Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to the gross violations of human and religious rights in Burma. Dr. Salai Tun Than, a University of Wisconsin alumni, who was released over the weekend in Burma, initiated a hunger strike protesting the human and religious rights violations at the prison where he was held. Dr. Tun Than had been serving a 7-year prison sentence in Burma for handing out copies of a petition demanding political reforms. Dr. Tun Than, 75, has severe health problems that required medical treatment, which he was not granted. The conditions that he and other prisoners endured were violations of international human rights laws. Restrictions on communications between prisoners, unsanitary prison conditions and forced ``hooding'' as prisoners were transported outside are examples of the violations. As a Christian, Dr. Tun Than also was protesting violations in religious freedom which included not being allowed a Bible or to receive Communion. During my Senate career I have been an advocate for human rights and religious freedoms for every individual across the globe. I am saddened by the conditions in which Dr. Tun Than and other prisoners in Burma have had to live. It is my hope that the Burmese Government will recognize religious and human rights, not only to their prisoners, but to their general populace as well.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Judge Edward Prado to be a Circuit Court Judge for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Prado has earned my support and that of my colleagues for his distinguished record in public service and for the integrity with which he has gone through the Senate confirmation process. Judge Prado has been a public servant for his entire professional life. From the assistant district attorney position he took just after receiving his law degree, to his experience as a U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, to the 19 years he has served as a district court judge for the Western District of Texas, Judge Prado's commitment to public service is evident. During his tenure as a Federal district court judge, Judge Prado has heard and decided hundreds of cases. This experience helps make him a well-prepared and well-qualified nominee to the Fifth Circuit. He has developed an extensive record of achievement for the Senate to consider and review in our endeavor to evaluate his nomination. Further, Judge Prado should be commended both for his willingness to be honest and forthcoming in the questionnaire he submitted to the committee, and for his comportment at his committee confirmation hearing. Judge Prado directly and fully addressed some of his more controversial rulings in his questionnaire, and provided honest, complete answers to all questions asked of him at his hearing. I do not agree with all of Judge Prado's decisions; in fact, we may hold different views on significant issues. Yet I am convinced that he will apply the law in a capable and responsible manner. Finally, it should be noted that I support the elevation of Judge Prado to the Court of Appeals for the same reasons that make me unable to support the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Circuit. Where Judge Prado has 19 years of experience on the Federal bench, Mr. Estrada has no experience of any kind as a judge. And, more importantly, Judge Prado has voluntarily and directly addressed any controversial issues in his record, while Mr. Estrada has made a habit of concealing such information and refusing to submit documents which would be of substantial assistance to the committee. Mr. Prado is the kind of experienced, well-qualified nominee that the Senate can confirm with speed and ease. I support his nomination.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Priscilla Owen to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and also in opposition to ending debate on consideration of her nomination. I believe that a filibuster of a judicial nominee is an extraordinary measure, a step to be taken only in the most compelling circumstances. The case of Justice Owen is one of those rare situations. In Justice Owen, we are presented with a nominee whose record demonstrates that she is so far outside the mainstream and so clearly prone to substitute her personal preferences for the legally required result as to compel this conclusion. Our debate today is not, of course, the first time the Senate has considered Justice Owen's nomination. She was nominated for a seat on the Fifth Circuit last year, and we held an extensive hearing at the Judiciary Committee on her nomination. After meeting with her, and thoroughly reviewing her record and her testimony, I opposed her nomination. Despite her defeat in the Judiciary Committee last year, the President saw fit to renominate Justice Owen for the Fifth Circuit once again this year. Nothing at her most recent confirmation hearing alters my conclusion that she is fundamentally unfit for a federal appellate judgeship. My opposition to Justice Owen is not because of any doubts regarding her intellectual ability--we all recognize her legal talents. And, unlike Miguel Estrada, my primary concern with respect to Justice Owen does not center on her unwillingness to answer questions at her confirmation hearing. Quite the contrary: Justice Owen's answers to our questions made one thing crystal clear--her consistent record of judicial activism, and her demonstrated willingness to substitute her judgment and policy preferences for those of the legislature. As Justice Owen's record became known last year, we grew increasingly concerned about her willingness to bend the law to suit her own strongly held opinions under the guise of ``interpretation.'' We should not be concerned that her views are conservative on many issues. However, when those beliefs interfere with her ability to apply the law, we are forced to oppose her nomination. Merely reviewing the comments of her fellow Texas Supreme Court justices compels us to the unfortunate conclusion she cannot be trusted to accurately interpret the law. In a variety of cases, her colleagues have criticized her opinions for not being grounded in the law. She is clearly and consistently outside of the mainstream in many cases. In an environmental case, FM Properties, she was criticized for basing her arguments on ``flawed premises'' and ``inflammatory rhetoric.'' In an age discrimination suit, Quantum Chemical, she was criticized by the majority for not following the plain meaning of the statute. In a consumer lawsuit, Texas Department of Transportation, the majority criticized her, writing that ``the statute's plain meaning'' indicated that she was wrong. And, finally, in Doe I, a choice case in which she dissented, then Justice Alberto Gonzales called her dissent ``an unconscionable act of judicial activism.'' There is a pattern to this criticism that should not be ignored. She repeatedly alters the law to fit her views in ways that the legislature did not intend and that the majority of her own court condemns. We all know that the law is subject to interpretation and manipulation. The manner in which a judge interprets law is particularly important when considering a nominee to an appellate court. On the circuit court, subject only to the infrequent supervision of the U.S. Supreme Court, a judge has considerable leeway to make policy if she chooses with little concern of being overruled. Justice Owen's willingness to bend the law to suit her policy preferences are unacceptable, especially for a nominee to an appellate court judgeship. Justice Owen's nearly decade long record as a Texas Supreme Court Justice gives us little confidence that she will faithfully discharge her obligations as a federal appellate judge. To proceed with Justice Owen's nomination would mean taking the risk of placing on a Federal court of appeals for life someone who has repeatedly demonstrated little hesitance to disregard clear statutory language to rewrite the law to suit her personal preferences. This is a risk we cannot take. Anyone who reviews my record on judicial nominations knows that I have not reached my decision to support extended debate here--indeed my decision to oppose Justice Owen's confirmation--lightly. Justice Owen is only one of only seven judicial nominees I have opposed in my entire 14 years in the Senate. But this nominee's extreme record leaves me no choice. I will vote to oppose cloture on her nomination.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Patient Abuse Prevention Act, which will go a long way in protecting patients in long-term care from abuse and neglect. This legislation will establish a National Registry of abusive long-term care workers and require criminal background checks for potential employees. It is necessary so we can ensure that people with violent and abusive backgrounds cannot find work in nursing homes and home health and prey on our elderly relatives. After many years of refinement so that the background checks will run smoothly, and with the strong support of both patient advocates and the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, I sincerely hope that this is the year when we will finally take action and enact these common-sense protections. There is absolutely no excuse for abuse or neglect of the elderly and disabled at the hands of those who are supposed to care for them. Our parents and grandparents made our country what it is today, and they deserve to live with dignity and the highest quality care. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. We know that the majority of caregivers are dedicated, professional, and do their best under difficult circumstances. But it only takes a few abusive staff to cast a dark shadow over what should be a healing environment. Current State and national safeguards are inadequate to screen out abusive workers. All States are required to maintain registries of abusive nurse aides. But nurse aides are not the only workers involved in abuse, and other workers are not tracked at all. Even worse, there is no system to coordinate information about abusive nurse aides between States. A known abuser in Iowa would have little trouble moving to Wisconsin and continuing to work with patients there. In addition, there is no Federal requirement that long-term care facilities conduct criminal background checks on prospective employees. People with violent criminal backgrounds--people who have already been convicted of murder, rape, and assault--could easily get a job in a nursing home or other health care setting without their past ever being discovered. Our legislation will go a long way toward solving this problem. First, it will create a National Registry of abusive long-term care employees. States will be required to submit information from their current State registries to the National Registry. Facilities will be required to check the National Registry before hiring a prospective worker. Any worker with a substantiated finding of patient abuse will be prohibited from working in long-term care. Second, the bill provides a second line of defense to protect patients from violent criminals. If the National Registry does not contain information about a prospective worker, the facility is then required to initiate an FBI background check. Any conviction for patient abuse or a relevant violent crime would bar that applicant from working with patients. A disturbing number of cases have been reported where workers with criminal backgrounds have been cleared to work in direct patient care, and have subsequently abused patients in their care. Unfortunately, these news reports have tragically become commonplace over the years. In 1997, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ran a series of articles describing this problem, including a Green Bay employee who was convicted of sexually assaulting a disabled woman, an Oshkosh employee who physically and emotionally abused nursing home residents, and a Milwaukee employee who charged more than $2,000 on a home health client's credit card. All had prior criminal convictions. A 1999 Bergen Record study of home health workers found that in nearly every county, criminals were working in the homes of the elderly and infirm. Many aides had committed offenses against patients in their care, but they were still listed as certified and eligible for work in State records. Most recently, the Chicago Sun-Times ran an article on November 1, 2002, in which a home care aide beat his disabled client to death with a hammer. That caregiver had previously been convicted of shooting a man in the face. In 1998, at my request, the Senate Special Committee on Aging held a hearing that focused on how easy it is for known abusers to find work in long-term care and continue to prey on patients. At that hearing, the HHS Inspector General presented a report which found that, in the two States they studied, between 5 to 10 percent of employees currently working in nursing homes had serious criminal convictions in their past. They also found that among aides who had abused patients, 15 to 20 percent of them had at least one conviction in their past. In 1998, I offered an amendment which became law that allowed long- term care providers to voluntarily use the FBI system for background checks. So far, 7 percent of those checks have come back with criminal convictions, including rape and kidnapping. And on July 30, 2001, the House Government Reform Committee's Special Investigations Division of the Minority staff issued a report which found that in the past two years, over 30 percent of nursing homes in the U.S. were cited for a physical, sexual, or verbal abuse violation that had the potential to harm residents. Even more striking, the report found that nearly 10 percent of nursing homes had violations that caused actual harm to residents. Let me say again that despite this evidence, I know that the vast majority of caregivers in nursing homes and home health care do an excellent job and have their patients' best interests at heart. But clearly, a national background check system is a critical tool that all long-term care providers should have--after all, they don't want abusive caregivers working for them any more than families do. I am pleased that the nursing home industry has worked with me over the years to refine this legislation, and I greatly appreciate their continued support of the bill. This bill reflects their input and will help ensure a smooth transition to an efficient, accurate background check system. This is a common-sense, cost-effective step we can and should take to protect patients by helping long-term care providers thoroughly screen potential caregivers. I realize that this legislation will not solve all instances of abuse. We still need to do more to stop abuse from occurring in the first place. But this bill will ensure that those who have already abused an elderly or disabled patient, and those who have committed violent crimes against people in the past, are kept away from vulnerable patients. I want to repeat again that I strongly believe that most long-term care providers and their staff work hard to deliver the highest quality care. However, it is imperative that Congress act immediately to get rid of those that don't. This bill is the product of collaboration and input from the health care industry, patient and employee advocates--who all have the same goal I do: protecting patients in long-term care. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues, the Administration, and the health care industry in this effort. Protecting our nation's seniors and disabled deserves our full attention. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Patient Abuse Prevention Act, which will go a long way in protecting patients in long-term care from abuse and neglect. This legislation will establish a National Registry of abusive long-term care workers and require criminal background checks for potential employees. It is necessary so we can ensure that people with violent and abusive backgrounds cannot find work in nursing homes and home health and prey on our elderly relatives. After many years of refinement so that the background checks will run smoothly, and with the strong support of both patient advocates and the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, I sincerely hope that this is the year when we will finally take action and enact these common-sense protections. There is absolutely no excuse for abuse or neglect of the elderly and disabled at the hands of those who are supposed to care for them. Our parents and grandparents made our country what it is today, and they deserve to live with dignity and the highest quality care. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. We know that the majority of caregivers are dedicated, professional, and do their best under difficult circumstances. But it only takes a few abusive staff to cast a dark shadow over what should be a healing environment. Current State and national safeguards are inadequate to screen out abusive workers. All States are required to maintain registries of abusive nurse aides. But nurse aides are not the only workers involved in abuse, and other workers are not tracked at all. Even worse, there is no system to coordinate information about abusive nurse aides between States. A known abuser in Iowa would have little trouble moving to Wisconsin and continuing to work with patients there. In addition, there is no Federal requirement that long-term care facilities conduct criminal background checks on prospective employees. People with violent criminal backgrounds--people who have already been convicted of murder, rape, and assault--could easily get a job in a nursing home or other health care setting without their past ever being discovered. Our legislation will go a long way toward solving this problem. First, it will create a National Registry of abusive long-term care employees. States will be required to submit information from their current State registries to the National Registry. Facilities will be required to check the National Registry before hiring a prospective worker. Any worker with a substantiated finding of patient abuse will be prohibited from working in long-term care. Second, the bill provides a second line of defense to protect patients from violent criminals. If the National Registry does not contain information about a prospective worker, the facility is then required to initiate an FBI background check. Any conviction for patient abuse or a relevant violent crime would bar that applicant from working with patients. A disturbing number of cases have been reported where workers with criminal backgrounds have been cleared to work in direct patient care, and have subsequently abused patients in their care. Unfortunately, these news reports have tragically become commonplace over the years. In 1997, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ran a series of articles describing this problem, including a Green Bay employee who was convicted of sexually assaulting a disabled woman, an Oshkosh employee who physically and emotionally abused nursing home residents, and a Milwaukee employee who charged more than $2,000 on a home health client's credit card. All had prior criminal convictions. A 1999 Bergen Record study of home health workers found that in nearly every county, criminals were working in the homes of the elderly and infirm. Many aides had committed offenses against patients in their care, but they were still listed as certified and eligible for work in State records. Most recently, the Chicago Sun-Times ran an article on November 1, 2002, in which a home care aide beat his disabled client to death with a hammer. That caregiver had previously been convicted of shooting a man in the face. In 1998, at my request, the Senate Special Committee on Aging held a hearing that focused on how easy it is for known abusers to find work in long-term care and continue to prey on patients. At that hearing, the HHS Inspector General presented a report which found that, in the two States they studied, between 5 to 10 percent of employees currently working in nursing homes had serious criminal convictions in their past. They also found that among aides who had abused patients, 15 to 20 percent of them had at least one conviction in their past. In 1998, I offered an amendment which became law that allowed long- term care providers to voluntarily use the FBI system for background checks. So far, 7 percent of those checks have come back with criminal convictions, including rape and kidnapping. And on July 30, 2001, the House Government Reform Committee's Special Investigations Division of the Minority staff issued a report which found that in the past two years, over 30 percent of nursing homes in the U.S. were cited for a physical, sexual, or verbal abuse violation that had the potential to harm residents. Even more striking, the report found that nearly 10 percent of nursing homes had violations that caused actual harm to residents. Let me say again that despite this evidence, I know that the vast majority of caregivers in nursing homes and home health care do an excellent job and have their patients' best interests at heart. But clearly, a national background check system is a critical tool that all long-term care providers should have--after all, they don't want abusive caregivers working for them any more than families do. I am pleased that the nursing home industry has worked with me over the years to refine this legislation, and I greatly appreciate their continued support of the bill. This bill reflects their input and will help ensure a smooth transition to an efficient, accurate background check system. This is a common-sense, cost-effective step we can and should take to protect patients by helping long-term care providers thoroughly screen potential caregivers. I realize that this legislation will not solve all instances of abuse. We still need to do more to stop abuse from occurring in the first place. But this bill will ensure that those who have already abused an elderly or disabled patient, and those who have committed violent crimes against people in the past, are kept away from vulnerable patients. I want to repeat again that I strongly believe that most long-term care providers and their staff work hard to deliver the highest quality care. However, it is imperative that Congress act immediately to get rid of those that don't. This bill is the product of collaboration and input from the health care industry, patient and employee advocates--who all have the same goal I do: protecting patients in long-term care. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues, the Administration, and the health care industry in this effort. Protecting our nation's seniors and disabled deserves our full attention. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Safety Lock Act of 2003, on behalf of myself, Senator Durbin, Senator Schumer, Senator Corzine, and Senator Feinstein. Our measure will save children's lives by reducing the senseless tragedies that result when children get their hands on improperly stored and unlocked handguns. Each year, children and teenagers are involved in more than 10,000 accidental shootings in which close to 800 of them die. In addition, each year more than 1,000 young people killed themselves with a firearm--that is almost three per day. Safety locks can be effective in deterring or preventing many of these incidents. The sad truth is that we are inviting disaster every time an unlocked gun is stored in a place that is still accessible to children. Parents take a number of precautions to ensure their children's safety, from equipping them with bike helmets, to securing them in automobiles, to changing smoke detector batteries. Unfortunately, not all parents are as safety conscious about child proofing their firearms. Guns are kept in 43 percent of American households with children. In 23 percent of these households, the guns are kept loaded. And alarmingly, in one out of every eight of those homes the loaded guns are left unlocked. This is wrong and unacceptable. Such startlingly cold statistics cannot even begin to describe in human terms the daily tragedies that could be prevented by the use of a safety lock. For example, in January a 21-month-old little boy was fatally shot when he tipped over a laundry hamper containing a loaded handgun. The handgun did not have a lock. The boy had no supervision. The result was tragic. A lock would have also saved the life of a four-year-old in Florida who shot himself playing with his grandfather's gun while the rest of his family was sleeping. Last September, a Detroit mother lost her son because he accidentally shot himself with a gun she had borrowed to protect herself. And, of course, no one will ever forget the Santana High School shooting two years ago, when a high school freshman opened fire on his classmates, killing two and injuring 13 others with a handgun and multiple rounds of ammunition he found at home. Our legislation will help prevent tragedies like these. It is simple, effective, and straightforward. It requires that a child safety device--or trigger lock--be sold with every handgun. These devices vary in form, but the most common resemble a padlock that wraps around the gun trigger and immobilizes it. Trigger locks can be purchased in virtually any gun store for less than ten dollars. They are already used by tens of thousands of responsible gun owners to protect their firearms from unauthorized use and have surely saved many lives. Protection is only as good as the safety lock itself, therefore the Child Safety Lock Act of 2003 includes standards for the safety locks. Studies by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and recalls by safety lock manufacturers conclusively demonstrate the child safety locks are often not made well enough. A lock that is easily picked or one that breaks apart with little force defeats the purpose of this bill. We would not use a lock that is less than foolproof to guard our most valuable possessions. We should not use defective locks to protect what is most valuable to us--our children. Support for this simple, common sense proposal is widespread. In 1999, a child safety lock provision passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 78 to 20 as an amendment during the juvenile justice debate. This proposal is as popular with the rest of the country and the law enforcement community as it was with the 106th Senate. Polls show that between 75 and 80 percent of the American public, including gun owners, favor the mandatory sale of child safety locks with guns. When I surveyed almost 500 of Wisconsin's police chiefs and sheriffs last summer, 90 percent of respondents agreed that child safety locks should be sold with each gun. During his campaign, President Bush indicated that if Congress passes a bill making child safety locks mandatory he would sign it into law. Two years ago, Attorney General Ashcroft affirmed the Administration's support of the mandatory sale of child safety locks during his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. President, this legislation is necessary to ensure that safety locks are provided with all handguns so that numerous lives are not lost in easily preventable accidents. We already protect children by requiring that seat belts be installed in all automobiles and that childproof safety caps be provided on medicine bottles. We should be no less vigilant when it comes to gun safety. I hope that the Senate will move to pass the Child Safety Lock Act of 2003 so that further unnecessary death and injury can be avoided. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Safety Lock Act of 2003, on behalf of myself, Senator Durbin, Senator Schumer, Senator Corzine, and Senator Feinstein. Our measure will save children's lives by reducing the senseless tragedies that result when children get their hands on improperly stored and unlocked handguns. Each year, children and teenagers are involved in more than 10,000 accidental shootings in which close to 800 of them die. In addition, each year more than 1,000 young people killed themselves with a firearm--that is almost three per day. Safety locks can be effective in deterring or preventing many of these incidents. The sad truth is that we are inviting disaster every time an unlocked gun is stored in a place that is still accessible to children. Parents take a number of precautions to ensure their children's safety, from equipping them with bike helmets, to securing them in automobiles, to changing smoke detector batteries. Unfortunately, not all parents are as safety conscious about child proofing their firearms. Guns are kept in 43 percent of American households with children. In 23 percent of these households, the guns are kept loaded. And alarmingly, in one out of every eight of those homes the loaded guns are left unlocked. This is wrong and unacceptable. Such startlingly cold statistics cannot even begin to describe in human terms the daily tragedies that could be prevented by the use of a safety lock. For example, in January a 21-month-old little boy was fatally shot when he tipped over a laundry hamper containing a loaded handgun. The handgun did not have a lock. The boy had no supervision. The result was tragic. A lock would have also saved the life of a four-year-old in Florida who shot himself playing with his grandfather's gun while the rest of his family was sleeping. Last September, a Detroit mother lost her son because he accidentally shot himself with a gun she had borrowed to protect herself. And, of course, no one will ever forget the Santana High School shooting two years ago, when a high school freshman opened fire on his classmates, killing two and injuring 13 others with a handgun and multiple rounds of ammunition he found at home. Our legislation will help prevent tragedies like these. It is simple, effective, and straightforward. It requires that a child safety device--or trigger lock--be sold with every handgun. These devices vary in form, but the most common resemble a padlock that wraps around the gun trigger and immobilizes it. Trigger locks can be purchased in virtually any gun store for less than ten dollars. They are already used by tens of thousands of responsible gun owners to protect their firearms from unauthorized use and have surely saved many lives. Protection is only as good as the safety lock itself, therefore the Child Safety Lock Act of 2003 includes standards for the safety locks. Studies by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and recalls by safety lock manufacturers conclusively demonstrate the child safety locks are often not made well enough. A lock that is easily picked or one that breaks apart with little force defeats the purpose of this bill. We would not use a lock that is less than foolproof to guard our most valuable possessions. We should not use defective locks to protect what is most valuable to us--our children. Support for this simple, common sense proposal is widespread. In 1999, a child safety lock provision passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 78 to 20 as an amendment during the juvenile justice debate. This proposal is as popular with the rest of the country and the law enforcement community as it was with the 106th Senate. Polls show that between 75 and 80 percent of the American public, including gun owners, favor the mandatory sale of child safety locks with guns. When I surveyed almost 500 of Wisconsin's police chiefs and sheriffs last summer, 90 percent of respondents agreed that child safety locks should be sold with each gun. During his campaign, President Bush indicated that if Congress passes a bill making child safety locks mandatory he would sign it into law. Two years ago, Attorney General Ashcroft affirmed the Administration's support of the mandatory sale of child safety locks during his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. President, this legislation is necessary to ensure that safety locks are provided with all handguns so that numerous lives are not lost in easily preventable accidents. We already protect children by requiring that seat belts be installed in all automobiles and that childproof safety caps be provided on medicine bottles. We should be no less vigilant when it comes to gun safety. I hope that the Senate will move to pass the Child Safety Lock Act of 2003 so that further unnecessary death and injury can be avoided. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2003, a measure to address the abuse of secrecy orders issued by federal courts. All too often, courts sign off on secret settlements that shield important public health and safety information from the public view from mothers and fathers and children whose lives are potentially at stake, and from public officials we have asked to protect our health and safety. The problem is a simple one and has been recurring for decades. An individual brings a cause of action against a manufacturer for an injury or fatality resulting from a product defect. The plaintiff, often reticent to continue the litigation process because of grief or lack of resources, settles the lawsuit quickly. In exchange, the defendant insists that the plaintiff agree to the inclusion of a confidentiality clause. This mechanism prevents either party from disclosing information revealed during the process of litigation. Both of the parties to the lawsuit believe that they have ``won'': the plaintiff won a satisfactory financial settlement, and the defendant won the right to conceal ``smoking gun'' documents. But not everybody wins. Future victims of injuries or fatalities resulting from the same product defect lose, because they or their families must ``re-invent the wheel'' as they litigate virtually the same case. Even worse, the American public loses with this outcome, because they remain unaware of the critical public health and safety information which could prevent harm and save lives. Currently, judges have broad discretion in granting protective orders when ``good cause'' is shown. But these protective orders are being misused. Tobacco companies, automobile manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies have settled with victims and used the legal system to hide information which, if it became public, could protect the American public but endanger their business or reputation. We can all agree that the only appropriate use for such orders is to protect trade secrets and other truly confidential company information and our legislation makes sure it is protected. But protective orders are certainly not supposed to be used to hide public safety information from the public, especially when such information is neither trade secret nor proprietary. There are no records kept of the number of confidentiality orders accepted by state or federal courts. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that court secrecy and confidential settlements are prevalent. Let me share some examples that illustrate the dangerous and often deadly consequences that result from protective orders: Although an internal memo suggests that General Motors, ``GM'', was aware of the risk of fire deaths from crashes of pickup trucks with ``side saddle'' fuel tanks, an estimated 750 people were killed in fires involving these fuel tanks. When victims sued, GM disclosed documents only under protective orders and settled these cases only on the condition that these documents remained secret. This type of fuel tank was installed for 15 years before being discontinued. Sixteen month-old Michael Bancroft was buckled into a Kolcraft booster-style safety seat in his mother's car when the car was involved in an accident. Due to a defect in product design, however, the seat did not protect him from a broken neck and paralysis. Kolcraft and the Bancrofts settled for $4.25 million and signed a confidentiality agreement that concealed the product's defect. Because this information remained a secret, countless parents continued to feel a false sense of safety when securing their children in Kolcraft safety seats. From 1992-2000, tread separation of certain Bridgestone and Firestone tires caused a great number of car accidents, many involving serious injuries or fatalities. Bridgestone/Firestone quietly settled dozens of lawsuits resulting from faulty tire crashes, most of which included secrecy agreements. It was only in 1999, when a Houston public television broke the story, that the company admitted the defect and recalled 6.5 million tires. Some States have been proactive in dealing with this problem. Florida, for example, has in place a Sunshine in Litigation law that severely limits the ability of parties to conceal information that effects public health and safety. Michigan has a rule that requires that secret settlements be unsealed two years after they are approved. And just last year, the judges of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina unanimously agreed not to accept any secret settlements at all. While these steps indicate movement in the right direction, we still have a long way to go. It is time to initiate a federal solution for this problem. The Sunshine in Litigation Act is a modest proposal that would require Federal judges to perform a simple balancing test to ensure that the defendant's interest in secrecy truly outweighs the public interest in information related to public health and safety. Specifically, prior to making any portion of a case confidential or sealed, a judge would have to determine by making a particularized finding of fact--that doing so would not restrict the disclosure of information relevant to public health and safety. Moreover, all courts, both Federal and State, would be prohibited from issuing protective orders that prevent disclosure to relevant regulatory agencies. And don't just take it from me. During his confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee in January 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft voiced his support for this legislation, saying, ``I think unnecessarily hiding or otherwise concealing from the public those [public health and safety hazards] would be against the interests of the people . . . I think there's great danger in not providing public information.'' This legislation does not prohibit secrecy agreements across the board. It does not place an undue burden on judges or our courts. It simply states that where the public interest in disclosure outweighs legitimate interests in secrecy, courts should not shield important health and safety information from the public and from regulators. This is an entirely reasonable balancing test. It is time to eliminate the dark dangers of court secrecy and bring matters of public health and safety into the light, where they belong.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2003, a measure to address the abuse of secrecy orders issued by federal courts. All too often, courts sign off on secret settlements that shield important public health and safety information from the public view from mothers and fathers and children whose lives are potentially at stake, and from public officials we have asked to protect our health and safety. The problem is a simple one and has been recurring for decades. An individual brings a cause of action against a manufacturer for an injury or fatality resulting from a product defect. The plaintiff, often reticent to continue the litigation process because of grief or lack of resources, settles the lawsuit quickly. In exchange, the defendant insists that the plaintiff agree to the inclusion of a confidentiality clause. This mechanism prevents either party from disclosing information revealed during the process of litigation. Both of the parties to the lawsuit believe that they have ``won'': the plaintiff won a satisfactory financial settlement, and the defendant won the right to conceal ``smoking gun'' documents. But not everybody wins. Future victims of injuries or fatalities resulting from the same product defect lose, because they or their families must ``re-invent the wheel'' as they litigate virtually the same case. Even worse, the American public loses with this outcome, because they remain unaware of the critical public health and safety information which could prevent harm and save lives. Currently, judges have broad discretion in granting protective orders when ``good cause'' is shown. But these protective orders are being misused. Tobacco companies, automobile manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies have settled with victims and used the legal system to hide information which, if it became public, could protect the American public but endanger their business or reputation. We can all agree that the only appropriate use for such orders is to protect trade secrets and other truly confidential company information and our legislation makes sure it is protected. But protective orders are certainly not supposed to be used to hide public safety information from the public, especially when such information is neither trade secret nor proprietary. There are no records kept of the number of confidentiality orders accepted by state or federal courts. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that court secrecy and confidential settlements are prevalent. Let me share some examples that illustrate the dangerous and often deadly consequences that result from protective orders: Although an internal memo suggests that General Motors, ``GM'', was aware of the risk of fire deaths from crashes of pickup trucks with ``side saddle'' fuel tanks, an estimated 750 people were killed in fires involving these fuel tanks. When victims sued, GM disclosed documents only under protective orders and settled these cases only on the condition that these documents remained secret. This type of fuel tank was installed for 15 years before being discontinued. Sixteen month-old Michael Bancroft was buckled into a Kolcraft booster-style safety seat in his mother's car when the car was involved in an accident. Due to a defect in product design, however, the seat did not protect him from a broken neck and paralysis. Kolcraft and the Bancrofts settled for $4.25 million and signed a confidentiality agreement that concealed the product's defect. Because this information remained a secret, countless parents continued to feel a false sense of safety when securing their children in Kolcraft safety seats. From 1992-2000, tread separation of certain Bridgestone and Firestone tires caused a great number of car accidents, many involving serious injuries or fatalities. Bridgestone/Firestone quietly settled dozens of lawsuits resulting from faulty tire crashes, most of which included secrecy agreements. It was only in 1999, when a Houston public television broke the story, that the company admitted the defect and recalled 6.5 million tires. Some States have been proactive in dealing with this problem. Florida, for example, has in place a Sunshine in Litigation law that severely limits the ability of parties to conceal information that effects public health and safety. Michigan has a rule that requires that secret settlements be unsealed two years after they are approved. And just last year, the judges of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina unanimously agreed not to accept any secret settlements at all. While these steps indicate movement in the right direction, we still have a long way to go. It is time to initiate a federal solution for this problem. The Sunshine in Litigation Act is a modest proposal that would require Federal judges to perform a simple balancing test to ensure that the defendant's interest in secrecy truly outweighs the public interest in information related to public health and safety. Specifically, prior to making any portion of a case confidential or sealed, a judge would have to determine by making a particularized finding of fact--that doing so would not restrict the disclosure of information relevant to public health and safety. Moreover, all courts, both Federal and State, would be prohibited from issuing protective orders that prevent disclosure to relevant regulatory agencies. And don't just take it from me. During his confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee in January 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft voiced his support for this legislation, saying, ``I think unnecessarily hiding or otherwise concealing from the public those [public health and safety hazards] would be against the interests of the people . . . I think there's great danger in not providing public information.'' This legislation does not prohibit secrecy agreements across the board. It does not place an undue burden on judges or our courts. It simply states that where the public interest in disclosure outweighs legitimate interests in secrecy, courts should not shield important health and safety information from the public and from regulators. This is an entirely reasonable balancing test. It is time to eliminate the dark dangers of court secrecy and bring matters of public health and safety into the light, where they belong.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Roberts in offering this amendment. I offer an amendment to provide $600 million for our international food aid programs. The amendment is cosponsored by Senators Byrd, Daschle, Leahy, Harkin, Biden, Murray, Nelson of Florida, Dorgan, Lincoln, Durbin, DeWine, Baucus, Roberts, and Dayton. Our amendment is necessary because of the intense pressure the food needs in Iraq have placed on our world food programs. Already, the Department of Defense has used $269 million from our largest international food aid program--PL-480--to feed the Iraqi people. That is $269 million from the $1.4 billion that was appropriated last year for other world hunger needs in places like Sub-Saharan Africa and Afghanistan. As the war progresses and the reconstruction begins, the draw on our existing food aid accounts will continue. Specifically, our amendment replenishes the $269 million already taken from PL-480 for Iraq. It also adds $100 million to an emergency grain reserve--the Emerson Trust--which has recently released approximately 800,000 tons of wheat to Iraq. A final $231 million is made available for future Iraqi draws on PL-480 as that country waits for the resumption of the UN ``Oil for Food'' Program. This amendment is responsible budgeting. We are asking only for the minimum dollars we need to meet an unanticipated food crisis in Iraq--a crisis that is the direct result of the war. Our actions will allow us to meet this crisis efficiently without crippling our other food aid efforts. I do not for a moment dispute the Administration's decision to tap into PL-480 funds to meet immediate needs in Iraq. I do dispute the position that we should not replenish those funds--thus effectively defaulting on our obligations to starving people in other countries. There is no doubt that the war has disrupted food delivery to innocent Iraqis. And everyone agrees that, as we move to liberate the Iraqi people, we have an absolute obligation to deliver humanitarian relief. Before the war, a full 60 percent of the Iraqi population was fed through the UN-run ``Oil for Food Program''--a program that turned Iraqi oil revenues into food supplies. It provided over $3 billion worth of food a year distributed at more than 40,000 food distribution sites throughout the country. On March 17, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan suspended the Oil for Food Program. Now, over 2 weeks later, the citizens of Iraq are nearing the end of their food stocks. We are not just guessing that a food crisis is imminent in Iraq. The UN has stated unequivocally that there is a continuing and immediate need to feed the Iraqi people as they attempt to reestablish the Oil for Food Program. Last Friday, the United Nations petitioned the world community for $1.3 billion to meet that need. Just Saturday, the World Food Program announced that the operation in Iraq could ``evolve into the largest humanitarian operation in history.'' The supplemental before us earmarks no funds for that effort. The administration has decided--I believe correctly--to use our existing food aid programs to deliver this aid to Iraq. Our amendment simply asks that we replace the funds we are removing now--and will continue to remove--from that program--funds that were budgeted for starving people in Africa, Afghanistan, Indonesia, and North Korea. Our amendment is endorsed by a coalition of international relief agencies called the ``Coalition for Food Aid.'' Their members include the American Red Cross, CARE, Catholic Relief Services, and Save the Children. The amendment is also supported by the American Farm Bureau, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the U.S. Rice Producers Association, the USA Rice Federation, and the Wheat Export Trade Education Committee. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these letters of endorsement.

Mr. KOHL. In the last month, we have heard many voices expressing many views of what it means to be American and at war. Among those disparate voices, there are strong, common themes: our pride in our brave troops; our burning hatred for tyranny and injustice; our undying compassion for the poor and hungry of the world. Our amendment speaks to the last of these. It states simply that, even in times of war, America will remain a compassionate leader in the world community and a passionate combatant of hunger and hopelessness throughout the world. To reiterate, I offer this amendment because through the Department of Defense and other agencies, $269 million from our largest international food program, Public Law 480, and the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, have already been obligated to meet the urgent necessity to feed the Iraqi people. That $269 million is derived from funds appropriated or made available last year for other world hunger needs in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Korea, and North Korea. We need to replenish that money which has been used to feed the people in Iraq. I also thought we needed to provide more than an additional $200 million for the requirements that I anticipate we will be very shortly facing in Iraq with respect to feeding their people. The Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust is an emergency grain reserve which recently released approximately 800,000 tons of wheat for assistance to Iraq at a cost of $100 million. The replenishment of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, restoration of Public Law 480 funds that have been diverted from areas such as Sub-Saharan Africa, and providing resources for anticipated needs in Iraq total the $600 million I have included in this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. KOHL. I think that this is an excellent suggestion, and I would support the use of a portion of these funds to purchase surplus U.S. commodities that are appropriate to meet the dietary needs of the affected populations and that are currently authorized for inclusion under these programs.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Timothy Tymkovich to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Having reviewed his record and his testimony at his confirmation hearing, I am left with only one conclusion--he does not warrant confirmation to an appellate judgeship. It is not merely the extreme, highly ideological positions he has taken on a variety of important legal questions that compels me to oppose his confirmation. But his record is replete with these positions on issues from environmental protection to a woman's right to choose. He has consistently advocated an extreme reading of ``States rights'' that would eviscerate the ability of the Federal Government to protect Americans from a variety of dangers. He believes that Federal clean air and water regulations, Federal funding for abortions for victims of rape and incest, and even ``motor voter'' provisions designed to make it easier for citizens to exercise their fundamental right to vote all unconstitutionally interfere with State sovereignty and autonomy. But what most disturbs me concerning Mr. Tymkovich--and, in my view, plainly disqualifies him for a Federal appellate judgeship--is the animus he has shown towards one group of Americans. He has argued that it is appropriate for the State to forbid localities from passing laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And his advocacy of this position was not limited to representing his client, the State of Colorado, in the courts. After the Supreme Court rejected these arguments, and held such laws were contrary to basic principles of equal protection, he published a law review article defending his position. In this article, he stated that it was permissible for the State to deny protection from discrimination to gays just as it would be permissible for the State to forbid certain immoral activity such as ``sadomasochism, cockfighting, bestiality, suicide, drug use, prostitution and sodomy.'' Such ugly arguments reflect an intolerance and hostility to equal rights that have no place in our Federal courts. Anyone who reviews my record on judicial nominations knows that I do not lightly oppose Federal judicial nominees. But this nominee's extreme positions and opposition to equal rights for all Americans-- regardless of their sexual orientation--leave me no choice.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Breaux amendment to S. Con. Res. 23, the budget resolution. This amendment directs the Finance Committee to limit the amount of tax cuts that could be passed through the fast track reconciliation procedure to $350 billion over 11 years. The budget before us includes over twice that much in its so-called must pass economic stimulus package. It is astounding to me that, on the eve of war, we are seriously contemplating $725 billion in tax cuts in the same budget that does not include a dime for the war or its associated costs. Our budget is a statement of priorities. Do we really mean to say that giving a tax break primarily to upper income taxpayers is 725 billion times more important than adequately fighting the war, rebuilding Iraq, and protecting our communities for relatiatory terrorist attacks? Of course not. No one thinks that. But I do believe that some are using the diversion of war to rush through a tax cut that is fiscally irresponsible. No one wants to return to the days of deficit as far as the eye can see and debt capable of dragging our country down for decades. but that is what we'll get when we add a $725 billion tax cut to the necessary and massive costs of the war. The Breaux amendment brings the fast-tract tax cut down to $350 billion. I would prefer it to go much lower than that. In fact, I would prefer delaying all tax cuts and spending increases until we can put together an honest budget that looks at what we can afford to do in light of what we must do. But if the choice is between $725 billion for an ill-timed, ill-conceived idea and $350 billion for an ill-timed, ill-conceived idea, I will pick the latter and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to state my strong support for the Child Support Distribution Act of 2003, which Senator Snowe and I introduced yesterday. I want to thank Senator Snowe for continuing to work with me over the years on this important issue. This bill takes significant steps toward ensuring that children receive the child support money they are owed and deserve. In fiscal year 2001, the public child support system collected child support payments for only 44 percent of its total caseload, up from 19 percent in 1995. Obviously, we still need to improve, but States are making real progress. It is time for Congress to take the next step and help States overcome a major obstacle to collecting child support for families. There are many reasons why noncustodial parents may not be paying support for their children. Some are not able to pay because they don't have jobs or have fallen on hard times. Others may not pay because they are unfairly prevented from spending time with their children. But other fathers don't pay because the public system actually discourages them from paying. Under current law, $2.2 billion in child support is retained every year by the State and Federal Governments as repayment for welfare benefits--rather than delivered to the children to whom it is owed. Fifty-six percent of that amount is for families who have left welfare. Since the money doesn't benefit their kids, fathers are discouraged from paying support. And mothers have no incentive to push for payment since the support doesn't go to them. The current rules withhold a key source of income for low-income families that could help them maintain self-sufficiency. For low-income working families receiving child support, that support is the second- largest source of income for those families, after wages, according to the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan organization that studies social and governance issues. Families who receive child support can often avoid going on welfare. When low-income working families get child support, but not welfare, child support makes up 35 percent of their income. It is time for Congress to change this system and encourage States to distribute more child support to families. My home State of Wisconsin has already been doing this for several years and is seeing great results. In 1997, I worked with my State to institute an innovative program of passing through child support payments directly to families. An evaluation of the Wisconsin program clearly shows that when child support payments are delivered to families, noncustodial parents are more apt to pay, and to pay more. In addition, Wisconsin has found that, overall, this policy does not increase government costs. That makes sense because ``passing through'' support payments to families means they have more of their own resources, and are less apt to depend on public help to meet other needs such as food, transportation or child care. We now have a key opportunity to encourage all States to follow Wisconsin's example. This legislation gives States options and strong incentives to send more child support directly to families who are working their way off--or are already off--public assistance. Not only will this create the right incentives for noncustodial parents to pay, but it will also simplify the job for States, who currently face an administrative nightmare in following the complicated rules of the current system. We know that creating the right incentives for noncustodial parents to pay support and increasing collections has long-term benefits. People who can count on child support are more likely to stay in jobs and stay off public assistance. This legislation finally brings the Child Support Enforcement program into the post-welfare reform era, shifting its focus from recovering welfare costs to increasing child support to families so they can sustain work and maintain self-sufficiency. After all, it is only fair that if we are asking parents to move off welfare, stay off welfare, and take financial responsibility for their families, then we in Congress must make sure that child support payments actually go to the families to whom they are owed and who are working so hard to succeed. I am pleased that there has been widespread bipartisan support for this legislation. In 2000, a House version of this bill passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 405 to 18. Our legislation was also included in last year's TANF reauthorization bill that passed out of the Senate Finance Committee with bipartisan support. In addition, I am pleased that the administration and the House of Representatives both included child support provisions in their TANF reauthorization legislation. However, while those provisions are an important first step in the process, I am concerned that both the House bill and the administration's proposal fall short in reforming child support. Their approach would not benefit all States equally, has more limited benefits for families who are currently on TANF, and imposes fees on some low-income families. I hope as the TANF reauthorization process continues, we can all work together to address these concerns and ensure that all children receive the support they are owed and deserve. We must keep this bipartisan momentum going in this Congress. It is time that we finally make child support meaningful for families, and make sure that children get they support they need and deserve.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues and all of America in expressing pride in and gratitude to our men and women in uniform. With one voice this Congress honors our troops, and with one mind we pray for their safe return. Last night, as we all watched from the safety of our living rooms, our military went to war. Our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen have left their home country and their home fires to face unknown danger and even death. We cannot be proud enough of these courageous men and women who fight for freedom in Iraq. We cannot be grateful enough to these Americans who are willing to risk their lives for our security. We have so many people to thank today: our Active Duty forces who have made it their life work to protect and defend us; our citizen soldiers, the Reserves, and the National Guard who have left jobs in offices and on factory floors, kissed children and spouses goodbye, and donned the uniform of our armed services; our troops' families who daily endure the hardships of military life and today worry and wait for their loved ones to come home. In my State of Wisconsin we have had over 2,200 men and women called up for service in the National Guard and an additional 1,357 mobilized from the Reserves, more people than at any time since the Berlin crisis. I make special mention of them because they trained in relative anonymity during times of peace. It is only in times of conflict that communities discover how many of their friends and neighbors serve their country quietly, year in and year out. In times of crises they are notable at their absence at scout meetings, church pews, and parent-teacher conferences. Last Monday I was fortunate enough to observe the 1158 transportation company at Beloit, WI, as they bravely headed off, leaving behind spouses, children, families, and friends. These soldiers had little time to put their affairs in order before being ordered into harm's way. But there were no complaints and no grumbling. The families I met were concerned about the future, were ready to deal with the personal and financial difficulties. I was struck to see young children bravely saying goodbye to their parents, without knowing what the future might bring. These youngsters did not ask for this war and did not understand it, but they, too, are making sacrifices for our security. Our soldiers are ready and willing to do their duty. They understand better than anyone else that freedom is not free. They are ready to pay that price today and every day. Our soldiers represent the best of the American people and American ideals. While many of us will talk about patriotism and service today, no words can do justice to the burden they have chosen to bear. So our hearts, our prayers, and our deepest gratitude go out to them today.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota. Though cloaked in the arcane language of a Budget Act point of order, the goal of the amendment is clear and important. The amendment says that this Congress should not pass new spending or new tax cuts until we have adequately budgeted for the war. The Conrad amendment contains exceptions for spending on national security, homeland security, or stimulative tax cuts with no budgetary effect after 2005. But beyond those essential measures, Congress could not pass any of our new policy initiatives--not Democratic or Republican initiatives--not new entitlement programs or new tax cuts-- until we are sure we have the resources to fund the war we will almost certainly begin this week. It is amazing that we even have to have this debate. It will be even more unbelievable if this amendment fails. The budget is our spending blueprint for the next fiscal year. It lays out our spending and tax priorities. Yet nowhere in the budget are there funds allocated for military action in Iraq, for recovery after the war, for the foreign aid promised to our allies, for increased protection domestically from retaliatory terrorist attacks. Not a dime. Is that because the supporters of this budget don't want to pay for the costs of fighting the war in Iraq? Of course not. I am confident that every member of Congress fully supports our troops as they deploy overseas. The President will send us a bill for the war and the resulting increases in homeland security, and Congress will pay it-- promptly and fully. So why is it not in the budget? One simple reason. The authors of this budget want an enormous tax cut: $1.4 billion in tax cuts--most of which will benefit upper income tax payers--over the next 10 years. Half of those cuts are even given our special, fast track treatment through the reconciliation process. The authors also want to show a balanced budget within the next decade. And they do that by cutting domestic spending, including defense. The largest cuts come in the last 5 years of the budget. But if we figure in the costs of the war, the after-war Iraq restoration, and increased homeland security, there's no way our budget will balance in 10, or even 20, years. There is no way we can afford the war we are all already committed to fund and an enormous tax cut. No way. It is irresponsible to commit to unnecessary, enormous tax giveaways at a time our scarce resources might be needed to fight a war. In the name of responsible budgeting--in the name of sane budgeting--shouldn't we at least delay the tax cuts until we have a better idea of what the war will cost? The American people are willing to sacrifice for war--especially those who are leaving their families and homes to fight in a foreign land. Shouldn't we be willing to sacrifice as well? Shouldn't we give up these ridiculous budget games and do our jobs. In my mind, that means making sure our troops have adequate funds to successfully win the war in Iraq, that our country is safe from terrorist attacks, and that our debt doesn't grow so large that it strangles growth and opportunity for future generations. The Conrad amendment will help us write a budget that is responsible--to our troops overseas, to our families at home, and to the future generations who count on us to leave their country better off than we inherited it. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator DeWine, Senator Feinstein, Senator Schumer, Senator Reed, Senator Mikulski, Senator Corzine, and Senator Levin to reintroduce the ``Technological Resource to Assist Criminal Enforcement'' ``TRACE'' Act, a bill to require ballistics testing of all firearms manufactured or imported in the United States. The science of ballistics testing has given police the ability to solve multiple crimes simply by comparing bullets and shell casings found at the scene of a crime to a gun seized in a seemingly unrelated incident. This comparison is possible because every gun has a unique ``fingerprint'' it leaves on spent shell casings and bullets after it is fired. Just as human fingerprints can be grouped into general classifications such as loops and whorls, but still possess individual characteristics and then analyzed for its unique characteristics, firearms evidence can be similarly grouped and then analyzed by trained technicians for unique identifying characteristics. Let me explain more specifically how this technology works. Today, ballistics technology equipment allows firearms technicians to acquire digital images of the images of the markings made by a firearm on bullets and cartridge casings; the images then undergo an automated initial comparison. If a high confidence match emerges, experts compare the original evidence to confirm a match. Once a match is found, law enforcement can begin tracing that weapon from its original sale to the person who used it to commit the crime. Microscopic comparison of bullets and shell casings has been in practice for many years, even before formal databases were established. However, in the past 15 years, through the use of computer databases, ballistics technology described above has developed into a systematic tool for law enforcement to solve gun crimes. Since the early 1990's, more than 250 crime labs and law enforcement agencies in more than 40 States have been operating independent ballistics systems maintained by either the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ``ATFE'', or the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Together, ATFE's Integrated Ballistics Identification System, ``IBIS'', and the FBI's DRUGFIRE system have been responsible for linking 5,700 guns to two or more crimes where corroborating evidence was otherwise lacking. These links have helped law enforcement and prosecutors bring thousands of dangerous criminals to justice. Never before have the tremendous law enforcement benefits of ballistics testing been so apparent. I would like to take the opportunity to describe a few instances where ballistics technology helped solve otherwise unsolvable crimes. Last fall, law enforcement officials used ballistics testing to match the bullets and shell casings found at the scenes of the sniper shootings in the Nation's Capital region, and later to other deadly shootings across the country. The bullets and casings were also linked to the gun that the accused assailants had in their possession when they were arrested. This ballistics information has provided vital evidence to prosecutors and will help keep the snipers behind bars. In another example, the only evidence at the scene of a brutal homicide in Milwaukee was 9 millimeter cartridge casings--there were no other clues. But 4 months later, when a teenage male was arrested on an unrelated charge, he was found to be in possession of the firearm that had discharged those casings. Ballistics linked the two cases. Prosecutors successfully prosecuted three adult suspects for the homicide and convicted the teen in juvenile court. On September 9, 2000, several suspects were arrested in Boston for the illegal possession of three handguns. Each of the guns was test fired, and the ballistics information was compared to evidence found at other crime scenes. The police quickly found that the three guns were used in the commission of 15 felonies in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. This routine arrest for illegal possession of firearms provided police with new leads in the investigation of 15 unsolved crimes. Without the ballistics testing, these crimes would not have been linked and might have never been solved. As you can see, ballistics technology helps law enforcement exponentially in their efforts to solve gun crimes. But while success stories are increasingly frequent, the full potential of ballistics testing is still untapped. One way that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is making ballistics testing more accessible to state and local law enforcement is through the installation of a new network of ballistics imaging machines. The final introduction of the machines across the country is almost complete and, once it is, the computers will be able to access each other and search for a greater number of images. The National Integrated Ballistics Information Network, better know as ``NIBIN,'' will be a regional network of databases that will permit law enforcement in one locality access to information stored in other gun crime databases around the entire country. According to the ATFE, ``the NIBIN program is a key element to ATFE's efforts [to remove violent offenders from America's streets].'' But ballistics testing is only as useful as the number of images in the database. Today, almost all jurisdictions are limited to images of bullets and cartridge casings that come from guns used in crimes. The TRACE Act would dramatically expand the scope of that database by mandating that all guns manufactured or imported be test fired before being placed into the stream of commerce. The images collected from the test firing would then be collected and accessible to law enforcement-- and law enforcement only--for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting gun crimes. Recently, studies done about ballistics testing and ballistics databases have been in the news. Concern has been expressed by some about the size and practicality of a large database. However, it is important to point out that this bill would merely expand upon the existing network of 16 multi-state regional databases, rather than create a single large national database. In addition, accusations that systems would be log-jammed with too many entries has been refuted by ATFE ballistics experts. Since its inception, the speed and efficiency of ballistics databases has substantially increased. For example, from 1994 to 1999 the IBIS correlation speed for cartridge casings dropped from 35 seconds to 1.7 seconds, and correlation speed for bullets dropped from 4 seconds to 0.3 seconds. The conversion to NIBIN is expected to yield an even faster return of correlation results, regardless of an increase in entries. Of course no investigative tool is perfect or effective in every single situation, not even fingerprints. However, ATFE maintains that the availability of an open-case file of many thousands of exhibits, searchable within minutes, provides invaluable information to law enforcement authorities. TRACE would enhance the current ballistics databases by giving federal, state, and local law enforcement access to even more evidence that will help them solve more gun crimes and make our communities safer. Today, police can find out more about a human being than they can about a gun used in a crime. Law enforcement can use DNA testing, take fingerprints and blood samples, search a person's health records, peruse bank records and credit card statements, obtain phone records and get a list of book purchases to link a suspect to a crime. Yet, the bullets found at the scene of a crime often cannot be traced back to the gun used because our ballistics images database is not comprehensive. Many of those on the front lines of the fight against crime are in favor of ballistics testing. In fact, in my home state of Wisconsin, over 75 percent of police chiefs surveyed are supportive of the use of ballistics technology. The burden on manufacturers is minimal--we authorize funds to underwrite the cost of testing--and the assistance to law enforcement is considerable. And don't take our word for it, ask the gun manufacturers and the police. Listen to what Paul Januzzo, the vice- president of the gun manufacturer Glock, said in reference to ballistics testing, ``Our mantra has been that the issue is crime control, not gun control . . . it would be two-faced of us not to want this.'' In their agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Smith & Wesson agreed to perform ballistics testing on all new handguns. And Ben Wilson, the chief of the firearms section at ATFE, emphasized the importance of ballistics testing as a investigative device, ``This [ballistics] allows you literally to find a needle in a haystack.'' To be sure, we are sensitive to the notion that law abiding hunters and sportsmen need to be protected from any misuse of the ballistics database by government. The TRACE Act explicitly prohibits ballistics information from being used for any purpose unless it is necessary for the investigation of a gun crime. The TRACE Act will enhance a revolutionary new technology that helps solve crime. The technology is becoming more and more advanced to accommodate high volume-usage, and it is expected to continue to get better and better. Ballistics testing will help solve more gun crimes, prosecute more criminals, and ensure that more communities are protected from violence. TRACE is a worthwhile piece of crime control legislation and I hope that the Senate will move quickly to pass it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to explain again my reasons for supporting a filibuster on the nomination of Miguel Estrada. At the outset, let me state that my opposition to bring his nomination to a vote is not a decision I have reached causally or without serious reflection. Our power to extend debate on a nomination should only be undertaken in extraordinary circumstances, when we have no other choice. We have reached that unfortunate state of affairs today. In the case of Mr. Estrada, we are presented with a nominee for a lifetime appointment to our Nation's second most powerful court. This nominee has refused to answer our questions regarding his views and judicial philosophy, and indeed has obstructed our efforts to evaluate his fitness to serve on the D.C. Circuit. His repeated evasions subvert our solemn constitutional duty to advise and consent to judicial nominations. We should not permit a vote on a judicial nominee who has so fundamentally attempted to obstruct our confirmation process in this way. I am aware of the criticism that our action is unprecedented. This is simply not true. While such a step is not--and should not--be done routinely, filibusters of judicial nominations have been undertaken under the leadership of both parties several times in recent years. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Senate has attempted to invoke cloture in response to extended debate on judicial nominees 13 times since 1968. Indeed, cloture was sought after extended debate in response to Republican-led opposition to no fewer than four of President Clinton's judicial nominees. These statistics do not take into account the silent filibuster known as a ``hold''--often anonymous--which permits one objector to block consideration of a judicial nominee. President Clinton's nominees were routinely defeated by anonymous holds. And those holds only defeated the nominees who were lucky enough to even get a hearing and a committee vote. It seems that the same forces complaining about the ``unfairness'' of extended debate on the Estrada nomination were enthusiastic in blocking President Clinton's nominees without any debate just a few short years ago. I also am distressed at the false and misleading charges and accusations that Mr. Estrada's supporters have leveled during this debate. The most outrageous is the cynical charge that our opposition to Mr. Estrada is somehow motivated by the fact that he is Hispanic. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our opposition to him is solely based on his consistent obstruction of our review of his nomination and his unwillingness to provide us with the information needed to evaluate his fitness. No observer can doubt that we support and indeed make diversity a priority in our courts, including appointing Hispanic Americans to fill these positions. And let's remember that the confirmation of at least three highly qualified appellate court nominees of Hispanic origin nominated by President Clinton--two for the Fifth Circuit and one for the Ninth Circuit--were blocked by the same people who complain today about our opposition to Mr. Estrada. One thing is perfectly clear: This nomination has nothing to do with ethnicity and everything to do with duplicity. When Mr. Estrada refuses to candidly share his views with us, we are left with his record. And this record leaves us with grave concerns about confirming him to this crucial judgeship. A few examples from Mr. Estrada's career highlight these concerns. Mr. Estrada devoted substantial time and energy to defending, on behalf of pro bono clients, anti-loitering statutes, laws which often result in the arrests of a disproportionate number of African-Americans and Latinos. These laws have been repeatedly struck down for violating free speech rights. On the other hand, Mr. Estrada has argued on behalf of the First Amendment rights of a large pharmaceutical company charged with engaging in a deceptive advertising campaign. These two cases make it appear that Mr. Estrada is more comfortable with asserting the First Amendments rights of giant corporations than average citizens. He has also argued in Federal court against the standing of civil rights organizations to vindicate the constitutional rights of their members. When one reviews Mr. Estrada's professional record, then, there appears to be little to rebut the opinion offered by Paul Bender, his supervisor for three years at the Solicitor General's office, that Mr. Estrada is a ``right-wing ideologue'' who ``lacks [the] judgment . . . to be an appeals court judge.'' This view, from the one person at the Solicitor General's office who knew his work best, is damning. Of course, if we had access to Mr. Estrada's memorandums and opinions at the Solicitor General's office, we could evaluate for ourselves whether Mr. Bender's opinion is unduly harsh or not. But we do not have such access. If Mr. Estrada was willing to candidly discuss his views and judicial philosophy with us, our concerns about whether he was outside the mainstream might be assuaged. But this he is also not willing to do so. We have no choice but to rely on his record, and this record convinces us that he does not warrant confirmation to the D.C. Circuit. Anyone who reviews my record on judicial nominations knows that I have not reached my decision to support extended debate here--indeed my decision to oppose Mr. Estrada's confirmation--lightly. In my entire 14 years in the Senate, I have voted to oppose the confirmation of judicial nominations only seven times. But this nominee's evasions and gross disrespect for our nomination process, when combined with the disturbing evidence from his public record of his extreme ideology, leave me no choice. One of the most important tasks we perform is our constitutional duty to ``advise and consent'' on judicial nominations. Once their nominations are confirmed by the Senate, these men and women serve lifetime appointments, unanswerable to Congress, the President, or the people. They will become the guardians of our liberties, of our Constitution, and of our civil rights. Our duty to ``advise and consent'' is the only check we will ever have on the qualifications and fitness of those chosen to serve as Federal judges. When a nominee subverts and impedes this vital process by declining to answer our questions so that we cannot evaluate his fitness to serve, he has disqualified himself for consideration by this body. We simply cannot vote up or down on a nominee who both has no judicial record and refused to provide us with the information necessary for us to gain even the most basic understanding of his opinions, his outlook, or judicial philosophy. For these reasons, I oppose his confirmation. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I will.

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise today to express my concerns about the nomination of Miguel Estrada. Once a nominee is confirmed by the Senate, these men and women serve lifetime appointments, unanswerable to Congress, the President, or the people. They become the guardians of our liberties, of our Constitution, and of our civil rights. Our duty to advise and consent is the only check we will ever have on the qualifications and fitness of those chosen to serve as Federal judges. In considering judicial nominees, we can review their credentials, their professional record, their writings, and the recommendations of their colleagues. But to truly evaluate a nominee's fitness, especially one with no judicial record, we are dependent on the nominee to candidly share with us their opinions, their judicial philosophy, and their approach to interpreting the Constitution during the give and take of a confirmation hearing. The need for forthright testimony is especially crucial in the case of Mr. Estrada, given the minimal public record we have to evaluate him. He has never served as a judge and, therefore, unlike many appellate court nominees, has no judicial opinions to review. He has virtually no professional writings for us to read. And although he has argued before the Supreme Court, he has rebutted any attempt we made to attach his personal views to the positions he advocated in those cases. Therefore, we were dependent on his testimony from his confirmation hearing. But this testimony gave us precious little on which to evaluate him. Instead, we have been told that Mr. Estrada is bright, capable, and qualified. His proponents say ``trust us, he will make a good judge.'' Trust is not enough; trust leaves too much to doubt. When considering a nominee, we do not owe the benefit of the doubt to the nominee but, rather, to the courts, the Constitution, and to our civil liberties. A judicial confirmation hearing is not an intrusive exercise. We do not ask nominees to comment on pending cases or to speculate on unlikely facts. Rather, we only ask them to help us reach a level of comfort with them as potential judges. Without candid and honest testimony by the nominee our advice and consent process is meaningless. Unfortunately, at his confirmation hearing, Miguel Estrada refused to answer question after question regarding his views and judicial philosophy. Mr. Estrada even went so far as to refuse, when asked by Senator Schumer, to name a single Supreme Court decision of which he was critical in the last 40 years. I myself have asked that very same question of many nominees, and every one had an answer--until now. This is not an isolated example. Senator Feinstein asked him to state whether he believed Roe v. Wade was correctly decided, and Mr. Estrada refused to do so. He refused to provide responsive information to my own questions on a variety of topics, ranging from his views on two recent Federal court opinions striking down the Federal death penalty, to the Government's role in protecting the environment, and to the use of ``protective orders'' mandating court secrecy in products liability cases. This pattern of evasiveness and avoidance falls far short of what we need to evaluate a candidate's fitness to serve a lifetime appointment on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The importance of the court to which Mr. Estrada has been nominated makes his efforts to hide his views from us all the more serious. The DC Circuit, a court second in importance only to the Supreme Court, is unique among the Federal courts of appeals as the court that reviews decisions of the executive branch and the independent agencies. The rules and regulations reviewed by this court are felt by all Americans every single day. If you work, your safety is protected by rules issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. When we drink water and breathe the air, we are protected by rules issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. When we shop and watch advertisements, we are protected from fraud and deceit by the Federal Trade Commission. And when we see our cable, phone, and internet bills, we can be sure that the Federal Commerce Commission played an important role. The decisions of the D.C. Circuit on these and many other subjects have a real and immediate impact on the lives of all Americans. My decision to oppose this nomination in the Judiciary Committee was not taken lightly. I have done so only six times in my more than 14 years of service in the Senate, and I do so reluctantly in the case of Mr. Estrada. We recognize that Mr. Estrada is a talented attorney who has compiled an impressive record of achievement, and that he is to be commended for devoting a substantial portion of his professional career to public service. My decision to support the need for a filibuster on this nomination is also not taken lightly. We take this step reluctantly, and with the full understanding that we are left with no other choice. Our constitutional responsibility to advise and consent has been compromised by a process that has provided us with no opportunity to learn anything about this nominee. If we permit Mr. Estrada's nomination to proceed, we have provided future nominees a roadmap to evade questions and hide who they are. This would be a disservice to the people we were elected to represent. We cannot support Mr. Estrada's nomination to the DC Circuit in the face of his unwillingness to candidly share his views, his approach and his judicial philosophy. If no further information is provided about Mr. Estrada, then I will be forced to oppose his nomination. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the observance of Black History Month. Dr. Carter Godwin Woodson launched ``Negro History Week'' in 1926 to counter widespread ignorance and distortion about the history of African Americans in the United States. In 1976, the week was expanded to a month and renamed ``Black History Month.'' February was chosen because many key dates in black history occur in that month: the birthdays of Fredrick Douglass, W.E.B. Dubouis, Langston Hughes, and Abraham Lincoln; the founding of the NAACP; the swearing in of the first African American Senator, the Honorable Hiram Revels; and passage of the 15th amendment to the Constitution proclaiming the right of U.S. citizens to vote regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. African-Americans are responsible for rich contributions to the State of Wisconsin as well as the entire Nation. I would like to encourage all Wisconsin residents to honor Black History Month by utilizing local resources such as America's Black Holocaust Museum in Milwaukee, the Wisconsin Black Historical Society, and the Milwaukee Art Museum. In addition, numerous sites around the State commemorate Underground Railroad activity in Wisconsin including the Milton House Museum. These sites, as well as your local library, are wonderful resources for learning more about the invaluable contributions of African-American teachers, writers, artists, healers, freedom fighters, farmers, businessmen and women, and families to the history of our Nation. Many Wisconsin colleges and universities are celebrating African- American contributions and heritage this February as well. For example, the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point is holding the annual Soul Food Dinner and Gospel Festival. The University of Wisconsin-Superior will be hosting a visit from author Bakari Kitwana, and the Association of Students of African Descent will sponsor performances of African American readings, poetry, and music. At the University of Wisconsin- Madison, the Wisconsin Black Student Union is sponsoring lectures and movie showings. As stimulating as all this activity in February is, however, we should not relegate the study of black history to just this 1 month. February should be, and remain a starting point for a year long and life long exploration of the rich and varied contributions of our African-American communities.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of Dr. Laurel Blair Salton Clark, one of the seven courageous astronauts tragically killed when the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated over Texas on Saturday, February 1. Dr. Clark was born in 1961 in Ames, IA. She graduated in 1979 from Racine's William Horlick High School in Wisconsin. She received a bachelor's degree in zoology in 1983 and a doctorate in medicine in 1987 from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Dr. Clark joined the Navy, in part to finance her college education. A flight surgeon trained as a Navy undersea medical officer, Dr. Clark performed medical evacuations from submarines during assignment in Holy Loch, Scotland. She was assigned as a flight surgeon for a Marine Corps AV-8B Night Attack Harrier Squadron in Yuma, AZ, and for the Naval Flight Officer Advanced Training Squadron in Pensacola, FL. In April of 1996, Dr. Clark was selected by NASA, and she qualified for flight assignment as a mission specialist after completing 2 years of training and evaluation. There were over 80 experiments conducted aboard Columbia, most dedicated to research investigating human physiology, fire suppression, drug delivery techniques, and space communication technology. The research conducted during the 16-day mission was sponsored by NASA and the European, Canadian, and German Space Agencies. Schools and universities around the world were involved in many of the experiments the crew performed in Spacehab, a facility which offers scientists access to microgravity aboard space shuttles. Many have noted and applauded the diversity of the Columbia's crew, and Dr. Clark certainly hoped that the scientific experiments the crew conducted would benefit all mankind. In an e-mail sent to her family and friends on Friday, January 31, she spoke of feeling blessed to be representing the United States and ``carrying out the research of scientists around the world.'' Our thoughts and prayers are with Dr. Clark's 8-year-old son Ian and her husband Jonathan Clark. The loss of the space shuttle's crew is devastating, and my hope is that we can identify the cause of the Columbia's breakup and prevent such tragedies in the future. Dr. Laurel Clark told her loved ones of the Columbia mission, ``magically, the very first day we flew over Lake Michigan and I saw Wind Point clearly.'' Speaking on behalf of Wisconsin, we are honored that she considered Racine her hometown. Today, we celebrate the brave contributions Dr. Laurel Blair Salton Clark made during her life and career, and we honor her memory throughout the Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. While I understand the fiscal constraints we were facing during this budget year, I believe that it is important that we continue to work to find ways to increase the number of low-income children who receive healthy meals over the summer. I believe the expansion of the SFSP is an excellent way to do that, and I look forward to working with the chairman of the Agriculture Committee to make such an expansion permanent during the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act.

Mr. KOHL. That is my understanding. I share your concern that the Administration might elect not make these purchases, and it would be my hope that the House and Senate conferees agree on language ensuring that these purchases are made this fiscal year.