Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I commend the Senators for their interest in this program. I want to assure the gentlemen that it is the committee's belief that the Secretary of Interior should continue to work closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Idaho Department of Agriculture, Idaho's agriculture producers, and the Idaho delegation to facilitate the timely flow of information and a coordinated response to this problem.

Mr. KOHL. I appreciate the Senator from South Carolina bringing this important issue to my attention. I am confident we can work together to encourage ARS to fund this project in fiscal year 2002.

Mr. KOHL. Do you want me to read off several?

Mr. KOHL. There are about 35.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. We do not have a copy of the amendment. However, we do understand that the offset of which they speak falls in the jurisdiction of another subcommittee. We need to confer with that subcommittee and the Congressional Budget Office. We did provide $20 million to the Klamath Basin in the spring supplemental. No other disaster assistance has been provided by this committee. If we accept this amendment, then others will seek additional assistance which our allocation cannot provide. This is a very difficult amendment for this committee to support. In fact, we will not support it. In addition, I am fairly certain that the offset they are discussing does not fall within this committee's jurisdiction. I humbly and respectfully suggest that they pursue a different avenue than requesting a vote.

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KOHL. I yield to Senator Reid.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I bring to the attention of all of our colleagues that this, hopefully, is the last bill we will consider this week, and when we finish this bill we could look forward to being out for the balance of the week. So when that occurs depends upon my colleagues and their willingness to come to this Chamber to bring any amendments to our attention they may have. At this time, I am aware of one amendment that I know is going to come to the floor. I am not aware of what other amendments may come to the floor, but whatever they are, it is clearly in our common interest to get those amendments over here at this time so we can consider them.

Mr. KOHL. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, at this time I have a series of amendments which I send to the desk that are technical in nature and have the approval of the ranking member. These amendments are offered on behalf of the managers of the bill. They are: An amendment regarding conditions for transfers of funds; an amendment regarding extraneous language in the 1994 Endowment Fund account; an amendment regarding empowerment zones and enterprise communities; an amendment regarding rural utilities programs; an amendment regarding distance learning and telemedicine; and an amendment regarding administration of rural utility programs. I offer this series of amendments en bloc, and I urge their adoption.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, pursuant to yesterday's unanimous consent agreement, I rise to offer the text of S. 1191 as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee as a substitute amendment for H.R. 2330, the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies. The text of S. 1191 is at the desk and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to support S. 1510, the anti- terrorism bill. To more effectively fight terrorism and those who perpetrate it, we need to improve law enforcement's intelligence gathering capability and enhance their ability to investigate and prosecute suspected terrorists. This measure does both. But let's also be realistic about the act. It will not solve all of law enforcement's problems in combating terrorism nor will it severely compromise our civil liberties. The truth lies somewhere in between. The strongest proponents of the legislation argue that the bill primarily consists of long overdue updates of current laws, updates necessary because technology advances have allowed criminals and terrorists to stay a step, or two, ahead of law enforcement. Updates are necessary because the inability of Federal authorities to share information on suspected terrorists hampers criminal investigations. Updates are necessary because the penalties and limitations periods governing many terrorist crimes have been woefully inadequate. All of this is true. And for these reasons, I support the bill. But, we shouldn't be lulled into thinking that this measure will solve our problems. Indeed, I asked the Attorney General whether the new powers granted in this bill could have prevented the events of September 11. He answered me honestly, saying that he could not make that guarantee. Yet, he added that these new tools would make it less likely that terrorism could strike in the same way again. Tougher laws and penalties are an important part of our strategy to combat terrorism. That plan must also include more and better agents dedicated to gathering intelligence, an aggressive approach to preventing attacks, and patience from all Americans. Patience is essential because we will need to understand that we might have to temper our freedoms slightly in an effort to guarantee them. Critics of this legislation caution us to be wary of compromising our liberties in an effort to make our Nation safer. They comment that sacrificing freedom gives the terrorists a victory. Those warnings do have merit. Some of this bill's provisions do risk our civil liberties and ask Americans to sacrifice some privacy. This bill grants our prosecutors a great deal of discretion in enforcing the law and asks Americans to have faith that this power will not be abused. Most of us would rather not have our civil liberties depend on someone else's discretion. That's why I believe many of this bill's provisions should lapse in two years and then be reconsidered by Congress. The House version of this bill reconciles the need for tough law enforcement with the concern for our civil liberties by sunsetting some of the most objectionable portions of the bill in two years. That is a good idea. Two years from now, we can take stock of where we are, how this bill has affected us, and whether the trust we show in law enforcement is warranted. I hope that the final version of this bill will adopt such a sensible approach. I have never doubted that our country's law enforcement is the best in the world. They are dedicated, creative, committed, and decent. From local beat officers to the Director of the FBI, every one of them has a vital role to play in combating terrorism. We believe this bill will help them prevent terrorism when possible. It will help them catch wrongdoers. It will cut wrongdoers off from their support networks. It will guarantee stiff punishment for their criminal acts. It will deter others from following in the terrorists' footsteps. It is our responsibility to give law enforcement the tools they need in an increasingly complex world. It is their responsibility to use them wisely.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to introduce the ``Safe Ground through Safe Skies Act of 2001.'' This legislation strengthens security measures for those aircraft that are currently not required to comply with an FAA approved security program. The events of September 11 have shown us a new reality, that our aircraft can be used as lethal weapons against innocent civilians on the ground. I applaud the FAA, the Administration, and Congress for quickly moving to address this threat as it applies to commercial aircraft. With the new security measures put in place by S. 1447, I am certain we will not again see a commercial common carrier be hijacked and turned into a bomb. However, the proposals under consideration today do nothing to stop other aircraft, such as chartered planes, leased planes, and cargo planes, from being hijacked and crashed into buildings or landmarks. I believe many of my colleagues would be surprised to learn that, for purposes of security, these aircraft are virtually unregulated. The protection of these aircraft, some as big or bigger than those used in the September 11 attack, is left to the private sector owners and operators, an approach we now reject for commercial common carriers. As the Senate continues to work on legislation to enhance security measures for commercial common carriers, it is vital that we address the gaping hole in our security as it relates to currently unregulated aircraft. It would be criminally negligent to pass an Aviation Security Act that leaves thousands of aircraft still unprotected from those terrorists who would turn our own planes into weapons of mass destruction. The Safe Ground through Safe Skies Act is an attempt to address this difficult problem. It is based on three goals: First, the legislation seeks to maintain the FAA's flexibility to design different screening systems for all sorts of aircraft, used for all sorts of purposes and boarding and deplaning at airports with a wide variety of experience in security. Second, the legislation recognizes the time consuming and difficult task of putting together a security program for smaller aircraft, many of which operate out of very small airports without any security in place currently. And third, and perhaps most importantly, the legislation addresses the immediate threat of a near term repeat terrorist attack. To achieve these goals, this legislation requires the FAA Administrator to issue a security screening program for all aircraft operations with an aircraft that weighs more than 12,500 pounds. That means every operator of an aircraft that takes-off in this country with more than approximately 15 seats will be subject to new security measures. To address the varying types of aircraft and aircraft operations, the Administrator will have the authority to waive this new requirement in cases reviewed and approved by the Administrator and Congress. For those aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds, this legislation requires the Secretary of Transportation to report to Congress, within 6 months of enactment, recommendations on how to improve security for general aviation. Within one year of enactment, the Administrator must turn that report into an actual program. Finally, effective immediately upon enactment, this legislation requires aliens and persons identified by the Secretary of Transportation to undergo a background check before buying, leasing, or chartering any aircraft. This provision would expire as the Administrator issues security rules for each class of aircraft. Though this final step may seem extreme, it is a quick and simple way to immediately protect our entire aircraft fleet from capture and use as a weapon. The section is designed to mirror the requirements for background checks for aliens and others seeking flight school training already agreed to in S. 1447. If we need to protect ourselves from terrorists seeking flight school training in the future, we have an equal, if not greater need to protect our aircraft from terrorists who may have already received their flight training. Current policy falls short of the level of protection that the American people require and deserve. Any comprehensive airline safety legislation must include all types of aircraft conducting operations in our sky. While not placing a heavy burden on the FAA or the general aviation industry, the Safe Ground through Safe Skies Act protects our airline passengers and those of us on the ground by reducing the likelihood of another attack from the skies. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to introduce the ``Safe Ground through Safe Skies Act of 2001.'' This legislation strengthens security measures for those aircraft that are currently not required to comply with an FAA approved security program. The events of September 11 have shown us a new reality, that our aircraft can be used as lethal weapons against innocent civilians on the ground. I applaud the FAA, the Administration, and Congress for quickly moving to address this threat as it applies to commercial aircraft. With the new security measures put in place by S. 1447, I am certain we will not again see a commercial common carrier be hijacked and turned into a bomb. However, the proposals under consideration today do nothing to stop other aircraft, such as chartered planes, leased planes, and cargo planes, from being hijacked and crashed into buildings or landmarks. I believe many of my colleagues would be surprised to learn that, for purposes of security, these aircraft are virtually unregulated. The protection of these aircraft, some as big or bigger than those used in the September 11 attack, is left to the private sector owners and operators, an approach we now reject for commercial common carriers. As the Senate continues to work on legislation to enhance security measures for commercial common carriers, it is vital that we address the gaping hole in our security as it relates to currently unregulated aircraft. It would be criminally negligent to pass an Aviation Security Act that leaves thousands of aircraft still unprotected from those terrorists who would turn our own planes into weapons of mass destruction. The Safe Ground through Safe Skies Act is an attempt to address this difficult problem. It is based on three goals: First, the legislation seeks to maintain the FAA's flexibility to design different screening systems for all sorts of aircraft, used for all sorts of purposes and boarding and deplaning at airports with a wide variety of experience in security. Second, the legislation recognizes the time consuming and difficult task of putting together a security program for smaller aircraft, many of which operate out of very small airports without any security in place currently. And third, and perhaps most importantly, the legislation addresses the immediate threat of a near term repeat terrorist attack. To achieve these goals, this legislation requires the FAA Administrator to issue a security screening program for all aircraft operations with an aircraft that weighs more than 12,500 pounds. That means every operator of an aircraft that takes-off in this country with more than approximately 15 seats will be subject to new security measures. To address the varying types of aircraft and aircraft operations, the Administrator will have the authority to waive this new requirement in cases reviewed and approved by the Administrator and Congress. For those aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds, this legislation requires the Secretary of Transportation to report to Congress, within 6 months of enactment, recommendations on how to improve security for general aviation. Within one year of enactment, the Administrator must turn that report into an actual program. Finally, effective immediately upon enactment, this legislation requires aliens and persons identified by the Secretary of Transportation to undergo a background check before buying, leasing, or chartering any aircraft. This provision would expire as the Administrator issues security rules for each class of aircraft. Though this final step may seem extreme, it is a quick and simple way to immediately protect our entire aircraft fleet from capture and use as a weapon. The section is designed to mirror the requirements for background checks for aliens and others seeking flight school training already agreed to in S. 1447. If we need to protect ourselves from terrorists seeking flight school training in the future, we have an equal, if not greater need to protect our aircraft from terrorists who may have already received their flight training. Current policy falls short of the level of protection that the American people require and deserve. Any comprehensive airline safety legislation must include all types of aircraft conducting operations in our sky. While not placing a heavy burden on the FAA or the general aviation industry, the Safe Ground through Safe Skies Act protects our airline passengers and those of us on the ground by reducing the likelihood of another attack from the skies. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise today to offer a substitute amendment to H.R. 768. This legislation, as amended, will extend for seven years an existing antitrust exemption granted to colleges and universities that admit students on a need blind basis. The exemption provides protection for these schools to cooperatively develop a methodology for determining financial need in order to best assess a family's ability to pay the costs of attendance. There is no doubt that higher education opens doors and creates opportunities. It is therefore imperative that we in Congress do what we can to keep higher education affordable for our nation's students and their families. Some of the best and most prestigious colleges and universities admit students without regard to their financial need, allowing talented students from disadvantaged backgrounds to achieve their full potential. This exemption allows those colleges and universities to generate a uniform methodology to determine a family's need. The colleges and universities that use the exemption believe it allows them to attract needy students and maintain a thriving financial aid program. Discussions among colleges and universities using need-blind admissions policies began more than thirty years ago. However, in 1989, the Department of Justice filed suit against 23 colleges and universities alleging that their cooperation violated antitrust laws. A federal district court ruled that the schools were subject to the antitrust laws. In 1991, most of the colleges and universities settled with the Department of Justice with a promise to stop sharing information. Faced with the prospect of eliminating their discussions as a result of the settlement, the colleges and universities sought a law allowing them to meet. In 1992, Congress passed the original two-year antitrust exemption for those schools that guaranteed that their aid was need- blind. The exemption was extended in 1994 and 1997. With the lawsuit and the court order so fresh in our collective memory, it seems prudent to extend the exemption for a reasonable length of time, but not indefinitely. The exemption has always been grated on the theory that cooperation among universities in determining financial aid need benefits prospective students and their families. But there is little if any objective data to support this proposition. So this amendment directs the General Accounting Office (GAO) to study the effects of the antitrust exemption on undergraduate grant aid. The study will require schools who participate in discussions under the antitrust exemption to maintain and submit records. While the study will be comparative, schools that do not participate in discussions permitted by the exemption will not be required to maintain or submit records. As a general rule, I strongly oppose antitrust exemptions. Our antitrust laws guarantee competition, and competition means lower prices and higher quality for consumers--including students purchasing a college education. but the colleges and universities using the exemption believe that the market functions differently in this case. I am therefore willing to extend the exemption for another seven years but believe that any further activity in this area must be coupled with hard objective data providing that this exemption does indeed benefit students and their families. Too many families are struggling today to put their children through college. So we must act very carefully and with full information before we pass a permanent antitrust exemption. I would like to thank Representatives Lamar Smith and Barney Frank and their staffs for their work on this legislation in the House, and Senators DeWine, Leahy, and Hatch and their staffs for their assistance on this substitute amendment. We hope the House will agree to these changes and expeditiously send this legislation to the President for his signature.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the Bruce Vento Hmong Veterans Naturalization Extension Act of 2001. This important piece of legislation will ensure that the sizable Hmong population in Wisconsin is able to take advantage of a status adjustment opportunity extended to them unanimously by this Congress last year. The Hmong, and particularly the Lao Veterans of America, deserve our respect and honor for all their help during the conflict in Vietnam. The Hmong Veterans Naturalization Act of 2000 waives the English language requirement and provides for a translator during administration of the Civics test for all Hmong Veterans of the Special Forces in Laos and their spouses and widows applying for U.S. citizenship. However, the Hmong veteran community only had the benefit of this legislation for 18 months. Since enactment, fewer than half of all Hmong veterans and their family members have been able to seek citizenship under these standards. The legislation introduced today would give those eligible an additional 18 months to apply for citizenship under the Naturalization Act. I commend my colleague Senator Wellstone for his efforts on behalf of the Hmong population living in the upper midwestern United States, and I urge expeditious consideration of this legislation.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Dorgan and Senator Campbell, chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury and General Government, for their fine work in crafting the bill now before the Senate. I also thank them for accepting an amendment I have offered to help strengthen this country's safeguards against the possible introduction of foreign animal disease. I serve as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies, and we have given substantial attention to the ongoing problems of exotic pests and disease that have been introduced into this country over the years. Attention and concern for this problem has been heightened this past year with reports from the United Kingdom where outbreaks of foot and mouth disease have severely harmed the British economy and, in particular, rural areas in the British Isles. The U.S. livestock sector quickly realized the danger that the spread of foot and mouth disease, and similar infectious diseases, could reach our shores with equally devastating effect. When Secretary Veneman testified before our subcommittee this spring, she told us that strong measures were in place to reduce the possibility that foreign animal disease would come to America. The fact that to date no such outbreaks have occurred here speaks to the strength of those measures. However, such safeguards are only as strong as their weakest part. Currently, all passengers coming to the United States on aircraft or by other means are required to complete Customs Declaration form 6059B which poses a set of questions about that individual's activities abroad. Included is a question which asks if the passenger is ``bringing fruits, plants, meats, food, soil, birds, snails, other live animals, wildlife products, or have been on a farm or ranch outside the U.S.'' If the passenger answers this question in the affirmative, he or she is likely to be referred to USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, for further inquiry. Clearly, this question is designed to help provide the Customs Service with adequate information to know if a referral to APHIS is warranted or not. I have every confidence that APHIS personnel who serve on the front line of this country's inspection force have the expertise and commitment to ask the right questions and take the right actions to safeguard against foreign pests and disease, such as Foot and Mouth Disease. However, current practice does not ensure that all overseas travelers who have been in the vicinity of diseased livestock will have received proper referral to the appropriate agencies. If a traveler did not visit a farm or ranch, for example, the Customs Service would not have the information necessary to make a proper referral to USDA. Still travelers in rural areas of certain countries, such as the UK may come in close contact with livestock either at county fairs, rural bed and breakfasts, on back country trails, or other settings that may not strike one as a ``farm or ranch,'' but may in fact pose the same level of risk. My amendment simply requires that any new Customs declaration forms used for entry into the United States ask a question in a manner to alert the traveler to the fact that simply being in the proximity of livestock needs to be brought to the attention of Customs or USDA personnel due to the high risk of foreign borne disease. My amendment does not require the destruction of forms now in use. However, I understand that these forms are now in the process of being redrafted which, I believe, makes my amendment doubly timely. It is my further expectation that until such time that this change is actually put in place, Customs Service personnel will be provided guidance to sensitize them to making further verbal inquiry of travelers who have traveled in countries known to have infectious animal disease outbreaks to determine if they may have been in areas where a likelihood of infection was possible. Again, my amendment is not lengthy, nor does it require much. However, I believe it will help strengthen our Nation's defense against invasion by foreign animal disease. If the asking of one question prevents an outbreak of a devastating disease in America, it will certainly be a question worth asking.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today the Senate has taken a somber step toward a new kind of war. Congress has resolved that military force may be necessary to end the scourge of terrorism. Today we took a solemn vow that we will strike back at those who have killed thousands of American citizens. Those responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the crash of an airliner in Pennsylvania will now face the full fury and capability of this great Nation. But the United States will not react blindly. We do not want revenge, we want justice and security. We act today to defend America and punish our enemies. Unnecessary violence will do nothing to erase the losses suffered by the American people. Part of what we are fighting to protect, is the Constitution and the role of Congress in a crisis. This resolution faithfully and responsibly executes our duty under the Constitution. We have not ceded our power to the President, Congress remains a co-equal branch and a partner with the President in this struggle. We stand together in this Chamber and with the President. Shoulder to shoulder we are prepared to do whatever is necessary to restore peace and security to the land. Our will is resolute, our hearts are steadfast, and our minds are fixed. We will not rest until the task before us is complete.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, today I am introducing the Weekend Voting Act of 2001. This legislation will change the day for congressional and presidential elections from the first Tuesday in November to the first weekend in November. This legislation is virtually identical to legislation that I first proposed in 1997 in the 105th Congress. Earlier this week, the National Commission on Federal Election Reform presented its recommendations to the President on how to improve the administration of elections in our country. These recommendations, coming on the heels of the contested Presidential election of last year, lay out some strong ideas for how we can strengthen our election system at a time when Congress may very well take action in this area. As a cosponsor of election reform legislation, I am hopeful that we can pass real election reform this year. One of the recommendations the National Commission made to the President is that we move Election Day to a national holiday, in particular Veterans Day. As might have been expected, this proposal has not been well received by veterans groups who rightly consider this a diminishment of their service and the day that historically has been designated to honor that service. While I agree with the Commission's goal of moving election day to a non-working day, I believe we can achieve all the benefits of holiday voting without offending our veterans by moving our elections to the weekend. My proposal for weekend voting would call for the polls to be open the same hours across the continental United States, addressing the challenge of keeping results on one side of the country, or even a State, from influencing voting in places where polls are still open. Moving elections to the weekend will expand the pool of buildings available for poling stations and people available to work at the polls, addressing the critical shortage of poll workers. Weekend voting also has the potential to increase voter turnout by giving all voters ample opportunity to get to the polls without creating a national holiday. Under this bill, polls would be open nationwide for a uniform period of time from Saturday, 6 p.m. eastern time to Sunday, 6 p.m. eastern time. Polls in other time zones would also open and close at this time. Election officials would be permitted to close polls during the overnight hours if they determine it would be inefficient to keep them open. Because the polls are open from Saturday to Sunday, they also would not interfere with religious observances. Amidst all the discussion about election reform, there is growing support for uniform polling hours. The free-wheeling atmosphere surrounding election night last November, with the networks calling the outcome of elections in states when polling places were still open in many places, and in some cases even in the very states being called, cannot be repeated. While it is difficut to determine the impact this information has on voter turnout, there is no question that it contributes to the popular sentiment that voting doesn't matter. At the end of the day, as we assess how to make our elections better, we are not only seeking to make voting more equitable, we are also looking for ways to engage Americans in our democracy. I come from the business world, where you had a perfect gauge of what the public thought of you and your products. If you turned a profit, you knew the public liked your product--if you didn't, you knew you needed to make changes. If customers weren't showing up when your store was open, you knew you had to change your store hours. In essence, it's time for the American democracy to change its store hours. Since the mid-19th century, election day has been on the first Tuesday of November. Ironically, this date was selected because it was convenient for voters. Tuesdays were traditionally court day, and land- owning voters were often coming to town anyway. Just as the original selection of our national voting day was done for voter convenience, we must adapt to the changes in our society to make voting easier for the regular family. Sixty percent of all households have two working adults. Since most polls in the United States are open only 12 hours, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., voters often have only one or two hours to vote. As we saw in this last election, even with our relatively low voter turnout, long lines in many polling places kept some waiting even longer than one or two hours. If voters have children, and are dropping them off at day care, or if they have a long work commute, there is just not enough time in a workday to vote. We can do better by offering more flexible voting hours for all Americans, especially working families. Since I introduced my weekend voting legislation in 1997, a number of States have been experimenting with novel ways to increase voter turnout and satisfaction. Oregon conducted the first presidential elections completely by mail, resulting in impressive increases in voter turnout. Texas has implemented an early voting plan which also resulted in increased turnout. And California has relaxed restrictions on absentee voting, and even had weekend voting in some localities. Although there are security concerns that need to be ironed out, Internet voting has tremendous potential to transform the way we vote. In Arizona's Democratic primary 46 percent of all votes came via the Internet. The Defense Department coordinated a pilot program with several U.S. counties and the Federal Voting Assistance Program to have overseas voters, primarily military voters, cast their votes via the Internet. It is becoming increasingly clear that these new models can increase voter turnout, and voters are much more pleased with the additional convenience and ease with voting. For decades we've seen a gradual decline in voter turnout. In 1952, about 63 percent of eligible voters came out to vote--that number dropped to 49 percent in the 1996 election. We saw a minor increase in this past election with voter turnout at 51 percent of eligible voters, however, not a significant increase given the closeness of the election. Non-Presidential year voter turnout is even more abysmal. Analysts point to a variety of reasons for this drop off. Certainly, common sense suggests that the general decline in voter confidence in government institutions is one logical reason. However, I'd like to point out, one survey of voters and nonvoters suggested that both groups are equally disgruntled with government. Thus, we must explore ways to make our electoral process more user friendly. We must adjust our institutions to the needs of the American public of the 21st century. Our democracy has always had the amazing capacity to adapt to the challenges thrown before it, and we must continue to do so if our country is to grow and thrive. Of 44 democracies surveyed, 29 of them allow their citizens to vote on holidays or the weekends. And in nearly every one of these nations, voter turnout surpasses our country's poor performance. We can do better. That is why I am proposing that we consider weekend voting. I recognize a change of this magnitude may take some time. But the many questions raised by our last election have given us a unique opportunity to reassess all aspects of voting in America. We finally have the momentum to accomplish real reform. How much lower should our citizens' confidence plummet before we adapt and create a more `consumer-friendly' polling system? How much more should voting turnout decline before we realize we need a change? The Weekend Voting Act will not solve all of this democracy's problems, but it is a commonsense approach for adapting this grand democratic experiment of the 18th century to the American family's lifestyle of the 21st century.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the dairy compacts that exist and are being proposed, and it is for very good reason. We have never had price-fixing arrangements in the history of our national economy. When the Articles of Confederation were proposed, they understood we needed a national unified economy, and the beauty of our economy today, which makes it the envy of every country in the world, is that in the United States of America, since we started, every product and every service has unimpeded access in all 50 States. That promotes competition, that promotes excellence in quality, and that promotes the best prices for our consumers. What they are proposing right now is that we invalidate that concept and we start going down the road of price-fixing cartels, arrangements that will allow for no competition pricewise and, as a result, for access basically from one market to another in the case of milk. Once we start doing that, then we have to recognize that other commodities and other products will come to the Senate asking for the same consideration. If we allow that for milk, then we certainly have to recognize that other commodities and other products have the right to make the same arguments. What will happen 10 years from now or 20 years from now when we balkanize the American economy by virtue of price arrangements between States based on commodities that they share? We will have an economy in which the consumer will pay. When we have price-fixing arrangements and allow producers to get more than what the market would normally allow them to get, inevitably, always the consumer pays and inevitably, we will begin to destroy this great national economy we have built up over the past 200-plus years. With respect to the loss of dairy farms, I come from the Middle West, and statistically we have lost as large a percentage of our dairy farms as they have in the Northeast. We have lost between 30 and 40 percent of our dairy farms over the past 20 years. That is statistically exactly what has happened in the Northeast. Their situation is not unique. The answer is not to balkanize that industry or any other industry and pit one region against another. The answer is to have a national policy that covers the existence and the proposed prosperity of all dairy farmers everywhere, not just in the Northeast. The answer will never be, in my judgment, price-fixing arrangements because, as I said, under those conditions, inevitably the consumer pays, and that is not what we do in this country. That is not how our economy operates. I am suggesting the reason this amendment has been pulled, basically because it does not have the votes, is because a majority of the Senators--and this is bipartisan--a majority of the Senators recognize that price-fixing arrangements between States on commodities is not the way in which we want this economy to begin to progress into the future. I urge my colleagues to consider in the days ahead what may or may not occur by way of trying to balkanize the dairy industry from one State to another. I do not think it has ended yet. I think it is going to be discussed again. But if there is an honest and fair vote in the Senate, which is the only way to determine policy on any issue but certainly on an issue as important as this one, we will not support dairy compacts. They do not make any sense. There are other ways to deal with the problem, not just in the dairy industry but in the agricultural industry because we have to recognize that it is not just the dairy industry which is in trouble in America; it is the entire agricultural sector, one product after another, one commodity after another. It is not just in the Northeast; it is in the Middle West, it is in the Plains States, it is in the North and in the South. The agricultural industry has not found a way to provide prosperity for all of our farmers. We have been struggling with it. We all know that as Senators. But now the dairy industry comes along and says: Let us balkanize our industry and let us be allowed to set prices for which the consumer will pay more. That is a huge step, and before we take it, we need to have much more extensive debate on the agricultural industry in this country and how we are going to deal with that, including the dairy industry. I thank the Chair, and I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota. I ask unanimous consent that if there is no objection, the Senator from Wisconsin be allowed to speak after the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from New Jersey. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be given 5 minutes after the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise today to add my voice in support of the nomination of Wade Horn to serve as Assistant Secretary for Family Support at the Department of Health and Human Services. I have had the pleasure of working with Wade Horn over the past few years on an issue that is vitally important to both of us--making sure that children receive the child support money they are owed. This has been a very positive and productive working experience. Dr. Horn and I share the goal of changing the current child support distribution system, which harms children by allowing States and the Federal Government to keep their child support money instead of distributing it to the kids who need it. Through his experience, Wade Horn recognizes that fathers pay more child support when they know their children will actually receive their money and benefit from it. He understands that the route to responsible fatherhood means we have to remove government- created barriers that actually discourage fathers from paying child support, and create more incentives for fathers to become actively involved in their children's lives. I have greatly appreciated Wade Horn's commitment to changing the child support distribution system. His suggestions, input and advocacy have helped move this issue forward during the past several years, and I look forward to working with him to pass this vital legislation once he is confirmed. Together, I am hopeful that he and Secretary Thompson, who is also a tremendous advocate of child support distribution reform in his own right, will make this a top priority in the Bush Administration so that children get the support they are owed and need. As President of the National Fatherhood Initiative, Dr. Horn understands that fathers, mothers and children often need support and help to maintain a strong and stable family life. His organization's goal has been to encourage fathers to become positive role models for their children and become fully involved in their lives. He has worked to encourage greater support services and assistance for low-income fathers so they can actively and responsibly participate in their children's upbringing. Not only do their children benefit from their support and involvement, but all of society reaps the benefits of having stronger families. I realize that some have raised concerns about views Dr. Horn has expressed in the past regarding government support for single-parent families. It is my understanding that he has reconsidered many of those views and has committed to serving all families who need support and assistance. I believe this is critical; our nation must address a variety of issues to help working families of all shapes and sizes, and I look forward to working with him on a range of issues important to families--including increasing funding for Child Care, Head Start, and continuing to provide support for families making the transition from welfare to work. These will not be easy tasks, but I am hopeful that Wade Horn will take a thoughtful, balanced approach to addressing these matters. I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise today with Senators Hatch, Leahy, DeWine, and Durbin to introduce the Product Packaging Protection Act of 2001. This measure will help prevent and punish a disturbing trend of product tampering, the placement of hate-filled literature into the boxes of cereal or food that millions of Americans bring home from the grocery store every day. Opening a box of macaroni and cheese should not be a harrowing experience. But too many Americans have recently opened product boxes and found offensive, racist, anti-Semitic, pornographic and hateful leaflets. In the last few years, food manufacturers have received numerous complaints from consumers who report finding such literature inserted in their groceries. Hundreds more incidents have likely gone unreported. Pizza and cereal boxes appear to be the most frequent targets of this hate speech, but any product large enough for a vandal to insert an offensive leaflet is a potential target. As disturbing as this conduct is, it is equally troubling that no Federal law exists. And only a couple of State laws are in place. The measure I introduce today will remedy this situation. It is supported by the manufacturers whose products are tampered with. It is necessary for us to help the American consumer. It will empower the government to investigate and punish these reprehensible acts. Let me give you one example of how these acts impact unsuspecting Americans. This conduct can harm the youngest and most impressionable among us. Recently, one morning, eight year old Mario Alexander of Chestnut Ridge, NJ decided to make himself breakfast one morning. In a kitchen cabinet, he found an unopened box of his favorite cereal, Oreo O's. So, he grabbed the cereal, a bowl, a spoon, and milk from the refrigerator. He then sat down at the kitchen table and opened the cereal box. In addition to the sealed bag of cereal inside, he also found a piece of paper. When he opened it, he discovered a graphic description of abortion. The leaflet also informed Mario that groups like the National Organization of Women and the American Civil Liberties Union are ``Natural Born Killers.'' Imagine his surprise and confusion when he found that propaganda, not to mention the shock of his parents. No child should be unknowingly exposed to that kind of material. Yet, it happens regularly in kitchens across the country. These are not isolated occurrences. In fact, Kraft Foods has documented over 80 incidents in the past four years alone, almost one every two weeks. Of course, there is no way to calculate the number of incidents that go unreported. Many manufacturers and distributors share Kraft's experience with this type of product tampering. Together, they recognize the need for this legislation and have signed a letter supporting the introduction and passage of this bill. The supporters of this bill include: the American Bakers Association, the American Frozen Food Institute, Food Distributors International, General Mills, the Grocery Manufacturers of America, the Independent Bakers Association, Kellogg's, Kraft Foods, the National Food Processors Association, and the National Frozen Pizza Institute. No child, indeed no person, should have to face this type of assault in the privacy of their homes. But children like Mario Alexander are not the only victims of this kind of behavior. The companies that make these products have their names and reputations slandered by this activity. Manufacturers have responded as best they can to these incidents. They have undertaken internal reviews to ensure that these leaflets are not getting into the products either at the manufacturing plant or during distribution. It is not until the products reach the shelves of the grocery store that these handbills are inserted, too late for the manufacturer or the distributor to do anything about it. Unfortunately, when consumers or companies turn to the authorities for help, they cannot be assisted. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Criminal Investigation, these actions are not covered by federal product tampering statutes. Those laws only cover the actual product themselves, but not the packaging. In response to incidents in their respective states, both New Jersey and California passed laws to criminalize this behavior. These States should be commended, but more should be done. Federal law needs to be amended accordingly. The Product Packaging Protection Act of 2001 would prohibit the placement of any writing or other material inside a consumer product without the permission of the manufacturer, authorized distributor, or retailer. An exception would be made where the manufacturer places inserts in the product solely for promotional purposes. The penalty for violation of this measure would be a fine of up to $250,000 per offense and/or imprisonment of up to three years. Closing this gap in Federal law would appropriately punish people whose actions violate the integrity of the food product, compromise consumer's faith in the food they purchase in the grocery store, and damage the good name and reputation of the food manufacturer. I look forward to its consideration and passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record following the completion of my remarks. I also ask unanimous consent that copies of the remarks of cosponsoring Senators be printed immediately following my statement. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise today with Senators Hatch, Leahy, DeWine, and Durbin to introduce the Product Packaging Protection Act of 2001. This measure will help prevent and punish a disturbing trend of product tampering, the placement of hate-filled literature into the boxes of cereal or food that millions of Americans bring home from the grocery store every day. Opening a box of macaroni and cheese should not be a harrowing experience. But too many Americans have recently opened product boxes and found offensive, racist, anti-Semitic, pornographic and hateful leaflets. In the last few years, food manufacturers have received numerous complaints from consumers who report finding such literature inserted in their groceries. Hundreds more incidents have likely gone unreported. Pizza and cereal boxes appear to be the most frequent targets of this hate speech, but any product large enough for a vandal to insert an offensive leaflet is a potential target. As disturbing as this conduct is, it is equally troubling that no Federal law exists. And only a couple of State laws are in place. The measure I introduce today will remedy this situation. It is supported by the manufacturers whose products are tampered with. It is necessary for us to help the American consumer. It will empower the government to investigate and punish these reprehensible acts. Let me give you one example of how these acts impact unsuspecting Americans. This conduct can harm the youngest and most impressionable among us. Recently, one morning, eight year old Mario Alexander of Chestnut Ridge, NJ decided to make himself breakfast one morning. In a kitchen cabinet, he found an unopened box of his favorite cereal, Oreo O's. So, he grabbed the cereal, a bowl, a spoon, and milk from the refrigerator. He then sat down at the kitchen table and opened the cereal box. In addition to the sealed bag of cereal inside, he also found a piece of paper. When he opened it, he discovered a graphic description of abortion. The leaflet also informed Mario that groups like the National Organization of Women and the American Civil Liberties Union are ``Natural Born Killers.'' Imagine his surprise and confusion when he found that propaganda, not to mention the shock of his parents. No child should be unknowingly exposed to that kind of material. Yet, it happens regularly in kitchens across the country. These are not isolated occurrences. In fact, Kraft Foods has documented over 80 incidents in the past four years alone, almost one every two weeks. Of course, there is no way to calculate the number of incidents that go unreported. Many manufacturers and distributors share Kraft's experience with this type of product tampering. Together, they recognize the need for this legislation and have signed a letter supporting the introduction and passage of this bill. The supporters of this bill include: the American Bakers Association, the American Frozen Food Institute, Food Distributors International, General Mills, the Grocery Manufacturers of America, the Independent Bakers Association, Kellogg's, Kraft Foods, the National Food Processors Association, and the National Frozen Pizza Institute. No child, indeed no person, should have to face this type of assault in the privacy of their homes. But children like Mario Alexander are not the only victims of this kind of behavior. The companies that make these products have their names and reputations slandered by this activity. Manufacturers have responded as best they can to these incidents. They have undertaken internal reviews to ensure that these leaflets are not getting into the products either at the manufacturing plant or during distribution. It is not until the products reach the shelves of the grocery store that these handbills are inserted, too late for the manufacturer or the distributor to do anything about it. Unfortunately, when consumers or companies turn to the authorities for help, they cannot be assisted. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Criminal Investigation, these actions are not covered by federal product tampering statutes. Those laws only cover the actual product themselves, but not the packaging. In response to incidents in their respective states, both New Jersey and California passed laws to criminalize this behavior. These States should be commended, but more should be done. Federal law needs to be amended accordingly. The Product Packaging Protection Act of 2001 would prohibit the placement of any writing or other material inside a consumer product without the permission of the manufacturer, authorized distributor, or retailer. An exception would be made where the manufacturer places inserts in the product solely for promotional purposes. The penalty for violation of this measure would be a fine of up to $250,000 per offense and/or imprisonment of up to three years. Closing this gap in Federal law would appropriately punish people whose actions violate the integrity of the food product, compromise consumer's faith in the food they purchase in the grocery store, and damage the good name and reputation of the food manufacturer. I look forward to its consideration and passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record following the completion of my remarks. I also ask unanimous consent that copies of the remarks of cosponsoring Senators be printed immediately following my statement. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Biden to introduce the Juvenile Crime Prevention and Control Act of 2001. This bill is an important step forward in the debate on juvenile justice. It is a comprehensive approach that recognizes prevention and enforcement are indispensable partners in combating juvenile crime. This bill addresses the issues most important to our communities, to the police, to the teachers, to the social workers, and most importantly, to the at-risk children whom we need to help. The legislation does this by giving crime prevention programs the priority, attention, and funding they deserve while recognizing that enforcement programs are indispensable to safer communities. Let me focus on one part of the legislation. The Juvenile Crime Prevention and Control Act increases the authorization of Title V, the Community Prevention Grant program, to $250 million. I worked closely with Senator Hank Brown to create the Title V program in 1992 because we listened to local law enforcement experts who told us that prevention works. Almost a decade later, they still say the same thing: a crime bill without adequate prevention is only a half-measure. That's just common sense. Congress has slowly realized the merits of crime prevention funding. Since 1992, funding for Title V has increased from $20 million to $95 million. Unfortunately, almost two-thirds of that money has been consistently earmarked for purposes other than crime and delinquency prevention. The bill remedies this problem by ensuring that at least 75 percent of all Title V Community Prevention Grants be spent on pure prevention and not set aside for other purposes. We now know that crime prevention programs like Title V work. Studies prove that crime prevention programs mean less crime. For example, a RAND Study found that crime prevention efforts were three times more cost-effective than increased punishment. A study of the Big Brothers/ Big Sisters' mentoring program showed that mentees were 46 percent less likely to use drugs, 27 percent less likely to use alcohol, 33 percent less likely to commit assault, and skipped 50 percent fewer days of school. A University of Wisconsin study of 64 after-school programs found that participating children became better students and developed improved conflict resolution skills; in addition, vandalism decreased at one third of the schools that participated in the programs. One of the reasons these programs work is that Title V is designed to let the people with the real expertise do what they know best. Title V is a flexible program of direct local grants. The flexibility permits each locality, through a local planning board of experts from the community, to determine how to best fight juvenile crime and delinquency. Title V trusts each community to address its unique problems. Law enforcement officials appreciate the importance of juvenile crime prevention programs and crave more. Last year, I surveyed every sheriff and chief of police in Wisconsin and found that 100 percent of Wisconsin's sheriffs and 100 percent of the police chiefs of Wisconsin's largest cities who responded to the questionnaire believe more Federal money needs to be spent on crime prevention programs. Similarly, more than 80 percent of the police chiefs of small and mid-size cities in Wisconsin want more prevention funding. When asked how much of Federal juvenile crime funding should go to prevention, these same law enforcement officials answer that close to 40 percent should be spent on prevention programs, far more than the current level of prevention funding. The Juvenile Crime Prevention and Control Act of 2001 listens to what local law enforcement experts have been telling us for years and addresses their needs. Of course, prevention is not the sole answer to juvenile crime. Indeed, we need a comprehensive crime-fighting strategy aimed at juvenile offenders and potential offenders, from violent predators to children at-risk of becoming delinquent. This legislation understands that. Tough law enforcement plays an essential role. Certain violent juveniles should be incarcerated, and hopefully rehabilitated, and this bill provides the States with sufficient funds to get them off the streets and safeguard our communities. Finally, no sensible juvenile crime fighting strategy is complete if it does not address the toxic combination of children and guns. This bill does that as well by mandating the sale of child safety locks with every handgun and insisting that those locks are designed well enough to work as intended. Each year, teenagers and children are involved in more than 10,000 accidental shootings in which close to 800 people die. In addition, every year 1,300 children use firearms to commit suicide. Safety locks can be effective in deterring some of these incidents and in preventing others. The sad truth is that we are inviting disaster every time an unlocked gun is stored but is still easily accessible to children. In fact, guns are kept in 43 percent of American households with children. In 23 percent of the gun households, the guns are kept loaded. And, in one out of every eight of those homes the guns are left unlocked. During the last decade, crime rates, including juvenile crime rates, have decreased. Since 1994, the juvenile arrest rate for violent crime has dropped 36 percent. Nonetheless, the public perceives that juvenile crime is a growing problem, especially school violence. We need to remain vigilant and think creatively about how to maintain this trend in falling juvenile crime. This measure provides a comprehensive approach. Prevention, enforcement, and keeping guns out of the hands of children are three essential elements to a common sense juvenile crime strategy.