Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, 5 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I do, Mr. President.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Cattle Industry Improvement Act, which addresses an issue that is critical to our livestock and dairy industries--the concentration of economic power. I want to applaud the Minority Leader [Senator Daschle] for his extraordinary leadership on this issue. Last year he led the effort to establish a commission to investigate concentration in meat packing and processing, introducing legislation that passed in the Senate. That legislation ultimately led to the report Concentration in Agriculture-- A Report of the USDA Advisory Committee on Agricultural Concentration-- issued this June, which confirmed the extensive concentration occurring through the entire livestock marketing chain. The report warned that concentration in processing and manufacturing is likely to harm farmers more than anyone else in the marketing chain given their already low market power in the face of a few large corporate buyers. That report made a number of recommendations to Congress, the administration and the livestock industry for steps that could be taken to address these problems. The legislation Senator Daschle is introducing today takes action on a number of those recommendations. The trend towards concentration in the livestock industry is particularly disturbing in light of the current record low prices in cattle markets and record high prices for feed--the most important and costly input to livestock production. In Wisconsin, low cattle prices have hit our dairy farmers hard as they obtain a substantial portion of their income from the sale of cull cows and veal calves. When beef prices are low, Wisconsin's 27,000 dairy farmers are equally hard hit. According to the USDA report, while prices are distressingly low for producers, returns for meat packers are still quite high. As some of my colleagues have pointed out, with four firms slaughtering 80 percent of the cattle in this country, it is no wonder that producers in Wisconsin and elsewhere are concerned about the disparate economic health of livestock producers and livestock packing and processing industry. While it isn't clear that concentration has caused the low prices, the USDA report confirmed that given the circumstances in the livestock industry, market manipulation for large packers and processors is certainly possible. The Cattle Industry Improvement Act includes provisions designed to improve market information in the cattle industry which suffers from inadequate market information. Less than 2 percent of fed cattle are sold through an open ``price discovery'' process, providing producers with very little information about what other cattle producers are receiving for their cattle and what buyers are paying for cattle. The market information provisions of this bill will allow producers to deal with their buyers on a more level playing field. In addition, this bill provides additional flexibility and authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to aggressively target noncompetitive activities in livestock markets under the Packers and Stockyards Act. Another extremely important provision in this bill is the mandated review of Federal agriculture credit policies to determine whether or not our lending practices are facilitating the growth of larger livestock and dairy operations. Many dairy farmers have complained to me that they have a difficult time getting credit for both operating purposes and for capital investments because lenders insist that farmers greatly expanding their herd size in order to be credit worthy. Many small farmers simply cannot get credit for minor herd expansion. That is neither fair to our family sized farmers nor is it sound policy. Such practices create self-fulfilling prophecies--forcing small farms to grow significantly larger or to exit the industry. I am looking forward to reviewing the results of the study required by this legislation. Finally, Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Daschle for his cooperation in including a provision in this bill which I proposed to address concentration concerns and market information inadequacies in dairy markets. The cheese industry operates in a market that suffers from a lack of pricing information that is even more extreme than in the cattle industry. While less than 2 percent of the cattle in the United States are sold on markets with open and competitive bidding, less than one-half of one percent of the cheese in the United States is sold on an open cash market--the National Cheese Exchange in Green Bay, WI. Even so, the price opinion of the National Cheese Exchange directly and decisively affects the price that farmers throughout the nation receive for their milk. Milk prices are tied directly to that price through the Basic Formula Price, calculated by USDA. The BFP determines the class III price for milk under the Federal milk marketing order system. Even if that linkage did not exist, however, 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. Ninety to ninety-five 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. Additionally, concentration in cheese processing is high and increasing. The top four manufacturers and marketers of processed cheese market 69 percent of the tonnage of processed cheese nationally. Most if not all of those manufacturers are traders on the exchange. The National Cheese exchange has been the subject of great controversy among dairy farmers because the small amount of trading on the exchange has such a substantial impact on farmers. A recently released report by the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection concluded that characteristics of the Green Bay cheese exchange make it vulnerable to price manipulation by the most powerful member-firms of the exchange. While such behavior may or may not violate antitrust laws, it is certainly not good policy to rely solely on this type of thin cash market to determine milk prices or cheese prices for the Nation. Like cattle producers, dairy farmers suspect that the price they receive for their product may be controlled by a few large processors that trade on the National Cheese Exchange. A one cent change in the opinion price at the exchange 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 and begin to wonder whether the price decline was truly reflective of market conditions. Others suspect that in times of rising milk prices, such as today, traders on the exchange are able to prevent prices from rising as high as they might given the market conditions. Unfortunately, no alternative to the National Cheese Exchange exist for cheese price discovery. It is the only cash market in the country for bulk cheese. 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 spot transactions of cheese collected by the Department of Agriculture. What little information that is collected is not considered extensive enough to be reliable. Section 4 of the Cattle Industry Improvement Act includes a provision requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to collect and report weekly statistically reliable prices and terms of trade for spot transactions of bulk cheese from all cheese manufacturing areas of the country. The intent of this provision is straight forward--to increase the amount of market information on cheese prices that is available to producers and processors. This provision is not the end solution to the policy challenges imposed by the National Cheese Exchange. Those solutions will be considered by the Department of Agriculture through their Federal milk marketing order reform process and by the regulators of the exchange. This provision is a first step towards solving a complicated and multi- faceted problem. This market data collection effort may only collect 5- 10 percent of bulk cheese transactions nationally. However, even if the data captures only 5 percent of the transactions, it will still represent a 10-fold increase in the amount of market information available to producers and processors today. As the USDA advisory report concluded ``It is of the utmost importance that information about market conditions and trends be widely available to sellers and buyers at all levels of the industry. . . It is widely agreed that equal and accurate market information improves the price discovery and determination process.'' While that report was referring to cattle, not cheese, the principle that more market information is always better holds true for cheese as well. USDA collection of prices for spot transaction of bulk cheese was recommended by the joint UW-Madison/Wisconsin Department of Agriculture report as a possible solution to the thin market problem at the Cheese Exchange. During a recent House Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Subcommittee hearing on the National Cheese Exchange, the Department of Agriculture also suggested an approach similar to that described in Section 4 of this legislation as a way to improve cheese market information. Other witnesses, such as the National Farmers Union and Kraft General Foods, also suggested increased reporting of spot transactions of cheese as a method of improving price discovery in cheese markets. Mr. President, this is a very modest data collection effort. This is a first step towards improving market information in the dairy industry and lessening the influence of the exchange. It will not and is not intended to replace the National Cheese Exchange. The data collection required in the bill will merely supplement existing market information and hopefully, improve price discovery. There is much more work to be done at both the State and Federal level to address the challenges posed by the National Cheese Exchange. But I think this is a logical first step forward. Once again, I thank the minority leader for his recognition of the importance of the cheese price reporting provision in addressing concentration and market information concerns in the dairy industry and for his cooperation in including this provision in his important legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Cattle Industry Improvement Act, which addresses an issue that is critical to our livestock and dairy industries--the concentration of economic power. I want to applaud the Minority Leader [Senator Daschle] for his extraordinary leadership on this issue. Last year he led the effort to establish a commission to investigate concentration in meat packing and processing, introducing legislation that passed in the Senate. That legislation ultimately led to the report Concentration in Agriculture-- A Report of the USDA Advisory Committee on Agricultural Concentration-- issued this June, which confirmed the extensive concentration occurring through the entire livestock marketing chain. The report warned that concentration in processing and manufacturing is likely to harm farmers more than anyone else in the marketing chain given their already low market power in the face of a few large corporate buyers. That report made a number of recommendations to Congress, the administration and the livestock industry for steps that could be taken to address these problems. The legislation Senator Daschle is introducing today takes action on a number of those recommendations. The trend towards concentration in the livestock industry is particularly disturbing in light of the current record low prices in cattle markets and record high prices for feed--the most important and costly input to livestock production. In Wisconsin, low cattle prices have hit our dairy farmers hard as they obtain a substantial portion of their income from the sale of cull cows and veal calves. When beef prices are low, Wisconsin's 27,000 dairy farmers are equally hard hit. According to the USDA report, while prices are distressingly low for producers, returns for meat packers are still quite high. As some of my colleagues have pointed out, with four firms slaughtering 80 percent of the cattle in this country, it is no wonder that producers in Wisconsin and elsewhere are concerned about the disparate economic health of livestock producers and livestock packing and processing industry. While it isn't clear that concentration has caused the low prices, the USDA report confirmed that given the circumstances in the livestock industry, market manipulation for large packers and processors is certainly possible. The Cattle Industry Improvement Act includes provisions designed to improve market information in the cattle industry which suffers from inadequate market information. Less than 2 percent of fed cattle are sold through an open ``price discovery'' process, providing producers with very little information about what other cattle producers are receiving for their cattle and what buyers are paying for cattle. The market information provisions of this bill will allow producers to deal with their buyers on a more level playing field. In addition, this bill provides additional flexibility and authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to aggressively target noncompetitive activities in livestock markets under the Packers and Stockyards Act. Another extremely important provision in this bill is the mandated review of Federal agriculture credit policies to determine whether or not our lending practices are facilitating the growth of larger livestock and dairy operations. Many dairy farmers have complained to me that they have a difficult time getting credit for both operating purposes and for capital investments because lenders insist that farmers greatly expanding their herd size in order to be credit worthy. Many small farmers simply cannot get credit for minor herd expansion. That is neither fair to our family sized farmers nor is it sound policy. Such practices create self-fulfilling prophecies--forcing small farms to grow significantly larger or to exit the industry. I am looking forward to reviewing the results of the study required by this legislation. Finally, Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Daschle for his cooperation in including a provision in this bill which I proposed to address concentration concerns and market information inadequacies in dairy markets. The cheese industry operates in a market that suffers from a lack of pricing information that is even more extreme than in the cattle industry. While less than 2 percent of the cattle in the United States are sold on markets with open and competitive bidding, less than one-half of one percent of the cheese in the United States is sold on an open cash market--the National Cheese Exchange in Green Bay, WI. Even so, the price opinion of the National Cheese Exchange directly and decisively affects the price that farmers throughout the nation receive for their milk. Milk prices are tied directly to that price through the Basic Formula Price, calculated by USDA. The BFP determines the class III price for milk under the Federal milk marketing order system. Even if that linkage did not exist, however, 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. Ninety to ninety-five 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. Additionally, concentration in cheese processing is high and increasing. The top four manufacturers and marketers of processed cheese market 69 percent of the tonnage of processed cheese nationally. Most if not all of those manufacturers are traders on the exchange. The National Cheese exchange has been the subject of great controversy among dairy farmers because the small amount of trading on the exchange has such a substantial impact on farmers. A recently released report by the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection concluded that characteristics of the Green Bay cheese exchange make it vulnerable to price manipulation by the most powerful member-firms of the exchange. While such behavior may or may not violate antitrust laws, it is certainly not good policy to rely solely on this type of thin cash market to determine milk prices or cheese prices for the Nation. Like cattle producers, dairy farmers suspect that the price they receive for their product may be controlled by a few large processors that trade on the National Cheese Exchange. A one cent change in the opinion price at the exchange 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 and begin to wonder whether the price decline was truly reflective of market conditions. Others suspect that in times of rising milk prices, such as today, traders on the exchange are able to prevent prices from rising as high as they might given the market conditions. Unfortunately, no alternative to the National Cheese Exchange exist for cheese price discovery. It is the only cash market in the country for bulk cheese. 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 spot transactions of cheese collected by the Department of Agriculture. What little information that is collected is not considered extensive enough to be reliable. Section 4 of the Cattle Industry Improvement Act includes a provision requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to collect and report weekly statistically reliable prices and terms of trade for spot transactions of bulk cheese from all cheese manufacturing areas of the country. The intent of this provision is straight forward--to increase the amount of market information on cheese prices that is available to producers and processors. This provision is not the end solution to the policy challenges imposed by the National Cheese Exchange. Those solutions will be considered by the Department of Agriculture through their Federal milk marketing order reform process and by the regulators of the exchange. This provision is a first step towards solving a complicated and multi- faceted problem. This market data collection effort may only collect 5- 10 percent of bulk cheese transactions nationally. However, even if the data captures only 5 percent of the transactions, it will still represent a 10-fold increase in the amount of market information available to producers and processors today. As the USDA advisory report concluded ``It is of the utmost importance that information about market conditions and trends be widely available to sellers and buyers at all levels of the industry. . . It is widely agreed that equal and accurate market information improves the price discovery and determination process.'' While that report was referring to cattle, not cheese, the principle that more market information is always better holds true for cheese as well. USDA collection of prices for spot transaction of bulk cheese was recommended by the joint UW-Madison/Wisconsin Department of Agriculture report as a possible solution to the thin market problem at the Cheese Exchange. During a recent House Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Subcommittee hearing on the National Cheese Exchange, the Department of Agriculture also suggested an approach similar to that described in Section 4 of this legislation as a way to improve cheese market information. Other witnesses, such as the National Farmers Union and Kraft General Foods, also suggested increased reporting of spot transactions of cheese as a method of improving price discovery in cheese markets. Mr. President, this is a very modest data collection effort. This is a first step towards improving market information in the dairy industry and lessening the influence of the exchange. It will not and is not intended to replace the National Cheese Exchange. The data collection required in the bill will merely supplement existing market information and hopefully, improve price discovery. There is much more work to be done at both the State and Federal level to address the challenges posed by the National Cheese Exchange. But I think this is a logical first step forward. Once again, I thank the minority leader for his recognition of the importance of the cheese price reporting provision in addressing concentration and market information concerns in the dairy industry and for his cooperation in including this provision in his important legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I know that the Senator is aware that a provision was included in the House version of the water resources bill authorizing the Lower Fox River sediment remediation project. I would ask for the Senator's commitment to give that provision strong consideration in conference, or to work with Senator Kohl and myself to find another vehicle to address this urgent matter.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I concur with the Senator from Wisconsin's characterization of the urgency of clean up on the Lower Fox River. Not only is the contamination from the Fox River believed to be the biggest source of PCB loading to Lake Michigan, but it may easily become the biggest source of contamination for the entire Great Lakes system. It is widely understood that a large storm event in the region could resuspend those contaminated sediments in the Fox River to disperse pollutants more broadly into the food chain of the Great Lakes. I would ask the chairman of the Environment Committee if he would agree that there is an urgent need for clean up at the Fox River site, and that a consensus-based clean up process should be encouraged?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for the inclusion of language deauthorizing the La Farge Dam and Lake project in the 1996 Water Resources Development Act Reauthorization [WRDA] and extend my thanks to the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], the Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] for their assistance in incorporating these provisions. I want to recognize the efforts of all the individuals who have worked so hard over the last year on this legislation, including State Senator Brian Rude, Ho Chunk Nation President Chloris Lowe, State Representative DuWayne Johnsrud, Ron Johnson, the chair of the Kickapoo Valley Governing Board, Lou Kowalski, formerly of the St. Paul District Corps of Engineers, and Alan Anderson of the University of Wisconsin Extension. Finally, I want to extend my gratitude for the commitment and perseverance of the Wisconsin delegation. As a delegation, my colleagues from Wisconsin in the other body--Representatives Gunderson and Petri--the senior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], and I introduced identical legislation on the 1st day of the 104th Congress in our respective bodies--S. 40 and H.R. 50--to address this unfinished business the Federal Government began in our State in 1962. We supported legislation to address this issue in the 103d Congress--S. 2186 and H.R. 4575. The House of Representatives included H.R. 4575 in the WRDA bill that passed on October 3, 1995. Senate action on this measure was not completed in the closing days of the 103d Congress. In this Congress, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee included the land transfer portion of my bill as part of the WRDA bill it introduced on March 28, 1995. That bill was favorably reported by the committee on August 2, 1995. Today marks a major step toward ending the conflict and controversy created by the proposed construction, and later abandonment, of the La Farge Dam project. More than 30 years ago, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers planned to build a dam across the Kickapoo River, near the village of La Farge, located in the southwestern portion of the State. In fact, Mr. President, I believe there is scarcely a person over 30 years of age in my State that has not heard about the La Farge Dam. The dam was supposed to provide flood control in an often flooded valley. Local residents were assured of the economic benefits in tourism dollars that the planned lake and other authorized improvements would bring to the area. Federal legislation authorizing the La Farge Dam passed in 1962, and construction began in 1971. The Federal Government condemned the property and displaced 144 families. However, the project was never completed. Construction ended in 1975 following a dispute over the project's environmental impact statement. Mr. President, the La Farge area is ecologically sensitive and is a truly beautiful area of my State, filled with unique natural features such as: Sandstone cliffs, hearty forest lands, and scenic valleys. It is also home to many rare plants and several State threatened and endangered animals. When construction stopped, the proposed dam was only 61 percent complete. 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, the only remaining legacy of the dam 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. When the 144 families were forced to leave their homes in the 1960's, many left the region entirely. Those who stayed in the area lost income, and the land they once owned was removed from the local tax base. Businesses, which once relied on these customers, suffered, and the school system lost property tax funding along with approximately one-third of its students. Today, the median income of the La Farge area is only slightly above half of the State average, and the heartfelt bitterness toward what was widely considered an irresponsible Federal boondoggle will only begin to be tempered now that plans for Federal deauthorization are in progress with the passage of this measure. For the past 5 years, under the sponsorship of Governor Thompson, members of the local community, the Army Corps of Engineers, University of Wisconsin-Extension, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Wisconsin State Historical Society, the Governor's office, State legislators, Wisconsin environmental groups, members of the congressional delegation, and, most recently, the Ho Chunk Nation have collaborated to develop a plan to reclaim the dam area and manage it under a combination of State and local control. The Wisconsin State Legislature passed legislation in 1994 to establish the Kickapoo Valley Reserve. State law now provides that the deauthorized land will be managed under the auspices of the newly created Kickapoo Valley Governing Board. This entity is prepared to accept ownership on behalf of the State of Wisconsin upon Federal deauthorization of the land. The Governing Board is required to preserve and enhance the unique environmental, scenic, and cultural features of the Kickapoo Valley, to provide facilities for the use and enjoyment of visitors to the area, and to promote the area as a destination for vacationing and recreation. Strong environmental protection provisions are included in the State law, including limits on development and an outright ban on any mining activities. The State has also made a financial commitment to support both the administration of the governing board and the reserve at a cost of more than $300 thousand per year. In addition, the State will pay local property taxes and aid to local school districts. At the time of the August 1995 WRDA markup, representatives of the Ho Chunk Nation, a Wisconsin Native American tribe, contacted the Bureau of Indian Affairs and my office raising concerns about the proposed transfer. The area which is now the La Farge Dam property at one time belonged to the Nation under two treaties with the Federal Government in 1825 and 1827. In a later treaty of 1837, the tribe was required to cede this property to the United States. Because these lands had been the Nation's, both at the time of and prior to its treaties with the Federal Government, there are nearly 400 tribal archeological sites in this area. These include 150 prehistoric campsites, 18 prehistoric villages, rock shelters, petroglyphs, and burial mounds. In deauthorizing the dam project, and opening the property to public use, the Nation wanted to be certain that sites they believe to be culturally and religiously significant within this area were protected from desecration or other improper use. Upon learning of the tribe's concerns, my office began a dialog with all the parties to determine how to transfer the property and insure that the tribal archeological sites were protected. The result is truly landmark legislation. When this project is deauthorized, a portion of the more than 8,500 acre property now owned by the corps--some 1,200 acres--will be transferred to the Ho Chunk Nation. The remainder will be given to the State of Wisconsin. The parties will be required to sign a memorandum of understanding [MOU] to jointly operate the area as the Kickapoo Valley Reserve, a public outdoor recreational and educational area. This site in Wisconsin, which was untouched by the glaciers and contains this wealth of archeological sites, will create a ecologically and historically significant State reserve. In addition to its ecological significance, the reserve is also unique in a number of other ways. It will be the first time in our State's history and, according to the Congressional Research Service, nationally that a tribe and State will work together to pursue natural resource objectives for a particular piece of property in this fashion. Moreover, the day to day management of the reserve will be conducted by a governing board made up of local residents, not administered by the State Department of Natural Resources--a first in Wisconsin. I was disappointed that we were unable to reach agreement under this legislation to include authorizations for improvement projects at this site, which were included both in the original La Farge Dam project as proposed by the corps and in my bill. These improvements include: Reconstruction of the three roads; construction of an education and interpretative complex that includes buildings, parking areas, recreational trails, and canoe facilities; remediation of old underground storage tanks and wells on the abandoned farms; and a complete inventory of the archeological sites as required by the National Historic Preservation Act. These projects provide hope for the area and fulfillment of Federal promises made long ago. It is my understanding that the House has included authorizations for some of these improvements in the markup of their water resources bill and it is my hope that these improvements can be considered in the conference. We in the Wisconsin delegation are all concerned about the fiscal implications of WRDA projects. I believe that these improvement projects are a financial win for both Wisconsin and the Federal Government. The Army Corps of Engineers estimates that if the La Farge Dam were to be completed today, the total cost would be $102 million. In conclusion, this effort should truly be dedicated to the people of the Kickapoo Valley. It is their hopeful vision of renewal of this area, and their tenacity that should be recognized today. This legislation marks the starting point of the work that is to come, which I know they will pursue with grace and fortitude.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong opposition of S. 295, the teamwork for employees and management bill. This bill, the so-called TEAM bill, is part of the continuing Republican assault on working families. It would virtually nullify section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, which forms the basis for collective bargaining procedures in the United States, and prohibits employers from dominating or interfering with the formation of labor organizations. Labor organizations, as defined by the NLRA, are composed of employee participants and exist for the purpose of dealing with employers regarding grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or working conditions. The TEAM Act would gut section 8(a)(2). In the name of promoting collaboration and communication between workers and managers, this bill would allow companies to dictate the membership and agenda of workplace teams. These teams would make recommendations to management on issues of quality, efficiency, and productivity, but could also discuss broader issues related to wages, hours, and working conditions. Mr. President, I want to make it clear that I have no problem with the concept of employers and employees working together in crosscutting groups to develop innovative ways to improve quality or increase efficiency in the workplace. I have visited workplaces in my State that have implemented quality circles and labor-management committees, and have been impressed with their results. An example is Master Lock, Inc., which I toured several summers ago. This leading Wisconsin company is a shining example of how employer- employee cooperation has led to improved working relationships and increased competitiveness. The company's joint labor and management coalition, comprised of various committees which address issues such as health and safety and ergonomics, has the support of the union and has resulted in improved employee morale and productivity. Indeed, there has been a vast proliferation of such committees, or teams, in recent years. These organizations are useful, and legal, as long as they do not interfere with the collective bargaining process. Current law allows employee involvement, which I wholeheartedly support. What I do object to is the notion that companies should appoint all members of workplace teams, particularly in cases in which teams are given broad reign to discuss issues that have been the domain of collective bargaining for the last 60 years. Under this bill, employers would have the right not only to select who belongs to teams, but would also be able to remove those members at any time, for any reason. Management could set the agenda, including discussion of wages, hours, and working conditions, as long as the employee members did not make official recommendations on behalf of their colleagues on these issues. This, I am convinced, would undermine the collective bargaining process. Senator Robert Wagner, the original sponsor of the NLRA, recognized that employees are empowered only when they select their own representatives in a democratic process. More than 60 years ago, he said, ``[only] representatives who are not subservient to the employer with whom they deal can act freely in the interest of employees. Simple common sense tells us that a man does not possess this freedom when he bargains with those who control his source of livelihood.'' And yet, the TEAM Act threatens to take precisely that freedom away from America's workers. Allowing companies to select all worker representatives and dominate team activities would be a significant step backward in workplace democracy. It would take us back to the days of company unions. Supporters of the TEAM Act are quick to point out that the language of the bill specifically prohibits teams from engaging in collective bargaining with management. But in fact, employees who serve on management-selected teams will represent their coworkers. That is a labor organization, and that is precisely what Congress intended to prevent when it passed the NLRA. In fact, Congress has repeatedly rejected the notion of company-dominated labor organizations--in the 1930's, and again in 1947 during debate on the Taft-Hartley Act. This bill threatens real, democratically elected worker representation. Even though the bill says that management-dominated teams would not be allowed to negotiate with employers about wages, benefits, or working conditions, teams can still discuss all these issues, as long as they don't make recommendations to management on behalf of workers. It is not difficult to imagine situations in which managers who prefer dealing with self-selected teams would place more weight on the ideas of teams than on the proposals of unions. In this way, the bill threatens the viability of unions. Labor experts agree. The bipartisan Dunlop Commission, made up of leading business, union, and academic representatives, conducted an in- depth analysis of labor-management relations in 1993 and 1994. One of their recommendations, upon completion of the study, was: ``The law should continue to make it illegal to set up or operate company- dominated forms of employee representation.'' Members of the Dunlop Commission, including four former Cabinet Secretaries, the CEO of Xerox, a representative from the small business community, and several academics, unanimously oppose the TEAM Act. I'm sure all of my colleagues have also read the letter signed by more than 400 of the Nation's labor law and industrial relations professors opposing this bill. They say in their letter, ``we are persuaded that passage of the TEAM Act would quickly lead to the return of the kind of employer- dominated employee organization and employee representation plans which existed in the 1920's and 1930's.'' And in fact, that is the real goal of the TEAM Act. Management- dominated teams are antidemocratic mechanisms for companies to fight real worker-selected representative labor organizations. They are anti- union tools. Research has shown that employers who establish teams, or employee involvement plans, after union organizing campaigns are more likely to defeat unions than those who do not. Without exception, managers surveyed in a 1989 Harvard Business School study agreed that employee representation plans were ``a valuable and proven defense against unionization.'' Edward Miller, a former chairman of the NLRB and a current management-side labor lawyer, testified in 1993 before the Dunlop Commission, ``While I represent management, I do not kid myself. If section 8(a)(2) were repealed, I have no doubt that in not too many months or years sham company unions would again recur.'' There are many misconceptions among my colleagues about current labor law, and about what this bill would do. Fred Feinstein, the general counsel of the NLRB, investigates possible violations of the NLRA and prosecutes meritorious claims. Mr. Feinstein recently responded to a letter from the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, to clarify what in his opinion were some inaccurate statements about the NLRA and the TEAM Act, made last week on the Senate floor. In his letter, Mr. Feinstein explained that, under current law, it is not illegal for employers to supply office supplies and meeting space to employee organizations, or to talk to employees or seek suggestions. It is not illegal for employers to discuss flexible work schedules with employees, or to seek input from them about improving productivity, or to talk to them about tornado warning procedures. Despite assertions to the contrary made by my colleagues last week, none of these procedures is illegal. The bottom line, according to the general counsel of the NLRB, is that ``employees can provide information or ideas without engaging in dealing under the NLRA. Further, employees can make proposals through an organization, to which the employer may respond, where the employees have control of the structure and function of the organization.'' If this Congress really wanted to empower workers and encourage employee involvement and communication with management, it would allow workers to select their own representatives to teams, so that they would be accountable only to their fellow employees. More importantly, it would empower the NLRB to impose more powerful sanctions on companies that unlawfully discharge employees involved in union organizing. According to the Dunlop Commission, union supporters are fired illegally in one out of four elections. This rate is five times higher than it was in the 1950's, and remedies often take place several years after the event. The real purpose of this bill is to undermine workplace democracy, and to bash on unions, not to empower employees. I am pleased that President Clinton has taken a stand on behalf of working men and women by pledging to veto this unwise and destructive bill. But I hope the bill never reaches his desk. I urge my colleagues to support representative democracy in the workplace, and to oppose the TEAM Act. Let's respect the right of employees to select their own representation, just as we have insisted on the right of citizens to select their own representatives to this body for over 200 years.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Democratic proposal to increase the minimum wage. First, let me address the issue of process. It has been clear for months that there is a majority in the Senate who have been prepared to vote for the modest $.90 increase over 2 years which has been proposed. This increase would raise the current level set in 1989 at $4.25 to $5.15, in two 45 cent steps. Indeed, the majority of our colleagues have already voted to support an increase of this size. Yet, rather than allow this issue to be fully debated and voted upon, enormous time and energy has been spent on devising ploys to either block such a vote or to load it down with anti-labor poison pills. Mr. President, I'm relieved that this game playing is finally going to stop. I'm pleased that we will finally have the opportunity to have a clean, up or down vote on raising the minimum wage. We ought to raise the minimum wage because it is the fair, just, and necessary thing to do. It has been 5 years since the minimum wage was last adjusted. The minimum wage has been adjusted seven times since the minimum wage law was first enacted in 1938. Each time, opponents predicted economic disaster would follow any increase. None of those dire predictions came true. The American economy has continued to grow. Since the minimum wage was enacted, every President except Ronald Reagan signed an increase in the minimum wage into law. Adjusting the minimum wage at regular intervals is a routine task that should never have been turned into a pitched partisan battle. Indeed, Mr. President, it is remarkable that this fierce debate should be taking place in the 104th Congress. This Congress has been awash with statements about how we should have work, not welfare. Those are views that I, too, share. We should be promoting work, not welfare. But how can we encourage people to leave the welfare rolls and join the work force when we fail to set a minimum hourly wage that provides a decent income? An American worker, working full-time, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, at the current minimum wage would earn less than $9,000 per year. The current poverty level for a family of four is $15,600. Forty percent of those earning the minimum wage today are the sole breadwinners for their families. The 90 cent increase being proposed would make a real difference in the lives of these families, and encourage them to stay in the work force. It is estimated, Mr. President, that 12 million American workers-- 200,000 in my own State of Wisconsin--would directly benefit from the increase being proposed in the Democratic amendment. The vast majority--more than two-thirds--are adult workers, not teenagers, and they are working to help support their families. Over 101 leading economists, including three recipients of the Nobel Prize in Economics, have refuted the argument that increasing the minimum wage would hurt the economy. Instead, they have concluded that the modest increase being proposed would have a positive, not a negative, impact upon the labor force and the economy in general. Apparently, Mr. President, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle remain unconvinced by the opinions of Nobel laureates. Although the amendment they are advocating purports to raise the minimum wage, it is difficult to imagine a worker who would actually have the opportunity to benefit from it, because it is so loaded down with exceptions. Actually, their amendment seems designed to assure that the status quo is maintained. It exempts all employees of small businesses with gross annual revenues under $500,000--the very businesses most likely to pay their workers the least. These businesses employ 10\1/2\ million people and comprise two-thirds of all American workplaces. Not all employees who work in such settings earn the minimum wage, but those who do deserve the same modest raise that others who work for more prosperous businesses receive, once this bill is passed and signed by the President. Another outrageous provision in the Republican amendment would create a permanent second class, subminimum wage. Employers would be allowed to pay new workers, regardless of age or experience, $4.25 an hour for their first 6 months on the job. Although my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refer to this lower rate of pay as a ``opportunity wage,'' there is no suggestion anywhere in their amendment that workers will receive training in exchange for this discriminatory treatment. This provision would be particularly harmful for migrant and seasonal agricultural workers, who rarely work for the same employer for 6 month periods of time. Up to 8,000 migrant workers are employed in my State of Wisconsin alone. Finally, adding insult to injury, the Republican amendment wouldn't even fully take effect for another year and a half. Mr. President, the workers who benefit from an increase in the minimum wage are likely to do something important with the extra dollars they receive: Spend them on goods and services for their families. That's good for everyone, as these dollars are plowed back into the economy, creating jobs and expanding economic growth. Mr. President, there seems to be a lack of understanding in the minds of some about the connection between the economic well-being of the average American worker and economic prosperity for the Nation. Some see the down-sizing of large companies and layoffs of thousands of workers across America as an unfortunate, but necessary part of increasing profits for Wall Street investors and attracting the investments of the multinational conglomerates. They fail to appreciate the fact, however, that if American workers don't have the money to purchase the goods and services, eventually both Wall Street and corporate America will feel the pain as well. The modest increase in the minimum wage being proposed is not a panacea for the troubling trends in the relationship between American workers and their employers. There is a growing feeling that the link between corporate responsibility and the workforce has been frayed almost beyond recognition and that American workers are coming to be regarded as disposable goods. In his campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination, Pat Buchanan tapped into this sense of abandonment of the average American worker by corporate America and by international trade agreements like GATT and NAFTA that appear to put the profits of large corporations ahead of the jobs of American laborers. Mr. President, let me stress that this growing separation between employees and their employers is not limited to corporate America or to minimum wage job holders. It is not limited to the worker flipping hamburgers at the local fast-food shop. It reaches into all levels of the work force, from the mid-level corporate executive to the filing room clerk, who are surviving the mergers and downsizing but wonder each night if they will be next. Not a week goes by without a story in some major paper documenting the anxieties of members of the work force, when companies like IBM and AT&T begin casting off thousands of long time employees. Many companies, still burdened by the debt acquisition of the leveraged buy- out frenzy of the 1980's see themselves as having limited options and are forced, by economic pressures, to close factories, spinoff divisions, and lay off employees at all levels. Yet, some of the new employment trends cannot be attributed solely to economic pressures. I recently heard of a nonprofit agency, funded almost entirely by State and Federal grants which employed some 35 individuals. Yet only five of those people were regular, full-time employees. The rest were so-called contract workers--employees in every sense of the word, but forced to work without health care, without pension coverage, without sick leave, without vacation or other benefits. The Federal Government itself also engages in this practice, hiring people as temporary employees--again without the protections that regular workers receive. The vocabulary of the workplace is now filled with new terminology like outsourcing which describes the practice of laying off workers and replacing them with individuals--called either temporary workers, contract workers, or contingent workers--who lack the benefits of regular employees and can be treated accordingly, like disposable employees, to be purchased and discarded at will. Mr. President, I have raised issues which I know go beyond the simple question of whether it is time to increase the minimum wage because I think we need to start thinking about these broader questions. Secretary Reich has spoken out forcefully already about the need to re-establish the concept of corporate responsibility to the labor force. I would take that a step further and broaden it to the need to repair the deteriorating bonds between employers and employees in all sectors of our society. As we approach the turn of the century, there are troubling signs that we may be moving backward, toward relationships between workers and employers that are reminiscent of the 19th century. I seriously doubt anyone wants to see the workplace of the 21st century resemble that of the last century. America left that era behind long ago. A great Nation draws upon the strengths and contributions of all its people. John F. Kennedy said, in 1961, when he asked Congress 35 years ago to increase the minimum wage, ``Our Nation can ill afford to tolerate the growth of an underprivileged and underpaid class. Substandard wages lead necessarily to substandard living conditions, hardships and distress.'' Let's do our job. Let's vote for an honest increase in the minimum wage. Let's acknowledge that America's prosperity rests upon the well-being of its people, its work force, and their families.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I am coming to the end of the debate on this portion. I want to respond to the Senator from Missouri very briefly. Let us be clear what we are attempting. We are in a period here where everyone in the country knows we are trying to find places where we can reduce spending. There are a number of areas that receive very strict scrutiny. There is a sense--it is not held by just one party--that perhaps sometimes the defense spending does not get the same scrutiny that other areas do. Sometimes it leads to defense bashing which may not be justified. It is even possible, if people get an attitude that the Defense Department expenditures are not scrutinized, that there may develop an attitude in this country that would actually threaten national security, that it may become difficult for those advocating defense expenditures to be believed, and that there are those who do not take a warning signal seriously. All that we are suggesting here in this amendment is that a very recent report, yesterday, from the General Accounting Office says--not that this is a bad aircraft, I say to the Senator from Missouri, not that it does not provide perhaps some additional benefits; it may be and probably would turn out that in some areas this is a more capable airplane--but the question is, is the marginal benefit of those improvements sufficient to justify a $17 billion difference in cost, vis-a-vis the C/D planes? That is the issue. We are not stopping the plane here. We are not saying it should never be continued. We are saying that when a report comes out from the GAO entitled, ``F/A-18E/F Will Provide Marginal Operational Improvement at High Cost,'' it is incumbent on us in the U.S. Senate to stop for a bit and find out what it is all about. $17 billion is real money. If there is an opportunity here to ask some questions and find out maybe, just possibly, the Navy, the Defense Department could go with the C/D's, I think that is our obligation. The Senator from Georgia has suggested perhaps a way in which we can allow more of this to go forward while the questions are answered. We are exploring that at this point. I yield the floor. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I always appreciate the knowledge and experience of the Senator from Georgia and particularly his reasonableness. I certainly would like to take the opportunity to consult and see if there might be a way to work that out. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, briefly to respond to the Senator from Virginia, I appreciate his remarks and his great knowledge in this area, particularly when it comes to the Navy. Let me simply remind my colleagues what this amendment seeks to do. It asks, in light of this recently released GAO report, released yesterday, that we fence the money until such time as the Department of Defense provides us with a response to this, and then there will be just a 90-day period afterward, during which we would have an opportunity to look at it and GAO would look at it. This is a serious report. There may be disagreement. When you are talking about $17 billion between the C/D and Super Hornet, I think it deserves a look. I am not suggesting, nor have I suggested, the E/F is a bad airplane. Clearly, many of the things you indicated about its capabilities are there. The question that was raised by the report was whether or not the current C/D plane can provide these benefits and that perhaps we could move directly from the C/D plane on to the JSF plane as a cheaper and most cost-effective way. All we are suggesting here then is this brief period when we would have a chance to see whether the GAO was on the right track and see what the Department of Defense has to say about it. Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment would ``fence'' the funds authorized for production of the 12 F/A-18E/F's authorized in this legislation until such time as the Department of Defense [DOD] submits a cost/benefit analysis to Congress and Congress has an opportunity to evaluate whether production of this aircraft should commence, in light of the cost and concerns about the benefit of the F/A-18E/F in contrast to the F/A-18C/D, a far less costly yet extremely capable aircraft. The genesis for this amendment resulted from a General Accounting Office [GAO] draft report made available recently entitled ``Navy Aviation: F/A-18E/F will Provide Marginal Operational Improvement at High Cost''. In this report GAO studied the rationale and need for the F/A-18E/F in order to determine whether continued development of the aircraft is the most cost-effective approach to modernizing the Navy's tactical aircraft fleet. GAO concluded that the marginal improvements of the F/A-18E/F are outweighed by the high cost of the program. Mr. President, in our current fiscal climate, I have serious concerns about authorizing funding for such a costly program which according to GAO will deliver only marginal improvements over the current C/D version of the F/A-18. As GAO noted in its report, at a projected total program cost of $89.15 billion, the F/A-18E/F program is one of the most costly aviation programs in the Department of Defense. The total program cost is comprised of $5.833 billion in development costs and $83.35 billion in procurement costs for 1,000 aircraft. The administration has requested $2.09 billion in fiscal year 1997 for the procurement of 12 F/A-18E/F's. To date, the Navy has already spent $3.75 billion on the research and development phase of the F/A-18E/F program. Before I begin to describe GAO's findings, I would first like to discuss briefly the role of the F/A-18 aircraft in our Nation's overall naval aviation force structure. The Navy performs its carrier-based missions with a mix of fighter (air-to-air combat), strike (air-to- ground combat), and strike/fighter (multicombat role) aircraft. Currently, carrier based F-14 fighter aircraft perform air-to-air missions; A6E's perform air-to-ground missions; and F/A-18's perform both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is the latest version of the Navy's carrier-based F/A-18 strike/fighter plane. The Navy has based the need for development and procurement of the F/ A-18E/F on existing or projected operational deficiencies of the F/A- 18C/D in the following key areas: strike range, carrier recovery payload and survivability. In addition, the Navy notes limitations of current C/D's with respect to avionics growth space and payload capacity. In its report, GAO concludes that the operational deficiencies in the C/D that the Navy cited in justifying the E/F either have not materialized as projected or such deficiencies can be corrected with nonstructural changes to the current C/D and additional upgrades made which would further improve its capabilities. One of the primary reasons the Navy cites in justifying the E/F is the need for increased range and the C/D's inability to perform long- range unrefueled missions against high-value targets. However, GAO concludes that the Navy's F/A-18 strike range requirements can be met by either the F/A-18E/F or F/A-18C/D. Furthermore, it concludes that the increased range of the E/F is achieved at the expense of its aerial combat performance, and that even with increased range, both aircraft will still require aerial refueling for low-altitude missions. The F/A-18E/F specification requirements call for the aircraft to have a flight range of 390 nautical miles [nm] while performing low- altitude bombing missions. The F/A-18E/F will achieve a strike range of 465 nm while performing low-altitude missions by carrying 2 external 480 gallon fuel tanks. While current C/D's achieve a flight range of 325 nm with 2-330 gallon fuel tanks while performing low-altitude missions--65 nm below the specification requirement of the E/F--when they are equipped with the 2-480 gallon external fuel tanks that are planned to be used on the E/F, the C/D can achieve a strike range of 393 nm on low-altitude missions. Recent Navy range predictions show that the F/A-18E/F is expected to have a 683 nm strike range when flying a more fuel-efficient, survivable, and lethal high-altitude mission profile rather than the specified low-altitude profile. Similarly, although F/A-18E/F range will be greater than the F/A-18C/D, the C/D could achieve strike ranges--566 nm with 3-330 gallon fuel tanks or 600 nm with 2-480 gallon tanks and 1-330 gallon tank--far greater than the target distances stipulated in the E/F's system specifications by flying the same high- altitude missions as the E/F. Additionally, according to GAO, the E/F's increased strike range is achieved at the expense of the aircraft's aerial combat performance as evidenced by its sustained turn rate, maneuvering, and acceleration which impact its ability to maneuver in either offensive or defensive modes. Mr. President, another significant reason the Navy cites in developing the F/A-18E/F is an anticipated deficiency in F/A-18C carrier recovery payload--the amount of fuel, weapons and external equipment that an aircraft can carry when returning from a mission and landing on a carrier. The deficiency in carrier recovery payload which the Navy anticipated of the F/A-18C simply has not materialized. When initially procured, F/A-18C's had a total carrier recovery payload of 6,300 pounds. Because of the Navy's decision to increase the F/A-18C's maximum allowable carrier landing weight and a lower aircraft operating weight resulting from technological improvements, the F/A-18C now has a carrier recovery payload of 7,113 pounds. F/A-18C's operating in support of Bosnian operations are now routinely returning to carriers with operational loads of 7,166 pounds, which exceeds the Navy's stated carrier recovery payload capacity. This recovery payload is substantially greater than the Navy projected it would be and is even greater than when the F/A-18C was first introduced in 1988. In addition, GAO notes that while it is not necessary, upgrading F/A-18C's with stronger landing gear could allow them to recover carrier payloads of more than 10,000 pounds--greater than that sought for the F/A-18E/F--9,000 pounds. While the Navy also cites a need to improve combat survivability in justifying the development of the F/A-18E/F, it was not developed to counter a particular military threat that could not be met with existing or improved F/A-18C/D's. Additional improvements have subsequently been made or are planned for the F/A- 18C/D to enhance its survivability including improvements to reduce its radar detectability, while survivability improvements of the F/A-18E/F are questionable. For example, because the F/A-18E/F will be carrying weapons and fuel externally, the radar signature reduction improvements derived from the structural design of the aircraft will be diminished and will only help the aircraft penetrate slightly deeper than the F/A- 18C/D into an integrated defensive system before being detected. In addition to noting the operational capability improvements in justifying the development of the F/A-18E/F, the Navy also notes limitations of current C/D's with respect to avionics growth space and payload capacity. The Navy predicted that by the mid-1990's the F/A- 18C/D would not have growth space to accommodate additional new weapons and systems under development. Specifically, the Navy predicted that by fiscal year 1996 C/D's would only have 0.2 cubic feet of space available for future avionics growth; however, 5.3 cubic feet of available space have been identified for future system growth. Furthermore, technological advancements such as miniaturization, modularity, and consolidation may result in additional growth space for future avionics. The Navy also stated that the F/A-18E/F will provide increased payload capacity as a result of two new outboard weapons stations; however, unless current problems concerning weapons release are resolved--airflow problems around the fuselage and weapons stations-- the types and amounts of weapons the E/F can carry will be restricted and the possible payload increase may be negated. Also, while the E/F will provide a marginal increase in air-to-air capability by carrying two extra missiles, it will not increase its ability to carry the heavier, precision-guided, air-to-ground weapons that are capable of hitting fixed and mobile hard targets and the heavier stand-off weapons that will be used to increase aircraft survivability. Understanding that the F/A-18E/F may not deliver as significant operational capability improvements as originally expected, I would now like to focus on the cost of the F/A-18E/F program and possible alternatives to it. As previously mentioned, the total program cost of the F/A-18E/F is projected to be $89.15 billion. These program costs are based on the procurement assumption of 1,000 aircraft--660 by the Navy and 340 by the Marine Corps--at an annual production rate of 72 aircraft per year. As the GAO report points out, these figures are overstated. According to Marine Corps officials and the Marine Corps aviation master plan, the Marine Corps does not intend to buy any F/A- 18E/F's and, therefore, the projected 1,000 aircraft buy is overstated by 340 aircraft. Furthermore, the Congress has stated that an annual production rate of 72 aircraft is probably not feasible due to funding limitations and directed the Navy to calculate costs based on more realistic production rates as 18, 36 and 54 aircraft per year. In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service: ``No naval aircraft have been bought in such quantities in recent years, and it is unlikely that such annual buys will be funded in the 1990's, given expected force reductions and lower inventory requirements and the absence of consensus about future military threats.'' Using the Navy's overstated assumptions about the total number of planes procured and an estimated annual production rate of 72 aircraft per year, the Navy calculates the unit recurring flyaway cost of the F/ A-18E/F--costs related to the production of the basic aircraft--at $44 million. However, using GAO's more realistic assumptions of the procurement of 660 aircraft by the Navy, at a production rate of 36 aircraft per year, the unit recurring flyaway cost of the E/F balloons to $53 million. This is compared to the $28 million unit recurring flyaway cost of the F/A-18C/D based on a production rate of 36 aircraft per year. Thus, GAO estimates that this cost difference in unit recurring flyaway would result in a savings of almost $17 billion if the Navy were to procure 660 F/A-18C/D's rather than 660 F/A-18E/F's. Mr. President, this is certainly a significant amount of savings. Now I know that some of my colleagues will say that by halting production of the F/A-18E/F and instead relying on the F/A-18C/D, we will be mortgaging the future of our naval aviation fleet. However, Mr. President, there is a far less costly program already being developed which may yield more significant returns in operational capability. This program is the Joint Advanced Strike Technology or JAST Program. The JAST Program office is currently developing technology for a family of affordable next generation Joint Strike Fighter [JSF] aircraft for the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy. The JSF is expected to be a stealthy strike aircraft built on a single production line with a high degree of parts and cost commonality. The driving focus of JAST is affordability achieved by tri-service commonality. The Navy plans to procure 300 JSF's with a projected initial operational capability around 2007. Contractor concept exploration and demonstration studies indicate that the JSF will have superior or comparable capabilities in all Navy tactical aircraft mission areas, especially range and survivability, at far less cost than the F/A-18E/F. The JSF is expected to be a stand alone, stealthy, first-day-of-the-war survivable aircraft. Overall, the JSF is expected to be more survivable and capable than any existing or planned tactical aircraft in strike and air-to-air missions, with the possible exception of the F-22 in air-to-air missions. The Navy's JSF variant is also expected to have longer ranges than the F/A-18E/F to attack high-value targets without using external tanks or tanking. Unlike the F/A-18E/F which would carry all of its weapons externally, the Navy's JSF will carry at least 4 weapons for both air-to-air and air-to-ground combat internally, thereby maximizing its stealthiness and increasing its survivability. Finally, the JSF would not require jamming support from EA-6B aircraft as does the F/A-18E/F in carrying out its mission in the face of integrated air defense systems. While the JSF is expected to have superior operational capabilities, it is expected to be developed and procured at far less expense than the F/A-18E/F. In fact, the unit recurring flyaway cost of the Navy's JSF is estimated to range from $32 to $40 million depending on which contractor design is chosen for the aircraft, as compared to GAO's $53 million estimate for the F/A-18E/F. Additional cost benefits of the JSF would result from having common aircraft spare parts, simplified technical specifications, and reduced support equipment variations, as well as reductions in aircrew and maintenance training requirements. Given the enormous cost and marginal improvement in operational capabilities the F/A-18E/F would provide, it seems that the justification for the E/F is not as evident as once thought. Operational deficiencies in the C/D aircraft either have not materialized or can be corrected with nonstructural changes to the plane. As a result, proceeding with the E/F Program may not be the most cost-effective approach to modernizing the Navy's tactical aircraft fleet. In the short term, the Navy can continue to procure the F/A-18C/ D aircraft, while upgrading it to improve further its operational capabilities. For the long term, the Navy can look toward the next generation strike fighter, the JSF, which will provide more operational capability at far less cost than the E/F. Mr. President, succinctly put, the Navy needs an aircraft that will bridge between the current force and the new, superior JSF which will be operational around 2007. The question is whether the F/A-18C/D can serve that function, as it has demonstrated its ability to exceed predicted capacity or whether we should proceed with an expensive, new plane for a marginal level of improvement. The $17 billion difference in projected costs does not appear to provide a significant return on our investment. In times of severe fiscal constraints and a need to look at all areas of the budget to identify more cost-effective approaches, the F/A-18E/F is a project in need of reevaluation. For these reasons, I think it would be prudent to take a go-slow approach toward the F/A-18E/F program and allow the Congress sufficient time to evaluate GAO's findings and obtain a thorough response from DOD to these issues. I ask my colleagues to support my amendment to fence all fiscal year 1997 funds authorizing the production of F/A-18E/F's until certain conditions are met. I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

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 relating to the F/A-18E/F program on behalf of myself and Senator Kohl.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I voted for the Nunn-Lugar amendment, but there are provisions included in that amendment that are quite troubling for me. Obviously, like every Member of this body, I am deeply concerned about the need for the United States to be fully prepared to protect our people from the threat of terrorist attacks, particularly those involving weapons of mass destruction. The amendment contains provisions to provide military assistance to State and local officials responsible for crisis management to deal with nuclear, chemical, or biological emergencies. This assistance includes areas such as locating, neutralizing, dismantling, and disposing of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and generally supporting State and local preparedness to deal with potential emergencies in this area. I support these provisions as they take the proper approach of having the Federal Government provide training and technical assistance to local entities who might face these disasters. I am also very strongly in support of efforts to reduce the worldwide threat of nuclear weapons getting into the hands of potential terrorists, and the amendment contains important provisions aimed at helping reduce these threats. In particular, the Nunn-Lugar program, which is aimed at dismantling of Russian nuclear warheads and converting the plutonium removed from those warheads into other forms that are not likely to be used for weapons is critical to reducing the threat of misuse of nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union. The provisions in the amendment build upon and expand this program to help make this Nation and the world safer from this threat. However, there is one section of the amendment that I do not support. Section 1313 of subtitle A of the amendment contains provisions relating to military assistance to civilian law enforcement officials in emergency situations involving weapons of mass destruction. I have long expressed my opposition to the concept underlying these provisions. This language is based upon provisions included in the antiterrorism bill considered by the Senate last year. When the terrorism bill was voted on in the Senate, I expressed my opposition to those provisions and indicated that I could not support such an exception to the posse comitatus law, the 1878 statute which limits the role of the military in domestic law enforcement activities. I fundamentally do not believe that we should give the military arrest powers within the United States. If the military needs to be involved in a domestic investigation, I believe that civilian law enforcement officials should be present and available to make any arrests needed. If authority is needed to detain an individual until a civilian law enforcement official arrives, arguments can be made for that authority, but that does not justify, in my view, granting a direct power to make an arrest by the military under any type of circumstances. The amendment offered by the Senator from Georgia does make an improvement in the language considered last year. It provides that the military does not have the power to make such an arrest unless the action is considered necessary for the immediate protection of human life, and civilian law enforcement officials are not capable of taking the action. The provision relating to the unavailability of civilian personnel is a step in the right direction; however, I remain fundamentally opposed to the military taking a direct arrest role. Moreover, the decision as to whether a civilian law enforcement official is capable of taking action, under this amendment, would clearly be made by the military official involved. Thus, the military itself is vested with the decisionmaking power as to whether such an arrest should be carried out by military personnel rather than civilian law enforcement. Although I support the other important provisions of this amendment, I want the record to show that for the reasons stated I do not support this provision which would permit the military to arrest individuals within the United States.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues to speak about the tragedy which occurred yesterday in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It is reported that around 10 p.m. Saudi time, a bomb attached to a fuel tanker truck parked just in front of a concrete security barrier about 35 yards from Khobar Towers, a facility housing United States Air Force pilots and other American military personnel on King Abdul Aziz Air Base near Dhahran in eastern Saudi Arabia, ripped through the building, killing 19 United States military personnel and injuring more than 300 others. It has been further reported that about 2,400 American military personnel, most of them working for the Air Force, are assigned to the area around the air base in Dhahran. This base serves as the headquarters of the Air Force's 4404th Air Wing, which is assigned the task of carrying out the enforcement of the no-fly zone over southern Iraq which was imposed at the end of the Persian Gulf war. Mr. President, at this early time, it seems clear that this apparent act of terrorism was targeted specifically against U.S. military personnel serving in Dhahran. Mr. President, I deplore in the strongest possible terms this despicable act. I join the President in announcing to those both within the United States and abroad that such extremist acts will not go unpunished. To that end, I am pleased that the President has dispatched a team of investigators from the FBI to Saudi Arabia to assist in the investigation of the blast. I strongly support our men and women serving their country overseas and feel that we must take all steps necessary both to apprehend and bring to justice those who perpetrated this act and to ensure the future safety of all American troops serving abroad. Mr. President, this tragedy hits me and the State of Wisconsin quite personally. Of the U.S. military personnel confirmed dead, one such patriot is from my home State of Wisconsin. T.Sgt. Patrick P. Fennig, from Greendale, WI, who is assigned to Eglin Air Force Base in Florida and is serving in Saudi Arabia was one of the 19 service members confirmed killed in the blast. I send my condolences to Technical Sergeant Fennig's family. My heart goes out to his family and to the families of the other U.S. military personnel who either lost their lives or were injured at the hands of this apparent act of terrorism. This terrorism comes 7 months after a car bomb ripped through an American-run military training center in the Saudi capital city of Riyadh, killing five Americans and two Indians and wounding several dozen others. Yesterday's attack was the worst terrorist assault against Americans in the Middle East since the 1983 bombing of the United States Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in which 241 American service personnel lost their lives. Mr. President, this bombing is the latest, and certainly one of the most deadly terrorist attacks on American military personnel serving overseas. We must never forget that, whether serving in times of war or supposed peace, American troops are continually in danger when serving their country overseas. Again, I am sickened by and deplore this horrific act and urge the President to use all available means to bring the perpetrators of this terrorism to justice. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, to make concluding remarks, and later Senator McCain will make other concluding remarks, let me again clarify the point about constitutionality. The Senator from Virginia said clarity of conscience prevents him from working for this bill because of the PAC ban. But the fact is the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Washington all voted for the Pressler amendment 3 years ago that does exactly what our bill does. It bans PAC's, but if the courts say PAC's cannot be banned, it has a voluntary limit on PAC's. The reason they voted for it then, the reason it is OK now, is because it is constitutional, and this is a red herring. The real issue here is what this vote is going to be. This is the vote on campaign finance reform. I admire the candor of the Senator from Kentucky, who simply says he wants to kill campaign finance reform this session. He is not up here proposing an alternative. He admits that is his goal. That is the vote. This is the first bipartisan bill in 10 years. Who will benefit from this bill? Many people will benefit. Incumbents will benefit from having more time to work on the issues, to not have their fractured attention, as the Senator from West Virginia indicated. Challengers will be the main beneficiaries. Just look at the real statistics. Incumbents blow challengers out of the water with the money. Does anyone out there believe this bill would actually help incumbents? I can tell you as a former challenger, this bill would have made a tremendous difference and would have made the process more fair. We would also benefit in this country from the inclusion of all the people who never choose to run. You heard the Senator from West Virginia say he never would have run for office if it would have involved this amount of money. I bet the former majority leader, Senator Dole, would not have run either. So there will be winners under this bill and especially people back home. But there will be losers under this bill. The losers are the people who got together on April 30, all the lobbyists and all the PAC's in this town that have been cited by the other side. They all got together to kill this bill. They said it would prevent their free speech. But the fact is, they are the Washington gatekeepers. They are the people you have to go up to when you are running for office and say, ``Will you give us the money?'' I used to go back and say to a banker in Wisconsin or a labor member in Wisconsin, ``Can you provide us with some help?'' Do you know what they would say? ``We have to check in with Washington. Washington has to say yes.'' This bill will drive people back to their own home States and take away the power from the gatekeepers. How does it work? I mentioned it before. Here is one example. Here is a letter about how it works, and I will omit the name of the Representative. During this year's congressional debate on dairy policy, Representative [Blank] has led the charge for dairy farmers and cooperatives by supporting the federation's efforts to maintain the milk marketing order program and expand program markets abroad. To honor his leadership the federation is hosting a fundraising breakfast for [Blank] on Wednesday, December 6, 1995. To show your appreciation to [Blank], please show up at Le Mistral Restaurant at 8 a.m. for an enjoyable breakfast with your dairy colleagues. PAC's throughout industry are asked to contribute $1,000. That is how it is done in this town. That is what the gatekeepers want to keep, and that is what we have to crack down on and eliminate. To make my final remarks, let me say this thing has just gotten worse year after year. I want to finish by reading a few quotations from people who have been troubled about this over time. Woodrow Wilson: The Government of the United States is a foster child of the special interests. It is not allowed to have a will of its own. President Eisenhower: Many believe politics in our country is already a game exclusively for the affluent. This is not strictly true; yet the fact that we may be approaching that state of affairs is a sad reflection on our elective system. From Barry Goldwater: It is not ``We, the people,'' but political action committees and moneyed interests who are setting the Nation's political agenda and are influencing the position of candidates on the important issues of the day. From Jack Kemp, explaining why he would not run for President in 1996: There are a lot of grotesqueries in politics, not the least of which is the fundraising side. . .. I don't seem to be talking about the things that the fundraising people want me to talk about. Finally, from Robert F. Kennedy, who said: The mounting cost of elections is rapidly becoming intolerable for a democratic society, where the right to vote--and to be a candidate--is the ultimate political protection. For we are in danger of creating a situation in which our candidates must be chosen only from among the rich, the famous, or those willing to be beholden to others who will pay the bills. Mr. President, what Robert Kennedy said over 30 years ago is even worse than he could have imagined today. What he feared has come to pass, and our bill would begin the process of returning campaigns and elections, and yes, our Government, back to the people at home. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the remainder of my time to my friend and a leader today in the future on campaign finance reform, the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it has been suggested that the broadcast provisions in this bill may adversely affect the broadcast industry and I would like to respond to that point. First, with respect to the free time provision, it is important to understand that this is really a limited free time benefit. It is limited to 30 minutes of free time. Second, the free time is only available to general election candidates--not primary election candidates. And third, of the general election candidates, it is only available to those general election candidates who agree to limit their spending. We have also carefully crafted this provision to have as minimal effect on the broadcasters as possible. First, no one candidate can request more than 15 minutes of their free time from any one broadcast station. Second, use of the free time must occur in intervals between 30 seconds and 5 minutes. This will ensure that the requirement to provide free time will not interfere with the normal programming of the broadcast station. And finally, the bill clearly states any broadcast station that can demonstrate that providing such free time will cause the station significant economic hardship is exempt from the free time requirement. So clearly, the free time provision is not going to have a significantly burdensome effect on the broadcasters. With respect to the 50-percent discount, it should be noted that this provision is really the linchpin of the legislation. Without public financing, there must be some alternative incentive to encourage candidates to voluntarily limit their campaign spending. Such an incentive had to have an effect similar to that of public funding in the Presidential system--that is, to lower campaign costs so the candidate can spend less time on the phone raising money and more time running a statewide grassroots campaign. As we all know, the great proportion of a Senate candidate's campaign budget is devoted to broadcast advertising. And therefore, the most sensible solution for lowering campaign costs is to cut the costs of running television advertisements. Keep in mind, Mr. President, current law already recognizes a public trustee standard with respect to broadcasters. Under current law, broadcasters must provide all Federal candidates with the lowest price they charge to commercial advertisers for similarly run advertisements. That is current law. All we are doing is providing an additional discount to that special price. This is entirely consistent with the Supreme Court's 1969 ruling in Red Lion Broadcasting Company versus Federal Communications Commission decision. In the Red Lion decision, the Court upheld the congressional determination made in 1934 that the airwaves belong to the American people, and this decision has subsequently been used to require the broadcasters to provide services such as lowest unit rate and equal time to qualifying Federal candidates. To suggest that the provisions embodied in the McCain-Feingold bill are somehow a violation of the broadcasters first amendment rights is a proposition that has already been tossed out by the courts. Let me quote from the legal analysis of this issue prepared by Law Professor Fred Schauer of Harvard University. Professor Schauer writes, As long as Red Lion remains the law, Congress may within limits consider broadcast time to belong to the public, and to be subject to allocation in the public interest. In this respect, therefore, price restrictions on advertising, and direct grants of broadcast time, will not violate the First Amendment as it is presently interpreted. So it is clear that what we are requiring in this campaign finance reform bill is not only sound public policy, but completely within the confines of first amendment principles. So now we come to the question of how this provision will affect the financial viability of the broadcast industry. Mr. President, when we talk about what sort of costs the broadcasters are going to incur as a result of this legislation, there are several important factors to keep in mind. First, with respect to the free time provision, we are only talking about general election candidates who agree to voluntarily limit their spending. In any given State, where only two Senate elections occur every 6 years, this will have a nominal impact on broadcasters. Even if all general election candidates do agree to comply with the bill and receive the benefits, that means that all of the broadcasters in a particular State will only have to provide 2 hours of free time over a 6-year period. It may interest my colleagues to know that the Congressional Research Service has analyzed the broadcast provisions of the McCain-Feingold proposal, and prepared a cost-estimate of how much these provisions might cost the broadcast industry. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this report be placed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. According to CRS, assuming all general election candidates were eligible for and used the free time benefit, this provision would cost the broadcast industry a maximum, a maximum Mr. President, of about $6 million per Senate election. Figures provided by the National Association of Broadcasters [NAB] show that total political television advertising revenues in 1994 for the broadcast industry were $355 million. That is just political advertising revenues. Total television advertising revenues in 1994 were $24.7 billion. That means that the free time provision in the McCain-Feingold proposal, scored at a maximum of $6 million by CRS, would cost the broadcasters about 1.6 percent of their annual political advertising revenues, and less than three-hundredths of 1 percent (.025 percent) of their total annual advertising revenues. And of course, this would only occur in a brief period of time every 2 years. And what about the 50-percent discount provision, that has been purported to be potentially catastrophic for the broadcast industry. According to CRS, the total cost of the 50-percent discount provision in the primary and general election would be $48 million, again, assuming all candidates were eligible for the discount. So the most this provision would cost the broadcast industry according to CRS's independent analysis is less than $50 million. Again, how does this compare as a percentage of the industry's revenues, both political and commercial? Using the NAB's numbers on political advertising revenues and all other advertising revenues, this $48 million provision in S. 1219 would cost broadcasters, at most, about 13 percent of their political advertising revenues, and less than half of 1 percent (.19 percent) of their total advertising revenues. And again, this would only be every 2 years. Mr. President, we are talking about less than one-half of 1 percent of the industry's revenues. And that is a maximum, it is likely to be much less than this. And as you can see from this chart, the broadcast provisions in the McCain-Feingold proposal would cost the broadcast industry less than two-tenths of 1 percent of their total advertising revenues in 1994. And again, these nominal costs would only have to be incurred twice every 6 years. So I think it is clear, Mr. President, that not only does the broadcast industry have a legal obligation to contribute to the political process, such a contribution would have a minimal effect on their overall revenues. The benefit to the public of cleaning up our congressional elections, in contrast, would be enormous. Mr. President, it has been suggested that the bipartisan proposal put forth by myself and the Senators from Arizona and Tennessee would somehow further entrench incumbents and make it more difficult for challengers to run for office. Mr. President, this is yet another argument put forth by the defenders of the status quo that does not pass the straight face test. First of all, let us remember what sort of campaign finance system we currently have and how it affects challengers and incumbents. I don't think that anyone can dispute that the current campaign finance system confers significant benefits on incumbent Senators that provides incumbents an overwhelming advantage over challengers. Incumbents start out with more name recognition. Incumbents are permitted to send out free mass mailings to the voters of their States, which often are little more than thinly disguised campaign newsletters. And most importantly, as virtually every legitimate study has shown, the campaign cash overwhelmingly flows to incumbents. Whether it is PAC money, soft money, bundled money--you name it. The campaign money always flows to incumbents. To suggest that spending limits will somehow make it more difficult for challengers to run for office is to suggest that challengers have access to the kind of money that incumbents have access to. That assertion is just factually false. Challengers cannot raise millions of dollars as incumbents can. The few challengers that are able to mount credible campaigns are those few challengers that are millionaires, and that is why more and more Senate campaigns are turning into races between an incumbent and a millionaire. As this first chart demonstrates, money does matter. In 1990, 1992, and 1994, the Senate average winning candidate not only outspent the loser in that particular race, but far outdistanced them. In fact, in most cases, the winning candidate doubled--doubled--Mr. President, what the losing candidate spent. That means that for every television spot the losing candidate was able to run, the winning candidate was able to run two television spots--in some cases, three or four or five times as many spots. Now the fact that money is clearly the most determining factor in influencing the outcome of Senate elections is troubling by itself. It is a harsh indictment of the current limitless-spending campaign spending that the junior Senator from Kentucky is defending. But if we know that the candidate who spends the most money is likely to be the winning Senate candidate, the next logical question is, who's getting the money? As you can see, Mr. President, incumbents are getting the money. Not only are they getting the money, they are blowing challengers out of the water. That is the current campaign finance system--a system in which the candidate who spends the most money is the likely winner, and a system in which the money flows overwhelmingly to incumbents. The current system is rigged to protect incumbents, and our proposal, for the first time ever, will provide challengers who do not have access to millions and millions of dollars to run a fair and competitive campaign. We have spending limits in the Presidential system, Mr. President. Have they protected incumbents? They didn't protect President Ford. They didn't protect President Carter. And they didn't protect President Bush. The Presidential system, thanks to voluntary spending limits, has produced fair and competitive elections for 20 years now. The congressional system, with unlimited campaign spending, has produced the opposite. The evidence is clear, Mr. President and I am hopeful my colleagues will see through the phony and absurd argument that spending limits hurt challengers. the constitutional argument Mr. President, I have listened to the arguments of the Senator from Kentucky, the Senator from Washington, and others, with respect to the constitutionality of this campaign reform proposal. I share his concern that we should not pass legislation that would be a clear violation of the first amendment. I stand behind no one when it comes to defending the first amendment and the principles it stands for. That is why I will not support a constitutional amendment that would allow us to impose mandatory spending limits. At one time, I did vote for a sense of the Senate resolution regarding such an amendment but I have come to believe that we should respect the Supreme Court's rulings on this issue, and that these rulings have provided enough guidance and direction that we can write a constitutional proposal that would be upheld by the Supreme Court. I have to say that what the Senator from Kentucky is suggesting, that the voluntary spending limits might be found by the courts to be unconstitutional, is unfounded. Mr. President, this argument is a giant red herring meant to divert attention away from the real issues. Let us be very clear about what the Supreme Court held in the Buckley versus Valeo decision in 1976. The Court said two very important things in the Buckley decision; First, the Court made a distinction between mandatory limitations on expenditures by candidates, and mandatory limitations on contributions to candidates. The Court said that we cannot place mandatory spending limits on all candidates, because that would infringe on the first amendment rights of those candidates who may wish not to abide by the spending limits. Second, the Court upheld mandatory limitations on campaign contributions, declaring that such contributions could have, or appear to have, a corrupting influence on the recipient of those contributions, and contributions could therefore be limited. Now, I have heard the Senator from Kentucky say on many occasions that the Supreme Court has said that money equals political speech and that since we cannot limit political speech, we cannot limit the flow of money. As the Senator from Kentucky just asserted, money, in his view, equals speech and we can't limit it. However, Mr. President, the Supreme Court did not, in fact, say that money is speech and cannot be limited, and saying it over and over again doesn't make it any more true. The Court did say that money is a form of speech, and can only be limited by the Government in certain circumstances. And as I said, one of those circumstances is in the form of limits on campaign contributions. If the Supreme Court had held that money equals absolute speech, then they would not have upheld limitations on campaign contributions. Besides contribution limits, the Supreme Court has said that there are other ways we can constitutionally limit the flow of campaign money, including campaign expenditures. As the Court said in the Buckley decision: Congress may engage in public financing of election campaigns and may condition acceptance of public funds on an agreement by the candidate to abide by specified expenditure limitations. Just as a candidate may voluntarily limit the size of the contributions he chooses to accept, he may decide to forgo private fundraising and accept public funding. In short, the Presidential system is a completely voluntary system that offers incentives in the form of public financing to candidates who agree to limit their spending. That, the Court said, was perfectly constitutional. And that sort of voluntary system, specifically upheld by the Supreme Court in the Buckley decision, is what the McCain-Feingold-Thompson legislation is modeled after. We provide a voluntary system of spending limits and benefits. No one is forced to participate, no one is coerced into participating, and there are no penalties, not a single one, for candidates who choose not to voluntarily comply. Just like the Presidential system that has been specifically upheld by the Supreme Court. The assertion that the Senator from Kentucky is making, that voluntary spending limits tied to the offering of cost-saving benefits is unconstitutional, is a challenge that has been specifically rejected by the courts. Let me repeat that Mr. President. The argument that the Senator from Kentucky is making, that voluntary spending limits tied to benefits is unconstitutional, has specifically been rejected by the Federal courts. The case was Republican National Committee versus Federal Election Commission, and in that case a three-judge Federal panel specifically upheld the constitutionality of voluntary spending limits and rejected the argument put forth by the Senator from Kentucky. That decision was summarily affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is true that unlike the Presidential system, the McCain-Feingold- Thompson proposal does not have public financing. It would have been my preference to have public financing, but I agreed to forgo public financing as a part of this compromise proposal. Instead, we offer broadcast and postage discounts that will substantially reduce the costs of running for a Senate seat. And the outlandish suggestion has been made by a few--very few indeed--that this distinction, between public financing and advertising discounts, is what makes our legislation unconstitutional. Mr. President, that is an absurd proposition. The only way such a voluntary system could possibly be unconstitutional is if the system were not truly voluntary, or in other words, if candidates were essentially coerced into participating. How do you coerce a candidate into participating? By making the benefits so incredibly valuable and by imposing tough penalties against those who choose not to comply, so that there really is not choice for a candidate to participate or not. And this is where the Senator from Ketucky's--Senator McConnell-- argument completely falls apart. The court ruled in the Buckley case that public financing was not coercive. So for our bill to be unconstitutional, the benefits would have to be even more valuable than direct public financing. Mr. President, the benefits in our bill are very valuable. The 50- percent broadcast discount alone will cut a candidate's advertising costs in half. But these benefits do not even come close to the value of direct public financing. Suppose you are a Federal candidate running a $1 million campaign. And suppose you had a choice of two benefits; you could either have a 50- percent discount on your broadcast advertising, or you could have a check for $1 million. Which benefit are you going to take? The question is obvious, Mr. President. Every candidate in America faced with such a choice would clearly favor the public financing. Public financing is a far more valuable benefit, and for the Senator from Kentucky to suggest otherwise flies in the face of the reality of our campaign system. I find it interesting that during the course of the many hearings that have been held in the Senate Rules Committee, much testimony was heard from several constitutional experts. However, only one of those experts, Law professor Fred Schauer of Harvard University, made it clear that he had no position on the policy aspects of the McCain- Feingold bill. Every other expert called by the committee--on both sides of the issue--made clear that in addition to their legal views, they also has a bias as to either being in favor or opposition to the reform bill. And how did Professor Schauer respond to the Senator from Kentucky's claim that the voluntary structure of spending limits in our bill was unconstitutional? After pointing out that the arguments asserted by the Senator from Kentucky were the same arguments rejected in the RNC decision, a decision that was summarily affirmed by the Supreme Court, Professor Schauer said: If we stick to the question * * * and separate the constitutional questions from the policy question * * * voting against the bill on the assumption that it is clearly inconsistent with existing Supreme Court and federal court precedent is not an accurate characterization of the precedent. Mr. President, the Schauer testimony is just a move in a chorus of objective analyses from constitutional experts around the country who have held that the voluntary spending limits in the McCain-Feingold- Thompson bill does pass constitutional muster. Without asking for anyone's view on the policy implications of our proposal, we asked several authorities in the legal and academic community for their opinions about the constitutionality of this proposal. We asked the nonpartisan American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service to prepare a constitutional analysis of our proposal. The analysis, prepared by Paige Whitaker, a well-respected attorney with CRS who has prepared a number of reports for Congress on this issue and who has been called to testify before Congress on campaign reform, states very clearly that the voluntary system created in our bill of offering incentives in exchange for compliance with spending limitations is wholly consistent with the Court's ruling in Buckley versus Valeo. In addition to CRS, my office contacted some of the most well-known and respected first amendment authorities in the country. These authorities include Professor Daniel Hays Lowenstein of the UCLA Law School, Professor Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School, Professor Fred Schauer of Harvard University, Professor Jamin Raskin of the Washington College of Law at American University and Professor Marlene Arnold Nicholson of the DePaul University College of Law. These experts, among the most widely respected first amendment and constitutional scholars in the country, all agree that the voluntary structure of spending limits tied to broadcast and postage discounts is fully consistent with the Constitution. Now, Mr. President, some have also suggested that the provision in our proposal to prohibit Political Action Committee contributions to Federal candidates may not pass constitutional muster. I, for one, am skeptical that you can constitutionally prohibit a group of individuals from banding together, pooling their resources and contributing to a Federal candidate any more than you can prohibit any single individual from contributing to a Federal candidate. However, we must remember that the Supreme Court has taken a favorable position with respect to the Government limiting campaign contributions, and indeed, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of absolute prohibits on specific entities making campaign contributions, such as labor unions and corporations. Nonetheless, our proposal contemplates such a legal challenge, and contains specific fall-back provisions if the Supreme Court ruled a PAC contribution ban unconstitutional. These fall-back provisions would reduce allowable PAC contributions from $5,000 to $1,000, and stipulate that no candidate could receive more than 20 percent of the applicable spending limits in aggregate PAC contributions. Where did this fall-back proposal come from, Mr. President? It is the exact same proposal, word for word, that was contained in the Pressler- Durenberger amendment offered to S. 3, the campaign finance reform bill considered in the 103d Congress. That amendment, which not only banned PAC contributions, also banned all PAC expenditures in a Federal election including independent expenditures, included these very fall-back limitations on PAC contributions if the Supreme Court ruled such a ban unconstitutional. The Pressler-Durenberger amendment passed the U.S. Senate by a vote of 86 to 11. Yes, 86 to 11, Mr. President. I voted for it. Most of the Members of this body, including the Senator from Kentucky, voted for it. Our provisions dealing with PAC contributions are actually far more permissive than the provisions contained in the Pressler-Durenberger amendment which 86 Senators voted for. I should also say, Mr. President, that a proposal to not only ban PAC contributions, but also to prohibit PAC's from engaging in independent expenditures as the Pressler-Durenberger amendment did, can actually be found in another reform bill--a bill introduced by the junior Senator from Kentucky. I am somewhat surprised that the junior Senator from Kentucky, who has condemned such a proposal as unconstitutional and a blatant violation of the first amendment, would include such a provision in the reform bill he wrote. So, Mr. President, just a couple of years ago, 86 Senators went on record in favor of a PAC ban coupled with fall-back limitations in case of an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling. The provision in our proposal is actually far less restrictive than that included in the Pressler- Durenberger amendment, as we only limit PAC contributions, not their independent expenditures. If 86 Senators, including the Senator from Kentucky, believed a complete PAC prohibition to be constitutional enough that they could vote for it, I see no reason why the same number, or even more Senators now could not support a far less restrictive regulation. In closing, Mr. President, I want to assure my colleagues that I believe, and the Senator from Arizona believes, that the key provisions of this legislation would be upheld by the courts. Moreover, nonpartisan experts from around the country, including the Congressional Research Service, who do not have a prejudice one way or the other on this proposal, have told us that these provisions are constitutional. I ask unanimous consent that a statement designating that the broadcast provisions in the bill would have only a relatively nominal impact in the broadcast industry be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank Andy Kutler, Susan Martinez, and Larry Murphy. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from President Clinton, a longtime supporter of campaign finance reform, urging the Senate to pass this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Very briefly, before I turn it over to the Senator from Massachusetts. I, too, listened to the constitutional analysis by the Senator from Washington and the strong agreement by the Senator from Kentucky. The one suggested that any third grader would know that the PAC ban, with a backup provision, is unconstitutional. I am sorry, but I will say one thing about that. The Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Washington voted for precisely that proposal 3 years ago under the Pressler amendment. So, apparently, at that time they did not understand, apparently, what any third grader would understand, which is that this in fact is constitutional, because it provides that, if the PAC ban is found unconstitutional, there is a backup provision. So that entire analysis disregards their own voting record and their own past position, which is that that is constitutional. Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.