Herb Kohl

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.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1052, the Bipartisan Patients Protection Act. After nearly 5 years of debate and partisan fighting, I am pleased that the Senate has finally passed a real, meaningful bipartisan Patients Bill of Rights. It is a step that is long overdue. For many years, the growth of managed care arrangements helped to rein in the rapidly growing costs of health care. That benefits all patients across the Nation and helps to keep health care costs in check for everyone. However, there is a real difference between making quality health care affordable and cutting corners on patient care. In Wisconsin, we are lucky that most health plans do a good job in keeping costs low and providing quality care. But too often across this nation, HMOs put too many obstacles between doctors and patients. In the name of saving a few bucks, too many patients must hurdle bureaucratic obstacles to get basic care. Even worse, too many patients are being denied essential treatment based on the bottom line rather than on what is best for them. The Patients Bill of Rights will ensure that patients come first--not HMO profits or health plan bureaucrats. It makes sure that doctors, in consultation with patients, can decide what treatments are medically necessary. It gives patients access to information about all available treatments and not just the cheapest. Whether it's emergency care, pursuing treatment by an appropriate specialist, providing women with direct access to an OB-GYN, or giving a patient a chance to try an innovative new treatment that could save their life--these are rights that all Americans in health plans should have. And questions concerning these rights should be answered by caring physicians and concerned families--not by a calculator. This bill puts these decisions back in human hands where they belong. This legislation will also make sure these rights are enforceable by allowing patients to hold health plans accountable for the decisions they make. First, all health plans must have an external appeals process in place, so that patients who challenge HMO decisions may take their case to an independent panel of medical experts. The External Reviewer must be independent from the plan, and they must be able to take valid medical evidence into account when deciding whether a treatment was inappropriately denied. The vast majority of disputes can and will be resolved using this external review process. I was pleased that during the course of this debate, the Senate adopted an amendment that further clarified the rules of the external review process. I shared the concerns of Wisconsin employers and insurers that the original version could have potentially allowed an external reviewer to order coverage of a medical service that the health plan specifically disallowed in its plan. I strongly support the creation of a strong, independent external review process to address disputes between a patient and their insurer over whether a service is medically necessary. At the same time, I believe employers who offer their employees health care coverage and enter into a contract with a health plan should have a level of certainty as to the specific services that are not covered under the plan. That is why I voted for the McCain-Bayh-Carper amendment, which preserves the sanctity of the contract and makes it crystal clear that a reviewer may not order coverage of any treatment that is specifically excluded or limited under the plan. At the same time, it still allows reviewers to order coverage of medically necessary services that are in dispute. In addition, if a health plan felt that a reviewer had a pattern of ordering care of questionable medical benefit, the plan could appeal to the secretary to have that reviewer decertified. I recognize that some preferred the approach offered by Senators Nelson and Kyl in addressing this issue. However, I opposed the Nelson- Kyl amendment because it went a step too far. By attempting to have the Federal Government create a national definition of ``medical necessity,'' it would create a regulatory nightmare for patients and providers, and could potentially result in a definition that nobody supports and is too rigid to move with the advances in medical technology and treatment. The compromise amendment offered by Senator McCain struck a more appropriate balance by protecting the sanctity of health plan contracts while allowing patients real recourse through an external appeal for medical necessity disputes. Beyond the external review process, if a health plan's decision to deny or delay care results in death or injury to the patient, this bill ensures that the health plan can be held accountable for its actions. And this bill, as amended, includes clear protections for employers. I was pleased to support the amendment offered by Senators Snowe and Nelson which further clarified the difficult issue of employer liability. Let me make it clear that our main objective is to make sure that patients have access to the treatments they need and deserve, and that if a health plan wrongly delays or denies treatment that causes injury or death, that patients can hold their health plans accountable--just like they would hold their doctor accountable if their doctor's action caused injury or death. In other words, the patient should be able to hold accountable that entity who directly made the decision to deny care, and I think it's critical that we shield from liability all employers who had no hand in making that decision. That is why I supported the amendment by Senators Snowe and Nelson, which provides strong protections for employers from being sued by allowing them to choose a ``designated decisionmaker'' to be in charge of making medical decisions and to take on all liability risk. In the case of an employer who offers a fully insured health plan, the health insurance company which the employer contracts with is deemed to be that designated decisionmaker, and the employer is therefore protected from lawsuits. In the case of an employer that offers a self-insured health plan, that employer may contract with a third-party administrator to administer the benefits of the plan. That third party administrator would agree to be the designated decisionmaker and the employer is shielded from lawsuits. Only those employers that act as insurers and directly make medical decisions for their employees can be held accountable. This group accounts for only approximately 5 percent of all employers in the country. This bill now makes it clear that employers--who voluntarily provide health coverage to their employees and the vast majority of which do not act as insurers by making medical decisions--are shielded from lawsuits. This is in total agreement with President Bush's stated principles of a Patients Bill of Rights he could sign, where he said, and I quote: ``Only employers who retain responsibility for and make final medical decisions should be subject to suit.'' That is exactly what this bill does. It is one of the main keys to making the rights in this bill enforceable, and I strongly urge that this right be retained in any bill that is sent to the President. Most importantly, this bill gives all of these protections to ALL Americans in managed health care plans, not just a few. All 170 million Americans in managed health plans deserve the same protections--no matter what State they live in. As someone who comes from a business background, I understand the concerns of employers. Some of my colleagues on the other side have claimed that our bill will increase health care costs so much that it will make it impossible for employers and families to afford coverage. But the Congressional Budget Office reported that the patient protections in our bill will only increase premiums by 4.2 percent over 5 years. This translates into only $1.19 per month for the average employee. CBO also found that the provision to hold health plans accountable--the provision the other side opposes the most and claim would cause health care costs to skyrocket--would only account for 40 cents of that amount. An independent study by Coopers and Lybrand indicates that the cost of the liability provisions is potentially less than that, estimating that premiums would increase between three and 13 cents a month per enrollee, or 0.03 percent. This is a small price to pay to make sure that health plans cover the health care services we all deserve. I believe this bill meets the President's principles for a real Patients Bill of Rights, and I hope that when the House passes its bill, we can come together and send a bill to the President he will sign. The time has come to end this debate and finally act to protect patients. There is no reason whatsoever to continue to allow health plans to skimp on quality in the name of saving profits. Patients have been in the waiting room long enough. It is time for the Senate to act and make sure they receive the health care they need, deserve, and pay for.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce the Patient Abuse Prevention Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Reid, who has worked tirelessly with me on this important legislation. 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 we also know that too often, the elderly are starved, shamed, abused, neglected and exploited by the very people charged with their care. And the systems that are in place today are not enough to protect them. It is estimated that more than 43 percent of Americans over the age of 65 will likely spend time in a nursing home. The number of people needing long-term care services will continue to increase as the Baby Boom generation ages. While most long-term care workers do an excellent job, it only takes a few abusive staff to cast a dark shadow over what should be a healing environment. 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. In 1997, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ran a series of articles describing this problem, which led my home State of Wisconsin to pass a criminal background check law for health care workers. The legislation I introduce today follows their example and builds on their efforts. 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. There is clear evidence that this is needed. 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 5-10 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, 15-20 percent of them had at least one conviction in their past. But even more compelling, we heard from Richard Meyer of Libertyville, Illinois, whose 92-year old mother was raped by a nursing home worker who had a previous conviction for child sexual abuse. A criminal background check could have prevented this tragedy. But even more appalling, there is nothing in current law that prevents her assailant from travelling 50 miles to my home town of Milwaukee and finding another job in a home health agency. There's no greater illustration of the need for background checks than this. But for those who need more hard data, there is more evidence. 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. Clearly, this is a critical tool that long-term care providers should have, they don't want abusive caregivers working for them any more than families do. The current voluntary system was a good first step, but if we're serious about protecting our seniors, and I believe that every Member of the Senate is, then we have to do more than make it voluntary. We should make it a national priority to require all long- term care providers who participate in Medicare and Medicaid to conduct these checks. And we should make the investment necessary to cover the costs of the checks, just like we reimburse providers for other costs of providing care to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. This is a common-sense, inexpensive step we can 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 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. When a patient checks into a nursing home or hospice, or receives home health care, they should not have to give up their right to be free from abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. 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. Our nation's seniors and disabled deserve nothing less than 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 re-introduce the Patient Abuse Prevention Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Reid, who has worked tirelessly with me on this important legislation. 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 we also know that too often, the elderly are starved, shamed, abused, neglected and exploited by the very people charged with their care. And the systems that are in place today are not enough to protect them. It is estimated that more than 43 percent of Americans over the age of 65 will likely spend time in a nursing home. The number of people needing long-term care services will continue to increase as the Baby Boom generation ages. While most long-term care workers do an excellent job, it only takes a few abusive staff to cast a dark shadow over what should be a healing environment. 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. In 1997, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ran a series of articles describing this problem, which led my home State of Wisconsin to pass a criminal background check law for health care workers. The legislation I introduce today follows their example and builds on their efforts. 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. There is clear evidence that this is needed. 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 5-10 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, 15-20 percent of them had at least one conviction in their past. But even more compelling, we heard from Richard Meyer of Libertyville, Illinois, whose 92-year old mother was raped by a nursing home worker who had a previous conviction for child sexual abuse. A criminal background check could have prevented this tragedy. But even more appalling, there is nothing in current law that prevents her assailant from travelling 50 miles to my home town of Milwaukee and finding another job in a home health agency. There's no greater illustration of the need for background checks than this. But for those who need more hard data, there is more evidence. 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. Clearly, this is a critical tool that long-term care providers should have, they don't want abusive caregivers working for them any more than families do. The current voluntary system was a good first step, but if we're serious about protecting our seniors, and I believe that every Member of the Senate is, then we have to do more than make it voluntary. We should make it a national priority to require all long- term care providers who participate in Medicare and Medicaid to conduct these checks. And we should make the investment necessary to cover the costs of the checks, just like we reimburse providers for other costs of providing care to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. This is a common-sense, inexpensive step we can 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 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. When a patient checks into a nursing home or hospice, or receives home health care, they should not have to give up their right to be free from abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. 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. Our nation's seniors and disabled deserve nothing less than 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 to support this tax cut bill, though not with great enthusiasm and not without great trepidation. It is clear that a balanced tax cut is justified given the massive budget surplus we are experiencing. Whether this is that tax cut is a different question. We have heard much this week about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. We have gone beyond that point with this bill. The debate now is whether we will let the good be the enemy of the acceptable. The booming economy of the last few years has resulted in exploding tax revenues and growing budget surpluses. These surpluses present great opportunity and great risk. There is the opportunity to invest in unmet national needs; education, health care, retirement security, agriculture, child care. And there is opportunity to return some tax dollars to the hard working families whose productivity has driven our solid economic performance. As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has stated, a tax cut gets resources to those who know best how to take care of their families, the taxpayers themselves. But with these opportunities come great risks. We are at risk of putting too much faith in multi-year projections of ever-growing surpluses. We are at risk of locking in revenue losses and deficits with which future Congresses and generations will have to grapple. The $1.35 trillion tax cut comes dangerously close to threatening the trust fund surpluses that protect Social Security and Medicare. That is why I cosponsored an amendment to put in place a ``trigger'' that would delay scheduled tax cuts if the trust fund surpluses were violated. That is also why I supported several attempt to bring the total tax cut number down and reserve some of those funds for spending priorities or debt reduction. Unfortunately, none of these amendments was accepted. What was accepted, at the insistence of a groups of Democratic and Republican moderate Senators, was a sunset that ends all the tax cuts instituted in this bill after 10 years. At minimum, that will force Congress to reexamine the wisdom of the policies we put in place today and adjust them to fit with the economic and budget circumstances of tomorrow. The other risk we face is passing a tax bill that tilts too much toward those who already have so much. I would have preferred a bill that included more relief for middle and lower income tax payers, and I supported numerous amendments to expand the tax benefits for these working families. None of those amendments passed. That is not to say that this bill does not contain significant tax relief for these families. The provisions that expand and make refundable the child tax credit will make a real difference in the lives of millions of children struggling now in families living at or near the poverty line. These are gains that were not included in the House passed bill and that must be retained in the Conference Report to make the final bill acceptable. In addition, the Senate bill includes significant tax incentives for those who send their children to college and those trying to save for retirement. These too must be retained. And finally, the bill contains a small provision on which I have worked for several years, the Child Care Infrastructure Tax Credit. This gives a modest tax incentive to employers who choose to invest in child care for their employees. This Nation clearly faces a crisis level shortage in quality child care--and quality child care is often the difference between work and welfare, between healthy children and struggling families. We win as a Nation and as an economy when we get employers involved in creating and supporting early childhood teachers and facilities. These are all good reasons to vote for this bill. But there is another reason that overwhelms these all. I am a Democrat who supports tax cuts. I am a moderate at a time when political power is wobbling from right to left. It is a certainty that a tax bill will be signed into law this year. If those like myself say ``no'' now, and push away from the table, we may be able to make some lofty political statements in time for the six o'clock news. But we take Democratic principles and the interests of working families with us. And I am not ready to do that. So I vote in favor of this bill today with the hope and expectation that it remains a bill that benefits working families, students, retirees, and children tomorrow. And I commend Chairman Grassley and the ranking member, Senator Baucus, for the clear effort and good faith with which they put together this bill.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children First Child Support Reform Act of 2001, and I want to thank Senators Snowe, Bayh, Graham, Johnson, Lieberman, Rockefeller, Breaux and Lincoln for cosponsoring. I am also pleased to cosponsor Senator Snowe's Child Support Distribution Act of 2001, which includes the ``Children First'' component as well as other provisions to improve child support collections and enforcement. I applaud Senator Snowe for her continued leadership on this important issue. The ``Children First'' bill takes significant steps toward ensuring that children receive the child support money they are owed and deserve. In Fiscal Year 1999, the public child support system collected child support payments for only 37 percent of its caseload, up from 23 percent in 1998. Obviously, we still need to improve, but States are making real progress. It's 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 non-custodial 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, over $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. 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. It's 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. A recent evaluation of the Wisconsin program clearly shows that when child support payments are delivered to families, non-custodial 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 non-custodial 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 non-custodial 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's only fair that if we are asking parents to move 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. Last year, a House version of this bill passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 405 to 18, and a similar version has been reintroduced this year. My legislation has also been included in Senator Snowe's Child Support Distribution Act, and the bipartisan ``Strengthening Working Families Act, both of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor. I was also greatly encouraged by the statements made by Secretary Thompson at the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations hearing on April 25, 2001, in which the Secretary spoke about the success of Wisconsin's program and expressed his support for this approach. I am hopeful that the Administration will be able to fully support this legislation, as I believe it is consistent with the President's goal of making sure that families, not the government, keep more of the money they earn and deserve. We must keep this bipartisan momentum going in this Congress. It's time that we finally make child support meaningful for families, and make sure that children get the support they need and deserve. 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 Children First Child Support Reform Act of 2001, and I want to thank Senators Snowe, Bayh, Graham, Johnson, Lieberman, Rockefeller, Breaux and Lincoln for cosponsoring. I am also pleased to cosponsor Senator Snowe's Child Support Distribution Act of 2001, which includes the ``Children First'' component as well as other provisions to improve child support collections and enforcement. I applaud Senator Snowe for her continued leadership on this important issue. The ``Children First'' bill takes significant steps toward ensuring that children receive the child support money they are owed and deserve. In Fiscal Year 1999, the public child support system collected child support payments for only 37 percent of its caseload, up from 23 percent in 1998. Obviously, we still need to improve, but States are making real progress. It's 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 non-custodial 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, over $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. 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. It's 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. A recent evaluation of the Wisconsin program clearly shows that when child support payments are delivered to families, non-custodial 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 non-custodial 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 non-custodial 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's only fair that if we are asking parents to move 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. Last year, a House version of this bill passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 405 to 18, and a similar version has been reintroduced this year. My legislation has also been included in Senator Snowe's Child Support Distribution Act, and the bipartisan ``Strengthening Working Families Act, both of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor. I was also greatly encouraged by the statements made by Secretary Thompson at the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations hearing on April 25, 2001, in which the Secretary spoke about the success of Wisconsin's program and expressed his support for this approach. I am hopeful that the Administration will be able to fully support this legislation, as I believe it is consistent with the President's goal of making sure that families, not the government, keep more of the money they earn and deserve. We must keep this bipartisan momentum going in this Congress. It's time that we finally make child support meaningful for families, and make sure that children get the support they need and deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I just want to add that there have been no objections from our side of the aisle to including the Brownback-Kohl amendment in the bill. I appreciate Senator Jeffords' cooperation with me, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Brownback to get this amendment included in the bill. I also appreciate his assurance that he will do everything he can to make sure our proposal is included in the final education reform bill.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. Res. 63, recognizing the dedication and sacrifice of the men and women who have lost their lives while serving as public safety officers. On Sunday, May 13, 2001, in a candlelight vigil, the names of 313 officers, many of whom were lost during the past year, were added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. Sadly, every year we add hundreds of names to this Memorial in a fitting honor, but also a terribly painful commendation to the people who risk their lives every day to protect our communities. Wisconsin owes five officers a special tribute today for their service. I would like to honor them again by placing their names in the Record along with the date of their untimely passing. Sung Hui Bang of Milwaukee County--8/17/2000; Edward R. Hoffman of Marinette County--5/26/2000; Frank Moran of Darlington--5/8/1927; Todd Jeffrey Stamper of Crandon--7/15/2000; Ralph Edward Zylka of Milwaukee County--8/17/2000. I only hope that these moments of recognition bring some solace to the officers' families and express our appreciation for their service. We are forever in their debt.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with great disappointment to oppose this budget. I am disappointed that I am forced to vote against a tax cut number, $1.25 trillion over the next ten years, that I support and think is reasonable. I am disappointed that Congress, by the slimmest of margins, is passing a spending plan that includes zero funding for education reforms, school modernization, teacher training, or any education initiative that will empower our local communities to improve their schools. But mostly I am disappointed that a budget that left this chamber a reasonable compromise, with significant investment in education, veterans, and Medicare and an over $1 trillion tax cut, has returned a political document in bipartisan clothing. I want to make it clear that I do not oppose the tax cut set up by this budget. I believe that we can afford, and should give, a tax cut of over $ 1 trillion. In fact, I have every intention of voting for the tax cut bill that will be on the floor in the next couple of weeks. Our strong economy, and our fiscal discipline over the last few years makes it possible to let taxpayers keep more of their money while still making essential investments in our children, our communities, our veterans and our seniors. The Senate vote last month proved that. We had 65 votes, mine included, for a budget that envisioned a $1.2 trillion tax cut, an unprecedented increase in education investment, a substantial commitment to veterans health, significant debt reduction, and the deserved title of bipartisan. The budget before us today chooses to keep the tax cut, and I support that, but to sacrifice investment on education, health care, NIH, and other domestic priorities. Why? In order to allow a blank check for defense spending. Let me repeat that. This budget allows an unspecified and unlimited amount of resources to go to defense while holding flat spending on education and other domestic programs, completely flat. The budget before us right now has less education spending than any other budget considered this year--the Senate Budget Resolution passed last month had more, the House Budget Resolution passed last month had more, the President's budget submission had more. I pride myself on being a tightwad when it comes to spending taxpayer money, but I have always said the one area I will not shortchange is our children's education. I cannot support the lowest offer for education on the table, yet that is exactly what we have before us today. I very much wanted to support this budget today. I look forward to supporting portions of it in the future. And I sincerely hope that, as we work through the tax and spending bills this year, we return to the compromise and broad support that marked the Senate Budget Resolution-- and reject the extremism and political polarization that scars the final budget before us now.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Citizens' Privacy Commission Act'' with my colleague, Senator Fred Thompson. Privacy has become an issue of paramount importance in this era of electronic commerce, advanced communications, and far-reaching business conglomerates. Our challenge is to clearly define privacy concerns and decide how best to protect privacy as technology and the economy move forward. However, even as we consider privacy guidelines for the private sector, the government should follow the highest privacy standards and demonstrate not only that they are preferable, but that they work. The measure we introduce today would create a Commission to examine how the various levels of government collect, use and share information about citizens. Although the recent privacy debate has been focused on online privacy and how the private sector collects and sells personally identifiable information, the government should not be overlooked. All levels of government have their own websites that are as capable of collecting sensitive information. There is also concern that the Privacy Act of 1974, which regulates how the government can collect, use and share personal information, is not being enforced or properly adhered to by federal government agencies. Furthermore, there is evidence that some government websites continue to collect information through the use of ``cookies'' in direct violation of former President Clinton's June 2000 executive order forbidding them to do so absent a ``compelling reason'' to do so. Our proposal is simple, and its goals are modest and meaningful. Specifically, our measure creates an 11 member, bipartisan panel to study data collection practices, privacy protection standards, and existing privacy laws that apply to government collection and use of personal information. We also ask the Commission to examine pending privacy initiatives before Congress. Furthermore, we ask the Commission to determine if federal legislation is needed, and what impact new privacy laws would be. Finally, we direct the Commission to detail its findings and recommendations in a Final Report to be issued 18 months after enactment. There is ample precedent for this Commission. In the mid-1970's, the privacy debate focused on government collection and misuse of personal data. Ultimately, Congress enacted the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, and the Privacy Study Commission. Since that time, however, very little attention has been paid to genuine concerns about government use of sensitive personal information. Having passed critical legislation in the 1970s, many people felt satisfied that the issue was taken care of. Unfortunately, we have grown lax about policing ourselves in this area. This bill will right the course and change that. In fact, this legislation provides us with the opportunity to establish a model of privacy protection. The intellectual capital created by the work of this Commission will help us set a responsible example for the private sector. Privacy protection is a unique struggle, cutting across the public and private sector and involving virtually every sector of our nation's economy. Perhaps there is no possibility of a universal principle defining necessary privacy protections. But the federal government has an unparalleled opportunity to try to craft a set of guidelines for privacy protection that can serve as a model. We believe the time has come for Congress to enact reasonable and thoughtful privacy legislation. This legislation is a sensible first step in that process. In closing, let me be clear that this bill is neither a ploy to prevent the enactment of more specific privacy proposals, nor a stalling tactic to suspend discussion of privacy protection until the Commission publishes its final report. Rather, this legislation is a both a genuine effort to gather information on this increasingly complex topic and a plan to accomplish something positive in this field. This is legislation that can and should be passed by the Congress. Therefore, I truly hope we can move quickly to enact this measure into law, so that the Commission can get to work as soon as possible.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Citizens' Privacy Commission Act'' with my colleague, Senator Fred Thompson. Privacy has become an issue of paramount importance in this era of electronic commerce, advanced communications, and far-reaching business conglomerates. Our challenge is to clearly define privacy concerns and decide how best to protect privacy as technology and the economy move forward. However, even as we consider privacy guidelines for the private sector, the government should follow the highest privacy standards and demonstrate not only that they are preferable, but that they work. The measure we introduce today would create a Commission to examine how the various levels of government collect, use and share information about citizens. Although the recent privacy debate has been focused on online privacy and how the private sector collects and sells personally identifiable information, the government should not be overlooked. All levels of government have their own websites that are as capable of collecting sensitive information. There is also concern that the Privacy Act of 1974, which regulates how the government can collect, use and share personal information, is not being enforced or properly adhered to by federal government agencies. Furthermore, there is evidence that some government websites continue to collect information through the use of ``cookies'' in direct violation of former President Clinton's June 2000 executive order forbidding them to do so absent a ``compelling reason'' to do so. Our proposal is simple, and its goals are modest and meaningful. Specifically, our measure creates an 11 member, bipartisan panel to study data collection practices, privacy protection standards, and existing privacy laws that apply to government collection and use of personal information. We also ask the Commission to examine pending privacy initiatives before Congress. Furthermore, we ask the Commission to determine if federal legislation is needed, and what impact new privacy laws would be. Finally, we direct the Commission to detail its findings and recommendations in a Final Report to be issued 18 months after enactment. There is ample precedent for this Commission. In the mid-1970's, the privacy debate focused on government collection and misuse of personal data. Ultimately, Congress enacted the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, and the Privacy Study Commission. Since that time, however, very little attention has been paid to genuine concerns about government use of sensitive personal information. Having passed critical legislation in the 1970s, many people felt satisfied that the issue was taken care of. Unfortunately, we have grown lax about policing ourselves in this area. This bill will right the course and change that. In fact, this legislation provides us with the opportunity to establish a model of privacy protection. The intellectual capital created by the work of this Commission will help us set a responsible example for the private sector. Privacy protection is a unique struggle, cutting across the public and private sector and involving virtually every sector of our nation's economy. Perhaps there is no possibility of a universal principle defining necessary privacy protections. But the federal government has an unparalleled opportunity to try to craft a set of guidelines for privacy protection that can serve as a model. We believe the time has come for Congress to enact reasonable and thoughtful privacy legislation. This legislation is a sensible first step in that process. In closing, let me be clear that this bill is neither a ploy to prevent the enactment of more specific privacy proposals, nor a stalling tactic to suspend discussion of privacy protection until the Commission publishes its final report. Rather, this legislation is a both a genuine effort to gather information on this increasingly complex topic and a plan to accomplish something positive in this field. This is legislation that can and should be passed by the Congress. Therefore, I truly hope we can move quickly to enact this measure into law, so that the Commission can get to work as soon as possible.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I have serious concerns about confirming John Bolton to be the next Under Secretary of State for Arms Control. The person who serves in this position is expected to supervise and manage international arms control negotiations and non-proliferation agreements and to uphold key arms control treaty obligations. Yet, John Bolton has said he believes that the very agreements he would be required to uphold and negotiate are not even legally binding. International arms control agreements are the linchpin of our national security. They have played a vital role in keeping the peace, increasing our security and halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the missiles that deliver them. They made a significant contribution towards reducing nuclear threats during the Cold War, they helped us reduce the presence of conventional forces in Europe in the post-Cold War era, and they have been an important tool in the response to the growing non-proliferation threat. Not only does John Bolton have limited experience in the arms control arena, but he has dismissed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and some other treaties as ``illusionary protections.'' He has been disdainful of supporters of the CTBT and, he has been intentionally evasive about his views on the ABM Treaty. I question whether Mr. Bolton could serve effectively in this position given his views and the inflammatory manner in which he has communicated these views in his years out of public service. I am not questioning the integrity of this nominee or his fitness for government service in general. I also believe we must be careful not to reject nominees just because we object to their views. However, when a person like John Bolton is put forward, a person whose views seem to undermine the very purpose for which he is being nominated, I believe we have a responsibility to speak out. John Bolton is not an appropriate choice for Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and I will be voting against this nomination.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Lieberman to introduce the Media Marketing Accountability Act of 2001. For too long, the entertainment industry has drawn a bullseye on our children's backs, targeting them with violent video games, movies and music. Media violence has a clear and dangerous effect on our children, and it must be curbed. Last fall's Federal Trade Commission report confirmed some of our worst fears. It found that more than 70 percent of movie, video game and music companies aggressively marketed their violent, adult-rated products to children. And while this week's report showed some meaningful progress, the ``snapshot'' it took didn't exactly reveal a pretty picture. Last fall, Senator Lieberman and I pledged not to sit by idly. Today we're here to make good on our promise. This legislation is simple. It targets the worst behavior. The entertainment industry won't be able to speak out of both sides of their mouths anymore, saying that a product is harmful to children, but then luring them into the theaters or stores to see it or buy it. This bill gives the Federal Trade Commission the authority it needs to go after the bad actors who try to mislead our families and our children. Let me be a little more specific about what the bill does. This legislation gives the FTC the authority to prosecute entertainment companies for deceptive trade practices if they target adult-rated entertainment to children. This legislation doesn't create a whole new structure of rules and punishments; it simply adds this bad behavior by entertainment companies to a list of misconduct that the FTC already has the power to punish. But the bill also rewards companies for good behavior. It includes a safe harbor which shields companies from prosecution if they already abide by a self-regulatory system that includes an age-based rating system, prohibits the marketing of adult rated material to children, and punishes for non-compliance. Finally, the legislation calls for two additional studies by the FTC over the next six years. Let me give you a concrete example of the type of behavior this bill aims to prohibit. Last fall's report uncovered a film industry practice of including young children in the test groups for R-rated films. Studios asked ten-year-olds to explain what they like about a violent, R-rated movie, and then the studio used the feedback to tailor their advertising campaign to lure youngsters into the theaters. We all agree this behavior is just plain wrong, and it is this kind of behavior that our legislation will penalize. Our bill does not touch the content produced by the industry, it simply targets specific, egregious behavior. After all, no one is saying that the entertainment industry doesn't produce high-quality and important products. But we all agree that not every product is appropriate for children, and the Federal Government has a legitimate interest in protecting children, a vulnerable audience, from being targeted with violent and vulgar content that the industry itself has identified as inappropriate. Our narrowly tailored legislation will help protect children and families from this kind of deception. Finally, our bill should not discourage the entertainment industry from rating its products. To begin with, companies that are already regulating themselves effectively will qualify for protection under our safe harbor. The industry's threat to alter or eliminate their rating systems is as irresponsible to families as the behavior we're trying to prohibit with this measure. But beyond that, enactment of this legislation would not translate to constant legal action against the entertainment industry. The Federal Trade Commission would only prosecute those companies who have clearly and flagrantly targeted children with adult-rated material. As long as companies advertise their adult-rated products to a logical target audience, they should have no concern about this legislation.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Lieberman to introduce the Media Marketing Accountability Act of 2001. For too long, the entertainment industry has drawn a bullseye on our children's backs, targeting them with violent video games, movies and music. Media violence has a clear and dangerous effect on our children, and it must be curbed. Last fall's Federal Trade Commission report confirmed some of our worst fears. It found that more than 70 percent of movie, video game and music companies aggressively marketed their violent, adult-rated products to children. And while this week's report showed some meaningful progress, the ``snapshot'' it took didn't exactly reveal a pretty picture. Last fall, Senator Lieberman and I pledged not to sit by idly. Today we're here to make good on our promise. This legislation is simple. It targets the worst behavior. The entertainment industry won't be able to speak out of both sides of their mouths anymore, saying that a product is harmful to children, but then luring them into the theaters or stores to see it or buy it. This bill gives the Federal Trade Commission the authority it needs to go after the bad actors who try to mislead our families and our children. Let me be a little more specific about what the bill does. This legislation gives the FTC the authority to prosecute entertainment companies for deceptive trade practices if they target adult-rated entertainment to children. This legislation doesn't create a whole new structure of rules and punishments; it simply adds this bad behavior by entertainment companies to a list of misconduct that the FTC already has the power to punish. But the bill also rewards companies for good behavior. It includes a safe harbor which shields companies from prosecution if they already abide by a self-regulatory system that includes an age-based rating system, prohibits the marketing of adult rated material to children, and punishes for non-compliance. Finally, the legislation calls for two additional studies by the FTC over the next six years. Let me give you a concrete example of the type of behavior this bill aims to prohibit. Last fall's report uncovered a film industry practice of including young children in the test groups for R-rated films. Studios asked ten-year-olds to explain what they like about a violent, R-rated movie, and then the studio used the feedback to tailor their advertising campaign to lure youngsters into the theaters. We all agree this behavior is just plain wrong, and it is this kind of behavior that our legislation will penalize. Our bill does not touch the content produced by the industry, it simply targets specific, egregious behavior. After all, no one is saying that the entertainment industry doesn't produce high-quality and important products. But we all agree that not every product is appropriate for children, and the Federal Government has a legitimate interest in protecting children, a vulnerable audience, from being targeted with violent and vulgar content that the industry itself has identified as inappropriate. Our narrowly tailored legislation will help protect children and families from this kind of deception. Finally, our bill should not discourage the entertainment industry from rating its products. To begin with, companies that are already regulating themselves effectively will qualify for protection under our safe harbor. The industry's threat to alter or eliminate their rating systems is as irresponsible to families as the behavior we're trying to prohibit with this measure. But beyond that, enactment of this legislation would not translate to constant legal action against the entertainment industry. The Federal Trade Commission would only prosecute those companies who have clearly and flagrantly targeted children with adult-rated material. As long as companies advertise their adult-rated products to a logical target audience, they should have no concern about this legislation.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare and Medicaid Nursing Services Quality Improvement Act. I am pleased to work with Senators Dorgan and Conrad in this important effort to improve the quality of care in our nation's nursing homes. This legislation serves two purposes. First, as part of an 8-State demonstration project, it allows Wisconsin nursing homes to continue utilizing Resident Assistants, or ``single task employees'' as they are referred to in Wisconsin, to help provide care to residents. Second, it provides for a thorough evaluation of Resident Assistants to assess their impact on quality of care, as well as their impact on the recruitment, retention, and salaries of other nursing staff. For the past seven years, many nursing facilities in Wisconsin have been utilizing single task employees to help provide care to residents. Single task employees have helped primarily with feeding and hydration services and have provided often-needed extra assistance during the busier mealtime hours. All single task employees must go through a training program. In many cases, those who perform these single tasks are already on staff serving in other non-nursing capacities. Last year, the Health Care Financing Administration, HCFA, notified the State of Wisconsin that the use of single task employees in nursing homes was not permissible under Federal law. In particular, HCFA noted that only staff who have undergone the required training to become a Certified Nurse Aide, CNA, may perform nursing-related tasks in Medicaid facilities. Therefore, faced with no other recourse, Wisconsin submitted and HCFA approved a plan to phase out the use of single task employees by the end of 2001. I am deeply concerned that the immediate removal of all single task employees could worsen staffing shortages that many Wisconsin nursing homes already face. A December, 2000 survey of 247 Wisconsin nursing homes found that nearly 32 percent were currently suspending or restricting admissions or had done so in the prior six months due to inadequate staffing. I recognize that there are many factors that have contributed to staffing shortages in Wisconsin and across the nation. I believe that we need to look for long-term solutions to strengthen training and improve staffing in nursing homes, and I am committed to working in that effort. We must all work together to find ways to attract greater numbers of qualified people to become CNAs, and ensure they receive the support, training and compensation they deserve for their hard work and dedication. In the meantime, this legislation provides a short-term solution to address the staffing shortages Wisconsin nursing homes face today. Under the bill, Wisconsin would be one of 8 demonstration States and could continue to use single task workers, referred to in the legislation as ``Resident Assistants'' to account for differences in terminology between States. The information we obtain from these Demonstration States will help us evaluate the impact of Resident Assistants and provide us with valuable insight to improve the quality of nursing home care. Because this is a Demonstration Project, this bill provides safeguards to closely monitor the use of Resident Assistants. Under the bill, Resident Assistants would be limited to providing assistance with feeding and hydration. All Resident Assistants would be required to go through a training program approved by the State. They must be trained in feeding and hydration skills, recognizing and alerting licensed staff to the signs of malnutrition and dehydration, understanding the aging and disease processes of the elderly, responding to choking emergencies and alerting licensed staff to other emergencies, taking precautions to prevent the spread of disease, and residents' rights. In addition, all Resident Assistants must be supervised at all times by a licensed health professional. I also want to stress that this bill strictly prohibits nursing homes from replacing certified nursing staff with Resident Assistants, and Resident Assistants may not be counted toward any minimum staffing requirements that nursing homes are or could be required to meet. Let me be clear: Resident Assistants are not intended to serve as a substitute for the specialized care that nurse aides provide. They are intended to be utilized as supplemental help with feeding and hydration services for residents, to provide an extra pair of hands at busier mealtimes, and to provide some assistance to nurse aides who are stretched so thin so they can focus on other critical nursing tasks. Most importantly, let me reiterate that this is a time-limited demonstration project. This legislation ensures that we collect reliable data on the use of Resident Assistants, which will be analyzed by an advisory panel made up of nursing home representatives, Long-Term Ombudsmen, State and Federal officials, consumer groups, and labor representatives. The advisory panel will look at a variety of factors to determine the impact of the project, including: the effect on quality of care compared to non-demonstration States, the effect on staffing levels and ratios in nursing homes, the effect on recruitment, retention and salaries of nursing aides, and resident satisfaction with feeding and hydration services. The advisory panel will evaluate this data and submit recommendations to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. The Secretary will then submit a final report to Congress on the demonstration. If the Secretary finds that the Demonstration project resulted in diminished quality of feeding and hydration services, or if recruitment, retention, or salaries of nursing staff decreased as a direct result of the use of Resident Assistants, then the demonstration project would end and all nursing homes must cease using Resident Assistants. However, if the Secretary finds that the demonstration projects were successful, only then may the Secretary expand the use of Resident Assistants nationwide, but with the same safeguards as the demonstration project. They would be limited to feeding and hydration services, required to undergo comprehensive training and be supervised by licensed health professionals, and be subject to the same requirement that they may only augment, not replace nursing staff. This legislation will not only help stave off an even greater staffing problem in Wisconsin today. It will also give us the opportunity to take a closer look at Resident Assistants so we can make an informed determination as to whether they can help improve the quality of care in our nation's nursing homes. Our nursing homes in Wisconsin believe that Resident Assistants can be a valuable addition, and this bill will allow us to keep an open mind and look at all of the evidence in a thorough evaluation. This legislation helps address the challenges we face today. At the same time, let me reiterate that I am committed to working with my colleagues to look for longer-term solutions to address staffing shortages in order to ensure quality nursing home care far into the future. 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 express my deep disappointment at the failure of Senator Johnson's amendment to H. Con. Res 83, the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution. On behalf of the farmers in my State and throughout the country I supported this amendment which would have provided additional economic assistance to producers who continue to face depressed commodity prices and increased fuel and energy costs. Last year, Congress provided a total of approximately $30 billion in total farm spending. Nearly $11 billion of the $30 billion total either carried an emergency designation or was in addition to the spending set forth in the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act. Without these additional funds, we would have witnessed greater numbers of bankruptcies and foreclosures across rural America. We would have witnessed greater economic tragedy in a rural economy that has already suffered too much loss. The Johnson amendment would have provided $9 billion this year, and similar levels of funding in future years, to continue to meet the real needs of a struggling agricultural sector. Unfortunately, a slim majority of the Senate rejected the amendment choosing to protect a massive $1.6 trillion tax rather than provide adequate assistance for rural America. I have heard from producers throughout Wisconsin on the difficulties facing the agriculture industry, and more specifically the dairy industry. In dairy, milk prices have hovered around record low levels, as we continue to lose our producers at an alarming rate. We also continue to see dramatic increases in imports of the milk protein concentrates that displace milk produced by American farmers. Last year, Congress approved $667 million in emergency, direct payments to dairy producers to help them remain in business. And a similar amount, or more, will be needed this year to counter what the U.S. Department of Agriculture predicts will be another year of low prices. I agree with those in this body who complain that year after year of ad hoc emergency agriculture spending is irresponsible and wasteful. I agree with the dairy farmers who would rather have a fair chance to compete than a government handout. We need to re-write the farm bill in a manner that provides adequate and market-oriented support to our farmers and ranchers who continue to produce the safest and most abundant supply of food and fiber in the world. And in the context of that re-write, the Agriculture Committee must enact a national dairy assistance program, a program that allows the competitive family farms of the Midwest to continue to produce and sell their quality product and to support their families, farms and communities with the proceeds. The levels of spending for agriculture allowed in this budget, as amended by Senator Grassley, are better than where we started: with no provision for responding to the farm crisis this year. However, I am concerned that even the increases now called for in the budget will not be enough to meet the continuing and real needs of the farm economy. And I am equally concerned that, if the Appropriations Committee responds to this shortfall with emergency spending, the White House will not agree. In other words, the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, of which I am the ranking member, and of which my good friend from Mississippi, Senator Cochran is the chairman, may not be able to keep the struggling agricultural sector from seeing a real cut in federal funds this year. I hope that my concerns are misplaced. I hope commodity prices rebound, our farmers experience a good year, and our the Agriculture Committee completes a farm bill that adequately supports rural America with the limited resources provided in this budget. I look forward to working toward that end, and hoping for that end, with Chairman Lugar and Ranking Member Harkin on the Senate Agriculture Committee and Chairman Cochran and our other Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee members.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the Strengthening Working Families Act of 2001. I would like to thank Senators Bayh and Snowe for working so diligently to put this package together. I am pleased that my Child Care Infrastructure Act is included, and I believe it will go a long way towards providing working families the tools they need to succeed. That's because this bill is based on a simple premise: that working couples who decide to have a family should not be penalized because they both must keep working. Unfortunately today, many working parents today do not have access to an essential tool for success at work: quality child care. According to the Children's Defense Fund, the average annual cost of child care can be more than the average annual cost of public college tuition. And nothing adds more to these high costs than the dramatic shortage of quality child care in this country. Increasing the supply of child care has clear benefits, for children, their parents and businesses. Research on the brain has proven the importance of early childhood programs to a child's chances of long- term success in school and in adult life. I have visited many employer- sponsored child care centers in Wisconsin, and they are so often state- of-the-art facilities that significantly enhance early childhood education. And just as importantly, parents are more productive at work when they know that their children have safe, reliable child care. This bill is aimed at increasing the supply of child care for working families. We provide a 25 percent tax credit to businesses who are willing to take actions to increase the supply of quality child care, including the construction and operation of an on-site or near-site child care center, or providing child care subsidies for their employees. Increasing the supply of affordable child care is just one part of the fight to help working families succeed, and this bill makes businesses a true partner in that effort. I am also pleased that the Strengthening Working Families bill also includes ``The Child Support Distribution Act,'' which is similar to legislation I've been working on since 1998, the ``Children First Child Support Reform Act''. This bill takes significant steps toward ensuring that children receive the child support money they are owed and deserve. In Fiscal Year 1999, the public child support system collected child support payments for only 37 percent of its caseload, up from 23 percent in 1998. Obviously, we still need to improve, but States are making real progress. It's 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 non-custodial 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, over $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. 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. It's 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. Preliminary results show that when child support payments are delivered to families, non-custodial 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. Title II of the Strengthening Working Families bill 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 non-custodial 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 non-custodial 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's only fair that if we are asking parents to move 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. Last year, a House version of this bill passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote for 405 to 18. We must keep the momentum going in this Congress, and finally make child support meaningful for families. Again, I want to thank Senators Snowe and Bayh for working with me on this issue and for including it in this package.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the Strengthening Working Families Act of 2001. I would like to thank Senators Bayh and Snowe for working so diligently to put this package together. I am pleased that my Child Care Infrastructure Act is included, and I believe it will go a long way towards providing working families the tools they need to succeed. That's because this bill is based on a simple premise: that working couples who decide to have a family should not be penalized because they both must keep working. Unfortunately today, many working parents today do not have access to an essential tool for success at work: quality child care. According to the Children's Defense Fund, the average annual cost of child care can be more than the average annual cost of public college tuition. And nothing adds more to these high costs than the dramatic shortage of quality child care in this country. Increasing the supply of child care has clear benefits, for children, their parents and businesses. Research on the brain has proven the importance of early childhood programs to a child's chances of long- term success in school and in adult life. I have visited many employer- sponsored child care centers in Wisconsin, and they are so often state- of-the-art facilities that significantly enhance early childhood education. And just as importantly, parents are more productive at work when they know that their children have safe, reliable child care. This bill is aimed at increasing the supply of child care for working families. We provide a 25 percent tax credit to businesses who are willing to take actions to increase the supply of quality child care, including the construction and operation of an on-site or near-site child care center, or providing child care subsidies for their employees. Increasing the supply of affordable child care is just one part of the fight to help working families succeed, and this bill makes businesses a true partner in that effort. I am also pleased that the Strengthening Working Families bill also includes ``The Child Support Distribution Act,'' which is similar to legislation I've been working on since 1998, the ``Children First Child Support Reform Act''. This bill takes significant steps toward ensuring that children receive the child support money they are owed and deserve. In Fiscal Year 1999, the public child support system collected child support payments for only 37 percent of its caseload, up from 23 percent in 1998. Obviously, we still need to improve, but States are making real progress. It's 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 non-custodial 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, over $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. 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. It's 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. Preliminary results show that when child support payments are delivered to families, non-custodial 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. Title II of the Strengthening Working Families bill 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 non-custodial 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 non-custodial 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's only fair that if we are asking parents to move 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. Last year, a House version of this bill passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote for 405 to 18. We must keep the momentum going in this Congress, and finally make child support meaningful for families. Again, I want to thank Senators Snowe and Bayh for working with me on this issue and for including it in this package.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to support S. 27, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001. I have been a consistent supporter and cosponsor of campaign finance reform because I believe we must do everything we can to ensure that there is not even a perception of undue influence in Federal elections. The debate of the last 2 weeks has provided us with a unique opportunity to examine a wide range of issues related to the financing of political campaigns. The result is a bill with strong bipartisan support. This landmark legislation, if signed into law, will succeed in banning soft or unregulated money in Federal elections. The unlimited flow of money into party coffers creates the greatest opportunity for special interests to seek favor with politicians. The reality that businesses or organizations can be tapped for such vast sums has dramatically changed the atmosphere surrounding the work of our legislative and executive branches of Government. With this legislation, we are also finally getting at one of the most troublesome areas of unregulated and unreported spending in Federal elections, so-called sham issue ads. This legislation does not ban issue advocacy or limit the right of groups to air their views. Rather, the disclosure provisions in the bill require that these groups step up and identify themselves when they run issue ads which are clearly targeted for or against candidates. The Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 has left us with the difficult task of devising a system of financing campaigns without suppressing free speech. Our Founding Fathers were resolute in their defense of speech and we must continue to protect the first amendment right. We do so, however, with the understanding that we must reconcile free speech with a competing public interest. This interest, as articulated in Buckley v. Valeo, is preventing corruption of Federal elected officials or even the appearance of corruption. Let me be clear, I do not believe that our system is corrupt or that elected officials are corrupted by campaign contributions. However, I agree that we must combat the perception of corruption. It isn't difficult to understand why a majority of American citizens are convinced that the presence of special interest money in politics buys influence. The vast majority of those citizens do not participate in contributing to political candidates--in a recent survey, 6 percent of the electorate said they gave any money to a political candidate and less than one-tenth of one percent even contribute at the current $1,000 contribution limit--so it is no wonder that most Americans believe that they can't compete with the few who do give and who often gain access as a result. Many Americans believe that their voices are not heard. Whether the presence of unlimited political contributions is corrupting or whether it just creates the appearance of corruption, the damage is done. Americans are disaffected with politics and political campaigns and have voted against the current system with their feet: 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. Our representative democracy is harmed by eroding participation. As elected officials, we have a responsibility to try to address the sources of voter disaffection. And, that is ultimately what campaign finance reform is all about, restoring the confidence of the American people in our elected government. I am keenly aware of how fortunate I am to be able to finance my own campaigns. I do not accept contributions from political action committees and I am not burdened with the task of raising vast amounts of money to run for office. However, during debate on this bill I was willing to support amendments which would help level the playing field for all candidates. That is why I supported the DeWine amendment which raised the contribution limits for candidates whose opponents spend their own money to fund their campaigns. That is also why I was willing to support the Thompson-Feinstein amendment to increase contribution limits in a reasonable way, beyond the limits set back in the seventies. And that is why I supported the Torricelli amendment to give political candidates the opportunity to buy advertising time at the lowest unit cost, as originally intended in the Federal Election Campaign Act. It is my hope that this legislation is signed into law. I fear if this bill becomes bogged down in a conference or if the President vetoes it, we will have missed a rare opportunity to achieve meaningful campaign finance reform. The unprecedented time we have spent debating this issue--and a wonderful debate it has been, fast-paced and unscripted--will not be repeated any time soon. Finally, I want to commend my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Russ Feingold. He has been dogged in his pursuit of campaign finance reform. For 5 years now, he has championed this issue, even when it was not always popular with his colleagues. He has forged a potent partnership with Senator McCain and they have waged a campaign across the country and in the Senate to rally the American people for the reforms we are adopting today. While he has been unbending in his desire to move this forward, he has also compromised and adjusted so that we could address the worst abuses of the system. He has earned the respect of all Wisconsinites for his leadership on campaign finance reform.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, in the last year, consumers all across the nation have watched gas prices rise, seemingly without any end in sight. And, if consumers weren't paying enough already, just a few days ago the OPEC nations agreed to cut production by a million barrels a day, an action sure to drive up prices even higher. Such blatantly anti-competitive action by the oil cartel violates the most basic principles of fair competition and free markets and should not be tolerated. It is for this reason that I rise today, with my colleagues Senators DeWine, Specter, Leahy, Feingold, Thurmond, and Grassley, to reintroduce the ``No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act'', ``NOPEC''. This legislation is identical to our NOPEC bill introduced last year, which passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously. Real people suffer real consequences every day in our nation because of OPEC's actions. Rising gas prices--prices that averaged above $2 per gallon in many places last summer, are a silent tax that takes hard- earned money away from Americans every time they visit the gas pump. Higher oil prices drive up the cost of transportation, harming thousands of companies throughout the economy from trucking to aviation. And those costs are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for manufactured goods. Higher oil prices mean higher heating oil and electricity costs. Anyone who has gone through a Midwest winter or a deep South summer can tell you about the tremendous personal costs associated with higher home heating or cooling bills. We have all heard many explanations offered for rising energy prices. Some say that the oil companies are gouging consumers. Some blame disruptions in supply. Others point to EPA requirement mandating use of a new and more expensive type of ``reformulated'' gas in the Midwest. After last spring's gas price spike, which dove prices above $2 per gallon for a time in the Midwest, some even claimed that refiners and distributors were illegally fixing prices. At the request of the Wisconsin delegation and Senator DeWine, the Federal Trade Commission launched an investigation last year to figure out if those allegations were true. After an exhaustive, nearly year-long investigation, they found no evidence of illegal price fixing as a cause of higher gas prices. But one cause of these escalating prices is indisputable: the price fixing conspiracy of the OPEC nations. For years, this conspiracy has unfairly driven up the cost of imported crude oil to satisfy the greed of the oil exporters. We have long decried OPEC, but, sadly, until now no one has tried to take any action. NOPEC will, for the first time, establish clearly and plainly that when a group of competing oil producers like the OPEC nations act together to restrict supply or set prices, they are violating U.S. law. It will authorize the Attorney General or FTC to file suit under the antitrust laws for redress. Our bill will also make plain that the nations of OPEC cannot hide behind the doctrines of ``Sovereign Immunity'' or ``Act of State'' to escape the reach of American justice. In recent years a consensus has developed in international law that certain basic standards are universal, and that the international community can, and should, take action when a nation violates these fundamental standards. The response of the international community to ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia and action by the courts of Britain to hold General Augusto Pinochet accountable for human rights abuses and torture that occurred when he was President of Chile are two prominent examples. The rouge actions of the international oil cartel should be treated no differently. The most fundamental principle of a free market is that competitors cannot be permitted to conspire to limit supply or fix price. There can be no free market without this foundation. In this era of globalization, we truly need to open international markets to ensure the prosperity of all. And we should not permit any nation to flout this fundamental principle. Some critics of this legislation have argued that suing OPEC will not work or that threatening suit will hurt more than help. I disagree. Our NOPEC legislation will, for the first time, enable our authorities to take legal action to combat the illegitimate price-fixing conspiracy of the oil cartel. It will, at a minimum, have a real deterrent effect on nations that seek to join forces to fix oil prices to the detriment of consumers. This legislation will be the first real weapon the U.S. government has ever had to deter OPEC from its seemingly endless cycle of price increases. There is nothing remarkable about applying U.S. antitrust law overseas. Our government has not hesitated to do so when faced with clear evidence of anti-competitive conduct that harms American consumers. Just last year, in fact, the Justice Department secured a record $500 million dollar criminal fine against German and Swiss companies engaged in a price fixing conspiracy to raise and fix the price of vitamins sold in the United States and elsewhere. The mere fact that the conspirators are foreign nations is no basis to shield them from violating these most basic standards of fair economic behavior. There is also nothing remarkable about suing a foreign government about its commercial activity. There are many recent cases in which foreign governments have been held answerable for their commercial activities in U.S. courts, including a case against Iran for failure to pay for aircraft parts, a case against Argentina for breach of its obligations arising out of issuance of bonds, and a case against Costa Rica for violating the terms of a lease. Our NOPEC legislation falls squarely within this tradition. Even under current law, there is no doubt that the actions of the international oil cartel would be in gross violation of antitrust law if engaged in by private companies. If OPEC were a group of international private companies rather than foreign governments, their actions would be nothing more than an illegal price fixing scheme. But OPEC members have used the shield of ``sovereign immunity'' to escape accountability for their price-fixing. The Federal Sovereign Immunities Act, though, already recognizes that the ``commercial'' activity of nations is not protected by sovereign immunity. And it is hard to imagine an activity that is more obviously commercial than selling oil for profit, as the OPEC nations do. Our legislation will correct one erroneous twenty-year-old lower federal court decision and establish that sovereign immunity doctrine will not divest a U.S. court from jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit alleging that members of the oil cartel are violating antitrust law. In the last few weeks, I have grown more certain than ever that this legislation is necessary. Between OPEC's decision last week to cut oil production and the FTC's conclusion that American companies do not bear primary responsibility for last summer's gas price spike, I am convinced that we need to take action, and take action now, before the damage spreads too far. For these reasons, I urge that my colleagues support this bill so that our nation will finally have an effective means to combat this selfish conspiracy of oil-rich nations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, in the last year, consumers all across the nation have watched gas prices rise, seemingly without any end in sight. And, if consumers weren't paying enough already, just a few days ago the OPEC nations agreed to cut production by a million barrels a day, an action sure to drive up prices even higher. Such blatantly anti-competitive action by the oil cartel violates the most basic principles of fair competition and free markets and should not be tolerated. It is for this reason that I rise today, with my colleagues Senators DeWine, Specter, Leahy, Feingold, Thurmond, and Grassley, to reintroduce the ``No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act'', ``NOPEC''. This legislation is identical to our NOPEC bill introduced last year, which passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously. Real people suffer real consequences every day in our nation because of OPEC's actions. Rising gas prices--prices that averaged above $2 per gallon in many places last summer, are a silent tax that takes hard- earned money away from Americans every time they visit the gas pump. Higher oil prices drive up the cost of transportation, harming thousands of companies throughout the economy from trucking to aviation. And those costs are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for manufactured goods. Higher oil prices mean higher heating oil and electricity costs. Anyone who has gone through a Midwest winter or a deep South summer can tell you about the tremendous personal costs associated with higher home heating or cooling bills. We have all heard many explanations offered for rising energy prices. Some say that the oil companies are gouging consumers. Some blame disruptions in supply. Others point to EPA requirement mandating use of a new and more expensive type of ``reformulated'' gas in the Midwest. After last spring's gas price spike, which dove prices above $2 per gallon for a time in the Midwest, some even claimed that refiners and distributors were illegally fixing prices. At the request of the Wisconsin delegation and Senator DeWine, the Federal Trade Commission launched an investigation last year to figure out if those allegations were true. After an exhaustive, nearly year-long investigation, they found no evidence of illegal price fixing as a cause of higher gas prices. But one cause of these escalating prices is indisputable: the price fixing conspiracy of the OPEC nations. For years, this conspiracy has unfairly driven up the cost of imported crude oil to satisfy the greed of the oil exporters. We have long decried OPEC, but, sadly, until now no one has tried to take any action. NOPEC will, for the first time, establish clearly and plainly that when a group of competing oil producers like the OPEC nations act together to restrict supply or set prices, they are violating U.S. law. It will authorize the Attorney General or FTC to file suit under the antitrust laws for redress. Our bill will also make plain that the nations of OPEC cannot hide behind the doctrines of ``Sovereign Immunity'' or ``Act of State'' to escape the reach of American justice. In recent years a consensus has developed in international law that certain basic standards are universal, and that the international community can, and should, take action when a nation violates these fundamental standards. The response of the international community to ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia and action by the courts of Britain to hold General Augusto Pinochet accountable for human rights abuses and torture that occurred when he was President of Chile are two prominent examples. The rouge actions of the international oil cartel should be treated no differently. The most fundamental principle of a free market is that competitors cannot be permitted to conspire to limit supply or fix price. There can be no free market without this foundation. In this era of globalization, we truly need to open international markets to ensure the prosperity of all. And we should not permit any nation to flout this fundamental principle. Some critics of this legislation have argued that suing OPEC will not work or that threatening suit will hurt more than help. I disagree. Our NOPEC legislation will, for the first time, enable our authorities to take legal action to combat the illegitimate price-fixing conspiracy of the oil cartel. It will, at a minimum, have a real deterrent effect on nations that seek to join forces to fix oil prices to the detriment of consumers. This legislation will be the first real weapon the U.S. government has ever had to deter OPEC from its seemingly endless cycle of price increases. There is nothing remarkable about applying U.S. antitrust law overseas. Our government has not hesitated to do so when faced with clear evidence of anti-competitive conduct that harms American consumers. Just last year, in fact, the Justice Department secured a record $500 million dollar criminal fine against German and Swiss companies engaged in a price fixing conspiracy to raise and fix the price of vitamins sold in the United States and elsewhere. The mere fact that the conspirators are foreign nations is no basis to shield them from violating these most basic standards of fair economic behavior. There is also nothing remarkable about suing a foreign government about its commercial activity. There are many recent cases in which foreign governments have been held answerable for their commercial activities in U.S. courts, including a case against Iran for failure to pay for aircraft parts, a case against Argentina for breach of its obligations arising out of issuance of bonds, and a case against Costa Rica for violating the terms of a lease. Our NOPEC legislation falls squarely within this tradition. Even under current law, there is no doubt that the actions of the international oil cartel would be in gross violation of antitrust law if engaged in by private companies. If OPEC were a group of international private companies rather than foreign governments, their actions would be nothing more than an illegal price fixing scheme. But OPEC members have used the shield of ``sovereign immunity'' to escape accountability for their price-fixing. The Federal Sovereign Immunities Act, though, already recognizes that the ``commercial'' activity of nations is not protected by sovereign immunity. And it is hard to imagine an activity that is more obviously commercial than selling oil for profit, as the OPEC nations do. Our legislation will correct one erroneous twenty-year-old lower federal court decision and establish that sovereign immunity doctrine will not divest a U.S. court from jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit alleging that members of the oil cartel are violating antitrust law. In the last few weeks, I have grown more certain than ever that this legislation is necessary. Between OPEC's decision last week to cut oil production and the FTC's conclusion that American companies do not bear primary responsibility for last summer's gas price spike, I am convinced that we need to take action, and take action now, before the damage spreads too far. For these reasons, I urge that my colleagues support this bill so that our nation will finally have an effective means to combat this selfish conspiracy of oil-rich nations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I introduce with my good friend from New Hampshire NET FAIR, the New Economy Fairness Act. This bill is identical to a bill we introduced last Congress. It would clarify the tax situation of companies that sell and ship products out of the state in which they are located. NET FAIR codifies current legal decisions defining when a business can be subject to state and local business taxes and be required to collect State and local sales taxes. Currently, a business falls into a state or local taxing jurisdiction when it has a ``substantial physical presence'' or ``nexus'' there. And that makes sense. If a business is located in a State--uses the roads there, impacts the environment there, employs local workers there it should pay taxes and business fees there, and it should collect sales taxes on products sold there. But if a business is located out of State, and simply ships products to consumers there, it is not part of the local economy. It does not use local services or infrastructure. And it should not be subject to the taxes and tax collection burdens that support a community not its own. That seems simple. But as with anything that happens in tax law, it is not. Cases have been brought in courts across the country trying to clarify exactly what is a ``substantial physical presence.'' Is it maintaining a Web site? Sending employees to training conferences? Taking orders over the Internet? Our bill codifies the decisions already established by the courts and restates the principle on which they are all based: State and local taxing authorities do not have jurisdiction over businesses that are not physically located in their borders. Because this area of the law is as arcane as it is important, it is important to describe what our bill does not do. It does not exempt e-businesses or any other mail order businesses from taxation. The businesses our bill cover pay plenty of taxes-- Federal taxes and State and local taxes and fees in every state in which they maintain a physical presence. Our bill does not offer special breaks for e-businesses. Though the struggling e-economy will certainly benefit from having its tax situation clarified, nothing we state in this bill goes beyond current established case law. Our bill does not take away any revenue States and localities are currently collecting. Only Congress has the right to regulate the flow of commerce between the States. State and local tax collectors have never been able to reach into other States and collect revenues from businesses outside their borders. Our bill does not threaten ``main street businesses.'' In fact, it is just the opposite. The small stores of Main Street are threatened by malls and mega-stores--not by the Internet or catalogue companies. In fact, many Main Street speciality stores are staying alive by offering their products over the Internet. In Wisconsin, for example, we have many cheese makers who have run small family businesses for years. A quick search on the World Wide Web yields 20 Wisconsin cheese makers selling over the Internet. They are from Wisconsin towns like Plain, Durand, Fennimore, Tribe Lake, Thorp, and Prairie Ridge. Could these small towns support speciality cheese makers with walk-in traffic only? Would these small businesses continue to sell over the Internet if they had to figure and remit sales taxes and business fees to the over 7000 taxing jurisdictions into which they might ship? Of course not. What our bill does do is protect businesses, big and small, and consumers from facing a plethora of new taxes and tax compliance burdens. What it does do is keep the life-line of Internet sales available for countless small businesses and entrepreneurs. What it does do is clarify the tax law and eliminate the need for State-by- State litigation--that governs the developing world of e-commerce. What it does do is provide predictability to the mail order business sector an industry that employs 300,000 in the State of Wisconsin. I urge my colleagues to support NETFAIR and protect thousands of businesses and millions of consumers from new and onerous tax burdens.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 50, I voted ``aye.'' It was my intention to vote ``no.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it would in no way change the outcome of the vote.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate approved S. 295, the Small Business Energy Emergency Relief Act of 2001. This bill will provide needed assistance to small businesses and farmers that have suffered direct and substantial economic injury caused by significant increases in the prices of heating oil, propane, kerosene, or natural gas. Specifically, I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Small Business Committee, Senator Kit Bond and Senator John Kerry, for their willingness to include an amendment sponsored by Senator Harkin and me. This amendment will help farmers offset the surging costs of fuel. Farmers in my state and throughout the country have been negatively impacted as a result of high energy prices on farm income, due not only to the costs for fuel farmers need to run their equipment but also the increases in costs for fertilizer, which is made from natural gas. Earlier this year, the spot price for natural gas had increased 400 percent from the year before. The Department of Energy is predicting that natural gas rates this winter will be at least double last year's levels. The most recognizable impact of this price spike has been on heating costs. However, many in the agriculture community are concerned with the impact of these spiraling costs on agricultural producers, since natural gas is the major component of nitrogen. I am pleased that the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Small Business Committee agreed to include the Farm Energy Relief Act to allow the Secretary of Agriculture to declare a disaster area in counties where a sharp and significant increase in the price of fuel and fertilizer has caused farmers economic injury and created the need for financial assistance. That determination would allow farmers to be eligible for USDA's emergency disaster loans for losses arising from energy price spikes. I believe this amendment will provide much-needed relief to many of our producers who are also facing depressed prices for their commodities.