Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I will just respond to the Senator from Texas. I think one of the major arguments, if not the major argument, she makes is that this amendment is about States rights, in her opinion, and that we should preserve States rights. I want to make the point that, in my judgment, nothing could be further from the truth because anybody who files for bankruptcy is choosing to invoke Federal law in a Federal court to get a fresh start, which is uniquely a Federal benefit. So in these circumstances it is only fair to impose Federal kinds of limits. In fact, this bill is full of provisions that do rewrite State law. For example, one of the provisions in this bill establishes a Federal provision that allows creditors to come into a debtor's home, if necessary, to take their stereo and then sell it. So there is no reason Federal law should determine if you can keep a stereo but not the amount of equity in your house. I believe this argument about States rights with respect to a Federal bankruptcy bill just doesn't equate. The other point she makes is that we worked out a generous compromise and that is the one we should keep. That is the compromise that requires 2 years of residency before you can keep the equity in your house to the full extent. Bankruptcy professors and practitioners across our Nation have told us, and will tell you, that the 2-year residency requirement is something that any planner can deal with in providing for the bankruptcy of their client. So that is not an adequate kind of a resolution, and that is why we are here today to make our arguments in favor of this amendment. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KOHL. I yield back my time.

Mr. KOHL. I will respond to some of the comments made by the distinguished Senator from Florida. We need to recognize there is no question in this legislation that we have every right and have, in fact, asserted a Federal right in bankruptcy legislation. We have done it in many cases in this legislation. To suggest we do not have the right or it is improper to assert in bankruptcy a Federal right in establishing a minimum amount to shield a home just is not consistent with the rest of this legislation. I also want to point out that the $125,000 limit we imposed is negotiable in conference to $150,000 to $200,000. There are only five States with unlimited exemptions. There are only two States with exemptions in excess of $125,000--Minnesota and Massachusetts, which have $200,000. So it is not difficult to correct any of these problems in conference. Again, by a vote of 76-22 2 years ago, we accepted this amendment. I am requesting and hoping the Senate will again vote to accept this amendment today. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I want to respond briefly. There is in the bankruptcy code today a limit on cars. I think it is $5,000. There is a limit on art, along with other provisions, which I think is at $8,000. The claim that you can shield an unlimited amount of art, or a fabulous car collection, in a bankruptcy proceeding today is simply not true.

Mr. KOHL. Just briefly, to respond to Senator Hatch, bankruptcy is a Federal proceeding that occurs in Federal courts, so there is every logical reason to have Federal standards. Right now, there are only five States with an unlimited exemption--Florida, Texas, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa--and only two States have one over $125,000, and that is $200,000. Those two States are Minnesota and Massachusetts. Every other State has an exemption of $125,000, which is ours, or less. The argument that every State should be allowed to set an unlimited exemption if they so wish is not logical because it is not a States rights issue. Bankruptcy is a Federal issue. I think that argument doesn't hold water. Again, I point out the exemption that has been worked out simply says that a person would have to have 2 years residency in any one of these five States, and then they could shield an unlimited amount in a home in a bankruptcy proceeding. As I said in my earlier statement, it is very easy to work a 2-year residency while you are planning to have a bankruptcy proceeding. Furthermore, it does nothing to address the issue of people who currently live in those five States--maybe for 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, or 20 years. They would have the opportunity to shield an unlimited amount in a home. This is a very simple amendment. We debated it 2 years ago, and by a 76-22 margin, the Senate accepted that amendment 2 years ago. We are simply requesting that same expression of the Senate's intent be stated again today. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I send this amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment with Senator Feinstein to eliminate the most flagrant abuse of the bankruptcy system--the unlimited homestead exemption. The homestead exemption allows debtors in five states to purchase expensive homes and shield millions of dollars from their creditors. All too often, millionaire debtors take advantage of this loophole by buying mansions in states with unlimited exemptions like Florida and Texas, and declaring bankruptcy--yet continuing to live like kings. Our amendment will generously cap the homestead exemption at $125,000--that is, it permits a debtor to keep $125,000 of equity in his home after declaring bankruptcy. The Senate voted on our amendment last session 76-22 after rejecting an amendment that would have gutted our amendment by a vote of 69-29. That was the right thing to do then, and it is the right thing to do now. Let me give you a few of the numerous examples of rich debtors taking advantage of this loophole: Abe Gosman, a health care and real estate magnate, declared bankruptcy last week in Florida citing debts of over $233 million. Despite these debts incurred from business losses in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, he will hold onto his 64,000 square foot mansion in West Palm Beach on a street known as ``Billionaire's Row.'' This January, convicted Wall Street financier Paul Bilzerian filed bankruptcy for the second time while owing at least $140 million in debts, but still kept his $5 million, 37,000 square foot Florida mansion. Movie star Burt Reynolds wrote off more than $8 million in debt through bankruptcy, but still held onto his $2.5 million estate, named Valhalla. Sadly, those examples are just the tip of the iceberg. We asked the General Accounting Office to study this problem. They estimated that 400 homeowners in Florida and Texas--all with over $100,000 in home equity--profit from this unlimited exemption each year. While they continue to live in luxury, they write off an estimated $120 million owed to honest creditors. A Brown University study estimated that 3 percent of all people who move to Texas and Florida are motivated by bankruptcy concerns. Opponents of this amendment will say that while their hearts are with us on this issue, there is a compromise in this bill that is satisfactory. That is, they simply require someone be a resident of a state for 2 years. Unfortunately, that so-called compromise is so watered down that it doesn't accomplish anything. Instead, it bends over backwards for millionaire debtors who are trying to evade their creditors. There are several ways that the current provision fails. First, it is easily evaded. It lets anyone who has had their home for more than two years to take advantage of the homestead loophole. Bankruptcy professors throughout the nation have written us to say that any decent bankruptcy planner will be able to stall for two years while their client squirrels money away in a mansion and away from creditors. If you can afford a multi-million dollar house, you can afford an attorney good enough to get around this provision. Second, the provision would do absolutely nothing to catch the wealthy debtor who already lives in Florida, Texas, or three other states. Former Governor John Connally, who hid millions from his creditors in Texas, and Burt Reynolds, who shielded $2.5 million in Florida, do not deserve their mansions any more than people who just moved to Florida from Wisconsin or California. For these reasons, Mr. President, the provision in the bill is just not good enough. It is a blueprint for rich debtors. It shows them how to dodge their creditors. Avoiding personal responsibility and using the bankruptcy laws as a method of financial planning is contrary to the stated purpose of this bill. A hard cap is not only the best policy; it also sends the best message: bankruptcy is a tool of last resort, not financial planning. And it gives credibility to reform by targeting the worst abusers, no matter how wealthy. This is a simple idea that makes sense. There is no greater bankruptcy abuse than this. Last Congress, an overwhelming number of our colleagues agreed with us and voted to cap the homestead exemption by a vote of 76-22. The vote this year is exactly the same as the one last Congress. If you were against rich debtors avoiding their creditors last time, then you should be against rich debtors avoiding their creditors this time. Mr. President. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I will briefly respond to the Senator from Kansas. He argues against changing what is in the current bill and is against accepting my amendment and believes that farmers would undergo an extreme correction. This bill and its amendment can be crafted for acceptance on the floor today to protect a farmer's exemption. There is a recognition that the intention of this amendment is not to impoverish any farmers or homesteaders, as Senator Brownback has referred. And if that language is not clear enough, we would be more than happy to work out the farmer exemption, which is currently in our amendment. The intent of our amendment is not to do anything to get at family farmers who have owned their land for many years and who would be impoverished beyond reasonableness in a bankruptcy proceeding. I don't think it is an argument that should be used against this amendment because the amendment includes the recognition that farmers need an exemption. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I request just 1 minute.

Mr. KOHL. I am prepared to yield my time if we want to vote.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate agreed to accept this amendment as part of the bankruptcy bill. Last session, my amendment was accepted by the Senate only to be stripped out of the conference report. The compromise reached on the amendment this year should ensure that it remains in the bill this year. In addition, I would like to thank Senator Kennedy for joining me this year in offering this amendment. The amendment corrects an inconsistency in current law regarding the treatment of backpay awards issued for violations of state or federal laws such as whistle blower protection laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act, or civil rights laws. For example, an employee who works ten hours of overtime during a pay period, but is only paid for nine, or an employee who is wrongfully fired for being a whistle blower does not currently receive the same treatment as the employee who continues to work for the bankrupt company postpetition. Some courts have held that where an award of backpay covers a time both before and after the employer's bankruptcy petition, the entire award is considered a general unsecured claim. This amendment would clarify the treatment of backpay awards for the postpetition period. For example, the postpetition backpay due an employee who has been reinstated after a successful suit under whistleblower protection laws would clearly be an administrative expense under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 503(b)(1)(A). So too would backpay due to workers whose overtime compensation was illegally denied or reduced. Under the terms of the compromise agreed to in this amendment, before the postpetition award is treated as an administrative expense, the bankruptcy court must first determine that ``the award will not substantially increase the probability of layoff or termination of current employees or nonpayment of domestic support obligations during the case.'' The court should evaluate the possible impact of the award in the context of all other administrative expenses being awarded. The term ``substantial'' will ensure that the bankruptcy court only refuses to treat postpetition backpay awards as an administrative expense in the rarest of circumstances. In general, these backpay awards range on average from only a few hundred dollars up to a couple of thousand dollars. Given that these awards are so small, there is virtually no chance that the award will substantially affect any part of an ongoing business concern. Should the award of the postpetition amount be significantly more than a couple of thousand dollars, it is still highly unlikely that it will substantially change the probability of layoff or termination of other employees. This amendment is an important clarification to the code. I am pleased that the Senate recognized the consequence of these postpetition backpay awards. amendment no. 107, as modified

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleagues Senators DeWine, Grassley, and Reid, to introduce the ``High Density Airport Competition Act of 2001.'' This legislation is a small but important step to promote airline competition during this time of massive consolidation in the airline industry. This legislation will prevent any large national carrier from gaining a dominant share of takeoff and landing slots at either Washington Reagan National or New York LaGuardia airports. During the last year, we have all witnessed a tremendous consolidation in the airline industry. First, last May, United announced its planned deal to acquire US Airways. More recently, in January, airline consolidation took another great leap forward as American announced its plan to acquire TWA, and also its deal with United to acquire 20 percent of the US Airways assets. If all of these combinations and acquisitions are approved, the result will be that American and United will become the nation's dominant airlines, controlling about half of the national market. And many believe we are not done yet, with press reports that Delta is soon expected to announce an acquisition of its own. That would mean three large national airlines would dominate 75 percent of the market. The problem of airline consolidation is especially acute at the two of the nation's four slot-controlled airports, Washington Reagan National and New York LaGuardia. At these two vital airports, if all these mergers go through as planned, American, United and their affiliated and partner carriers will together control nearly two-thirds of the slots, leaving little room for competitors. Gaining access to slots at these airports is essential for smaller and start-up airlines if they are to compete with the giant mega- carriers, especially after these mergers are completed. Without slots, airlines cannot take off or land at these two airports. And access to these key airports in New York and Washington, D.C. is essential for smaller airlines to build national networks to compete with the large carriers. Without that access for smaller airlines, large airlines will dominate the nation, grow larger and larger, and bar effective and robust competition. To show the importance of just one of these airports to the nation's entire air transportation system, the FAA recently reported that more than one quarter of the nation's entire congestion related flight delays resulted from delays at LaGuardia airport alone. Our legislation is a simple and effective measure to prevent large airlines from gaining a stranglehold on the slots at these two airports. It provides that, for any airline with at least a 15 percent share of the national market, that airline, and its affiliates, cannot control more than 20 percent of the slots at either Washington Reagan National or New York LaGuardia in any two hour period. If an airline exceeds these limits, it must take one of two steps, either return the excess slots to the FAA or sell them in a blind auction to its competitors. This blind auction provision will prevent airlines from disposing of their excess slots by engaging in ``sweetheart'' deals. Our legislation does not reach the other two-slot controlled airports, Chicago O'Hare or New York JFK. Slot controls are scheduled to be lifted at Chicago O'Hare in June of next year, and are in place at New York JFK only from 3 to 8 p.m. In sum, our legislation is a carefully crafted and narrowly tailored provision which will break the dominance that the large national carriers will have at two vital slot-controlled airports, particularly if the currently pending mergers are completed as planned. It will enable smaller and new carriers to have a fair shot at gaining access to these airports, and thus help bring real competition both to consumers who travel to and from New York and Washington and to the nation's skies as a whole. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleagues Senators DeWine, Grassley, and Reid, to introduce the ``High Density Airport Competition Act of 2001.'' This legislation is a small but important step to promote airline competition during this time of massive consolidation in the airline industry. This legislation will prevent any large national carrier from gaining a dominant share of takeoff and landing slots at either Washington Reagan National or New York LaGuardia airports. During the last year, we have all witnessed a tremendous consolidation in the airline industry. First, last May, United announced its planned deal to acquire US Airways. More recently, in January, airline consolidation took another great leap forward as American announced its plan to acquire TWA, and also its deal with United to acquire 20 percent of the US Airways assets. If all of these combinations and acquisitions are approved, the result will be that American and United will become the nation's dominant airlines, controlling about half of the national market. And many believe we are not done yet, with press reports that Delta is soon expected to announce an acquisition of its own. That would mean three large national airlines would dominate 75 percent of the market. The problem of airline consolidation is especially acute at the two of the nation's four slot-controlled airports, Washington Reagan National and New York LaGuardia. At these two vital airports, if all these mergers go through as planned, American, United and their affiliated and partner carriers will together control nearly two-thirds of the slots, leaving little room for competitors. Gaining access to slots at these airports is essential for smaller and start-up airlines if they are to compete with the giant mega- carriers, especially after these mergers are completed. Without slots, airlines cannot take off or land at these two airports. And access to these key airports in New York and Washington, D.C. is essential for smaller airlines to build national networks to compete with the large carriers. Without that access for smaller airlines, large airlines will dominate the nation, grow larger and larger, and bar effective and robust competition. To show the importance of just one of these airports to the nation's entire air transportation system, the FAA recently reported that more than one quarter of the nation's entire congestion related flight delays resulted from delays at LaGuardia airport alone. Our legislation is a simple and effective measure to prevent large airlines from gaining a stranglehold on the slots at these two airports. It provides that, for any airline with at least a 15 percent share of the national market, that airline, and its affiliates, cannot control more than 20 percent of the slots at either Washington Reagan National or New York LaGuardia in any two hour period. If an airline exceeds these limits, it must take one of two steps, either return the excess slots to the FAA or sell them in a blind auction to its competitors. This blind auction provision will prevent airlines from disposing of their excess slots by engaging in ``sweetheart'' deals. Our legislation does not reach the other two-slot controlled airports, Chicago O'Hare or New York JFK. Slot controls are scheduled to be lifted at Chicago O'Hare in June of next year, and are in place at New York JFK only from 3 to 8 p.m. In sum, our legislation is a carefully crafted and narrowly tailored provision which will break the dominance that the large national carriers will have at two vital slot-controlled airports, particularly if the currently pending mergers are completed as planned. It will enable smaller and new carriers to have a fair shot at gaining access to these airports, and thus help bring real competition both to consumers who travel to and from New York and Washington and to the nation's skies as a whole. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Child Safety Lock Act of 2001, along with Senators Chafee, Durbin, Schumer, Reed, Corzine, Boxer and Kerry. Our bipartisan measure will save children's lives by reducing the senseless tragedies that result when children get their hands on improperly stored and unlocked handguns. Each year, 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. That is wrong. It is unacceptable. But these cold statistics do not begin to describe in human terms the daily tragedies that could be prevented by the use of a safety lock. Take, for example, the story of a teenage girl in Milwaukee last year who was killed when the gun her boyfriend found accidentally went off, shooting her in the chest. A lock certainly would have prevented this tragedy. A lock would have also saved both the three-year-old in New Orleans who shot himself in the head with his mother's gun two months ago or the two-year-old boy who shot himself in the forehead with his mother's pistol in Pennsylvania last October. Of course, no one will ever forget the story of six-year-old Kayla Rolland in Michigan killed last year by a classmate who had brought a gun to school. The stories could go on for pages, each more tragic than the last, but the most tragic fact of all is that many of them were entirely preventable. Our legislation will help address this problem. It is simple, effective and straightforward. It requires that a child safety device, or trigger lock, be sold with every handgun. These devices vary in form, but the most common resemble a padlock that wraps around the gun trigger and immobilizes it. Trigger locks are already used by tens of thousands of responsible gun owners to protect their firearms from unauthorized use, and they can be purchased in virtually any gun store for less than ten dollars. This year, for the first time, this child safety lock bill includes standards for the safety locks, building on the work of Senator Kerry on this issue. A recent study by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and a recent recall by the safety lock manufacturers conclusively demonstrates that child safety locks are not being made well enough. A lock that is easily picked or one that breaks apart with little force defeats the safety purpose of this bill. We wouldn't use a lock that is less than foolproof to guard our most valuable possessions. We shouldn't use defective locks to protect what is most valuable to us--our children. A child safety lock provision passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 78-20 last session as an amendment during the juvenile justice debate. This proposal is as popular with the rest of the country and the law enforcement community as it was with the last Senate. Polls show that between 75 and 80 percent of the American public, including gun owners, favor the mandatory sale of child safety locks with guns. When I surveyed almost 500 of Wisconsin's police chiefs and sheriffs last summer, approximately 90 percent responded that child safety locks should be sold with each gun. In addition, according to published reports from last year's campaign, President Bush indicated that he supports the idea of mandatory child safety locks and would sign a bill that required the sale of a child safety lock with all new handguns. Attorney General Ashcroft confirmed that the administration supports the mandatory sale of child safety locks during his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year. This legislation is necessary to ensure that safety locks are provided with all handguns and to keep the pressure on handgun manufacturers to put safety first. We already protect children by requiring that seat belts be installed in all automobiles and that childproof safety caps be provided on medicine bottles. We should be no less vigilant when it comes to gun safety. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Child Safety Lock Act of 2001, along with Senators Chafee, Durbin, Schumer, Reed, Corzine, Boxer and Kerry. Our bipartisan measure will save children's lives by reducing the senseless tragedies that result when children get their hands on improperly stored and unlocked handguns. Each year, 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. That is wrong. It is unacceptable. But these cold statistics do not begin to describe in human terms the daily tragedies that could be prevented by the use of a safety lock. Take, for example, the story of a teenage girl in Milwaukee last year who was killed when the gun her boyfriend found accidentally went off, shooting her in the chest. A lock certainly would have prevented this tragedy. A lock would have also saved both the three-year-old in New Orleans who shot himself in the head with his mother's gun two months ago or the two-year-old boy who shot himself in the forehead with his mother's pistol in Pennsylvania last October. Of course, no one will ever forget the story of six-year-old Kayla Rolland in Michigan killed last year by a classmate who had brought a gun to school. The stories could go on for pages, each more tragic than the last, but the most tragic fact of all is that many of them were entirely preventable. Our legislation will help address this problem. It is simple, effective and straightforward. It requires that a child safety device, or trigger lock, be sold with every handgun. These devices vary in form, but the most common resemble a padlock that wraps around the gun trigger and immobilizes it. Trigger locks are already used by tens of thousands of responsible gun owners to protect their firearms from unauthorized use, and they can be purchased in virtually any gun store for less than ten dollars. This year, for the first time, this child safety lock bill includes standards for the safety locks, building on the work of Senator Kerry on this issue. A recent study by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and a recent recall by the safety lock manufacturers conclusively demonstrates that child safety locks are not being made well enough. A lock that is easily picked or one that breaks apart with little force defeats the safety purpose of this bill. We wouldn't use a lock that is less than foolproof to guard our most valuable possessions. We shouldn't use defective locks to protect what is most valuable to us--our children. A child safety lock provision passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 78-20 last session as an amendment during the juvenile justice debate. This proposal is as popular with the rest of the country and the law enforcement community as it was with the last Senate. Polls show that between 75 and 80 percent of the American public, including gun owners, favor the mandatory sale of child safety locks with guns. When I surveyed almost 500 of Wisconsin's police chiefs and sheriffs last summer, approximately 90 percent responded that child safety locks should be sold with each gun. In addition, according to published reports from last year's campaign, President Bush indicated that he supports the idea of mandatory child safety locks and would sign a bill that required the sale of a child safety lock with all new handguns. Attorney General Ashcroft confirmed that the administration supports the mandatory sale of child safety locks during his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year. This legislation is necessary to ensure that safety locks are provided with all handguns and to keep the pressure on handgun manufacturers to put safety first. We already protect children by requiring that seat belts be installed in all automobiles and that childproof safety caps be provided on medicine bottles. We should be no less vigilant when it comes to gun safety. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Hollings' Children's Protection from Violent Television Programming Act. I thank Senator Hollings for his leadership and hard work on this important issue shielding our children from excessive violence in the media. This proposal is vital to ensure that the promise of the V-chip is fulfilled, that our public airwaves cannot be used and abused to the detriment of our families and our children. But today, in spite of the V-chip, our children are still being exposed to ultra-violent programming on television, even during the early prime time period known as ``family hour.'' Since my first term in office, I have fought to limit the amount of violence that our children are exposed to on television, in video games, in the movies and in music. Although I have focused on the video game industry encouraging the manufacturers to create and implement a ratings system I was also a vocal supporter of the V-chip provision included in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The V-chip legislation required the installation of blocking technology in most televisions. That technology is used in conjunction with a television ratings system so that parents can restrict their children's access to violent programming at all times. We know that parents can't realistically look over their children's shoulders every minute they're in front of the television. But the V-Chip allows them to configure their television to do essentially that. Since January 2000, V-chip technology has been installed in every television measuring over 13''. More than 25 million televisions have a V-chip now. However, a recent study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center revealed that nine in ten parents do not know about the television ratings system, and of parents who own and know about their V-chip, only half actually use the blocking technology. Clearly, having a V-chip in a television is just not good enough. It has to be combined with a good, easily understood ratings system and a real commitment by manufacturers, retailers and broadcasters to educate parents. Without these elements, having a V-chip in your television is about as effective at protecting your child as requiring car seats but letting toddlers sit in the front seat without a seatbelt. Mr. President, my first preference is to have V-chip technology that works and that parents trust. But if it seems otherwise, we will not stand idly by. This legislation presents a step-by-step approach: it asks the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to gauge the success and public awareness of the V-chip. And if success is limited and public awareness is low, this measure vests the Commission with the power to remedy it. So let's pass this legislation, and let's find out if the V-chip is really helping parents shield their children from violence on television. And if not, let's give the FCC the power to do something about it. Our families and especially our children deserve nothing less.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Hollings' Children's Protection from Violent Television Programming Act. I thank Senator Hollings for his leadership and hard work on this important issue shielding our children from excessive violence in the media. This proposal is vital to ensure that the promise of the V-chip is fulfilled, that our public airwaves cannot be used and abused to the detriment of our families and our children. But today, in spite of the V-chip, our children are still being exposed to ultra-violent programming on television, even during the early prime time period known as ``family hour.'' Since my first term in office, I have fought to limit the amount of violence that our children are exposed to on television, in video games, in the movies and in music. Although I have focused on the video game industry encouraging the manufacturers to create and implement a ratings system I was also a vocal supporter of the V-chip provision included in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The V-chip legislation required the installation of blocking technology in most televisions. That technology is used in conjunction with a television ratings system so that parents can restrict their children's access to violent programming at all times. We know that parents can't realistically look over their children's shoulders every minute they're in front of the television. But the V-Chip allows them to configure their television to do essentially that. Since January 2000, V-chip technology has been installed in every television measuring over 13''. More than 25 million televisions have a V-chip now. However, a recent study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center revealed that nine in ten parents do not know about the television ratings system, and of parents who own and know about their V-chip, only half actually use the blocking technology. Clearly, having a V-chip in a television is just not good enough. It has to be combined with a good, easily understood ratings system and a real commitment by manufacturers, retailers and broadcasters to educate parents. Without these elements, having a V-chip in your television is about as effective at protecting your child as requiring car seats but letting toddlers sit in the front seat without a seatbelt. Mr. President, my first preference is to have V-chip technology that works and that parents trust. But if it seems otherwise, we will not stand idly by. This legislation presents a step-by-step approach: it asks the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to gauge the success and public awareness of the V-chip. And if success is limited and public awareness is low, this measure vests the Commission with the power to remedy it. So let's pass this legislation, and let's find out if the V-chip is really helping parents shield their children from violence on television. And if not, let's give the FCC the power to do something about it. Our families and especially our children deserve nothing less.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today and join my colleague Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania to reintroduce legislation to provide much needed assistance to our Nation's dairy producers who continue to face the lowest milk prices in over two decades. Due to the failures of the Federal order reform process and the lack of a meaningful dairy price safety net, this legislation is an appropriate and necessary response to the ongoing regional milk pricing inequities and the dairy income crisis affecting all producers. In the past, the divisive and controversial dairy compact system has hindered Congress's efforts to achieve a fair and equitable national dairy policy. I am pleased to join with Senator Santorum and reintroduce this legislation to create a regionally equitable plan that will provide a safety net for small and medium size producers regardless of location. The National Dairy Farmers Fairness Act of 2001 has two major goals: (1) To create a dairy policy that is equitable for farmers in all regions of the country; (2) provide stability for dairy producers in the prices they receive for their milk. To accomplish these goals, this legislation creates a price safety net for farmers by providing supplemental income payments when milk prices are low. A ``sliding- scale'' payment is made based upon the previous year's price for the national average for Class III milk. In essence, the payment rate to farmers is highest when the national Class III average is the lowest. To participate in this program, a farmer must have produced milk for commercial sale in the previous year. Payments under the program are also capped for the first 26,000 hundredweight of production. Again, all dairy producers would be eligible to participate under this scenario. The fiscal year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill provided $667 million in emergency direct payments to dairy producers for losses incurred this year. While this action was absolutely necessary to respond to the dairy market loss crisis, it is time that an on-going program providing supplemental income payments to farmers when milk prices decline be established. This important legislation represents a bipartisan and national approach in providing predictability and price stability in this otherwise volatile industry. Again, I am pleased to join with Senator Santorum in introducing the National Dairy Farmers Fairness Act and look forward to working with him in passing this important legislation.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am proud to again be an original cosponsor of The Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention, and Responsibility Act of 2000--better known as ``Three R's.'' I have been pleased to work with the education community in Wisconsin, as well as Senators Lieberman, Bayh, and our other cosponsors, on this important piece of legislation. Perhaps this year, the three ``R's'' should stand for: ``right, right, and right.'' It is the right time to keep promises we all made during the election to make bipartisan education reform our first order of business. It is the right policy to give schools more flexibility but ask for more accountability. And it is the right thing to do to make our students a number one federal priority. We have come a long way since we started this effort more than a year ago. Unfortunately, in the 106th Congress, we were unable to rise above the usual partisan sniping and have a serious education debate. But last year's fighting has given way to this year's opportunity to do what's right by our children. If we learned anything from the last election, it is that the American people want real education reform-- and they want to see results. None of us would deny that we have made great strides in recent years toward a better public education system. Nearly all States now have academic standards in place. More students are taking more challenging courses. Test scores have risen slightly. Dropout rates have decreased. In Wisconsin, educators have worked hard to help students achieve. Students are showing continued improvement on State tests in nearly every subject, particularly in science and math and across all groups, including African Americans, the disabled, and the economically disadvantaged. But despite our best efforts, our public schools still face huge challenges. Too many students do not have the skills they need to compete in the 21st century economy. And the achievement gap between poor and more affluent students remains alarmingly wide. Mr. President, in the past some have called for reducing or eliminating the Federal role in education. I think that would be a mistake. As a nation, it is in all of our best interests to make sure our children receive the best education possible. It is vital to their future success, and to the success of our country. But addressing problems in education is going to take more than cosmetic reform. We risk our children's future by defending the tired programs of the past. We need to let go of the partisan bickering and focus on what the American people are focused on: Results. Results are what the 3 R's bill is about. We make raising student achievement for all students--and eliminating the achievement gap between low-income and more affluent students--our top priorities. To accomplish this, our bill centers around three principles. First, we believe that we must make a strong investment in education, and we need to target those funds to the neediest schools and students. Since Federal funds make up only 7 percent of all money spent on education, it is essential that we target those funds where they are needed the most. Second, we believe that States and local school districts are in the best position to know what their educational needs are. The 3 R's give educators more flexibility to decide how they will use Federal dollars to meet those needs. Finally--and I believe this is the key component of our approach--we believe that in exchange for this increased flexibility, there must be increased accountability. For too long, we have seen a steady stream of Federal dollars flow to States and school districts--regardless of how well they educated their students. This has to stop. We need to reward schools that do a good job. We need to provide help to schools that are struggling to do a better job. But we need to stop subsidizing failure. Our highest priority must be educating children--not protecting broken systems. I am pleased that there is an emerging consensus around these core principles of 3 R's. Already, President Bush has expressed interest in pursuing many of these same ideas that our group laid out over a year ago, and I look forward to joining with both parties to get this done. The Three R's bill is a strong starting point for this debate. This bill--by using the concepts of increased funding, targeting, flexibility--and most importantly, accountability--demonstrates how we can work with our State and local partners to make sure every child receives the highest quality education--and a chance to live a successful, productive life. I look forward to working with both sides of the aisle as Congress debates education reform in the coming months.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am proud to again be an original cosponsor of The Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention, and Responsibility Act of 2000--better known as ``Three R's.'' I have been pleased to work with the education community in Wisconsin, as well as Senators Lieberman, Bayh, and our other cosponsors, on this important piece of legislation. Perhaps this year, the three ``R's'' should stand for: ``right, right, and right.'' It is the right time to keep promises we all made during the election to make bipartisan education reform our first order of business. It is the right policy to give schools more flexibility but ask for more accountability. And it is the right thing to do to make our students a number one federal priority. We have come a long way since we started this effort more than a year ago. Unfortunately, in the 106th Congress, we were unable to rise above the usual partisan sniping and have a serious education debate. But last year's fighting has given way to this year's opportunity to do what's right by our children. If we learned anything from the last election, it is that the American people want real education reform-- and they want to see results. None of us would deny that we have made great strides in recent years toward a better public education system. Nearly all States now have academic standards in place. More students are taking more challenging courses. Test scores have risen slightly. Dropout rates have decreased. In Wisconsin, educators have worked hard to help students achieve. Students are showing continued improvement on State tests in nearly every subject, particularly in science and math and across all groups, including African Americans, the disabled, and the economically disadvantaged. But despite our best efforts, our public schools still face huge challenges. Too many students do not have the skills they need to compete in the 21st century economy. And the achievement gap between poor and more affluent students remains alarmingly wide. Mr. President, in the past some have called for reducing or eliminating the Federal role in education. I think that would be a mistake. As a nation, it is in all of our best interests to make sure our children receive the best education possible. It is vital to their future success, and to the success of our country. But addressing problems in education is going to take more than cosmetic reform. We risk our children's future by defending the tired programs of the past. We need to let go of the partisan bickering and focus on what the American people are focused on: Results. Results are what the 3 R's bill is about. We make raising student achievement for all students--and eliminating the achievement gap between low-income and more affluent students--our top priorities. To accomplish this, our bill centers around three principles. First, we believe that we must make a strong investment in education, and we need to target those funds to the neediest schools and students. Since Federal funds make up only 7 percent of all money spent on education, it is essential that we target those funds where they are needed the most. Second, we believe that States and local school districts are in the best position to know what their educational needs are. The 3 R's give educators more flexibility to decide how they will use Federal dollars to meet those needs. Finally--and I believe this is the key component of our approach--we believe that in exchange for this increased flexibility, there must be increased accountability. For too long, we have seen a steady stream of Federal dollars flow to States and school districts--regardless of how well they educated their students. This has to stop. We need to reward schools that do a good job. We need to provide help to schools that are struggling to do a better job. But we need to stop subsidizing failure. Our highest priority must be educating children--not protecting broken systems. I am pleased that there is an emerging consensus around these core principles of 3 R's. Already, President Bush has expressed interest in pursuing many of these same ideas that our group laid out over a year ago, and I look forward to joining with both parties to get this done. The Three R's bill is a strong starting point for this debate. This bill--by using the concepts of increased funding, targeting, flexibility--and most importantly, accountability--demonstrates how we can work with our State and local partners to make sure every child receives the highest quality education--and a chance to live a successful, productive life. I look forward to working with both sides of the aisle as Congress debates education reform in the coming months.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on several of the nominations on which we have voted in the last few days. I am pleased the Senate is acting responsibly and quickly to put the President's cabinet in place. While I am sure I will not always agree with everything proposed by the nominees we have confirmed, I stand ready to work with them toward our common goal of the United State's best interest. I especially want to welcome Governor Tommy Thompson, of my State of Wisconsin, to his new position as Secretary of Health and Human Services. I had the honor of presenting the Governor at his hearings before the Senate Finance and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committees. As I said there, the Administration is truly fortunate to have a man of his energy, creativity, and intelligence in this extremely important position. I also want to comment on some of the other nominations on which the Senate has already acted. I am pleased to lend my support to the nomination of General Colin L. Powell to be Secretary of State. There are many foreign policy challenges facing the next Administration including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, our peacekeeping commitments abroad, instability in the Middle East and in other hot spots, and the continued evolution of our relationships with Russia and China. I am confident that General Powell brings a wealth of experience, a formidable intellect, and a level head to the challenges ahead. I look forward to working with Secretary Powell in forging a truly bipartisan foreign policy. I am also pleased with President Bush's decision to appoint Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. He is an experienced voice on defense issues, and one that the Congress has come to rely on for outside analysis. He recently addressed the threat of ballistic missiles in a special report to Congress that now shapes much of the debate on ballistic missile defense. His years of public service and expertise will give him the credibility inside the Pentagon to make the tough choices that face the new administration, and they will face many. I feel confident that Secretary Rumsfeld is qualified to help the President shape our armed forces to meet the evolving threats of the new century. And finally, I support the nomination of Rodney Paige to be the Secretary of Education. Dr. Paige has received overwhelming praise since his nomination was announced, and in my opinion, there is good reason for that. He understands the need to change the system when the old programs aren't working like they should. He is willing to work with all sides--from teachers to parents to principals to school board members. And he brings with him to Washington an important lesson from his time in Houston: If you set high standards for students and teachers, and require them to meet them, they will strive to succeed. Mr. President, there are many worthy nominees who deserve comment and support, but I will reserve further remarks until we engage later in the year in what I hope will be bipartisan legislating. Nomination of Anthony Principi

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Child Care Infrastructure Act, along with Senator Graham of Florida. Senator Graham and I have both worked on child care issues for many years, and I am pleased that we have combined our efforts to introduce this bill together. Mr. President, we have talked a great deal in recent years, as well as in the recent campaign, about giving working families the tools they need to succeed. And while some of us may disagree on the details, I think we can all agree upon one basic premise: Working couples who decide to have a family should not be penalized because they both also choose to keep working. But unfortunately today, many working parents do not have access to one of the critical tools they need to succeed at work: quality child care. Working families spend a large proportion of their income on child care--from 8 percent for families above the poverty line to 18 percent for those below. And nothing adds more to these high costs than the dramatic shortage of quality child care in this country. The Children's Defense Fund states in a recent report that ``parents and experts report that child care is in short supply-- particularly for some age groups and for certain types of care--and that some communities have little or no licensed care.'' This shortage of quality child care is not just inconvenient. It is dangerous, and could jeopardize the ability of children to succeed later in life. Research on the brain has confirmed that the most significant period in a child's development and education is between the years 0-3. Good early childhood programs can improve children's chances of long-term success in school, higher earnings as adults, and decreased involvement with the criminal justice system. But the lack of quality child care is not only harmful to children. It places a tremendous strain on parents. Full-time child care can cost $4,000 to $6,000 per year, and many working families simply cannot find affordable, quality child care for their young children. And make no mistake: the lack of reliable child care has a direct impact on businesses and our economy. Parents who can't find reliable child care are more likely to miss work, and the lack of stable child care makes it more difficult for parents to be productive while at work. Clearly, we all have a stake in increasing the supply of quality child care for families. It will take a sustained effort from families, from government--and yes, from businesses too--to build the child care infrastructure necessary to make sure children, parents, and businesses succeed. My legislation brings all these players together in a simple, common- sense way. We provide a tax credit to businesses who are willing to take action to increase the supply of quality child care. The credit is available for child care activities such as: Expenses related to the acquisition, expansion, or repair of an on- or near-site day care center, after-hours care facility, or sick-child facility. This credit would also be available for a consortium of businesses that joined together to create a child care center. Direct company subsidization of the operating costs of a child care facility. Direct company payments or reimbursements to employees for their child care expenses. A company's reservation for their employees of child care slots in a licensed child care facility. Company expenditures on training and continuing education for child care workers. The credit would be 25 percent for these activities, and 10 percent for the cost of a company's contract with a non-profit Child Care Resource and Referral service, which help parents locate child care in their communities. The credit is capped at $150,000 per year. Safeguards in the legislation ensure that the companies receive the tax credits for capital expenditures that go toward facilities that stay in operation for several years. In 1997, the Senate passed a similar proposal by a bipartisan vote of 72-28. Versions of this tax credit have been included in most major child care legislation introduced by Democrats and Republicans in the 106th Congress, including the tax bill passed by the Senate in July of 1999. This bill makes us all partners in ensuring we have enough quality child care for working families. I hope my colleagues will continue their long-time support of the child care infrastructure tax credit, and I look forward to working with all of you to pass it this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President almost two years have gone by since the tragic accident in Janesville, WI, that brought to light the abuse of workers in the magazine sales industry. Since 1992, forty-two sales people have been killed or injured in similar crashes. Unfortunately deaths and injuries still occur. Parents are still separated from their children without knowing where they are or whether they are safe. Young people are not being paid for their work, and are being falsely listed as independent contractors. Roving sweatshops continue to travel our highways and solicit unlicenced in our neighborhoods. My legislation would go a long way toward ending this sad state of affairs. Today I have introduced legislation to crack down on abuses in the traveling sales crew industry. These companies employ crews who travel from city to city selling products door to door. Often times, however, these companies mistreat their workers and violate local, state, and federal labor law. Because they rapidly move from state to state, enforcement efforts are difficult if not impossible for local authorities. In 1987 former Senator Roth, as part of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations looked into this industry, and was appalled at what he found. Incidents of verbal and physical abuse of workers were widespread. Young people were coerced into continuing to sell long after they wanted to leave through threats and taunts from their employers. When sellers were able to get free they were often unpaid or denied the bus ticket home they were promised when they signed up. The compensation system for the workers was also rigged to ensure that workers could not leave. Prospective sellers were promised big bucks when they were recruited, but soon found that decent pay was difficult to come by. Sellers were paid on a commission basis according to their sales, but they were also charged by the company for their accommodations and fined for small infractions like showing up late to meetings or sleeping on the van. Salespeople were not paid in a timely manner, but their earnings were kept on ``paper'' and the employees only drew a daily allowance to pay for food. Employees were seldom allowed to see the paper work that tracked their earnings so they had little idea about how much they are entitled. Many found that they were not able to keep up with the sales and fell in debt to the company. After working 12 hour days, six days a week for months, employees actually owed the company money! These young people became indentured servants, working long hours for only room and board. In the thirteen years since Senator Roth's investigation, nothing has changed. These abuses continue, and Congress should act. I am not one to frivolously engage in regulating business, but in this case the need for federal involvement is clear. Because of the mobility of these companies, states cannot crack down on these groups alone. They need federal help to eliminate the unscrupulous actors in the industry. The Traveling Sales Crew Protection Act would take important steps to eliminate employers who abuse their workers. First, it would no longer allow minors to be employed in this line of work. Door to door sales can be dangerous work and combined with the long hours and hazardous travel, creates a job too dangerous for children. Second, the bill would narrowly eliminate the exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act for these specific kinds of operations. Covering these employees with minimum wages laws and overtime requirements protects them from becoming indentured servants to their employers through complex compensation systems. This provision is carefully crafted to cover only traveling sales crews, individuals who sell over the road, or at trade shows would be unaffected. Lastly the bill creates a licensing procedure through the Department of Labor to monitor those engaged in supervising and running these operations. These measures are important steps forward in a nationwide effort to eliminate this particularly abusive form of worker exploitation. I hope I will have my colleagues' support as I try to make the painful crash in Janesville, the last chapter in this shameful story. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.