Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my concerns about the concentration of ownership in the radio and concert industry and its effect on consumers, artists, local businesses, and ticket prices. I will be introducing legislation to address these concerns in the coming weeks, but wanted to make my colleagues aware of the seismic changes that have taken place in the radio and concert industries following the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. During the debate of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, I joined a number of my colleagues in opposing the deregulation of radio ownership rules because of concerns about the impact on consumers, artists, and local radio stations. Passage of this act was an unfortunate example of the influence of soft money in the political process. As my colleagues will recall, I have consistently said that this act was really in many ways bought and paid for by soft money. Everyone was at the table, except for the consumers. In November, we will finally have rid the system of this loophole, but we must repair its damage. In just 5 years since its passage, the effects of the Telecommunications Act have been far worse than we imagined. While I opposed this act because of its anticonsumer bias, I did not predict that one provision would have caused so much harm to a diverse range of interests. The provision I am referring to is the elimination of the national radio ownership caps and relaxation of local ownership caps, which has triggered a wave of consolidation and caused harm to consumers, artists, concert goers, local radio station owners, and promoters. To put the changes of the 1996 act in perspective, it is helpful to compare them to other moves towards deregulation of radio ownership that began in 1984. In 1984, there were limitations on the total number of radio stations that one company could own nationally and locally, and how long a company had to hold a station before being allowed to sell. That year, the ownership regulations were changed to allow one entity to own 12 AM stations, 12 FM stations and 12 television stations--an increase from 7 to each type a year earlier. The Federal Communications Commission again loosened the ownership requirements in 1992 by allowing one company to own up to two AM and two FM stations in a specific market, so long as they did not account for more than 25 percent of the total listening audience. The national ownership limits were also raised to 18 AM and 18 FM stations. This change brings us to the seismic shift that shook up the radio and live concert industries across the country--the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. This legislation did not simply raise the national ownership limits on radio stations--it eliminated them altogether. It also dramatically altered the local radio station ownership limits through the implementation of a tiered ownership system which allowed a company to own more radio stations in the larger markets. The highest range was in the largest markets, those with 45 stations or more. In those markets, one group could own up to eight stations, with no more than five in either AM or FM. The strictest limit was in the smallest markets with less than 15 stations, where one entity could own five stations, but only three in any one service. This change was not beneficial to consumers or local radio station owners or broadcasters. It simply led to a number of national super radio station corporations that now dominate the marketplace, and allegedly engage in anticompetitive business practices. The concentration levels of radio station ownership, both across the United States and in most local markets, is staggering. In 1996, prior to the passage of the Telecommunications Act, there were 5133 owners of radio stations. Today, for the contemporary hit radio/top 40 formats, four radio station groups--Chancellor, Clear Channel, Infinity, and Capstar--just four control access to 63 percent of the format's 41 million listeners nationwide. For the country music format, the same four groups control access to 56 percent of the format's 28 million listeners. The concentration of ownership is even more startling when we look at radio station ownership in local markets. Four radio station companies control nearly 80 percent of the New York Market. Three of these same four companies own nearly 60 percent of the market share in Chicago. In my home State of Wisconsin, four companies own 86 percent of the market share in the Milwaukee radio market. Let me repeat, four companies control 86 percent. The list continues in almost every market across the United States. The concentration of radio station ownership by a few companies is mind boggling, and its effect on consumers, artists and others in the music industry is cause for great concern. Many of the same corporations that own multiple radio stations in a given market wield their power through their ownership of a number of businesses related to the music industry. For example, the Clear Channel Corporation owns over 1200 radio companies, more than 700,000 billboards, various promotion companies, and venues across the United States. Also, just three years ago, in 1999, Clear Channel bought SFX productions, the Nation's largest promotion company. A national group of organizations, recently joined together to voice many of the same concerns that I have heard from my constituents in Wisconsin--that the high levels of concentration are hurting the entire industry. This coalition of artists, labor groups, small businesses, and radio companies recently released a joint statement that expressed a number of concerns about the levels of concentration and the anticompetitive practices. These concerns included that a corporation that owns radio stations, promotion companies and venues has a conflict of interest in terms of promoting its own concerts and tours on its radio stations over those of any competition. They are also concerned about a corporation's interest in limiting the promotional support of bands and artists that are performing for other companies, performing at other venues or sponsored by other stations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a joint statement by this group be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. FEINGOLD. After I began looking into the consolidation trends, I was taken aback by the diverse range of people that expressed concerns about the effects of concentration and consolidation. Concert goers talk all the time about higher ticket prices. Broadcasters, artists, and others in Wisconsin and across the country have told me about reduced diversity and local input in the music industry. And local businesses have spoken about anticompetitive behaviors that have put them on an unfair playing field. Following the passage of the Telecommunications Act, and the resulting vertical concentration, a number of trends have emerged. Ticket prices have gone through the roof, during the same period in which a few companies consolidated ownership of radio stations, promotion companies, venues, and advertising. This chart compares ticket prices during the period of consolidation following the 1996 act with the preceding 5 year blocks of time. Before the passage of the 1996 act, ticket prices rose slightly faster than the Consumer Price Index. For example, from 1991 to 1996, concert ticket prices grew by about 21 percent, compared to the consumer price index increase of about 15 percent. Following the Telecommunications Act of 1996, however, ticket prices have increased almost 50--50--percentage points more than the Consumer Price Index. From 1996 to 2001, concert ticket prices grew by more than 61 percent, while the Consumer Price Index increased by only 13 percent. Ticket prices have gone up by nearly 50 percentage points more than consumer prices since passage of the Telecommunications Act, and that doesn't even include the facility fees, parking charges, box office charges, or food and beverage increases. I think we have to look into allegations that consolidation in the radio industry has triggered anticompetitive practices and raised ticket prices. A broad coalition, including the American Federal of Television and Radio Artists, has also expressed concerns that consolidation in the radio industry has led to reduced diversity and competition in local markets. As corporations buy stations in the same market, they combine newsrooms and reporters and share playlists and radio personalities-- all with the same effect: less choice in music and less information for consumers. Radio airwaves are public property. Unlike other business ventures, radio stations have acquired their distribution mechanisms--the airways--without any expenditure of capital. They were given access to the broadcast spectrum by the Government for free. Since 1943, Congress and the Federal Communications Commission have tried to ensure that this medium serves the public good, but limiting access to information and diversity on the radio does not achieve this. I have also heard concerns from artists and radio stations about how the vertically concentrated radio corporations leverage their market- power to shake down the music industry in exchange for playing their music. As my colleagues are aware, payola--the practice of paying money to get music played--has been prohibited under Federal law since the 1960s. I have heard a number of concerns, however, about the alleged tendency of some owners of multiple radio stations to shake down the music industry.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I strongly support permanent estate tax reform. Though I do not support completely repealing the estate tax for all estates, I do believe that we should significantly expand the unified credit to exempt the great majority of estates from taxation, and we should do so on a permanent basis. We should also include an indexing provision to ensure that the unified credit does not become obsolete and burdensome again, as happened over the past several decades. But we should make these changes in a fiscally responsible manner. We should do so without adding to the already enormous budget deficits that were largely the result of the tax bill that was enacted last year. Our budget position is poor, and it is getting worse. Last year, Congress passed a fiscally irresponsible tax cut that has shoved us back into the deficit ditch. Congress then added to our woes by passing an unfunded stimulus package filled with special interest tax breaks, a farm bill that unnecessarily benefits the largest and wealthiest producers, and just last week, following the action of the House of Representatives, the Senate passed a supplemental spending bill, also unfunded, and also apparently filled with special interest provisions of questionable value. Each of these actions will only further aggravate our budget problems. Now, proponents of estate tax repeal are asking us to enact legislation that will add even more fuel to the deficit fires. Rather than offering a fiscally responsible measure, with provisions that offset the cost of repeal, the proponents are content to add to our budget deficits, and our already massive federal debt. In effect, the proponents suggest that we should repeal the tax on the wealthiest estates, and let the Social Security trust funds pick up the tab. I regret that this is also the case with some of the alternative proposals as well--proposals much closer to the kind of estate tax reform I support. The choices being presented to the Senate are not acceptable. As much as I would like to see a permanent solution to this question, I do not support raiding Social Security to achieve it. When I was first elected in 1992, we faced an annual budget deficit of $340 billion, and projected deficits of roughly the same size for many years to come. Thanks to the fiscal restraint we demonstrated in the 1990s, and especially to the deficit reduction package we enacted in 1993, we saw a virtuous cycle of lower budget deficits and increased economic growth. The result was that we eliminated the budget deficits and actually began paying down some of the federal debt that was racked up during the 1980s. We need to return to the fiscal restraint that worked so well during the 1990s. And first and foremost, that means paying our bills. The estate tax repeal is not funded. It digs our deep budget hole even deeper, and we should reject it.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the amendment offered by my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, to amend the penalty section of this bill to include the possibility of a death sentence. This amendment is a step in the wrong direction. Let me be clear. Those who commit crimes, including acts of violence that are motivated by hate, should be punished and punished severely. Federal law enforcement has an important role to ensure that hate crimes are investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And if death results from a hate crime, Senator Kennedy's bill provides for the full weight of the law to be brought to bear on that individual. It does so by providing for a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. At a time when Americans are increasingly recognizing that the current death penalty system is broken, this is not the time to expand the Federal death penalty. We know that justice should be blind. But, unfortunately, in the Federal death penalty system, it appears that justice is not always blind. A report released by the Justice Department in September 2000 showed troubling racial and geographic disparities in the administration of the Federal death penalty. The color of a defendant's skin or the Federal district in which the prosecution takes place can affect whether a defendant lives or dies in the Federal system. Former Attorney General Janet Reno ordered a further analysis of why these disparities exist. And Attorney General Ashcroft has agreed to continue this study. We have not yet seen the results of this study, nor have we had the opportunity to review and understand what the results might mean for the fairness and integrity of our Federal justice system. While this important study is underway, Congress should not create even more death-eligible crimes. I also strongly disagree with Senator Hatch's claim that the availability of the death penalty ensures efficient and reliable prosecution and conviction of those who commit hate crimes. We know that levying death has an immensely coercive effect on the accused. The accused who wants to live and does not have the resources to mount a ``dream team'' defense may feel little choice but to accept whatever deal for less than death that the prosecution offers. This can happen in situations where the accused is less culpable than other defendants, or worse yet, innocent of the charges altogether. I am very troubled by the practice of some prosecutors who may use the prospect of the death penalty to coerce a defendant, including a defendant who may be innocent, to accept guilt and a plea bargain. A case involving defense representation from my state illustrates how this coercive tactic undermines the integrity of the justice system. It involves Christopher Ochoa, who confessed to a rape and murder out of fear of facing the death penalty in Texas. Mr. Ochoa was released a little over a year ago after serving 12 years of a life term in Texas. Mr. Ochoa won his freedom as a result of the persistence, hard work, and skill of students and professors at the Innocence Project at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, police arrived to question Mr. Ochoa in November 1988. Mr. Ochoa, who was 22 years old at the time, was ``harangued with grisly details of the crime, many of them false. A burly sergeant told him he would be `fresh meat' in prison, pounded tables and demonstrated where the death needle would pierce his arm. Ochoa confessed.'' In a forum at the University of Wisconsin after he was released, he said, ``I don't think people can say what they would have done until they're in that situation.'' He said, ``Basically, I was terrified.'' The Federal system is not immune from the use of this coercive tactic or the other flaws that result in the risk of executing the innocent in the state systems. According to the Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel Project, since the death penalty was re-enacted in 1988, approximately 3 percent of persons the Justice Department has attempted to execute may have been factually or legally innocent. In one case, David Ronald Chandler claimed his innocence throughout the trial and the appellate process. Chandler believes that the real triggerman made a deal with the government to testify against Chandler, and in return the government would not seek the Federal death penalty against the triggerman. But the triggerman later recanted his testimony. Luckily for Chandler, President Clinton commuted his death sentence to life. But how many other defendants who have claims of innocence will not be so lucky, or feel forced to accept a life sentence? I don't know the answer to that question. None of us do. And that is why a thorough, top-to-bottom review of the death penalty system at the State and Federal levels is needed. Until such a comprehensive review has been undertaken, and the necessary work has been done to ensure fairness and justice, Congress should refrain from expanding the Federal death penalty. Congress can ensure that perpetrators of crime are effectively punished without resorting to capital punishment. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing Senator Hatch's amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, in 3 days' time, the United States will withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. And it appears that we will do so without a significant debate on this issue in the Senate. For 30 years, the ABM Treaty has been the foundation upon which our strategic relationship with Russia has rested. So I am troubled that this historic treaty is about to be dissolved without so much as a hearing or even any debate in this body. I also regret that the President made this important decision without consulting with the Senate. I find this troubling on both constitutional and policy grounds. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution states that the President ``shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided that two thirds of the Senators present concur. * * *'' The Constitution is silent on the process by which the United States can withdraw from a treaty, and the record of the Congress and the executive branch is mixed. But, the intent of the Framers, as explained by Thomas Jefferson, is clear. In section 52 of Jefferson's Manual, he writes, ``Treaties are legislative acts. A treaty is the law of the land. It differs from other laws only as it must have the consent of a foreign nation, being but a contract with respect to that nation.'' And article II, section 3 of the Constitution states that the President shall ``take Care that the laws be faithfully executed. . . . '' Jefferson continues, ``Treaties being declared, equally with the laws of the United States, to be the supreme law of the land, it is understood that an act of the legislature alone can declare them infringed and rescinded. This was accordingly the process adopted in the case of France in 1798.'' It is worth noting that four signers of the Constitution were serving in the Congress when this first treaty termination occurred--by an act of Congress--in 1798, just 11 years after the Constitutional Convention. So it is clear to me, as obviously it was to Thomas Jefferson, that Congress has a constitutional role to play in terminating treaties. If advice and consent of the Senate is required to enter into a treaty, this body should at a minimum be consulted on withdrawing from a treaty, and especially from a treaty of this magnitude, the termination of which could have lasting implications on the arms control and defense policy of this country. Today the ABM Treaty is the supreme law of the United States. The Senate should not stand by while the administration unilaterally abrogates this treaty. I am concerned about the message that the Senate's inaction sends to this administration and future administrations about how seriously we will take our constitutional responsibilities with regard to the termination of treaties. As Jefferson noted, a treaty is equal with a law. A law cannot be declared to be repealed by the President alone. Only an act of Congress can repeal a law. Action by the Senate or the Congress should be required to terminate a treaty. Momentarily, I will seek to bring up a resolution on this issue. The resolution is very simple. It just expresses the sense of the Senate that the approval of the Senate is required to terminate any treaty and states that the Senate shall determine the manner by which it gives its approval to such a proposed termination. Finally, the resolution disapproves of the withdrawal of the United States from the ABM Treaty. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 282, which I submitted earlier today, that the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table without intervening action or debate.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I was not surprised, but I do regret that there has been an objection to the Senate taking up this resolution and expressing its will on this important issue. I am troubled that the Congress appears willing to cede its constitutional responsibility on this matter to the executive branch. I am concerned about the signal that the Senate's refusal to act sends to the executive branch and what it could mean for the future of other treaties with which this or other administrations may not agree. The Senate does not grant its advice and consent to ratify treaties lightly, and we should not abrogate our responsibility to express the will of this body on whether the United States should withdraw from treaties. By failing to act on this important issue, we are granting the executive branch undue license to trample on the constitutional prerogatives of the Senate and to blur the separation of powers and system of checks and balances. I am concerned that the Senate's inaction today tips the scales dangerously in favor of the executive branch.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, today I would like to address one of the most complicated but ultimately one of the most important constitutional questions confronting this country as we respond to the atrocities of September 11: that is, the question of how America decides to go to war. This is no easy issue, but it is one that Congress is duty-bound to address. As we know, war powers are purposefully divided under our Constitution. Under Article I, Section 8, Congress has the responsibility to declare war, and to raise and support the Armed Forces. The President, under Article II, Section 2, is the Commander in Chief, which gives him responsibility for leading the Armed Forces. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 fulfills the intent of the Framers of the Constitution by providing a framework for balancing these powers, and thereby ensuring that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of the Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is likely. In April, I had a chance to chair a hearing in the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee to consider this balance of war powers authority under the Constitution, particularly as we move forward with our fight against terrorism. In the hearing, there was much praise for the respect demonstrated by President Bush, this President Bush, for both the Congress and the Constitution in seeking congressional authorization to respond with appropriate force to the attacks of September 11. The language in that authorization, Senate Joint Resolution 23, paralleled some of the careful oversight provisions contained in the use-of-force resolution that former President Bush obtained before launching Operation Desert Storm in 1991. In those two cases, both Presidents took the important and constitutionally mandated step of obtaining congressional approval for an expansive new military operation. And in both cases, I do believe, congressional support strengthened the President's response. History demonstrates that respect for our Constitution and for the shared war powers authority of Congress is politically practical. Indeed, as our Founders and many subsequent commentators have recognized, the separation of war powers between the two branches of government wisely forces us to develop a broad national consensus before placing our Nation's young people in harm's way. And as we have seen time and again, the United States is indeed the most formidable military force on this planet, provided our soldiers are entrusted with a clear military goal, and through congressional authorization, with the popular mandate that is needed to back them up. Senate Joint Resolution 23, which was passed by both Houses of Congress and signed into law by the President in the aftermath of September 11, provides the President with statutory authorization to prevent related acts of terrorism. In adopting the use-of-force resolution, the President recognized that Congress he said, ``acted wisely, decisively, and in the finest traditions of our country.'' The resolution demonstrated that Congress has the capacity to fulfill its constitutionally mandated responsibility, and in so doing Congress can help unify the nation in a time of national crisis. Under the careful structure of S.J. Res. 23, the President now has statutory authority to prevent future terrorist attacks by responding with force against any nations, organizations or persons responsible for planning, authorizing, aiding or harboring the terrorists who were responsible for the September 11 attack. Now, given the unprecedented nature of the threat, this provides a pretty broad mandate to the President to respond militarily. But this Congressional action, while admittedly broad, is not a blank check. The Resolution limits the President's authority in two essential respects. To begin, the authorization is limited to situations where there is a connection to the events of September 11. The hearing in the Constitution Subcommittee considered the scope of such a limitation. As I will discuss at greater length, there was widespread agreement in the hearing that absent a clear finding that a state such as Iraq participated in, aided, or otherwise provided support for those who attacked the United States on Sept 11, the President would not be authorized, under the terms of S.J. Res. 23, to take new military action against Iraq. Senate Joint Resolution 23 does not provide unlimited authority to the President to take military action against all bad actors. At the same time, the authorization does foresee broad actions against those responsible for the September attack on the United States. It is also important to recognize that S.J. Res. 23 states in no uncertain terms that the 1973 War Powers Resolution will continue to apply to our military operations against terrorism. This conforming language is identical to Public Law 102-1, which provided the authorization to use military force to oust Iraq from Kuwait in 1991. In all cases, the War Powers Resolution requires the President to consult with Congress on an ongoing basis on the status, scope, and duration of the hostilities. These consultations need not and should not provide Congress with what would be somehow a meddlesome and unacceptably dangerous role in determining tactical aspects of an active military campaign. But the required consultations must nonetheless assist Congress in its continuing responsibility to evaluate and make ongoing decisions about the broad objectives of an unfolding military operation. The war powers consultations to date, in my view, have been inadequate. While the administration has taken significant steps to increase the frequency of briefings for Members of Congress, and we do appreciate that those consultations have been conducted as informational briefings, with little opportunity for substantive policy discussions or meaningful give-and-take. As such they do not in most cases reach the threshold level of consultations under the terms of the War Powers Resolution. The House Report on the 1973 War Powers Resolution notes that ``a considerable amount of attention was given to the definition of consultation. Rejected was the notion that consultation should be synonymous with merely being informed. Rather, consultation in this provision means that a decision is pending on a problem and that Members of Congress are being asked by the President for their advice and opinions and, in appropriate circumstances, their approval of action contemplated.'' The increasingly frequent meetings with Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and others, while welcome and appreciated, do not reach this level of consultation. In addition, under the War Powers Resolution, the need for additional notification is triggered whenever U.S. Armed Forces are equipped for combat and introduced into a new foreign territory, or if additional Armed Forces are equipped for combat and introduced in numbers that substantially expand existing, previously authorized troop strengths. This is obviously relevant to some of the concerns coming up today. These and other requirements do not apply to military training exercises, which is why the President must be clear about the precise role of U.S. forces in a number of ongoing counterterrorism training exercises in different countries. These requirements do not apply to that. In some cases, these counterterrorism training programs may cross the line into counterterrorism combat support, which would trigger the War Powers Resolution. So the President must provide clear information to help distinguish between these two types of antiterrorism activities. United States interests are not served through a shortsighted attempt to dodge congressional oversight by characterizing counterterrorism support as routine military training. In the hearing before the Constitution Subcommittee, we also discussed the important provision within the War Powers Resolution that recognizes the immediate flexibility provided to the President to introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities in the case of a national crisis created by an attack on the United States, or its territories, possessions, or Armed Forces. This provides the President with the flexibility to respond immediately to defend United States interests during an emergency. But again, this is a limited exception. The War Powers Resolution specifically requires the President, ``in every possible instance,'' to consult with Congress before introducing Armed Forces into situations where hostilities appear imminent. And even within this exception for emergency situations, the President must still seek congressional authorization within 60 days to sustain the operation. My conclusion from the hearing on war powers authority within the context of our fight against terrorism is that to date the President has shown respect for Congress in seeking authorization to respond to the attacks of September 11. But the ongoing level of consultation on our military campaign has not been adequate. In particular, additional attention must be given to the distinction between counter- terrorism training and counter- terrorism support for foreign troops during these consultations. It is clear that our national interests would be well served by sustained and forthright consultations between Congress and the President over these aspects of our military response to September 11. The hearing also touched on one of the most important military decisions on the horizon. Several witnesses questioned the authority of the President to take military action against Iraq. The witnesses generally assumed that any strike against Iraq would be designed to defend the United States against Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and that the President would not assert a direct link between Iraq and the September 11 attacks. As I have indicated, absent such a link between Iraq and September 11, witnesses suggested that the President might advance two legal justifications for taking up arms against Iraq without further, additional congressional authorization. But both justifications ring hollow, and rest on highly questionable legal grounds. During the hearing, a witness from the Justice Department joined other witnesses in highlighting the authority of the President to launch military attacks as a form of preemptive self-defense. This expands the national emergency exception under the War Powers Resolution by asserting that the President must have the authority to act quickly and decisively to prevent a potential attack on United States interests. Now, few would disagree with the assertion that the President must have the authority to launch a preemptive strike in advance of an imminent attack on the United States. This understanding I think fits within the overall spirit and intent of the 1973 War Powers law, and it would be irresponsible to suggest otherwise. But the preemptive self-defense argument does not necessarily fit squarely with the situation in Iraq today. Various press reports suggest that President Bush is considering plans for a new military campaign against Iraq sometime next year. If the President does plan to take such action next year, there is still plenty of time for the administration to initiate meaningful consultations with Congress over the necessity and scope of this new military campaign. Some have also argued, unconvincingly to me, that consultation with Congress would be impossible because a preemptive strike against Iraq would require a high degree of stealth. But the administration has already spoken publicly of the need for regime change in Iraq, and unnamed officials have consistently leaked information to major news sources describing the scope of the proposed operation. Moreover, it is now widely assumed that the operation would require a robust ground assault, and that our military build-up in the region would be both deliberate and plainly obvious to any careful observer. So this would not be a purely stealth operation. There would be ample time for congressional consultation as we move forward with fairly obvious military preparations for such a large offensive. The second argument that is sometimes advanced to support a future military operation in Iraq is that Public Law 102-1, authorizing the use of force in 1991 to respond to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, still provides ongoing congressional authorization for a major new strike against Iraq. Now, this is a more complex legal argument, but it fails on both legal and public policy grounds. To begin, the congressional authorization for Operation Desert Storm authorizes the President to use military force pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678. The clear intent of the Security Council in adopting Resolution 678 was to free Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, not to bring about regime change in Iraq. Moreover, United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 implemented a final cease-fire between Iraq, Kuwait and the United Nations Member States that participated in Operation Desert Storm. Although Iraq has certainly failed to comply with the terms of the cease-fire, that failure does not in itself provide automatic authority for the President to launch a significant new military campaign, with the entirely new objective of regime change in Baghdad. My conclusion, then, is that absent a clear finding that Iraq participated in, aided or otherwise provided support for those who attacked the United States on Sept 11, the Constitution requires the President--it requires the President--to seek additional authorization before he can embark on a major new military undertaking in Iraq. Since it is clear that Iraq has not adequately complied with weapons of mass destruction resolutions adopted by the Security Council, and that the Iraqi leadership continues to commit gross human rights violations against its own people while encouraging terrorist attacks abroad, the consultation and debate over our response to an Iraqi threat may well convince a majority in Congress that the United States must in fact take all necessary steps, including military action, to limit Iraq's capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction. My guess is that such a resolution would succeed, after a good Congressional debate. If this emerges as the shared decision of Congress and the President, the President would act from a strong and constitutionally unified position in launching a new military campaign. Indeed, the Constitution and the American people must demand such a unified response. Why would I raise these issues today? Why are these war powers questions so important? Why should following the letter of the War Powers Resolution be so important in the midst of this national crisis? I think it should because Congress and the President have a chance to carry out their duties with regard to war and peace in the way the War Powers Resolution dictates, and also in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended. That kind of cooperation preserves our constitutional structure. It also increases the moral authority of the President to act forcefully. Given the unprecedented nature of the threats confronting us, and the complex environment within which we must respond to those threats, a powerful and constitutionally unified response remains essential. We must also remember that constitutional unity presents both a stronger international image of the United States to our friends and foes, and, at the same time, a more comforting image of U.S. power to many of our close allies in the campaign against terrorism. When we best honor our Constitution and our laws as they relate to the powers of war and peace, we also best prepare our Nation to defend that Constitution and those laws. We owe our Nation no less. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his kind words. I am in the Chamber with regard to another matter, but I look forward to discussing this issue at a later time. (The remarks of Mr. Feingold are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I wonder if the Senator will amend the request to provide that after the disposition of the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts that the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, be recognized to offer an amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I object to the request of the Senator from Massachusetts. I do not want to object, but I do, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object, did I hear the Senator from Nevada say there will be 15 minutes each for Senator Gregg and Senator Feingold?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator. I have no objection.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I rise today to join with my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, as well as my colleagues Senators Chafee, Kerry, Voinovich, and McCain to offer this amendment, which I believe is a commonsense budget process amendment, the Budget Enforcement Act of 2002. Let me especially thank the Senator from New Hampshire, who has been a terrific leader on this issue. As he said, we made a real effort in the Budget Committee, had an excellent debate with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and only lost on a 9-to-9 vote. We were hoping for a good result today, but we are both devoted to returning some budget rules because we both believe this is one of the main reasons we were able to have some success in the 1990s in bringing the budget under control and actually getting to the point where we had a surplus for a brief period of time. In the 1990s, we took fiscally responsible actions that led to balancing the budget in 1999 and 2000, without using Social Security, which was a tremendous achievement. Last year, the Government returned to the bad habit of using the Social Security surplus to fund other Government activities. I believe we have to put an end to that practice. The Government will not have these Social Security surpluses to use forever. In the next decade, the baby boom generation will begin to retire in large numbers. Starting in 2016, Social Security will start redeeming the bonds that it holds, and the non-Social Security government will have to start paying for those bonds from non-Social Security surpluses. The bottom line is that, starting in 2016, the Government will have to show restraint in the non-Social Security budget so we can pay the Social Security benefits that Americans have already earned or will have already earned by that time. That is why we cannot continue to enact either tax cuts or spending measures that push the Government further into deficit. Before we enter new obligations, we need to make sure we have the resources to make our Nation's commitment to our seniors under Social Security. I believe we need to return to the priority of protecting the Social Security trust fund. We should, as President Bush said in a March 2001 radio address, ``keep the promise of Social Security and keep the Government from raiding the Social Security surplus.'' Yes, September 11 changes priorities and how the Government spends money, but September 11 does not change the oncoming requirements of Social Security. As an economist has said: Demographics is destiny; we can either prepare for that destiny or we can fail. To get the Government out of the business of using Social Security surpluses to fund other Government spending, we need to strengthen our budget process. That is what this amendment does and that is why we urge our colleagues to support it. The history of budget process changes teaches that realistic budget enforcement mechanisms work. The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, enacted with bipartisan support, with a Democratic Congress and a Republican President, deserves much credit for helping to keep the Government on that path to reduce and eventually eliminate the deficit. A central feature of the 1990 act was the creation of caps on appropriated spending. Of course, in recent years, Congress has blown through those caps, when those caps were at unrealistic levels, and when the Government was running surpluses. But in most years of their history, appropriations caps helped to constrain the politically understandable appetite to spend without limit. Congress has repeatedly endorsed the idea of spending caps. Congress renewed and extended the caps in the budget process laws of 1993 and 1997. And six of the last eight budget resolutions have set enforceable spending caps. If budget numbers are to have any meaning--if they are not to be just wishes and prayers--then we need to have enforcement. Our amendment would reinstate and extend the caps on discretionary spending, and would do so at a realistic baseline. It would simply set those levels at those in the budget resolution reported by the Budget Committee on March 22. And our amendment maintains, without change, the separate subcaps created in the Violent Crime Act of 1994 and the Transportation Equity Act of 1998. Like the 1990 budget law that it extends, our amendment would apply budget enforcement to entitlements and taxes. It would extend the pay- as-you-go enforcement mechanism. All parts of the budget would thus be treated fairly. Our amendment would also improve the points of order that enforce the caps and pay-as-you-go enforcement. It would allow Senators to raise a point of order against specific provisions that cause the caps or pay- as-you-go discipline to be violated. This part of the amendment will work very much like the important Byrd rule that governs the reconciliation process, which is of course named after the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. Under our amendment, if a piece of legislation violates the caps or pay-as-you-go discipline, any Senator could raise a point of order and force a vote on any individual provision that contributes to the budget violation. If the point of order is not waived, then the provision would be stricken from the legislation. The amendment would also shut back-door ways around the caps and pay- as-you-go enforcement, by requiring 60 votes to change the caps, alter the balances of the pay-as-you-go scorecard, or direct scorekeeping. Our amendment would limit the exceptions to the point of order against emergency designations in the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution, so that all emergencies would be treated alike. Our amendment would thus treat emergencies as they were treated in the text of that budget resolution when the Senate passed it on April 7, 2000, rather than in the watered-down form it had when it came back from conference with the House of Representatives. Finally, our amendment would extend for 5 years the requirement for 60 votes to waive existing points of order that enforce the Congressional Budget Act. The 60-vote requirement that gives these points of order teeth expires on September 30 this year under current law. This is sensible budget process reform, in keeping with the best, most effective budget process enforcement that we have enacted in the past. It would make a significant contribution toward ending the practice of using the Social Security surplus to fund other government activities. That is something that we simply must do, for our seniors, and for those in coming generations who will otherwise be stuck with the bill. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Arizona. I am delighted to have his support on this important amendment. Madam President, I yield 4 minutes of my time to the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, who is a cosponsor of the amendment as well.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I would like to respond to some of the arguments of the chairman of the Budget Committee as well. The chairman argues that what Senator Gregg and I are proposing is new and radical. In large part what we are doing is merely extending the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. Let me tell my colleagues what would be radical: If we go through this process without any budget rules at all. Based on my 10 years here, that would be radical and dangerous and harmful to Social Security and to the future of our budget. As far as I am concerned, we are on the precipice of going back to the bad old 1980s in terms of the budget process. This is a good- faith, bipartisan effort to try to keep some rules in place. The chairman speaks, fairly, of course, with great knowledge about the new deficits and the new problems we face, especially in the last couple of years, especially since 9-11. Let me remind everyone that we used the chairman's numbers, not pre- 9-11 numbers, but his post-9-11 numbers, with regard to his 5-year scenario. That is what this is based on. It is based on our knowledge about the tragedy and difficulties that occurred. I find it hard to understand when the chairman argues for flexibility that somehow Senator Gregg and I don't recognize the need for flexibility. He, too, apparently, if we don't prevail, intends to offer caps. He intends to offer limits. The fact is that the chairman acknowledges that even in difficult times such as these, there have to be rules and there have to be limits. There is nothing irresponsible about proposing limits even in difficult times, such as a war against terrorism. In fact, I argue that the worst that can happen, at a time when we are fighting terrorism and other crises in the world, is to have no rules at all. Then it is more likely that legislation such as the farm bill will pass with unlimited amounts of inappropriate action and provisions. Some of the provisions in the energy bill and some in this bill are more likely to happen with no rules at all. For the sake of our national security, for the sake of the fiscal integrity of our country, at this time it is more important than at any other time that we have some rules and procedures so the American public can know we are wisely using their tax dollars to proceed with this war against terrorism, and to protect them, and that we are not using it for pork projects at home. The chairman complains that our amendment would not have budget enforcement at times when we are running a surplus without counting Social Security. Yet his idea guarantees us no discipline at all. I wish him well if we end up going with his amendment and considering that, but, obviously, I hope ours prevails. There is no guarantee. Defeating this amendment would leave us with no enforcement at all if these current rules expired in September, as they are expected to do. He says we only have constraints on spending. We followed the same constraints on taxes as they exist in current law. Taxes and entitlements are constrained in our amendment, as well as by the pay- as-you-go procedure. He also seeks to argue that somehow we are doing something different or something radically inappropriate with regard to the OMB. The amendment gives the OMB the job of calculating whether we have complied with the caps or the pay-as-you-go discipline. But this is exactly as it has been since 1987. Nothing is new about this provision. When Congress first enacted the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings bill in 1985, it gave the job of calculating compliance to the Comptroller General, head of the General Accounting Office. But the Supreme Court ruled, in 1986 in the case of Bowsher v. Synar, that Congress could not constitutionally give that power to anybody outside of the executive branch of Government. That is why we do it. That is why Congress gave the job of calculating compliance to the OMB in the rewriting of the budget laws and continued that process in the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act. This argument doesn't hold water. Our amendment merely continues the same rule for the OMB. As to the chairman's argument that we erred by not requiring pay-as- you-go enforcement in times of budget surplus, we disagree as a matter of policy. We believe that when the Government is taking in more tax revenues than it needs to fund existing programs, even after putting all Social Security surpluses aside, then it is altogether appropriate for Congress to consider fiscal choices, such as updating Medicare to include a prescription drug benefit. Do we want a 60-vote requirement in times of surplus to provide the American people with a prescription drug benefit? I hope not. If you are listening to your constituents, they desperately need this. So that doesn't seem to be appropriate. Finally, I think this is a critical test on this vote. Are we serious about protecting Social Security, even in these difficult times? Are we going to go forward with no rules and continue down the road we are heading in--the road of a $100 billion deficit already? Especially after 9-11, the American people have a right to know that we are being especially careful with their dollars, that we can track it, and that they can follow the caps and the rules and enforcement procedures to see if we are doing their bidding and if we are truly putting our priorities straight--with the war on terrorism at the top, but also guaranteeing the safety and security of Social Security, which is very dear to them. I yield my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that for the duration of the bill a legislative fellow in Senator Wyden's office, Gerhard Kuska, be granted Senate floor privileges.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Colorado, Senator Allard in introducing comprehensive legislation to address the problem of chronic wasting disease. I am delighted to be working with him on this bill, and commend him and his staff for all their tireless efforts. This disease has become a serious problem affecting wild deer in my home State of Wisconsin. Chronic wasting disease belongs to the family of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies TSEs, diseases. TSEs are a group of transmissible, slowly progressive, degenerative diseases of the central nervous systems of several species of animals. Animal TSEs include, in addition to chronic wasting disease, CWD, in deer and elk, bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle, scrapie in sheep and goats, feline sponfiform encephalopathy in cats, and mink spongiform encephalopathy in mink. States like mine are now contemplating how and where their Department of Natural Resources will cull deer in an attempt to slow the spread of the disease, and it is a difficult choice. Wisconsin is contemplating a herd reduction of up to 15,000 animals in ten counties. With a disease that has no known mechanism of transmission, large scale herd reduction may not fully address the problem. Yet Wisconsin is in the difficult position of not being able to put off taking action to slow the epidemic until every scientific question has been answered in detail. Wisconsinites treasure the sight of deer in our woods and tourism and hunting are important to our State's economy, as well. In part, Wisconsin's struggles to manage the disease have been complicated by struggles to interact with a variety of different Federal agencies, each with differing and intersecting responsibilities on the issue of chronic wasting disease. In that vein, the legislation we are introducing is comprehensive, addressing both short term and long term needs. It authorizes a $29 million dollar Federal chronic wasting disease program that will be administered by the United States Departments of Agriculture, USDA, and Interior. It is similar to legislation introduced in the House of Representatives by the Representative from Colorado, Mr. McInnis), which has been cosponsored on a bi-partisan basis by Wisconsin delegation members in the House of Representatives. I think it is extremely appropriate that legislators from Colorado, the state that has the longest history in chronic wasting disease, have made a concerted effort to work with Wisconsin members who are struggling with a new outbreak that has emerged solely in wild deer. I deeply appreciate the commitment of the Representative from Colorado, Mr. McInnis, toward finding a solution that works for both our States. I think these are good comprehensive efforts, and I would like to highlight a few provisions in detail. The bill I am introducing with the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard, requires USDA to work jointly with Interior and authorizes them to give up to $10 million in grants to states to help them plan and implement management strategies to address chronic wasting disease in both captive and wild herds of deer and elk. USDA is directed, in addition, to develop a national chronic wasting disease incident database, building on the existing USDA reporting program. I am particularly pleased that the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard, has incorporated provisions that I authored to address Wisconsin's urgent short term need for enhanced testing capacity. Under the bill, USDA is required to release, within 30 days, protocols both for labs to use in performing tests for chronic wasting disease and for the proper collection of animal tissue to be tested. USDA is further required to develop a certification program for federal and non-federal labs conducting chronic wasting disease tests within 45 days of enactment. I hope all these measures will enhance Wisconsin' capacity to accurately test deer this year. To address longer terms needs, the USDA is directed to accelerate research into the development of live animal tests for chronic wasting disease, including field diagnostic tests, and the development of testing protocols that reduce laboratory test processing time. This bill is appropriate, because state wildlife and agriculture departments do not have the fiscal or scientific capacity to adequately confront the problem. Their resources are spread too thin as they attempt to prevent the disease from spreading. Federal help in the form of management funding, research grants, and scientific expertise is urgently needed. Federal and State cooperation will protect animal welfare, safeguard our valued livestock industry, help guarantee America's food safety, and protect the public health. I look forward to working with my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Allard, to seek passage of this measure.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Colorado, Senator Allard in introducing comprehensive legislation to address the problem of chronic wasting disease. I am delighted to be working with him on this bill, and commend him and his staff for all their tireless efforts. This disease has become a serious problem affecting wild deer in my home State of Wisconsin. Chronic wasting disease belongs to the family of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies TSEs, diseases. TSEs are a group of transmissible, slowly progressive, degenerative diseases of the central nervous systems of several species of animals. Animal TSEs include, in addition to chronic wasting disease, CWD, in deer and elk, bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle, scrapie in sheep and goats, feline sponfiform encephalopathy in cats, and mink spongiform encephalopathy in mink. States like mine are now contemplating how and where their Department of Natural Resources will cull deer in an attempt to slow the spread of the disease, and it is a difficult choice. Wisconsin is contemplating a herd reduction of up to 15,000 animals in ten counties. With a disease that has no known mechanism of transmission, large scale herd reduction may not fully address the problem. Yet Wisconsin is in the difficult position of not being able to put off taking action to slow the epidemic until every scientific question has been answered in detail. Wisconsinites treasure the sight of deer in our woods and tourism and hunting are important to our State's economy, as well. In part, Wisconsin's struggles to manage the disease have been complicated by struggles to interact with a variety of different Federal agencies, each with differing and intersecting responsibilities on the issue of chronic wasting disease. In that vein, the legislation we are introducing is comprehensive, addressing both short term and long term needs. It authorizes a $29 million dollar Federal chronic wasting disease program that will be administered by the United States Departments of Agriculture, USDA, and Interior. It is similar to legislation introduced in the House of Representatives by the Representative from Colorado, Mr. McInnis), which has been cosponsored on a bi-partisan basis by Wisconsin delegation members in the House of Representatives. I think it is extremely appropriate that legislators from Colorado, the state that has the longest history in chronic wasting disease, have made a concerted effort to work with Wisconsin members who are struggling with a new outbreak that has emerged solely in wild deer. I deeply appreciate the commitment of the Representative from Colorado, Mr. McInnis, toward finding a solution that works for both our States. I think these are good comprehensive efforts, and I would like to highlight a few provisions in detail. The bill I am introducing with the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard, requires USDA to work jointly with Interior and authorizes them to give up to $10 million in grants to states to help them plan and implement management strategies to address chronic wasting disease in both captive and wild herds of deer and elk. USDA is directed, in addition, to develop a national chronic wasting disease incident database, building on the existing USDA reporting program. I am particularly pleased that the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard, has incorporated provisions that I authored to address Wisconsin's urgent short term need for enhanced testing capacity. Under the bill, USDA is required to release, within 30 days, protocols both for labs to use in performing tests for chronic wasting disease and for the proper collection of animal tissue to be tested. USDA is further required to develop a certification program for federal and non-federal labs conducting chronic wasting disease tests within 45 days of enactment. I hope all these measures will enhance Wisconsin' capacity to accurately test deer this year. To address longer terms needs, the USDA is directed to accelerate research into the development of live animal tests for chronic wasting disease, including field diagnostic tests, and the development of testing protocols that reduce laboratory test processing time. This bill is appropriate, because state wildlife and agriculture departments do not have the fiscal or scientific capacity to adequately confront the problem. Their resources are spread too thin as they attempt to prevent the disease from spreading. Federal help in the form of management funding, research grants, and scientific expertise is urgently needed. Federal and State cooperation will protect animal welfare, safeguard our valued livestock industry, help guarantee America's food safety, and protect the public health. I look forward to working with my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Allard, to seek passage of this measure.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, I would like to honor the life of a dedicated public servant, Richard M. Scullion. Dick passed away at the end of April following a brief illness. Dick started out as a farmer near Highland, WI. He married his wife, Marian, in 1945, and worked to raise their family. In the 1950s, during a typical Wisconsin blizzard, friends of Dick's nominated him to serve on the Iowa County Board and in 1965, he became the chair of the board, a seat he would hold until 2000. At that time, he was the longest serving County Chair in Wisconsin history. Dick simultaneously served as the Highland township chairman and as a member of the Memorial Hospital of Iowa County Board. In addition to his over 40 years of service to Iowa County, Dick demonstrated a strong commitment to his home state. He was a member of the Wisconsin State Soil and Water Conservation Board, Committee Land Preservation Board, Water Resources Committee, Wisconsin River Rail Transit Commission, Farmland Preservation Board, and was the chairman of the Southwest Regional Planning Commission. His work made him an invaluable citizen of the State of Wisconsin; he was recognized for his achievements in 1995, when the Iowa County Courthouse addition was named in his honor. Dick was also named the Soil Conservationist of the Year in 1976 and received the Wisconsin Master Agriculturist Award in 1979. In 1983, the University of Wisconsin College of Agriculture and Life Sciences awarded him an honorary degree. Dick Scullion was an important part of Iowa County, and the State of Wisconsin, and will hold a special place in our State's history. He will be dearly missed.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to make a few comments on my opposition to the farm bill conference report. While I strongly support the dairy provision that Senator Kohl and I helped secure for Wisconsin's dairy farmers, I am deeply concerned that the conference report eliminated a number of important Senate-passed provisions that targeted assistance to small and medium-sized family farmers. Specifically, I am concerned that the conference committee weakened the Senate-passed payment limitation amendment and reduced the conservation funding. It then used these funds for the misguided purpose of increasing payments to corporate owned farms and agribusinesses. I am also deeply disappointed that a number of Senate- approved amendments aimed at providing competition in rural America were completely eliminated in the conference committee. I am disturbed that the conferees stripped the payment limitations provision that both the House and Senate supported. As my colleagues will recall, the Senate voted 66-31 to target Federal assistance to small and medium-sized family farmers by imposing a $275,000 payment limitation on overall payments. I support the Senate-passed provision of a $275,000 payment limitation, but this conference report permits up to $360,000 and includes significant loopholes. I am not sure who this increase is meant to benefit. I know it isn't benefitting many people in Wisconsin, where only 14 out of our 60,000 farms receive over $275,000 in government payments. At the same time that the bill provides increased funds to the largest producers and agribusinesses, it reduces funding for important conservation programs that benefit family farmers of non-traditional crops such as those produced in Wisconsin. Many Wisconsin commodities-- such as potatoes, sweet corn, green beans, cranberries, and cherries-- are simply not eligible for most commodity programs, but do receive benefits under a number of the conservation programs. Wisconsinites certainly support a strong safety net for America's farmers, but this bill is fiscally irresponsible. The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that the bill before us would cost $124.6 billion through 2007, or almost $21 billion annually. That is about $2 billion more a year than previously calculated. I cannot support a bill where payments are targeted to larger agribusinesses instead of family farmers. Moreover, these new numbers indicate that this bill would force Congress to retreat from other budget priorities, including shoring up Social Security and Medicare. This bill also does not contain important Senate-passed provisions that would have added much needed competition to rural America. It makes little sense that the conferees rejected the Senate-passed ban on packer ownership and my amendment giving farmers a choice of venue to resolve disputes associated with agricultural contracts. The Senate-passed packer ownership ban would have been an important first step to provide a competitive marketplace, and curtail the vertical integration by agribusinesses. My amendment reforming mandatory arbitration clauses would have ensured that the decision to arbitrate is truly voluntary and that the rights and remedies provided for by our judicial system are not waived under coercion. Again, more than 60 Senators supported my amendment, but it was dropped in conference. I do want to join Senator Kohl and my other colleagues to commend the dairy provision included in this farm bill. This provision finally begins to move our dairy policy in the right direction by treating all dairy farmers the same--regardless of where they live. I am proud to have worked with my senior Senator to have defeated efforts to extend and expand the northeast dairy compact and to have established a national safety net that provides equal support to producers regardless of where they live. I am also pleased that this program has a sensible limitation in terms of its payment structure. By capping these payments at the first 2.4 million pounds of production, we will help to ensure that large factory farms out west do not flood the market with milk and depress the price for those in the upper Midwest. So it is with regret that I must oppose this legislation, because I am proud of what Senator Kohl and I were able to secure through the dairy safety net. But Wisconsin taxpayer dollars should not be used to support agribusinesses and others who put our farmers on an un-level playing field in the marketplace.