Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have two amendments to Senate Joint Resolution 1 that I would like to offer. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to send both of them to the desk at this time. I understand they will be set aside until a later point when they can be debated and voted upon, Mr. President.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from New Jersey. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would also like to ask the Senator from New Jersey if he would yield.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to support the Reid amendment. I want to commend my friend and the distinguished Senator from Nevada for offering it. Mr. President, Social Security is unlike any other program in the unified budget. In fact, the surpluses generated by Social Security are the principal reason that the unified budget was created in the first place. Social Security is, fiscally and politically, a special program, and those special traits require us to separate it out from the rest of the budget. Social Security is singular as a public contract between the people of the United States and their elected Government. What happened here with Social Security, Mr. President, is that the elected Government promised that if workers and their employers paid into the Social Security fund, they would be able to draw upon that fund when they retire--a simple proposition. But the singular nature of Social Security and the special regard in which it is held by the public, Mr. President, does not flow from some fleeting sense of nostalgia. Rather, Social Security has provided real help for millions of seniors. According to AARP, Social Security keeps 15 million beneficiaries of all ages out of poverty. Today, 13 percent of recipients rely on Social Security for all of their income; 1 in 4 count on it for at least 90 percent of their income; 3 in 5, Mr. President--60 percent--depend on it for at least half of their income. For those seniors, and for millions of others, the Social Security contract is very real and a vital necessity, and anything other than partitioning Social Security off from the rest of the budget risks a breach of that public contract, Mr. President. Beyond the issue of our moral obligation to such a contract and keeping our promise, there are critical fiscal reasons for making a special distinction in this new constitutional budget structure. Most obvious is the enormous temptation Social Security will provide to those who might seek to raid the trust fund to alleviate the deficit. This scenario is not hard to imagine. It is not some kind of a nightmare or a pipe dream. We already do it now. A unified budget masks the true, on-budget deficit. This is not a weakness of one party or one branch of Government. But it is a problem that we need to address, and it is a problem we need to address quickly. If we do not, the Social Security surpluses will be used to distort the true deficit picture, and it will undercut the deficit reduction that needs to be done. In fact, what will happen is we will pretend that we really have a balanced budget. But we will not because we will have used Social Security dollars to make it look in balance. So, Mr. President, we have to begin to rid ourselves of the addiction to the Social Security trust fund and to begin to learn how to balance the budget without it if we are to fulfill the promise we made to today's workers that the Social Security benefits would be there for them when they retire; that those benefits will be there for them when they need it. Some may argue that current law provides adequate protection for Social Security; or, many say, that, if the balanced budget amendment is ratified, Social Security can and will be protected though passage of implementing legislation. There are several responses to those claims. First, let us recall that many of those who make that argument are also the people who maintain that mere statutory mandates are insufficient to move Congress to do what it has to do. The argument, when it comes to the subject of balancing the budget, is that only constitutional authority is sufficient to engender the will necessary to reduce the deficit. Let's use the reasoning of these supporters. Using their reasoning, the willpower needed to resist the temptation to raid the Social Security ``cookie jar'' can presumably only come from a constitutional mandate, or, more specifically, a specific reference in this amendment that protects Social Security. Those who oppose giving extra constitutional protection for Social Security often suggest that there is no practical need for the protection because ``Social Security will compete very well * * *'' with other programs. I heard the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee reassure us time and again during the committee proceedings of this claim that we don't have to worry; that once we pass the balanced budget amendment Social Security is going to do very well; nothing to worry about. Mr. President, Social Security should not have to compete with anything. As many have noted, it is a separate program with a dedicated funding source intended to be self-funding. In addition, any assessment of the political potency of any particular program is going to have to be reappraised if we ever enter the brave new world of the balanced budget amendment. Mr. President, let us take a look at the current environment to get a clue as to what might happen after the balanced budget amendment is passed, ratified, and implemented. In the current environment, it isn't even Social Security that receives the most preferred treatment. In the last 2 years that status, the greatest preferential status, has been reserved for military budgets that receive billions more than the Pentagon even asks for. That higher status has also been reserved not for Social Security but for corporate tax loopholes which were specifically exempted from the new line-item veto authority that many of us supported and sent on to the President last year. What is more important, Mr. President, the proposed constitutional amendment imposes a new burden on Social Security that it doesn't even impose on other programs. Not only is Social Security not exempted, or protected, but it has the problem the way this amendment is drafted that other programs don't face. Because outlays cannot exceed receipts in any year, we are effectively barred from drawing on savings built up to fund future outlays. It is the very approach that we have to rely on to fund the expected ballooning of Social Security benefits as generations such as the baby boom generation reach older age. Mr. President, the surplus of Social Security revenues produced today contribute to the equivalent of a giant savings account which will have to be used to pay for the expected bulge in beneficiaries when the baby boomers begin to retire. By 2002 the combined Social Security trust fund balance will exceed $1 trillion. By 2010, the balance will exceed $2 trillion. And by the year 2020, Mr. President, that figure will approach $3 trillion. All of this money is intended for and is supposed to be for Social Security benefits. And we are going to need it. But the proposed constitutional amendment would impose a three-fifths majority requirement on that financing structure, and no statutory approach would be able to overcome the problem. It will have been enshrined in the Constitution. So, if we want to address the problem, if we want to be able to use that surplus fund to pay for these benefits in the future, it has to be done as part of the constitutional amendment itself. So, Mr. President, the bottom line on this proposed constitutional amendment is--that is right--that it does not treat all programs alike. Programs like Social Security which require a buildup of savings into the future somehow have to reach the higher standard and muster a three-fifths majority. But the defense budget, special interest spending done through the Tax Code, and corporate welfare all get a free pass in the brave new world of the balanced budget amendment. So, Mr. President, unless this is altered along the lines perhaps of the amendment proposed by the Senator from Nevada, the proposed constitutional amendment will not only enshrine the current practice of using Social Security surpluses to disguise the size of the budget deficit, it will actually make it nearly impossible to use those surpluses for Social Security when we need them. It will turn a bookkeeping gimmick into a $3 trillion heist. Mr. President, I urge my colleague to support the Reid amendment and at least give Social Security the same chance every other program has. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Susanne Martinez, Sumner Slichter, Mary Murphy, and Michael O'Leary, of my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during Senator Joint Resolution 1 and all rollcall votes thereto.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the floor manager. I yield myself such time as is necessary. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Eight minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today in support of House Joint Res. 36 to uphold a Presidential finding regarding the provision of international family planning assistance. I thank the senior Senator from Vermont for his leadership on this issue. Let me just briefly clarify a point with regard to the remarks of the junior Senator from Arkansas, who indicated his belief that this resolution would impact the UNFPA program. My understanding is that the resolution is not related to that program at all, that the resolution in question today has to do with USAID funds. If there is any error in that regard, I would be happy to be corrected, but my understanding is that what we are dealing with here is USAID money. So the arguments concerning funding for UNFPA do not relate to the topic we are discussing today. Mr. President, by voting to uphold this resolution, the Senate will express agreement with the President that further delays in the disbursement of funds in the population account will cause undue hardship for the organizations that carry out U.S. international population programs. In fact, President Clinton has said that ``a delay will cause serious, irreversible and unavoidable harm'' to these programs. U.S. assistance to voluntary family planning supports a broad array of products and services for maternal and child health--including family planning education, clinical services, and birth control. These programs have proved enormously effective--not only in improving the health of hundreds of thousands of women and children, but also in reducing the pressures that rapid population growth places on food and water, on housing and education, and on forests and trees in developing countries. Perhaps most importantly, studies indicate that international family planning programs can have a tremendous impact on limiting the number of unintended pregnancies throughout the world, which--ultimately-- greatly decreases the perceived need or demand for abortions. Now let me reiterate this point, because it is extremely important. This vote actually will have the effect of limiting the number of abortions conducted worldwide. This vote also is a referendum on how the Senate views family planning. Does the Senate support the provision of family planning services to women and men in the developing world, or does it not? I know that several Senators will speak today about the awful consequences that will result if we fail to uphold the Presidential certification. Each one of us will highlight some area of the world, or the provision of some service, that will suffer from a further delay in the disbursement of these funds. As the ranking Democrat on the Africa Subcommittee, I would like to focus on Africa, where the United States international family planning program has made a tremendous impact. In fiscal year 1996, United States population assistance funds were distributed in 21 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, with a combined population of 426 million people. These countries are overwhelmingly poor, yet have among the highest fertility rates in the world. The United States population assistance program is one of the most important things that the United States Agency for International Development does in Africa. As elsewhere, USAID supports a comprehensive program of voluntary family planning and closely related health efforts in several sub- Saharan African countries. It has trained hundreds of nurses and midwives in Uganda. In Mozambique, a country whose entire infrastructure was destroyed by 17 years of civil war, USAID helps deliver family planning and maternal-child health services in four provinces with a combined population of more than 6 million people. And it contributes to the distribution of modern contraceptive products in Zimbabwe, where 42 percent of women are now demanding such products. Now what will happen if the resolution that we will vote on tomorrow fails? First, many of the nongovernmental organizations that currently administer these programs will be forced to close key activities. To give a compelling example, CARE, an NGO that has 50 years of experience helping poor families, already is considering shutting down its family planning program in Uganda because of the funding restrictions imposed by the United States Congress. After investing some $2 million of USAID funds in this program over 4 years, CARE has trained more than 1,000 community-based health workers, launched family planning services in 71 clinics, and increased the percentage of couples using contraception in the program target area from 1 percent to 10 percent. If this resolution fails tomorrow, CARE's network of trained volunteers will no longer be able to serve their communities to educate women and men about family planning and other health care. Second, even those programs that do not close their doors will be negatively affected if we delay our support. The distribution of key family planning and health products will be seriously disrupted. In Lusaka, the capital of Zambia and a city with one of the highest rates of HIV infection, condom distribution would have to be reduced significantly, greatly increasing the chances of a rapid spread of the HIV virus. In Kenya, USAID-funded programs that have spent years teaching women about health and family planning, and have helped create a demand for contraceptive services, may no longer be able to offer birth control pills or other products to the men and women who now depend on them. A third consequence of a negative vote tomorrow is that information campaigns on family planning and maternal and child health will also be cut back dramatically. These campaigns have been successful at reaching millions of couples worldwide, helping to educate them about birth spacing, natural family planning and other family planning methods. Finally, as one Member of the Senate who is careful about how and where we spend U.S. taxpayer money, I am concerned that a negative vote today will waste thousands--if not millions--of dollars in unnecessary administrative costs that will be incurred if the disbursement of funds for the international family planning program is delayed any further. AVSC International, the second largest-funded agency that works in partnership with USAID on international family planning, estimates that because of previous congressional restrictions and metering, it already has spent $2 million in staff time and associated administrative costs in order to manage the impact of delayed funding. What this means, according to an AVSC report, is that ``for every dollar intended to provide access to these services last year, a smaller quantity of services was actually provided.'' I find this type of expense, which wastes valuable taxpayer dollars, absolutely unconscionable. If the Senate fails to uphold the Presidential finding, more and more organizations will be faced with similar, equally ridiculous costs. In other words, Mr. President, a further delay in the disbursement of these funds would be inefficient. It would be disruptive. And it would be costly. Opponents of House Joint Resolution 36 will have you believe that U.S. tax dollars are used to pay for abortion, even though they are well aware that such a practice has been illegal for more than two decades. Mr. President, this vote, as we always have to point out on this issue but it bears constant repetition, this vote is not about abortion. It is about whether the United States will continue to support efforts to educate both men and women about modern methods of birth control, about the importance for health and financial well-being of spacing one's children, and about obtaining adequate pre- and post- natal care. Mr. President, it frankly boggles the mind that these logical, commonsense activities, which promote sensible family planning in order to prevent or delay pregnancies until they are wanted, can be thought of as promoting abortion. These funds help prevent pregnancies, not end them. Without these funds, abortion rates will undoubtedly increase. This vote is about helping empower individuals to make the most basic and personal decisions a person can make. It is about helping empower individuals to make choices about how many children to bring into this world and when to have them. It is about helping empower individuals to safely prevent pregnancy, and when they choose to give birth, to deliver and care for their children to maximize health. This is an issue of fundamental freedom. Our support of these programs represents a longstanding commitment from which our Nation, founded on the principles of liberty and democracy, must not back away. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues who care about women and their children, who care about health and the eradication of disease, who care about access to food and water, who care about the environment and the effect of global warming, who care about Africa or Latin America or Asia, who care about responsible spending, or who care about preventing the demand for abortion, I urge all of my colleagues to uphold the Presidential determination and to vote in favor of this resolution. Mr. President, I thank not only the Senator from Vermont but my colleagues who gave me the courtesy of letting me speak at this point. I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, in submitting the Sense of the Senate Resolution directing the Secretary of Agriculture to take action to delink the National Cheese Exchange from the basic formula price established by USDA under Federal Milk Marketing Orders. Dairy farmers have been concerned for many years about the role of the National Cheese Exchange, located in Green Bay, WI, in determining the price they receive for their milk. While the exchange has had an indirect influence on milk prices for many years, it also directly affects milk prices through USDA's basic formula price, established by regulation in 1995. For years, Wisconsin farmers have been concerned that the characteristics of the Exchange, outlined in this resolution, make it vulnerable to price manipulation. Those fears were confirmed by a March 1996 report by the University of Wisconsin Department of Agricultural Economics which found evidence supporting the allegations of manipulations. The concerns about manipulation and the influence of the exchange on milk prices nationally, were further heightened by the dramatic and unprecedented decline in cheese prices on the exchange last fall which led to a 26 percent decline in farm milk prices. The senior Senator from Wisconsin Senator Kohl and I have been working to address the concerns of the UW report for the last 10 months and have introduced legislation to address the short- and long-term problems associated with the Cheese Exchange. The directive of the resolution introduced by the Senator from Pennsylvania is also included in my bill S. 258, the Milk Price Discovery Improvement Act of 1997 which I introduced last week. My legislation goes beyond the directive in the resolution by seeking additional long term solutions to the lack of price discovery in milk markets and by establishing improved USDA oversight of the National Cheese Exchange. S. 256, introduced by the senior Senator from Wisconsin Senator Kohl, which I have cosponsored, would enhance the role of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in National Cheese Exchange oversight as well. The resolution we are introducing today, however, emphasizes the importance of quick action on this problem by the Secretary of Agriculture and I am pleased to welcome the Senator from Pennsylvania to our efforts to resolve this very difficult problem. Farmers have a right to expect that milk prices are determined fairly and without manipulation. The resolution introduced today is a step toward reducing the influence of the exchange on farm-level milk prices. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to work with us toward the enactment of S. 258 and S. 256 as well. I yield the floor. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, am pleased to rise in support of the legislation introduced by the Senator from Minnesota, and also by my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl. I was prepared to give a longer speech but I am informed that the mother-in-law of the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, has passed away, and he is not able to be here today because of that. For that reason, I simply associate my remarks with the Senator from Minnesota, and the senior Senator from Wisconsin so we can take this debate up on another day when Senator Leahy is able to respond. He is very able to respond himself. We have a strong disagreement on this issue, but I am a great friend of his and I believe he is a fine Senator and prefer at this point to wait. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation introduced by the Senator from Minnesota, Senator Grams, to repeal the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. The Northeast Dairy Compact was included in the 1996 farm bill during conference negotiations after it had been struck from the Senate version of the farm bill during floor consideration of the farm bill early last year. Mr. President, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact establishes a commission for six Northeastern States--Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut--empowered to set minimum prices for fluid milk above those established under Federal Milk Marketing Orders. Ironically, the Federal milk marketing order system already provides farmers in the designated compact region with minimum milk prices higher than those received by most other dairy farmers throughout the nation. The compact not only allows the six States to set artificially high fluid milk prices for their producers, it also allows those States to keep out lower priced milk from producers in competing States and provides processors within the region with a subsidy to export their higher priced milk to noncompact States. Mr. President, the arguments against this type of price-fixing scheme are numerous: It interferes with interstate commerce by erecting barriers around one region of the Nation; It provides preferential price treatment for farmers in the Northeast at the expense of farmers nationally; It encourages excess milk production in one region without establishing effective supply control which may drive down milk prices for producers throughout the country; It imposes higher costs on the millions of consumers in the Compact region; It imposes higher costs to taxpayers who pay for nutrition programs such as food stamps and the national school lunch programs which provide for milk and other dairy products in their programs; and as a price-fixing compact it is unprecedented in the history of this Nation. Most important to my home State of Wisconsin, Mr. President, is that the Northeast Dairy Compact exacerbates the inequities within the Federal milk marketing orders system that already discriminates against dairy farmers in Wisconsin and throughout the upper Midwest. Federal orders provide higher fluid milk prices to producers the further they are located from Eau Claire, WI, for markets east of the Rocky Mountains. Wisconsin farmers have complained for many years that this inherently discriminatory system provides other regions, such as the Northeast, the Southeast, and the Southwest with milk prices that encourage excess production in those regions. Of course, that excess production drives down prices throughout the Nation and results in excessive production of cheese, butter, and dry milk. Cheese and other manufactured dairy products constitute the pillar of our dairy industry in Wisconsin. Competition for the production and sale of these products by other regions spurred on by artificial incentives under milk marketing orders has eroded our markets for cheese and other products. Mr. President, my State of Wisconsin loses more than 1,000 dairy farms per year either through bankruptcy or attrition. The number of manufacturing plants has declined from 400 in 1985 to less than 230 in 1996. These losses are due in part, to the systematic discrimination and market distortions created by Federal dairy policies that provide artificial regional advantages that cannot be justified on any rational economic grounds. Mr. President, my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Grams and I are on the floor today offering this legislation because the Northeast Dairy Compact reinforces the discrimination that has so damaged the dairy industry in our States. We have fought to change Federal milk marketing orders and we will fight to prevent the Northeast Dairy Compact from ever going into effect. Less damaging but more insulting to Wisconsin dairy farmers than the increase in regional inequities is the inherent assumption of the compact proponents that either the financial distress of Northeast dairy farmers is worse than that experienced by farmers in other regions or that farmers in the Northeast are more important than farmers elsewhere. Either assumption is ludicrous. As all Senators are aware, when milk prices plummet, as they did last fall by 26 percent in 3 months, the financial pain is felt by farmers throughout the Nation, no worse and no less by any particular region. And yet the Northeast Compact provides price protection for dairy farmers in six States, insulating them from market conditions which noncompact farmers must confront and to which they must adjust. Compact proponents have never been able to explain how conditions in the Northeast merit greater protection from market price fluctuations than other regions of the country. The fact that there are no compelling arguments made in favor of the compact that justified special treatment for the Northeast was emphasized by a vote in the full Senate to strike the compact from the 1996 farm bill. It was the only recorded vote on approval or disapproval of the Northeast Dairy Compact--and it killed the compact in the Senate. The way in which the compact was ultimately included in the 1996 farm bill also illustrates the weak justification and the lack of support for its approval. It was never included in a House version of the farm bill and yet emerged as part of the bill after a closed door Conference negotiation. Legislation which is difficult to defend must frequently be negotiated behind closed doors rather than in the light of day. The 1996 farm bill provided authority to approve the compact to the Secretary of Agriculture if he found a compelling public interest for the compact in the Northeast. Congress, still unwilling to accept responsibility for what I believe to be an unjustifiable compact, delegated their authority to the Secretary. The Secretary approved the compact last August but even he, with his teams of economists and marketing specialists, was unable to come up with an economic justification for the compact. The Secretary's finding of ``compelling public interest'' justifying his approval of the compact was so weak and unsupported by the public record that a suit was filed by compact opponents in Federal court charging that the Secretary violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Last December, a Federal District Court judge found that, in fact, the plaintiffs in that suit were likely to prevail on their claim that the Secretary's decision was arbitrary and capricious. More recently, the same Federal judge told USDA to review the public record and determine whether in fact that compact should have been approved. Mr. President, the Northeast Dairy compact can't be justified because it is just plain bad policy. It is bad public policy because it increases costs to taxpayers nationally and consumers in the Northeast to benefit few. It is bad dairy policy because it exacerbates regional discrimination of existing Federal milk marketing orders by providing artificial advantages to a small group of producers at the expense of all others. And it is bad economic policy because it establishes barriers to interstate trade--barriers of the type the United States has been working hard to eliminate in international markets. Mr. President, Congress should never have provided Secretary Glickman with authority to approve the compact. That in my view, was an improper and potentially unconstitutional delegation of our authority and it was irresponsible. It is the role of Congress to approve interstate compacts and we irresponsibly abrogated our responsibility in this matter. It is time to make it right. I hope the Secretary rescinds his earlier decision to approve the compact in the additional time the courts have provided him. If he does not, I hope the courts strike down the compact both on the grounds that it violated the APA and on constitutional grounds. However, in any event, it is incumbent upon Congress to undo the mistake it made in the 1996 farm bill. Congress can and should act independently of both the administrative and judicial process to repeal the Northeast Interstate Dairy compact. As the other branches of Government are doing their jobs, we must continue to do ours. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, before the Senator from Rhode Island leaves, I want to be the first proud Senator to congratulate him on his first speech in the Senate. It is very appropriate that the speech was about a topic that he knows a great deal about, education, and, of course, in so doing he follows in the footsteps of his predecessor, Senator Claiborne Pell. I just want to say on behalf of my colleagues how delighted we are that he has joined us here. I look forward to learning from him and working with him, particularly on the subject of education, Mr. President.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to use the morning business time to further the debate on the balanced budget amendment and to indicate that I oppose the proposed amendment to our Constitution. During the 103d Congress, Mr. President, this body wisely rejected the proposed amendment. It did so again during the 104th Congress, a Congress which, perhaps unlike any other in our recent history, seemed intent on finding different ways to amend the U.S. Constitution, actually voting on more amendments to the Constitution than any of its recent predecessors. Mr. President, some of us believe there are many reasons to oppose this constitutional amendment, and we have been hearing a lot of them. A number of respected authorities have raised several significant points of concern, including problems related to the role of the courts and the power it might confer on unelected judges to set our national budget policies and priorities. Another serious concern that we have heard a lot about and we will hear even more about is the damage this proposal could do to the Social Security Program. There may also be unintended changes to Presidential impoundment authority arising out of the constitutional amendment. I believe that the constitutional amendment, in addition, will lead to unnecessary and possibly dislocating restrictions on our ability to establish capital or investment budgets, to even have the kind of flexibility that States have or municipalities have when they happen to have a balanced budget requirement. Finally, Mr. President, I think the balanced budget amendment leads to an effective prohibition on developing a fiscally responsible budget structure that could include a surplus fund, a rainy day fund, a fund that could be tapped for emergencies, such as national disasters or military conflicts. The way it is drafted, we would not be able to plan for or project even a small surplus that could actually be used to solve an emergency. Mr. President, during the next several days as we consider the amendment, I, along with many others, will comment on some of those concerns in more detail as we debate amendments designed to address those defects that I have just listed. For now, Mr. President, I want to focus on the underlying assumption behind the proposed amendment, namely that without making this change to our Constitution, the Congress and the President will not balance the budget, that it just will not happen. It is a fair issue, it is a fair question, a fair premise for this whole debate. Mr. President, the assumption that that job will not be done by this Congress and this President is not necessarily right. We have brought the unified budget deficit down since 1992 by about 60 percent. Yet, all the rhetoric on the floor has not changed one bit. It has not changed one iota to reflect the fact that real and significant progress has been made in the past 4 years. All of the naysaying about ``it can't be done, it will never be done, Congress and the President will never get together and do this,'' has at least got to be questioned a little bit by the advocates of the balanced budget amendment when they look at the record of the last 4 years. We have seen several plans offered by both sides that will bring the unified budget into balance by the year 2002. We have seen that from Democrats, we have seen it from Republicans, and we have seen it in a bipartisan package. Mr. President, I recall when some of the Republican Members were pushing for a 7-year balanced budget by the year 2002 using CBO numbers, and the President was not sure he wanted to go with that. But, I agreed with the Republicans. I felt they were right, that we needed to have that timeframe and have a clear commitment. I still stand by that. Today we have a President and a Congress in agreement that the date we should be going for is the year 2002. In fact, nearly every Member of this body voted for a unified budget plan that reached balance by 2002 at some time during the 104th Congress, and I really think working together this year, understanding that neither party is running the whole show here, that we can come together in a bipartisan package that will, in fact, finish the good work we have done and balance the budget by the year 2002. Mr. President, all the budget plans I mentioned, all the votes we took, all the progress we have made in the past 4 years, was done without a constitutional mandate. In fact, it was done without a constitutional amendment floating out among the States, while we wonder whether the States will ratify it or by when they will ratify it. In fact, Mr. President, I firmly believe that if we had adopted a constitutional amendment in 1993, 1994, or 1995, and sent it to the States for ratification, that many of those balanced budget plans would not have been forthcoming in this Congress, that they would not have even been proposed, because people in both Houses would have been looking to a future date when the hammer would come down, instead of believing that the hammer is coming down now, where we here have been elected to do the job now and not wait for the States to decide whether to ratify a constitutional amendment. Mr. President, without the ability to hide behind a lengthy ratification process, Congress in the last few years has been forced to live up to its rhetoric at least in part. A Member cannot go back home and say, ``Listen, I am very eager to cut spending in Washington. I don't know exactly what we ought to cut, but once we get that balanced budget amendment ratified, then we will get back to work on it.'' That excuse is not available now. People in an audience for such a Senator or Member of Congress would say back to that person, ``Why don't you just do the job now? You were elected to do it now.'' That is, in fact, what we were elected to do. Mr. President, I do not think the American public realizes that even if Congress approves the proposed amendment, it could be another 9 years--9 years--before the balanced budget mandate begins to bite. If the proposal languishes with State legislatures, we might not be forced to reach balance in 2002, but until the year 2006. The States get 7 years to ratify, and the provision calls for the amendment to really take its effect, to have its bite, 2 years after that. So it could be the year 2006 if we wait for a constitutional amendment. Mr. President, there is strong reason to believe the States will not act quickly. We have already heard some loud second thoughts from many State policymakers about the impact of the proposed amendment on their State and local budgets. This proposal may not, in effect, Mr. President, then be the so-called slam-dunk ratification that some people claim it will be. Ironically, some who voiced their support for a constitutional amendment may not really care. I do not think this is true of everyone, by any means. Some do care. Some are genuinely frustrated and turn only to this constitutional amendment alternative as a last resort. I can think of a great example, the previous Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon, who I know only turned to this alternative, I am sure, out of sheer frustration with the process. He turned to that alternative prior to the progress we made in 1992 through 1996. I am afraid for others who pushed this amendment, the agenda is not so much a balanced budget but some political advantage. During the debate, we will have an opportunity to see who really wants to reduce the deficit and who is a little more interested in political posturing. I am going to offer an amendment, for example, that would reduce the time for ratification from 7 years to 3 years to prevent unnecessary delay by the States and ensuring Congress does not hide behind a protracted ratification process during which Members could say, ``Well, we are going to get to this balancing of the budget later, after the States get done doing their job.'' Mr. President, if this amendment is more than just a political exercise, my proposal, my modification of going from 7 years to 3 years for ratification should sail through the U.S. Senate. I have to say I have some doubts about it because the proposed amendment to our Constitution is, at its core, really political. We should not be shocked by that. Congress, by its nature, is a political beast. What is disturbing, though, is the growing willingness on the part of some to place in jeopardy our Constitution in this manner to get some momentary political advantage. Sadly, using our Constitution as a political foil is becoming increasingly popular. The so-called balanced budget amendment is only one of many proposed changes to our Constitution. During the last Congress alone, over 130 changes were proposed to the U.S. Constitution. Many of them, I am afraid, were offered for political ends. Many of them are entirely unnecessary. In fact, I say virtually all of them are entirely unnecessary to solve the problems at which they are directed. One of them, an amendment to require a supermajority to raise taxes, was brought to the other body's floor solely because it was tax day, April 15, so the proponents could stand up on tax day and make some speeches about it. I am troubled by that use of the constitutional amendment process. The thought that an amendment to our Constitution could be offered because it presents the opportunity for a really timely sound bite is indefensible. Many of the advocates of a balanced budget amendment may be sincere in their support for the proposal, but their sincerity does not address the practical problems with the amendment with a fundamental flaw underlying a constitutional approach. The Constitution, Mr. President, will not solve our budget problems. That says it all. The Constitution cannot solve our year-to-year and day-to-day budgeting problems. It will not give us the courage or the answers we need to balance our books. As President Clinton said in his State of the Union Address, all that is needed to balance the budget is our vote and his signature. The President's budget is a good starting place. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Budget Committee to build on the President's budget and move beyond to reach balance, without using the Social Security surplus. We don't have to amend the Constitution to do that. As I noted on the Senate floor last year, for over 200 years, the Constitution has served this Nation very, very well. It is essential to the continuing development of our young Nation that the Constitution remains a statement of general principles, not a budgeting document. In charting a different course, one which allows the Constitution to serve as a method of addressing each difficult challenge we face in this Nation, inevitably, Mr. President, we will sacrifice the integrity of the most fundamental document of our Nation. This process will sacrifice the integrity of our Constitution. We must guard against the U.S. Constitution becoming what James Madison feared would be, in his words, ``little more than a list of special provisos.'' Mr. President, the Constitution remains the cornerstone of our freedom. Its power is its brilliant simplicity. The spate of constitutional amendments offered over the past few years are at odds with the fundamental notion that our Constitution establishes the framework or great outlines of our society. By seeking to use that document to address specific problems, no matter how severe, the Constitution will become something much less than it was intended to be and that it has been. Although our Nation faces many problems--and I think the issue of balancing the budget may be our most important problem--no problem can really be attributed purely to a constitutional deficiency. We should quell our desire to amend this great document and, instead, address the problems that confront this Nation. Mr. President, I suggest, after the process of the balanced budget amendment debate is over, that we get, as fast as we can, to the real work of balancing the budget and leave the Constitution alone. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to address an important and timely issue for the citizens of my State of Wisconsin, and for others all over our Nation--the issue of job piracy. Last month, officials in the State of Michigan announced a new initiative designed to lure businesses from other States into their own borders. Businesses are provided a tempting incentive to relocate there, tax-free status for 15 years, if they relocate to select regions of the State. The communications director for the Michigan Jobs Commission, Jim Tobin, was quoted in the Wisconsin State Journal as saying that the new so-called renaissance zones program ``will aggressively pursue Wisconsin companies for relocation into Michigan.'' Presumably, other States bordering Michigan will be targeted as well. I was extremely disappointed to hear that my neighboring State had chosen to blatantly target Wisconsin jobs, rather than focusing its energies on creating new jobs for its residents. In my opinion, economic development ought not be thought of as a zero-sum game. We live in an era of increasing economic interdependence, and responsible elected officials should be focusing on regional and national solutions to the crises in our States' most economically distressed areas, not on raiding each others' jobs. Upon hearing of the new Michigan initiative, my colleagues Senator Kohl and Congressman Tom Barrett and I requested investigations from several Federal agencies in order to ascertain whether and to what degree Federal funds are being used to finance the renaissance zones initiative. We feel strongly that our constituents' tax dollars should not have to help finance the efforts of those across State lines who attempt to steal their jobs. Fortunately, most Federal economic development grant programs, such as those funded by the Small Business Administration and the Economic Development Administration, currently include antipiracy language. However, this important anti-piracy provision is conspicuously absent in the Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] Program and several other small programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Developmen [HUD]. Today, Senator Kohl and I are introducing the Prohibition of Incentives for Relocation Act of 1997, a bill we have introduced previously, in both the 103d and 104th Congresses. It would simply make the CDBG, HUD special purpose grants, and HUD economic development grants consistent with other domestic economic development grant programs, by prohibiting HUD funds from being used for activities that are intended, or likely to facilitate, the closing of an industrial or commercial plant, or the substantial reduction of operations of a plant; and result in the relocation or expansion of a plant from one area to another area. Identical legislation is being introduced in the House by Representative Barrett and Representative Kleczka. We became aware of this problem in the way the CDBG language is currently drafted several years ago. In 1994, Briggs and Stratton, one of Wisconsin's major employers, announced that its Milwaukee plant would be closing. As a result, over 2,000 jobs at the plant were lost. The total economic impact on the community was even worse: For every four Briggs jobs lost, an estimated one additional job from a supplier or other business that relied on Briggs was lost. At the same time as the Milwaukee closing, Briggs and Stratton expanded two of its plants in other States. I do not dispute its right to do so. But what I find objectionable, Mr. President, is that Federal dollars, CDBG funds, were used to facilitate the transfer of these jobs from one State to another. This was, in my opinion, a completely inappropriate use of Federal funds. The Community Development Block Grant Program is designed to expand employment opportunities and economic growth, not simply move jobs from one community to another. There is no way to justify to my constituents that they are sending their tax dollars to Washington to be distributed to other States in order to attract jobs out of our State, leaving behind communities whose economic stability has been destroyed. Mr. President, it is not clear if CDBG dollars are being used by the State of Michigan to finance their piracy of jobs from my State and from our other Midwestern neighbors. But in any event, the statute should be revised to prohibit such usage. It is an issue of fairness, and it deserves our attention. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to address an important and timely issue for the citizens of my State of Wisconsin, and for others all over our Nation--the issue of job piracy. Last month, officials in the State of Michigan announced a new initiative designed to lure businesses from other States into their own borders. Businesses are provided a tempting incentive to relocate there, tax-free status for 15 years, if they relocate to select regions of the State. The communications director for the Michigan Jobs Commission, Jim Tobin, was quoted in the Wisconsin State Journal as saying that the new so-called renaissance zones program ``will aggressively pursue Wisconsin companies for relocation into Michigan.'' Presumably, other States bordering Michigan will be targeted as well. I was extremely disappointed to hear that my neighboring State had chosen to blatantly target Wisconsin jobs, rather than focusing its energies on creating new jobs for its residents. In my opinion, economic development ought not be thought of as a zero-sum game. We live in an era of increasing economic interdependence, and responsible elected officials should be focusing on regional and national solutions to the crises in our States' most economically distressed areas, not on raiding each others' jobs. Upon hearing of the new Michigan initiative, my colleagues Senator Kohl and Congressman Tom Barrett and I requested investigations from several Federal agencies in order to ascertain whether and to what degree Federal funds are being used to finance the renaissance zones initiative. We feel strongly that our constituents' tax dollars should not have to help finance the efforts of those across State lines who attempt to steal their jobs. Fortunately, most Federal economic development grant programs, such as those funded by the Small Business Administration and the Economic Development Administration, currently include antipiracy language. However, this important anti-piracy provision is conspicuously absent in the Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] Program and several other small programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Developmen [HUD]. Today, Senator Kohl and I are introducing the Prohibition of Incentives for Relocation Act of 1997, a bill we have introduced previously, in both the 103d and 104th Congresses. It would simply make the CDBG, HUD special purpose grants, and HUD economic development grants consistent with other domestic economic development grant programs, by prohibiting HUD funds from being used for activities that are intended, or likely to facilitate, the closing of an industrial or commercial plant, or the substantial reduction of operations of a plant; and result in the relocation or expansion of a plant from one area to another area. Identical legislation is being introduced in the House by Representative Barrett and Representative Kleczka. We became aware of this problem in the way the CDBG language is currently drafted several years ago. In 1994, Briggs and Stratton, one of Wisconsin's major employers, announced that its Milwaukee plant would be closing. As a result, over 2,000 jobs at the plant were lost. The total economic impact on the community was even worse: For every four Briggs jobs lost, an estimated one additional job from a supplier or other business that relied on Briggs was lost. At the same time as the Milwaukee closing, Briggs and Stratton expanded two of its plants in other States. I do not dispute its right to do so. But what I find objectionable, Mr. President, is that Federal dollars, CDBG funds, were used to facilitate the transfer of these jobs from one State to another. This was, in my opinion, a completely inappropriate use of Federal funds. The Community Development Block Grant Program is designed to expand employment opportunities and economic growth, not simply move jobs from one community to another. There is no way to justify to my constituents that they are sending their tax dollars to Washington to be distributed to other States in order to attract jobs out of our State, leaving behind communities whose economic stability has been destroyed. Mr. President, it is not clear if CDBG dollars are being used by the State of Michigan to finance their piracy of jobs from my State and from our other Midwestern neighbors. But in any event, the statute should be revised to prohibit such usage. It is an issue of fairness, and it deserves our attention. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I introduce the Milk Price Discovery Improvement Act of 1997 with my senior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl]. Mr. President, this bill addresses longstanding farmer concerns that milk prices can be manipulated by those with the incentive and ability to do so. Those concerns were validated by a March 1996 University of Wisconsin study funded by the Department of Agriculture which concluded that the National Cheese Exchange, a cash market for cheese located in Green Bay, WI, directly and indirectly influences farm milk prices and is highly vulnerable to price manipulation by its major traders. Concern about trader concentration and price manipulation is not exclusive to the dairy industry, Mr. President. Two weeks ago, the minority leader, Senator Daschle, introduced the Cattle Industry Improvement Act which addressed concerns about growing concentration in the livestock industry and the lack of market information available to livestock producers. Less than 2 percent of the cattle in the U.S. are sold on markets with open and competitive bidding and the top four packing firms in this country slaughter 80 percent of all cattle. The unfortunate trend of increasing concentration throughout agriculture and the growing scarcity of reliable market information has placed farmers at an extreme disadvantage compared to powerful corporate traders. Mr. President, I was pleased to cosponsor the Cattle Industry Improvement Act, which seeks to prevent noncompetitive practices in the livestock industry and improve market information because I believe this trend must be stopped. The bill I am introducing today addresses these same alarming trends in the dairy industry and seeks to prevent manipulation of farm-level milk prices. Dairy farmers must not be held captive to a market that cannot be relied upon to provide accurate information about the value of the milk they produce. Unfortunately, farm milk prices are currently determined by such a market--the National Cheese Exchange. The National Cheese Exchange is the only cash market in the United States for the sale of bulk cheese. Located in Green Bay, WI, the Exchange trades cheese each Friday for half an hour. Between 1988 and 1993, only 1 percent of all bulk cheese sold nationally was traded on the NCE. During this 5-year period, eight buyers and sellers dominated much of the exchange trading, despite exchange membership of 30 to 40 companies. The top seller on the exchange accounted for 75 percent of all sales during this period. Thus, the exchange is not only thin with respect to the volume of cheese bought and sold, it is also thinly traded with the same small number of large firms dominating the trading activity. The opinion price on the National Cheese Exchange, and other markets with these characteristics, is easily influenced by one trade. In addition, unlike other cash markets which trade more frequently, when the price changes at the National Cheese Exchange it stays at that level until one week later at the next trading session. This infrequency of trading lends greater significance to any trading activity which alters the price of cheese. The existence of such a market on its own would not be a problem if it did not affect dairy farmers and others off the exchange. Unfortunately, the opinion price of the National Cheese Exchange directly and decisively affects the price that farmers throughout the Nation receive for their milk. A 1-cent change in the opinion price at the exchange generally translates into a 10-cent change in the price of milk to farmers. When prices on the exchange drop suddenly and precipitously, dairy farmers nationally lose millions of dollars in producer receipts. In the last 3 months of 1996, cheese prices on the National Cheese Exchange fell by more than 50 cents per pound, with an unprecedented price plunge of 21 cents in one trading session. As a result, as many of my colleagues are aware, milk prices fell by more than $4 per hundredweight--a 26-percent decline in income. In Wisconsin alone, this price decline has cost dairy farmers more than $165 million in lost income. The price decline has been extremely painful for dairy farmers still struggling with high feed bills but what has made the pain more difficult to bear is the general belief held by many dairy economists that the price fell too far too fast and could not be justified based on prevailing market conditions. Whether the price declined so drastically simply because the National Cheese Exchange is a poor indicator of market conditions or because traders intentionally drove the price down is irrelevant. The perception of farmers that the exchange price was manipulated warrants its retirement as the mover of milk prices in this country. The reality that the exchange clearly overreacted to market conditions with record-setting price declines necessitates it. The National Cheese Exchange has such a dramatic effect on milk prices for two reasons. First, milk prices are tied directly to the exchange opinion price through the basic formula price [BFP], calculated by USDA. The BFP determines the class III price for milk regulated under the Federal milk marketing order system. Second, even if the formal linkage did not exist, milk prices would still be dramatically affected by the exchange opinion because it is used as the benchmark in virtually all forward contracts for bulk cheese; 90 to 95 percent of bulk cheese in the United States is sold through forward contracts. In other words, virtually all cheese sold in the country is priced based on the opinion price at the Cheese Exchange. That is, at least in part, due to the lack of any alternative market information on the value of cheese. The combination of thin nature of the National Cheese Exchange and its influence on milk prices nationally, creates a situation in which there is both the opportunity and the incentive for price manipulation. Anyone buying or selling cheese on the National Cheese Exchange may be able to affect the price of milk throughout the country. The extensive report issued by the University of Wisconsin last year concluded that the trading patterns on the NCE suggest that lead traders use the NCE to influence exchange prices with the intent of affecting milk and cheese prices nationwide. Unfortunately, no viable alternative to the National Cheese Exchange currently exists for cheese price discovery. While there is a futures market for cheese and other dairy products, trading of futures contracts have been weak making the futures prices unreliable benchmarks. Furthermore, there is little or no market information on prices for off-exchange spot transactions of cheese collected by the Department of Agriculture. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman recently announced a new cheese price series that should improve market information for off-exchange transactions. However, such information may not be adequate to supplant the role of the National Cheese Exchange. Of even greater concern is that despite its influence over milk prices nationwide and its vulnerability to manipulation, the exchange is not regulated by any State or Federal entity. Mr. President, farmers throughout the country are frustrated by a pricing system that can no longer guarantee that milk prices are determined competitively and without manipulation and that they believe led to the severe and unwarranted price decline last fall. They have rightfully demanded that we change the way milk prices are set by U.S. Department of Agriculture to reduce the influence of the exchange on farm-level prices. In addition, farmers have called for increased regulation of the exchange to prohibit manipulation of milk and cheese prices. Mr. President, that is my goal in introducing this legislation today. Farmers must not be held hostage to this market any longer. First, my legislation directs USDA to break the direct link between the basic formula price and the National Cheese Exchange. Second, it requires USDA to develop alternative sources of cheese market information so that buyers and sellers of cheese need no longer rely on the exchange as a reference price for forward contracts. Finally, my legislation will provide USDA with clear authority to prohibit noncompetitive practices on any cash market that affects the price of milk regulated under Federal milk marketing orders, including the National Cheese Exchange. By law, USDA has been charged with ensuring orderly conditions for the marketing of milk. The agency cannot meet that charge without greater authority to oversee the National Cheese Exchange and prevent those who benefit from low milk prices from driving them down. Ultimately, the solution to these problems lies in the creation of a reliable price discovery system for milk and dairy products that the dairy industry can rely on. But it will take time to develop those alternatives, and it will take time for the dairy industry to come to rely on them. Until we reach that goal, it is absolutely critical that USDA prohibit noncompetitive activities on the National Cheese Exchange. Mr. President, I am also pleased to be a cosponsor of the National Cheese Exchange Oversight and Improvement Act introduced by my senior Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl. This bill provides the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] with day-to-day regulatory jurisdiction over the activities of the National Cheese Exchange. While the CFTC has some limited jurisdiction over the exchange, they do not have the authority to impose trading rules on the exchange. The new authority provided in our respective bills for USDA and CFTC to oversee the exchange should ensure farmers that until the functions of the exchange can be replaced by alternative price discovery mechanisms, we will do all we can to prevent manipulation of farm milk prices. Mr. President, I believe the combination of the provisions of the Milk Price Discovery Improvement Act and the National Cheese Exchange Oversight and Improvement Act will go far toward resolving some of the problems that have led to the recent milk price plunge that has cost this country's family farmers so dearly. This legislation, if passed, may also help restore the confidence of dairy farmers in our milk pricing system. Mr. President, there are varied and complicated reasons that the trend in American agriculture is toward fewer and larger farms and toward greater concentration in processing and manufacturing. However, I believe that Federal policies that provide competitive advantages to larger farms and subtly discriminate against smaller farmers are among them. Sanctioning pricing mechanisms, like the National Cheese Exchange, that provide unequal market power and information, and relying on them to set prices, is one such policy. Small dairy farmers are less able to withstand the lost income resulting from volatile prices caused by the National Cheese Exchange. Small cheese processors and manufacturers that dot Wisconsin's countryside also suffer from price volatility and manipulation on the exchange yet lack the ability to counteract the power of other traders. We can restore a degree of market equality by improving price discovery and by preventing those with the power to manipulate prices from doing so. That is the goal of the Milk Price Discovery Act of 1997. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of my legislation as well as the full text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] in introducing this legislation to repeal the Communications Decency Act [CDA]. I believe Congress made a grave mistake in enacting the CDA and it is time to correct it. Congress passed the CDA without taking the time to fully examine its ability to protest children and its effect on the free speech rights of Americans. As a result, the CDA has been the subject of a court challenge since the day it was signed into law. Last June, a three- judge Federal panel granted a preliminary injunction against the Federal enforcement of key provisions of the CDA finding them unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the first amendment challenge to the CDA on March 19, 1997. The Communications Decency Act, enacted as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, subjected anyone who transmitted indecent material to minors over the Internet to criminal sanctions. The commonly accepted definition of ``indecency'' includes mild profanity. I strongly opposed the CDA not only because I believe it violates our constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech, but also because I feel strongly that it fails to truly protect children from those who might seek to harm them. The fundamental error of CDA proponents was their attempt to apply decades-old broadcasting standards to an emerging technology that defies categorization--the Internet. While the Supreme Court has allowed speech restrictions for broadcast media, it has made clear that such restrictions do not violate the first amendment only if there is a compelling Government interest in restricting speech and the restriction is applied in the least restrictive means. It is predominantly the nature of the medium which determines whether or not a criminal prohibition on speech is the least restrictive means of meeting a compelling Government interest. in the case of a radio or television, the fact that a child might simply turn on a station and hear offensive material provides a basis for allowing an arguably tighter restriction on indecent speech. Restraints upon newspapers and other print media, which are inherently noninvasive, have been very limited. While the Net bears some similarities to both media, it is a unique and ever-changing communications medium. One can be a speaker, a publisher and a listener using the Internet. Currently, anyone with the know-how and the proper hardware and software can set up a Web page, become a de facto publisher, making information available to others at little cost to oneself or the consumer of that information. One can also post a message to an Internet newsgroup, an informal and often unmoderated information sharing forum, which can then be ready by anyone accessing that newsgroup. The promise of the Internet is its free flow of information across vast physical distances and boundaries to anyone with access to a computer and an Internet connection. The threat of the Communications Decency Act is its undeniable ability to stifle this free-flowing speech on the Net. Mr. President, that threat exists because Congress failed to recognize the danger of applying an overly broad indecency standard to a technology with the characteristics of the Internet. Out of fear of prosecution, the vagueness of the indecency standard, and an inability to control the age of those who might ultimately see the information, speakers on the Net will become silent. Those offering commercial access to the Internet will be required to restrict access to speech in order to protect themselves from criminal prosecution. Last year, a panel of three Federal judges came to the same conclusion: this statute cannot be enforced without violating the Constitution. The Court stated: . . . the Internet may fairly be regarded as a never-ending worldwide conversation. The Government may not, through the CDA, interrupt that conversation. As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from government intrusion. I believe the Federal Court came to this conclusion because the judges took the time to study and understand the characteristics of the Net before rushing to judgement--something Congress failed to do. It is time to undo that mistake by repealing the Communications Decency Act. Not only does the CDA infringe on free speech rights of adults, it does not protect children from those who seek to harm them using the Internet, and it may actually impede the development of more sophisticated screening software in the marketplace. When Congress passed the CDA, there already existed filtering software which gave parents the ability to filter out objectionable content such as indecency, violence, adult topics etc. The passage of the CDA necessarily will reduce demand for such software products, which are effective in preventing children's access to such content. The CDA merely provides parents with a false sense of security that the Federal Government will somehow protect their children, so they no longer have to worry about the Internet themselves. And that is the irony, Mr. President. The CDA is simply not capable of protecting children on the Internet. Much Internet content originates on foreign soil, making effective enforcement of the CDA impossible. Furthermore, the dissemination of materials which we all agree are most harmful to children--obscenity and child pornography--is already illegal on the Internet and subject to hefty criminal sanctions. We should put our law enforcement resources into aggressively prosecuting these criminal violations and recognize that the Internet is merely another tool used by those seeking to harm our children. We must prosecute the crime, not demonize the medium used by the criminal. Mr. President, it is time to repeal the Communications Decency Act-- an unconstitutional statute that fails to protect children. We owe that to all Americans and most important, we owe it to this country's children.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] in introducing this legislation to repeal the Communications Decency Act [CDA]. I believe Congress made a grave mistake in enacting the CDA and it is time to correct it. Congress passed the CDA without taking the time to fully examine its ability to protest children and its effect on the free speech rights of Americans. As a result, the CDA has been the subject of a court challenge since the day it was signed into law. Last June, a three- judge Federal panel granted a preliminary injunction against the Federal enforcement of key provisions of the CDA finding them unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the first amendment challenge to the CDA on March 19, 1997. The Communications Decency Act, enacted as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, subjected anyone who transmitted indecent material to minors over the Internet to criminal sanctions. The commonly accepted definition of ``indecency'' includes mild profanity. I strongly opposed the CDA not only because I believe it violates our constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech, but also because I feel strongly that it fails to truly protect children from those who might seek to harm them. The fundamental error of CDA proponents was their attempt to apply decades-old broadcasting standards to an emerging technology that defies categorization--the Internet. While the Supreme Court has allowed speech restrictions for broadcast media, it has made clear that such restrictions do not violate the first amendment only if there is a compelling Government interest in restricting speech and the restriction is applied in the least restrictive means. It is predominantly the nature of the medium which determines whether or not a criminal prohibition on speech is the least restrictive means of meeting a compelling Government interest. in the case of a radio or television, the fact that a child might simply turn on a station and hear offensive material provides a basis for allowing an arguably tighter restriction on indecent speech. Restraints upon newspapers and other print media, which are inherently noninvasive, have been very limited. While the Net bears some similarities to both media, it is a unique and ever-changing communications medium. One can be a speaker, a publisher and a listener using the Internet. Currently, anyone with the know-how and the proper hardware and software can set up a Web page, become a de facto publisher, making information available to others at little cost to oneself or the consumer of that information. One can also post a message to an Internet newsgroup, an informal and often unmoderated information sharing forum, which can then be ready by anyone accessing that newsgroup. The promise of the Internet is its free flow of information across vast physical distances and boundaries to anyone with access to a computer and an Internet connection. The threat of the Communications Decency Act is its undeniable ability to stifle this free-flowing speech on the Net. Mr. President, that threat exists because Congress failed to recognize the danger of applying an overly broad indecency standard to a technology with the characteristics of the Internet. Out of fear of prosecution, the vagueness of the indecency standard, and an inability to control the age of those who might ultimately see the information, speakers on the Net will become silent. Those offering commercial access to the Internet will be required to restrict access to speech in order to protect themselves from criminal prosecution. Last year, a panel of three Federal judges came to the same conclusion: this statute cannot be enforced without violating the Constitution. The Court stated: . . . the Internet may fairly be regarded as a never-ending worldwide conversation. The Government may not, through the CDA, interrupt that conversation. As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from government intrusion. I believe the Federal Court came to this conclusion because the judges took the time to study and understand the characteristics of the Net before rushing to judgement--something Congress failed to do. It is time to undo that mistake by repealing the Communications Decency Act. Not only does the CDA infringe on free speech rights of adults, it does not protect children from those who seek to harm them using the Internet, and it may actually impede the development of more sophisticated screening software in the marketplace. When Congress passed the CDA, there already existed filtering software which gave parents the ability to filter out objectionable content such as indecency, violence, adult topics etc. The passage of the CDA necessarily will reduce demand for such software products, which are effective in preventing children's access to such content. The CDA merely provides parents with a false sense of security that the Federal Government will somehow protect their children, so they no longer have to worry about the Internet themselves. And that is the irony, Mr. President. The CDA is simply not capable of protecting children on the Internet. Much Internet content originates on foreign soil, making effective enforcement of the CDA impossible. Furthermore, the dissemination of materials which we all agree are most harmful to children--obscenity and child pornography--is already illegal on the Internet and subject to hefty criminal sanctions. We should put our law enforcement resources into aggressively prosecuting these criminal violations and recognize that the Internet is merely another tool used by those seeking to harm our children. We must prosecute the crime, not demonize the medium used by the criminal. Mr. President, it is time to repeal the Communications Decency Act-- an unconstitutional statute that fails to protect children. We owe that to all Americans and most important, we owe it to this country's children.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, when then-Representative Paul Tsongas of Lowell, MA, was running for the U.S. Senate in 1978, a newspaper columnist referred to him rather dismissively as ``an obscure first- term Congressman.'' Candidate Tsongas responded quickly to correct the error, saying, ``I'm an obscure second-term Congressman.'' That was Paul Tsongas, meticulous with the facts, parrying an attack with laughter, and always keeping on course to his goal. Mr. President, Paul Tsongas embodied the best qualities of a public servant. Uppermost in his mind was the responsibility to make his community, his district, his State, his Nation, his world a better place than he found it. Part of that responsibility was to speak plainly the truth as he saw it, even when speaking the truth might undermine his own ambitions. During the 1992 Presidential campaign, for example, Senator Tsongas insisted on warning the American people, over and over, about the looming threat posed by our national deficit. He refused to embrace tax cuts, instead insisting that fiscal responsibility and prudent policy were the keys to bringing the Federal budget back into balance. Because we shared a commitment to deficit reduction, Senator Tsongas came to Wisconsin in 1992 to campaign for me in my Senate race. Deficit reduction was the centerpiece of my campaign effort, and, like Senator Tsongas, I took the position that massive new tax cuts would undermine our efforts to reach a balanced budget. It was heartening to me to have Senator Tsongas' support and encouragement. His principles of fiscal responsibility and prudent policymaking led Senator Tsongas, after ending his quest for the Presidency, to join with another former Senator, Republican Warren Rudman, to form the Concord Coalition, an organization that has become one of the leading voices for deficit reduction. While I did not have the opportunity to serve with Senator Tsongas, our philosophies often crossed paths. I have been proud to have had the support of the Concord Coalition on various deficit-reduction efforts, and I have been inspired by Senator Tsongas' vision, energy, courage, and dedication, both on this issue and in the practice of public policymaking generally. Mr. President, I had only recently begun my own career in public service when Paul Tsongas announced he would not run for re-election in 1984, because he had been diagnosed with non-Hodgin's lymphoma. He wanted, he said, to spend more time with his family. He endured bone-marrow transplants, a treatment that was experimental at the time, and he eventually came back, first to chair the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education, then to run for President and then to cofound the Concord Coalition. Even as he was working in the highest circles of American politics, he always kept close contact with his beloved hometown of Lowell, where he served on the city council in the late 1960's and where he is recognized as one of the community leaders who help revive that former mill town. Mr. President, in April 1963, Paul Tsongas was serving in the Peace Corps in Ethiopia, and he wrote then-Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, asking for help in securing a party worker's job in the upcoming national elections. In that letter, the 22-year-old Tsongas told Kennedy, ``I feel confident that I have the raw material to become a successful public servant.'' A typical understatement from Paul Tsongas, Mr. President. He will be missed. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today the Senate votes to confirm the nomination of Madeleine Albright to be Secretary of State. As many others will say today, this is a historic occasion, as the secretary-designate will soon become the highest ranking woman ever to serve in the United States Government. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, it was my distinct honor to approve her nomination at the committee level on Monday. And I am honored to vote for her again today on the floor of the Senate. Back in the 1980's, I had the pleasure of meeting the distinguished nominee in Wausau, in my home state of Wisconsin, while I was a member of the Wisconsin State Senate. At the time, I was introduced to her as the future Secretary of State. I have since been impressed at how she has excelled--in domestic politics, as well as in foreign policy--to allow her to achieve this great honor, the nomination to be the President's chief foreign policy adviser. In more recent days, I have observed her both in private, and at her confirmation hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee on January 8 of this year. And I was again impressed at how articulately and gracefully she responded to questions that literally spanned the globe. Upon confirmation, Ambassador Albright will take on a position that, in my view, is one of the most challenging positions in public service. On the one hand, she will have a tremendous opportunity to affect world events because of the leadership role that the United States plays in so many conflicts around the world. But on the other hand, she will have awesome responsibilities. Just a quick glance at the range and scope of the various bureaus at the State Department remind us that the job of Secretary of State is far-reaching. Not only will she be in charge of all the regional and administrative bureaus, but she will also be responsible for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, the Bureau for International Organization Affairs, Bureau of Oceans and International Scientific Affairs and the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. This list underscores the fact that many of the problems that challenge us today are ones that belie traditional ways of looking at the world through regional, or even strictly political, lenses. Increasingly, we are faced with issues that transcend national borders and fly in the face of old political alliances. Concerns over drug trafficking, refugees, disease, and the environment have changed the way we define the national interest. Of particular interest to me is the promotion of human rights worldwide. I strongly believe that the United States has a moral responsibility to put human rights at the top of our foreign policy agenda. I also believe that--although we might disagree on the manner in which we should raise human rights concerns with other governments-- Ambassador Albright agrees with my basic premise here. In my view, it is incumbent upon U.S. diplomats to incorporate our views about human rights in bilateral discussions on other issues. For example, we have many interests in Indonesia, but we must never forget that its government continues to sustain a brutal military occupation of East Timor. Similarly, concerns over human rights abuses in Tibet and over the impending transition in Hong Kong must be pillars of our many- pronged China policy. Ambassador Albright has, in the past, exhibited superior knowledge of human rights issues and of these other transnational problems. And, I hope she will guide the Administration to propose creative solutions to some of these problems. Of particular regional concern to me is the African continent, which--too often--is left at the end of the priority lists of policymakers in this country. But Africa--a continent of 48 countries south of the Sahara--supports a population of nearly 620 million people. Its land mass stretches over one quarter of the Earth's surface. While we often focus upon areas where crises evolve, as in Liberia or in the Great Lakes region, we also must actively support some of the successes in Africa, such as the stunning transition to majority rule in South Africa, Eritrean independence, or the fact that more than 30 democratic elections have taken place on the continent since 1989. The United States can play an important role in all these events. Finally, I wish to note that in addition to Ambassador Albright's many qualifications in the field of foreign policy, she also is especially prepared to work with Members of Congress. She spent nearly 2 years as the chief legislative assistant to Senator Edmund Muskie, who himself went on to be Secretary of State. She understands well the intent of the Constitution regarding the separate responsibilities and prerogatives of the legislative and executive branches of our Government. This is of particular concern to me where the deployment of American men and women to combat is involved. I trust Ambassador Albright will take the advice and consent role of the Senate seriously, and will consult fully with the Congress in all matters of troop deployment. Ambassador Albright never shied away from speaking frankly with us and with the American people in her previous capacity as the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations. I look forward to future open and candid dialog with her on all of these issues, and expect to work closely with her. Mr. President, the job of Secretary of State is indeed a challenging one. I salute President Clinton for his superb choice, for it is my view that this nominee is more-than-qualified to take on the challenges of the position under consideration. I also commend the honorable Senator from North Carolina for expediting the confirmation process. In summary, Mr. President, I am honored to cast my vote in favor of the nomination of Madeleine Korbel Albright to be Secretary of State.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Mike Cannell, a dairy farmer and sustainable agriculture advocate from Cazenovia, WI who perished in a farming accident on December 2, 1996 while helping a neighbor unload corn. Mike died the same way he lived--helping others. While those of us fortunate enough to have known Mike will miss him terribly, he has left us a great gift: his tireless work toward restoring and sustaining an agricultural community of healthy and economically viable family farms. His support of sustainable agriculture reflected his approach to life: balance. Sustainable agriculture is an integrated system of production that provides an adequate supply of food and fiber in a manner that enhances environmental quality, makes efficient use of limited natural resources, sustains small and medium sized farms and improves the quality of life for farmers and the community. It is an agricultural system that balances the many needs of our people and our planet. Mike not only recognized the economic importance and the environmental benefits of a large number of small scale family farms, he recognized the ability of successfully owning and operating one's own farm to instill a sense of pride, accomplishment and satisfaction in the farmer-owner. In Mike's view, these things were at least as important as the many economic and environmental reasons to sustain small farms. In all things, especially farming, he sought balance. I first met Mike Cannell when I was a State senator. He, along with other dairy farmers, met with me to express concern about the development of a new dairy technology that he felt was ill-timed, unnecessary and irresponsible. That technology was Bovine Growth Hormone, a product which when injected in cows results in greater milk production. The arguments made against BGH were many: increased milk production necessarily lowers milk prices; the technology will favor large farms over smaller ones; small farms will be driven out of business; there may be indirect but harmful environmental impacts, and many more. But Mike's objections to BGH ran deeper. He did not believe in technology for technology's sake. He felt scientists and society's leaders were obligated to consider and recognize cultural traditions and predominant value systems of the community for which they were developing new technology. To him, the economic benefits of technology had to be weighed against the real or perceived ramifications on society. Mike didn't believe that the universities and private sector firms developing BGH had done that. He predicted the outrage that introduction of the product caused among dairy farmers and consumers in Wisconsin. To this day, many dairy products in Wisconsin are labeled as free of BGH in part, due to Mike's efforts. As usual, Mike's balanced approach was right on target. Mike, however, did not reject new technology on its face and in fact, embraced and doggedly promoted technologies and new practices that advanced his goal of a sustainable agricultural community consisting of small and medium sized family farms. Mike's approach to dairy farming was unique when he began milking cows 15 years ago. He was an intensive rotational grazier--a practice that many said couldn't work in Wisconsin because of our harsh winter climate. Unlike confinement dairying, rotational grazing requires fewer chemical inputs, less labor, less capital and is environmentally beneficial as well. Mike, however, viewed grazing in a broader context. Grazing was not only an environmentally friendly method of producing quality milk at reduced cost, it was also capable of supporting a family and providing a high quality of life. Mike chose to become a dairyman because of the value he place on these last two criteria. Mike, when speaking about grazing, put it in this context: ``This is the real reason we live: for our families and for our communities. Any practice that promises to make us better farmers, in part, I evaluate by how much it contributes to our families and communities.'' For technology to be appropriate it had to be appropriate for the farm and the community surrounding it. Again, this was Mike's balance. He supported technology and practices that promoted the goals he believed to be most important. Mike Cannell was an innovative leader among Wisconsin farmers, resolutely seeking solutions to the complex problems facing our dairy industry. To many farmers in Wisconsin, those problems appear insurmountable; so complicated, multifarious, and seemingly incomprehensible that one person couldn't possibly make a dent in them. Mike not only believed he could make a difference, he believed he had an obligation to use his talents to do so. Even more remarkable than Mike's willingness to actively intervene in agricultural problems, was Mike's concept of a solution: one which was not only achievable and effective but which was also socially and morally responsible. In a manner more effective than few others I've known, Mike was able to articulate the problems and identify solutions. He was not shy at criticizing entities he felt were standing in the way of a sustainable family farm sector. But he always went beyond criticism to suggest solutions and to actively work with the entities-- including universities, local, State and Federal Government--he was criticizing to eliminate the barriers facing family farms. But Mike went still further. Rather than rely on others to solve all the dilemmas facing family farmers, he believed farmers also had both the ability and responsibility to help each other. And he put that into practice too. Mike Cannell believed so strongly in the ability of rotational grazing to reverse the dramatic losses of Wisconsin family dairy farmers in the past decade that he spent the last 10 years trying to teach other farmers how to become graziers. He is responsible for starting a grazier technology transfer discussion group on the Internet--known as a List Serve--so that dairymen could share their expertise on grazing. That group now claims more than one thousand members. He was also the founder of both regional and statewide farmer to farmer grazing networks, known as the Ocooch Graziers and Grassworks. Because of Mike Cannell, rotational grazing is no longer considered an unusual dairying practice in Wisconsin. It is fast becoming mainstream. Mike also took initiative to solve one of Wisconsin's most challenging farm problems--the retirement of older dairy farmers without younger farmers to replace them. The long hours, hard work, low return and often dim outlook for dairying have dissuaded many young people from entering the dairy industry. Rather than consider this an inevitable outcome, Mike took steps to encourage young people to enter dairying. While his positive attitude might have been enough to persuade young farmers that there was a future in dairy farming, to persuade the cynics he founded the School for Beginning Dairy Farmers to teach young farmers how to be successful in a difficult profession. Mike's contributions to the sustainable agriculture community are real and measurable and he will be remembered for them for many years. But Mike will likely be remembered more for his steady and unswerving pursuit of a way of life he loved and from which he gained great joy, his strong belief in the value of that way of life, his efforts to share his success with others, and most important, for his commitment to community and family. In Mike's view, all things in life and agriculture should be conducted with an eye toward how they contribute to community and family. It is a valuable lesson to learn. And it is the world's great loss that Mike Cannell won't be around to teach us anymore. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, yesterday I joined with the senior Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] and others in introducing S. 25, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation terminating the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences [USUHS], a medical school run by the Department of Defense. The measure is one I proposed when I ran for the U.S. Senate, and was part of a larger, 82 point plan to reduce the Federal budget deficit. The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] estimates that terminating the school would save $369 million over the next six years. USUHS was created in 1972 to meet an expected shortage of military medical personnel. Today, however, USUHS accounts for only a small fraction of the military's new physicians, less than 12 percent in 1994 according to CBO. This contrasts dramatically with the military's scholarship program which provided over 80 percent of the military's new physicians in that year. Mr. President, what is even more troubling is that USUHS is also the single most costly source of new physicians for the military. CBO reports that based on figures from 1995, USUHS trained physicians cost the military $615,000 per person. By comparison, the scholarship program cost about $125,000 per person, with other sources providing new physicians at a cost of $60,000. As CBO noted in their Spending and Revenue Options publication, even adjusting for the lengthier service commitment required of USUHS trained physicians, the cost of training them is still higher than that of training physicians from other sources, an assessment shared by the Pentagon itself. Indeed, CBO's estimate of the savings generated by this measure also includes the cost of obtaining physicians from other sources. The other body has voted to terminate this program on several occasions, and the Vice President's National Performance Review joined others, ranging from the Grace Commission to the CBO, in raising the question of whether this medical school, which graduated its first class in 1980, should be closed because it is so much more costly than alternative sources of physicians for the military. Mr. President, the real issue we must address is whether USUHS is essential to the needs of today's military structure, or if we can do without this costly program. The proponents of USUHS frequently cite the higher retention rates of USUHS graduates over physicians obtained from other sources as a justification for continuation of this program, but while a greater percentage of USUHS trained physicians may remain in the military longer than those from other sources, the Pentagon indicates that the alternative sources already provide an appropriate mix of retention rates. Testimony by the Department of Defense before the Subcommittee on Force Requirements and Personnel noted that the military's scholarship program meets the retention needs of the services. And while USUHS only provides a small fraction of the military's new physicians, it is important to note that relying primarily on these other sources has not compromised the ability of military physicians to meet the needs of the Pentagon. According to the Office of Management and Budget, of the approximately 2,000 physicians serving in Desert Storm, only 103, about 5 percent, were USUHS trained. Mr. President, let me conclude by recognizing that USUHS has some dedicated supporters in the U.S. Senate, and I realize that there are legitimate arguments that those supporters have made in defense of this institution. The problem, however, is that the federal government can no longer afford to continue every program that provides some useful function. In the face of our staggering national debt and annual deficits, we must prioritize and eliminate programs that can no longer be sustained with limited Federal dollars, or where a more cost-effective means of fulfilling those functions can be substituted. The future of USUHS continues to be debated precisely because in these times of budget restraint it does not appear to pass the higher threshold tests which must be applied to all Federal spending programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am introducing a measure that I sponsored in the 104th Congress to reduce the amount of Federal irrigation subsidies received by large agribusiness interests. I believe that reforming Federal water pricing policy by reducing subsidies is an important area to examine as a means to achieve our deficit reduction objectives. This legislation is also needed to curb fundamental abuses of reclamation law that cost the taxpayer millions of dollars every year. In 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed legislation, which came to be known as the Reclamation Act of 1902, to encourage development of family farms throughout the western United States. The idea was to provide needed water for areas that were otherwise dry and give small farms--those no larger than 160 acres--a chance, with a helping hand from the Federal Government, to establish themselves. According to a 1996 General Accounting Office report, since the passage of the Reclamation Act, the Federal Government has spent $21.8 billion to construct 133 water projects in the west which provide water for irrigation. Irrigators, and other project beneficiaries, are required under the law to repay to the Federal Government their allocated share of the costs of constructing these projects. However, as a result of the subsidized financing provided by the Federal Government, some of the beneficiaries of Federal water projects repay considerably less than their full share of these costs. According to the 1996 GAO report, irrigators generally receive the largest amount of Federal financial assistance. Since the initiation of the irrigation program in 1902, construction costs associated with irrigation have been repaid without interest. The GAO further found, in reviewing the Bureau of Reclamation's financial reports, that $16.9 billion, or 78 percent, of the $21.8 billion of Federal investment in water projects is considered to be reimbursable. Of the reimbursable costs, the largest share--$7.1 billion--is allocated to irrigators. As of September 30, 1994 irrigators have repaid only $941 million of the $7.1 billion they owe. GAO also found that the Bureau of Reclamation will likely shift $3.4 billion of the debt owed by irrigators to other users of the water projects for repayment. There are several reasons why irrigators continue to receive such significant subsidies. Under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, Congress acted to expand the size of the farms that could receive subsidized water from 160 acres to 960 acres. The RRA of 1982 expressly prohibits farms that exceed 960 acres in size from receiving federally- subsidized water. These restrictions were added to the reclamation law to close loopholes through which Federal subsidies were flowing to large agribusinesses rather than the small family farmers that reclamation projects were designed to serve. Agribusinesses were expected to pay full cost for all water received on land in excess of their 960 acre entitlement. Despite the express mandate of Congress, regulations promulgated under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 have failed to keep big agricultural water users from receiving federal subsidies. The General Accounting Office and the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior continue to find that the acreage limits established in law are circumvented through the creation of arrangements such as farming trusts. These trusts, which in total acreage will exceed the 960 acre limit, are comprised of smaller units that are not subject to the reclamation acreage cap. These smaller units are farmed under a single management agreement often through a combination of leasing and ownership. In a 1989 GAO report, the activities of six agribusiness trusts were fully explored. According to GAO, one 12,345 acre cotton farm (roughly 20 square miles), operating under a single partnership, was reorganized to avoid the 960 acre limitation into 15 separate land holdings through 18 partnerships, 24 corporations, and 11 trusts which were all operated as one large unit. A seventh very large trust was the sole topic of a 1990 GAO report. The Westhaven Trust is a 23,238 acre farming operation in California's Central Valley. It was formed for the benefit of 326 salaried employees of the J.G. Boswell Company. Boswell, GAO found, had taken advantage of section 214 of the RRA, which exempts from its 960 acre limit land held for beneficiaries by a trustee in a fiduciary capacity, as long as no single beneficiary's interest exceeds the law's ownership limits. The RRA, as I have mentioned, does not preclude multiple land holdings from being operated collectively under a trust as one farm while qualifying individually for federally subsidized water. Accordingly, the J.G. Boswell Company reorganized 23,238 acres it held as the Boston Ranch by selling them to the Westhaven Trust, with the land holdings attributed to each beneficiary being eligible to receive federally subsidized water. Before the land was sold to Westhaven Trust, the J.G. Boswell Company operated the acreage as one large farm and paid full cost for the Federal irrigation water delivered for the 18-month period ending in May 1989. When the trust bought the land, due to the loopholes in the law, the entire acreage became eligible to receive federally subsidized water because the land holdings attributed to the 326 trust beneficiaries range from 21 acres to 547 acres--all well under the 960 acre limit. In the six cases the GAO reviewed in 1989, owners or lessees paid a total of about $1.3 million less in 1987 for Federal water than they would have paid if their collective land holdings were considered as large farms subject to the Reclamation Act acreage limits. Had Westhaven Trust been required to pay full cost, GAO estimated in 1990, it would have paid $2 million more for its water. The GAO also found, in all seven of these cases, that reduced revenues are likely to continue unless Congress amends the Reclamation Act to close the loopholes allowing benefits for trusts. The legislation that I am introducing today combines various elements of proposals introduced during previous attempts by other Members of Congress to close loopholes in the 1982 legislation and to impose a $500,000 means test. This new approach limits the amount of subsidized irrigation water delivered to any operation in excess of the 960 acre limit which claimed $500,000 or more in gross income, as reported on their most recent IRS tax form. If the $500,000 threshold were exceeded, an income ratio would be used to determine how much of the water should be delivered to the user at the full-cost rate, and how much at the below-cost rate. For example, if a 961 acre operation earned $1 million dollars, a ratio of $500,000 (the means test value) divided by their gross income would determine the full cost rate, thus the water user would pay the full cost rate on half of their acreage and the below cost rate on the remaining half. This means testing proposal will be featured, for the second year in a row, in this year's 1997 Green Scissors report which is scheduled for release next month. This report is compiled by Friends of the Earth and Taxpayers for Common Sense and supported by a number of environmental and consumer groups, including the Concord Coalition, and the Progressive Policy Institute. The premise of the report is that there are a number of subsidies and projects that could be cut to both reduce the deficit and benefit the environment. This report underscores what I and many others in the Senate have long known: we must eliminate practices that can no longer be justified in light of our enormous annual deficit and national debt. The Green Scissors recommendation on means testing water subsidies indicates that if a test is successful in reducing subsidy payments to the highest grossing 10% of farms, then the Federal Government would recover between $440 million and $1.1 billion per year, or at least $2.2 billion over 5 years. When countless Federal programs are subjected to various types of means tests to limit benefits to those who truly need assistance, it makes little sense to continue to allow large business interests to dip into a program intended to help small entities struggling to survive. Taxpayers have legitimate concerns when they learn that their hard earned tax dollars are being expended to assist large corporate interests in select regions of the country who benefit from these loopholes, particularly in tight budgetary times. Other users of Federal water projects, such as the power recipients, should also be concerned when they learn that they will be expected to pick up the tab for a portion of the funds that irrigators were supposed to pay back. The Federal water program was simply never intended to benefit these large interests, and I am hopeful that legislative efforts, such as the measure I am introducing today, will prompt Congress to fully reevaluate our Federal water pricing policy. In conclusion, Mr. President, it is clear that the conflicting policies of the Federal Government in this area are in need of reform, and that Congress should act. Large agribusinesses should not be able to continue to soak the taxpayers, and should make their fair share of payments to the Federal Government. We should act to close these loopholes and increase the return to the Treasury from irrigators as soon as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, similar to that which I sponsored in the 104th Congress, to terminate funding for little known activities of the Tennessee Valley Authority [TVA], the TVA's nonpower programs, that are funded by appropriated funds. In fiscal year 1997, Congress appropriated a total of $106 million to support these programs. The TVA was created in 1933 as a government-owned corporation for the unified development of a river basin comprised of parts of seven States. Those activities included the construction of an extensive power system, for which the region is now famous, and regional development or ``nonpower'' programs. TVA's responsibilities in the nonpower programs include maintaining its system of dams, reservoirs and navigation facilities, and managing TVA-held lands. In addition, TVA provides recreational programs, makes economic development grants to communities, promotes public use of its land and water resources, and operates an Environmental Research Center. Only the TVA power programs are intended to be self-supporting, by relying on TVA utility customers to foot the bill. The expense of these ``nonpower'' programs, on the other hand, are covered by appropriated taxpayer funds. This legislation terminates funding for all appropriated programs of the TVA after fiscal year 2000. While I understand the role that TVA has played in our history, I also know that we face tremendous Federal budget pressure to reduce spending in many areas. I believe that TVA's discretionary funds should be on the table, and that Congress should act, in accordance with this legislation, to put the TVA appropriated programs on a glide path toward dependence on sources of funds other than appropriated funds. I think that this legislation is a reasonable phased-in approach to achieve this objective, and explicitly codifies both the fiscal year 1996 President's Budget and TVA's own recommendations regarding activities at the TVA's Environmental Research Center in Alabama. I am introducing this legislation to terminate TVA'S appropriated programs because there are lingering concerns, brought to light in a 1993 Congressional Budget Office [CBO] report, that nonpower program funds subsidize activities that should be paid for by non-Federal interests. When I ran for the Senate in 1992, I developed an 82+ point plan to eliminate the Federal deficit and have continued to work on the implementation of that plan since that time. That plan includes a number of elements in the natural resource area, including the termination of TVA's appropriations-funded programs. In its 1993 report, CBO focused on two programs: The TVA Stewardship Program and the Environmental Research Center. Stewardship activities receive the largest share of TVA's appropriated funds. The funds are used for dam repair and maintenance activities. According to 1995 testimony provided by TVA before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Water Appropriations, when TVA repairs a dam it pays 70 percent, on average, of repair costs with appropriated dollars and covers the remaining 30 percent with funds collected from electricity ratepayers. This practice of charging a portion of dam repair costs to the taxpayer, CBO highlighted, amounts to a significant subsidy. If TVA were a private utility, and it made modifications to a dam or performed routine dredging, the ratepayers would pay for all of the costs associated with that activity. TVA also runs an Environmental Research Center, formerly a Fertilizer Research Center, that received $15 million in funding in fiscal year 1997. The Center formerly developed and tested about 80 percent of commercial fertilizers developed in the United States, which CBO identified as a direct research cost subsidy to fertilizer companies. The measure I am introducing today phases out Federal funding for the Center by the year 2000. In fiscal year 1996, I successfully sponsored an amendment to cap funding for the TVA Environmental Research Center. The amendment also required the Center to examine its research program, and evaluate how it could reduce its dependence on appropriated funds. Though the funding cap was eliminated in conference on the fiscal year 1996 Energy and Water Appropriations, TVA did complete an assessment of its research program. The Center proposes to make a complete transition to competing for Federal grants by fiscal year 2000. My measure would codify such a transition. I have included specific language on the Environmental Research Center in this legislation because I believe that it is important certain regions do not receive earmarked preference over others in receiving scarce environmental research, natural resource management and economic development dollars from the Federal Government. In this time of tight budgets, I believe that all opportunities to decrease and supplement Federal support for projects and leverage additional private, local and State government funds should be examined and implemented when feasible. Again, while I understand the important role that TVA played in the development of the Tennessee Valley, many other areas of the country have become more creative in Federal and State financing arrangements to address regional concerns. Specifically, in those areas where there may be excesses within TVA, I believe we can do better to curb subsidies and eliminate the burden on taxpayers without completely eliminating the TVA, as some in the other body have suggested. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this measure be printed in the Record.