Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I recognize there are strong feelings on this project and deep divisions in the region. I say to the junior Senator from Colorado, we must honor our commitment to this tribe. The question is how to honor the commitment. This project was first authorized in 1968. As I understand it, it had little or nothing to do at that time with the issue of water for the native American tribe. Three decades later, it has not been built. Realistically, my colleagues, it will never be built. It is not economically or fiscally feasible that we keep spending money on it. There are legitimate Indian needs that should be addressed and have to be addressed. Remember, only one-third of the water concerned here will go to native American tribes; two-thirds goes to others. Yet, there are substantial questions, in the end, under this project, that the tribes in consideration here will be able to obtain the water. This project is dead. Let us return to the drawing board and scale this down so it can meet our commitment without wasting substantial taxpayer dollars. I urge the members to support the amendment and oppose the motion to table. I want to make a few remarks to clarify several points in the committee report dealing with the Animas-La Plata water project. The committee report contains a discussion of the status of efforts by the Bureau of Reclamation to comply with numerous laws applicable to the project. It is my understanding that the committee report simply sets forth the views of the committee and is not intended to waive any provision of law or to declare that the Bureau's efforts at compliance are sufficient to satisfy any law. I want to make it clear, for the record, that the committee report cannot have the effect of circumventing the jurisdiction or procedures of any administrative agency with respect to the Animas-La Plata project. It is important to make this clear because the project has been and is at present the subject of litigation concerning compliance with various environmental and reclamation laws. The committee report cannot have the effect of making any factual findings which would usurp the jurisdiction of the courts or the relevant administrative agencies with respect to whether the Animas-La Plata project is in compliance with applicable environmental, financial, and reclamation laws. I expect that the Congress will be revisiting the future of this project, regardless of the outcome this year, and it is important in the meantime that there be no misunderstanding as to the applicability of existing laws which constrain further development.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment on behalf of the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain. I send the amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that I may offer an amendment on behalf of the Senator from Arizona, who is unable to be here at this time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I intend to offer the amendment on behalf of the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] and myself. I believe that is one of the listed items.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask the managers if this would be an appropriate time to offer an amendment? Have they had an opportunity to make their opening statements?

Mr. FEINGOLD. The manager has correctly stated our understanding. I appreciate the courtesy.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have offered the amendment on behalf of Senator McCain of Arizona, which is an outgrowth of a bipartisan effort that relates to the issue of post-employment restrictions on elected officials and what is more commonly known as the practice of the revolving-door lobby. This amendment follows in a long line of congressional reforms that have been proposed on a bipartisan basis by myself and the Senator from Arizona and others. Several of us who have been trying to address the issue of special interest influence have proposed and pursued several avenues of reform. Whether it is requiring greater disclosure from the lobbying community or passing new gift restrictions that clamps down on free vacation trips and fancy dinners, or finally addressing the woefully inadequate system of campaign finance we are currently saddled with, it is clear that reforming the Congress has become one of the preeminent issues among an electorate that has grown to not only view this institution with cynicism and disdain, but has also developed, unfortunately, a fundamental distrust of their elected representatives. Mr. President, restoring the faith of the American people in their Government is without a doubt one of the most important tasks that faces us today. Those of us who have been proposing lobbying reform and gift prohibitions and campaign finance reform have sometimes been accused by defenders of the status quo of seeking to limit citizen access to their elected representatives. But this is not the case. What we are trying to do is limit special access to elected representatives, the kind of access that ordinary Americans living in States like Wisconsin and Arizona do not have. Many of us believe that it is simply wrong to suggest that just because you have the financial resources to write out enormous campaign contributions or treat legislators to expensive meals, that you should therefore have special access to those Government officials. That is nothing more than auctioning off democracy to the highest bidder. A very large part of the culture of special interest influence that pervades Washington is the revolving door between public service and private employment. By putting a lock on this revolving door for a meaningful period of time, we can send a message that those entering Government employment should view public service as an honor and a privilege, not as just another rung on the ladder to personal gain and profit. Mr. President, the facts show there is a public perception that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. It is not misguided. There are countless instances of former Members of Congress who once chaired or served on committees with jurisdiction over particular industries or special interests who are now lobbying their former colleagues on behalf of those very industries or special interests. Former committee staff directors use their contacts and knowledge of their former committees to secure lucrative positions in lobbying firms and associations with interests related to those committees. Just how fast is the revolving door spinning, Mr. President? Just look at the countless announcements, after the 1994 elections, of Government officials leaving the public sector to work for lobbying firms. One article announced that an aide leaving her position on the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power will be working for the lobbying arm of the American Public Power Association. Mr. President, another announcement tells us a recently retired official member of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on select revenue measures, is joining a Washington lobbying firm as a specialist on tax policy. Mr. President, we have the former chief of staff to the chairman of the House Transportation Committee now lobbying the committee on behalf of a number of transportation interests. Mr. President, I could go on and on. The problem of the revolving door lobbying is quite clear, and in my view, and I strongly believe in the view of the author of this amendment, the senior Senator from Arizona, so is the solution. The solution is clear, too. The amendment offered by the senior Senator from Arizona today will strengthen the postemployment restrictions that are already in place. Keep in mind, Mr. President, postemployment restrictions are not something new. There is currently a 1-year ban on former Members of Congress lobbying the entire Congress, as well as a 1-year ban on senior congressional staff lobbying their former employing entity. Members and senior staff are also prohibited from lobbying on behalf of a foreign entity for 1 year. The McCain amendment will prohibit Members of Congress from lobbying the entire Congress, not just for 1 year but for 2 years. It doubles the time. We double the current restriction. In the most egregious abuses, when a former high-ranking committee staffer is hired by a special interest to lobby that committee, we extend the lobbying ban to 5 years. This amendment then bars former senior staffers, defined as any senior staffer or any staffer earning in excess of 75 percent of a Member's salary, from lobbying their former employing entities for a period of 5 years. For example, the former chief counsel of the Ways and Means Committee would be prohibited from lobbying any member of that committee or any committee staffer for a period of 5 years. Mr. President, some might argue that we are inhibiting these talented individuals from pursuing careers in policy matters in which they have become extremely proficient. It may be asked why a former high-level staffer on the Senate Subcommittee on Communications cannot accept employment with a telecommunications company. After all, this person has accumulated years of knowledge of our communication laws and technology. Why should this individual be prevented from accepting private sector employment in the communications field? Of course, Mr. President, our legislation does not do that. Our legislation does not bar anyone from seeking private sector employment. That staffer can take the job with the telecommunications company, but what they cannot do is lobby their former subcommittee for 5 years. They can consult, they can advise, they can recommended, but they cannot lobby their former employer. That is it. That is what the McCain amendment does. We are only limiting an individual's employment opportunity if they are seeking to use their past employment with the Federal Government to gain special access or influence with the Government in return for personal gain. Mr. President, we are not here to outlaw the profession of lobbying. Not only would that be unconstitutional, but I do not think it would really be addressing the true flaws of our political system. Lobbying, when done right, is merely an attempt to present the views and concerns of a particular group. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. In fact, lobbyists, whether they are representing public interest groups or Wall Street, can present information to public representatives that they may not otherwise have or obtain. So it can be helpful. Mr. President, I strongly believe that there is no more noble endeavor than to serve in Government, but we need to take immediate action to restore the public's confidence in their Government and to rebuild the lost trust between Members of Congress and the electorate. This amendment is a small, but I think strong step, in that direction. I urge the Members to give it their support. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the managers, the Senator from Mexico and Louisiana, for their management of the bill and for their cooperation in making it possible for me to offer this amendment at this time. I rise today to discuss a matter of concern to me and many other Senators, the $10 million in funding for the initiation of construction of the Animas LaPlata water project that is contained in the Senate version of the fiscal year 1997 energy and water appropriations bill. This project is a perfect example of water policy from a by-gone era. For those who are unfamiliar with it, the Animas LaPlata project is a $714 million taxpayer-funded water development project planned for southwest Colorado and northwest New Mexico. Designed to supply 191,230 feet of water, the Animas LaPlata project consists of two major reservoirs, seven pumping plants, and 200 miles of canals and pipes. The project will pump water over 1,000 feet uphill, consuming enough power to run a city of 60,000, to supply municipal, industrial, and irrigation interests. I am concerned about this project because of its extremely high projected cost to the taxpayer. This is among the last of the big Federal water projects, and the kind I believe we can no longer afford. The cost to the Federal Government of this project will amount to $481 million, nearly 68 percent of the total cost--an expense which has led opponents of the project to label it ``Jurassic Pork.'' My fiscal concerns are compounded by the likelihood that, as a remedy to address the legitimate water rights concerns of the Ute Mountain Ute and Southern Ute tribes, it may fall short of achieving even its nonmonetary benefits. The high cost of the project makes the water it seeks to store incredibly expensive. The construction cost allocated to irrigation amounts to $7,467 per acre of irrigated land--for land currently worth about $500 per acre. The project provides an average irrigation subsidy of over $2 million per farm over the 100-year life of the project. I believe that the Congress should act to seek the consideration of lower-cost alternatives and terminate this project rather than initiate construction. My concerns are heightened now that the House has acted to terminate Animas LaPlata. I believe it would be additionally costly and wasteful to allow Animas LaPlata to move forward with limited appropriations in this and the next few fiscal years only to find the project will be terminated in the coming years. This seems pretty wasteful. I would like to discuss each of my concerns in greater detail, and to try to provide more extensive background on the history of this matter. First, while there are concerns about the fulfillment of Ute tribal water rights now associated with this project, I wanted to make it clear to my colleagues that this project was not initiated as a way to address these claims. Animas LaPlata has a much longer history. It was authorized in 1968 as a project to supply irrigation water to farmers growing low value forage crops. Even back then in the days of big water projects, this one was so bad it could not get going. In 1988, nearly 20 years after it was authorized, the settlement of the Ute Indian water rights claims became an additional justification for pushing the project through; but it was an additional justification, not the initiation. Yet, as with any bad idea that is dressed up to appear better, this project continues to be riddled with many problems. By way of background, I do not need to tell the current Presiding Officer, he knows very well, this project is scheduled to be built in two phases. Phase 1 of the project is to be constructed entirely at Federal cost in two stages, A and B. And then phase 2 is to be constructed at non-Federal cost. At the present time, there are at least 6 overlapping impediments to this project going forward successfully: First, conflicts under the Endangered Species Act; Second, failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA; Third, violation of the Water Supply Act of 1954 regarding repayment of construction costs; Fourth, a 1994 inspector general's audit determining that the project is not economically feasible; Fifth, the Bureau of Reclamation's own 1995 economic analysis supporting the 1994 IG's report conclusions; And finally, six, persistent questions about the ability of this project to meet the regional Indian water rights claims, even if that was the original purpose, which it was not. I would like to discuss each of these concerns a little bit more. In 1990, the Bureau was notified that the project would trigger Endangered Species Act protections because withdrawal of water from the rivers affected would result in the demise of certain fish native to the area. The issue was reviewed, and the Bureau is currently permitted to build only one-third of the project, the portion known as phase 1, stage A. Building only this portion of the project would not allow the project to actually fulfill the tribal water rights claims that are often cited as the reason to go forward. In 1992, the Bureau was sued because it had failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, and the court upheld that claim. The Bureau of Reclamation took 3 years to complete its supplemental environmental impact statement, and within days, the EPA promptly found the supplemental EIS unsatisfactory, and now the project is a likely candidate for referral to the Council on Environmental Quality. In May 1996, the EPA wrote to the Bureau to express its concerns. All Members of the Senate should have received a copy of the EPA letter when they received my Dear Colleague letter on this amendment last Friday. A letter to Mr. Martinez, Bureau Director, from Richard Sanderson, Director of EPA's Office of Federal Activities, dated May 1, 1996, states: We remain concerned that the Bureau of Reclamations's present formulation of the Animas LaPlata project will result in unacceptable adverse environmental impacts that should be avoided. The letter cites, among those consequences, impacts to water quality, Navajo water rights, mitigation concerns, and impacts associated with municipal and industrial uses. The letter concludes: It is unclear whether the fully sized Animas LaPlata project will ever be constructed if the current constraints remain unchanged. We believe that the Bureau of Reclamation needs to reexamine whether there are more appropriate alternatives that meet these constraints instead of merely constructing stage A of the Animas LaPlata project. In addition, municipal and industrial users are required under the Water Supply Act of 1958 to fully repay all the construction costs and operation and maintenance costs attributable to the supply of municipal and industrial water. Those repayment contracts are to be in place before construction begins. Currently, a number of repayment contracts have not been signed. Those that have been signed and those that are anticipated to be signed are over $100 million short of the projected municipal and industrial cost. It is questionable if the project will ever comply with the law and obtain full reimbursement of municipal and industrial costs from the project beneficiaries. In addition, in 1994, the Interior Department's inspector general audited the project and declared that the project was neither financially feasible nor economically justifiable. A July 1995 economic analysis by the Bureau of Reclamation, the only analysis that used economic procedures approved for Bureau analyses and a current discount rate, reported that the project's benefit cost ratio is 36 to 1. That is 36 to 1. In other words, the project will only return 36 cents for every tax dollar invested. That is not a very good ratio. Given all of these failures to comply with the Federal laws designed to protect the taxpayer and the environment, Mr. President, one has to question the advisability of moving forward with such a troubled project. In addition to Federal law concerns, the project does face some State legal problems, as raised by the attorney general of the State of New Mexico in a letter to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee on July 17, 1996. Our colleagues should have received a copy of this letter on Friday, as well, in their offices. Attorney General Udall's letter states, ``The ALP project threatens to violate or exacerbate existing violations of multiple State water quality standards, including selenium, mercury, and others.'' Now, Mr. President, having listed these six concerns, I want to specifically address the issue of the effect of the termination of this project on the legitimate water rights claims of the Ute Mountain Ute and Southern Ute tribes. This is an issue of grave concern to me, and I know it is of paramount importance to the occupant of the chair, the junior Senator from Colorado, who has longstanding ties to the Ute Nations that predate his service in the U.S. Senate. As a Senator from a State with 11 federally recognized tribes, I take tribal issues extremely seriously and know, as does the junior Senator from Colorado, that tribal issues are often the least well understood and can be very divisive. I believe it is of paramount importance to fulfill the Federal Government's obligations to the tribes. And as the junior Senator from Colorado will undoubtedly state, both Ute tribal governments do formally support Animas LaPlata. However, it is also important to place the Ute's interest in perspective. Of the 191,230 acre-feet of water supplied by the project, two-thirds of that water will go to nontribal interests with only 62,000 acre-feet of the total to be supplied to both tribes. I am concerned that the Animas LaPlata, despite the best of intentions and arguments of proponents' attorneys, simply cannot meet the needs of the tribes because the initial construction phase of the project will neither provide the delivery system nor the quantity of water needed to fully honor the Federal Government's commitments to the tribe. We should not spend hundreds of millions of dollars and still find the tribal needs potentially unmet. Instead, we should begin to have the Bureau examine alternatives that would fully meet the needs of the tribes in a timely way and at less cost. There is at least a portion of the Southern Ute tribe, as you well know, Mr. President, that shares these concerns. From the perspective of the tribal councils, majority rules and the majority position of the councils is to support this project. However, we in the Senate know well the importance of protecting minority voices. Indeed, that is exactly what this body is designed to do. Those in the Southern Ute Tribe who oppose Animas LaPlata, the Southern Ute Grassroots Organization, are on the committee of elders and have strong concerns. On Friday, every Member of this body should have received another copy of the letter they sent to Members of the Senate in April 1995. That letter specifically asked Congress to refuse to appropriate money to the Animas LaPlata until the Bureau thoroughly studies the other alternatives. I think it important for all Members of the Senate to be aware that there is actually a substantial division among the members of the Southern Ute Tribe about the wisdom of this project. If we do not reexamine this project, a future Senate will be right back where we are today. The Ute Tribes' water rights settlement says if the project isn't built and fully functional by the year 2000, the tribes may, and are able to, void the settlement and go back into negotiations or litigation. The Bureau of Reclamation, most in this body would agree, is not an agency whose operating history has been free from cost overruns and delays. The Bureau now indicates, before the commencement of the project, that it cannot complete the project at least before the year 2003, Mr. President. I am afraid what will likely happen if Congress moves forward with this project is that the project may be in some sort of state of construction in 2003, the tribal governments will examine the cost they will have to pay for Animas LaPlata water, which will be about twice the local cost for municipal and industrial water, and they simply might decide they will not be able to use the water or sell it. It is not unreasonable to expect the Utes may seek to avoid their settlement, wherein the non-Indian irrigators will get their project with its $5,000 an acre subsidy and Congress, in the year 2005 or so, will have to fund a new water rights settlement anyway, without resolving the legitimate concerns of the two tribes. Mr. President, I also want to raise another question relating to tribal water rights, and that is the rights of the Navajo Nation who live downstream of this project in New Mexico. The Navajo Nation has not formally opposed this project, but they are concerned about the impacts it will have on their nation. In an August 1995 letter to the Bureau of Reclamation Denver office, the Navajo Nation indicated that the Animas LaPlata project would adversely affect their trust water resources by decreasing the amount of water in the San Juan River basin for their use and development. The Navajo Nation as expressed in their letter ``exert sovereign control over its water resources through the Navajo Nation Water Code * * * Depletions resulting from ALP development will affect the sovereign administration and management of Navajo water resources. Projected ALP development and Navajo reservoir operation may require the reevaluation of existing water uses permitted under the Water Code, with potentially adverse consequences for the Navajo Nation.'' So, Mr. President, my understanding is that Navajo's rights to use water within the San Juan River have not yet been adjudicated, yet as the San Juan is the only reliable developable source of water in the northern portion of the Navajo Nation these issues will continue to be important. I want to make the record clear however, that the Navajo Nation, in a follow-up letter, clearly stated its concern that they did not want to adversely affect the Utes' legitimate claims. Nevertheless, their Nation has made it clear that they are prepared and ready to assert their own water claims. In other words, Mr. President, the continuation of Animas LaPlata is not likely to settle tribal water rights claims in this region. Therefore, it is critical before construction begins, that we take a second look at whether there is a better way, a small, less controversial means of satisfying the Ute claims without the massive Animas LaPlata project. By every indication, even the Bureau recognizes the massive project originally envisioned will never be built. At best, a much smaller, less ambitious project is the only feasible outcome. Yet the Bureau has never formally acknowledged this fact, nor has Congress taken an active role in shaping a project modification. Instead we are asked to continue to appropriate funds for an infeasible project. There are those in the Senate that may ask why this Senator has such significant concerns about a very old water project for which some individuals have such strong support. I have some personal experience, Mr. President, of a situation like this in Wisconsin because people in the western part of my State are living with the legacy of a failed Army Corps of Engineers water project, the La Farge Dam. In 1962 Congress authorized $15.5 million--which would today cost about $102 million to build the same thing--for La Farge dam and lake to be constructed along the Kickapoo River in Wisconsin. They touted the tourism opportunities of lake and flood control for neighboring residents not unlike the Animas LaPlata. And 144 farms and homes were condemned. Families were relocated. It Impacted both the tax base and local business. Construction began in 1971 and was their discontinued in 1975, due to its environmental impact and the presence of native archeological sites, when the project was three-quarters complete. At one point passions over this issue became so intense that former Senators Proxmire and Nelson, and former Governor Lucey were burned in effigy. The area, already struggling economically prior to the dam's development, was devastated. By 1990, it was estimated that annual losses resulting from the cessation of family farm operations and the unrealized tourism benefits that had been promised with the dam totaled more 300 jobs and $8 million for the local economy per year. In fact, Mr . President, the only remaining legacy of the project is a fragmented landscape. It is dotted with scattered remains of former farm homes, and a 103 foot tall, concrete shell of the dam, with the Kickapoo River flowing unimpeded through a 1,000-foot gap. The most important benefit of the dam, its flood control protection, was never realized. The legacy of La Farge, which only recently has begun to have a silver lining with the passage last month of language to deauthorize the project and turn the lands over to control by the State and the Ho Chunk Nation, a Wisconsin tribe, is one that I think should not be forgotten. It is a serious example of the Federal Government's mistake with a big project that did not work. Last week, as you well know, the House of Representatives finally voted 221-200 to stop the funding for the Animas LaPlata project as it is currently designed. That effort was led by my colleagues from Wisconsin, Representative Petri, and Congressman DeFazio from Oregon. Members in the other body made it very clear that they want the Department of the Interior to review and develop a sensible alternative that will effectively meet the legitimate needs of the tribes in a more cost-effective and environmentally sound fashion. We should do the same in the Senate for the sake of the taxpayers, sound water policy and those tied to a project that will not deliver what was promised. However, even if we do not do the correct thing, the wise thing, let us make no mistake: The project as currently designed is dead, and we will impose far greater costs if we decide to continue to make infrastructure investments in its future when it is never going to go anywhere. The House has heard the voices of citizen groups and taxpayer groups, tribal members and environmentalists. The House is no longer going to support this bad idea. It is no longer a question of whether the project will die. It is now a question of how much money and time will be wasted in the end game. Yes, we could go back and forth for a few years with the House terminating funding and then the Senate restoring the money. That has happened before in other projects where we wasted money. But eventually, the House will resist, and ultimately-- hopefully, sooner rather than later--so will the Senate. Meanwhile we will waste millions more of taxpayers' money. That is why, Mr. President, it is time for us to step up now and put this matter on a positive track. Let us stop funding this project as currently designed and tell the Bureau of Reclamation to use the unobligated funds available in the Animas account to size the project to legitimate water needs and then explore all the alternatives to meeting those needs in an effective, environmentally sound and cost- efficient manner. Mr. President, to conclude, my amendment is identical to that which passed the House, and I strongly urge my colleagues to lend their support. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I agree to that, Mr. President.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my statement, in answer to the question of the Senator from New Mexico, is about 15 to 20 minutes at the most.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield for a question.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the foreign operations appropriations bill, I would like to once again raise the issue of the human rights situation in Indonesia. As my colleagues may remember, in 1994, the Senate adopted an amendment which I cosponsored with Senator Leahy to the fiscal year 1995 foreign operations legislation. A similar amendment was adopted by the Foreign Relations Committee in the 1995 authorization bill. These provisions restricted the sale of light arms to Indonesia in light of concerns related to East Timor. Last year, however, the State Department sent a letter to Senator Leahy and myself outlining the Administration's policy toward arms transfers to Indonesia. The letter said--and I quote--``our current arms sales policy . . . prohibits the sale or licensing for export of small or light arms and crowd control items until the Secretary has determined that there has been significant progress on human rights in Indonesia, including in East Timor.'' In light of the Administration's willingness to continue voluntarily this prohibition on the sale of such items, we withheld offering statutory language on last year's appropriations bill. Mr. President, we are now debating our foreign assistance program for a new fiscal year, and the situation in the East Timor continues to worsen. As every member of this body knows, Indonesia has sustained a brutal military occupation of East Timor since 1975. Every human rights organization in the world has criticized Indonesia's human rights record, particularly in East Timor. The State Department has consistently reported human rights violations by Indonesia's military, including in its most recent report. Since the Indonesians invaded East Timor 20 years ago, more than 200,000 East Timorese--about a third of the population--have died. But the Indonesian strategy of trying to control East Timor through a combination of infrastructural development and tight internal security has failed to win acceptance of Indonesian rule. Many Timorese are still marginalized and oppressed in their own homeland. Last year the United Nations Special Rapporteur reported that he saw ``an atmosphere of fear and suspicion'' in East Timor and that people were afraid to talk to him about the human rights abuses they and their families had suffered. Mr. President, East Timor made international headlines in 1991 when the military massacred, by conservative estimates, at least 100 East Timorese who were attending a funeral. The National Human Rights Commission in Jakarta now says it has evidence that the massacre was ``not a spontaneous reaction to a riotous mob, but rather a planned military operation designed to deal with a public expression of political dissent.'' And the tension in East Timor continues to intensify, influenced in part by the ongoing power struggles in Jakarta, the increased resentment of the presence of Indonesian military officers and vigilante groups, and the immigrant settlers brought in by Indonesia to consolidate their occupation of the island. In sum, I want to make it clear that Indonesia did virtually nothing in 1995 to improve its human rights record. A change in United States policy regarding the sale of military equipment is therefore unwarranted. The State Department and independent human rights organizations all report continued abuse of basic human rights in the East Timor including arbitrary arrests and detentions, curbs on freedom of expression and association, and the use of torture and summary killings of civilians. Early last year, several riots and demonstrations in East Timor were broken up violently by the Indonesian military. On January 12, 1995, outside of Dili, the capital, six East Timorese civilians were shot and killed by Indonesian troops. In September, riots broke out in Maliana and in Dili that were motivated by intense religious and ethnic tensions. The situation has deteriorated sharply in recent months. Just last month--on June 10, 1996--graffiti drawn on a picture of the Virgin Mary in the town of Baucau provoked riots during which Indonesian security forces opened fire and at least 150 people were arrested. This incident reflects what Human Rights Watch/Asia describes as ``an emerging pattern of provocative acts of religious desecrations or insult, followed by mass protests, followed by a crackdown by security forces.'' In fact, the Baucau riots represent the third such incident in East Timor in less than one year. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned that--despite the fact that the Government of Indonesia allowed for a visit to East Timor of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Jose Ayala Lasso, in December 1995, and despite the fact that the Government opened an office of the National Commission on Human Rights in Dili . . . despite some of these positive developments--the Government of Indonesia continues to engage in extrajudicial executions and killings and the systematic use of torture. And the Indonesians have engaged in these activities despite the country's great economic success of the past few years. Mr. President, I would like to dispel any myths among my colleagues that Indonesia's progress on the economic front has led to any progress in its human rights record. So, we have seen no progress in human rights in Indonesia. I had intended to propose an amendment which codifies the U.S. position on human rights and arms sales to Indonesia. In the past, I have advocated a much more comprehensive arms ban, which I wish we could pass. But a ban on small arms and crowd control weapons emphasizes a very important policy goal--that the United States is stepping away from responsibility for human rights abuses in Indonesia, and particularly in East Timor. As I have said before in this body, it is especially important that we establish this linkage between arms sales and human rights. In the meantime, however, the administration has once again provided us with written assurances that the existing ban on light arms sales to Indonesia will remain in effect. With that understanding, I will refrain, again, from efforts to codify this provision. Mr. President, the administration's policy sends a clear message to the leaders of Indonesia that the United States will not be associated with nor will it tolerate their campaign of repression against the people of East Timor. We do not want to support human rights abuses in East Timor. We do not want weapons manufactured in the United States involved in massacres of peaceful protestors or in interrogations of activists that oppose the Indonesian armed forces. We do not want U.S. arms used to kill and torture the people of East Timor. Mr. President, I am pleased that the administration is continuing this policy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the foreign operations appropriations bill for fiscal 1997, I would like to share with my colleagues once again my thoughts on the importance of our foreign assistance program in Africa. I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of the Simon-Kassebaum amendment which restores the designation of the Development Fund for Africa. Mr. President, as the ranking Democrat of the Africa Subcommittee, I have become increasingly aware of how the 48 countries of sub-Saharan Africa represent important security concerns for the United States. As we head toward the 21st century--an era that will no doubt be marked by transnational concerns--Africa is becoming even more relevant to United States interests, our economic, political, humanitarian, and security concerns. Long-term development assistance to African nations--whether through bi-lateral or multilateral channels--directly complements U.S. foreign policy goals and national security interests. There are several examples of this complementarity. First, we have an interest in a safe and healthy environment. The rapid spread of the Ebola virus demonstrated some of the vulnerabilities on the continent. Now, unfortunately, the rates of HIV and AIDS infections in Africa are the highest in the world, and they are continuing to rise rapidly. As we have seen, viruses do not need visas. Second, we have an interest in expanding trade and investment ties with the African continent. U.S. exports to Africa expanded by 22.7 percent in 1995--this is nearly twice the growth rate of total U.S. exports worldwide. Already U.S. exports to Africa equal 54 percent more than our exports to the former Soviet Union. We export more to South Africa alone than to all of Eastern Europe combined. Third, we have an interest in democracy. Well over half of African nations now can be considered democratic or have made substantial progress toward democracy. Many of these nations also are moving toward free-market economies. Fourth, we have an interest in human resource development. Sub- Saharan Africa has the fastest growing and poorest population in the world. A substantial percentage of Africa's population is under 18 years of age. These children will soon grow to adulthood and I would hope there will be opportunities for them to engage in productive activities. At the same time, Africa's infant and child mortality rates are 2 to 3 times higher than those in Latin America or Asia. Finally, we have an interest in security. It is unfortunate, but Africa also is home to terrorist activity and to drug and arms trafficking. Mr. President, a stable African continent serves American interests. The Development Fund for Africa (DFA) was established nearly 10 years ago specifically to ensure a steady source of long-term development funds for Africa. In the past 8 years, the DFA has contributed to substantial gains in health care, education, small business development, democracy, and stability. The DFA is about investing in development and not in crises. The types of challenges we face in Africa today are very complex and require long-term solutions. And this requires long-term investment. By restoring the DFA account, we give the administration the opportunity to capitalize on that investment. I will make a budgetary argument as well. My colleagues know that since my election to the Senate, I have been a consistent deficit hawk. So, I always look for areas where we can cut wasteful Government spending. Mr. President, the Development Fund for Africa is not one of these areas. On the contrary, it is one of the most effective programs in our foreign assistance package. In fact, the Agency for International Development has based many of its reform initiatives on lessons learned through DFA programs. As a result of DFA assistance, African farmers are growing more food, more children are attending primary school, and more informal sector entrepreneurs have access to credit than was possible 10 years ago. And the United States has played a key role in helping several African countries experience dramatic drops in fertility through effective family planning and health care programs. In sum, Mr. President, restoring DFA through the Simon-Kassebaum amendment represents a sound investment in our relationship with the continent of Africa. It does not call for any new money. It does not take funds away from any other region. But it does signal our continued interest in remaining engaged with Africa. I would also note that passage of this amendment would be a fitting tribute for the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Illinois. These two Senators, who long ago recognized the importance of remaining engaged with Africa, were instrumental in getting the DFA established in the first place. And both have demonstrated leadership on this issue throughout the years. In honor of their hard work on this and other issues of concern to Africa, I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment. Military Sales to Indonesia

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank my colleagues. Northern Plains Policy Research Center

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate approved by unanimous consent an amendment to reauthorize USDA's authority to allow seasonal base plans under Federal milk marketing orders. Producers in Wisconsin have no quarrels with seasonal base plans but they want assurances that they will not exacerbate what they believe to be an already discriminatory pricing structure within Federal orders. Farmers in Wisconsin seek assurances that seasonal base plans for milk marketing orders are neither intended to nor will have the effect of increasing milk prices or production on an average annual basis. Mr. President, I ask the managers of H.R. 3603, Is it their understanding that seasonal base plans under milk marketing orders will increase neither overall prices levels nor milk production in orders in which they are implemented?

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I intend to vote in favor of the pending welfare reform bill. Last September, I voted for the Senate-passed welfare reform bill. I did so then with substantial reservations about many of the provisions in that bill. I do so today with many of the same kinds of reservations. I am voting for this measure for two principal reasons. First, I believe that the current welfare system is badly broken, and we must find an alternative to the status quo. No one likes the current system, least of all the families trapped in an endless cycle of dependency, poverty, and despair. The current system is plagued by perverse incentives that discourage work. Reforming such a complex system requires taking some risks, and this bill, any welfare reform measure, entails some risks. However, some assumption of risk is necessary to change the status quo. Second, I am concerned that continuation of a system dominated by detailed prescriptions from Federal officials in Washington may stifle the innovative approaches from State and local governments that can help change the status quo. The basic premise behind this bill, and much of the reform movement today, is that the current system has failed and that we ought to allow the States the opportunity to try to do a better job and give them the flexibility to try new approaches to these seemingly intractable problems. This approach places a great deal of faith in the good will of State governments to implement programs designed to help, not punish, needy citizens. Under the framework provided by this legislation, States like Wisconsin would have the opportunity to implement programs like the Wisconsin W-2 program without the necessity of securing numerous waivers from the requirements of current law. Indeed, passage of this measure will render moot much of the need for the current voluminous waiver application filed by the State of Wisconsin earlier this year which has caused much controversy. Although some aspects of the W-2 program, particularly those dealing with Medicaid services, may still require review by HHS, the block grant authority provided for under this legislation is designed to allow the broad flexibility and State control needed to implement State initiated welfare reform programs. As a former State legislator myself, I have a good deal of respect for the desire of State and local officials to reform this system and help break the cycle of poverty for low-income families. I believe that there need to be certain underlying protections that are national in scope. For example, I believe civil rights protections must be uniform throughout our Nation to assure that the guarantees of our Federal Constitution are extended to all citizens, regardless of their place of residence. I also believe that where Federal funds are being expended, the Federal Government has an obligation to impose certain requirements that should be universal. But States should have sufficient flexibility to design how services are actually provided to allow them the opportunity to try out new ideas and approaches. For these reasons, I voted last September for the Senate-passed welfare reform bill; at that time, however, I indicated that if the bill returned from conference with punitive, inequitable provisions, I would withdraw my support. Unfortunately, the conference returned a bill which incorporated provisions that were simply unacceptable. The bipartisan welfare reform measure that the Senate had crafted was discarded in favor of a measure based upon the House-passed bill, which was punitive in nature rather than focused upon helping families move from welfare to the workforce. I therefore voted against that measure. I am pleased to say that the Senate, over the course of this debate, has crafted a measure which will make fundamental changes in the Federal role in the welfare area and at the same time has rejected various provisions which would be harmful to those most in need. The Senate has addressed several important issues and corrected some of the flaws in the legislation. First, in the area of child care, the Senate bill provides more resources for child care services than contained in the bill we passed last fall. Specifically, the bill increases funding for child care services by almost $6 billion to $13.8 billion from $8 billion contained in last year's bill. The Senate also adopted Senator Dodd's amendment by a vote of 96 to 0 which reinstated critical health and safety standards for licensed child care facilities. Second, by adopting the Chafee-Breaux amendment relating to Medicaid coverage for needy children, the Senate provided a critical safety net. As we endeavor to reform cash grant programs, it is important that access to medical care is not inadvertently sacrificed. The Chafee- Breaux amendment reestablished these protections. Had Chafee-Breaux not been adopted, I would not have been able to accept this bill. Third, the Senate bill retains a State maintenance of effort requirement at 80 percent of the 1994 contribution. That is the provision the Senate adopted last fall which was unfortunately diluted in the conference version. Restoration of this provision was also key for me. Without such a maintenance of effort requirement, Federal dollars would simply replace State contributions and States like Wisconsin which make substantial contributions to investing in welfare programs would have simply seen their dollars shifted to States which fail to make these kinds of commitments from their State treasuries. I am also pleased that the Senate struck the language providing for imposition of a family cap which would prohibit States from providing assistance for children born while a family is on welfare. This is another example of where the conference report that the President vetoed contained language that had been rejected by the Senate. Moreover, the bill that was presented to the Senate last week contained this unfortunate language. However, this family cap language was struck by a Byrd point of order. The Senate also wisely adopted the Conrad amendment that struck provisions that would have allowed block granting of foods stamps. Food stamps have been the mainstay of many families who have been thrown into dire circumstances because of a sudden job loss, an unexpected illness that has sidelined the family breadwinner, or other family misfortunes. Although the bill provides strong work incentives to make sure that individuals receiving these benefits are working toward self- sufficiency, it no longer allows this safety net program to be withdrawn entirely from needy families. Mr. President, although the Senate rejected many onerous amendments and provisions, there remain provisions in the bill that I don't support. This is not a reform bill that I would have drafted if I had been the author. I believe the immigration provisions are too harsh and fail to provide the kind of balanced response that we strived to achieve in the immigration reform legislation now pending in conference. While I support the concept of deeming, the kind of absolute ban on assistance for many legal immigrants which is contained in this bill is not carefully tailored to preserve scarce resources while still providing humane, essential services to those individuals who have come to this country legally. I am concerned that the Senate narrowly rejected the Ford amendment which would have allowed States to provide noncash vouchers to provide services for children when their families reached the 5-year time limit of eligibility for cash assistance. I have repeatedly voted to support allowing vouchers in such circumstances. I think it is a reasonable response to make sure that young children are not denied basic support when their parents fail to make the transition into the work force within the designated time period. I recognize that the bill allows a State to exempt 20 percent of their caseloads from the time-limit provisions, but I do not believe that this is adequate protection for the children involved. I also fear that the level of cuts in food stamp funds may be too deep, and will hurt needy families. These cuts may need to be revisited, either in conference or in other legislation. I remain uncertain about ultimate wisdom of terminating our 60-year Federal commitment of a guaranteed Federal safety net for young children. The Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] has been an eloquent leader in articulating the dangers of eliminating this entitlement protection for needy children and replacing it with a patchwork quilt of State programs. Clearly, there will be States that will fail to use this opportunity to enact real welfare reform measures and instead, pursue punitive measures designed to stigmatize those who seek welfare assistance in times of need. Children in these States will be harmed by not having the Federal safety net that exists today in the AFDC program. On the other hand, if a number of the States use this opportunity to help devise effective ways to help families move out of welfare and into the work force, many children will benefit from the higher incomes and better opportunities they will have. We are faced with a difficult choice, Mr. President. On the one hand, children are hurt by the current system; yet, many may be hurt by the loss of this Federal safety net. The bill does contain assessment provisions that will allow Congress to make changes, if necessary, if eliminating the entitlement under Federal law causes undue hardships. I think those of us who vote for this experiment need to watch carefully how it is implemented and be prepared to take action if the results fall short of what we hope will occur. Mr. President, as I said at the outset, I am voting for this bill because we cannot continue the current system. I am hopeful that the States will seize this opportunity to develop approaches that will help welfare recipients and their families become economically self- sufficient, rather than punishing those who fall through the system. I believe that the problems of welfare policy are so complex and difficult that it is a mistake to believe that there is only one approach that will work. This bill is intended to encourage State experimentation with approaches that will work. In the final analysis, Mr. President, this vote challenges us to decide whether or not we want to perpetuate the status quo. In my view, the status quo is unacceptable. Therefore, I will support this legislation and the effort to bring about fundamental welfare reforms. South Dakota's Workfare Works

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to lend my strong support to the nomination of Charles N. Clevert to be United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. I am pleased that the full Senate has joined with me, Senator Kohl and my colleagues on Judiciary Committee in recognizing Charles Clevert's qualifications for the Federal bench. I attended Judge Clevert's confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee and the fact that he will be a worthy jurist was clearly evident at that time. His is a career of dedicated and unwavering service, not only to the legal community, but to the people of Wisconsin as well. Throughout his legal career, Charles Clevert has worked on behalf of the people of Wisconsin in a number of important ways. He has served as a prosecutor both in the Milwaukee County District Attorney's office as well as in the United States Attorney's Office. His career has taken him to courtrooms in both Federal and State courts throughout Wisconsin and he has practiced in both the criminal and civil arenas. For the past nineteen years he has been a United States Bankruptcy Judge. In 1986, Judge Clevert became the Chief Bankruptcy Judge for Wisconsin's Eastern District. Clearly Mr. President, these experiences will serve him well on the Federal bench. However Mr. President, these accomplishments do not fully recognize the contribution of Charles Clevert to his profession and his community. In addition to being active in various Wisconsin Bar Associations and lecturing at the University of Wisconsin Law School, Judge Clevert has been active in working with young people in my state of Wisconsin for over 20 years. Judge Clevert takes the time to meet and talk with school children in and around Milwaukee about the importance of education and the role of the courts in our society. He stresses the need to emphasize education, not drugs and alcohol. His simple message of hard work and respect for the law is a positive and important one for the young people of Wisconsin. I was pleased to hear Judge Clevert indicate that it is his intention to continue his activities throughout Milwaukee and the State of Wisconsin following his confirmation to the federal bench. Mr. President, Charles Clevert's nomination was recommended to President Clinton by a nominating committee that my colleague, Senator Kohl and I have established to help ensure that the citizens of our State receive quality judicial representation. I am pleased that the full Senate has joined with that advisory committee, the President and the Judiciary Committee in recognizing Charles Clevert's qualifications and confirming his nomination to be a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. I want to wish Judge Clevert, and his family, well in this new and important phase of his career. Although the responsibility that awaits him is great, it is a responsibility that Charles Clevert will no doubt handle with the competence and professionalism that has to date marked his distinguished career.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my amendment relates to funds appropriated under this bill for production of the F/A-18 E/F, or the Super Hornet as it is commonly called, which I understand will be accepted by the managers. I appreciate their willingness to work with us on this matter. Mr. President, this amendment is very similar to an amendment that I offered which was adopted on the Defense authorization bill, S. 1745, when it was considered by the Senate on June 28. Basically, this amendment seeks to limit obligation of funds for the production of this new aircraft until Congress has an opportunity to review carefully the recommendations made by the General Accounting Office in a report issued last month. The GAO report, entitled ``Navy Aviation: F/A-18E/F will Provide Marginal Operational Improvement at High Cost,'' outlines some very important questions that should be considered before we proceed further with procurement of this aircraft. The amendment directs the Department of Defense to submit a report responding to the GAO concerns, and provides an opportunity for GAO to comment on the DOD response. It fences 10 percent of the funds appropriated for procurement of the new aircraft until 30 days after this report is submitted. At the time I offered a similar amendment to the DOD authorization bill, I discussed extensively the issues raised by GAO. Although I do not want to take the Senate's time today to repeat each of these arguments, I want to highlight some of GAO's concerns. First, GAO noted that a projected total program cost of more than $89 billion, the Super Hornet Program is one of the most costly aviation programs in the Department of Defense. Second, the Navy based the need for the development and procurement of the Super Hornet on the basis of existing or projected operational deficiencies of the current model of the F/A-18 in the following key areas: strike range, carrier recovery payload and survivability. In addition, the Navy noted limitations of the current C/D model of the F/ A-18 with respect to avionics growth space and payload capacity. In its report, however, GAO concluded that the operational deficiencies in the C/D that the Navy had cited in justifying the E/F either have not materialized as projected or such deficiencies can be corrected with nonstructural changes to the current C/D and additional upgrades which would further improve its capabilities. Mr. President, let me stress here that the GAO did not conclude that the F/A-18 E/F is a bad plane. During the debate on this issue on the DOD authorization, several of the proponents of this aircraft spoke about this plane being a highly capable carrier-based tactical aircraft, as it was intended to be. I want to stress, again, that the issue here is whether the additional capabilities of this aircraft justify its additional cost, or whether the current C/D version of the F/A-18 can perform the mission at substantial cost- savings to the Federal taxpayer. GAO found that the C/D's are performing at higher levels than originally contemplated. For example, the F/A-18C's operating in support of the current Bosnia operations are now routinely returning to carriers with operational loads of 7,166 pounds, which is substantially greater than the Navy projected for this aircraft. In fact, when initially procured in 1988, this aircraft had a total carrier recovery payload of 6,300 pounds. Today, it is significantly higher. In addition, GAO noted that while it is not necessary, upgrading F/A-18Cs with stronger landing gear could allow them to recover carrier payloads of more than 10,000 pounds--greater than that sought for the F/A-18E/F which would be 9,000 pounds. GAO made similar findings with respect to the C/D's long-range mission capacity. GAO concluded that the Navy's F/A-18 strike range requirements can be met by either the Super Hornet or the C/D, using the 480-gallon external fuel tanks that are planned to be used on the E/F. Mr. President, I will not detail any further today the areas where GAO noted that the differences in the capabilities of the two aircraft were either not as significant as anticipated or could be minimized by modifications of the C/Ds. I do, however, want to stress the difference in the cost of these two planes. As I mentioned at the outset, the total program cost of the Super Hornet is projected to be over $89 billion assuming a procurement of 1,000 aircraft--660 by the Navy and 340 by the Marine Corps--at an annual production rate of 72 aircraft per year. However, as GAO noted, these figures are not accurate. The Marine Corps has made it clear that they do not intend to purchase any Super Hornets. Furthermore, an annual production rate of 72 aircraft is not feasible. The Navy has already been directed to calculate costs based upon a more realistic production rate, at 18, 36 and 54 aircraft per year. Using the overstated assumptions, the Navy calculated the unit recurring flyaway cost of the Super Hornet at $44 million. However, using GAO's more realistic assumptions of the procurement of 660 aircraft, at a production rate of 36 aircraft per year, the cost of the E/F balloons to $53 million. In comparison, the C/D's cost $28 million each at a production rate of 36 planes per year. GAO concluded that the cost difference in unit recurring flyaway would result in a savings of almost $17 billion if the Navy were to procure 660 F/A-18 C/Ds rather than 660 F/A-18 E/Fs. At a time of fiscal constraints on all aspects of the Federal budget, we need to look carefully at whether it is necessary to spend this additional $17 billion on an aircraft that may produce only marginal improvements over the current model. Mr. President, this question is also important because there is also a far less costly program already being developed which may yield more significant returns in operational capability. This program is the joint advanced strike technology or JAST program which is currently developing technology for a family of affordable next generation joint strike fighter [JSF] aircraft for the Air Force, Marine Corps and the Navy. The JSF is expected to be a stealthy strike aircraft built on a single production line with a high degree of parts and cost commonality. The Navy plans to procure 300 JSF's with a projected initial operational capability around 2007. The JSF will be designed to have superior or comparable capabilities in all Navy tactical aircraft mission areas, especially range and survivability, at far less cost than the Super Hornet. The estimated unit recurring flyaway cost of the Navy's JSF is estimated in the range from $32 to 40 million, as compared to GAO's $53 million estimate for the Super Hornet. Mr. President, given the high cost and marginal improvement in operational capabilities the Super Hornet would provide, it seems that its justification is no longer clear. Operational deficiencies in the C/D aircraft either have not materialized or can be corrected with nonstructural changes to the plane. As a result, proceeding with the E/ F program may not be the most cost-effective approach to modernizing the Navy's tactical aircraft fleet. A strong argument can be made that the Navy can continue to procure the C/D aircraft while upgrading it to improve further its operational capabilities. For the long term, the Navy can look toward the next generation strike fighter, the JSF, which will provide more operational capability at far less cost than the E/F. As I have indicated previously, the Navy does need to procure aircraft that will bridge between the current force and the JSF which will be operational around 2007. The question is whether the F/A-18C/D can serve that function, or whether we should proceed with an expensive new plane for what appears to be a marginal level of improvement. The $17 billion difference in projected costs does not appear to provide a significant return on our investment. For these reasons, I think it would be prudent to adopt a go-slow approach to the F/A-18 E/F program and allow Congress sufficient time to review GAO's findings, the Defense Department's response, and GAO's evaluation of that response. Mr. President, there is one issue I want to specifically address regarding the obligation of funds under this appropriations bill for the F/A-18 E/F program. At the time the GAO report was submitted to Congress, the Navy responded that the GAO concerns were premature because the final procurement decision had not been made by DOD. DOD indicated that the final decision could not be made until the Defense Acquisition Board had made its low rate initial production [LRIP] milestone decision in the first quarter of calendar year 1997. At that time, DOD contended the Board would convene for a thorough program review. It is my understanding that although there may be some procurement funds obligated prior to the DAB decision, the bulk of the funds would not be committed until this milestone decision is made next year. DOD would, under this amendment, also be preparing its report in response to this amendment during the same period of time, and hopefully, answers to some of the questions raised by GAO would be thoroughly examined during this process prior to the final decisions for fiscal year 1997 funding. Congress will also have an opportunity to review this information and halt or slow down procurement if deemed appropriate. Over the long term, it is important that we carefully consider all of the issues surrounding the planned procurement of some 1000 F/A-18 E/ F's. I believe that this amendment will assist in getting the relevant information, and I appreciate the cooperation of the managers in moving us in that direction.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly in support of the efforts of the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, who is trying to focus attention on the cost implications of decisions that are being made regarding the purchase of tactical aircraft for our various services. As we all know, there is no Member of the Senate who has been a more consistent leader in this area than Senator Bumpers, constantly pressing for the Senate to subject our military procurement decisionmaking to greater scrutiny. I appreciate his support for my amendment. A modified version of it appears to have been accepted. Of course, the motivation for that was the GAO report that Senator Bumpers mentioned. It is entitled ``F/A- 18E/F Will Provide Marginal Operational Improvement at High Cost,'' and as the Senator indicated, that marginal improvement is a $17-billion difference, potentially. We are pleased that process will go forward. The Department of Defense will respond to the GAO report, and then the GAO will respond to that. I am very pleased and appreciative to the Senator from Alaska for being cooperative on this. But on the issue of the amendment of Senator Bumpers, in these times of fiscal constraint, every item in the Federal budget has to be subjected to intense review. The Senator from Arkansas and I and many others are deeply concerned that the Department of Defense is embarking on a range of military aircraft purchases that cannot be sustained in the outyears. The downpayments on these aircraft in the short term really represent only the tip of the iceberg, from the point of view of the cost. A GAO report in 1996 notes the military services plan to spend more than $200 billion on aircraft and other interdiction weapons over the next 15 to 20 years to add to already extensive capabilities. GAO noted that the various services have overlapping programs, with each service proposing upgrades or new weapons that may offer little additional capability. So, Mr. President, what the Bumpers amendment is all about and our effort here is all about is the fact somewhere, somehow, there needs to be some overview of the range of these programs. In fact, the House defense authorization bill contains a requirement for a force structure analysis by the Institutes of Defense Analysis which examines the affordability, effectiveness, commonality, roles and missions and alternatives related to the wide range of aircraft. There are good arguments to be made that we should defer decisions on all these procurement plans pending such a review. In the short term, the issues relating to the F/A-18 clearly need to be examined. On the one hand, the Navy is seeking to remove the C/D with the E/F. Yet this bill adds funding for 12 C/D's, planes which the Department of Defense has not requested. In fact, the DOD authorization bill just passed by the Senate only authorized six additional C/D's, and now the Appropriations Committee doubles that number. Before we start adding these additional purchases, I think we ought to know where we are going. Is the Navy going to move toward the more expensive E/F or retain the C/D? My view is that we should rely upon the less expensive, but highly capable, C/D. But, Mr. President, one thing is clear, when it comes to the C/D versus the E/F, it is an either/or choice. We either buy the C/D's or the E/F's, one or the other. It is like going to buy a new washing machine. You find two slightly different and you decide, what the heck, we will buy both of them. We cannot afford to do that. We cannot afford dual purchases. I support the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas which strikes the funding for the six additional C/D's. Whatever the ultimate decision is with regard to the future of the F-18, there is no justification for this increase in the C/D purchases in this appropriations bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I will be happy to defer to the Senator from Alaska.