efficiency in my campaign platform. I proposed an 82-point plan to reduce the deficit, a series of specific spending reductions and revenue changes which, if enacted in sum total, would have eliminated the deficit. Among those items, as I was a candidate for office after the passage of the 1992 Energy Policy Act and after the United States' signing of the Framework Convention on Climate Change in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, was one to encourage the Federal Government to implement a comprehensive energy savings program for the Federal Government through energy efficiency investments. After all, I believe that if Wisconsin consumers and business have been converted to the wisdom of compact fluorescent light bulbs, efficient heating and cooling systems, weatherization, and energy saving computers, among the wide range of potential efficiency improvements, that the Federal Government promoting those actions should also make the same investments to the taxpayers' benefit. Section 152 of the Energy Policy Act mandated that Federal agencies use all cost-effective measures that could be implemented with less than a 10-year payback to reduce energy consumption in their facilities by 20 percent by the year 2000 compared to 1985 consumption levels. On March 8, 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12902. This order was an even more aggressive mandate to improve energy efficiency in Federal buildings nationwide by requiring agencies to use cost-effective measures to reduce energy use by fiscal year 2005 by 30 percent compared with the agency's 1985 energy use. After taking office, I have learned that among the most significant constraints to implementing more energy efficient practices in the Federal Government is the lack of sufficient funds to invest in energy efficient equipment. Section 162 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 directed the Secretary of Energy to conduct a detailed study of options for financing energy and water conservation measures in Federal facilities as required under the act and by subsequent Executive orders. On June 3, 1997, the Secretary of Energy, Mr. Pena released that study. It documents a need for a $5.7 billion financial investment between 1996 and 2005 to meet the Energy Policy Act and Executive order goals, a value which could vary from a low of $4.4 billion to a high of $7.1 billion given variability in both energy and water investment requirements. The best estimate, according to the same study of the total Federal funding available to spend on energy and water efficiency improvements from various sources, including direct agency appropriations, energy savings performance contracts, and utility demand-side management programs, and appropriations to the Federal energy efficiency fund, to the Federal Government to meet those needs over the same time period is $3.7 billion. Thus, under DOE's best estimate, at the Federal level we face a potential shortfall of funds necessary to achieve our Federal energy and water conservation objectives of $2 billion. In order to address this shortfall, I am pleased joining as a cosponsor of this legislation to create a Federal energy revolving fund or ``energy bank.'' Some in this body may be concerned that the existence of the current Federal energy efficiency fund alleviates the need for additional Federal conservation investment. The problem with the current fund, which operates as a grant program for agencies to make efficiency improvements, is that it does not contribute to the replenishment of capital resources because it does not have to be paid back and is therefore dependent upon appropriations. Under the legislation, I join in co-sponsoring with my colleague from Wisconsin today, Federal agencies will be required, in fiscal years 1998-2000, to deposit an amount equal to 5 percent of their total utility payments in the proceeding fiscal year to capitalize the fund. After 2000, the Secretary of Energy will determine an amount necessary to ensure that the fund meets its obligations. Agencies will then be able to get a loan from the fund to finance efficiency projects, which they will be responsible for repaying with interest. The projects must use off-the-shelf technologies and must be cost effective. The best part of this approach is that the technologies are required to have a 3-year pay back period, and, therefore, this legislation achieves some modest savings for the taxpayer. CBO scores this measure as saving $3 million over 5 years. In addition to savings for the taxpayer, I am also pleased to assist the Federal Government in advancing what I believe to be an important part of our overall strategy to combat greenhouse gas emissions. As many in the body are aware, President Clinton announced his plan for meeting the challenge of global climate change on October 22, 1997, in preparation for negotiating meetings in Bonn, Germany on a new protocol to the Climate Convention. Among the items the President cited was the need to do more in the area of federal energy management. Aggressive energy management can reduce carbon emissions from the activities of the Federal Government, which, the President indicated, has the Nation's largest energy bill at almost $8 billion per year. The President specifically stated that there is a need to improve federal procurement of energy efficient technologies, and this measure is a positive, proactive measure to ensure that federal agencies specifically set aside funds to achieve this goal. The senior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl] and I look forward to working with the administration to advance this legislation as a piece of the country's overall greenhouse gas reductions strategy. In conclusion, I look forward to working with my senior Senator on this issue. I believe that this is a unique opportunity for Senate colleagues to support legislation that is both fiscally responsible and environmentally sound.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with my colleague, the senior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl] as an original co-sponsor of the Federal Energy Bank Act. The idea of the Federal Government leading by example in the area of energy efficiency has made sense to me for a long time, so much so, in fact, that in campaigning for the Senate in 1992, I included energy efficiency in my campaign platform. I proposed an 82-point plan to reduce the deficit, a series of specific spending reductions and revenue changes which, if enacted in sum total, would have eliminated the deficit. Among those items, as I was a candidate for office after the passage of the 1992 Energy Policy Act and after the United States' signing of the Framework Convention on Climate Change in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, was one to encourage the Federal Government to implement a comprehensive energy savings program for the Federal Government through energy efficiency investments. After all, I believe that if Wisconsin consumers and business have been converted to the wisdom of compact fluorescent light bulbs, efficient heating and cooling systems, weatherization, and energy saving computers, among the wide range of potential efficiency improvements, that the Federal Government promoting those actions should also make the same investments to the taxpayers' benefit. Section 152 of the Energy Policy Act mandated that Federal agencies use all cost-effective measures that could be implemented with less than a 10-year payback to reduce energy consumption in their facilities by 20 percent by the year 2000 compared to 1985 consumption levels. On March 8, 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12902. This order was an even more aggressive mandate to improve energy efficiency in Federal buildings nationwide by requiring agencies to use cost-effective measures to reduce energy use by fiscal year 2005 by 30 percent compared with the agency's 1985 energy use. After taking office, I have learned that among the most significant constraints to implementing more energy efficient practices in the Federal Government is the lack of sufficient funds to invest in energy efficient equipment. Section 162 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 directed the Secretary of Energy to conduct a detailed study of options for financing energy and water conservation measures in Federal facilities as required under the act and by subsequent Executive orders. On June 3, 1997, the Secretary of Energy, Mr. Pena released that study. It documents a need for a $5.7 billion financial investment between 1996 and 2005 to meet the Energy Policy Act and Executive order goals, a value which could vary from a low of $4.4 billion to a high of $7.1 billion given variability in both energy and water investment requirements. The best estimate, according to the same study of the total Federal funding available to spend on energy and water efficiency improvements from various sources, including direct agency appropriations, energy savings performance contracts, and utility demand-side management programs, and appropriations to the Federal energy efficiency fund, to the Federal Government to meet those needs over the same time period is $3.7 billion. Thus, under DOE's best estimate, at the Federal level we face a potential shortfall of funds necessary to achieve our Federal energy and water conservation objectives of $2 billion. In order to address this shortfall, I am pleased joining as a cosponsor of this legislation to create a Federal energy revolving fund or ``energy bank.'' Some in this body may be concerned that the existence of the current Federal energy efficiency fund alleviates the need for additional Federal conservation investment. The problem with the current fund, which operates as a grant program for agencies to make efficiency improvements, is that it does not contribute to the replenishment of capital resources because it does not have to be paid back and is therefore dependent upon appropriations. Under the legislation, I join in co-sponsoring with my colleague from Wisconsin today, Federal agencies will be required, in fiscal years 1998-2000, to deposit an amount equal to 5 percent of their total utility payments in the proceeding fiscal year to capitalize the fund. After 2000, the Secretary of Energy will determine an amount necessary to ensure that the fund meets its obligations. Agencies will then be able to get a loan from the fund to finance efficiency projects, which they will be responsible for repaying with interest. The projects must use off-the-shelf technologies and must be cost effective. The best part of this approach is that the technologies are required to have a 3-year pay back period, and, therefore, this legislation achieves some modest savings for the taxpayer. CBO scores this measure as saving $3 million over 5 years. In addition to savings for the taxpayer, I am also pleased to assist the Federal Government in advancing what I believe to be an important part of our overall strategy to combat greenhouse gas emissions. As many in the body are aware, President Clinton announced his plan for meeting the challenge of global climate change on October 22, 1997, in preparation for negotiating meetings in Bonn, Germany on a new protocol to the Climate Convention. Among the items the President cited was the need to do more in the area of federal energy management. Aggressive energy management can reduce carbon emissions from the activities of the Federal Government, which, the President indicated, has the Nation's largest energy bill at almost $8 billion per year. The President specifically stated that there is a need to improve federal procurement of energy efficient technologies, and this measure is a positive, proactive measure to ensure that federal agencies specifically set aside funds to achieve this goal. The senior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl] and I look forward to working with the administration to advance this legislation as a piece of the country's overall greenhouse gas reductions strategy. In conclusion, I look forward to working with my senior Senator on this issue. I believe that this is a unique opportunity for Senate colleagues to support legislation that is both fiscally responsible and environmentally sound.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Administration on a policy change announced today. Last night President Clinton signed an executive order imposing comprehensive sanctions on the Government of the Sudan. Specifically, the United States has put into place new, unilateral sanctions that will prevent the Government of the Sudan from reaping financial and material gain from trade and investment initiatives by the United States. As Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said earlier today, this policy change is designed to send a strong signal to the Sudanese Government that it has failed to address the concerns expressed in no uncertain terms and on several occasions by the Clinton Administration. In particular, the Sudan continues to engage in practices that we Americans find unconscionable, including: providing sanctuary for individuals and groups known to have engaged in terrorist activity; encouraging and supporting regional insur-gencies; continuing a violent civil war that has cost the lives of thousands of civilians; and engaging in abominable human rights abuses. Mr. President, these are the four main issues that continue to plague U.S.-Sudan relations. Let me take each of them in turn. First, terrorism. Terrorism is clearly one of the most vexing threats to our national security today. Terrorist groups, by seeking to destabilize or overthrow governments, serve to erode international stability. By its very nature, terrorism goes against everything we understand to be part of the ``international system,'' challenging us with methods we do not necessarily comprehend. People--often, innocent bystanders--die as a result of such terrorism. Buildings are destroyed. And everyone's sense of personal safety is shattered. According to the State Department's most recent Patterns of Global Terrorism report, Sudan ``continued to serve as a refuge, nexus, and training hub in 1995 for a number of international terrorist organizations,'' which likely include some of the most notorious groups in the world such as Hamas, Abu Nidal and Hezbollah, among others. In addition, the government continues to harbor individuals known to have committed terrorist acts. For example, it is widely believed that Osama Bin Laden, who was once described by the State Department as ``one of the most significant financial sponsors of Islamic extremist activities in the world,'' enjoyed refuge in the Sudan in the early 1990's. Second, Sudan's support of insurgency movements in many of its neighboring countries poses a significant threat to regional stability. In Eritrea, it supports the Eritrean Islamic Jihad, and in Uganda, it supports both the Lord's Resistance Army and the West Bank Nile Front. Sudanese government officals have been known to smuggle weapons into Tunisia. Third, Sudan continues to promote a brutal civil war against the largely Christian and animist people of Southern Sudan. Sadly, during its 41 years of independence, Sudan has only seen about 11 years of peace. This seemingly endless conflict has taken the lives of more than 1.5 million people and resulted in well over 2 million displaced persons or refugees. Perhaps the saddest consequence of the war is that there are thousands of teenagers who do not remember a peaceful period, and who know better the barrel of a gun than the inside of a classroom. The international community has done the best that it can with this situation; there are approximately 40 national and international humanitarian organizations providing millions of dollars annually in food aid and development assistance. For its part, the United States government has provided more than $600 million in food assistance and non-food disaster assistance since the mid-1980's. The United Nations' Operation Lifeline Sudan [OLS], which maintains a unique agreement with parties to the conflict, has been instrumental in allowing humanitarian access to displaced persons in the southern Sudan. I commend the humanitarian organizations operating in the region who daily face not only enormous technical and logistical challenges in serving the Sudanese population, but also the all-too-frequent threat of another offensive nearby. Fourth, the Sudanese government has a deplorable record in the area of human rights. According to the most recent State Department human rights report, the Khartoum government maintains not only regular police and army units, but also internal and external security organs, a militia unit, and a parallel police called the Popular Police, whose mission includes enforcing proper social behavior. In 1996, according to the report, government forces were responsible for extrajudicial killings, disappearance, forced labor, slavery, and forced conscription of children. Basic freedoms--of assembly, of association, of privacy-- are routinely restricted by the government. Worse, imposition of Islamic law on non-Muslims is far too common. An April 1997 U.N. Human Rights Commission resolution identified pages of similar abuses. Mr. President, this is not a regime that should be included in the community of nations. In response to Sudan's actions in these areas, particularly with respect to terrorism, the U.S. government has imposed a series of sanctions on the current Sudanese regime over the past several years, including suspending its assistance program and denying senior Sudanese government officials entry into the United States. In part at my urging, the Administration officially designated Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism by placing it on the so-called ``terrorism list'' in 1993. Inclusion on the terrorism list, according to Section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act (P.L.96-72), automatically puts statutory restrictions on the bilateral relationship including prohibitions on foreign, agricultural, military and export- import assistance, as well as licensing restrictions for dual use items and mandated U.S. opposition to loans from international financial institutions. In addition, the United States has supported several resolutions by the United Nations Security Council, including three demands that Sudan extradite three suspects wanted in connection with the failed 1995 assassination attempt against Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. After Sudan failed to comply with these resolutions, the Council later adopted measures calling on member states to adopt travel restrictions and to ban flights by Sudanese-government controlled aircraft. But, as important as these measures have been, Sudan has apparently refused to get the message that its actions are simply unacceptable. Sudan has the potential to be one of the most important countries in Africa. It is the largest country on the continent and has a population of 29 million people. With cultural and geographic ties to both Arab North Africa and black sub-Saharan Africa, the Sudan has the potential to play a significant role in East Africa and the Gulf region. Unfortunately, Mr. President, Sudan continues to squander that potential by engaging in or supporting outrageous acts of violence and terrorism. So, Mr. President, I welcome the President's decision to take a tougher line with respect to Sudan.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, in introducing the Wisconsin Federal Judgeship Act of 1997. I want to commend my colleague for his leadership and dedication on this very important matter. Mr. President, the legislation being introduced will address a serious problem currently confronting the citizens of the eastern district of Wisconsin. At present, the eastern district of Wisconsin consists of four district court judges and two appellate judges, all of which sit in Milwaukee. However, the eastern district of Wisconsin is an expansive area which extends from Wisconsin's southern border with Illinois all the way to the north and the Great Lakes. Approximately one-third of the population of the eastern district of Wisconsin lives and works in the northern part of the district. While Milwaukee is centrally located for the majority of residents who reside in south- eastern Wisconsin, the same cannot be said for the residents of my State which live in the northern portion of the district. The Wisconsin Judgeship Act addresses this problem by placing a fifth district court judgeship in Green Bay which is centrally located in the northern portion of Wisconsin's eastern district. The simple fact of the matter is that at present access to the justice system is burdensome and expensive for the residents and for law enforcement of northeastern Wisconsin. In some instances, the travel time incurred by victims, witnesses, and law enforcement is as much as 3 or 4 hours each way, often longer depending upon the weather. In some cases, the cost, both in time and in scarce resources, may simply mean that legitimate cases are not being heard. Another troubling facet of this situation is that northeastern Wisconsin is home to the Menominee Indian Reservation. Because the Federal Government retains significant jurisdictional responsibility for cases arising on the reservation, the requirement that the cases be adjudicated in Milwaukee is particularly problematic in these cases. Based on these facts Mr. President, it is little wonder that this legislation has the strong support of law enforcement, both from police and prosecutors, from all across the eastern district of Wisconsin. By placing a Federal judge in Green Bay, not only will the residents of the growing Fox River Valley have easier access to the court, but so too will those residents of my State which live in the north. Mr. President, I have long believed that access to the administration of justice is among the most important and fundamental rights that we as Americans retain. Ensuring access to the courthouse is one of the primary responsibilities that the Federal Government has to its citizens. As members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Senator Kohl and I see firsthand how important the timely administration of justice is to our Democratic Government. The inability to receive one's day in court because of geographic distance, as appears to be happening to some in my State, is unacceptable. This legislation will address that inequity and I look forward to working with Senator Kohl and other members of the Judiciary Committee and the Senate as this legislation moves forward.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, in introducing the Wisconsin Federal Judgeship Act of 1997. I want to commend my colleague for his leadership and dedication on this very important matter. Mr. President, the legislation being introduced will address a serious problem currently confronting the citizens of the eastern district of Wisconsin. At present, the eastern district of Wisconsin consists of four district court judges and two appellate judges, all of which sit in Milwaukee. However, the eastern district of Wisconsin is an expansive area which extends from Wisconsin's southern border with Illinois all the way to the north and the Great Lakes. Approximately one-third of the population of the eastern district of Wisconsin lives and works in the northern part of the district. While Milwaukee is centrally located for the majority of residents who reside in south- eastern Wisconsin, the same cannot be said for the residents of my State which live in the northern portion of the district. The Wisconsin Judgeship Act addresses this problem by placing a fifth district court judgeship in Green Bay which is centrally located in the northern portion of Wisconsin's eastern district. The simple fact of the matter is that at present access to the justice system is burdensome and expensive for the residents and for law enforcement of northeastern Wisconsin. In some instances, the travel time incurred by victims, witnesses, and law enforcement is as much as 3 or 4 hours each way, often longer depending upon the weather. In some cases, the cost, both in time and in scarce resources, may simply mean that legitimate cases are not being heard. Another troubling facet of this situation is that northeastern Wisconsin is home to the Menominee Indian Reservation. Because the Federal Government retains significant jurisdictional responsibility for cases arising on the reservation, the requirement that the cases be adjudicated in Milwaukee is particularly problematic in these cases. Based on these facts Mr. President, it is little wonder that this legislation has the strong support of law enforcement, both from police and prosecutors, from all across the eastern district of Wisconsin. By placing a Federal judge in Green Bay, not only will the residents of the growing Fox River Valley have easier access to the court, but so too will those residents of my State which live in the north. Mr. President, I have long believed that access to the administration of justice is among the most important and fundamental rights that we as Americans retain. Ensuring access to the courthouse is one of the primary responsibilities that the Federal Government has to its citizens. As members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Senator Kohl and I see firsthand how important the timely administration of justice is to our Democratic Government. The inability to receive one's day in court because of geographic distance, as appears to be happening to some in my State, is unacceptable. This legislation will address that inequity and I look forward to working with Senator Kohl and other members of the Judiciary Committee and the Senate as this legislation moves forward.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Agriculture appropriations bill, H.R. 2160, which the Senate has approved today contains a provision, section 732, requiring the director of the Office of Management and Budget to conduct a comprehensive economic evaluation of the direct and indirect economic impacts of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact on consumers within the six-state compact region and on producers outside of the region. The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] and I offered this amendment with Senators Kohl, Levin, Abraham, and Wellstone during Senate consideration of the bill, because, to date, there has been no comprehensive analysis of the short and long-term impacts of the Compact from this perspective. Wisconsin farmers, and many farmers throughout the nation, are extremely concerned that the artificially high milk prices under the Northeast Dairy Compact will place nonCompact farmers at an unfair competitive disadvantage. Compact producers, who on July 1 of this year began receiving a Class I price of $16.94, have been insulated from the market prices which farmers throughout the country have faced in 1997. Wisconsin farmers are concerned about surplus production the inflated Compact price is likely to generate about the impact of potential milk surpluses on national milk prices. Furthermore, there is concern that this Compact, while ostensibly affecting only Class I milk, will result in surplus Class I milk being processed into cheese, butter and other products which are sold nationally. If the supply of manufactured dairy products rises due to increased manufacturing in the Northeast, national markets for manufactured products will be negatively affected and milk prices to producers may fall nationally. In addition, if milk production rises in the Compact region due to artificial production incentives, excess milk may be shipped out of the Compact region to fill cheese vats elsewhere, further depressing cheese and milk prices. So these secondary effects of the Compact must be examined. Section 732 of this bill is very specific. It directs OMB to carefully examine changes and projected changes in levels of milk production, the number of cows, the number of dairy farms and milk utilization in the Compact region due to the Compact. OMB must compare changes in those factors resulting from the Compact to levels of production, cow numbers, dairy farms, milk utilization and disposition of milk that would have occurred in the absence of the Compact. It is extremely important that OMB compare Compact effects not with national averages, but rather with production, cow numbers, and other effects that would have occurred had Compact producers been subject to the market conditions facing dairy farmers nationally. Section 732 also directs OMB to look at a number of economic indicators, such as changes in disposition of milk produced in the Compact region and changes in utilization of Compact milk, that will aid them in determining the impacts of the Compact on farmers outside of the Northeast. There is also substantial concern about the consumer impacts of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact which taxes 14 million Northeast consumers to benefit just over 4000 dairy farmers in the six states. It is not surprising that consumer prices for fluid milk have risen since the Compact price has been in effect. The Compact raises Class I prices specifically because demand for Class I milk is less responsive to price than other dairy products and more revenue can be extracted from the consumer's pocket. OMB must examine the effects of milk price increases on consumers and, in particular, on low-income consumers. The study must also examine the impacts of the Compact on USDA's vital nutrition programs that provide milk and dairy products to low- income women, children, infants and the elderly. OMB is directed by section 732 to study the impact of the Compact on both actual and projected changes in program participation, on the value of benefits offered under these programs and on the financial status of the institutions offering the programs. Will the purchasing power of food stamps fall because of the higher milk prices? Will schools offering school lunch and breakfast suffer from an effective lower per meal reimbursement rate? Will participation in the WIC program offered by the six northeastern states fall due to increased milk prices? Is the reimbursement scheme established by the Compact Commission adequate to compensate WIC for increased milk costs? These questions should be answered by OMB's analysis. Finally, OMB must evaluate the impact of adding additional states to the Northeast Dairy Compact on all of the factors mentioned above. The Northeast Dairy Compact allows Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and any additional states contiguous to participating states, to join the Compact and benefit from inflated Class I milk prices. If that happens, a much larger volume of milk, perhaps over 20 percent of national production, will be priced under the Compact and a much larger number of farmers will have artificial incentives to increase milk production. Congress must have information about the potential economic impact of adding more states to the Compact on farmers in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Idaho, California, New Mexico and other major milk producing states. Furthermore, consumer impacts will be magnified if additional states are added and we need to be able to quantify that impact. Mr. President, the amendment which Senator Grams and I offered, which was adopted by the Senate and included in the final bill by the Conference Committee, lays out very clear direction for OMB on the issues they should evaluate regarding the Northeast Interstate Diary Compact. However, the Senator from Vermont [Senator Leahy] made a statement shortly after this provision was adopted as part of the Senate FY 1998 Agricultural Appropriations Bill that implied that OMB should study issues much broader than stipulated by section 732. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] was not a cosponsor of the amendment adopted in the Senate and he is incorrect with respect to the issues the bill directs OMB to evaluate. There was no agreement between the authors of section 732 of this bill and the Senator from Vermont, or any other Senators, that any of the items he mentioned in floor statements subsequent to the passage of the amendment were to be included in the study. OMB should look at the requirements of section 732 and at the statements made by the amendment authors in setting the parameters of this study and the intent of Congress. As a principal coauthor of the provision requiring OMB to study the impact of the Northeast Dairy Compact, I want to make clear what the Agriculture Appropriations Bill requires and what it does not require of OMB's evaluation. The study does not require that OMB conduct a comprehensive evaluation of retail, wholesale, and processor milk pricing in New England and OMB should not include such a broad analysis in their study. The authors of the study provision did not intend for OMB to examine farm-retail asymmetry issues. OMB's study should not address whether those in the marketing chain should be passing on all or a portion of the increase in farm level milk costs to consumers. This study should provide an objective analysis of the direct impacts of the Northeast Compact on the wholesale and retail cost of fluid milk not a subjective review of how Compact associated price increases compare to price increases or decreases resulting from market conditions in the past. OMB should not evaluate broader issues of what the appropriate profit margin for those in the marketing chain could or should be or what level of price increase is justifiable or appropriate. That is a question far exceeding the scope of this study. OMB should not look at regional variations in pricing as they have little relevance to the impact of price increases in New England. OMB should not examine all the factors that affect the price of milk. The amendment offered by Senator Grams, myself and others directs OMB to examine only the impact of the Compact on consumer prices, not the price of feeds, transportation costs or other factors. In the absence of the Compact, those factors would not have changed, and have no bearing on this study. The only change in the status quo is the Compact milk price increase and that is what the study directs OMB to evaluate. The study requirement in this bill merely requires the OMB to report on what impact the inflated Compact Class I price has had on wholesale and retail prices and on consumers generally. OMB cannot and should not, based on the directive of the study provision in this bill, compare increases in retail milk prices to consumers resulting from the Compact to benefits they might receive by using coupons, shopping at discount stores, or other methods consumers use to reduce overall food bills. Consumers should not have to utilize coupons or other methods to reduce food costs in order to offset milk price increases caused by the Compact as the Senator from Vermont has suggested. OMB should not compare the impact of the Compact on USDA nutrition programs to the impact of the recently passed welfare reform bill on these same programs. Welfare reform is being implemented differently by each state. It would divert OMB resources to undertake a comprehensive review of the impact of welfare reform on each of these programs in each of the Compact states relative to the overall impact of the Compact on consumers. That issue is well beyond the scope of this study. OMB should focus their evaluation on the impact of increased Compact milk prices on the purchasing power of USDA's nutrition programs, the number of recipients served, and the institutions offering the programs in terms of increased costs or financial burdens. Lastly, OMB should not evaluate the supposed direct and indirect ``positive benefits'' the Compact may bring to farmers, land use patterns and tourism in participating Northeastern states. There is no mention of this in the study provision in this bill and OMB should not evaluate these issues. Presumably, the Secretary of Agriculture and policy makers in the Northeast have already examined these factors and duplicating such efforts will be a waste of taxpayer dollars. Section 732 of FY 1998 Agriculture appropriations bill requiring OMB to study the impact of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact on Compact-consumers and on non-Compact dairy farmers and manufacturers is very specific. OMB should stick to the directives of this Section and provide Congress with an objective and unbiased analysis of the Northeast Dairy Compact's impact on these stakeholders. Mr. President, there will likely be efforts to politicize this study and I will work with OMB and the analysts conducting this analysis to be sure that doesn't happen. I plan to meet with OMB Director Franklin Raines on this subject. Consumers and non-Compact farmers and manufacturers have a right to know how the Compact will impact them without interference by Compact proponents who wish to downplay the negative impacts of this price fixing scheme. This is especially critical given that farmers outside of the Compact region have suffered from extremely low milk prices throughout this year. If the Compact will further drive down milk prices nationally and increase milk supplies, farmers, consumers and taxpayers have a right to know. I, and the other cosponsors of section 732, will hold OMB accountable for the accuracy and objectivity of this study.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I am, of course, very pleased that this agreement has been reached. I want to join in the gratitude toward the majority leader. Any majority leader has a hard job on almost any issue. But this is about as tough as it gets. And I know this has been a very, very difficult period of negotiation. I thank my leader, Senator Daschle. Without his persistence and willingness to take on a tough job in our conference I don't think this would have been possible either. I want to join with Senator McCain in expressing my admiration for the Senator from Kentucky as well, an extremely worthy adversary. I can honestly say it is enjoyable to debate this issue with him. It will be especially enjoyable to be debating specific amendments as we get into this next year. But overall, what this represents is what Senator McCain of Arizona and I have said from the beginning--that this can't possibly be done in the end on a partisan basis. The answers have to be bipartisan. This agreement reflects that realization. I want to join with Senator McCain in his statement about the desire to negotiate, the desire to put together something that the American people feel would make a real difference in this area. My last comment, Mr. President, it certainly would have been my preference to have a bill pass this year. I said, many times it is very difficult to get this done in an election year, and that would be the conventional wisdom if we are in the middle of campaigns to try to legislate on that. But I think maybe this next year might be an exception. With this system continuing to display itself, perhaps next March will be the ideal time to take a look at this system as it is unfolding in another election and ask ourselves if this is really the best we could do in this country in terms of electing our officials. So, again I thank all of the Senators involved in these difficult negotiations. This appears to be a fair outcome, and we will have a continuation of this important debate next year. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, the Senate will pass S. 1150, the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act. I am pleased, Mr. President, that several amendments I had planned to offer on the floor when the Senate took up this bill have been accepted by the chairman, Mr. Lugar, and the ranking member, Mr. Harkin, of the Agriculture Committee and have been included in the managers' amendment to the bill. Two of my amendments included in the bill address a new research program 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. Section 232 of the S. 1150 creates a new research program authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants for the development and promotion of precision agriculture, including projects to educate producers on the benefits of this new technology. One of my amendments, which has been included in the managers amendment, ensures that educational efforts provide farmers with information about the costs of this technology as well. Any responsible federally funded farmer education efforts on precision agriculture must inform farmers of costs of this new technology. Cost considerations are particularly important given that precision agriculture technologies tend to be technologically sophisticated and capital intensive, requiring investments in computer systems, new software, and potentially new mechanical input applicators. Farmers who wish to avoid acquiring the equipment needed for precision agriculture may have to contract for these services with input suppliers. In either case, substantial financial investments may be required of farmers adopting precision agriculture technologies. Farmers need information that will allow them to balance the potential long-term benefits of precision agriculture technologies with the short-term and long-term financial costs. My amendment clarifies that any USDA funding provided for producer education efforts must provide information on both costs and benefits of precision agriculture. While precision agriculture may result in production efficiencies and improved profitability for some farms, many in agriculture are concerned that, because of the capital intensive nature of this 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, I have proposed an amendment which adds new language to section 232 allowing 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, furthering 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. The final two amendments I have offered and which have been included in the managers' amendment authorize and provide funding for research, education and extension projects to improve the competitiveness, viability and sustainability of small- and medium-size dairy and livestock operations. Many Senators have expressed concern about the trend toward increased concentration in the dairy and livestock sectors. According to a 1996 report by the USDA Advisory Committee on Agricultural Concentration, concentration in cattle feeding has grown dramatically, with 152 feeders accounting for more than 40 percent of all head sold. Meatpacker concentration has also grown, with four packing firms accounting for 80 percent of fed cattle in the U.S. Extensive vertical integration in the cattle industry has also reduced price discovery and market information available to small producers. The combination of reduced price information and increased concentration in the feeding and packing industry has put small cattle producers under extreme financial pressure, necessitating more research, education and extension efforts to ensure the viability of small- and medium-sized cattle operations. Of greatest concern to producers in my home State of Wisconsin is the trend toward fewer and larger dairy farms in the United States. In 1980, there were 45,000 dairy farms in Wisconsin. In 1997, there are only 24,000 dairy farms. Of those 24,000 dairy farms, 90 percent are operations with fewer than 100 cows. The trend toward fewer but larger dairy operations is mirrored in most States throughout the Nation. The economic losses associated with the reduction in small farm numbers go well beyond the impact on the individual farm families exiting the industry. Rather, the reduction in farm numbers has affected the rural communities in my home State that have been built around a large number of small family-owned dairy farms. The grocery storeowners, input suppliers, schoolteachers, truckers, cheese manufacturers, and many other small rural businesses have been hurt as Wisconsin has seen its dairy farm numbers decline. There is substantial concern that past and present Federal investments in agricultural research have focused almost solely on the needs of larger scale agricultural producers, neglecting the specific research needs of small producers. Some have suggested that this research bias has exacerbated the trend toward increased concentration and vertical integration, particularly in the livestock sector. To address this concern, I have proposed an amendment to S. 1150, included in the managers' amendment, 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 amendment 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, Mr. President, expansion is often counterproductive for small operations requiring them to take on an even greater debt load. 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. I believe 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 afforded to such 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. Finally, Mr. President, I proposed an amendment to require 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 funded at total $780 million for fiscal years 1998 through 2002. With the inclusion of my amendment in the managers 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. 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 including my amendments in this important bill. I look forward to working with them to maintain these amendments during conference committee consideration of this bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask for 20 minutes to speak.

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

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I also rise today, as did the Senator from Minnesota, to discuss the visit of the President of the People's Republic of China, Mr. Jiang Zemin, who arrives in Washington tonight for a state visit. That Mr. Jiang and President Clinton will meet is not in itself extraordinary. The promotion of dialog between the United States and China can be a constructive use of our own diplomatic energies. Indeed, President Clinton has already met Mr. Jiang several times at various international fora. What strikes me is the kind of visit that is about to take place. It is a state visit that involves champagne toasts and 21-gun salutes--all the trappings of honor and prestige. While I do not oppose high-level contact, I feel strongly that the pomp and ceremony of a state visit is inappropriate at a time when the human rights situation in China and in Tibet remains such a serious obstacle to good relations. Simply put, it is my view that an official state visit is premature, absent a stronger commitment from China to improve human rights. I fear that this state visit will actually boost the legitimacy of a regime that brutalizes its own people and jails anyone who dares to complain. In other words, Mr. President, while dialog is important, you don't need champagne toasts and red carpets to have a dialog. Is the memory of the Tiananmen Square massacre so distant that we are willing to clink glasses with China's leaders as though nothing happened in Tiananmen Square? For me, the answer is no. When Jiang is given a 21-gun salute tomorrow, the South Lawn will sound much like the streets of Beijing did on the night of June 4, 1989. By agreeing to this state visit without receiving any kind of concession in the area of human rights, the administration may be squandering perhaps its strongest source of leverage with Beijing. Nevertheless, if the administration insists on hosting Jiang Zemin right now, the least that can be done is to accord discussion of human rights the same priority as the myriad other issues that confront our bilateral relations with China. Unfortunately, I don't think that is going to be the case. As we all know, there are many areas of disagreement between the United States and China, aside from human rights. The United States' trade deficit with China will likely reach $50 billion this year. China has a long and well-known record of assisting the nuclear programs of Iran and Pakistan and, as always, the sensitive issue of Taiwan remains a trouble spot. Arguably, there are some positive signs. China has agreed to make significant cuts in tariffs as a part of its bid to join the World Trade Organization, and Beijing has promised to tighten controls on nuclear exports. It is widely reported that an agreement to restart United States-China cooperation on nuclear power will be the centerpiece of the summit. Mr. President, on human rights there are few, if any, positive signs. Despite China's announcement on Saturday that it will sign the United Nations' Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, I see no evidence of real human rights improvement on the ground. The fact that human rights conditions in China are growing worse, not better, indicates that human rights needs to be given top priority. Three years after the President's decision to delink most-favored- nation status from human rights, a decision that I have always said was a mistake, we have seen the reimprisonment of dissidents and increased repression in Tibet. The State Department human rights report makes this very clear. According to the report covering the calendar year 1996: The Government continued to commit widespread and well- documented human rights abuses, in violation of internationally accepted norms, stemming from the authorities' intolerance of dissent, fear of unrest, and the absence or inadequacy of laws protecting basic freedoms . . . Abuses included torture, and mistreatment of prisoners, forced confessions, and arbitrary and lengthy incommunicado detention. Prison conditions remained harsh. The Government continued severe restrictions on freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, religion, privacy and workers rights. Just one year ago, we were witness to yet another example of these policies when Wang Dan, one of the leaders of the 1989 pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square, was sentenced to 11 years in prison. Also last December, a Beijing court sentenced activist Li Hai for collecting infomation on those jailed after the 1989 Tiananmen massacre. The situation is just as bad in Tibet. Last year, China arrested Ngawang Choepel, a Tibetan musicologist and Fulbright scholar, and sentenced him to 18 years in prison on trumped- up spy charges. China has also intensified its campaign to smear the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people and a Nobel laureate. Tibetans are not even free to display a photo of the Dalai Lama, much less show reverence for him. There have been numerous reports of Tibetan monks and nuns suffering torture at the hands of Chinese authorities. The State Department human rights report cites three recent cases of Tibetan monks who died while in jail. Mr. President, despite signing two formal agreements with the United States on prison labor, Chinese prison-labor products continue to appear on our shores. Tong Yi, who worked as an assistant to Chinese dissident Wei Jingsheng, knows the prison labor system first hand. Released just last year after serving a 2\1/2\-year sentence of re- education through labor--a sentence she received, by the way, without the benefit of any kind of trial--Ms. Tong says she was forced to work endless hours making products for export. In the rush to reach agreements with China on WTO and proliferation, the United States cannot shove human rights aside. While the United States can and does talk tough on issues such as trade and intellectual property protection, we must do the same when the conversation turns to Tiananmen and Tibet. In the run-up to the summit, Mr. Jiang has given several interviews during which he made some disturbing comments on human rights. When Time magazine asked Jiang Zemin about the plight of political dissidents Wang Dan and Wei Jingsheng, Jiang responded that Wang and Wei are criminals, not dissidents. Indeed, it is a crime in China to publicly and peacefully criticize the Government as Mr. Wang and Mr. Wei have done. Mr. Jiang is willing to dismiss questions about human rights because he likely thinks U.S. concerns extend to only a few high-profile dissidents. But, in fact, Wei Jingsheng and Wang Dan are merely symbols of the hundreds, if not thousands, of people in the People's Republic of China who are thrown into prison cells for demanding democracy, organizing prayer meetings, or for simply displaying loyalty to the Dalai Lama. These people might not be as famous and Mr. Wang and Mr. Wei, but they show the same type of courage, and they are every bit as important. Mr. President, there are three key messages on human rights that Jiang Zemin must hear loud and clear while he is in Washington. First, Jiang Zemin must realize that people who care about conditions in China seek more than the release of a token dissident or two. China likes to play a game where people like Wei Jingsheng are used as bargaining chips in the PRC's effort to curry favor with the international community at key moments. We saw this in 1993, when China tried to win a bid to host the year 2000 Olympic Games. Just a week before the International Olympic Committee was to vote on the matter, China released Wei Jingsheng. As we all know, Beijing lost the bid and, a few months later, Wei Jingsheng was back in prison, on charges of subversion. We saw this again in 1995 when China suddenly decided to release Chinese-American human rights activist Harry Wu shortly before the First Lady was to arrive to address the U.N. women's conference. But, the United States should not get caught in this cynical game. For there to be true friendship between the United States and China, China must implement across-the-board and institutional changes such as strengthening the rule of law and allowing citizens to question government policy without fear. Jiang Zemin and other Chinese leaders must realize that United States-China relations will never reach their full potential so long as hundreds, if not thousands, of dissidents languish behind bars; so long as Tibetan Buddhists are subject to arrest and torture; and so long as citizens are not free to select their rulers. Second, the United States must make clear to Jiang Zemin that the United States will not allow China to redefine the concept of ``human rights'' in a way that makes the term meaningless. China's leaders have stated numerous times that the Peoples Republic of China is committed to upholding the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document affirms the right of every human being to enjoy freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of peaceful assembly. There is no special exception for China or any other country, nor should there be. Furthermore, article 35 of China's own Constitution states that ``Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession, and of demonstration.'' China's late paramount leader Deng Xiaoping was found of saying ``seek truth from facts.'' Well, the fact is that China denies its citizens the very rights that the Government has vowed to protect. I would like to ask Mr. Jiang if his government ever intends to grant its citizens the rights that, according to his country's own Constitution, Chinese citizens should already enjoy. Or will China's article 35 remain a meaningless provision, subject to endless caveats about the need for state security, social stability, and the rights of the collective? Will China continue to say it upholds the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, even though it systematically violates so many of the declaration's principles? If the United States can demand that China fulfill its obligations under the international arms control regime, then the United States should be able to demand just as strongly that Beijing keep its obligations under international human rights agreements. Third, Jiang Zemin should know that those of us--in the United States and around the world--who demand improvements in human rights are not trying to impose American or Western values on China, nor are we demanding that China be perfect according to some kind of American ideal. That would not be appropriate. China does often point to many flaws in American society: The high crime rate and the lingering problems of poverty and drugs. China's official media often refers to the United States political system as a ``money bags democracy.'' Indeed, proponents of campaign finance reform, like myself, find some validity in that Chinese assessment. But what Chinese leaders do not seem to understand is that being open about your problems is a sign of strength, not weakness. China lacks even the ability to acknowledge its severe human rights problem. Those of us that wish to promote human rights improvements want to encourage China to establish the tools--a free press, open debate, and respect for political and religious minorities--that will ultimately make China a stronger society and nation. Mr. President, protecting human rights, respecting free speech, and tolerating dissent will bestow more legitimacy on China than any summit or White House photo-op could ever do. This is what Jiang Zemin needs to hear. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to make a few brief comments regarding the nomination of Mr. Peter Scher to be the Special Trade Ambassador for Agriculture which the Senate approved yesterday. I am pleased to report that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which I serve, considered the nomination of Mr. Scher and favorably reported his nomination last month. I met with Mr. Scher following his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to discuss with him the problems Wisconsin's agricultural sector has had with our existing trade agreements such as the Uruguay Round of GATT and the North American Free Trade Agreement. I urged Mr. Scher, in his new position, to work diligently to ensure that our trading partners are complying with their agricultural trade obligations established by these agreements. Specifically, I asked Mr. Scher and the USTR to accept a Section 301 petition filed by the dairy industry asking USTR to challenge the Canadian export pricing scheme before the World Trade Organization. Canada's dairy export subsidies violate the export subsidy reduction commitments under the Uruguay Round. These subsidies disadvantage the U.S. dairy industry in its efforts to compete in world markets. I also pointed out that Canada also has effectively prohibited our dairy industry from exporting products to lucrative Canadian markets. Not only must USTR aggressively pursue WTO dispute settlement proceedings against Canadian export subsidies, but it must also seek greater access for U.S. dairy products to Canadian markets, among others, in any upcoming trade negotiations. I am pleased that late last month U.S. Trade Representative Barshefsky agreed to pursue formal WTO dispute resolution proceedings challenging the Canadian dairy export subsidy scheme as well as European Union violations of the dairy provisions of the Uruguay Round. I appreciate the cooperation of Mr. Scher and Ambassador Barshefsky on this important matter. I also raised with Mr. Scher the problems the U.S. potato industry has had with respect to access to both Canadian and Mexican markets. I urged him to pursue negotiations with the Canadians to allow greater access of U.S. potatoes to their domestic markets and to aggressively seek accelerated reduction in Mexican tariffs for U.S. potatoes, a commitment made to potato growers when NAFTA was approved. Mr. Scher assured me that potatoes would be among the commodities to be considered in upcoming negotiations with Mexico. I believe Mr. Scher has a fundamental understanding of both the importance of trade to agriculture generally and of the complex trade problems the U.S dairy industry faces regarding compliance with existing trade agreements. For that reason, I have supported the approval of his nomination. But I expect USTR, with Mr. Scher acting as Ambassador, to aggressively pursue the resolution of the critical issues facing our domestic dairy and potato sectors. I will continue to work with USTR to resolve these issues and will hold Mr. Scher to his commitment that USTR will use all existing tools to ensure compliance with existing trade agreements and to pursue greater access for agriculture to international markets. I continue to have serious reservations about U.S. efforts to begin new trade negotiations until the problems with our current bilateral and multilateral agreements are successfully resolved. Wisconsin is home to 24,000 dairy farmers, 140 cheese processing plants and many other businesses associated with milk production and processing. Dairy contributes some $4 billion in income to Wisconsin's economy and provides 130,000 jobs. Wisconsin is also the fifth largest potato producing state with a large chip and french fry processing sector. Overall, Wisconsin ranks tenth in the nation in farm numbers and ninth nationally with respect to market value of agricultural products sold. Wisconsin's farmers and food processing industry could greatly benefit by gaining a greater share of international markets. However, for that to happen, our trade agreements must not only be fair, they must be enforceable. To date, our trade agreements have not only failed to provide significant benefits for many agricultural sectors, including dairy, they have placed some sectors at a distinct disadvantage. I will look at all future trade agreement proposals with an eye to these issues and make decisions on those proposals based, in part, on how they treat Wisconsin farmers.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the minority leader, the Senator from South Dakota, I would like to correct the statement made by the majority leader in the Record. The majority leader indicated that he and the Senator from South Dakota had an understanding with regard to how to bring back the campaign finance reform issue. But the fact is that the agreement had not been reduced to writing, and that when it was reduced to writing, his understanding, that is, the understanding of the Senator from the State of South Dakota, my understanding, and the understanding of every member of our caucus was that the vehicle by which this would happen would be that we would bring back Senate bill 25, as modified. The agreement did not include that language. And there simply was no additional or new request made by anyone on our behalf. So I would like to correct that statement as well. That did not happen. We are hopeful that an agreement can be reached. But I do have to say, for the record, that it simply was not a correct representation of what happened with regard to the negotiations today. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on that point, let me agree strongly with the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from North Dakota and highlight what will happen in a couple of minutes. We will have a cloture vote that is purportedly on the issue of highway spending, but it is not about highway spending. It is not about transportation. It is not about investing in infrastructure. Those votes will come later. The vote we are going to have in a few minutes is about whether the first session of the 105th Congress is going to adjourn for the year without one single substantive vote on the issue of campaign finance reform and all the scandals that we have seen here in Washington. That is what is going on here. That is exactly what the American people have to be told in a straightforward manner. The discussion that we just had here indicated what really happened a couple of weeks ago on the campaign finance reform bill. We thought we were going to have a serious debate on that issue. We thought there was going to be an opportunity not only to debate the overall bill but to offer Senators what Senators come here to do--the opportunity to offer amendments and modifications. I was ready for that debate. These Senators were ready for that debate. The Senator from Arizona was ready for that debate. Even the junior Senator from Kentucky, the leading opponent of campaign finance reform, said he was ready for that debate. Well, we were wrong, Mr. President. We never had such a debate. We never had such amendments voted on. We had a sham, a con game played on the American people. We had a process that was purposely rigged so that one way or the other the Republicans and Democrats would have to filibuster, or better yet, if possible, make both of them filibuster. So my point is this: Let's have that debate. Let's have serious, substantive votes on this issue. Let's let Senators amend and modify and give their good ideas to the bill and then let the chips fall where they may. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. After I finish this.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. This morning we have another opportunity to speak again about this issue, campaign finance reform, which many people wish would go away but it is not going to. Again, it is a chance to review sort of the kaleidoscope of arguments that have been used to condemn our efforts on the McCain-Feingold bill and other campaign finance reform proposals. Listening to the Senator from Georgia, we hear again the claim that what is really wrong with this bill is that it violates the first amendment--which, of course, we dispute and also find just a little amusing when you consider, first of all, that if there is any problem with this bill under the first amendment, we still do have nine people across the street who know how to handle that. But many of the same Senators who are condemning our bill from the point of view of the first amendment are some of the first in line who are ready to amend the first amendment. That is part of the agenda of many of the folks on the other side of the aisle. There is no compunction at all on the part of some of these folks to pass a flag-burning amendment to the first amendment, to make an exemption of free speech there. No concerns at all with regard to the first amendment and related rights in passing a school prayer amendment, which many of our opponents believe would not be a violation of the first amendment and which I think would be. Virtually every opponent of this bill had no problem at all coming out here on the floor of the Senate and voting for the Communications Decency Act, which to me was the most blatantly anticonstitutional censorship bill we have seen in a very long time, and every single Member of the Supreme Court agreed; 9-0 they ruled that this bill, the Communications Decency Act, was unconstitutional. Where were all the Senators out here talking about the first amendment when I came out here in a rather lonely manner and said, ``By the way, this on its face cannot possibly pass muster''? Where was the concern for the first amendment? It was not there. So I am puzzled about what the fear is. If it is so easy to play with the first amendment when it comes to school prayer and flag burning and the Internet, what is the problem with sending up a bill that reasonable people disagree about with regard to one aspect of its constitutionality? What is the threat to the Republic? Nothing, unless we have somehow eliminated the third branch. Then, of course, we have been treated again to my favorite argument in opposition to this bill, that there is not enough money in politics. We heard it again today. I have to tell you, that argument has proven to be the biggest loser of all with the American people. Does anyone really believe that the best thing that can happen in this society is that more money gets spent on election? Let's remember what Mr. Tamraz said before the Governmental Affairs Committee on September 18, 1997. He is one who certainly understands what to do and what it means if we are going to keep expanding the role of money in politics. This is what he had to say in response to a question from our colleague, the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman]. Senator Lieberman. So, do you think you got your money's worth? Do you feel badly about having given the $300,000? Mr. Tamraz. I think next time I'll give $600,000. Our colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, asked a very direct question: Senator Levin. Was one of the reasons you made these contributions because you believed it might get you access? That's my question. Mr. Tamraz. Senator, I'm going even further. It's the only reason--to get access, but what I am saying is once you have access what do you do with it? Is it something bad or is it something good? That's what we have to see. Mr. President, this is a picture, a portrayal of the vision that some of my colleagues have. The more money, the merrier. The more Mr. Tamrazes, the more $300,000 contributions, the continuing buying of access. Their answer is to do absolutely nothing, to do nothing, to let this campaign financing arms race continue. Another tactic is to somehow pretend--this is the tactic of the majority leader--that the whole problem is just one group of people, the working people of this country as represented through unions. As if anyone in the United States of America honestly believes that the only group that has participated too much in the money aspect of the system is organized labor. As if it doesn't involve corporate spending. As if it doesn't involve the spending of ideological groups. I have to tell you I have absolutely no concern that even the most conservative antilabor person in America doesn't believe that the whole campaign finance system problems have been caused by labor. Nobody believes that. Yet that has been the strategy employed on the floor--to say unless you interfere with the basic rights of people that join together in a union on a voluntarily basis, that the whole issue isn't worth discussing. Then of course we heard again from the Senator from Georgia, this notion that our bill would protect incumbents. Well, it is rare I'm on the floor and I just laugh out loud, but how can a system that already exists and has a 90-percent reelection rate for incumbents get much more proincumbent? What are we going to do, force people to stay in office? Are we going to have instead of term limits, term requirements--you have to stay here? It is absurd to suggest that our bill would have any impact to protect incumbents. It is just the opposite. If we had a fair chance to raise the issue, we would have brought up what Senator McCain and I like to call the challenger amendment to provide incentives and opportunities for candidates who cannot afford a great deal to participate in the process by getting the benefit of reduced costs in their television time. These are some of the arguments that have been used that I think are pretty well worn. In fact, let me just illustrate how serious this ratification of the current system is by going back to one example. This is the example of the Federal Express Corp. This is what is being ratified, by the attempt to kill campaign finance reform. We are doing nothing to prevent the episode that I'm about to describe. In fact, we are telling Corp.s in this country if you are going to protect your shareholders and fulfill your fiduciary duties, you better play this soft money game and play it hard and fast or otherwise you will lose out in the competitive world. In other words, it is the opposite of what I thought the other party was about--free enterprise. This is the antithesis of free enterprise. This encourages the purchasing of access and power in Washington, not the fair, free-market competition that so many of us believe is the underpinning of our economy. This is the polar opposite of that. Now, the Federal Express Corp. wanted, for a very long time, to get a provision into the law that would prevent their unions from organizing in a way that would be meaningful and allow them to get the benefits that they need and the salaries they want from the Federal Express Corp. The record of FedEx with regard to employees and unionization is not a good one, and the Federal Express Corp. tried repeatedly to get a rider attached to various bills that would do this. They never had a hearing on a rider in the House Aviation Subcommittee; they tried to attach it to the fiscal year 1996 omnibus appropriations bill and failed; the House Republicans tried to attach it to the fiscal year 1996 omnibus, another appropriations bill, and failed; they tried to attach it to the National Transportation Safety Board Authorization Act and failed; they tried to attach it to the Railroad Unemployment Act and failed; the Senate Republicans supported attaching the Labor-HHS Appropriations Act in the Appropriations Committee and failed; it was not included when the FAA Reauthorization Act passed the House; it was not included when it passed the Senate. And only at the end of the road, with no positive vote in favor of this provision at any point, it was placed in conference committee and brought out to the floor. We remember well last year the fact that we had to actually keep the Senate a few days in session to make the point on this. This was not a technical correction, as was argued. In fact, what happened here was that at the very same time this effort was being made by FedEx Corp., some campaign contributions were being made.

Mr. FEINGOLD. That article details a similar series of activities that had to do with FedEx's desires with regard to trade and Japan. Here is the real conclusion of the story, and I want others to have a chance to speak, so let me continue by saying we all remember that the United Parcel Service had a strike not too long ago. It was the biggest news in America. Who is their competitor? The Federal Express Corp. The Federal Express Corp. used this process, this fundraising process, this access process, this soft money process, to get a special benefit so they don't have that kind of union. They don't have that kind of strike because their folks can't get together to do that because of Federal law. What happened? Apparently, as a result of the UPS strike, FedEx benefited. The Federal Express Corp., according to one report, is gaining market share because of its adroit handling of additional business during the recent UPS strike, analysts say. Some analysts estimate that the UPS market share slipped to about 70 percent of the U.S. package delivery market from 80 percent before the strike. Mr. President, there is a difference between FedEx and UPS, and the difference was the ability of campaign money to prevent FedEx employees from organizing the way they want. That is the kind of democracy and economy that we will have if the filibusterers prevail. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent a related article a year later in the New York Times, August 25, 1997, entitled, ``Face Time for Federal Express'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Interstate Distribution of State-inspected Meat Act of 1997 introduced today by my colleague from Utah [Mr. Hatch] and I thank him for his leadership on this issue. This is a very important bill for my State of Wisconsin which has nearly 300 State-inspected meat plants which provide jobs and income for rural communities. The quality meat products processed by these plants such as the Lodi Sausage Co. in Lodi, WI, Gunderson Food Service in Mondovi, WI, Goodfella's Pizza Corp. in Medford, WI, The Ham Store in Brookfield, WI, Country Fresh Meats in Hatley, WI, and Louie's Finer Meats, Inc. in Cumberland, WI are prohibited from being sold across State lines. These small businesses face the interstate marketing prohibition not because their products haven't been inspected--in fact all these businesses are inspected by the State of Wisconsin--but because of an archaic provision of Federal law which prohibits interstate shipment of State-inspected meats even though the State inspection program is certified as equal to Federal meat inspection programs. These plants, and hundreds like them in Wisconsin, produce quality specialty meat products which are demanded by consumers in other States. But the owners of these facilities are unable to capitalize on their specialties and meet that market demand. By limiting these plants to markets within their home-State borders, Federal law effectively prevents them from expanding their markets, increasing the number of people they employ, and generating additional economic activity in rural areas. These small plants pose no competitive threat to larger processors who are federally inspected. In most cases, State-inspected plants are small family owned businesses, employing between 1 and 20 people, producing specialty products to fill a small market niche. These plant owners and operators pay special attention to the quality of their products and because of this they cannot grow very large. Wisconsin's small-scale meat processors take great pride in their products which reflect the ethnic diversity in my State. In fact, it is my understanding that Wisconsin specialty meat products win nearly 25 percent of the awards at the American Association of Meat Processors' nationwide product show. Furthermore, these small State-inspected plants play a critical role in sustaining rural communities and helping to ensure diversity of size in the livestock industry. Most of these plants buy livestock locally which helps maintain the viability of nearby small family livestock operations. By buying locally they know exactly where their inputs bar coming from and how they are produced, which allows them to control the quality of their products. These local buying practices help counteract trends toward concentration in the livestock and poultry production and processing industries providing small livestock and dairy producers with marketing alternatives in any industry dominated by a few large meat packers. The owners of these small businesses in Wisconsin correctly point out that they face even more meat shipment restrictions than their competitors from foreign countries. Under our trade agreements, meat products from foreign countries are allowed into the United States and across State borders as long as the country has an inspection program that is ``equivalent'' to U.S. programs. Meanwhile, even if State inspection programs are ``equal to'' Federal inspection programs, meats inspected under State programs are still precluded from interstate shipment Mr. President, it simply isn't fair and it is time to eliminate this inequity. The bill we are introducing today makes a simple but important change to Federal law to allow State-inspected meats to be sold across State lines after the State inspection program is favorably reviewed and certified by the Secretary of Agriculture as at least ``equal to'' Federal meat inspection programs. If State programs are not equal to the Federal inspection program, they will not be certified by USDA and State-inspected meats will not cross State lines. The Secretary is also required by this bill to certify that the State inspection program is on schedule in implementing USDA's new Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points [HAACP] regulations. The bill also requires the Secretary to annually recertify the State program. To provide further safeguards, Federal meat inspectors may also randomly inspect State plants to ensure that they continue to meet Federal standards. The Secretary will have the authority to reinstate the interstate shipment ban on plants that fail to meet Federal standards. This bill is responsible to consumers while providing equity to small State- inspected plants. Mr. President, I think the best arguments in favor of this legislation are made by those small business owners who are directly affected by the interstate shipment prohibition imposed on their meat products. I want to share with my colleagues some comments made by owners of some State-inspected processing businesses in Wisconsin.: Louis Muench, owner of Louie's Finer Meats, Inc. In Cumberland, WI writes: We are the operators of a small meat processing and sausage making operation in a small town in northern Wisconsin . . . Our plant is 30 miles from the Minnesota border and we cannot even provide sausage for a pancake supper in Minnesota, let alone any wholesaling to supermarkets and convenience stores. We have received over 100 State and National awards for our sausage products. We cannot even market these products on a regional basis, let alone a national basis. This past May [1996], we were honored to receive two international gold medals for our sausage in Frankfurt, Germany. We are not allowed to market these products anywhere but Wisconsin. These kinds of restrictions make it difficult to maintain a profitable business. Dan Kubly, one of the owners of LazyBones Ham Store, in Brookfield, WI writes: We work very closely with our state inspectors and consider them an ally in our overall business. We constantly consult with them on equipment conditions, labeling and handling procedures in our plant. It makes no sense that we are permitted to ship our products anywhere as long as the retail customer buys the product at our stores, but are not allowed to ship the same product across state lines through a distributor . . . Our volume is increasing rapidly and we are interested in contracting with a multi-state distributor, however we are unable to do this because we do not have USDA inspection. We feel our business will suffer significantly and job creation will end if we are not permitted to expand due to this unnecessary prohibition. James Weber, owner of Gunderson Food Service, in Modovi, WI writes: We are operating a small meat plant in northwest Wisconsin and employ 9 people. We slaughter and and custom process for the local farm community, smoke ham and bacon, manufacture sausage and sell retail and wholesale. We are under Wisconsin meat inspection and are required to be equal to or better than Federal inspection. In the last 4 years we have taken 18 Wisconsin, national and international awards for our ham, jerky, beef sticks and sausage; but because I am in Wisconsin I am discriminated against by the Federal government. We are 30 miles from the Minnesota border but cannot sell our product there. If my products are of high enough quality to be sent 250 miles to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, then why is there a problem with me selling it 25 miles away in Waubaska, Minnesota? Bill Ruef, owner of Ruef's Meat Market in New Glarus, WI who processes a Swiss ready-to-eat snack called ``Landjaeger'' writes: This [Landjaeger] is our most popular item, and I get asked on a regular basis by business owners from other states--we are about 25 miles from the Illinois border--if we can ship our Landjaegers to them for resale in their establishments. It really hurts me and my business when I have to tell them ``no'' because we aren't federally inspected. This kind of unfair prohibition will only continue to drive small businesses to fold and allow large conglomerates to monopolize the industry. Mr. President, these business owners say it best. The current prohibition on interstate shipment of State-inspected meats is obsolete and patently unfair to small meat processors. It is time to correct this inequity and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Interstate Distribution of State-inspected Meat Act of 1997 introduced today by my colleague from Utah [Mr. Hatch] and I thank him for his leadership on this issue. This is a very important bill for my State of Wisconsin which has nearly 300 State-inspected meat plants which provide jobs and income for rural communities. The quality meat products processed by these plants such as the Lodi Sausage Co. in Lodi, WI, Gunderson Food Service in Mondovi, WI, Goodfella's Pizza Corp. in Medford, WI, The Ham Store in Brookfield, WI, Country Fresh Meats in Hatley, WI, and Louie's Finer Meats, Inc. in Cumberland, WI are prohibited from being sold across State lines. These small businesses face the interstate marketing prohibition not because their products haven't been inspected--in fact all these businesses are inspected by the State of Wisconsin--but because of an archaic provision of Federal law which prohibits interstate shipment of State-inspected meats even though the State inspection program is certified as equal to Federal meat inspection programs. These plants, and hundreds like them in Wisconsin, produce quality specialty meat products which are demanded by consumers in other States. But the owners of these facilities are unable to capitalize on their specialties and meet that market demand. By limiting these plants to markets within their home-State borders, Federal law effectively prevents them from expanding their markets, increasing the number of people they employ, and generating additional economic activity in rural areas. These small plants pose no competitive threat to larger processors who are federally inspected. In most cases, State-inspected plants are small family owned businesses, employing between 1 and 20 people, producing specialty products to fill a small market niche. These plant owners and operators pay special attention to the quality of their products and because of this they cannot grow very large. Wisconsin's small-scale meat processors take great pride in their products which reflect the ethnic diversity in my State. In fact, it is my understanding that Wisconsin specialty meat products win nearly 25 percent of the awards at the American Association of Meat Processors' nationwide product show. Furthermore, these small State-inspected plants play a critical role in sustaining rural communities and helping to ensure diversity of size in the livestock industry. Most of these plants buy livestock locally which helps maintain the viability of nearby small family livestock operations. By buying locally they know exactly where their inputs bar coming from and how they are produced, which allows them to control the quality of their products. These local buying practices help counteract trends toward concentration in the livestock and poultry production and processing industries providing small livestock and dairy producers with marketing alternatives in any industry dominated by a few large meat packers. The owners of these small businesses in Wisconsin correctly point out that they face even more meat shipment restrictions than their competitors from foreign countries. Under our trade agreements, meat products from foreign countries are allowed into the United States and across State borders as long as the country has an inspection program that is ``equivalent'' to U.S. programs. Meanwhile, even if State inspection programs are ``equal to'' Federal inspection programs, meats inspected under State programs are still precluded from interstate shipment Mr. President, it simply isn't fair and it is time to eliminate this inequity. The bill we are introducing today makes a simple but important change to Federal law to allow State-inspected meats to be sold across State lines after the State inspection program is favorably reviewed and certified by the Secretary of Agriculture as at least ``equal to'' Federal meat inspection programs. If State programs are not equal to the Federal inspection program, they will not be certified by USDA and State-inspected meats will not cross State lines. The Secretary is also required by this bill to certify that the State inspection program is on schedule in implementing USDA's new Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points [HAACP] regulations. The bill also requires the Secretary to annually recertify the State program. To provide further safeguards, Federal meat inspectors may also randomly inspect State plants to ensure that they continue to meet Federal standards. The Secretary will have the authority to reinstate the interstate shipment ban on plants that fail to meet Federal standards. This bill is responsible to consumers while providing equity to small State- inspected plants. Mr. President, I think the best arguments in favor of this legislation are made by those small business owners who are directly affected by the interstate shipment prohibition imposed on their meat products. I want to share with my colleagues some comments made by owners of some State-inspected processing businesses in Wisconsin.: Louis Muench, owner of Louie's Finer Meats, Inc. In Cumberland, WI writes: We are the operators of a small meat processing and sausage making operation in a small town in northern Wisconsin . . . Our plant is 30 miles from the Minnesota border and we cannot even provide sausage for a pancake supper in Minnesota, let alone any wholesaling to supermarkets and convenience stores. We have received over 100 State and National awards for our sausage products. We cannot even market these products on a regional basis, let alone a national basis. This past May [1996], we were honored to receive two international gold medals for our sausage in Frankfurt, Germany. We are not allowed to market these products anywhere but Wisconsin. These kinds of restrictions make it difficult to maintain a profitable business. Dan Kubly, one of the owners of LazyBones Ham Store, in Brookfield, WI writes: We work very closely with our state inspectors and consider them an ally in our overall business. We constantly consult with them on equipment conditions, labeling and handling procedures in our plant. It makes no sense that we are permitted to ship our products anywhere as long as the retail customer buys the product at our stores, but are not allowed to ship the same product across state lines through a distributor . . . Our volume is increasing rapidly and we are interested in contracting with a multi-state distributor, however we are unable to do this because we do not have USDA inspection. We feel our business will suffer significantly and job creation will end if we are not permitted to expand due to this unnecessary prohibition. James Weber, owner of Gunderson Food Service, in Modovi, WI writes: We are operating a small meat plant in northwest Wisconsin and employ 9 people. We slaughter and and custom process for the local farm community, smoke ham and bacon, manufacture sausage and sell retail and wholesale. We are under Wisconsin meat inspection and are required to be equal to or better than Federal inspection. In the last 4 years we have taken 18 Wisconsin, national and international awards for our ham, jerky, beef sticks and sausage; but because I am in Wisconsin I am discriminated against by the Federal government. We are 30 miles from the Minnesota border but cannot sell our product there. If my products are of high enough quality to be sent 250 miles to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, then why is there a problem with me selling it 25 miles away in Waubaska, Minnesota? Bill Ruef, owner of Ruef's Meat Market in New Glarus, WI who processes a Swiss ready-to-eat snack called ``Landjaeger'' writes: This [Landjaeger] is our most popular item, and I get asked on a regular basis by business owners from other states--we are about 25 miles from the Illinois border--if we can ship our Landjaegers to them for resale in their establishments. It really hurts me and my business when I have to tell them ``no'' because we aren't federally inspected. This kind of unfair prohibition will only continue to drive small businesses to fold and allow large conglomerates to monopolize the industry. Mr. President, these business owners say it best. The current prohibition on interstate shipment of State-inspected meats is obsolete and patently unfair to small meat processors. It is time to correct this inequity and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.