Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help Wisconsin and several other States, including Oregon, Texas, Alaska, and California, extend one of our most successful veterans programs to Persian Gulf war participants and others. This bill will amend the eligibility requirements for mortgage revenue bond financing for State veterans housing programs. State run plans do an excellent job of helping vets bridge the gap to home ownership, and are often more successful than our own federal plan. This bill gives states the tools they need to help veterans. Wisconsin uses this tax-exempt bond authority to assist veterans in purchasing their first home. Under rules adopted by Congress in 1984, this program excluded from eligibility veterans who served after 1977. This bill would simply remove that restriction. At a time when everyone is looking for ways to make military service more appealing, we should not overlook the role state sponsored benefits, like home loan programs, can reward our veterans. Wisconsin and the other eligible States simply want to maintain a principle that we in the Senate have also strived to uphold--that veterans of the Persian Gulf war should not be treated less generously than those of past wars. This bill meets a commitment to our service members and levels the benefits between Persian Gulf vets and the vets of the Cold War era. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

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.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation entitled ``The Federal Energy Bank Act.'' The purpose of this legislation is to provide a stable long term source of funding for energy efficiency projects throughout the Federal Government. If we are to start the Nation on the road toward increased energy conservation we must begin with the Federal Government. This bill will help provide the necessary investments to make this first step toward long term energy conservation possible. Energy policy is a raging issue for our country at this time. Natural gas prices are at all time highs at a time when we are becoming more and more dependent on gas because of its minimal impact on the environment. Gas has become of victim of its own success, as our demand for the commodity has outstripped our ability in the short term to bring the supply to market. While I do not oppose continuing fossil fuel exploration and extraction, we cannot drill our way out of the tight energy market. We must also consider other options including conservation. Conservation often gets a bad rap as people think politicians are simply telling them to turn down the heat and shut off the lights they aren't using. Conservation doesn't necessarily mean hardship and darkness, it can also mean new technologies that do not require us to change our habits. It means using energy smarter, using it when we need it, and only as much as we need. Conservation means holding on to the energy we have, and not wasting it. Conservation is the compliment to production. If we do a better job of saving energy, that means megawatts of generation that will not need to be built. That does not mean we do not need additional generation, the situation in California makes the clear the danger of not keeping up with the demand, it just means that less capacity will be necessary. Anyone who has ever grappled with the siting issues involved with a power plant knows it will be difficult to build even the bare minimum of power generation and transmission. I have long believed that our Nation must implement a sensible national energy policy which emphasizes greater energy conservation and efficiency, as well as the development of renewable resources. This bill is just one step of many that need to be taken to reduce our energy consumption problems. The events in the Middle East, coupled with the environmental problems associated with the use of fossil fuels, have only increased the need for improved energy conservation. Simply put, we cannot continue to rely on imported oil to meet such a large part of our Nation's energy needs. This dependence places our economic security at great risk. In addition, the use of oil and other fossil fuels contributes to global climate change, air pollution, and acid rain. Mr. President out attempts to remedy this situation are nothing new. In fact, the laws requiring significant energy use reductions are already in place. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 mandated that Federal agencies use cost-effective measures, with less than a 10-year payback, to reduce energy consumption in their facilities. President Clinton, with Executive Order 13123, extended the mandate by requiring Federal agencies to reduce energy consumption by 35 percent by the year 2010 compared to 1985 energy uses. If accomplished, this would save the American taxpayer millions in annual energy costs and in turn put us on the road to future energy savings. This would also improve our environment, our balance of trade, and our national security. Mr. President, my business background has taught me that most large paybacks come from positive long-term investments. Unfortunately, the Federal Government does not traditionally take this approach. More often than not, it seeks short-term savings and cuts which do not address the problem of energy consumption or encourage future energy conservation. Mr. President, my bill will help address this funding shortfall. The bill creates a bank to fund the purchase of energy efficiency projects by Federal agencies and in the long run will reduce the overall amount of money spent on energy consumption by the Federal Government. For each of the fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, each Federal agency will contribute an amount equal to 5 percent of its previous year's utility costs into a fund or bank managed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary of Energy will authorize loans from the bank to any Federal agency for use toward investment in energy efficiency projects. The agency will then repay the loan, making the bank self-supporting after a few years. The Secretary of Energy will also establish selection criteria for each energy efficiency project, determining the project is cost-effective and produces a payback in 3 years or less. Agencies will be required to report the progress of each project with a cost of more than $1 million to the Secretary 1 year after installation. The Secretary will then report to Congress each year on all the operations of the bank. Mr. President, this bill will provide the real dollars required to make the Executive order goals a reality. Mr. President, in closing I would like to thank Johnson Controls, the largest public company in Wisconsin, for their continued leadership and input on this bill. As a maker of energy conservation systems, Johnson has provided me with the real world insights that have helped me draft a bill that attempts to address our energy conservation needs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the full text of the bill be printed in full in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and will push for its early enactment.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help Wisconsin and several other States, including Oregon, Texas, Alaska, and California, extend one of our most successful veterans programs to Persian Gulf war participants and others. This bill will amend the eligibility requirements for mortgage revenue bond financing for State veterans housing programs. State run plans do an excellent job of helping vets bridge the gap to home ownership, and are often more successful than our own federal plan. This bill gives states the tools they need to help veterans. Wisconsin uses this tax-exempt bond authority to assist veterans in purchasing their first home. Under rules adopted by Congress in 1984, this program excluded from eligibility veterans who served after 1977. This bill would simply remove that restriction. At a time when everyone is looking for ways to make military service more appealing, we should not overlook the role state sponsored benefits, like home loan programs, can reward our veterans. Wisconsin and the other eligible States simply want to maintain a principle that we in the Senate have also strived to uphold--that veterans of the Persian Gulf war should not be treated less generously than those of past wars. This bill meets a commitment to our service members and levels the benefits between Persian Gulf vets and the vets of the Cold War era. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today this Congress has expanded accessibility to justice for hundreds of thousands of residents of northern Wisconsin by creating a Federal judgeship to sit in Green Bay, WI. Let me explain how this judgeship will alleviate the stress that the current system places on business, law enforcement agents, witnesses, victims and individual litigants in northeastern Wisconsin. First, while the four full-time district court judges for the Eastern District of Wisconsin currently preside in Milwaukee, for most litigants and witnesses in northeastern Wisconsin. Milwaukee is well over 100 miles away. In fact, as the courts are currently arranged, the northern portion of the Eastern District is more remote from a Federal court than any other major population center, commercial or industrial, in the United States. Thus, litigants and witnesses must incur substantial costs in traveling from northern Wisconsin to Milwaukee-- costs in terms of time, money, resources, and effort. Indeed, driving from Green Bay to Milwaukee takes nearly two hours each way. Add inclement weather or a departure point north of Green Bay--such as Oconto or Marinette--and often the driving time alone actually exceeds the amount of time witnesses spend testifying. Second, Wisconsin's Federal judges serve a disproportionately large population. I commissioned a study by the General Accounting Office which revealed that Wisconsin Federal judges serve the largest population among all Federal judges. Each sitting Federal judge in Wisconsin serves an average population of 859,966, while the remaining Federal judges across the country--more than 650--serve less than half that number, with an average of 417,000 per judge. For example, while Louisiana has fewer residents than Wisconsin, it has 22 Federal judges, nearly four times as many as our State. Third, the Federal Government is required to prosecute all felonies committed by Native Americans that occur on the Menominee Reservation. The Reservation's distance from the Federal prosecutors and courts-- more than 150 miles--makes these prosecutions problematic, and because the Justice Department compensates attorneys, investigators and sometimes witnesses for travel expenses, the existing system costs all of us. Without an additional judge in Green Bay, the administration of justice, as well as the public's pocketbook, will suffer enormously. Fourth, many manufacturing and retail companies are located in northeastern Wisconsin. These companies often require a Federal court to litigate complex price-fixing, contract, and liability disputes with out-of-State businesses. But the sad truth is that many of these legitimate cases are never even filed--precisely because the northern part of the State lacks a Federal court. This hurts businesses not only in Wisconsin, but across the Nation. In conclusion, having a Federal judge in Green Bay will reduce costs and inconvenience while increasing judicial efficiency. But most important, it will help ensure that justice is more available and more affordable to the people of northeastern Wisconsin.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I want to voice my support today for Glenn Fine, who would truly be an outstanding Inspector General at the Department of Justice. As you know, the Inspector General is charged with investigating waste, fraud, abuse and corruption. As such, it is a position of critical importance that we should have filled before adjourning for the year to ensure accountable and effective oversight of the DOJ. Mr. Fine has been dealing with corruption ever since the Harvard- Boston College basketball game on December 16, 1978, in which he scored 19 points and had 14 assists--perhaps his best performance in college-- only to discover later that this particular game was part of a notorious point-shaving scandal. No doubt this first-hand experience drove him in his later quest to weed out corruption at the Department of Justice. More seriously, though, Mr. Fine has served in a variety of professional roles and always in an exemplary fashion. He is currently the Director of the Special Investigations and Review Unit in the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General, where he has supervised a variety of sensitive internal investigations, including the FBI's handling of the Aldrich Ames case. He also worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, where he prosecuted more than 35 criminal jury trials. His academic credentials are stellar as well. He is a Rhodes Scholar and he was graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. Finally, though this is a political appointment, Mr. Fine is non-partisan--exactly the type of appointee that a Republican President might very well consider keeping on. He worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney during the Reagan and Bush administrations, and has never been involved in a political campaign. As this session of Congress comes to a close, a position as important as the Inspector General should have been filled. I'm only sorry that an individual as outstanding as Mr. Fine was not confirmed.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Hart-Scott- Rodino Act reform included in the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill. Our provision updates the law, which hadn't been adjusted for inflation since it was enacted in 1976, and makes several improvements to the merger review process undertaken by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. It is a bipartisan measure, authored by Senators Hatch, Leahy, DeWine, and myself and Representatives Hyde and Conyers, and it deserves our support. The Hart-Scott-Rodino Act is crucial to the enforcement of competition policy in today's economy--it ensures that the antitrust agencies have sufficient time to review mergers and acquisitions prior to their completion. The statute requires that, prior to consummating a merger or acquisition of a certain minimum size, the companies involved must formally notify the antitrust agencies and must provide certain information regarding the proposed transaction. For those transactions covered by the Act, the parties to a merger or acquisition may not close their transaction until the expiration of a waiting period after making their Hart-Scott-Rodino Act filing. It also authorizes the government to subpoena additional information from merging parties so that the government has sufficient information to complete its merger analysis. While this statute has a very laudable purpose, especially with the tremendous numbers of mergers and acquisitions taking place in recent years, some of its provisions are in need of revision. Most importantly, while inflation has caused the value of a dollar to drop by more than a half in the past 25 years, the monetary test that subjects a transaction to the provisions of the statute has not been revised since the law's enactment in 1976. As a result, many transactions that are of a relatively small size and pose little antitrust concerns are nevertheless swept into the ambit of the Hart- Scott-Rodino review process. This legislation updates this statute to better fit into today's economy by raising the minimum size of transaction covered by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act from $15 million to $50 million. This will both lessen the agencies' burden of reviewing small transactions unlikely to seriously affect competition and enable the agencies to allocate their resources to properly focus on those transactions most worthy of scrutiny. Further, exempting small transactions from the Hart-Scott-Rodino process will significantly lessen regulatory burdens and expenses imposed on small businesses. The parties to these smaller transactions will no longer need to pay the $45,000 filing fee--or face the often even more onerous legal fees and other expenses typically incurred in preparing a Hart-Scott-Rodino filing--for mergers and acquisitions that usually don't pose any competitive concerns. In exempting this class of transactions from Hart-Scott-Rodino review, however, it is important that we not cause the antitrust agencies to lose the funding they need to carry out their increasingly demanding mission of enforcing the nation's antitrust laws. This bill will reduce the number of Hart-Scott-Rodino filings and therefore reduce the revenues generated by these filings if the filing fees were kept at their present level. Of course, in a perfect world, we wouldn't finance the Antitrust Division and the FTC on the backs of these filing fees. But because they are a fact of life, the antitrust agencies should not be penalized by these reforms by suffering such a reduction in revenues. As a result, in order to assure that this reform is revenue neutral, we have worked with the Appropriations Committee to ensure that this bill raises the filing fees for the largest transactions. Consequently, filing fees are to be increased for transactions valued at over $100,000,000, which makes sense because these transactions require more scrutiny. This legislation makes other changes designed to enhance the efficiency of the pre-merger review process. The waiting period has been extended from twenty to thirty days after the parties' compliance with the government's request for additional information, a more realistic waiting period in this era of increasingly complex mergers generating enormous amounts of relevant information and documents. And, as in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, when a deadline for governmental action occurs on a weekend or holiday, the deadline is extended to the next business day. This simple provision will eliminate gamesmanship by parties who currently may time their compliance so that the waiting period ends on a weekend or holiday, effectively shortening the waiting period to the previous business day. Finally, in recent years may have expressed concerns regarding the difficulties and expense imposed on business in complying with allegedly overly burdensome or duplicative government request for additional information. So our legislation also contains carefully crafted provisions to ensure that business is not faced with unduly burdensome or overbroad requests for information, while assuring that the antitrust agencies' ability to obtain the information necessary to carry out a merger investigation is not hampered. Specifically, our legislation mandates that the FTC and Antitrust Division designate a senior official who does not have direct authority for the review of any enforcement recommendation to be designated to hear appeals to the appropriateness of the government's information request (the so called ``Second Requests''). The bill also sets forth the specific standards that this senior official is to utilize when considering such an appeal and mandates that these appeals be heard in an expedited manner. In sum, I believe this legislation to be a reasonable and well balanced reform of our government's vital merger review procedures. It will make long overdue adjustments in the filing thresholds--ensuring review of those mergers in most need of governmental scrutiny while reducing the burden and expense on government and private parties by exempting smaller transactions from often expensive and time consuming pre-merger filings. It will also significantly reform the merger review process to ensure that the government has sufficient time to analyze increasing complex merger transactions, while also adding protections so that private parties do not face unduly burdensome or duplicative information request. I urge swift passage of this measure.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 4640, the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, which is the companion bill to my Violent Offender DNA Identification Act of 1999. This bipartisan measure will put more criminals behind bars by correcting practical and legal shortcomings that leave too much crucial DNA evidence unused and too many violent crimes unsolved. Currently, all 50 states require DNA samples to be obtained from certain convicted offenders, and these samples increasingly can be shared through a national DNA database established by Federal law. This national database--part of the Combined Database Index System (CODIS)-- enables law enforcement officials to link DNA evidence found at a crime scene with any suspect whose DNA is already on file. By identifying repeat offenders, this DNA sharing can and does make a difference. Already the FBI reports that almost 1400 investigations have been aided by the DNA database, solving numerous crimes. And in my home state of Wisconsin, experience proves that DNA ``sharing'' pays off. In fact, just a week before the statute of limitations ran out in a multiple rape investigation, DNA matching helped identify a serial rapist responsible for three rapes in Kenosha and a fourth in Racine. As a result, he's currently serving an 80-year sentence. Without DNA databases, suspects like this otherwise might never be discovered--or convicted. As valuable as this system is, it is not as effective as it could--or should--be. The effectiveness of the database is directly related to the number of DNA profiles it contains. For every 1,000 new profiles, we can expect to find at least one match, and with every new profile added, the odds for a match increase. However, there are currently two major obstacles to the effective functioning of the database. Our measure would correct these problems and make the database far more productive. First, thousands of DNA samples that have already been collected still must be analyzed before they can be entered into the national database. The FBI estimates that there is a backlog of over 700,000 DNA samples from convicted offenders languishing, unanalyzed, in state crime laboratories for simple lack of funding. Our measure will reduce the backlog of unanalyzed samples by providing the funding necessary to analyze them and put them ``on- line.'' It provides $45 million over three years to erase the backlog of the 700,000 unanalyzed samples and the almost-as-pressing backlog of approximately 220,000 more samples that need to be reanalyzed using state-of-the-art methods. Indeed, easing this backlog was the lead recommendation of the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence appointed by the Attorney General. As the Commission explained, ``the power of the CODIS program lies in the sheer numbers of convicted offender samples that are processed and entered into the database.'' Second, for some inexplicable reason, we do not collect samples from Federal and D.C. offenders. So while the database can identify a suspect whose DNA is on file in one of the 50 states, it generally won't catch a Federal or D.C. offender. Under current law, that suspect will not be identified; his crime may not be solved; and he could get off scot-free. We thought we already closed this loophole through 1996 legislation which provides that the FBI ``may expand [the database] to include Federal crimes and crimes committed in the District of Columbia,'' but Federal officials claim more express authority is necessary. We are not so sure they're right, but there is no need to wait any longer. Our measure closes once and for all this loophole that allows DNA samples from Federal (including military) and Washington, D.C. offenders to go uncollected. Under our proposal, DNA samples would be obtained from any Federal offender--or any D.C. offender under Federal custody or supervision--convicted of a violent crime or other qualifying offense. And it would require the collection of samples from juveniles found delinquent under Federal law for conduct that would constitute a violent crime if committed by an adult. Our proposal was prepared with the assistance of the FBI, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Parole Commission, agencies within the District of Columbia responsible for supervision of released felons, and the Department of Defense. Modern crime-fighting technology like DNA testing and DNA databases make law enforcement much more effective. But in order to take full advantage of these valuable resources, we need this measure to make the database as comprehensive--and as productive--as possible. Violent criminals should not be able to evade arrest simply because a state didn't analyze its DNA samples or because an inexcusable loophole leaves Federal and D.C. offenders out of the DNA database. This measure will ensure that we apprehend violent repeat offenders, regardless of whether they originally violated state, Federal or D.C. law. And, by collecting more DNA evidence and utilizing the best of DNA technology, we also can help exonerate individual suspects whose DNA does not match with particular crime scenes. Mr. President, this measure will help police use modern technology to solve crimes and prevent repeat offenders from committing new ones. Let me credit Senators DeWine, Hatch, Leahy and Congressman McCollum for their hard work which is finally paying off.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Hart-Scott- Rodino Act reform included in the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Bill. Our provision updates the law, which hadn't been adjusted for inflation since it was enacted in 1976, and makes several improvements to the merger review process undertaken by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. It is a bipartisan measure, authored by Senators Hatch, Leahy, DeWine and myself and Representatives Hyde and Conyers, and it deserves our support. The Hart-Scott-Rodino Act is crucial to the enforcement of competition policy in today's economy--it ensures that the antitrust agencies have sufficient time to review mergers and acquisitions prior to their completion. The statute requires that, prior to consummating a merger or acquisition of a certain minimum size, the companies involved must formally notify the antitrust agencies and must provide certain information regarding the proposed transaction. For those transactions covered by the Act, the parties to a merger or acquisition may not close their transaction until the expiration of a waiting period after making their Hart-Scott-Rodino Act filing. It also authorizes the government to subpoena additional information from merging parties so that the government has sufficient information to complete its merger analysis. While this statute has a very laudable purpose, especially with the tremendous numbers of mergers and acquisitions taking place in recent years, some of its provisions are in need of revision. Most importantly, while inflation has caused the value of a dollar to drop by more than a half in the past 25 years, the monetary test that subjects a transaction to the provisions of the statute has not been revised since the law's enactment in 1976. As a result, many transactions that are of a relatively small size and pose little antitrust concerns are nevertheless swept into the ambit of the Hart- Scott-Rodino review process. This legislation updates this statute to better fit into today's economy by raising the minimum size of transaction covered by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act from $15 million to $50 million. This will both lessen the agencies' burden of reviewing small transactions unlikely to seriously affect competition and enable the agencies to allocate their resources to properly focus on those transactions most worthy of scrutiny. Further, exempting smaller transactions from the Hart-Scott-Rodino process will significantly lessen regulatory burdens and expenses imposed on small businesses. The parties to these smaller transactions will no longer need to pay the $45,000 filing fee--or face the often even more onerous legal fees and other expenses typically incurred in preparing a Hart-Scott-Rodino filing--for mergers and acquisitions that usually don't pose any competitive concerns. In exempting this class of transactions from Hart-Scott-Rodino review, however, it is important that we not cause the antitrust agencies to lose the funding they need to carry out their increasingly demanding mission of enforcing the nation's antitrust laws. This bill will reduce the number of Hart-Scott-Rodino filings and therefore reduce the revenues generated by these filings if the filing fees were kept at their present level. Of course, in a perfect world, we wouldn't finance the Antitrust Division and the FTC on the backs of these filing fees. But because they are a fact of life, the antitrust agencies should not be penalized by these reforms by suffering such a reduction in revenues. As a result, in order to assure that this reform is revenue neutral, we have worked with the Appropriations Committee to ensure that this bill raises the filing fees for the largest transactions. Consequently, filing fees are to be increased for transactions valued at over $100,000,000, which makes sense because these transactions require more scrutiny. This legislation makes other changes designed to enhance the efficiency of the pre-merger review process. The waiting period has been extended from twenty to thirty days after the parties' compliance with the government's request for additional information, a more realistic waiting period in this era of increasingly complex mergers generating enormous amounts of relevant information and documents. And, as in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, when a deadline for governmental action occurs on a weekend or holiday, the deadline is extended to the next business day. This simple provision will eliminate gamesmanship by parties who currently may time their compliance so that the waiting period ends on a weekend or holiday, effectively shortening the waiting period to the previous business day. Finally, in recent years many have expressed concerns regarding the difficulties and expense imposed on business in complying with allegedly overly burdensome or duplicative government requests for additional information. So our legislation also contains carefully crafted provisions to ensure that business is not faced with unduly burdensome or overbroad requests for information, while assuring that the antitrust agencies' ability to obtain the information necessary to carry out a merger investigation is not hampered. Specifically, our legislation mandates that the FTC and Antitrust Division designate a senior official who does not have direct authority for the review of any enforcement recommendation to be designated to hear appeals to the appropriateness of the government's information requests the so called ``Second Requests''. The bill also sets forth the specific standards that this senior official is to utilize when considering such an appeal and mandates that these appeals be heard in an expedited manner. In sum, I believe this legislation to be a reasonable and well balanced reform of our government's vital merger review procedures. It will make long overdue adjustments in the filing thresholds--ensuring review of those mergers in most need of governmental scrutiny while reducing the burden and expense on government and private parties by exempting smaller transactions from often expensive and time consuming pre-merger filings. It will also significantly reform the merger review process to ensure that the government has sufficient time to analyze increasing complex merger transactions, while also adding protections so that private parties do not face unduly burdensome or duplicative information requests. I urge swift passage of this measure.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Both Senators make important points. The Senate has acknowledged the important role that alternative dispute resolution plays in addressing civil rights matters.

Mr. KOHL. I appreciate these comments and agree that this is a serious matter that ought to be addressed by USDA. telework

Mr. KOHL. I yield to my colleague from Minnesota for that purpose.

Mr. KOHL. I am happy to clarify this for my colleague. He is correct. The Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loan and Grant Program was designed by Congress to enable rural communities to improve the quality of educational opportunities and medical service. I believe strongly that educational opportunities include worker retraining and transitional education. Applicants can partner with local businesses or businesses considering moving into a rural area. Schools, community colleges, and other teaching institutions partner with the private sector today. Within that mandate, this is a program that is truly limited only by the innovation of the rural communities it serves.

Mr. KOHL. My colleague is correct. Again, USDA Rural Development should be encouraged to be innovative, within their statutory authority, in making grants for the purpose of promoting telework. In addition, USDA should use rural development programs in a manner that will allow rural communities to best take advantage of the potential of new technology and new methods of doing work, such as telework, in building sustainable, diverse rural economies.

Mr. KOHL. I am aware of concerns expressed by the senior Senator from California that several months ago a 72 square mile quarantine affecting 1,470 growers of at least 20 specialty crops was finally removed. I am told that no pre or post harvest treatment for many of these crops was provided by the USDA and that two fruit flies caused almost 150 growers to loss virtually their entire harvest, costing almost $3 million. The Fiscal Year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Bill contains language directing the Secretary of Agriculture to use funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation to compensate these growers. I expected that this assistance will be provided in a timely and efficient manner.

Mr. KOHL. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to Senator Byrd.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's attention to this issue. He is correct to point out the positive role of the Rural Community Assistance Programs in helping carry out this and other important activities in rural areas. The Senator is aware that the President requested $5 million for these solid waste grants for fiscal year 2001. But whereas there is a general acknowledgment of the effectiveness of the program, we are abe to fund the program only to a level of $2.7 million in this bill, due to broader fiscal constraints. In view of that limitation, I think the Senator is correct to urge the Department to give special consideration to those very small, often poor, rural communities which can be the hardest to serve. For that reason, I agree, and I believe the subcommittee would agree, that the Department should be urged to consider directing up to $1 million of the solid waste grants to the regional Rural Community Assistance Programs, which have an excellent record of serving such communities.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank and congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Cochran, for all of his work in crafting this conference report. I believe overall this measure does a very good job of providing funds for ongoing work at USDA, FDA, and the other agencies covered in this bill. It also provides much needed emergency relief for farmers and ranchers suffering from both market loss and natural disasters. However, I am disappointed that the conference committee could not come to a better conclusion on two highly controversial issues involving trade sanctions and reimportation of prescription drugs. With regard to the Cuba provision, I would have preferred the Senate language. That language received broad support in this body. With respect to the reimportation of prescription drugs, I am concerned the language in this report has too many restrictions and may not result in lower drug prices for our seniors, as well as others. While some of us disagree on the language of these two items, nevertheless this conference report does provide immediate and targeted economic relief to struggling producers. Some producers are receiving the lowest prices for their products in over 20 years. With respect to the dairy industry, the emergency provisions included in the conference report do not solve the larger problems facing our industry. However, it is an appropriate and vital step in protecting family dairy farmers. I encourage all Senators to support this conference report. The conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture appropriations bill provides $78.5 billion in funding for the operations and programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and other agencies. This conference report includes much needed emergency relief to assist farmers hurt by economic and weather-related losses. The conference report also includes legislative language regarding food and medicine sanctions and language regarding the reimportation of prescription drugs. I am pleased that the conference committee also accepted a provision that will make it easier for citizens to participate in the federal food stamp program. From the beginning of this year's appropriation cycle I have been honored to work with the very distinguished Chairman, Senator Cochran. The Senator from Mississippi has done an outstanding job of steering this bill through the appropriation process and I believe that with his leadership we have achieved a very fair and balanced conference report. There are two highly controversial issues relating to this conference report which prevented the House and Senate conferees from moving this bill prior to today. In fact, the FY 2001 Agricultural Appropriations bill was reported by the full Appropriations Committee on May 20, 2000 and was approved by the full Senate on July 20, 2000. With farmers and ranchers struggling with significant market losses and natural disasters, it was my hope that we would have moved this legislation to the President's desk prior to the August recess period. With regard to the Cuba language, I am disappointed that the conferees did not accept the language that was included in the Senate version of this bill. The language approved by the Senate received broad support and would have created expanded opportunities for Americans to sell food and medicine to Cuba. The provision included in this conference report makes it more difficult for these sales to take place, by preventing U.S. financial institutions from providing financing. The provision also codifies travel restrictions on Americans going to Cuba, making it more difficult for farmers to travel to Cuba to negotiate a sale. Although I do not believe we should be lifting our broader embargo on Cuba until we see democratic reform in Cuba and the end of the repressive Castro regime, in the meantime, I believe that blocking the sale of food and medicine has done little to bring us closer to that goal and has the unintended consequence of harming the very people we want to help. With regards to the reimportation of prescription drugs, I am extremely disappointed with the process by which the conference provision was developed. We started with a very bipartisan process to develop workable language, but unfortunately, that process was hijacked. Instead, decisions were made in backroom deals behind closed doors. Even when improvements were suggested that would improve the language, they were ignored. This process was a disgrace to the Senate and to our nation's seniors who would benefit far more from a bipartisan process. American consumers are rightly concerned about the high costs of prescription drugs--especially when compared to prices in other countries. These high costs are forcing America's seniors to often choose between buying food or paying for their medicine bills. America's seniors have footed the bill for the pharmaceutical industry's high profits for far too long. I believe reimportation could help alleviate the high costs for many seniors, but I am concerned that the language in this conference report has several loopholes that will prevent it from being fully effective. In particular, I am concerned that the sunset provision will have a chilling effect on pharmacists and wholesalers, who may not invest in reimportation because the ability to do so will end in five years. And I am very concerned that drug companies can still keep American prices high by demanding that foreign sellers charge American pharmacists and wholesalers the higher, American-set prices when they reimport drugs. All of these issues, of course, could have been resolved in a bipartisan process. That said, I am hopeful that the spirit of the reimportation provision--to lower drug prices for American consumers--will become a reality as it is implemented. Let me remind the drug companies in this country that reimportation was overwhelmingly supported in both Houses of Congress. We fully expect drug companies to comply with the intent of the law, and not look for loopholes to continue to inflate their profits. Most importantly, let me say that while reimportation is an important first step toward helping seniors with high drug prices, make no mistake: this is not a substitute for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Anyone who claims that reimportation is the answer to the outrageous drug prices seniors face is out of step with reality. Drug prices are a major problem--but so is coverage. With one-third of seniors lacking any drug coverage at all, it is critical that we pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit as soon as possible. While some of us may disagree with the outcome on the Cuba sanctions and re-imported drug issues, this conference report does provide immediate and targeted economic relief to struggling farmers and ranchers. In my state of Wisconsin alone, we are losing three dairy farmers a day. While the dairy market loss payments included in this conference report does not solved the larger problems facing our industry, it is an appropriate and vital step necessary to protect our family farmers. Section 805 of the conference report provides assistance to dairy farmers in an amount equal to 35% of the drop in the price this year from the previous five year average. Let me restate that, ``35%'' of the ``drop'' in price. By contrast, earlier this year the administration proposed a farm emergency package for program crops that would have provided payments to guarantee farmers of certain commodities ``95%'' of the previous 5 year average ``total gross income''. I cannot overstate the devastation the current dairy price collapse is bringing to family farms all across America. Back home in Wisconsin, the crises is overwhelming. Recently, I received a call from a dairy producer named Tom LaGesse of Bloomer, Wisconsin. Mr. LaGesse informed me that in his small town, located in northwest Wisconsin, five producers within the span of one week went out of business. He also told me that if we do not provide immediate, and direct emergency payments within 60 days, he would be the next producer to go out of business. All too often we hear a lot of talk about saving the family farm but little action. Mr. President, these dairy payments will hopefully save Mr. LaGesse and many, many others like him. I am aware that producers may have questions regarding the implementation of the dairy payments included in this conference report. That is why I would like to insert into the Record the following questions and answers that may address the concerns of producers across the country. Questions and Answers Regarding Emergency Dairy Payments Question: How soon after the President signs this bill into law can dairy producers expect to receive payments? Answer: For existing dairy farmers who received Dairy Market Loss Assistance payments earlier this year, payments should go out fairly quickly. New producers who have not previously applied for or received Dairy Market Loss Assistance payments from USDA may wait a little longer. Question: How will payments be calculated? Answer: Each producer's payment will be calculated by multiplying their ``eligible'' production by the payment rate. The payment rate equals 35 percent of the decline in the market value of milk in 2000 from the previous five year average. During 1995-99, the market value of all farm milk as reported by USDA was $14.25 per hundredweight. USDA currently projects the all milk price will average $12.40 per hundredweight in 2000, so the projected payment rate would be .35 times $1.85 or about 65-cents per hundredweight. Eligible production for existing producers who received payments under the earlier program will, in most instances, be their actual milk production marketed in either 1997 or 1998, whichever is higher, up to a limit of 3.9 million pounds. Eligible production for existing producers who received payments under the earlier program, but had no production in 1997 or 1998, will be their actual milk production marketed in 1999 up to a limit of 3.9 million pounds. Existing producers in either of the above categories who had less than 12 months of production in the base year used to calculate their earlier payments will have the option of substituting their actual production marketed during the 12 months from October 1, 1999, through September 30, 2000, up to a limit of 3.9 million, if it is greater than their base period marketings used for the earlier payments. Finally, eligible production for new producers who did not receive payments under the earlier programs will be their actual production marketed during the 12 months from October 1, 1999, through September 30, 2000, up to a limit of 3.9 million pounds. Question: Does a producer have to fill out forms or can they expect to automatically receive their payment? Answer: The Secretary of Agriculture will decide exactly how to administer the program and what will be required of producers. However, I believe he can automatically pay existing producers who participated in the earlier payment programs and that only those new producers and those few who have the option of updating their base period production should need to fill out new applications. Question: How much should producers expect to receive? Answer: First, a producer's payment does not depend directly on the number of cows on the producer's farm but on the producer's eligible production as described above. A producer can estimate his own payment by multiplying his eligible production by the estimated payment rate of 65-cents per hundredweight. An average milk cow produces 17,200 pounds of milk per year. Using this average, producers can expect about $112 per milk cow. A herd of 225 average milk cows will reach the 3.9 million pound limit and receive the maximum payment of about $25,000. Also included in the conference report is a cranberry relief package that provides assistance to cranberry growers who are suffering with record low prices. This year, my state of Wisconsin will lead the nation in cranberry production. The language in the conference report provides $20 million for direct cash payments to growers and language directing the USDA to purchase $30 million worth of cranberry products. The cranberry direct payments provision is similar to other market loss assistance provisions in the bill. In order to insure that the funds are equitably distributed in the market place, the provision includes a cap on payments that would be limited to not more than 1.6 million pounds per separate farm unit, regardless of farm ownership. In recent weeks, the cranberry industry has been working very closely with USDA and the recipients of federal food distribution programs to support purchases of juice concentrate, frozen fruit, or other comparable high-concentration fruit products that will remove the highest quantities of surplus fruit from current inventory. The industry and USDA is working to ensure a nutritious and easy to use product available for the recipients of federal food distribution programs. I appreciate the close cooperation of the Department on this and urge them to move quickly to address this disastrous surplus situation through additional purchases of products containing high concentrations of cranberry products provided for in the bill. I close by reminding my colleagues that I support the conference report. I also express my sincere appreciation to Senator Cochran for his leadership, his fairness, and expertise in the many programs and accounts included in this bill. I thank Senator Cochran's subcommittee staff for all their work on this conference report. I urge all Senators to join me in support of this important conference report. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I yield our time.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to explain my votes on the amendments offered by Senator Boxer to the VA-HUD Appropriations bill relating to legislative riders that were attached to the bill. Included in the bill were provisions that would potentially delay the issuance of rules on arsenic, the declaration of new ozone non-attainment areas, and ordering dredging for the clean up of PCB's. Senator Boxer offered amendments that would have eliminated or weakened these provisions. She has worked hard for our environment, and has been a leader on ecological issues, so I regret I had to vote against her proposals. Unfortunately I had to oppose her for several reasons. First, the amendments, if accepted would have seriously disrupted Congress's efforts to complete our work on the budget. These amendments would have resulted in additional delays, and could have jeopardized the fate of the bill. I was also concerned because the Administration did not oppose, and did not agree with the dire assessment of the effects of these riders. Staff at the EPA do not believe that these riders will result in any significant delays. EPA does not believe that the dredging language included in the bill will delay action on the Fox River in my state, but it will ensure that we use the best science available when EPA develops clean up plans. Senators Bond and Mikulski, along with the Administration, have done their best to neuter destructive language that was included in the House version of this bill, and I think they have done well. We would prefer that these riders not be included at all, but if they must, at least they were included in a way that is unlikely to have any negative effect on the environment.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has been able to pass, after extended debate, H.R. 4444 which will make Normal Trade Relations with China permanent. After over twenty years of yearly extensions of Most Favored Nation trading status, we are now going to stabilize our trading relations with the Chinese. This is a step forward for the United States, China, and our citizens. I believe in trade as a liberalizing force. A country cannot accept our goods and services and not be exposed to our ideas and values. One has only to look around the Pacific to see countries that have made the move from dictatorship to democracy and see their focus on trade to understand the connection. South Korea, Taiwan, and Indonesia have all made steps toward greater democracy and all three have been engines for economic growth in the region. As capitalism penetrates Chinese society, the push for greater democracy will inexorably follow. Increased trade and investment between our countries will separate Chinese workers from dependence on state owned enterprises. Currently Chinese workers depend on the state for almost everything including their jobs and paychecks. Once workers have a choice between working for the government and for private business, and can break their dependency on the state, the push for greater democracy will only increase. Trade will also serve as a valuable tool for exchanges between our countries as a more personal form of diplomacy. As business people travel back and forth, as workers meet Americans, as the Chinese people have more exposure to our country through the media and the internet, the people of China will develop there own attitudes about Westerners, capitalism, and democracy. The World Trade Organization will bring China the prestige and respect it craves, but at a price. As a member, China will be treated like any other member of the international community, and not like an outcast or rogue. The members of the WTO, however, will not let themselves be taken advantage of in trade matters. During this debate I have heard many members talk about the advantage of multilateral sanctions over unilateral ones. The WTO offers members an excellent mechanism to propound and enforce multilateral sanctions, forcing China's compliance on trade issues. While the agreement that the Administration negotiated in the fall of 1999 is not perfect, it significantly equalizes the terms of trade between our countries. Not only did we convince the Chinese to drastically reduce their tariffs on everything from auto parts to ice cream, we also negotiated to keep our anti-dumping and import surge laws. On our side, we gave up nothing in exchange. We did not allow any additional access to our markets or lower our tariffs. It was a one way deal--a deal that U.S. farmers and workers benefit from. People may be concerned about Chinese imports into the United States, but this agreement does not alter China's access to our markets one bit. On our side of the Pacific, nothing will change. Some of my colleagues were disappointed that workers' rights provisions were not provided for in this agreement. I share their concern that China does not share our belief in the importance of respecting working people. I believe that Senator Helms had an excellent proposal for raising the working conditions in China, while protecting the reputations of U.S. businesses that operate in China. His amendment to create a voluntary Code of Conduct for U.S. businesses in China would go a long way in protecting Chinese workers. By agreeing to respect certain rights to organize, to earn a decent wage, and to work in a safe environment, Chinese workers would learn the benefits of American style capitalism. This would also protect U.S. companies from being accused of abusing foreign workers for economic gain. We all know the public relations albatross around the neck of companies that moved to third world countries and thought they did not have a responsibility to meet Western standards of worker protection. We all know the names of companies who have operations in Vietnam, Indonesia, and Central America that have been brought under harsh scrutiny when the public finds out what the conditions are in these factories. Senator Helms's amendment provided an opportunity for companies to avoid this negative publicity by agreeing openly that certain principals will always be respected, regardless of whether the factory is in China or the United States. As we focus on expanding economic ties with China, we must consider our decision to grant PNTR in the context of our broader foreign policy relationship with China. I count myself among those who support PNTR in the hope that expanded trade with China will result in a more open Chinese society. To that end, we must be persistent in pressing the Chinese to demonstrate respect for human rights. Since the May 1999 suspension of the bilateral dialogue on Chinese human rights we have continued to convey our concerns to the Chinese about their repressive policies. Their unwillingness to engage with us on these issues puts more pressure on us to use the trade and economic contacts we have to press them on human rights and other matters. Although I chose not to support the Wellstone amendment which would have conditioned PNTR on specific steps to improve religious freedom in China because I do not believe we should be adding last minute conditions to PNTR, I am deeply concerned about the most recent State Department reports on human rights and religious freedom in China. The Chinese government's respect for religious freedom and human rights has deteriorated considerably in recent years. Reports of severe violations continue unabated, including harsh crackdowns against religious and minority groups, the imprisonment of religious and minority leaders, including Catholic bishops, the complete repression of political freedom, and violence against women, including forced abortions, sterilizations, and prostitution. There are those who say that we are losing our leverage with the Chinese on human rights by giving up our annual review of their human rights practices before we grant them normal trade relations status. In practice, however, this review had become a formality. We have never denied the Chinese normal trade relations status, even in recent years, since the Tianneman Square uprising, when their human rights record has been so egregious. I have believed that trade can be used as an effective bargaining tool in pressuring governments to improve their records on human rights. In the case of China, PNTR will not only provide us with the opportunity to press the Chinese at the highest levels, expanded trade will expose the Chinese people to the many freedoms we hold so dear, creating pressure from within. We will also not be losing our opportunity to monitor Chinese human rights practices in a public way. The legislation before us creates a Helsinki-style commission which is designed to keep human rights on the front burner of US-Chinese relations. We must monitor Chinese behavior, speak plainly to the Chinese, and take action when necessary to communicate our objections to China's human rights record. And, we must continue our support for U.S. government and non-government efforts to effect change in China, including the development of the rule of law. We must also use our growing access to China to do all we can to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems. The proliferation of these weapons and the ballistic missiles designed to deliver them pose the greatest threat to our security in the post-Cold War era. One of the consequences of the end of the Cold War has been looser controls on the technology, materials, and expertise to develop weapons of mass destruction. We must do all we can to prevent terrorists or radical states from acquiring these weapons and the means to deliver them. To that end, we have been a leader in setting up international regimes to prevent the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and ballistic missiles. Unfortunately, there is much evidence that the Chinese have been heavily involved in proliferation activities. Although some would argue that the Chinese have made progress in this area, pointing to their 1992 promise to abide by the Missile Technology Control Regime, MTCR, their accession to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, NPT, their signing and subsequent ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention, CWC, and the signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, there are still grave concerns about Chinese proliferation activities. At the same time that China was making commitments to adhere to international regimes to prevent the spread of nuclear and chemical weapons and ballistic missiles, Chinese companies continued to transfer sensitive technology to a number of countries. These technologies were instrumental in the development of weapons programs. Missile technology sales to Pakistan, nuclear technology sales to Iran, chemical sales to Iran, and missile technology sales to North Korea have all been attributed to the Chinese. China has played a major role in Pakistan's nuclear program, selling Pakistan 5,000 ring magnets, which can be used in gas centrifuges to enrich uranium, and other equipment for their nuclear facilities. As recently as August 9, the CIA reported that China is still a ``key supplier'' of weapons technology, confirming for the first time missile technology sales to Libya. The few advances China has made, at least in its formal commitments, can be attributed to U.S. pressure. The key to preventing the further spread of sensitive weapons technology and know how is to continue to press the Chinese to honor the spirit of these commitments. We must not be afraid to be tough with them in this area and we must be willing to use all tools-- including sanctions--to bring this message home. Global security is at risk if we allow rogue states to develop the capability to build weapons of mass destruction. And, our own national security is directly at stake if they develop delivery systems, that is long-range ballistic missiles, to bring these weapons to our shores. That is why I chose to support the Thompson-Torricelli amendment to require annual reviews of Chinese proliferation activities. If the review identifies persons or other entities engaging in these activities then sanctions would be imposed. I have been a long-time supporter of economic sanctions against companies and governments which engage in proliferation activities. I recognize that sanctions may not always be appropriate, and that is why Thompson-Torricelli had waiver provisions. However, sanctions have not been imposed in many cases that begged for a stronger response from our government. The reluctance to use sanctions sends a signal to the Chinese and others involved in proliferation activities that there are rarely consequences for bad actions. We must have teeth in our non-proliferation policy or in the end we will suffer the consequences. I had no desire to delay PNTR in my support of the Thompson amendment, and I can say the same for all the amendments which I chose to support during our consideration of PNTR. Our trade ties can benefit us in all our dealings with the Chinese, but we must not permit trade to overshadow the broad range of interests which we have with them. I have no illusions about the potential impact of what we have done. PNTR will not change the balance of trade overnight. This agreement will take time to have a liberalizing effect on the Chinese government. China is thousands of years old, we will not change their minds in a couple of years, regardless of whether we use carrots or sticks to persuade them. We need to continue working to reduce subsidies below their current levels, and continue to eliminate tariffs. The U.S. will also need to continue to work on human rights as well. The bill provides some of the tools for the work on human rights to carry on, but we must be diligent and stay focused on the task ahead.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Feinstein in introducing the Defective Product Penalty Act of 2000. As the Firestone/Bridgestone tire controversy sadly demonstrates, current consumer protection laws do not provide sufficient incentive for some manufacturers to put the health and safety of consumers at the forefront of their business decisions. Although most of us would find it very difficult to believe that a company knowingly introduced a defective product into the marketplace, or failed to recall one once a defect was discovered, the families of the Firestone/Bridgestone casualties do not need to be reminded that it does happen. Most companies are responsible corporate citizens, of course--and for them this legislation will not affect their behavior--but for the others who need to be ``incentivized'' to make consumer health and safety a foremost priority, the Defective Product Penalty Act (``DPPA'') should serve as sufficient notice. Specifically, the DPPA creates tough criminal penalties for those who knowingly introduce defective products into the stream of commerce with the realization that the product may cause death or bodily harm to an unsuspecting consumer. Risking the lives of millions of Americans because a cost-benefit analysis suggests that profits earned from a product outweigh the potential costs of liability is not only wrong, but also criminal. And it should be treated as such. Indeed, Mr. President, whenever a company adheres to the bottom line instead of respecting the health and safety of their consumers, they deserve severe, immediate, and strict punishment. This bill also incorporates S. 957, the Sunshine in Litigation Act. This part of the bill ensures that consumers are better informed about product defects that may affect consumer health and safety. All too often our Federal courts allow vital information that is discovered in litigation--and which bears directly upon public health and safety--to be covered up, to be shielded from mothers, fathers and children whose lives are potentially at stake, and from the public officials we have asked to protect our public health and safety. All this happens because of the use of so-called ``protective orders''--really gag orders issued by courts--that are designed to keep information discovered in the course of litigation secret and undisclosed. Typically, injured victims agree to a defendant's request to keep lawsuit information secret. They agree because defendants threaten that, without secrecy, they will fight every document requested and will refuse to agree to a settlement. Victims cannot afford to take such chances. And while courts in these situations actually have the legal authority to deny requests for secrecy, typically they do not--because both sides have agreed. The problem of excessive secrecy orders in cases involving public health and safety has been apparent for many years. The Judiciary Committee first held hearings on this issue in 1990 and again in 1994. In 1990, Arthur Bryant, the executive director of the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, told us, ``The one thing we learned . . . is that this problem is far more egregious than we ever imagined. It goes the length and depth of this country, and the frank truth is that much of civil litigation in this country is taking place in secret.'' The Defective Product Penalty Act will go a long way to ensuring that the health and safety of consumers will receive the consideration it deserves in the boardrooms and courtrooms across our country. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Feinstein in introducing the Defective Product Penalty Act of 2000. As the Firestone/Bridgestone tire controversy sadly demonstrates, current consumer protection laws do not provide sufficient incentive for some manufacturers to put the health and safety of consumers at the forefront of their business decisions. Although most of us would find it very difficult to believe that a company knowingly introduced a defective product into the marketplace, or failed to recall one once a defect was discovered, the families of the Firestone/Bridgestone casualties do not need to be reminded that it does happen. Most companies are responsible corporate citizens, of course--and for them this legislation will not affect their behavior--but for the others who need to be ``incentivized'' to make consumer health and safety a foremost priority, the Defective Product Penalty Act (``DPPA'') should serve as sufficient notice. Specifically, the DPPA creates tough criminal penalties for those who knowingly introduce defective products into the stream of commerce with the realization that the product may cause death or bodily harm to an unsuspecting consumer. Risking the lives of millions of Americans because a cost-benefit analysis suggests that profits earned from a product outweigh the potential costs of liability is not only wrong, but also criminal. And it should be treated as such. Indeed, Mr. President, whenever a company adheres to the bottom line instead of respecting the health and safety of their consumers, they deserve severe, immediate, and strict punishment. This bill also incorporates S. 957, the Sunshine in Litigation Act. This part of the bill ensures that consumers are better informed about product defects that may affect consumer health and safety. All too often our Federal courts allow vital information that is discovered in litigation--and which bears directly upon public health and safety--to be covered up, to be shielded from mothers, fathers and children whose lives are potentially at stake, and from the public officials we have asked to protect our public health and safety. All this happens because of the use of so-called ``protective orders''--really gag orders issued by courts--that are designed to keep information discovered in the course of litigation secret and undisclosed. Typically, injured victims agree to a defendant's request to keep lawsuit information secret. They agree because defendants threaten that, without secrecy, they will fight every document requested and will refuse to agree to a settlement. Victims cannot afford to take such chances. And while courts in these situations actually have the legal authority to deny requests for secrecy, typically they do not--because both sides have agreed. The problem of excessive secrecy orders in cases involving public health and safety has been apparent for many years. The Judiciary Committee first held hearings on this issue in 1990 and again in 1994. In 1990, Arthur Bryant, the executive director of the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, told us, ``The one thing we learned . . . is that this problem is far more egregious than we ever imagined. It goes the length and depth of this country, and the frank truth is that much of civil litigation in this country is taking place in secret.'' The Defective Product Penalty Act will go a long way to ensuring that the health and safety of consumers will receive the consideration it deserves in the boardrooms and courtrooms across our country. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Privacy Commission Act'' with my colleagues Senator Thompson and Senator Torricelli. This legislation addresses privacy protection by creating an expert Commission charged with the duty to explore privacy concerns. We cannot underestimate the importance of this issue. Privacy matters, and it will continue to matter more and more in this information age of high speed data, Internet transactions, and lightning-quick technological advances. Last November, Senator Torricelli and I introduced the ``Privacy Protection Study Commission Act of 1999,'' the first major piece of privacy legislation introduced in the 106th Congress. Our hope then, as now, was to gain a better informed understanding of the numerous privacy issues facing a high tech culture. Now, almost a year later, the privacy issue has grown in importance and public concern. As a result, I am pleased to renew my effort in this area with another privacy commission proposal. There exists a massive wealth of information in today's world, which is increasingly stored electronically. In fact, experts estimate that the average American is ``profiled'' in up to 150 commercial electronic databases. That means that there is a great deal of data--in some cases, very detailed and personal--out there and easily accessible courtesy of the Internet revolution. With the click of a button it is possible to examine all sorts of personal information, be it an address, a criminal record, a credit history, a shopping preference, or even a medical file. Generally, the uses of this data are benign, even beneficial. Occasionally, however, personal information is obtained surreptitiously, and even peddled to third parties for profit or other uses. This is especially troubling when, in many cases, people do not even know that their own personal information is being ``shopped.'' Two schools of thought exist on how we should address these privacy concerns. There are some who insist that we must do something and do it quickly. Others urge us to rely entirely on ``self-regulation''-- according to them most companies will act reasonably and, if not, consumers will demand privacy protection as a condition for their continued business. Both approaches have some merit, but also some problems. It is never beneficial to legislate by anecdote or on the basis of a few bad actors. In deed, enacting ``knee-jerk,'' ``quick-fix'' legislation could do more harm than good. By the same token, however, the longer Congress waits to enact legislation, the more frequent the anecdotes until they reach a point of critical mass. We are quickly reaching the point when Congress must act with or without the benefits of a study. A privacy commission still has merit. The streamlined time frame--it could still be a bit shorter--helps ensure that the Commission will not interrupt other legislative privacy efforts, and the breadth of experts that it relies upon suggests that the commission's report will still be timely and worthwhile. I commend Senator Thompson for his efforts and hope our proposal becomes law and Commission members are appointed before the end of this year.