Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce with the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, a bill which attempts to address problems in the dairy industry stemming from the lack of adequate price discovery in manufactured dairy product markets. There has been a great deal of controversy surrounding the National Cheese Exchange [NCE], currently located in Green Bay, WI. The NCE is a small cash market that trades less than 1 percent of all bulk cheese sold nationally, has few traders, short trading periods, and infrequent trading sessions. Those characteristics make this exchange vulnerable to price manipulation. Trading on this exchange would not be a concern if it did not have such tremendous influence over cheese prices nationally. However, because the Cheese Exchange is the only source of cheese price information in the country, it acts as a benchmark or reference price for most off-exchange cheese sales. There simply is no other reliable source of information, no other source of price discovery, available for buyers and sellers in this industry to use as an indicator of market conditions. Because the price for cheese directly and indirectly affects the price of milk, dairy farmers are justifiably concerned about the lack of adequate cheese price information and the influence of the NCE on prices they receive for milk. Concern about the Cheese Exchange among dairy farmers, while on-going for many years, heightened late last year when cheese prices at the exchange fell dramatically in just a few weeks, causing record declines in milk prices paid to farmers. While milk prices have recovered slightly, they are expected to fall again next month as a result of further price declines at the National Cheese Exchange. While the National Cheese Exchange is closing its doors at the end of this month, a new but nearly identical cash market for cheese is opening at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. It is expected that this new market, which appears to share a number of the flaws of the Cheese Exchange, will serve as the reference price for cheese throughout the country. It is unclear whether this market will be capable of providing adequate price discovery for the dairy industry. That is why the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, and I are introducing this bill today. This legislation requires the Secretary to collect and disseminate statistically reliable cheese price information collected from cheese manufacturing plants throughout the country--a provision also included in my bill, S. 258, which I introduced in February. A price series of this type will not only provide more price information, it will provide more reliable information based on transactions throughout the country rather than on one thinly traded cash market. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman has already begun this process. Last August, I asked the Secretary to use his existing administrative authority to initiate a weekly price survey of cheese plants to improve cheese price discovery and lessen the influence of the small but powerful National Cheese Exchange on milk prices. Secretary Glickman graciously agreed to conduct such a survey, which formally began this January on a monthly basis, and became a weekly survey last month. I have been very pleased with the Secretary's response to the concerns about cheese pricing and effect of the National Cheese Exchange on farm-level milk prices and I appreciate his efforts on this matter. Since that survey is relatively new, it is still unclear whether it will produce prices which reflect market conditions. That depends upon the voluntary participation of those manufacturers reporting prices as well as on the integrity of the data reported. On March 13, both Secretary Glickman and I testified before the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Committee about the problem of the Cheese Exchange and the lack of reliable price information in the dairy industry and the potential for this new price series to address that problem. At that time, the Secretary indicated that if participation by cheese manufacturers in his new survey was inadequate, the Department may need to consider requiring participation in that survey. However, under current law, the Secretary has only very limited authority to require cheese price reporting by manufacturing plants. The bill we are introducing today requires the Secretary to continue his cheese price collection and reporting activities and provides him with broader authority to require participation by cheese manufacturers in that survey. I want to make clear that this bill does not mandate that the Secretary require participation in the cheese price survey, but merely provides him with the authority to do so if it is necessary to ensure the new cheese price survey is statistically reliable. Under the current survey procedures, many cheese manufacturers are already participating voluntarily, so this new Secretarial authority may not be necessary. Mr. President, it is essential that dairy farmers have some assurances that cheese prices, which have such a dramatic impact on the price of milk, are reflective of market conditions and not vulnerable to manipulation. By improving price discovery, the new USDA cheese price survey implemented by Secretary Glickman may help accomplish that goal. If mandatory price reporting is necessary to produce accurate survey data, our bill provides the Secretary with the authority to require participation. However, I am hopeful that participation in the survey will continue to be high so that mandatory reporting never becomes necessary. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for working with me to devise legislation that might effectively improve price discovery in the dairy industry and I welcome his interest in this important issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce with the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, a bill which attempts to address problems in the dairy industry stemming from the lack of adequate price discovery in manufactured dairy product markets. There has been a great deal of controversy surrounding the National Cheese Exchange [NCE], currently located in Green Bay, WI. The NCE is a small cash market that trades less than 1 percent of all bulk cheese sold nationally, has few traders, short trading periods, and infrequent trading sessions. Those characteristics make this exchange vulnerable to price manipulation. Trading on this exchange would not be a concern if it did not have such tremendous influence over cheese prices nationally. However, because the Cheese Exchange is the only source of cheese price information in the country, it acts as a benchmark or reference price for most off-exchange cheese sales. There simply is no other reliable source of information, no other source of price discovery, available for buyers and sellers in this industry to use as an indicator of market conditions. Because the price for cheese directly and indirectly affects the price of milk, dairy farmers are justifiably concerned about the lack of adequate cheese price information and the influence of the NCE on prices they receive for milk. Concern about the Cheese Exchange among dairy farmers, while on-going for many years, heightened late last year when cheese prices at the exchange fell dramatically in just a few weeks, causing record declines in milk prices paid to farmers. While milk prices have recovered slightly, they are expected to fall again next month as a result of further price declines at the National Cheese Exchange. While the National Cheese Exchange is closing its doors at the end of this month, a new but nearly identical cash market for cheese is opening at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. It is expected that this new market, which appears to share a number of the flaws of the Cheese Exchange, will serve as the reference price for cheese throughout the country. It is unclear whether this market will be capable of providing adequate price discovery for the dairy industry. That is why the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, and I are introducing this bill today. This legislation requires the Secretary to collect and disseminate statistically reliable cheese price information collected from cheese manufacturing plants throughout the country--a provision also included in my bill, S. 258, which I introduced in February. A price series of this type will not only provide more price information, it will provide more reliable information based on transactions throughout the country rather than on one thinly traded cash market. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman has already begun this process. Last August, I asked the Secretary to use his existing administrative authority to initiate a weekly price survey of cheese plants to improve cheese price discovery and lessen the influence of the small but powerful National Cheese Exchange on milk prices. Secretary Glickman graciously agreed to conduct such a survey, which formally began this January on a monthly basis, and became a weekly survey last month. I have been very pleased with the Secretary's response to the concerns about cheese pricing and effect of the National Cheese Exchange on farm-level milk prices and I appreciate his efforts on this matter. Since that survey is relatively new, it is still unclear whether it will produce prices which reflect market conditions. That depends upon the voluntary participation of those manufacturers reporting prices as well as on the integrity of the data reported. On March 13, both Secretary Glickman and I testified before the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Committee about the problem of the Cheese Exchange and the lack of reliable price information in the dairy industry and the potential for this new price series to address that problem. At that time, the Secretary indicated that if participation by cheese manufacturers in his new survey was inadequate, the Department may need to consider requiring participation in that survey. However, under current law, the Secretary has only very limited authority to require cheese price reporting by manufacturing plants. The bill we are introducing today requires the Secretary to continue his cheese price collection and reporting activities and provides him with broader authority to require participation by cheese manufacturers in that survey. I want to make clear that this bill does not mandate that the Secretary require participation in the cheese price survey, but merely provides him with the authority to do so if it is necessary to ensure the new cheese price survey is statistically reliable. Under the current survey procedures, many cheese manufacturers are already participating voluntarily, so this new Secretarial authority may not be necessary. Mr. President, it is essential that dairy farmers have some assurances that cheese prices, which have such a dramatic impact on the price of milk, are reflective of market conditions and not vulnerable to manipulation. By improving price discovery, the new USDA cheese price survey implemented by Secretary Glickman may help accomplish that goal. If mandatory price reporting is necessary to produce accurate survey data, our bill provides the Secretary with the authority to require participation. However, I am hopeful that participation in the survey will continue to be high so that mandatory reporting never becomes necessary. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for working with me to devise legislation that might effectively improve price discovery in the dairy industry and I welcome his interest in this important issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to terminate the U.S. Navy's F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet Program. The basis for this legislation is contained in a 1996 General Accounting Office report entitled ``Navy Aviation: F/A-18 E/F Will Provide Marginal Operational Improvement at High Cost.'' In this report, GAO studied the rationale and need for the F/A-18 E/F in order to determine whether continued development of the aircraft is the most cost-effective approach to modernizing the Navy's tactical aircraft fleet. GAO concluded that the marginal improvements of the F/A-18 E/F are far outweighed by the high cost of the program. Mr. President, in our current fiscal climate, I have serious concerns about authorizing funding for such a costly program, which according to GAO will deliver only marginal improvements over the current C/D version of the F/A-18. As GAO noted in its report, at a projected total program cost of $89.15 billion, the F/A-18 E/F Program is one of the most costly aviation programs in the Department of Defense. The total program cost is comprised of $5.833 billion in development costs and $83.35 billion in procurement costs for 1,000 aircraft. Mr. President, before I begin to describe GAO's findings in detail, I would first like to discuss briefly the role of the F/A-18 aircraft in our Nation's overall naval aviation force structure. The Navy performs its carrier-based missions with a mix of fighter (air-to-air combat), strike (air-to-ground combat), and strike/fighter (multicombat role) aircraft. Currently, carrier based F-14 fighter aircraft perform air- to-air missions; A6E's perform air-to-ground missions; and F/A-18's perform both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions. The F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet is the latest version of the Navy's carrier-based F/A-18 strike/fighter plane. Mr. President, the F/A-18 E/F is just one of three costly new fighter programs the Department of Defense has on the drawing boards right now. In addition to the F/A-18 E/F, there is the Air Force's F-22, which is intended to replace the A-10 and the venerable F-16 Falcon. The F-22 is also intended to either supplant or augment the Air Force's top fighter, the F-15. It will have stealth capabilities and will be able to survive in dense air-defense environments. And of course, there is the Joint Strike Fighter, which I will discuss in greater detail in a few moments. The JSF is intended to perform virtually every type of mission that fighter aircraft perform in today's force structure, and is to be employed by the Navy, the Air Force, and Marine Corps in unprecedented fashion. There are few who seriously believe that the Pentagon can afford to maintain all three tactical fighter programs. The General Accounting Office, the Congressional Budget Office and many others have maintained that the likelihood that all three programs can be fully funded with the planned number of aircraft buys is virtually nil. In fact, many view the JSF as the only modernization program that should be continued. Given our fiscal constraints and Federal budget deficit, can we afford to finance three separate fighter programs with the caliber and costs of the F/A- 18 E/F, the F-22, and the JSF? The answer is unequivocally no. And that is why I am introducing legislation to terminate any further development or procurement of the program that appears to be most questionable, the E/F upgrade. The Navy has based the need for development and procurement of the F/ A-18 E/F on existing or projected operational deficiencies of the F/A- 18C/D in the following key areas: strike range, carrier recovery payload and survivability. In addition, the Navy notes limitations of current C/D's with respect to avionics growth space and payload capacity. In its report, GAO concludes that the operational deficiencies in the C/D that the Navy cited in justifying the E/F either have not materialized as projected or such deficiencies can be corrected with nonstructural changes to the current C/D and additional upgrades made which would further improve its capabilities. One of the primary reasons the Navy cites in justifying the E/F is the need for increased range and the C/D's inability to perform long- range unrefueled missions against high-value targets. However, GAO concludes that the Navy's F/A-18 strike range requirements can be met by either the F/A-18 E/F or F/A-18 C/D. Furthermore, it concludes that the increased range of the E/F is achieved at the expense of its aerial combat performance, and that even with increased range, both aircraft will still require aerial refueling for low-altitude missions. The F/A-18 E/F specification requirements call for the aircraft to have a flight range of 390 nautical miles (nm) while performing low- altitude bombing missions. The F/A-18 E/F will achieve a strike range of 465 nm while performing low-altitude missions by carrying 2 external 480 gallon fuel tanks. While current C/D's achieve a flight range of 325 nm with 2-330 gallon fuel tanks while performing low-altitude missions--65 nm below the specification requirement of the E/F--when they are equipped with the 2-480 gallon external fuel tanks that are planned to be used on the E/F, the C/D can achieve a strike range of 393 nm on low-altitude missions. Recent Navy range predictions show that the F/A-18 E/F is expected to have a 683 nm strike range when flying a more fuel-efficient, survivable, and lethal high-altitude mission profile rather than the specified low-altitude profile. Similarly, although F/A-18 E/F range will be greater than the F/A-18 C/D, the C/D could achieve strike ranges (566 nm with 3-330 gallon fuel tanks or 600 nm with 2-480 gallon tanks and 1-330 gallon tank) far greater than the target distances stipulated in the E/F's system specifications by flying the same high- altitude missions as the E/F. Additionally, according to GAO, the E/F's increased strike range is achieved at the expense of the aircraft's aerial combat performance as evidenced by its sustained turn rate, maneuvering, and acceleration which impact its ability to maneuver in either offensive or defensive modes. One claim the Navy has made in response to the GAO report is that the C/D cannot be outfitted with 480-gallon external fuel tanks. GAO disputes this, citing contractor studies that concluded 480-gallon tanks can be carried on the C/D's inboard stations. GAO also points out that the Canadians have flown the F/A-18 C with the larger external fuel tanks. Mr. President, another significant reason the Navy cites in support of the continued development of the E/F is an anticipated deficiency in F/A-18C carrier recovery payload--the amount of fuel, weapons and external equipment that an aircraft can carry when returning from a mission and landing on a carrier. However, the deficiency in carrier recovery payload which the Navy anticipated of the F/A-18C simply has not materialized. When initially procured, F/A-18C's had a total carrier recovery payload of 6,300 pounds. Because of the Navy's decision to increase the F/A-18C's maximum allowable carrier landing weight and a lower aircraft operating weight resulting from technological improvements, the F/A-18C now has a carrier recovery payload of 7,113 pounds. F/A-18C's operating in support of Bosnian operations are now routinely returning to carriers with operational loads of 7,166 pounds, which exceeds the Navy's stated carrier recovery payload capacity. This recovery payload is substantially greater than the Navy projected it would be and is even greater than when the F/A-18C was first introduced in 1988. In addition, GAO notes that while it is not necessary, upgrading F/A-18C's with stronger landing gear could allow them to recover carrier payloads of more than 10,000 pounds--greater than that sought for the F/A-18 E/F (9,000 pounds). While the Navy also cites a need to improve combat survivability in justifying the development of the F/A-18 E/F, the aircraft was not developed to counter a particular military threat that could not be met with existing or improved F/A-18 C/D's. Additional improvements have subsequently been made or are planned for the F/A-18 C/D to enhance its survivability including improvements to reduce its radar detectability, while survivability improvements of the F/A-18 E/F are questionable. For example, because the F/A-18 E/F will be carrying weapons and fuel externally, the radar signature reduction improvements derived from the structural design of the aircraft will be diminished and will only help the aircraft penetrate slightly deeper than the F/A-18 C/D into an integrated defensive system before being detected. Mr. President, as we discuss survivability, it is relevant to highlight the outstanding performance of the F/A-18 C/D in the gulf war just a few short years ago. By the Navy's own account, the C/D performed extraordinarily well, dropping 18 million pounds of ordinance, recording all Navy MiG kills, and, in the Navy's own words, experiencing ``unprecedented survivability.'' In addition to noting the operational capability improvements in justifying the development of the F/A-18 E/F, the Navy also notes limitations of current C/D's with respect to avionics growth space and payload capacity. The Navy predicted that by the mid-1990's the F/A-18 C/D would not have growth space to accommodate additional new weapons and systems under development. Specifically, the Navy predicted that by fiscal year 1996 C/D's would only have 0.2 cubic feet of space available for future avionics growth; however, 5.3 cubic feet of available space have been identified for future system growth. Furthermore, technological advancements such as miniaturization, modularity and consolidation may result in additional growth space for future avionics. The Navy also stated that the F/A-18 E/F will provide increased payload capacity as a result of two new outboard weapons stations; however, unless current problems concerning weapons release are resolved--air flow problems around the fuselage and weapons stations-- the types and amounts of weapons the E/F can carry will be restricted and the possible payload increase may be negated. Also, while the E/F will provide a marginal increase in air-to-air capability by carrying two extra missiles, it will not increase its ability to carry the heavier, precision-guided, air-to-ground weapons that are capable of hitting fixed and mobile hard targets and the heavier stand-off weapons that will be used to increase aircraft survivability. Understanding that the F/A-18 E/F may not deliver as significant operational capability improvements as originally expected, I would now like to focus on the cost of the F/A-18 E/F Program and possible alternatives to it. As previously mentioned, the total program cost of the F/A-18 E/F is projected to be $89.15 billion. These program costs are based on the procurement assumption of 1,000 aircraft--660 by the Navy and 340 by the Marine Corps--at an annual production rate of 72 aircraft per year. Mr. President, as the GAO report points out, these figures are overstated. According to Marine Corps officials and the Marine Corps Aviation Master Plan, the Marine Corps does not intend to buy any F/A-18 E/F's and, therefore, the projected 1,000 aircraft buy is overstated by 340 aircraft. Although the Pentagon contends that the Navy had intended to purchase 1,000 aircraft all along, extensive documentation and testimony demonstrates this not to be the case and the 1,000 figure was the original complete buy. I would also note the importance of the Marine Corps opting out of the E/F Program. Although the E/F was originally developed to service two branches with differing needs and requirements, the Marine Corps has chosen instead to invest in the Joint Strike Fighter program and use those aircraft to replace their AV-8B Harriers and F/A-18 C/D's. Furthermore, the Congress has stated that an annual production rate of 72 E/F aircraft is probably not feasible due to funding limitations and directed the Navy to calculate costs based on more realistic production rates as 18, 36, and 54 aircraft per year. In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service: ``* * * no naval aircraft have been bought in such quantities in recent years, and it is unlikely that such annual buys will be funded in the 1990's, given expected force reductions and lower inventory requirements and the absence of consensus about future military threats.'' Using the Navy's overstated assumptions about the total number of planes procured and an estimated annual production rate of 72 aircraft per year, the Navy calculates the unit recurring flyaway cost of the F/ A-18 E/F--costs related to the production of the basic aircraft--at $44 million. However, using GAO's more realistic assumptions of the procurement of 660 aircraft by the Navy, at a production rate of 36 aircraft per year, the unit recurring flyaway cost of the E/F balloons to $53 million. This is compared to the $28 million unit recurring flyaway cost of the F/A-18 C/D based on a production rate of 36 aircraft per year. Thus, GAO estimates that this cost difference in unit recurring flyaway would result in a savings of almost $17 billion if the Navy were to procure the F/A-18 C/D's rather than the E/F's. Mr. President, this is certainly a significant amount of savings. Now I know that some of my colleagues will say that by halting production of the F/A-18 E/F and instead relying on the F/A-18 C/D, we will be mortgaging the future of our Naval aviation fleet. However, Mr. President, there is a far less costly program already being developed which may yield more significant returns in operational capability. This program is the Joint Strike Fighter or JSF Program. The JSF Program office is currently developing technology for a family of affordable next generation multirole strike fighter aircraft for the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy. The JSF is expected to be a stealthy strike aircraft built on a single production line with a high degree of parts and cost commonality. The driving focus of the JSF is affordability achieved by triservice commonality. The Navy plans to procure 300 JSF's with a projected initial operational capability around 2007. Contractor concept exploration and demonstration studies indicate that the JSF will have superior or comparable capabilities in all Navy tactical aircraft mission areas, especially range and survivability, at far less cost than the F/A-18 E/F. The JSF is expected to be a stand alone, stealthy, first-day-of-the-war, survivable aircraft. Overall, the JSF is expected to be more survivable and capable than any existing or planned tactical aircraft in strike and air-to-air missions, with the possible exception of the F-22 in air-to-air missions. The Navy's JSF variant is also expected to have longer ranges than the F/A-18 E/F to attack high-value targets without using external tanks or tanking. Unlike the F/A-18 E/F which would carry all of its weapons externally, the Navy's JSF will carry at least four weapons for both air-to-air and air-to-ground combat internally, thereby maximizing its stealthiness and increasing its survivability. Finally, the JSF would not require jamming support from EA-6B aircraft as does the F/A-18 E/F in carrying out its mission in the face of integrated air defense systems. While the JSF is expected to have superior operational capabilities, it is expected to be developed and procured at far less expense than the F/A-18 E/F. In fact, the unit recurring flyaway cost of the Navy's JSF is estimated to range from $31-38 million depending on which contractor design is chosen for the aircraft, as compared to GAO's $53 million estimate for the F/A-18 E/F. Additional cost benefits of the JSF would result from having common aircraft spare parts, simplified technical specifications, and reduced support equipment variations, as well as reductions in aircrew and maintenance training requirements. Mr. President, given the enormous cost and marginal improvement in operational capabilities the F/A-18 E/F would provide, it seems that the justification for the E/F is not as evident as once thought. Operational deficiencies in the C/D aircraft either have not materialized or can be corrected with nonstructural changes to the plane. As a result, proceeding with the E/F program may not be the most cost-effective approach to modernizing the Navy's tactical aircraft fleet. In the short term, the Navy can continue to procure the F/A-18 C/D aircraft, while upgrading it to improve further its operational capabilities. For the long term, the Navy can look toward the next generation strike fighter, the JSF, which will provide more operational capability at far less cost than the E/F. Mr. President, succinctly put, the Navy needs an aircraft that will bridge between the current force and the new, superior JSF which will be operational around 2007. The question is whether the F/A-18 C/D can serve that function, as it has demonstrated its ability to exceed predicted capacity or whether we should proceed with an expensive, new plane for a marginal level of improvement. The $17 billion difference in projected costs does not appear to provide a significant return on our investment. In times of severe fiscal constraints and a need to look at all areas of the budget to identify more cost-effective approaches, the F/A-18 E/F is a project in need of reevaluation. Last year, I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 1997 authorization bill for the Department of Defense that required the Pentagon to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the F/A-18 E/F Program, and to report their findings to the Congress by March 30, 1997. This study was to include a review of the E/F program, an analysis and estimate of the production costs of the program for the total number of aircraft expected to be procured at several different production rates and a comparison of the costs and benefits of this program with the costs and benefits of the C/D Program. That analysis has not been forwarded to the Congress as of this date. In addition to this report, the Quadrennial Defense Review [QDR], responsible for evaluating all weapon system programs, is also scheduled to be completed in the near future. Unfortunately, I was enormously disappointed when the Secretary of Defense, rather than waiting for these reports to be completed and publicly released, announced on March 28 his decision to move forward with the E/F Program and procure 62 new F/A-18 E/F fighter planes at an initial cost of $48 million each. I would have hoped that the Secretary, who I have tremendous respect and admiration for, would have waited until the mandated reports had been provided to Congress and until the results of the QDR--which could have a significant impact on the Pentagon's tactical aircraft modernization plans--had been made public. Instead, this perplexing decision to proceed with the procurement of 62 of these expensive planes precludes the Congress from offering any input on the Department's policy based on a review of the required reports. I am puzzled as to why the new Secretary did not await these reports before announcing this decision. The 1996 GAO report concluded that we could achieve almost $17 billion in cost savings if the Navy elected to procure additional C/D versions of the F/A-18 rather than the costlier E/F model. Mr. President, by all accounts the F/A-18 C/D is a top quality aircraft that has served the Navy well over the last decade, and could be modified to meet every capacity the E/F is intended to fulfill over the course of the next decade at a substantially lower cost. Therefore, considering the Department of Defense has clearly overextended itself in terms of supporting three major multirole fighter programs, and given that the most promising tactical aviation program appears to be the triservice joint strike fighter which will likely outperform the F/A-18 E/F at a substantially lower cost, it is clear that we must discontinue the E/F Program before the American taxpayer is asked to fund yet another multibillion dollar duplicative program. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to terminate the U.S. Navy's F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet Program. The basis for this legislation is contained in a 1996 General Accounting Office report entitled ``Navy Aviation: F/A-18 E/F Will Provide Marginal Operational Improvement at High Cost.'' In this report, GAO studied the rationale and need for the F/A-18 E/F in order to determine whether continued development of the aircraft is the most cost-effective approach to modernizing the Navy's tactical aircraft fleet. GAO concluded that the marginal improvements of the F/A-18 E/F are far outweighed by the high cost of the program. Mr. President, in our current fiscal climate, I have serious concerns about authorizing funding for such a costly program, which according to GAO will deliver only marginal improvements over the current C/D version of the F/A-18. As GAO noted in its report, at a projected total program cost of $89.15 billion, the F/A-18 E/F Program is one of the most costly aviation programs in the Department of Defense. The total program cost is comprised of $5.833 billion in development costs and $83.35 billion in procurement costs for 1,000 aircraft. Mr. President, before I begin to describe GAO's findings in detail, I would first like to discuss briefly the role of the F/A-18 aircraft in our Nation's overall naval aviation force structure. The Navy performs its carrier-based missions with a mix of fighter (air-to-air combat), strike (air-to-ground combat), and strike/fighter (multicombat role) aircraft. Currently, carrier based F-14 fighter aircraft perform air- to-air missions; A6E's perform air-to-ground missions; and F/A-18's perform both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions. The F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet is the latest version of the Navy's carrier-based F/A-18 strike/fighter plane. Mr. President, the F/A-18 E/F is just one of three costly new fighter programs the Department of Defense has on the drawing boards right now. In addition to the F/A-18 E/F, there is the Air Force's F-22, which is intended to replace the A-10 and the venerable F-16 Falcon. The F-22 is also intended to either supplant or augment the Air Force's top fighter, the F-15. It will have stealth capabilities and will be able to survive in dense air-defense environments. And of course, there is the Joint Strike Fighter, which I will discuss in greater detail in a few moments. The JSF is intended to perform virtually every type of mission that fighter aircraft perform in today's force structure, and is to be employed by the Navy, the Air Force, and Marine Corps in unprecedented fashion. There are few who seriously believe that the Pentagon can afford to maintain all three tactical fighter programs. The General Accounting Office, the Congressional Budget Office and many others have maintained that the likelihood that all three programs can be fully funded with the planned number of aircraft buys is virtually nil. In fact, many view the JSF as the only modernization program that should be continued. Given our fiscal constraints and Federal budget deficit, can we afford to finance three separate fighter programs with the caliber and costs of the F/A- 18 E/F, the F-22, and the JSF? The answer is unequivocally no. And that is why I am introducing legislation to terminate any further development or procurement of the program that appears to be most questionable, the E/F upgrade. The Navy has based the need for development and procurement of the F/ A-18 E/F on existing or projected operational deficiencies of the F/A- 18C/D in the following key areas: strike range, carrier recovery payload and survivability. In addition, the Navy notes limitations of current C/D's with respect to avionics growth space and payload capacity. In its report, GAO concludes that the operational deficiencies in the C/D that the Navy cited in justifying the E/F either have not materialized as projected or such deficiencies can be corrected with nonstructural changes to the current C/D and additional upgrades made which would further improve its capabilities. One of the primary reasons the Navy cites in justifying the E/F is the need for increased range and the C/D's inability to perform long- range unrefueled missions against high-value targets. However, GAO concludes that the Navy's F/A-18 strike range requirements can be met by either the F/A-18 E/F or F/A-18 C/D. Furthermore, it concludes that the increased range of the E/F is achieved at the expense of its aerial combat performance, and that even with increased range, both aircraft will still require aerial refueling for low-altitude missions. The F/A-18 E/F specification requirements call for the aircraft to have a flight range of 390 nautical miles (nm) while performing low- altitude bombing missions. The F/A-18 E/F will achieve a strike range of 465 nm while performing low-altitude missions by carrying 2 external 480 gallon fuel tanks. While current C/D's achieve a flight range of 325 nm with 2-330 gallon fuel tanks while performing low-altitude missions--65 nm below the specification requirement of the E/F--when they are equipped with the 2-480 gallon external fuel tanks that are planned to be used on the E/F, the C/D can achieve a strike range of 393 nm on low-altitude missions. Recent Navy range predictions show that the F/A-18 E/F is expected to have a 683 nm strike range when flying a more fuel-efficient, survivable, and lethal high-altitude mission profile rather than the specified low-altitude profile. Similarly, although F/A-18 E/F range will be greater than the F/A-18 C/D, the C/D could achieve strike ranges (566 nm with 3-330 gallon fuel tanks or 600 nm with 2-480 gallon tanks and 1-330 gallon tank) far greater than the target distances stipulated in the E/F's system specifications by flying the same high- altitude missions as the E/F. Additionally, according to GAO, the E/F's increased strike range is achieved at the expense of the aircraft's aerial combat performance as evidenced by its sustained turn rate, maneuvering, and acceleration which impact its ability to maneuver in either offensive or defensive modes. One claim the Navy has made in response to the GAO report is that the C/D cannot be outfitted with 480-gallon external fuel tanks. GAO disputes this, citing contractor studies that concluded 480-gallon tanks can be carried on the C/D's inboard stations. GAO also points out that the Canadians have flown the F/A-18 C with the larger external fuel tanks. Mr. President, another significant reason the Navy cites in support of the continued development of the E/F is an anticipated deficiency in F/A-18C carrier recovery payload--the amount of fuel, weapons and external equipment that an aircraft can carry when returning from a mission and landing on a carrier. However, the deficiency in carrier recovery payload which the Navy anticipated of the F/A-18C simply has not materialized. When initially procured, F/A-18C's had a total carrier recovery payload of 6,300 pounds. Because of the Navy's decision to increase the F/A-18C's maximum allowable carrier landing weight and a lower aircraft operating weight resulting from technological improvements, the F/A-18C now has a carrier recovery payload of 7,113 pounds. F/A-18C's operating in support of Bosnian operations are now routinely returning to carriers with operational loads of 7,166 pounds, which exceeds the Navy's stated carrier recovery payload capacity. This recovery payload is substantially greater than the Navy projected it would be and is even greater than when the F/A-18C was first introduced in 1988. In addition, GAO notes that while it is not necessary, upgrading F/A-18C's with stronger landing gear could allow them to recover carrier payloads of more than 10,000 pounds--greater than that sought for the F/A-18 E/F (9,000 pounds). While the Navy also cites a need to improve combat survivability in justifying the development of the F/A-18 E/F, the aircraft was not developed to counter a particular military threat that could not be met with existing or improved F/A-18 C/D's. Additional improvements have subsequently been made or are planned for the F/A-18 C/D to enhance its survivability including improvements to reduce its radar detectability, while survivability improvements of the F/A-18 E/F are questionable. For example, because the F/A-18 E/F will be carrying weapons and fuel externally, the radar signature reduction improvements derived from the structural design of the aircraft will be diminished and will only help the aircraft penetrate slightly deeper than the F/A-18 C/D into an integrated defensive system before being detected. Mr. President, as we discuss survivability, it is relevant to highlight the outstanding performance of the F/A-18 C/D in the gulf war just a few short years ago. By the Navy's own account, the C/D performed extraordinarily well, dropping 18 million pounds of ordinance, recording all Navy MiG kills, and, in the Navy's own words, experiencing ``unprecedented survivability.'' In addition to noting the operational capability improvements in justifying the development of the F/A-18 E/F, the Navy also notes limitations of current C/D's with respect to avionics growth space and payload capacity. The Navy predicted that by the mid-1990's the F/A-18 C/D would not have growth space to accommodate additional new weapons and systems under development. Specifically, the Navy predicted that by fiscal year 1996 C/D's would only have 0.2 cubic feet of space available for future avionics growth; however, 5.3 cubic feet of available space have been identified for future system growth. Furthermore, technological advancements such as miniaturization, modularity and consolidation may result in additional growth space for future avionics. The Navy also stated that the F/A-18 E/F will provide increased payload capacity as a result of two new outboard weapons stations; however, unless current problems concerning weapons release are resolved--air flow problems around the fuselage and weapons stations-- the types and amounts of weapons the E/F can carry will be restricted and the possible payload increase may be negated. Also, while the E/F will provide a marginal increase in air-to-air capability by carrying two extra missiles, it will not increase its ability to carry the heavier, precision-guided, air-to-ground weapons that are capable of hitting fixed and mobile hard targets and the heavier stand-off weapons that will be used to increase aircraft survivability. Understanding that the F/A-18 E/F may not deliver as significant operational capability improvements as originally expected, I would now like to focus on the cost of the F/A-18 E/F Program and possible alternatives to it. As previously mentioned, the total program cost of the F/A-18 E/F is projected to be $89.15 billion. These program costs are based on the procurement assumption of 1,000 aircraft--660 by the Navy and 340 by the Marine Corps--at an annual production rate of 72 aircraft per year. Mr. President, as the GAO report points out, these figures are overstated. According to Marine Corps officials and the Marine Corps Aviation Master Plan, the Marine Corps does not intend to buy any F/A-18 E/F's and, therefore, the projected 1,000 aircraft buy is overstated by 340 aircraft. Although the Pentagon contends that the Navy had intended to purchase 1,000 aircraft all along, extensive documentation and testimony demonstrates this not to be the case and the 1,000 figure was the original complete buy. I would also note the importance of the Marine Corps opting out of the E/F Program. Although the E/F was originally developed to service two branches with differing needs and requirements, the Marine Corps has chosen instead to invest in the Joint Strike Fighter program and use those aircraft to replace their AV-8B Harriers and F/A-18 C/D's. Furthermore, the Congress has stated that an annual production rate of 72 E/F aircraft is probably not feasible due to funding limitations and directed the Navy to calculate costs based on more realistic production rates as 18, 36, and 54 aircraft per year. In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service: ``* * * no naval aircraft have been bought in such quantities in recent years, and it is unlikely that such annual buys will be funded in the 1990's, given expected force reductions and lower inventory requirements and the absence of consensus about future military threats.'' Using the Navy's overstated assumptions about the total number of planes procured and an estimated annual production rate of 72 aircraft per year, the Navy calculates the unit recurring flyaway cost of the F/ A-18 E/F--costs related to the production of the basic aircraft--at $44 million. However, using GAO's more realistic assumptions of the procurement of 660 aircraft by the Navy, at a production rate of 36 aircraft per year, the unit recurring flyaway cost of the E/F balloons to $53 million. This is compared to the $28 million unit recurring flyaway cost of the F/A-18 C/D based on a production rate of 36 aircraft per year. Thus, GAO estimates that this cost difference in unit recurring flyaway would result in a savings of almost $17 billion if the Navy were to procure the F/A-18 C/D's rather than the E/F's. Mr. President, this is certainly a significant amount of savings. Now I know that some of my colleagues will say that by halting production of the F/A-18 E/F and instead relying on the F/A-18 C/D, we will be mortgaging the future of our Naval aviation fleet. However, Mr. President, there is a far less costly program already being developed which may yield more significant returns in operational capability. This program is the Joint Strike Fighter or JSF Program. The JSF Program office is currently developing technology for a family of affordable next generation multirole strike fighter aircraft for the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy. The JSF is expected to be a stealthy strike aircraft built on a single production line with a high degree of parts and cost commonality. The driving focus of the JSF is affordability achieved by triservice commonality. The Navy plans to procure 300 JSF's with a projected initial operational capability around 2007. Contractor concept exploration and demonstration studies indicate that the JSF will have superior or comparable capabilities in all Navy tactical aircraft mission areas, especially range and survivability, at far less cost than the F/A-18 E/F. The JSF is expected to be a stand alone, stealthy, first-day-of-the-war, survivable aircraft. Overall, the JSF is expected to be more survivable and capable than any existing or planned tactical aircraft in strike and air-to-air missions, with the possible exception of the F-22 in air-to-air missions. The Navy's JSF variant is also expected to have longer ranges than the F/A-18 E/F to attack high-value targets without using external tanks or tanking. Unlike the F/A-18 E/F which would carry all of its weapons externally, the Navy's JSF will carry at least four weapons for both air-to-air and air-to-ground combat internally, thereby maximizing its stealthiness and increasing its survivability. Finally, the JSF would not require jamming support from EA-6B aircraft as does the F/A-18 E/F in carrying out its mission in the face of integrated air defense systems. While the JSF is expected to have superior operational capabilities, it is expected to be developed and procured at far less expense than the F/A-18 E/F. In fact, the unit recurring flyaway cost of the Navy's JSF is estimated to range from $31-38 million depending on which contractor design is chosen for the aircraft, as compared to GAO's $53 million estimate for the F/A-18 E/F. Additional cost benefits of the JSF would result from having common aircraft spare parts, simplified technical specifications, and reduced support equipment variations, as well as reductions in aircrew and maintenance training requirements. Mr. President, given the enormous cost and marginal improvement in operational capabilities the F/A-18 E/F would provide, it seems that the justification for the E/F is not as evident as once thought. Operational deficiencies in the C/D aircraft either have not materialized or can be corrected with nonstructural changes to the plane. As a result, proceeding with the E/F program may not be the most cost-effective approach to modernizing the Navy's tactical aircraft fleet. In the short term, the Navy can continue to procure the F/A-18 C/D aircraft, while upgrading it to improve further its operational capabilities. For the long term, the Navy can look toward the next generation strike fighter, the JSF, which will provide more operational capability at far less cost than the E/F. Mr. President, succinctly put, the Navy needs an aircraft that will bridge between the current force and the new, superior JSF which will be operational around 2007. The question is whether the F/A-18 C/D can serve that function, as it has demonstrated its ability to exceed predicted capacity or whether we should proceed with an expensive, new plane for a marginal level of improvement. The $17 billion difference in projected costs does not appear to provide a significant return on our investment. In times of severe fiscal constraints and a need to look at all areas of the budget to identify more cost-effective approaches, the F/A-18 E/F is a project in need of reevaluation. Last year, I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 1997 authorization bill for the Department of Defense that required the Pentagon to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the F/A-18 E/F Program, and to report their findings to the Congress by March 30, 1997. This study was to include a review of the E/F program, an analysis and estimate of the production costs of the program for the total number of aircraft expected to be procured at several different production rates and a comparison of the costs and benefits of this program with the costs and benefits of the C/D Program. That analysis has not been forwarded to the Congress as of this date. In addition to this report, the Quadrennial Defense Review [QDR], responsible for evaluating all weapon system programs, is also scheduled to be completed in the near future. Unfortunately, I was enormously disappointed when the Secretary of Defense, rather than waiting for these reports to be completed and publicly released, announced on March 28 his decision to move forward with the E/F Program and procure 62 new F/A-18 E/F fighter planes at an initial cost of $48 million each. I would have hoped that the Secretary, who I have tremendous respect and admiration for, would have waited until the mandated reports had been provided to Congress and until the results of the QDR--which could have a significant impact on the Pentagon's tactical aircraft modernization plans--had been made public. Instead, this perplexing decision to proceed with the procurement of 62 of these expensive planes precludes the Congress from offering any input on the Department's policy based on a review of the required reports. I am puzzled as to why the new Secretary did not await these reports before announcing this decision. The 1996 GAO report concluded that we could achieve almost $17 billion in cost savings if the Navy elected to procure additional C/D versions of the F/A-18 rather than the costlier E/F model. Mr. President, by all accounts the F/A-18 C/D is a top quality aircraft that has served the Navy well over the last decade, and could be modified to meet every capacity the E/F is intended to fulfill over the course of the next decade at a substantially lower cost. Therefore, considering the Department of Defense has clearly overextended itself in terms of supporting three major multirole fighter programs, and given that the most promising tactical aviation program appears to be the triservice joint strike fighter which will likely outperform the F/A-18 E/F at a substantially lower cost, it is clear that we must discontinue the E/F Program before the American taxpayer is asked to fund yet another multibillion dollar duplicative program. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to offer tribute to Dr. Robert J. Lampman, economist, University of Wisconsin-Madison professor and noted researcher on poverty, who passed away March 4 at his home in Madison. Mr. President, Dr. Lampman spent much of his distinguished professional career studying and writing about poverty and working to develop strategies to achieve its end. In 1966, he became the founding director of the Institute for Research on Poverty, a nonpartisan center for research into the causes and consequences of poverty and social inequality in America, on the UW-Madison campus, which established the university as a leader of research in that field. A colleague at the University of Wisconsin, Dr. Lee Hansen, called Dr. Lampman ``a true scholar in that he was always asking questions to get a better understanding of the issues.'' Despite his standing in his profession, Dr. Lampman was known as a professor who regarded his students as colleagues. One news report describing his career included a recollection by Dr. Thomas Corbett, once a graduate student studying with Dr. Lampman and now a University of Wisconsin professor of social work and acting director of the IRP. Dr. Corbett recalled Dr. Lampman's stopping by his office and saying he wanted ``to pick my brain.'' ``In a world where egos can become overwhelming, he was a guy who never lost his perspective,'' Dr. Corbett said. In 1962, he joined the staff of President John Kennedy's Council of Economic Advisors, where he prophetically warned that economic growth, alone, would not eliminate poverty. He was later a key author of the historic chapter on poverty contained in Lyndon Johnson's ``Economic Report of the President'' in 1964 that helped call America's attention to poverty. Dr. Lampman became, in the words of Nobel laureate economist James Tobin, ``the intellectual architect of the War on Poverty,'' and he emphasized the importance of economic growth, income maintenance, and opportunities for education and jobs for those mired in poverty. In 1964, as the War on Poverty was getting underway, he predicted to a group of University of Wisconsin-Madison graduate students that, within 20 years, ``by present standards, no one will be poor.'' Mr. President, it turned out that Professor Lampman was overly optimistic. Poverty was not eliminated in 20 years, but the War on Poverty had an impact. In 1964, before the War on Poverty was up and running, 19 percent of Americans were poor. Within 5 years, programs created by the Federal Government and a broadly expanding economy had combined to bring that number down to 12.1 percent. By 1973, the poverty rate was down to 11.1 percent. That progress stalled, for many reasons. Census Bureau estimates for 1995, the most recent year for which data are available, tell us 13.8 percent of our Nation's population was poor, and, in the wealthiest nation in history, one American child in five lived in poverty. Mr. President, Dr. Lampman's dedication, his intellectual energy, and his commitment to solving one of the most difficult, complex, and persistent social challenges we face should inform and inspire us. We should apply, as Dr. Lampman did, our best efforts to ridding our world of the plague of poverty and finally establishing social justice. That would be the most fitting tribute we could pay to this man.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Speaker of the other body made a remarkable statement earlier this week. He argued that Congress should wait on cutting taxes, and instead make balancing the budget our highest priority. This is a significant and extremely positive development in the fight for a balanced Federal budget, and I congratulate the Speaker for making that statement in the face of significant opposition within his own party. Mr. President, the Speaker's comments are indeed welcome. They follow the comments made this weekend by the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee [Mr. Domenici], who informally offered a no-tax cut, no new spending programs outline of a possible budget agreement. Mr. President, I cannot emphasize enough how important the comments of the chairman were. They came after several days of highly partisan comments on the budget, from both parties and in both houses. Often, without leadership, it is the nature of some to retreat to the security of partisan politics--an easy path that leads us further and further apart. To his great credit, Chairman Domenici rejected the considerable forces of partisanship, and offered an alternative path. Mr. President, his path offers us a real chance for a bipartisan budget agreement, and I want to take this occasion to commend my chairman for his courage. I am pleased to serve on the Budget Committee, and deeply honored to serve with the senior Senator from New Mexico. Mr. President, the Speaker is of course absolutely right on the mark. As dearly as many of us would like to support tax cuts, our first priority must be to balance the budget. This is a position I took when I first ran for the Senate, and one I hold today. Major tax cuts undercut our ability to craft a politically sustainable balanced budget plan, as was so clearly demonstrated during the 104th Congress. As I have noted before, both parties are at fault. We cannot afford either the President's tax cuts or the Congressional Republican tax cuts. In November of 1994, I faulted the so-called Contract With America tax cuts--called the crown jewel of the Contract With America at the time. A month later, the day after the President proposed his own set of tax cuts, I took his proposal to task as well. Mr. President, we dodged a bullet during the 104th Congress. Despite formal support for a tax cut in some form from both the White House and the majority party in Congress, we escaped without doing serious damage to the progress we made in reducing the deficit. Regretfully, we did not build significantly on the work accomplished in the 103d Congress to reduce the deficit. Though we made some modest strides, the bulk of the work that remained at the end of 1994 must still be done. Mr. President, major tax cuts make the difficult task of enacting a balanced budget impossible. Most obviously, major tax cuts dig the hole even deeper before we begin. But major tax cuts also pose a significant and very real political problem, and the Speaker's comments about how including tax cuts leaves a balanced budget plan open to criticism are absolutely correct. There is no painless solution to the deficit. The fundamental premise of any plan to balance the budget rests on the willingness of the Nation to sacrifice, but we cannot expect the Nation to embrace a plan which calls for some to sacrifice while providing tax cuts for others. Such a plan would not be sustainable, as was demonstrated so clearly during the 104th Congress. We can enact a balance budget plan if that plan is seen broadly as spreading sacrifice fairly. Mr. President, no partisan plan has any hope of rallying broadbased public support. The only way we will enact a balanced budget plan, and sustain it through the several years it will take to achieve balance, is through a truly bipartisan effort. Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Domenici, and with the support of the Speaker, we have a chance to build such a plan. I hope my colleagues will not squander the opportunity they have given us at some personal political cost to themselves. I look forward to working with Chairman Domenici on the Budget Committee to fashion the beginning of a budget agreement. As I have indicated to him in the committee, there are several budget issues that are especially important to me, but I remain flexible on all aspects of the budget in trying to reach a bipartisan agreement. Mr. President, I applaud the Speaker for change of heart, and especially commend Chairman Domenici for his courage and leadership.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to those who have spoken about the need to bring the Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC] to the Senate floor for debate at the earliest possible date. As everyone in this body knows, the U.S. Senate must ratify the CWC by April 29, 1997, in order for the United States to become an original party to the convention. To date, 70 countries have ratified the CWC, and another 161 countries are signatories. The United States has taken a leadership role throughout the negotiations surrounding this treaty, and yet, with time running out, the Senate has not voted on the document that so many Americans have helped to craft. Time is of the essence in this debate for several reasons. One reason is, of course, the April 29 deadline by which the U.S. Senate must ratify this treaty so that the United States may be a full participant in the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW], the governing body that will have the responsibility for deciding the terms for the implementation of the CWC. A second reason is the constitutional responsibility of the Senate to provide its advice and consent on all treaties signed by the President. This treaty was signed by President Bush in January 1993, and was submitted to the Senate by President Clinton in November of that year. Unfortunately, the Senate has not yet fulfilled its responsibility with respect to this treaty. A third reason, and what I believe is one of the most important, is the need for adequate time for debate of this treaty and its implications for the United States prior to the April 29 deadline for ratification. Many have expressed concern over various provisions in the CWC. Senators should have the opportunity to debate these concerns, and the American people deserve the chance to hear them. Senators will also have the opportunity to voice their concerns during debate of the treaty's implementing legislation, which will most likely be discussed in conjunction with the treaty itself. As a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, I have had the opportunity to participate in hearings on this issue. In all the hearings and deliberations over the efficacy of this treaty, two things have been made crystal clear: First, the CWC is not perfect, and second, the CWC is the best avenue available for beginning down the road to the eventual elimination of chemical weapons. There are real flaws, as we all recognize, with the verifiability of the CWC. There will be cheating and evasions and attempts to obey the letter but not the spirit of the treaty. But most of the responsible players on the international stage will recognize that through the CWC the world has spoken, and firmly rejected chemical weapons. The CWC was laboriously crafted over three decades to meet the security and economic interests of states parties. The United States was at the forefront of that effort; the treaty reflects U.S. needs and has the blessing and enthusiastic support of our defense and business communities. Can the treaty be improved? Of course. But the CWC has a provision for amendment after it comes into force. I would hope that the United States would be again at the head of efforts to make the treaty more effective after a period to test its utility. We have the technological means and economic weight to make it so. But only if we are a party to the treaty. And to become a party to the treaty, the U.S. Senate must perform its constitutionally mandated function of debate and ratification before April 29. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that the Chemical Weapons Convention is being held hostage to other, unrelated, matters. Time is of the essence, Mr. President, and time is running out. In closing, this treaty should be fully and carefully debated by the U.S. Senate at the earliest possible date, not at the 11 hour when the clock is ticking on our ability to ensure that the United States is an active participant in future revisions to the CWC. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the escalating costs of the United States involvement in Bosnia. Recently, I asked the administration representatives for a ballpark estimate of the expected cost to the United States taxpayer of the American operation in Bosnia. I was astonished to hear that administration estimates have been revised to $6.5 billion. Six-point-five billion dollars. To put that in perspective, we were originally told that the Bosnia mission would cost the United States taxpayer some $2 billion. Later, the estimate was revised to $3 billion. Now, it has risen to a staggering $6.5 billion. Mr. President, the cost has now risen more than threefold since the original estimates we were given. That is equal to just over half of the entire foreign operation budget for fiscal 1997 which is about $12.2 billion. Let me review what has happened here. In late 1995, when the administration negotiated the United States troop commitment outlined by the Dayton accords, the administration came to the Congress with an estimate for United States troop participation in the NATO Peace Implementation Force in Bosnia, commonly referred to as IFOR. According to information provided to my office by the Office of the Secretary of Defense [OSD], this initial estimate of $2 billion was generated using a force deployment model based on experience in Desert Storm and Somalia * * * [although] the types of forces, deployment schedules, field conditions, and security situation had not been determined.'' Once troops were deployed to Bosnia, new information about the field conditions became available and pushed the original estimate up by about 50 percent. As I understand it, unexpected and adverse weather conditions, including major floods, further complicated the operation--delaying the establishment of land routes and altering placement of planned camp sites. According to the Defense Department, additional reserves were also required to back fill for troops that had been deployed to the region. Further refinements of the cost estimate were again made in July 1996, when the Defense Department recognized the need for additional moneys--to the tune of almost $310 million--for pulling out heavy armored forces and replacing them with military police, as well as additional communications requirements. A new total cost estimate of $3.2 million for operations through the end of 1996--that is, for approximately one full year--was provided to congressional staff in July. The conditions that led to these refinements also helped throw the time line for the 1-year mission out of whack. So, no one could have really been surprised by the announcement last October--just as the Congress was preparing to take its long recess--that the United States had decided to dispatch additional troops to Bosnia. The new deployment of an additional 5,000 troops was to be part of a new mission--the one we now call SFOR, or NATO stabilization force--and would last 18 months, through June 1998. The extension of the U.S. mission in the region, of course, required a new cost estimate. Using actual costs to date, projected force levels for fiscal year 1997 and for fiscal year 1998, and expected operating costs, the Defense Department now says that total costs for the operation are expected to be $6,512,000,000. Mr. President, when Congress was first consulted about the Bosnia operation back in 1995, I asked whether or not the United States would be able to withdraw troops from IFOR in December 1996, as the administration said then, even if the mission clearly had not been successful. I had my doubts then that the stated goal--ending the fighting and raising an infrastructure capable of supporting a durable peace--would be achievable in 12 months' time. I foresaw a danger that conditions would remain so unsettled that it would then be argued that it would be folly--and waste--to withdraw on schedule. My concerns and hesitations of October 1995 were only compounded by the October 1996 announcement that additional troops were being deployed to Bosnia, and compounded further in November 1996 when it became clear that the mission was being extended for an additional 18 months. In my view, the handwriting has been on the wall for some time now. As many in this Chamber will recall, I was one of the few Members of Congress, and the only Democrat, to vote against the initial deployment of troops in 1995. At that time, I questioned the projections regarding the duration and cost of the mission. What I feared then has happened. The United States continues to be drawn deeper into a situation from which we appear unable to extricate ourselves. The war in Vietnam was called a quagmire. We referred to continued United States troop deployment in Somalia as mission creep. I fear that the Bosnia operation presents the same dilemma. There will continue to reasons to encourage continued U.S. military presence on the ground. Despite an original estimate of $2 billion, that presence is now moving closer and closer to $7 billion. I recognize that the Bosnia mission has not been without some positive results. We can all be grateful that people are no longer dying en masse in Bosnia and that United States and troops from other nations are to be applauded for having largely succeeded in enforcing the military aspects of the Dayton accords. But successive delays in holding municipal elections and the lasting, and at-large, presence of indicted war criminals are continuing signs that the progress of American troop presence is transitory at best. At the heart of the conflict is that the strategic political goals of the warring factions remain unchanged. Peace in the region appears to be achievable, unfortunately, only at the point of NATO arms. Mr. President, I now fear that, come next June, when the SFOR mission is expected to end, and after we will have invested $6.5 billion, there is a real danger that we will be back at square one. I hope that the lesson learned from Bosnia is that we should not make commitments of United States resources, be they military, humanitarian, or otherwise, without a candid assessment of the likely level and duration of the commitment. While it is clear that there were sound, military reasons for upping the financial projections for U.S. participation in both IFOR and SFOR, I can not believe that the original estimate was as candid of an assessment as we could have had, even that early in the process. We are told that U.S. troops will finish their mission next June. But that begs a question: What certainty is there that even this promise will be kept? I fear, as I did when the United States first committed 20,000 ground troops, that there is no easy way out of this situation. The cost of U.S. involvement continues to rise. And troops, from my State and from throughout the Nation, continue to be deployed. When will it end, Mr. President. When will it end? At the very time we are straining hard to eliminate the Federal deficit, the dollars continue to pour out of our Treasury. The cost of this excursion goes on and on.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will support the bi-partisan compromise crafted by Senators Feinstein, Coverdell and the administration because I believe the United States must signal the Mexican Government that the status quo is no longer acceptable in regard to anti-narcotics cooperation. The massive and growing influx of illegal drugs into this country from Mexico is a significant threat to both of our countries and it must be stopped. Prior to the President's decision to certify Mexico, I joined 40 of my Senate colleagues in writing to the President and urging him to decertify Mexico because of its abysmal record --a record which includes a complete failure to extradite nationals wanted for drug crimes in this country, as well as rampant corruption at all levels of the anti-drug effort. The arrest last month of Mexico's top anti-drug official on charges that he was on the payroll of one of Mexico's largest drug cartels illustrates the nature and extent of this problem. Further, I am deeply concerned about Mexico's decision to replace much of its national police force, which was removed due to widespread corruption, with the Mexican military, an organization with a very poor record in regard to human rights offenses. Mexico may well be a significant economic partner with the United States, but the current level of illegal drugs entering this Nation unabated from the south is simply unacceptable. Our economic partnership with Mexico should not include the flourishing drug trade which currently uses Mexico as a primary transit point. While I believe the President should not have certified Mexico, I support the Feinstein compromise because, in light of the Administration's decision, it represents the only legitimate opportunity to hold the Mexican Government accountable. I will watch the actions of our southern neighbor very closely over the coming months in the sincere hope that the Mexican Government will rededicate itself to join the United States in our effort to deal with illicit narcotics which infect both of our nations.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator. All I wanted to do is be the first to congratulate the Senator from Georgia on his first speech as a Member of this body. I can't tell you how delighted we all are to have the Senator from Georgia here. The Senator from Georgia ran a tough race. I know the Senator from Georgia has run other races before. The people of Georgia know well that the Senator from Georgia did not come to this campaign finance reform issue in the last few weeks, or just after the revelations of the last election. The Senator from Georgia has been a leader in Georgia and in the country for years in authoring and considering and moving forward the issue of campaign finance reform. I can't think of anything that made me happier than when the Senator from Georgia said his first bill would be to cosponsor our bipartisan effort. On behalf of my colleagues and myself, it is a great moment in the Senate to have the Senator from Georgia join us and to hear his first speech.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield for a brief comment?

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to speak on the two resolutions which the Senate is debating, the so-called Republican version and the Democratic version. I take this opportunity to explain why I intend to vote against both versions as they are now being offered. At the outset, we should be clear that there is no reason for the Senate to actually consider either version. The statute authorizing the appointment of an independent counsel gives the authority to make the appointment to the Attorney General of the United States, and it also provides a mechanism for the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to invoke a procedure for the Attorney General to respond to a request for appointment of an independent counsel. Mr. President, that, in fact, is what has been used in recent days. Both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees last week voted to invoke that process. The Attorney General has 30 days to respond. In effect, what we are doing today, since all of that has already happened, what we are doing today is really just shear theatrical maneuvering. On the one side, we have the Republican resolution, which carefully restricts the request and any implication of wrongdoing just to the Clinton White House. That resolution puts Congress off limits for an independent counsel investigation for its alleged wrongdoing. It puts the Republican National Committee off limits for an independent counsel investigation. The Republican resolution turns a blind eye to any allegations of impropriety beyond the White House itself. On the other side, we have a Democratic resolution that stops short of even taking notice of the fact that there have been so many allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the Democratic Party that the public is crying out for an independent, impartial investigation. Mr. President, both sides appear to be ignoring the degree to which the fundraising practices of the 1996 elections have gone beyond any limits and created the appearance of a system totally out of control. The improprieties are not limited to the fundraising activities in the White House. Both parties engaged in an almost mindless race to the bottom. The staggering amounts of money raised in the 1996 elections, more than $2.7 billion, compelled the kind of fundraising excesses which continue to shock the country each day. Day after day the front- page story is yet another tale of improprieties and new scandals. The stories encompass both parties, the congressional races as well as the Presidential races. Mr. President, according to a poll released last week by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News, 91 percent of the American people believe that, if an independent counsel was appointed, the investigation should include all Federal elections, not just the Presidential race, but congressional races, as well. Last fall, Common Cause filed a request with the Attorney General for appointment of an independent counsel to investigate the violations of law by both parties in the 1996 campaign. At the time, I said that such action might be appropriate. More recently, I reached the conclusion that it was necessary because it had become clear that the seemingly endless scope of allegations arising from campaign fundraising activities touching all levels of our Government had grown so vast that the only manner in which the public's confidence can be ensured is, Mr. President, by the appointment of an independent counsel. In my view, given the breadth of the allegations, any investigation conducted by the Department of Justice is inevitably and unavoidably subject to the taint of political conflict in this context. To this end, I called upon the Attorney General to appoint an independent counsel. However, an important distinction between the position I have taken and that offered by the majority in the form of this resolution is that I believe that any call for an independent counsel must necessarily include an investigation of all potential wrongdoers, be it on the part of the executive branch, the political parties, or the Congress. The Republican resolution takes the position that neither Congress nor the Republican National Committee should be subject to such an investigation. I believe the American people will see through this approach. How can anyone suggest to the citizens of this Nation that potential illegalities should be subject to an independent counsel, provided the target is the President but not the Congress? When the target is one party, but not the other, they will surely see such a ploy for exactly what it is, yet another partisan maneuver designed to delude the public into believing that the problem is limited to a small group of people and not a systemic problem that demands a comprehensive overhaul of our system of campaign finance laws. Mr. President, as a threshold, it is essential to understand the basis for the independent counsel as well as who is covered by the law. The underlying premise behind the independent counsel law, a premise which we should sustain and that is threatened by partisan gamesmanship, is that we have an inherent obligation to ensure the confidence of the American people and the public in investigations of the Government. This law, born of the Watergate scandal, was derived to restore and protect the public's confidence in these types of investigations, and in the process preserve and promote the public's confidence in the integrity of the U.S. Government. Mr. President, the independent counsel law provides that the Attorney General must seek an independent counsel upon finding specific information, derived from a credible source, that a violation of Federal law has potentially occurred in regard to certain covered persons, such as the President, the Vice President, Cabinet members, certain high-level officials in the White House, among others. In addition to these mandatory provisions, the independent counsel law provides the Attorney General with certain discretionary power for other persons--those not covered by the mandatory provisions--and, Mr. President, to emphasize, Members of Congress. Members of Congress are included within these discretionary powers of the Attorney General with regard to the independent counsel. In regard to other persons, an independent counsel may be sought if, in the face of specific evidence of illegality, derived from a credible source, a personal, political, or financial conflict of interest exists or may arise as a result of a Department of Justice investigation. In regard to Members of Congress, the discretionary standard is a public interest standard. In other words, if the Attorney General has evidence of a violation of Federal law involving a Member of Congress, she may seek an independent counsel if she finds it to be in the public interest. Mr. President, over the past few weeks, I have been approached by colleagues and others who argue that Members of Congress are simply not subject to the statute. Mr. President, that is simply incorrect. In fact, if one reviews the legislative history of this law, one finds that Congress had previously been covered, albeit not explicitly, under the other persons provision. In the 1994 reauthorization, Congress clarified this and added a separate section solely for Members of Congress. The conference report accompanying the 1994 amendments to the independent counsel law states as follows: The 1987 law provided the Attorney General with the discretionary authority to use the independent counsel process for any person whose investigation or prosecution by the Department of Justice ``may result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest.'' This discretionary authority permitted the Attorney General, if a conflict of interest were present, to use the independent counsel process to investigate Members of Congress. However, Members of Congress were not specifically identified as falling within that general category of coverage. Mr. President, realizing the hypocrisy of a law that allows an independent counsel in regard to the executive, but not explicitly with regard to Congress, the Congress chose to act. The conference report continues: The Senate bill gives the Attorney General specific discretionary authority to use the independent counsel to investigate Members of Congress. It broadens the standard for invoking the process with respect to Members from requiring a conflict of interest to requiring the Attorney General to find it would be in the public interest. This broader standard would permit the Attorney General to use the independent counsel process for Members of Congress in cases of perceived as well as actual conflicts of interest. Not only did the Congress then act to explicitly include Members of Congress, it took the additional step of making the standard for invoking the statute easier to apply than it had been previously. As the conference report stated, the statute may be invoked in the case of a perceived or actual conflict of interest. Now, this is a significant statement of congressional intent as to whether or not Congress falls within the ambit of the independent counsel statute. Yet, Mr. President, the resolution brought to the floor of the Senate by a Republican leader chooses a different course and turns a blind eye to any potential illegal conduct on behalf of Members of Congress, be it real or perceived. It simply says to the Attorney General, appoint an independent counsel in regard to the Clinton administration, but not in regard to any illegality involving Congress or the Republican National Committee. Mr. President, I believe this approach is seriously flawed and should be rejected. As I indicated previously, 9 out of 10 Americans want all illegality in regard to the 1996 elections investigated. Yet, this resolution chooses to ignore that which the American people seem to readily understand--that being that all illegality should be investigated. Mr. President, when one looks at the myriad of allegations that have arisen in the wake of the 1996 Federal elections, it is not difficult to see why the American people feel that both political parties, and Congress, should be included in an independent counsel investigation. There has been a lot of attention focused upon alleged wrongdoing by the Clinton White House. But equal attention needs to be focused upon similar allegations about the behavior of both national parties and the Members of the Congress during the fundraising explosion in the 1996 election. At the outset, it should be understood that what is being sought here is an independent counsel to investigate allegations of wrongdoing in the 1996 election. The distinguished chairman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, stated during the debate on this issue on Friday as follows: The answer to whether criminal wrongdoing has occurred will of necessity turn on the resolution of disputed factual, legal, and state of mind determinations. Repeating that, he said: The answer to whether criminal wrongdoing has occurred will of necessity turn on the resolution of disputed factual, legal, and state of mind determinations. We have to stress what the Senator from Utah stated: At this stage, whether there was criminal wrongdoing turns on the resolution of factual, legal, and state-of-mind determinations. Obviously, those factual determinations can only be ascertained by an impartial investigation, and that statement applies equally to allegations regarding Republican conduct in fundraising activities as it does to Democratic conduct. Without engaging in an extensive description of the allegations of improper conduct in the 1996 election, which goes well beyond the activities of the White House, let me highlight a few areas. First, with respect to the soft money machines that were operated by both parties in the 1996 elections, the initial request filed by Common Cause last fall for appointment of an independent counsel alleged that both the Clinton and Dole Presidential campaigns, along with their respective political parties, knowingly and willfully violated Federal campaign finance laws. Common Cause specifically charged that both campaigns were engaged in illegal schemes to violate the Presidential primary spending limits and the ban on soft money being used directly to support a Federal candidate. Mr. President, the Senator from Utah also alluded to this question in his remarks on Friday when he stated: There remains significant factual questions of the extent to which the allegedly improper fundraising activity was, in fact, directed toward benefiting Federal campaigns. If, indeed, it is determined that there were knowing and willful schemes to use soft money in both Presidential campaigns, both parties, as Common Cause asserts, would have violated existing law prohibiting such activity. Of course, Mr. President, the answer cannot be ascertained until an independent investigation is conducted. Mr. President, let me describe another piece of soft money activity that has been tied directly to the Republican National Committee; that is, the transfer of some $4.6 million from the RNC to a tax-exempt organization headed by Grover Norquist, a close ally of the Republican Speaker of the House. This organization, according to a Washington Post story on December 10, 1996, then used the RNC money to flood voters in 150 congressional districts with millions of pieces of mail and phone calls. Now, this story adds a rather peculiar twist to the concept of independent expenditures. There have been plenty of complaints about various groups, including labor organizations, running independent campaigns against particular candidates. But this story describes what appears to be what or what may have been a money laundering scheme, which allowed the RNC to raise soft money and then transfer it to this tax-exempt group, which then used the money for an independent expenditure campaign. Was there coordination of these expenditures with the candidates themselves, or through the Republican National Committee? Was this transfer of money designed to allow the RNC to do indirectly what the law prohibits them to do directly--that is, spend soft money in a congressional campaign? Should we not be seeking the answer to that question? Was this a violation of tax laws as well as campaign finance laws? As the Senator from Utah stated in calling for an investigation of Democratic fundraising activities, there are significant factual questions involved here as to the extent to which this fundraising activity was directed toward benefiting Federal congressional campaigns. Mr. President, those questions cannot be resolved without an investigation. With respect to the issue of foreign contributions being illegally funneled into Federal elections, I think we are all aware of the allegations that have been made that the People's Republic of China may have targeted Members of Congress, as well as the White House. How successful they were remains unknown. Certainly, we ought to have this question addressed in any independent counsel investigation with regard to Members of Congress, as well as the White House. Finally, let's be candid about the fact that the allegations that campaign contributions were exchanged for special access to policymakers are not directed solely against the current administration. The newspapers have been filled with story after story of Members of Congress, and the political campaign committees of both parties, establishing various schemes to woo and impress large contributors. For example, in 1995, the Republican National Committee is reported to have promised $15,000 donors four meetings a year with House and Senate Republican leaders, as well as participation in international trade missions. Of course, in fairness, similar charges have been made against the Democratic National Committee. Did these schemes cross the line in some cases? Was there illegal exchanges of access for campaign contributions? The answers can only be ascertained after factual investigations. It is little wonder, Mr. President, that in light of these types of allegations, the American public would ask for a broad investigation. It is not difficult to understand why 91 percent of the American people think that all illegality, including that of Congress should be considered by an independent counsel. Mr. President, I mentioned earlier that the statute provides a specific mechanism for congressional involvement in the appointment of an independent counsel. That mechanism is triggered by a request from the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. I also noted that both committees had already acted pursuant to that statutory authority to submit a request to the Attorney General. Unfortunately, that process also broke down along partisan lines. As a Democratic Senator who had previously called for appointment of an independent counsel, I had hoped to be able to work on a bipartisan basis within the Judiciary Committee to formulate a request that would transcend party lines. Unfortunately, that effort failed. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Republican members sent one letter; the Democratic members sent another. The respective letters resembled the resolutions before us today. As far as I am concerned, neither letter went far enough. I choose not to sign either letter because the Democratic letter stopped short of calling for an independent counsel, while the Republican letter, much like this resolution, chose to focus solely on the administration and ignored the potential illegal conduct on behalf of the Congress. Instead, I sent my own letter asking for the appointment of an independent counsel in regard to all illegal activity in the 1996 Federal election, including Congress. Mr. President, in calling as I have for an independent counsel, I have been taken to task by all sides--from those who do not want a special counsel and from those who, somehow, believe that by calling for an independent counsel to investigate all parties, I am somehow seeking to protect the administration. Notwithstanding these inconsistent conclusions, I remain firm in my belief that the scope of the allegations is such that the only way we can hope to salvage the confidence of the American people in any investigation of campaign fundraising illegalities is to appoint an independent counsel. In so doing, I do not mean to disparage or question the ability of our Attorney General, Janet Reno, to conduct a fair and evenhanded investigation. I simply feel that the scope of this problem is such that irrespective of her evenhandedness, her ultimate conclusion will be suspect and challenged on political grounds. In a sense, the political nature this debate has taken in the Senate makes my point. In regard to many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, I simply disagree with those who argue that an independent counsel should not be appointed. While I appreciate the sincerity of their perspectives, I have reached a different conclusion. The decision to call for an independent counsel is not one that any of us should take lightly. The statue exists for very specific reasons directed at promoting public confidence in the investigation of the Government. The statute does not exist to provide elected officials opportunities to score political points against officials of the other party as I fear has been attempted with this resolution. In my view, we risk something far greater than short-term partisan advantage by engaging in a process as partisan as this. We risk the further erosion of the public's confidence in the Government and in particular the U.S. Senate to set aside partisanship and work for the good of the American people. At the same time, my friends on the Republican side of the aisle ought to be willing to expose their own parties to the same intense scrutiny that they urge for the opposite party. An evenhanded investigation into all aspects of fundraising improprieties in the 1996 election is the fair response. This raises the final point I wish to make. That being the pressing need to set about doing the work of the people of this Nation in a bipartisan, constructive manner. As I travel to each county in Wisconsin, as I do each year, I talk with the men and women of my State and at each and every stop, be it in Milwaukee or Bayfield County, the people I listen to all want us to work together and help solve the problems that confront them each and every day. Sadly, the short history of the 105th Congress, much like the 104th Congress, seems to ignore that call to action. Rather than setting about the hard work of actually balancing the Federal budget we debated for a number of weeks a constitutional amendment which would have forestalled the hard choices until well into the next century. In the meantime, the budget process itself, the process by which we can actually balance the budget, continues to languish. In fact, the 105th Congress has debated more constitutional amendments than it has confirmed Federal judges--three constitutional amendments, no judges. We have also debated a resolution dealing with the scope of the Governmental Affairs inquiry into campaign irregularities and finally, after much public pressure, the scope of that inquiry was adjusted to cover not just illegality but improper conduct, but only after the Senate was needlessly tied up for a number of days. Although this resolution before us for the third day now should only be concerned with illegality, we are nonetheless at an impasse because the proponents of this nonbinding and unnecessary resolution refuse to include themselves in the scope of the inquiry. No wonder people are turned off by government. Mr. President, in conclusion, I will not support this one-sided resolution calling for an independent counsel to investigate only one aspect of the 1996 elections. I have made clear my belief that one should be appointed and I did so long before the political exercises which have consumed the Judiciary Committee and this body were set in motion a few weeks ago. Further, I will not support the Democratic alternative because it fails to call for an independent counsel. While the Democratic alternative is correct that any investigation must necessarily cover Congress it falls short of calling for an independent counsel. But more importantly Mr. President, than how any one of us votes on these resolutions, it is my sincere hope that we can set aside the divisive partisan issues which have characterized the outset of the 105th Congress and move toward bipartisan solutions. We should balance the budget, we should address juvenile crime, we should strengthen educational programs, and we should reform the campaign laws which have created the unrelenting money chase that gives rise to so many of the problems which frame this debate. The campaign finance system in this Nation is broken and in desperate need of repair and the American people understand that, even if some members of the Senate seem to believe the current, scandal-ridden system works fine, they certainly don't feel that way. Furthermore, the American people also understand that the responsibility for the current scandals regarding the campaign fundraising activities of the 1996 Federal elections lie at the feet of both parties, the administration and the Congress. Yet what is ultimately more important than assessing blame and passing nonbinding resolutions is whether or not this body moves forward and adopts comprehensive, bipartisan campaign finance reform.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to deauthorize the construction of the Animas-La Plata water project in Colorado. I am very pleased to be joined in this effort by the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback]. This measure is identical to a bipartisan effort in the other body introduced on February 13, 1997, by my colleague from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] and my colleague from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio]. The Animas-La Plata project is a $744 million water development project planned for southwest Colorado and northwest New Mexico that is largely taxpayer funded. Designed to supply 191,230 feet of water, it will consist of 2 major reservoirs, 7 pumping plants, and 200 miles of canals and pipes. The project will pump water over 1,000 feet uphill, consuming enough power to run a city of 60,000, to supply municipal, industrial, and irrigation interests. The legislation I am introducing today deauthorizes the Animas-La Plata Federal reclamation project and directs the Secretary of the Interior to work with the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes to find an alternative to satisfy their water rights needs. It is supported by a broad coalition of taxpayer and environmental groups that includes: Taxpayers for Common Sense, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for a Sound Economy, and National Taxpayers Union. This legislation was also profiled in the 1997 Green Scissors Report, and the Animas project has shown up on a number of deficit reduction target lists, including one recently proposed by the Chairman of the Budget Committee of the other body [Mr. Kasich]. I believe that Federal legislation to terminate the Animas-La Plata project is needed for four reasons. First, as a Senator who is extremely concerned about the Federal deficit and debt, this project has an extremely high price tag--a projected total cost of $744 million in fiscal year 1998. That total projected cost estimate has increased $30 million over the fiscal year 1997 estimate of $714 million. The Federal share of that cost now exceeds half a billion dollars, $503 million to be exact, which is nearly 68 percent of the total cost. I believe, especially in these times of tight budgets, that commencement of significant Federal discretionary spending should be critically evaluated. By no measure or metric is this project cost effective, Mr. President. A July 1995 economic analysis by the Bureau of Reclamation, the only analysis that used economic procedures approved for Bureau analyses and a current discount rate, reported that the project's benefit-cost ratio is 0.36:1. In other words, Mr. President, the project will return only 36 cents for every taxpayer dollar invested. I am additionally concerned, Mr. President, because recent GAO reports have highlighted that Federal water projects, once built, do not recoup the costs of the projects from the users, who are supposed to be paying the government back for its investment. Municipal and industrial users are required under the Water Supply Act of 1958 to fully repay all the construction costs and operation and maintenance costs attributable to the supply of municipal and industrial water. Those repayment contracts are to be in place before construction begins. Currently, the Bureau has signed a repayment contract with two non-Indian project beneficiaries. Those that have been signed do not cover the construction costs of the full project, due to cost increases. It is questionable if the project will ever comply with the law and obtain full reimbursement of municipal and industrial costs from the project beneficiaries. Second, I am introducing this legislation because I believe that the Congress should support the State of Colorado's ongoing dialog over lower cost alternatives rather than proceed to initiate construction. The Animas-La Plata project has been the focus of controversy and litigation for many years. In response to legislative activities last Congress, which I will describe in further detail, Colorado Gov. Roy Romer and Lt. Gov. Gail Schoettler convened a discussion process in October 1996 with the Bureau of Reclamation, the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes, interested water districts, irrigators, and environmentalists in an attempt to resolve disputes among the parties. To assist in the success of this process, the Bureau and the other parties executed a legal ``stand still'' agreement establishing basic ground rules for the dialog and identifying the activities that could take place outside the process. While the eventual outcome is not known, a recommendation for a different formulation of the project is possible. Thus far, the Department of the Interior, acting through the Bureau, is committed to finding a solution acceptable to the parties in general, and to the Colorado Ute Tribes specifically, due to the Federal Government's tribal trust responsibility. My legislation will codify that direction by specifically directing the Bureau to continue with these negotiations, rather than proceed with Animas-La Plata. Third, this legislation has been drafted to acknowledge the importance of demonstrating support for ensuring that the Federal Government's obligations to the Colorado Ute Tribes are fulfilled. During debate over the fiscal year 1997 energy and water appropriations bill, colleagues will remember that I offered an amendment to terminate funding for Animas-La Plata. I believe that amendment was not successful last year due to concerns by colleagues that the project is necessary to fulfill Ute tribal water rights. As I made clear to colleagues during the appropriations debate, despite the contention that the project will address the Ute claims, Animas-La Plata was not initiated as a way to address these claims. This project was authorized in 1968 to supply irrigation water to farmers growing forage crops in arid areas. Even back then, in the heyday of big water projects, this one was riddled with so many problems it couldn't get going. In 1988, nearly 20 years after it was authorized, the settlement of the Ute Indian water rights claims became an additional justification for pushing this project through. Construction of this project has not yet begun because of a variety of factors, including concerns raised about the adequacy of the April 1996 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, issues surrounding cost-sharing and repayment agreements, and compliance problems with New Mexico's water quality standards. Both the Ute Mountain Ute and the Southern Ute tribal governments formally support construction of Animas-La Plata. The water that the Utes will be provided from the project, however, is only a fraction of the project's total capacity. Of the 191,230 acre-feet of water the project will supply, two-thirds will go to nontribal interests with only 62,000 acre feet of the total to be supplied to both tribes. There is dissent within the Southern Ute Tribe about the wisdom of this project, and I am pleased that this legislation terminating the project has received the support of the Southern Ute Grassroots Organization. I am concerned that the Animas-La Plata as currently proposed cannot meet the needs of the tribes because the initial construction phase of the project will neither provide the delivery system nor the quantity of water needed to fully honor the Federal Government's commitments. We should not spend hundreds of million of dollars and still find the tribal needs potentially unmet. Rather, I want to see that the Bureau is engaged in actively solving these problems rather than half- heartedly moving forward with construction and at the negotiating table to examine alternatives. The Ute Tribes' water rights settlement says that if the project isn't built and fully functional by the year 2000, the tribes may void the settlement and go back into negotiations or litigation. Last year, the Bureau indicated that it cannot complete the project before 2003. It is not unreasonable to expect that the Utes may seek to void their settlement, wherein the non-Indian irrigators will get their expensive project and Congress in the year 2005 or so will have to fund a new water rights settlement. Finally, I believe that there needs to be a proactive legislative solution put forward to address the Animas-La Plata project because the political support for continued appropriations for this project is eroding. Last year, during the 104th Congress, the other body voted 221 to 200 to stop the funding for the Animas-La Plata project as it is currently designed. The chairman of the Budget Committee in the other body has put Animas-La Plata on a target list of corporate welfare cuts. I believe that during the appropriations cycle for fiscal year 1998, the other body will again vote to terminate funding for this project. Politically, we may go back and forth for a few years with the other body terminating funding and this body restoring the money. But eventually, both Houses of Congress will resist and we will have wasted millions of dollars. My bill seeks to put this project back on a positive track. It directs the Bureau of Reclamation to address legitimate water needs and explore all the alternatives to meeting those needs, and terminates this project that we can no longer afford. I ask unanimous consent that this measure be printed in the Record. Three being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to deauthorize the construction of the Animas-La Plata water project in Colorado. I am very pleased to be joined in this effort by the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback]. This measure is identical to a bipartisan effort in the other body introduced on February 13, 1997, by my colleague from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] and my colleague from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio]. The Animas-La Plata project is a $744 million water development project planned for southwest Colorado and northwest New Mexico that is largely taxpayer funded. Designed to supply 191,230 feet of water, it will consist of 2 major reservoirs, 7 pumping plants, and 200 miles of canals and pipes. The project will pump water over 1,000 feet uphill, consuming enough power to run a city of 60,000, to supply municipal, industrial, and irrigation interests. The legislation I am introducing today deauthorizes the Animas-La Plata Federal reclamation project and directs the Secretary of the Interior to work with the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes to find an alternative to satisfy their water rights needs. It is supported by a broad coalition of taxpayer and environmental groups that includes: Taxpayers for Common Sense, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for a Sound Economy, and National Taxpayers Union. This legislation was also profiled in the 1997 Green Scissors Report, and the Animas project has shown up on a number of deficit reduction target lists, including one recently proposed by the Chairman of the Budget Committee of the other body [Mr. Kasich]. I believe that Federal legislation to terminate the Animas-La Plata project is needed for four reasons. First, as a Senator who is extremely concerned about the Federal deficit and debt, this project has an extremely high price tag--a projected total cost of $744 million in fiscal year 1998. That total projected cost estimate has increased $30 million over the fiscal year 1997 estimate of $714 million. The Federal share of that cost now exceeds half a billion dollars, $503 million to be exact, which is nearly 68 percent of the total cost. I believe, especially in these times of tight budgets, that commencement of significant Federal discretionary spending should be critically evaluated. By no measure or metric is this project cost effective, Mr. President. A July 1995 economic analysis by the Bureau of Reclamation, the only analysis that used economic procedures approved for Bureau analyses and a current discount rate, reported that the project's benefit-cost ratio is 0.36:1. In other words, Mr. President, the project will return only 36 cents for every taxpayer dollar invested. I am additionally concerned, Mr. President, because recent GAO reports have highlighted that Federal water projects, once built, do not recoup the costs of the projects from the users, who are supposed to be paying the government back for its investment. Municipal and industrial users are required under the Water Supply Act of 1958 to fully repay all the construction costs and operation and maintenance costs attributable to the supply of municipal and industrial water. Those repayment contracts are to be in place before construction begins. Currently, the Bureau has signed a repayment contract with two non-Indian project beneficiaries. Those that have been signed do not cover the construction costs of the full project, due to cost increases. It is questionable if the project will ever comply with the law and obtain full reimbursement of municipal and industrial costs from the project beneficiaries. Second, I am introducing this legislation because I believe that the Congress should support the State of Colorado's ongoing dialog over lower cost alternatives rather than proceed to initiate construction. The Animas-La Plata project has been the focus of controversy and litigation for many years. In response to legislative activities last Congress, which I will describe in further detail, Colorado Gov. Roy Romer and Lt. Gov. Gail Schoettler convened a discussion process in October 1996 with the Bureau of Reclamation, the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes, interested water districts, irrigators, and environmentalists in an attempt to resolve disputes among the parties. To assist in the success of this process, the Bureau and the other parties executed a legal ``stand still'' agreement establishing basic ground rules for the dialog and identifying the activities that could take place outside the process. While the eventual outcome is not known, a recommendation for a different formulation of the project is possible. Thus far, the Department of the Interior, acting through the Bureau, is committed to finding a solution acceptable to the parties in general, and to the Colorado Ute Tribes specifically, due to the Federal Government's tribal trust responsibility. My legislation will codify that direction by specifically directing the Bureau to continue with these negotiations, rather than proceed with Animas-La Plata. Third, this legislation has been drafted to acknowledge the importance of demonstrating support for ensuring that the Federal Government's obligations to the Colorado Ute Tribes are fulfilled. During debate over the fiscal year 1997 energy and water appropriations bill, colleagues will remember that I offered an amendment to terminate funding for Animas-La Plata. I believe that amendment was not successful last year due to concerns by colleagues that the project is necessary to fulfill Ute tribal water rights. As I made clear to colleagues during the appropriations debate, despite the contention that the project will address the Ute claims, Animas-La Plata was not initiated as a way to address these claims. This project was authorized in 1968 to supply irrigation water to farmers growing forage crops in arid areas. Even back then, in the heyday of big water projects, this one was riddled with so many problems it couldn't get going. In 1988, nearly 20 years after it was authorized, the settlement of the Ute Indian water rights claims became an additional justification for pushing this project through. Construction of this project has not yet begun because of a variety of factors, including concerns raised about the adequacy of the April 1996 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, issues surrounding cost-sharing and repayment agreements, and compliance problems with New Mexico's water quality standards. Both the Ute Mountain Ute and the Southern Ute tribal governments formally support construction of Animas-La Plata. The water that the Utes will be provided from the project, however, is only a fraction of the project's total capacity. Of the 191,230 acre-feet of water the project will supply, two-thirds will go to nontribal interests with only 62,000 acre feet of the total to be supplied to both tribes. There is dissent within the Southern Ute Tribe about the wisdom of this project, and I am pleased that this legislation terminating the project has received the support of the Southern Ute Grassroots Organization. I am concerned that the Animas-La Plata as currently proposed cannot meet the needs of the tribes because the initial construction phase of the project will neither provide the delivery system nor the quantity of water needed to fully honor the Federal Government's commitments. We should not spend hundreds of million of dollars and still find the tribal needs potentially unmet. Rather, I want to see that the Bureau is engaged in actively solving these problems rather than half- heartedly moving forward with construction and at the negotiating table to examine alternatives. The Ute Tribes' water rights settlement says that if the project isn't built and fully functional by the year 2000, the tribes may void the settlement and go back into negotiations or litigation. Last year, the Bureau indicated that it cannot complete the project before 2003. It is not unreasonable to expect that the Utes may seek to void their settlement, wherein the non-Indian irrigators will get their expensive project and Congress in the year 2005 or so will have to fund a new water rights settlement. Finally, I believe that there needs to be a proactive legislative solution put forward to address the Animas-La Plata project because the political support for continued appropriations for this project is eroding. Last year, during the 104th Congress, the other body voted 221 to 200 to stop the funding for the Animas-La Plata project as it is currently designed. The chairman of the Budget Committee in the other body has put Animas-La Plata on a target list of corporate welfare cuts. I believe that during the appropriations cycle for fiscal year 1998, the other body will again vote to terminate funding for this project. Politically, we may go back and forth for a few years with the other body terminating funding and this body restoring the money. But eventually, both Houses of Congress will resist and we will have wasted millions of dollars. My bill seeks to put this project back on a positive track. It directs the Bureau of Reclamation to address legitimate water needs and explore all the alternatives to meeting those needs, and terminates this project that we can no longer afford. I ask unanimous consent that this measure be printed in the Record. Three being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I rise today to oppose the proposed constitutional amendment offered by the junior Senator from South Carolina and the senior Senator from Pennsylvania. Mr. President, first I would like to say a few words about the Senator from South Carolina. Our colleague, Senator Hollings, has been calling for meaningful campaign finance reform for perhaps longer than any other Member of the U.S. Senate. I disagree with this particular approach. But I certainly do not question his sincerity or commitment to reform. Mr. President, when the U.S. Senate last had an extended debate on the issue of campaign finance reform back in 1993, the junior Senator from South Carolina offered a sense-of-the-Senate amendment to take up a constitutional amendment very similar to the one that is before us today. I remember we had a very short period of time before that vote came up, and I made a decision and I voted with the Senator from South Carolina on that day. I did so because I believed that other than balancing the Federal budget, there was perhaps no more fundamental issue facing our country than the need to reform our election laws. Such a serious topic I believed at the time merited at least a consideration of a constitutional amendment. And I will confess to a certain level of frustration at that time with the fact that the Senate and the other body had not yet acted to pass meaningful campaign finance reform in that Congress. But, Mr. President, to be candid, I immediately realized, even as I was returning to my office, that that might not have been the best vote I ever cast. I started rethinking right away whether I really wanted the U.S. Senate to seriously consider amending the first amendment to address even this subject of which I and so many other Americans feel passionately about. Then, 18 months later, my perspective on this question began to change even more as I was presented with two new developments here in the U.S. Senate. First, I was given the privilege of serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and, second, I would soon learn that the new 104th Congress was to become the engine for a trainload of proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I had a very good seat to witness first hand what was being attempted here with regard to the basic document of our country, the Constitution. It started with a proposal right away for a balanced budget constitutional amendment, and we were considering a term limits constitutional amendment, and then a flag desecration constitutional amendment, then a school prayer amendment, then a supermajority tax increase amendment, and then a victims rights amendment. In all, Mr. President, 135 constitutional amendments were introduced in the last Congress. As I saw legislator after legislator suggest that every social, economic, and political problem we have in this country could be solved merely with enactment of a constitutional amendment, I chose to strongly oppose not only this constitutional amendment but others that also sought to undermine our most treasured founding principle. I firmly believe we must continue this reflective practice of attempting to cure each and every political and social ill of our Nation by tampering with the U.S. Constitution. Mr. President, the Constitution of this country was not a rough draft. We must stop treating it as such. I want to say, because the Senator from South Carolina has just arrived and I know that he is not one who has engaged in such an attitude toward the Constitution, I know very well he only makes a proposal like this with the most serious consideration and for the goal of trying to do something about campaign spending. What I am addressing here, what I saw in the last Congress was a wholesale attempt to try to amend what seemed to be almost virtually every part of the U.S. Constitution. We must also understand that even if this constitutional amendment were to pass this body today, which it will not, but even if it did, it would not take us one single, solitary step closer to campaign finance reform. It is not a silver bullet. This constitutional amendment merely empowers the Congress to set mandatory spending limits on congressional candidates. Those are the same kind of mandatory limits that were struck down in the landmark Buckley versus Valeo decision. Here is the question I pose for supporters of this amendment: If this constitutional amendment were to pass the Congress and be ratified by the States, would campaign finance reformers have the necessary 51 votes--or more likely what would be required would be 60 votes--to pass legislation that included mandatory spending limits? Mr. President, in January I joined the senior Senator from Arizona in introducing the first bipartisan campaign finance reform proposal in over a decade. That proposal, unlike the law that was considered in Buckley versus Valeo, includes voluntary spending limits. That is to say, Mr. President, we offer incentives in the form of free and discounted television time to encourage but not require candidates to limit their campaign spending. When the Senator from Arizona and I bring that legislation to the floor of the Senate, I have no doubt that we will be met with strong resistance from a number of Senators. So the notion that this constitutional amendment will somehow magically pave the way for legislation that includes mandatory spending limits simply ignores the reality of the opposition that campaign finance reformers face here in the Senate and I think would face in the Senate at the time of ratification of any such amendment. Mr. President, this amendment certainly, if ratified, would remove the obstacle of the Supreme Court. But it will not remove the obstacle of those Senators such as the junior Senator from Kentucky who believe that we need more money, not less, in our political system. Most disconcerting to me, Mr. President, is what this proposed constitutional amendment would mean to the first amendment. I find nothing more sacred and treasured in our Nation's history than the first amendment. It is perhaps the one tenet of our Constitution that sets our country apart from every mold of government form and tested by mankind throughout history. No other country has a provision quite like the first amendment. The first amendment is the bedrock of the Bill of Rights. It has as its underpinnings the notion that each individual has a natural and fundamental right to disagree with their elected leaders. It says that a newspaper has an unfettered right to publish expressions of political or moral thought. It says that the Government may not establish a State-based religion that would infringe on the rights of those individuals who seek to be freed from such a religious environment. Last year I stood here on the floor of the Senate with a number of my colleagues to oppose a proposed constitutional amendment that would have prohibited the desecration of the U.S. flag. I did so because that amendment as proposed, for the first time in our history, would have taken a chisel to the first amendment and said that individuals have a constitutional right to express themselves unless they are expressing themselves by burning a flag. Now, Mr. President, I deplore as much as anyone in this body any individual who would take a match to the flag of the United States. And I am firmly convinced that unrestrained spending on congressional campaigns has eroded the confidence of the American people in their Government and their leaders. I believe we should speak out against those who desecrate the flag. I believe we should take immediate steps to fundamentally overhaul our system of financing campaigns. Mr. President, I do not believe, as the supporters of this constitutional amendment and other amendments believe, that we need to amend the U.S. Constitution to bring reform to our system of financing campaigns. Mr. President, sometime in the next day or so, this constitutional amendment will lose. That has been predetermined, or the supporters of this amendment probably would not have been granted consideration here on the floor of the Senate in this manner. This debate has some characteristics of a charade. Again, that is not because of the author, who is sincerely advancing this provision because he believes in it and he thinks it should become part of the Constitution. The ultimate outcome of the charade is everyone knows this will not pass. There are those who want this to sort of be the campaign finance reform debate for this Congress. Have a couple of days of talk, no amendments, have a vote, and be done with it. Be done with campaign finance reform. Mr. President, believe me, I know the feeling. The Senator from Arizona and I have been there. We were there last year, last summer. We were allowed to bring our bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation to the floor last June, but here was the deal: No amendments, just 2 days of debate, and then we had to vote on cloture, whether we will filibuster, just after 2 days. That was it. No chance to fix the bill up or make it appealing to other Members like we do in other things. That is very similar to what is going on here. We were only allowed to do that after the votes had been counted and assurances given that our bill would suffer a quick and painless death. It was not entirely painless, but it was not unanticipated. We did get a majority of the votes in this body on the first try, 54 out of the required 60 votes but, of course, when the process is set up like this, this simply with these few options, we know the outcome and we know what will happen here. Mr. President, I want to point out that things just look a little different this year on the issue of campaign finance reform than they did a year ago. A few things have happened. The McCain-Feingold bill has not been placed on the Senate Calendar this time. It does not appear that the majority leader is terribly interested in bringing it up before the March recess, the Memorial Day recess, or possibly even before the turn of the century. We can speculate about the meaning of that, but one thing is clear: This constitutional amendment will not pass this body, and until this body makes a commitment to considering meaningful, bipartisan campaign finance reform, campaign spending in this country will continue to go completely unrestrained. Nothing in this constitutional amendment before the Senate today would prevent what we witnessed in the last election--the allegation of illegality and improprieties, the accusations of abuse, and the selling of access to high-ranking Government officials would continue no matter what the outcome of the vote we had on this constitutional amendment. Only the enactment of legislation, Mr. President, that bans soft money contributions and that encourages candidates to voluntarily limit how much they spend on their campaigns will make a meaningful difference. Mr. President, I see Members of the Senate as having, really, three choices. First, they can vote for constitutional amendments and partisan reform proposals that basically have predetermined fates of never becoming law. That allows you to say you voted for something and put the matter aside. Second, they can stand with the junior Senator from Kentucky and others who stood here on the Senate floor last June and told us all was well with our campaign finance system and we should all be thrilled that so much money was pouring into the campaign coffers of candidates and parties. That is a second option that some folks are still pursuing. A third option, Mr. President, Senators can join with the Senator from Arizona and myself and others who have tried to approach this problem from a bipartisan perspective and have tried to craft a reform proposal that is fair to all. We have said on countless occasions that our proposal is open to negotiation. We simply have two goals: To encourage Senate candidates to spend less on their campaign and to give challengers an opportunity to run a fair and competitive campaign against well-entrenched incumbents. If you share those goals, we can work together to produce a meaningful reform proposal. Let me say our proposal is picking up steam. We seem to be adding new cosponsors a couple of times a week. Three days ago, I was challenged on the floor by a stated opponent of our bill as to why I was unwilling to address, he said, a particular aspect of our campaign finance system. Now, this surprised me very much because, in the 18 months since this legislation was originally introduced, this Senator had not approached me one single time to ask if I would be willing to address that issue. I told this Senator the other night, and I say to all my other colleagues, if you share those two basic goals of reducing campaign spending and leveling the playing field with the Senator from Arizona and I, we are willing to work with you to address those concerns. Let's do this in the context of a real effort, a real debate, not a charade. That real debate will begin when a comprehensive bipartisan campaign finance reform bill is brought to the floor of the U.S. Senate. After this amendment fails, and as the Governmental Affairs Committee proceeds with the investigation into illegal and improper conduct by Presidential and congressional candidates in the last election, it is my hope that there will be an opportunity for an open and full debate on the issue of campaign finance reform. Mr. President, without meaningful bipartisan campaign finance reform, the American people will continue to perceive their elected leaders as being for sale. Unfortunately, they will continue to distrust and doubt the integrity of their own Government. So, Mr. President, I urge the Members of the Senate to reject this amendment, again, with the understanding that I greatly admire the sincerity and commitment that its author brings forward on this issue.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Senate's passage of Senate Resolution 19, regarding United States opposition to the prison sentence of Tibetan ethno-musicologist Ngawang Choephel by the Government of the People's Republic of China. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this resolution, which was introduced by Senator Moynihan, and was successfully reported out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week. This resolution expresses the Senate's strong sense that Ngawang Choephel should be released from the prison where he has been held in since 1995. It also urges the United States to raise the issue of his release with Chinese officials, to promote a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Commission, and to seek access for human rights monitors in Tibet. Mr. Choephel, a Tibetan national who--with the support of a Fulbright scholarship--studied ethno-musicology at Middlebury College in Vermont, was detained by the Chinese authorities in Tibet in August 1995. After being held incommunicado for a year, he was charged with espionage in October 1996. In December of that year, the Chinese sentenced him to a 18-year prison term following a secret trial. Mr. Choephel was preparing a documentary film about traditional Tibetan performing arts when he was detained. The State Department says there is no evidence that his activities were anything but academic. Unfortunately, Mr. Choephel's arrest and sentence appear consistent with previous Chinese actions to repress cultural expression in Tibet. The U.S. State Department and several human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, note that China consistently denies Tibetans their fundamental human rights. According to the most recent State Department Human Rights report, Chinese authorities continue to commit widespread and well-documented human rights abuse, in violation of internationally accepted norms. Credible reports include instances of death in detention, torture, arbitrary arrest, detention without public trial, and intensified controls on religion and on freedom of speech and the press, particularly for ethnic Tibetans. Since its occupation of Tibet in 1949, the Chinese have also been responsible for the destruction of much of Tibetan civilization. The arrest of Mr. Choephel, who was engaged in efforts to preserve Tibetan culture, reflects China's systematic attempt to repress cultural expression in Tibet. It is crucial that the Senate continue to send the signal that human rights abuses should not be tolerated, and should figure prominently in foreign policy deliberations. As a member of the Senate Subcommittee on Asia, I feel that the United States must continue to urge China to respect Tibet's unique religious, linguistic, and cultural traditions and observe fundamental human rights in Tibet and elsewhere.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on Sunday, March 2, 1997, the Washington Post ran two op-eds profiling how the award of the Nobel Peace Prizes to Asian democratic activists in recent years have helped draw attention to the terrible human rights situation in Burma and in East Timor. The two companion articles highlighted the work of 1991 Nobel winner Aung San Suu Syi and the 1996 cowinners Bishop Carlos Ximenes Belo and Jose Ramos Horta. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Ramos Horta late last month, and he told me how--since the Nobel Committee's announcement in October--the attention of international policymakers and the press on the plight of East Timor has increased dramatically. Mr. President, the joint award to Bishop Belo and Mr. Ramos Horta, followed by the attention in the United States focused on political campaign contributions from Indonesians, has made United States policy toward Indonesia and human rights issues related to East Timor the subject of heightened interest. The Nobel Committee said it hoped the 1996 award would draw international attention to the situation in East Timor, and help build momentum for resolution of the conflict there. I commend the Nobel Committee's decision, because I believe the more light that the international community sheds on the horrible abuses taking place in East Timor, the sooner we will come to a resolution of this conflict. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the March 2, 1997, Washington Post article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Washington Post, Mar. 2, 1997] In East Timor, Teetering on the Edge of More Bloodshed (By Matthew Jardine) ``Hello, Mister. Where are you from?'' I had just arrived at the tiny airport in Dili, capital of Indonesian-occupied East Timor. The man, clad in civilian clothes, didn't identify himself except to say he was from Java, Indonesia's principal island. His questions--and the respect he seemed to command from uniformed officials at the airport--led me to believe he was an intelligence agent. As the only obviously non-Indonesian or East Timorese on this daily flight from Bali a few months ago, I attracted his attention. ``Are you a journalist?'' the man asked, examining my passport. ``Where are you planning to stay?'' I mentioned a local hotel and told him I was a tourist, a common lie that journalists tell to avoid immediate expulsion from places such as East Timor. I wasn't surprised by the scrutiny: During my first trip to East Timor in 1992, I was frequently followed and questioned as I traveled around the tropical, mountainous territory, which makes up half of an uncommonly beautiful island at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago, 400 miles north of Australia. But the beauty belies a harsh reality. In the more than 21 years since Indonesia invaded East Timor and annexed it, more than 200,000 people--about one-third of the country's pre- invasion population--have died as a result of the invasion, Indonesia's subsequent campaign of repression, the ensuing famine and East Timorese resistance to the ongoing occupation, according to Amnesty International. East Timor was a backwater of the Portuguese colonial empire until April 1974, when the military dictatorship in Lisbon was overthrown. Two pro-independence political parties sprung up in East Timor; this development scared the Indonesian military, which feared that an independent East Timor could incite secessionist movements elsewhere in the ethnically diverse archipelago or serve as a platform for leftist subversion. Indonesian intelligence agents began covertly interfering in East Timor's decolonization, helping to provoke a brief civil war between the two pro-independence parties. Amid the chaos, Portugal abandoned its rule of the island. Soon after, Indonesian troops attacked from West Timor (Indonesia has governed the island's western half since its own independence in 1949), culminating in a full-scale invasion on Dec. 7, 1975. They met with fierce resistance from Falintil, the East Timorese guerrilla army. But the war turned in Indonesia's favor with the procurement of counterinsurgency aircraft from the Carter administration. The Indonesian military was able to bomb and napalm the population into submission, almost destroying the resistance as well. An Australian parliamentary report later called it ``indiscriminate killing on a scale unprecedented in post- World War II history.'' Until 1989, East Timor was virtually closed to the outside world. Then the Indonesian government ``opened'' the territory to tourism and foreign investment, but continued to restrict visits by international human rights monitors and journalists. As my taxi left the airport, I saw immediate evidence of change since my 1992 visit: On a wall near the airport entrance, someone had boldly spray-painted ``Viva Bishop Belo,'' a tribute to Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, the head of East Timor's Catholic Church. Belo and Jose Ramos Horta were awarded the 1996 Nobel Peace Prize for their opposition to Indonesian oppression. During my 1992 visit, most East Timorese seemed too afraid to make direct eye contact with me. This time, many people greeted me as I walked the streets in Dili, a picturesque city of 150,000. Some, particularly younger people, flashed a ``V'' sign for victory, a display of their nationalist sympathies. East Timorese with the means to own a parabolic antenna can now watch Portuguese state television (RTP)--which beams its signal into the territory over Indonesia's objections--and catch glimpses of pro-independence leaders in exile or those hiding in the mountains. During my visit, RTP broadcast a documentary on Falintil, which now numbers around 600 guerrillas. The documentary, clandestinely made by a British filmaker, contained footage of David Alex, a 21-year veteran in the struggle against the Indonesian military and third in the Falintil command. He is well known to the East Timorse, but few had ever seen him or heard his voice until the broadcast. Despite these openings, East Timor remains a place where few dare to speak their minds in public and even fewer dare to invite foreigners into their homes. ``We are very happy that the world has recognized our suffering with the Nobel Prize,'' a middle-aged woman told me in a brief conversation on a shady street, ``but we still live in a prison.'' Our talk ended abruptly when a stranger appeared. The streets of Dili are empty by 9 p.m. Accordingly to several people I interviewed, Indonesian soldiers randomly attack people, especially youths, who are outside at night. Matters are worse in rural areas, where the Catholic Church has less of a presence. ``Outside the towns, people are at the total mercy of the Indonesian military,'' one priest said. Increasing international scrutiny has forced Indonesia to be more discreet in dealing with suspected pro-independence activists. But arrests, torture and extrajudicial executions are still common, human rights researchers say. Such repression, however, has not stilled opposition to Indonesia's authority. Open protests have been a sporadic occurrence since November 1994, when 28 East Timorese students and workers occupied the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta during President Clinton's visit to Indonesia. Demonstrations and riot erupted in Dili and in other towns. Protesters sometimes target Indonesian settlers and businesses, a manifestation of the deep resentment caused by the large scale migration of Indonesians into the territory. There are upwards of 150,000 Indonesian migrants in East Timor (out of a population of 800,000 to 900,000), according to researchers. This influx, combined with administrative corruption and the destruction caused by the war, has overwhelmed the indigenous population. Joblessness and underemployment, especially among the young East Timorese, are high. Indonesia maintains order through a highly visible military force of 20,000 to 30,000 troops and an extensive administrative apparatus. But a sophisticated underground resistance in the towns and villages challenges its authority. The underground has strong links to Falintil guerrillas in the mountains and to the resistance's diplomatic front abroad, led by Ramos Horta. I saw this firsthand when I spent 24 hours during my trip with David Alex and 10 of the 150 Falintil guerrillas under his command. Underground activists drove me to a rural safe house, where I was taken on a lengthy hike to the guerrillas' mountain camp. My transport in and out of the region relied on the cooperation of numerous people from many walks of life, exposing the hollowness of Indonesia's claims that the resistance is marginalized and isolated within East Timor. Many East Timorese told me that only the United States, Indonesia's longtime military and economic patron, has the clout to pressure the Jakarta government into resolving the conflict. Successive U.S. administrations have provided Indonesia with billions in aid since the 1975 invasion, despite United Nations resolutions calling upon Indonesia to withdraw and allow the East Timorese to determine their own future. Bill Clinton, who called U.S. policy toward East Timor ``unconscionable'' before he became president, seems just as beholden as his predecessors to the lure of Indonesia, which Richard Nixon once called ``by far the greatest prize'' in Southeast Asia. The Clinton administration has provided Indonesia with almost $400 million in economic aid, has sold or licensed the sale of $270 million in weaponry. Meanwhile, East Timor teeters on the edge of increased violence. On Dec. 24, 100,000 people gathered in Dili to welcome Bishop Belo back from receiving the Nobel Prize in Oslo. Youths in the crowd, apparently fueled by rumors of an Indonesian military plot to assassinate Belo, attacked two men who they suspected of being in the Indonesian military and killed another carrying a pistol and a walkie-talkie. (Belo had announced a month before that the military had twice made attempts on his life.) In the past three weeks, rioting has broken out in two different regions of the territory. Indonesian troops have responded with a major crackdown and numerous arrests. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), after a recent three-day visit to East Timor, described the atmosphere as one of ``terror'' and ``total and complete fear.'' Some East Timorese I met on my recent visit expressed fears that the violence and repression will intensify. ``The people here are desperate,'' one priest said. ``If the situation does not change soon, there will be much more bloodshed.''

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to mark the recent celebration of International Women's Day, which took place on March 8, 1997. Women have made great strides in the past century, both here in the United States and around the globe. As we prepare to enter a new century, however, we must recognize that there is still much work to be done in the areas of equality and human rights for all women. Here in the United States, women are making impressive contributions at all levels of society. They are daughters, mothers, wives, and sisters; they are entrepreneurs, research scientists, teachers, and scholars; they serve our Nation in the military, as civil servants, and as Members of the House, of the Senate and of the President's Cabinet. This year, I was proud to be a Member of the Senate which unanimously approved the nomination of the first female Secretary of State, Madeleine K. Albright. More women serve in the 105th Congress than any other Congress in history, with 9 women in the Senate and 53 in the House. While women have made great progress in running for and attaining public office, we cannot forget that women are still vastly underrepresented at virtually every level of government. In 1996, American women celebrated the 75th anniversary of winning the right to vote. Sadly, many women--and men--in the United States fail to take advantage of this aspect of democracy. As we prepare to enter the next century, we ought to encourage women to participate fully in our democracy, as informed voters and as candidates for public office at the local, State, and National level. One striking inequity that persists for American women is in their earnings as compared to men. According to 1995 data from the U.S. Census Bureau, women earn only 71 percent of the wages of men. This wage gap varies by race: compared to white men, African-American women earn only 64 cents on the dollar, Hispanic women earn only 53 cents, and white women earn 71 cents. Sixty percent of women are employed in traditionally female jobs. Women also make up a large segment of the United States contingent work force, which includes independent contractors, part-time and temporary workers, day laborers, and on-call workers. According to the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), participation in this contingent work force has a significant impact on women aged 45 and above because contingent workers receive lower pay and fewer benefits and have less opportunity for advancement than do full-time workers. Women are more likely than men to be contingent employees due to an unequal distribution of parenting and household responsibilities which prevent many women from seeking full-time employment. Only part of this disparity is explained by differences in men's and women's career paths. Women and men employed in the same job also receive unequal pay. According to 1995 data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, women received equal pay for only 2 of 90 occupations that were studied. As we look toward the 21st century, we must continue to fight for equal pay for equal work and continue to reform our Nation's health care and Social Security systems for all Americans. While we have made great progress with the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, there is still much work to be done. Women abroad have also made progress over the past century. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, I have had the opportunity to review the status of women on that continent. Last year, I was pleased to be a part of a hearing, chaired by Senator Kassebaum, which explored the status of African women. African women are becoming more active in the economy, in politics, and in solving national problems than they ever have before. Many development indicators that affect women--the number of girls attending primary school and life expectancy, for example--are also improving. But with all these advancements, we cannot forget the challenges that women face in Africa. In many countries, women are legally prevented from owning property or signing official documents without the consent of their husbands. Women comprise a substantial majority of the nearly 7 million refugees in Africa. And, in Africa, women suffer more from the HIV virus than do men. As we prepare to enter the 21st century, the great strides made by African women, and women in others areas of the world, should be applauded, but the fact that there is still much work to be done should not be forgotten. In closing, Mr. President, I see International Women's Day as both an opportunity to celebrate the advancements of the last century and to outline goals for the next century.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, that is one of a variety of issues that has to do with how unions operate. There are issues of how corporations take money from shareholders, profits to use on campaigns. There are issues about how the National Rifle Association, for example, takes its members' dues and uses that for their activities. These are issues that can be considered. Now, I will agree with the Senator, we have not put a provision relating to all of this in our bill at this point because I think it is possible that if we try to take all of that on, it could kill campaign finance reform. It could make it very difficult for us to ban soft money and to put a voluntary limitation system on Members of Congress with incentives. But the Senator from Arizona and I have been very careful in saying everything is potentially on the table, and we want to negotiate. Nothing has been stopped from being considered as this bill comes forward.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me finish. It is simply not the case, Mr. President, that anyone has barred limitations that affect unions in our bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the answer to the question is, the distinguished Senator from Virginia must be talking about a different bill. This bill bans soft money. The labor unions in this country, I believe, spent $7 million this year on soft money. That is wiped out by the McCain-Feingold bill. Second, this bill added last year, and it has in this year's version, significant limitations on political action committees. I believe the unions in this country spent about $14 million on political action committees. Our bill says, if you want the benefit of the voluntary limits within the bill, you have to limit how much you get from political action committees to total to less than 20 percent of your total campaign contributions. It also takes down the amount that a political action committee can give from $5,000 to $1,000 to the individual limit. These are severe and real restrictions which I can assure you that the labor unions do not like. In fact, last year there was a meeting of various labor unions and business groups and women's groups and others saying they were very unhappy. Finally, Mr. President, let me say, in answer to the question, the Senator from Arizona and I have said in the past we are willing to look at other provisions relating to this broader issue as long as it is fair from the point of view of looking at issues of corporate giving, of share-holding money and the giving activities of other organizations that use their members' dues. That is possible. So we have two major limitations on unions in the bill now. And we are willing to discuss an evenhanded provision that relates to other issues. It is simply not the case----

Mr. FEINGOLD. A brief rejoinder on that. The Senator mentioned $35 million spent by the unions in the last election. As I illustrated in my remarks, our bill certainly affects at least $20 million worth of spending that unions did with regard to soft money and political action committees. And may I just point out that the amount of money spent by corporations and other interests in this country, I think, would simply dwarf the figures that are being thrown out around here. That has to be addressed as well. I thank the chair. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.