Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Does the Senator feel that it would be appropriate for Senators to contact Interior line agencies if they are aware of projects they believe are meritorious, such as the Fish and Wildlife Service's proposed Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge in my home State of Wisconsin?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Is it the case that the administration will begin developing this list as soon as possible?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wanted to clarify with the subcommittee chairman and the ranking member the process, as described on page 116 in the Senate Committee Report on the Interior Appropriations bill (S. Report 105-56), for the expenditure of land and water conservation fund dollars provided in this legislation. Is this Senator correct in his understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the committee intends to work with the Appropriations Committee in the other body and the administration to develop a list of projects to be funded with the remainder of $700 million in land and water conservation fund moneys that are not allocated in this legislation for either specific Federal projects or for the States?

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Abraham] in introducing the China Policy Act of 1997. This is a bill that I am proud to cosponsor and one that will send a much-needed message to the leaders of the People's Republic of China. I commend the Senator from Michigan for his efforts. The China Policy Act is an omnibus bill that covers a broad range of issues. This legislation will impose targeted sanctions against Chinese entities-- such as the military and public security apparatus--that are directly engaged in weapons proliferation and human rights abuses. In addition, this bill calls for tighter enforcement of various laws related to China, such as the ban on Chinese prison-labor goods and controls on the export of high-speed computers to China. The legislation also contains funding increases for student, cultural, and legislative exchanges between the United States and China. The China Policy Act is designed to move Congress and the American public beyond the sometimes polarizing debate over China's most- favored-nation trade status, offering realistic alternatives to revoking MFN that merit broad bipartisan support. As many of my colleagues know, I have been a strong opponent of granting MFN privileges to China and, in fact, have been an original cosponsor of the resolutions of disapproval for the past 3 years. I strongly believe that, in light of Beijing's egregious human rights record, China does not deserve to have such trade privileges with the United States. Ever since the administration delinked MFN and human rights in 1994, I have watched with alarm as the Chinese Government has heightened its political and religious persecution throughout the country. But despite my strong views on the issue, I realize that the Congress has been unable to reach a consensus on whether MFN is the best tool to pressure China to make improvements in human rights. I know that many of my colleagues share my concerns over China's human rights record, but nevertheless feel that MFN is too blunt an instrument, especially for a nation as large and diverse as China. But once you step away from the debate over the effectiveness of MFN, there is widespread agreement among Members of both the Senate and the House that the administration's current policy of constructive engagement toward China remains unsatisfactory. I believe the administration is promoting engagement for engagement's sake, not as a way to halt the many offensive behaviors of the Chinese regime. I prefer to call the administration policy not ``constructive'' engagement but rather unconditional engagement. No matter how uncooperative China is, the United States appears ready to continue business as usual with the Chinese regime. This is especially true with respect to human rights. Recent events paint a very bleak picture. In October of last year, a Chinese court sentenced Wang Dan--a leader of the Tiananmen Square protests--to 11 years in prison for peacefully expressing his prodemocracy beliefs. Seventy-six- year-old Bishop Zeng Jingmu has been sentenced to reeducation through labor for organizing religious ceremonies outside China's official Catholic Church. In Tibet, Chinese authorities have banned the display of the Dalai Lama's photograph and the State Department Human Rights Report cites three instances of Buddhist monks dying in Chinese prisons in 1996. Sadly, this represents on a tiny fraction of the human rights abuses that are taking place in China today. It would be impossible to name all of the people who are being kept behind bars for the expression of their political and religious beliefs. Yet, even as the Chinese leadership continues to brutalize political dissidents and the people of Tibet, the administration is preparing to welcome China's President, Jiang Zemin, to the White House next month. What kind of message does this send? The China Policy Act of 1997 represents the efforts of both pro- and anti-MFN Senators to find new ways to deal with the problems the United States currently faces in China. And there is no shortage of problems. I have already mentioned my primary concern, which is China's deplorable human rights record, but in addition, the Government of China continues to sell dangerous chemical and nuclear weapons technologies to terrorist and rogue regimes. China has used military intimidation to disrupt free elections in Taiwan and has harassed its neighbors in the South China Sea. Furthermore, we have all seen reports of Beijing's unfair trade practices and rampant copyright violations. This is what I refer to as a ``kaleidoscope'' of problems the United States has with China. The China Policy Act of 1997 contains targeted sanctions aimed at the organizations most directly associated with China's poor behavior. For example, the bill contains provisions imposing comprehensive sanctions against enterprises run by the People's Liberation Army that have engaged in weapons smuggling or proliferation. The United States simply should refrain from doing business with companies that create security risks to our country. This bill will also require the administration to deny United States visas to high-level Chinese officials directly connected with human rights violations and religious persecution. This provision expresses United States outrage at China's human rights abuses while still giving the President adequate waiver authority to conduct foreign policy. I am particularly pleased this bill contains strong language on human rights, an area that has been a special focus of mine. The bill includes a provision stating that the administration needs to greatly increase multilateral efforts to condemn China's human rights record. As you know, Mr. President, this past April, the U.N. Human Rights Commission failed to pass a resolution criticizing China's human rights policies. Unfortunately, the United States only began lobbying for the resolution at the last moment and, as a result of this delay, many of our allies--including France, Germany, and Canada--would not cosponsor the motion. To make our China policy more effective, the United States must do a better job of coordinating with our allies in multilateral fora. In addition to addressing a wide spectrum of issues in Sino-United States relations, the China Policy Act also gives the Senate--and the American people we represent--an important opportunity to have an extensive debate about China policy. Such a debate is long overdue, and has continued to be delayed because of the controversy surrounding MFN. It is my view that the inability of Congress to reach a consensus on MFN has led the Chinese authorities to believe that they can continue to commit gross human rights violations without facing any consequences. Unfortunately, it may be that, until now, the Beijing leadership has been right. In China's eyes, Congress has become what Chairman Mao Zedong would have called a paper tiger, something that might act ferocious, but is, in fact, harmless. However, once Congress steps out of the restrictive confines of the MFN debate, I think China will be surprised at the level of dissatisfaction in Congress toward Beijing's actions. The Chinese Government will obviously condemn this legislation because it demands that Chinese leaders live up to the international and bilateral agreements on weapons-proliferation, human rights, and trade to which China is a party. The Beijing government categorically rejects any outside scrutiny of its policies and equates good relations with a complete lack of criticism. But truly close relations between two countries can only be built when both sides fulfill their obligations and act in good faith toward one another. The China Policy Act of 1997 is intended to send a strong message that Chinese Government's actions on many fronts remains unacceptable. Unfortunately, Chinese leaders have not heard this message loudly or strongly enough in the past. They have not heard it from the U.N. Human Rights Commission. They have not heard it from our trade negotiators. And, until now, they have not heard it from the U.S. Congress. It is my view that the time has come for us to send this message clearly. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Abraham] in introducing the China Policy Act of 1997. This is a bill that I am proud to cosponsor and one that will send a much-needed message to the leaders of the People's Republic of China. I commend the Senator from Michigan for his efforts. The China Policy Act is an omnibus bill that covers a broad range of issues. This legislation will impose targeted sanctions against Chinese entities-- such as the military and public security apparatus--that are directly engaged in weapons proliferation and human rights abuses. In addition, this bill calls for tighter enforcement of various laws related to China, such as the ban on Chinese prison-labor goods and controls on the export of high-speed computers to China. The legislation also contains funding increases for student, cultural, and legislative exchanges between the United States and China. The China Policy Act is designed to move Congress and the American public beyond the sometimes polarizing debate over China's most- favored-nation trade status, offering realistic alternatives to revoking MFN that merit broad bipartisan support. As many of my colleagues know, I have been a strong opponent of granting MFN privileges to China and, in fact, have been an original cosponsor of the resolutions of disapproval for the past 3 years. I strongly believe that, in light of Beijing's egregious human rights record, China does not deserve to have such trade privileges with the United States. Ever since the administration delinked MFN and human rights in 1994, I have watched with alarm as the Chinese Government has heightened its political and religious persecution throughout the country. But despite my strong views on the issue, I realize that the Congress has been unable to reach a consensus on whether MFN is the best tool to pressure China to make improvements in human rights. I know that many of my colleagues share my concerns over China's human rights record, but nevertheless feel that MFN is too blunt an instrument, especially for a nation as large and diverse as China. But once you step away from the debate over the effectiveness of MFN, there is widespread agreement among Members of both the Senate and the House that the administration's current policy of constructive engagement toward China remains unsatisfactory. I believe the administration is promoting engagement for engagement's sake, not as a way to halt the many offensive behaviors of the Chinese regime. I prefer to call the administration policy not ``constructive'' engagement but rather unconditional engagement. No matter how uncooperative China is, the United States appears ready to continue business as usual with the Chinese regime. This is especially true with respect to human rights. Recent events paint a very bleak picture. In October of last year, a Chinese court sentenced Wang Dan--a leader of the Tiananmen Square protests--to 11 years in prison for peacefully expressing his prodemocracy beliefs. Seventy-six- year-old Bishop Zeng Jingmu has been sentenced to reeducation through labor for organizing religious ceremonies outside China's official Catholic Church. In Tibet, Chinese authorities have banned the display of the Dalai Lama's photograph and the State Department Human Rights Report cites three instances of Buddhist monks dying in Chinese prisons in 1996. Sadly, this represents on a tiny fraction of the human rights abuses that are taking place in China today. It would be impossible to name all of the people who are being kept behind bars for the expression of their political and religious beliefs. Yet, even as the Chinese leadership continues to brutalize political dissidents and the people of Tibet, the administration is preparing to welcome China's President, Jiang Zemin, to the White House next month. What kind of message does this send? The China Policy Act of 1997 represents the efforts of both pro- and anti-MFN Senators to find new ways to deal with the problems the United States currently faces in China. And there is no shortage of problems. I have already mentioned my primary concern, which is China's deplorable human rights record, but in addition, the Government of China continues to sell dangerous chemical and nuclear weapons technologies to terrorist and rogue regimes. China has used military intimidation to disrupt free elections in Taiwan and has harassed its neighbors in the South China Sea. Furthermore, we have all seen reports of Beijing's unfair trade practices and rampant copyright violations. This is what I refer to as a ``kaleidoscope'' of problems the United States has with China. The China Policy Act of 1997 contains targeted sanctions aimed at the organizations most directly associated with China's poor behavior. For example, the bill contains provisions imposing comprehensive sanctions against enterprises run by the People's Liberation Army that have engaged in weapons smuggling or proliferation. The United States simply should refrain from doing business with companies that create security risks to our country. This bill will also require the administration to deny United States visas to high-level Chinese officials directly connected with human rights violations and religious persecution. This provision expresses United States outrage at China's human rights abuses while still giving the President adequate waiver authority to conduct foreign policy. I am particularly pleased this bill contains strong language on human rights, an area that has been a special focus of mine. The bill includes a provision stating that the administration needs to greatly increase multilateral efforts to condemn China's human rights record. As you know, Mr. President, this past April, the U.N. Human Rights Commission failed to pass a resolution criticizing China's human rights policies. Unfortunately, the United States only began lobbying for the resolution at the last moment and, as a result of this delay, many of our allies--including France, Germany, and Canada--would not cosponsor the motion. To make our China policy more effective, the United States must do a better job of coordinating with our allies in multilateral fora. In addition to addressing a wide spectrum of issues in Sino-United States relations, the China Policy Act also gives the Senate--and the American people we represent--an important opportunity to have an extensive debate about China policy. Such a debate is long overdue, and has continued to be delayed because of the controversy surrounding MFN. It is my view that the inability of Congress to reach a consensus on MFN has led the Chinese authorities to believe that they can continue to commit gross human rights violations without facing any consequences. Unfortunately, it may be that, until now, the Beijing leadership has been right. In China's eyes, Congress has become what Chairman Mao Zedong would have called a paper tiger, something that might act ferocious, but is, in fact, harmless. However, once Congress steps out of the restrictive confines of the MFN debate, I think China will be surprised at the level of dissatisfaction in Congress toward Beijing's actions. The Chinese Government will obviously condemn this legislation because it demands that Chinese leaders live up to the international and bilateral agreements on weapons-proliferation, human rights, and trade to which China is a party. The Beijing government categorically rejects any outside scrutiny of its policies and equates good relations with a complete lack of criticism. But truly close relations between two countries can only be built when both sides fulfill their obligations and act in good faith toward one another. The China Policy Act of 1997 is intended to send a strong message that Chinese Government's actions on many fronts remains unacceptable. Unfortunately, Chinese leaders have not heard this message loudly or strongly enough in the past. They have not heard it from the U.N. Human Rights Commission. They have not heard it from our trade negotiators. And, until now, they have not heard it from the U.S. Congress. It is my view that the time has come for us to send this message clearly. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to submit a resolution which I hope all of my colleagues will support. Milk is produced in every State of this country and in recent months the dairy farmers who produce that milk have suffered from unusually low milk prices. I am pleased to be joined in offering this resolution by the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], my senior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan], and both Senators from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux and Ms. Landrieu] all of whom have worked hard over the past 10 months to find solutions to the problem of low milk prices. The resolution we are introducing today expresses the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Agriculture should use his administrative authority under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 to set a temporary emergency price floor under milk prices. Mr. President, as I am sure many Members are aware, milk prices have fallen in the past several months to levels far below the amount it costs many dairy farmers to produce that milk. In fact, the basic formula price for milk as calculated by USDA for every month since April has been below the cost of producing milk for all regions of the country--including the lowest cost milk producers in California. This situation might be bearable if dairy farmers had any assurance that prices might rebound--that the financial strain they are under would be alleviated--but many predictions about milk prices over the past 10 months have simply proven inaccurate. Last fall, milk prices fell from $14.13 per hundred pounds in October to $11.61 in November. This dramatic decline in milk prices was nearly unprecedented. And while milk prices were strong prior to the milk price collapse last fall, the higher prices of mid-1996 reflected the extremely high cost of feed last year which left dairy farmers with little to show from those high milk prices. Feed is the single most important, and most expensive, input to milk production. It is frequently the case that the cost of the input--in this case, forage and feed grains such as corn--is reflected in the cost of the output-- milk. So while some dairy producers may have found 1996 to be a good year, many more were struggling under high feed bills that still had to be paid long after the strong milk prices had evaporated. Despite the milk price crash late last year, many dairy farmers had expressed optimism for 1997 as milk prices incrementally rose early this year, and were expected to continue to rise throughout the year. Many of my colleagues joined me and other dairy State Senators in asking the Secretary of Agriculture to take administrative steps to shore up milk prices, such as making advance purchases of cheese and other dairy products for the school lunch and breakfast programs and to export more dairy products under the Dairy Export Incentive Program. The Secretary took a number of steps in that regard that may have facilitated the slight increase in milk prices and we thank him for his efforts. Unfortunately, the milk price recovery was not sustained and in May, the basic formula price for milk hit a 6-year low of $10.70 per hundredweight and remained at roughly that level throughout the summer. Even the mailbox milk prices--that is, the milk prices that farmers are actually paid including all premiums--were below the cost of production for many milk producing regions of the country this summer. These tight margins have squeezed even the most efficient operators and have placed a great deal of financial stress on small- to mid-size family dairy farms who are less able to absorb the price shocks. While the recently announced basic formula price for August increased milk prices by about $1.00 per hundredweight, few farmers believe this is enough for them to continue to pay their bills through the fall and many farmers are skeptical that prices will increase much beyond this level. Mr. President, it has been a long summer for dairy farmers who have come to Washington today to demand our action and our support. They have brought with them thousands of petitions from farmers, rural residents, and agribusinesses seeking emergency price relief for milk producers. It is in response to those petitions, the hard work that has gone into gathering the signatures, and the months of exasperatingly low milk prices that we introduce this resolution today. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support their dairy farmers by supporting this resolution. This resolution simply expresses the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Agriculture should use the substantial administrative authority and discretion the Congress has provided him under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 to provide temporary emergency price relief to dairy farmers throughout the Nation. The resolution stipulates that such price relief will be provided in a manner that is equitable to farmers throughout the country. As many of my colleagues know, dairy policy has frequently been embroiled in regional battles over pricing. This resolution stipulates that all producers will receive the same price relief regardless of where they milk their cows. Many Senators have already asked the Secretary to implement this type of emergency price floor. Earlier this year over 30 Senators from all regions of the country contacted the Secretary urging that he provide price relief for economically stressed dairy farmers. And those requests came even before prices hit bottom this summer. I urge those Senators to join me in sponsoring this resolution. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, however, has indicated that he needs more than just letters from Senators to provide this type of emergency price relief. Rather, he indicated in a July 9 letter to the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee [Mr. Lugar and Mr. Harkin] that he needs Congress to provide a more formal expression of support for temporary emergency price relief for dairy farmers. This resolution, when agreed to by the Senate, will provide the Secretary with the support he needs to provide milk price relief. The resolution, while directing the Secretary to take action, provides him with flexibility in providing price relief. If milk prices do indeed recover this fall, a price floor may be unnecessary and the Secretary will be able to take that into account. However, analysts are unsure as to what milk prices will ultimately be this fall when they normally reach their peak. High levels of nonfat dry milk stocks may continue to depress prices through the end of the year. Some might ask why dairy farmers should be given this assistance. The answer, Mr. President, is that a temporary emergency price floor is necessary because unlike other commodity producers, dairy farmers were singled out in the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act by having their only support mechanism--price supports--phased out. No other commodity program was terminated by the 1996 FAIR Act. Dairy farmers were not provided with the ``Freedom to Farm'' payments that have been provided to wheat and feed grain producers each year regardless of crop prices. These payments, also known as transition payments, were provided to crop producers in order to help them transition to a market without Government intervention. However, no transitional income assistance has been provided for milk producers even though their commodity program has been, in effect, eliminated. Similarly, while wheat and feed grain producers, as well as producers of many other commodities, have federally subsidized crop insurance available to help them manage their production risk, and in some cases, their price risk as well, there is no USDA insurance program for milk production. While producers of other commodities may be able to hedge their price and production risk using high volume futures and options markets that have operated in those commodities for decades, dairy farmers have no such markets to rely on. While futures and options markets exist for dairy products, the trading volumes for most of these markets are so low that few farmers are able to use them. For whatever reason, Mr. President, dairy farmers were not provided the tools to weather a transition to a more market oriented agricultural sector. Mr. President, I am not a strong advocate of Government intervention in dairy markets. I have seen the types of division and inequity that Federal involvement in dairy policy and milk prices can create in the dairy industry. So, I do not introduce this resolution lightly. But if there was ever a time for the Federal Government to step in to help dairy farmers, it is now. During the month of August, I traveled throughout Wisconsin conducting the listening sessions which I hold in each county, each year. And in the 15 years I have represented Wisconsin farmers, I have never seen a greater sense of despair among farmers and other rural residents. Mr. President, there is a sense in the countryside that Washington, DC, has turned a blind eye to the low milk prices of 1997. While that might be a misperception, as I know many of my colleagues have worked with me to find solutions to low milk prices, it is understandable that farmers feel this way. Farmers began asking for this type of price relief at the end of 1996 and 9 months later, nothing has come of that request. That must change. Mr. President, we must act now to provide some very short-term relief that will help economically distressed dairy farmers through this milk price crisis. We can do that by passing the resolution we are introducing today. The long-term solutions to volatile milk prices and farm income are more nebulous and we must work to address them. But first, we must take some steps to lessen the immediate financial strain on farm families throughout the Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for his efforts to include language in this appropriations bill relating to the Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare. I also want to thank his colleague, the senior Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley], who chairs the Senate Special Committee on Aging, for joining me in advocating some additional direction to the Commission with respect to long-term care. I very much enjoy working with Senator Grassley on the Aging Committee, where he has continued a long tradition of bipartisanship. Mr. President, the language added to the bill at our request touches on one aspect of an enormously important segment of health care, namely long-term care. I have been deeply involved in long-term care issues for nearly 15 years, and have advocated significant reforms to our current system both at the State and Federal level. Mr. President, many will recall that as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, we created the so-called National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare. Established because of the need to reform and modernize the principal health care system of our Nation's seniors, that Commission will examine a host of issues relating to health care coverage and will make recommendations that we hope can lead to an improved Medicare system, one which will not only deliver better health care but also provide some relief from the growing pressure Medicare has been placing on our Federal budget. One of the key issues to be examined by the Commission is the area of chronic disease and disability. Mr. President, effective treatment of individuals with chronic health care needs requires a combination of acute and preventive care, disease management, health monitoring, and long-term care services and supports. However, as it is now structured, the Medicare fee-for- service program responds to specific and discrete episodes of care through separate providers, and often discourages timely, coordinated cost-effective chronic care. Mr. President, more than 20 percent of Medicare beneficiaries today have chronic health care needs, and they are the fastest growing segment of the Medicare population. A major part of the health care for these beneficiaries with chronic needs are the long-term care services and supports which are separately financed by beneficiaries and their families, or, for those without personal resources, by Medicaid and the States. This latter group of people with chronic care needs, those who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid, help make up a particularly important group of beneficiaries. The so-called dually eligible make up about one-sixth of the population of these two programs, but account for nearly one-third of program expenditures and rightly have captured the attention of policy makers as one of the critical targets for policy reforms in the two programs. As a recent hearing of the Aging Committee revealed, the lack of coordination between these two programs, and more generally between Medicare and long-term care, creates perverse incentives for cost-shifting in the health care system, and often results in excess cost, inappropriate care, or no care at all. Mr. President, while the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare is already directed to examine this critical population, our proposal goes further be specifically calling on the Commission to examine the potential for coordinating Medicare with cost-effective long-term care services. Mr. President, I want to underscore the language we had included in the bill does not limit or even specify what the Commission might consider in reviewing the potential for coordinating Medicare with long-term care services. But there are a number of matters deserving the Commission's attention that I want to highlight, including the success of a number of States, such as Wisconsin, in developing effective long-term care programs built on flexible delivery systems that deliver more cost-effective, individualized care. The Commission should also take a particularly close look at efforts which build upon the existing system of informal supports, often provided by family members and friends, that currently account for the vast majority of long-term care provided in this country. More generally, while the primary focus of the Commission will be the future of Medicare, as the Commission calculates the future cost of the current Medicare program, I urge it take into consideration the total costs of care for individuals with chronic illnesses and disabilities, including the cost of long-term care services and supports, whether those costs accrue to Medicare, Medicaid, private insurers, or beneficiaries and their families. It is neither good budgeting policy nor good health care policy to partition off health care service planning, making changes to one program while ignoring the effect those changes will have in other areas. Mr. President, unlike the near-term focus of the budget process, the recommendations that we expect the Commission will make regarding Medicare will be based on a much longer and broader view. Some of the defects of the current Medicare program are arguably the result of short-term budget considerations that have led to unintended, sometimes expensive consequences. By taking a broader view, the Commission can avoid some of these past errors, and possibly contribute to one of the highest health care priorities we have, the need for significant long- term care reform. amendment no. 1074

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished managers of this bill for including language in the managers' amendment at my request. The amendment I intended to offer, which has been included in the managers' amendment, directs the Department of Education to conduct a study of the economic costs of addressing our Nation's burgeoning elementary and secondary student enrollment, projected to grow by over 2 million young people in the next decade, and the expected impact that this growth will have on student achievement. It directs the Department to estimate the costs to local school districts, States, and the Federal Government of the upcoming surge in enrollment, and to outline policy options for addressing this issue and make recommendations to resolve it. In estimating the costs and impact on students of increasing enrollment and making policy recommendations to address this problem, the study will also consider the costs and benefits of reducing class sizes in the earliest grades. Mr. President, parents are increasingly interested in enrolling their young children in schools that place an emphasis on small class size and individualized attention from teachers. Cities and States across the country are developing programs to help schools meet this goal. California's statewide initiative to reduce all classes in grades K-3 to no more than 20 students is the most ambitious, but by no means the only example. In my own State of Wisconsin, the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education, or SAGE, Program was developed several years ago to study the benefits of small class size in schools with high poverty rates. With student-teacher ratios of 15:1, the program is extremely popular with students, parents, teachers, and school administrators. Although is has only been implemented in a relatively small number of Wisconsin communities thus far, the reason for the program's widespread appeal is obvious--with fewer students in the classroom, teachers have more time and energy to devote to meeting children's particular needs and helping to spark their interest in learning in creative ways. This may seem like common sense, and it is--but now, we have science to back up what parents and teachers have known for years. Research indicates that children who are placed in small classes-- classes of 15 to 20 students--in the earliest years of elementary school achieve better academically than their peers in larger classes. These benefits are retained in later years of school, even if students are not kept in small classes for later grades. The leading scientific studies of the impact of small class size, Tennessee's STAR study and its follow-up, the Lasting Benefits Study, found that small class sizes in grades K-3 produce substantial improvements in learning which are sustained in later years, even if students are placed in larger classes for later grades. Unfortunately, at the very time that States and localities are starting to apply the lessons learned in the Tennessee studies, many of our Nation's schools are on the brink of an explosion in student enrollment. According to a report released last month by Education Secretary Richard Riley, entitled ``A Back to School Special Report on the Baby Boom Echo: Here Come the Teenagers,'' there will be more elementary and secondary students in America this school year than there ever have been before. These increases will occur primarily among secondary school students; public high school enrollment is projected to increase by 13% in the next 10 years, while elementary school enrollment will increase only slightly. Total public and private school enrollment in the 1997-98 school year will rise to a record level of 52.2 million students, and it won't stop there. By the year 2007, total enrollment is expected to peak at 54.3 million students. Mr. President, this is a problem that isn't going away. Unlike our past experience with the baby boom, when there was a sharp rise in student enrollment which eventually declined, the U.S. Bureau of the Census projects that the number of births will remain stable or even increase slightly in the next few decades. States and local school districts are going to have to develop strategies for accommodating and educating very large numbers of students. This is likely to be costly, and will require creative solutions and the balancing of priorities. To some degree, this is a regional problem. Wisconsin, for example, along with many States in the Midwest, will actually experience small decreases in student population in the next decade. However, this will certainly not be the case in every community in my State, or in any of the States which are projected to experience decreases in student enrollment. Across the Nation, school districts are going to need to adapt to their larger student bodies, at the same time that many of them, rightly, will be investing in the creation of smaller classes for their early elementary students. Mr. President, smaller class sizes are the wave of the future. Parents want them, students benefit from them, and schools are recognizing the need. I thank my colleagues, the Senators from Pennsylvania and Iowa, once again for accepting my amendment, which will lay out options for schools to consider as they plan for a future with smaller classes and larger enrollment. amendment no. 1104 (Purpose: To increase funding for the National Occupational Information Coordinating Committee, offset by reducing other national activities) On page 3, line 3 strike ``$8,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof: ``$10,000,000''.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to a beloved figure in Wisconsin politics, William Osborne Hart, who passed away on August 22. As a longtime activist in the State's Socialist Party, Hart ran for political office 25 times, and lost 25 times. He spread his message by running for office, and understood that he didn't need to win to make a difference. He once said ``I don't buy that Vince Lombardi nonsense that winning is everything. Change is everything. Most politicians in American life who win have lost their souls.'' William Hart brought about change by challenging his opponents, and the voters, with his ideas. He was a champion of the Bill of Rights, and always remained so, refusing to compromise when it was politically unpopular. A tireless political organizer, Hart was a cornerstone of Wisconsin's Socialist Party and helped found Wisconsin's Labor and Farm Party. A great example of Hart's tenacity was his run for the Presidency in 1984. Though he was a well-known politician in his home State, Hart was almost kept off Wisconsin's Presidential primary ballot, not considered a viable candidate because he lacked national media exposure. He refused to abide by a decision that equated the ability to buy television time with the right to run for office, and sued for a place on the ballot with the Wisconsin branch of the American Civil Liberties Union. Hart won his lawsuit and scored an important legal victory. He didn't win the primary, but he did make a difference. ``I've always said that if I won an election, the first thing I'd do is demand a recount,'' said Hart, who loved to say that he'd once come ``dangerously close'' to winning a seat on the Madison school board. In 1992, at 80 years old, Hart ran in his 25th and last election. Walking with two canes and suffering from heart problems, most people would have decided 24 times was enough. But Hart defied convention to the end, and exemplified integrity and commitment to those who knew him. Though he felt strongly about politics, Hart never let partisanship get the better of him. His dignity, kindness and humor won him the respect and friendship of people across the political spectrum. He was also a deeply religious man who often acted as a lay preacher and was inspired by faith in everything he did. His message has resonated with me and so many others because of its simple truth: being true to your own beliefs is the highest ideal. I have tried to heed Hart's message in my own life, and I'll always be grateful for his example of political courage.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, last week this Nation lost a true American hero with the passing of former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan. The contributions of William Brennan to our democratic way of life are many and will continue, long after his passing, to touch the lives of people all across this Nation in the most important and fundamental ways. Always a staunch and unrelenting defender of individual liberty, William Brennan helped to preserve many important rights that each of us, as Americans, enjoy today. He fought relentlessly to preserve the right to vote, the right to free expression, and the right to be treated as an equal with your fellow citizens. His legacy is one that honors the fundamental notion that in America, the individual truly does matter. In terms of length of service on the Supreme Court and number of opinions written, William Brennan ranks near the top. However, to reduce his career to these simple numbers is to diminish the scope and importance of William Brennan in shaping this Nation's constitutional law. Many of Brennan's most significant decisions were decided by narrow margins and it is a testament not only to the undeniability of Justice Brennan's often cited Irish charm, but also to the power of his intellect that he could draw diverse Justices together to support important decisions which he drafted. In this regard, he may never be equaled. Mr. President, there are many reasons to admire and respect William Brennan. He was a man of enormous dignity and compassion. His intellect and reasoning, second to none. Although there are many areas which one could point to in order to highlight the greatness of William Brennan, I will note just two that are significant to me. First, his unrelenting defense of the first amendment right to free expression. Because of William Brennan, the media in this Nation retains the right to criticize the government, to show the American people what goes on in their elected bodies--in other words, to hold us accountable. Absent this right, the credibility of our democracy and our form of government would be, in my opinion, greatly diminished. William Brennan understood that if the first amendment was to mean anything, it must protect that expression which was not popular. In upholding the first amendment in regard to flag desecration, Justice Brennan wrote that; If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. In typical Brennan fashion, his opinion was joined by four colleagues of diverse perspectives, Justices Marshall, Blackmun, Kennedy, and Scalia. In regard to capital punishment, Brennan remained steadfastly opposed. Although he acknowledged that his view was the minority, he maintained until the end that the death penalty was violative of the eighth amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. In his estimation, a system which treated human beings as nonhuman or objects simply to be toyed with and disregarded was simply not protected by the U.S. Constitution. In the wake of Justice Brennan's death I am reminded that just a few short weeks ago, a Member of the House of Representatives who supports the death penalty, stated on a national news program that someday in America we will execute an innocent person. He argued that while we don't want to do that, and will try to prevent it, it is an inevitable consequence of having capital punishment. This is a staggering, yet candid, statement which I think, makes Justice Brennan's point in a very stark and chilling way. Justice Brennan may well have been on the minority on capital punishment Mr. President, that is not to say however, that his position was incorrect. Mr. President, there is no question that Justice Brennan was a man that I admired. His opinions were reasoned, intelligent, and always consistent with the notion that in America the rights of the individual, no matter his or her background, upbringing, political ideology, or religious beliefs, mattered. That simple, yet often overlooked notion is the foundation of our democracy and was the cornerstone of Justice Brennan's approach to the law. He was truly the most influential Justice of his time. And while I certainly add my name to the list of those who mourn his passing, I also join those who celebrate the richness of his life and the countless opinions which helped improve the lot of millions of Americans. Ours is a better Nation because of William Brennan. However, Mr. President, the greatest measure of William Brennan is not one taken from afar--from simply reading his opinions or following the public persona--but from those closest to him, his family, friends, and those who sat with him on the bench. In this regard the comments of his colleagues are telling. Justice Souter called Brennan the most fearlessly principled guardian of the Constitution that has ever lived. Justice Scalia, a jurist often at philosophical odds with Brennan called him the most influential Justice of this century. Justice Kennedy called him a great friend of freedom, not only for those who enjoy freedom, but also those who seek it. Justice Clarence Thomas was quoted recently as saying that there simply isn't a more decent or brilliant human being than William Brennan. From these great jurists of diverse backgrounds and ideological perspective, the message is the same; William Brennan's contribution was undeniable, important, and lasting. It is not surprising Mr. President, that even in saying good- bye, Justice Brennan has once again forged a diverse coalition.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to offer a few comments on the recently negotiated bipartisan budget agreement. The past few months have been truly historic. We have seen both parties come to the table in good faith and negotiate a budget agreement that puts us on the track toward a balanced unified budget. And all of that has been done without a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Indeed, as I have noted before, I am convinced the presence of such an amendment would only have delayed such an agreement, perhaps by a decade or more. Mr. President, balancing our budget has been my highest priority as a Member of this body. I ran on that issue in 1992, and I am pleased that we will enact a budget package that puts us on track to achieve that goal. As we congratulate ourselves on fashioning this agreement, however, we should recall that this agreement would not have been possible without the President's deficit reduction package enacted in 1993, a package some now estimate will achieve approximately $2 trillion in deficit reduction between 1993 and 2002. The heavy lifting needed to balance the budget was done in that package, and while this budget agreement puts the finishing touches on the work of eliminating the deficit, it was that 1993 budget package that made it much easier to reach an agreement. But Mr. President, though I am pleased we are on track to balancing the unified budget, I have mixed feelings with regard to the specifics of the tax cutting aspects of the bipartisan agreement. As the headline of the editorial in yesterday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel stated, this budget deal is well-intentioned, but flawed. I am particularly concerned at what appears to be backsliding on our commitment to fiscal prudence and responsible budgeting by passing a tax cut before we have eliminated our budget deficit. As the editorial stated, ``any balanced budget strategy that also cuts tax revenue is inherently risky.'' The tax-cut package in this agreement has the strong odor of business as usual about it, a return to the 1980's when politicians stumbled over themselves to promise newer and bigger tax cuts without regard to our budget deficit. The result was an explosion of deficits and debt which has taken years to contain. Even now, we are still coping with the legacy of fiscally irresponsible tax cuts. I was the first Member of either body to oppose the tax cut proposals of both parties nearly 3 years ago, and I am disappointed to see that some of the concerns I expressed then have been realized. Instead of remaining focused on how to balance the budget in the near term and how to address the fiscal pressures facing the budget in the long term, much of the discussion between the negotiators of both parties amounted to a tax cut auction, with each side bidding up their own favorite tax cuts in an appeal for political credit. As I noted almost 3 years ago, a tax cut bidding war will only serve to undercut the efforts we have already made and the work which remains to get our budget under control. Aside from the fiscal hole tax cuts produce, they divert us from the tough and unpleasant task of finding needed spending cuts. Mr. President, who wouldn't rather talk about cutting taxes than cutting programs that people like? Unfortunately, to some extent, this is what has happened in the budget agreement, with the result that the goal of a balanced budget may be taking a back seat to the more politically appealing debate of how to cut taxes. The evidence is fairly compelling in this regard, Mr. President, and both political parties are at fault. The movement of any tax-cut bill while we are still experiencing budget deficits is the most obvious sign. Moreover, that tax cut measure has grown over the past few weeks. In order to accommodate all their constituencies, negotiators for both parties produced a tax cut package even bigger than the plan agreed to this spring. And, there is reason to believe that in order to accommodate this expanded tax-cut package, the budget negotiators resorted to what some would describe as accounting gimmicks. Mr. President, these signs all indicate a potentially troubling trend. The desire of the negotiators for an even larger tax cut was such they were willing to resort to cooking the budget books. It is fair to conclude the national priority of fiscal prudence and a balanced budget are in danger of being pushed aside by politically motivated tax-cut proposals. Mr. President, let me be clear. I very much want to support a significant tax cut, but I won't support one until we balance the books. We do a disservice to those who elect us if we help shift the focus away from fiscally sound budgeting and instead promote self- serving but fiscally irresponsible tax cuts. At the time we passed the budget resolution, I expressed my concern that while the tax cut agreement might be sustainable as part of the shorter-term budget resolution, it could become unsustainable in the long run, and I am concerned that this is just what happened. The tax-cut package which passed the Senate was heavily backloaded with an annual cost of $54 billion. The negotiated tax-cut package produced by the conferees is even worse, and while accounting gimmicks and timing shifts might help achieve technical balance in 2002, they do not alleviate the problems we will face when the retiring baby boomer generation will put increased pressure on the budget. According to analysis done by the tax watchdog group Citizens for Tax Justice, the actual annual cost of this tax measure will be $64 billion, even larger than the cost of the bill as it left the Senate, and over twice the annual cost of the President's proposed tax cut. Mr. President, as I noted before, I very much want to support a tax cut, but it simply isn't fiscally responsible to enact a tax measure with an annual cost of $64 billion before we have balanced our budget. Balancing the budget must be our first priority, and this tax measure is inconsistent with that goal. Having noted my concerns about the tax package, however, let me conclude by expressing my support for the reconciliation measure which cuts spending. As I noted earlier, the bipartisan package is truly historic, and I applaud the work done by the negotiators from both parties who helped craft that measure. Certainly more needs to be done. The Medicare Program needs to be further strengthened and modernized, as does the Medicaid Program. As I have stated frequently, one of our highest priorities must be to reform our current long-term care system which is largely funded through Medicaid. I have introduced legislation which would implement reforms in this area, and I very much hope we can begin that absolutely critical task soon. We also need to continue to cut spending in Federal programs. Though we may be on track to achieve balance in the unified budget by 2002, we must dedicate ourselves to achieving the next goal of ridding the Federal budget of its dependence on the surpluses generated by the Social Security trust fund. Those surpluses mask our true budget condition, and if we are to ensure retirees will receive the benefits to which they are entitled, we need to pursue further spending cuts now. We must cut spending also to begin to pay down the massive national debt, the bulk of which was generated between 1980 and 1992, and which continue to require increasingly large interest payments--payments that account for a growing portion of our annual budget. We must cut spending also so we can enact a fiscally responsible tax cut, one whose benefits are distributed equitably to families at all income levels. Finally, we need to cut spending to ensure Government works more efficiently and effectively and to bolster the credibility and national confidence in our Government. The work of cutting spending and reducing the deficit which was accomplished by the 1993 budget package, and to a lesser extent by the bipartisan budget plan negotiated this week, must continue. I very much hope the bipartisan efforts which led to this year's agreement can continue as we pursue those further spending cuts. I congratulate the negotiators from both parties for their efforts on the reconciliation measure which does the real work, the spending reduction measure, and look forward to working with them in taking the next steps toward further spending cuts to balance the budget without using Social Security trust funds, begin to pay down the national debt, fund a fiscally fair and responsible tax cut, and to make Government programs more efficient and more effective. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the editorial titled ``Budget Deal Well-Intentioned, But Flawed'' from the Wednesday, July 30, 1997 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for an excellent presentation this morning. We are very much looking forward to September. Let me include, because know various Senators have to go to Governmental Affairs Committee, one last anecdote. The chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Thompson, the other day heard reference to the McCain-Feingold bill, and he corrected it saying it's actually been called the McCain-Feingold-Thompson bill. I think that is a good sign for the future of our legislation. I thank the Chair. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. We are delighted to have the persistence and expertise of the Senator from Michigan on this effort. I yield all but 30 seconds to my friend from Georgia.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am extremely grateful for the work of Senator Collins on this issue. I now yield to the Senator from Michigan such time as he may require.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I require. Mr. President, it is truly a pleasure to be here on the floor with my friend and colleague and fellow campaign finance reformer from Arizona, the senior Senator, Mr. McCain, as well as our other colleagues who join with us today, including the junior Senator from Maine, Senator Collins, and shortly expected the senior Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, and, of course, my good friend, the junior Senator from Georgia, Mr. Cleland. We are all among a group of 33 Members of this body who have already cosponsored the McCain-Feingold legislation. As the Senator from Arizona said, we are here today to announce that we will be seeking consideration of bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation during the month of September. We will continue our discussions, as the Senator from Arizona indicated, with the majority leader. And I am hopeful that we will be able to reach a compromise that will allow us to have an open public debate on this issue, and allow all Senators the opportunity to participate in offering amendments to our proposal. However, as the Senator from Arizona has just indicated, if such an agreement with the majority leader cannot be reached, we are prepared to use other legislative proposals as a vehicle for campaign finance reform. That is not our preference. But we are committed to having a discussion of this issue and making sure there are votes on campaign finance reform during the month of September. We have said for some time now--and the Senator from Arizona just reiterated--that our bipartisan proposal is far from perfect. We have repeatedly told Senators on both sides of the aisle that we are open to making changes for modifications to this package. We do have some fundamental issues, however, that we will not waiver on. First, this proposal will ban soft money. The days when corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals could make unlimited contributions to the national parties will be over. Second, the proposal must try to level the playing field between incumbents and challengers. Currently, we have a system that provides incumbent Senators with a reelection rate of 90 to 95 percent and provides virtually no assistance to legitimate challengers who are essentially being shut out of the democratic process. We must provide an opportunity for candidates, particularly underfunded challengers taking on well-entrenched incumbents, to run a competitive campaign without having to raise and spend millions of dollars. Finally, Mr. President, whatever package of reforms we consider and whatever modifications we are willing to make, those reforms must be balanced and bipartisan. I am pleased at this point, Mr. President, to insert into the Record a statement today from the President of the United States, William J. Clinton, with regard to the campaign finance reform legislation. Mr. President, I would now like to read from the President's statement, which he asked us to present as a part of this presentation. The President says: In my State-of-the-Union Address, I called on Congress to enact bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation. I said that delay could be the death of reform, and urged Congress to move forward quickly. I strongly support the decision by Senators McCain and Feingold to bring campaign finance reform legislation to the floor of Congress in September for a vote. The problem with the role of money in presidential and congressional elections are plain. Since the campaign finance laws were last overhauled two and a half decades ago, the system has been overwhelmed by a flood of campaign cash. Both political parties are now engaged in an ever-escalating arms race for campaign funds. The consequences for our political system are clear; there is too much money in politics, and it takes too much time to raise. To make sure that ordinary citizens have the loudest voice in our democracy, we must act to change the campaign finance laws. This year, I have asked the FEC to ban so called ``soft money'' to parties; I have asked the Federal Communications Commission to require broadcasters to provide free TV time to candidates; and the Justice Department has indicated it will defend spending limits in the courts. But these steps, however important, are no substitute for legislation. America needs--and the American people demand--strong, comprehensive campaign finance reform legislation. As the new century approaches, we have an opportunity and an obligation to restore the trust of the American people in their politics-- and this is our chance to do it. For years, the special interests and their allies have blocked reform. This year, those who seek to continue special interest influence as usual will filibuster again. But this year, we have an opportunity to come together across party lines to act and pass reform that cleans up the campaign finance system. September will be the time for members of the Senate to stand up and be counted for reform. I will do what I can to see to it that 1997 is finally the year that it is achieved. Mr. President, we welcome the support and enthusiasm of the President of the United States for our effort. The Senators who are here on the floor today have joined together across party and ideological lines to produce a compromise package that I like to refer to as moderate, mutual disarmament. We have already heard the top 10 excuses for why we can't pass campaign finance reform. And frankly, I am amazed at some of the absurd arguments we have heard from opponents of reform. We have been told, ridiculously enough, that there is not enough money flowing through our campaign system. That argument, incidently, is greeted with laughter every time I tell my constituents in Wisconsin that there are some folks in Washington who actually believe we need more money in our political system. We have been told that our proposal is somehow inconsistent with the first amendment--a giant red herring given that a number of the leading nonpartisan, first amendment scholars in the country, including the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, have all said otherwise. We have been told that reform is not possible without a constitutional amendment, an argument all too familiar to those of us who were told that we could not have a balanced budget without a constitutional amendment. We have been told that the Senate does not have enough courage to pass meaningful reform and that, once again, we should delegate responsibility to some sort of commission. We have been told by some that this bill goes too far, and interestingly, by others that it does not go far enough. Some might point to that as the working definition of a moderate proposal. We have been told that the American people do not care about this issue, despite numerous public opinion polls demonstrating 80 to 90 percent of the American people in support of these reforms. We have been told that this issue requires further study, despite 29 sets of hearings, 76 CRS reports and 522 different witnesses testifying on this issue over the last decade. We have been told that the outrageous fundraising practices that we witnessed in the last election and which have spawned congressional investigations, a Justice Department investigation, an FBI investigation, and a CIA investigation, and have led to charges of espionage, corruption and undue influence were ``a healthy sign of a vibrant democracy.'' In short Mr. President, we have heard more phony excuses than are heard by a high school vice-principal's office. Fortunately, no one is buying these excuses. Not the Senators who are standing here on the floor today and certainly not the American people. I look forward to having a public discussion during the month of September about the role of money in our political system. And I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in passing meaningful, bipartisan campaign finance reform in 1997. Mr. President, I want to conclude, as the Senator from Arizona did, by just mentioning the folks that are here on the floor with us today. Obviously, I have already talked about my great feelings about working with Senator McCain on this, but I know that the other three Senators we are going to hear from--Senator Collins, Senator Levin, and Senator Cleland--who are all members of the Governmental Affairs Committee, are intimately aware of what is wrong with our system. They have taken the time to come down here today to put forth a message, as Senator Cleland has done so well at the hearings. He has asked a number of witnesses, ``Would these things have happened had McCain-Feingold been enacted?'' The answer in every case was, ``No.'' So that is the challenge before us. Mr. President, at this point I would like to yield such time as she requires to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Arizona such time as he may require.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, last month, this Nation lost one of its most distinguished scholars when J. Willard Hurst, Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin, died at his home. He was 86. Professor Hurst was that wonderful and rare combination of truly gifted scholar and great teacher. Indeed, his scholarship was so profound, it was responsible for the creation of a new field of study, and today Willard Hurst is widely recognized as the Founding Father of American legal history. Hurst was born in Rockford, IL in 1910. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Williams College in 1932 and went on to Harvard Law School, where he graduated at the top of his class in 1935. Hurst worked as a research fellow for Prof. Felix Frankfurter, who was later named to the U.S. Supreme Court, and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis before heading to Wisconsin, at Brandeis's suggestion, where he joined the University of Wisconsin law school faculty. When Hurst first joined the law school faculty, Dean Lloyd Garrison encouraged him to design a program in law and society that investigated how the State's legal system and economy related to each other. Hurst began that project by studying the law's impact on the State's lumber industry, research that would result in his seminal work, ``Law and Economic Growth: The Legal History of the Wisconsin Lumber Industry.'' That landmark study chronicled the social and economic forces that shaped and used the laws of property, contracts, accident compensation, and other legal areas to destroy the greatest natural stand of timber in the world between 1830 and 1900. That work was a classic application of the new scholarly discipline of American legal history, a discipline Hurst himself had created--his great legacy and a field he dominated directly or indirectly even in retirement. As Lawrence M. Friedman of Stanford Law School was quoted as saying of legal historians, ``You're either a Hurstian or a revisor of Hurst.'' In a 1990 article in the New York Times about Professor Hurst, David Margolick wrote of the state of the study of law when Hurst attended law school. ``The law was a self-contained science and the law library its laboratory,'' Margolick reported. ``One need not study how law actually affected people or how legal institutions evolved; all wisdom could be gleaned from appellate decisions. This approach not only gave law professors a shot at omniscience but also spared them from having to learn other disciplines, set foot in a courtroom or state legislature, or even step outside.'' As Margolick added, from the moment he arrived at the University of Wisconsin Law School, Professor Hurst changed all that. University of Wisconsin Emeritus Law Professor Bill Foster said Hurst forced people to think of problems separate from the law in an historic sense and think about the economic, social and political consequences. ``He trained us to see around corners.'' As Stanford Professor Hendrik Hartog noted, Hurst's interest in the relationship between the law and social sciences, especially economics, was really a study of how law was experienced by people. That approach to studying law found a nurturing home at the University of Wisconsin, which was heavily influenced by the so-called Wisconsin Idea, the Progressive Era philosophy which encouraged scholars to view the entire State as their campus, and which envisioned academics as a vital resource for reform-minded government. Willard Hurst and Wisconsin were a perfect match. Hurst loved Wisconsin. On three occasions he turned down offers to be Dean of the Yale Law School. He also turned down the offer of a chair at Harvard. Hurst said, ``I guess I was just too pleasure-loving. I was having too good a time in Wisconsin.'' At Wisconsin, Hurst was a prolific writer, contributing to law reviews, writing articles, and authoring over a dozen books, including ``The Law Makers'' (1950), ``Law and Conditions of Freedom'' (1956), ``Law and Social Process in U.S. History'' (1960), ``Justice Holmes on Legal History'' (1964), and ``A Legal History of Money in the United States'' (1973). Hurst was more than a great original thinker. He was an enormously talented and caring teacher. Robben Fleming, former president of the University of Michigan and former Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin, said that Hurst was the finest teacher he ever had. University of Wisconsin Law Professor Stewart Macaulay said Hurst was wonderfully generous. ``What Willard would do is go out to lunch with someone who was an absolute beginner. He would give you time, make incredible suggestions, make contacts for you.'' Willard Hurst continued to be an academic force in retirement with a steady flow of research and writing. As Margolick reported in the Times, even in retirement Hurst remained one of the few legal scholars whose work could be ``measured in shelf feet--and shelf feet of bona fide research rather than cut-and-paste cases and comments.'' A number of his books became standard texts for law students. In fact, I still remember of the five books I was asked to read before I entered Harvard Law School, two were written by Willard Hurst. As the acknowledged grandfather of American legal history, Hurst's legacy is not only a new field of study, but generations of law students, and dozens of distinguished scholars. Willard Hurst was a giant intellect, but a gentle giant who cared about his students and who loved his adopted State. I was privileged to have known him.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the amendment offered by Senator Grams which has been agreed to today and it has been my pleasure to work with the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] and the Senators from Vermont [Mr. Leahy and Mr. Jeffords] to reach an agreement to require the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to study the impacts of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. I appreciate the cooperation of the senior Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] and the senior Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] in reaching agreement on this amendment. Mr. President, the amendment we have offered today is an extremely reasonable amendment on which all Senators should agree. This amendment simply requires that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget study the economic effects of implementation of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact with respect to consumers, dairy farmers outside the compact as well as on vital low income nutrition programs such as the National School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Program, and the Summer Food Service Program all offer milk to children from low-income families. The congressional oversight provided by this amendment is the responsible thing to do and I am pleased that the managers of the bill and the compact supporters have agreed to have this study conducted. The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact was included in the conference report of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, or farm bill, despite the fact the full Senate decisively struck the compact from the Senate bill by a vote of 50 to 46. The compact was in neither the Senate farm bill nor the House version of the farm bill as passed by both Chambers. It is unfortunate that the will of the Senate was undermined by the backroom agreements of the conference committee. That conference agreement further undermined the authority of the Congress by improperly delegating to the Secretary of Agriculture the ability to consent to the compact, regardless of the national public interest. This amendment will help us to determine whether the public interest is subverted by the compact. And the public interest is definitely implicated by the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. The compact allows six States to fix milk prices paid to dairy farmers well beyond the minimum price specified under Federal Milk Marketing Orders. The compact also allows those six States to keep out milk produced by farmers from other parts of the country, regardless of how competitively that milk is priced. The compact provides competitive credits, or subsidies, to compact milk processors in order to allow them to sell their milk outside of the compact region. Meanwhile, the compact fails to protect consumers from increased prices and does not have any mechanism in place to protect farmers outside the compact from the actions of dairy farmers in six States who are isolated from the market conditions that non-compact producers face. Mr. President, up to this point both the concern about, and the promise of, the Northeast Dairy Compact has been conjecture. But now that the compact has gone into effect we will have hard data to examine its economic impacts. The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact Commission fixed the price of fluid milk in the compact region at $16.94 per hundredweight on July 1, 1997. That price is a full $3.00 above the price Northeast farmers would have received in July under Federal Milk Marketing Orders. As many of the compact opponents had predicted, the retail price of fluid milk has increased by as much as 26 cents per gallon--a full cost increase pass through to consumers--something the compact proponents said would never happen. And media in the Northeast report on farmers who are now considering adding more cows to their herds to increase their production and income when in fact, compact proponents suggested that the compact would not increase milk production in the Northeast. These production increases in the compact region come at a time when producers in the 44 other States are facing 6-year low prices due to excess dairy product stocks. At a time when the market is sending the dairy industry the signal to cut back of supplies, the compact farmers are getting the signal to increase production. Furthermore, anecdotal reports from milk buyers in the Northeast suggest that excess milk production from the Northeast is already being dumped on States outside of the region at prices less than half the price being paid to compact producers. Farmers fear this excess milk will depress prices nationally which are already at devastatingly low levels. Yet compact opponents were assured that no milk would be dumped outside of the compact because the compact was a net milk importer. Mr. President, given that many of the things compact proponents said could never happen appear to be happening--increased consumer costs, increased milk production, lower priced exports of milk from the compact region--we must take a careful look at the impacts of this compact. We must scrutinize how the compact affects our vital low-income nutrition programs. The National School Lunch Program serves 25 million children daily and in 1996 served 4.3 billion lunches. The six compact States alone served 170 million school lunches in 1996, nearly all of which were served with milk. Milk is also a component of the School Breakfast Program, the Summer Food Service Program, the Child and Adult Care Food Program and the Special Milk Program, programs all offered in the compact States. If the cost of milk to consumers is going up in the compact region due to compact milk price, the value of food stamps for poor families may be declining, costs to schools, summer food service institutions and child and adult care facilities are likely increasing as their per meal reimbursement remains flat and the cost of the milk they serve increases, and the food dollars of low-income families are likely not stretching as far as they used to. It is absolutely critical that we determine the impact of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact on these vital nutrition programs and I am surprised that compact proponents do not agree. The amendment that has been accepted today will help determine whether or not the benefit of the compact exceeds the financial cost to dairy producers in other States. The Northeast dairy compact has been extremely controversial in the U.S. Senate because it takes an entirely regional approach to dairy policy, walling off a few farmers in six States from the conditions faced by tens of thousands of dairy farmers elsewhere. And Mr. President I believe the Northeast dairy compact will ultimately harm Wisconsin's 24,000 dairy farmers. But I also believe it will hurt dairy farmers in the 44 non-compact States such as California, Washington, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Idaho, and Indiana, among others. Milk is produced and marketed in a national, not a regional market. And what happens with respect to milk prices and production levels in one region has national repercussions. Wisconsin's family farmers, with an average herd size of 55 cows, are concerned that increased production in the Northeast spurred on by the high compact milk price, will depress prices throughout the Nation. Farmers who are suffering from the current national $10.74 basic milk price cannot afford to suffer further price declines due to increased milk production from the Northeast. Furthermore, as history has shown increased milk production in one region in surplus of what is needed for fluid purposes results in surplus production of cheese, butter and similar product. This in turn depresses cheese prices which directly impact prices paid to producers. These concerns are serious and the compact must be carefully evaluated to determine if compact farmers are producing too much milk to the detriment of non-compact farmers. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate today has recognized the obligation of this body in ensuring that the compact is carefully monitored and its impacts scrutinized. Mr. President, I remain strongly opposed to the compact and will continue to work toward its repeal. The compact sets a dangerous precedent in allowing one region to fix prices for its producers to the detriment of non-compact producers. I believe the Northeast dairy compact will harm the 24,000 family dairy farmers in my State of Wisconsin. Hopefully the information that may be gathered by the study required by our amendment will help persuade the Senate that it erred in allowing the inclusion of the amendment in the 1996 Farm bill. I yield the floor. prescription drug user fee

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as many in this body know, I have been concerned that while the total number of Federal employees has been reduced in recent years, the same cannot be said of executive branch political appointees. Indeed, between 1980 and 1992 the number of political appointees grew 17 percent, three times as fast as the total number of executive branch employees. Mr. President, let me emphasize that political appointees play a vital role in implementing those very policies for which an administration is elected in the first place. Political appointees often also bring backgrounds rich in experience as well as a fresh perspective that can strengthen our Government. But as many distinguished observers have noted, too many political appointees may actually interfere with the efficient and effective implementation of administration policies. Author Paul Light has documented this problem in his book ``Thickening Government: Federal Government and the Diffusion of Accountability.'' Various public commissions and Government watchdog groups have also voiced concerns from the 1989 National Commission on Public Service, chaired by Paul Volcker, to the Congressional Budget Office, and most recently the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on the Presidential Appointment Process, chaired by two former Members of this body, former Senators John Culver and Charles Mathias. Mr. President, I have introduced legislation to cap the number of political appointees at 2,000, a level which represents a reduction of about 30 percent from current levels. That proposal is identical to the recommendation of both the Volcker Commission and the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force, and also mirrors a proposal by the Congressional Budget Office which is included in their publication of spending and revenue options to reduce the deficit. My bill would save taxpayers over $330 million during the next 5 years. Just as important, bringing the number of political appointees to a more manageable level will enhance flexibility and increase the ability of the President to implement administration policies. Mr. President, this administration has a commendable record in bringing the overall growth of the Federal employees under control, and, in fact, beginning to reduce the number by several hundred thousand. And recently, I was encouraged to see that work also began with respect to political appointees in the Commerce Department, an agency where the growing number of appointees has been a particular concern. Mr. President, while I believe we have a long way to go in this area, there has been some progress made by the administration and I will not offer my legislation as an amendment to this particular bill as I have in the past. I firmly believe further work is needed in this area, however, and I will be following the progress made by the administration in reducing the number of political appointees with great interest.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his cooperation on this matter. I want to take a few moments to express my views on the ACRI. Mr. President, I was disappointed to read in the report on this bill that the Committee on Appropriations directed ``that no funds be made available for the Africa Crisis Response Force,'' an earlier title of what the administration now refers to as the Africa Crisis Response Initiative [ACRI]. This language would prohibit the administration's flexibility to use up to $15 million of the peacekeeping account for this initiative. The ACRI, in my view, is an inventive proposal on the part of the administration. It seeks to expand the capacity of qualified African militaries to respond to peacekeeping needs in Africa by merging the resources of the United States and several of our European partners to provide peacekeeping training. The ACRI would help create effective, rapidly deployable peacekeeping units that would be able to operate together. Such an initiative could ultimately reduce the burden on U.S. resources in the event of a major humanitarian or other crisis in the region. Let me elaborate on what we are talking about. The Africa Crisis Response Initiative would provide training to selected African militaries to raise their capabilities to a common peacekeeping standard derived from United States, British, Nordic, and United Nations doctrine. In most cases, this will involve intensive training over a 2-month period in any single country, and will include important train-the-trainer activities so that additional instruction may take place after the international representatives have departed. Troops will be trained in tasks common to peacekeeping operations and on how to utilize common communications equipment. Equally as important, they will also receive instruction in civil-military relations and respect for human rights. U.S. trainers intend to use nongovernmental and private voluntary organizations in the training where possible. Any equipment that is provided to the participating countries would be nonlethal in nature and could include items to support mine detection, water purification, or night vision. Already several African countries have told United States officials they would like to participate in the ACRI, including Ethiopia, Uganda, Ghana, Mali, Senegal, and Malawi. Senegal and Uganda will begin training at the end of this month. It is also important that the Secretaries General of the United Nations and the Organization for African Unity have indicated their support. I should also note that this proposal is strongly supported by the U.S. Joint Staff and by our military command in Europe--the United States European Command [EUCOM]. The ACRI proposal appeals to me because it provides a mechanism through which the United States can both contribute to the resolution of crises in the region, while at the same time, help ensure that the United States will not bear the total burden of doing so. By having ready, trained troops on the ground in Africa, the ACRI would decrease the time it takes to respond to local crises. But most importantly, if the proposal is implemented as intended, it would decrease the amount of outside support the Africans would require and preclude the need to send American combat troops to the region when there is a crisis. The ACRI is a means to provide appropriate African governments with a capacity they have said they want--the capability to respond to regional crises. This is a concept that I have been pondering for several years. A 1994 trip to Liberia later heightened my interest. At the time, many observers were convinced that the only way to solve the crisis in Liberia, a country wracked with civil war since 1989, was to deploy a large force of American soldiers to stop the fighting and then maintain the peace. Like many other Americans, I opposed the deployment of American troops for this purpose. But I became intrigued with an alternative that had been employed in Liberia since 1990--an all African peacekeeping force. This force, the West African peacekeeping force known by its French acronym ECOMOG, has not--by any definition--been a perfect mission, and has certainly had its share of problems. But after many fits and starts, ECOMOG troops have succeeded in establishing security in the country such that Liberians will have the opportunity to safely go to the polls this weekend to participate in an important national election. The United States has made important contributions to this effort in the form of airlift and other logistical support to ECOMOG. While I do not want to put too much reliance in the ECOMOG experience itself, since its record has been mixed, I think we can draw at least two important lessons. First, African governments do want to contribute to maintaining peace in neighboring countries. Second, the United States can support those efforts by sharing our strengths in areas such as technical assistance, logistics, and communications, for example. Our European partners would make similar contributions. That is what this proposal is all about. It is a cooperative effort to which all participants contribute. Despite my enthusiasm for this initiative, Mr. President, I would also caution the administration on the tough choices it may soon have to make with respect to which countries can and should be invited to participate in the ACRI. When the administration first explored this proposal, it presented its preliminary ideas to 10 governments. These countries were understood to have excellent relations with the United States, as well as relatively disciplined militaries and democratic governments. It is my view that such qualities should represent the minimum standards for the United States to engage in the high-level military contact envisioned by the ACRI proposal. As beneficial as the ACRI will be for the United States, it is also beneficial for the African countries involved. Congress will look harshly at any decisions that might be made to work with a government that has come to power through military action or that abuses the rights of its citizens. I have concerns in particular about the possibility of including the Government of Nigeria in this initiative. While I recognize the strength of Nigeria's military and the important contribution it has made to the peacekeeping effort in Liberia, the Government's continued disdain for the needs of its people and continued human rights abuses I believe should preclude it from participation in the ACRI. Mr. President, in the long term, the administration anticipates that the trained and ready forces that have benefited from the ACRI will be able to respond quickly to crises in the region with African troops led by Africans. Although I can foresee that the international community might still be called upon to provide logistics assistance in certain cases, I believe strongly that technical assistance of that nature is an appropriate response for the United States. With the rising number of conflicts in the post-cold-war era, American troops are being called on more than ever to participate in peacekeeping operations that just are not tenable. The ACRI provides a creative way to respond to these demands while decreasing the need to deploy our own men and women. Mr. President, I hope the conferees will agree on funding and language that will allow the administration to continue to pursue this creative approach to crisis intervention in Africa. The ACRI strengthens regional abilities to respond in a rapid and effective manner, rather than calling for direct United States or European intervention.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator from Kentucky about committee report language directing that no peacekeeping funds be made available for the Africa crisis response initiative [ACRI]. I understand the House version of this bill and the accompanying report contain no such restrictions. I understand further that the Committee on Appropriations has raised several concerns about this initiative which are currently being resolved by the administration. Therefore, I wonder if the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations will be looking to support the House mark in the peacekeeping account and to revise the report language in conference to reflect this change, along with continuing concerns.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as someone gravely concerned with the human rights situation in East Timor, I am pleased to see strong language regarding military sales to Indonesia included in the foreign operations appropriations. I would like to commend the managers of the bill, the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for including this provision. The bill states that any agreement to sell, license for export, or transfer lethal military equipment or helicopters to Indonesia must include a statement that these items will not be used in East Timor. I am pleased with this language because it is important to remind Indonesia that Congress is still very concerned about the situation in East Timor. The May 29 Indonesian elections spurred new violence in East Timor. In the weeks surrounding the voting, fighting between Indonesian troops and East Timorese rebels resulted in dozens of casualties on both sides. These deaths were only the latest in the troubled region, which has been occupied by Indonesia since 1975. Human rights monitors estimate that as many as 200,000 East Timorese have died since the occupation. Mr. President, as we all know, the Indonesian Government announced last month that it was no longer interested in participating in IMET or purchasing F-16 fighters. Congress should not relax our scrutiny of Indonesia's human rights practices and policies in East Timor just because these high-profile deals have been canceled. Human rights organizations have expressed concerns that helicopters may be used against civilians in East Timor. Thus it is important to ensure that any such hardware provided by the United States is not used for internal repression. Certainly the answer to the East Timor problem does not lie in further arming the Indonesian military and police forces. Thus I am also pleased that the administration has reaffirmed its existing policy of precluding the sale to Indonesia of small arms, riot control equipment, and armored personnel carriers. The bill's provision strengthens this policy, reflecting Congress' continued concerns.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I also want to make one thing clear. In contrast to the Senator from Colorado, this amendment provides for the authorizing committee to act on a revised project plan. It does not put into effect the alternative plan. It does not prejudge what the project will look like. It allows full public hearings before Congress acts. It does not strike any funds, it simply says the funds in the bill cannot be expended for construction of a new project until it is authorized. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to clarify that the comments of the Senator from Idaho made great focus on the fact I am not from the West. The fact is, Senator John McCain is a cosponsor of this amendment, supports and believes it is reasonable and has a great familiarity with the concerns of the West.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak for 1 minute on my amendment.