Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the Lieberman amendment, which is based on our bill ``The Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention, and Responsibility Act of 2000''--better known as ``Three R's.'' I believe that this bill represents a realistic, effective approach to improving public education--where 90% of students are educated. For the past 35 years, when the time has come for the Senate to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, it has done so with bipartisan support. However, over the past week, most of what we've seen on the Senate floor has been partisan wrangling--from both sides of the aisle--over how to reform education. I think that's tragic. Our nation's children deserve a serious debate and real reform--not partisan bickering and election-year gamesmanship. Mr. President, addressing problems in education is going to take more than cosmetic reform. It will require some tough decisions and a willingness to work together. We need to let go of the tired partisan fighting over more spending versus block grants, and take a middle ground approach that will truly help our States, school districts--and most importantly, our students. During the past several weeks, I am pleased to have been part of a bipartisan group of Senators who have put partisan politics aside and are seeking to find such a middle ground. Our group has been working to meld the best parts of all of our plans--in the hope that we can actually get a bill passed this year. In a short period of time, we have made tremendous progress and found more agreement between our two parties than the past week's floor debate has shown. I am hopeful that we will soon reach agreement on a bipartisan compromise, but even if we do not, we have laid the groundwork for the future. At some point, the entire Senate will have to put politics aside and deal with education reform. Our plan can serve as the foundation for that compromise--and I look forward to working with our group to make that happen. Mr. President, I believe the Federal government must continue to be a partner with States, school districts, and educators to improve public education. But it is time to take a fresh look at the structure of Federal education programs--building upon past successes and putting an end to our past failures. The amendment before us now--our ``Three R's'' bill--does just that. Three R's makes raising student achievement for all students--and closing 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 provide more funding for education-- and that Federal dollars must be targeted to disadvantaged students. Federal funds make up only 7% of all money spent on education, so it is essential that we target those funds on the students who need them the most. Second, we believe that States and local school districts are in the best position to know what their educational needs are. Three R's gives them more flexibility to determine how they will use Federal dollars to best meet those needs. Finally--and I believe this is the lynchpin of our approach--we believe that in exchange for this increased flexibility, there must also be accountability for results. These principles are a pyramid, with accountability being the base that supports the federal government's grant of flexibility and funds. 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 assistance and support to schools that are struggling to do a better job. And we must stop subsidizing failure. Our highest priority must be educating children--not perpetuating broken systems. Mr. President, the ``Three R's bill takes a fresh look at public education. I believe it represents a real middle ground, building upon all the progress we've made and tackling the problems we still face. 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 urge my colleagues to support the Lieberman-Bayh amendment.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from Wisconsin in introducing this legislation to honor the memory of Les Aspiin. Long before I entered politics, Les Aspin was a good friend of mine. I had the good fortune to serve with Les Aspin in Congress and to work with him when he served as Secretary of Defense. Les Aspin was truly dedicated to public service. He was genuinely challenged by the policy making process, and he was not hesitant in bringing his great intellectual gifts to bear on the problems of our time. He was a master of the Sunday morning talk shows, expounding on the issues of the day with his trenchant analyses. As chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Les Aspin was one of the most influential voices on U.S. defense policy. His ascension to the chairmanship of the House Armed Services Committee was not without rancor, but even those who disagreed with Les respected his verve and determination. When we lost Les Aspin, we lost a man of great vision. He was one of the few who realized that we needed a completely new way of thinking about national security policy in the post-cold-war era. He had the capacity to think through the difficult issues involved in developing such a policy. And, he was unrelenting in making us deal with those issues. Even though Les Aspin became a powerful national figure, he never forgot his roots. Les represented the 1st Congressional District for 22 years and he cared deeply about the people of his district. He was aggressive in pursuing projects that would benefit the people of Wisconsin and he left no stone unturned in helping resolve constituent problems. He especially recognized the importance of reliable postal service in small and big towns alike. He was known to become personally involved in responding to complaints from constituents about postal service, often attending meetings across the district on postal issues. Les became intimately involved when the Janesville Postal Office was moved from downtown, working to ensure that service was retained for all, especially small businesses and other postal patrons who relied on the downtown post office. Thus, naming the Janesville Post Office after Les Aspin is a most fitting tribute to his many years of service to the people of the First Congressional District. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and hope for its speedy passage.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I understand that under the cloture rules, I am afforded 1 hour of debate time. I designate Senator Daschle to control my hour.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to commend an organization that has provided high quality mental health, residential, case management, prevention, treatment and outreach services to adults, youth and families in the Greater Milwaukee area for thirty years. This organization is the Counseling Center of Milwaukee, Inc. The Counseling Center of Milwaukee came from humble beginnings. Established in 1970 in the basement of Milwaukee's St. Mary's Hospital, it merged with the organization Pathfinders for Runaways in 1971. The Center has since grown into a $2.3 million agency with 100 paid and volunteer staff. In working to fulfill its vision statement of putting more people in charge of their lives, connecting to others and contributing to their communities, the Counseling Center of Milwaukee provides both individual and family services including education, counseling, providing emergency shelter and mentoring. The Counseling Center serves a variety of clients, most of whom are low income and most from the city of Milwaukee. The Counseling Center has always been a place where clients could turn when they had nowhere else to go. Through public and private funding, the Counseling Center provides service to anyone in need, regardless of their ability to pay. This includes more than 7,000 citizens in the Greater Milwaukee area served in 1999. I am proud to join in celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Counseling Center of Milwaukee. I thank the dedicated employees and volunteers of the Center for their significant contributions to the mental health of the citizens of my state, and wish them a prosperous future.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today Senator Gregg and I are introducing legislation, the New Economy Tax Simplification Act, to ask government to step out of the way of the growing Internet economy and take a middle ground approach to taxation of Internet commerce. Our legislation does not stop any one State from forcing Internet companies within its borders to collect the sales taxes collected by any other business within its borders. But it does stop every one of the over 7000 local taxing jurisdictions from imposing every one of their unique rules, regulations, and rates on every business that sells over the Internet or through the mail. We are not here today to ask for special treatment for companies that sell on the Internet. We simply want to make sure that businesses that are tackling the market with 21st century technology are not bled to death by the Byzantine local tax system. All companies--regardless of whether they now sell over the Internet or not--benefit from the economic boom and consumer convenience provided by computer commerce. If you don't sell over the Internet now; you probably buy there. If you don't work for a company whose economic fortune is tied to Internet sales or information, your spouse, child, or neighbor probably does. If you haven't invested in one of these successful Internet businesses, they have probably invested in you: in the charities in your community, in the jobs that are growing our economy everywhere; in the State programs financed by the taxes these companies rightly pay to the States in which they have a physical presence. Our bill provides a clear set of standards for businesses operating across state lines through mail-order sales or the Internet. And--very significantly--it also protects the rights of state and local officials to determine tax policy within their own jurisdictions. Some have called for a complete ban on sales taxes on Internet goods. Still others have claimed that companies should collect sales taxes on all of their products without regard to the point of sale or the state or residence of the consumer. We strike a balance between these two extremes. Just as my Wisconsin constituents should not have to pay local sales taxes for schools and sewers in Texas, Nebraska, or New York; it also makes sense that a Wisconsin business should not be forced to collect taxes to support fire and police protection in the other states. Businesses should collect the sales taxes that support the government services they receive. But the main reason I am here today is to protect against a Federal red tape nightmare that would prevent the very growth that we all wish to promote. There are over 7,000 tax jurisdictions in this country, all with their own tax rates, exemptions, audit requirements and appeals procedures. Requiring compliance with all those jurisdictions would mean learning and complying with 46 sets of rules. Under this scenario, companies would have to file more than 425 tax returns every month. That amounts to approximately 5100 tax returns every year. Internet and mail order companies, as well as traditional main street stores who are developing or using Internet services, serve consumers who like the convenience of phone or Internet shopping or who are unable to leave their homes to shop. They offer greater convenience and greater choice. And they offer small specialty businesses the chance to grow into successful big businesses. Our bill will allow these vital markets to continue to flourish--free from a tangle of tax red tape. It will also allow state and local officials to continue to collect taxes as they see fit within their own jurisdictions. We believe it strikes the proper balance, and we look forward to convincing our colleagues that it is worthy of their support.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today Senator Gregg and I are introducing legislation, the New Economy Tax Simplification Act, to ask government to step out of the way of the growing Internet economy and take a middle ground approach to taxation of Internet commerce. Our legislation does not stop any one State from forcing Internet companies within its borders to collect the sales taxes collected by any other business within its borders. But it does stop every one of the over 7000 local taxing jurisdictions from imposing every one of their unique rules, regulations, and rates on every business that sells over the Internet or through the mail. We are not here today to ask for special treatment for companies that sell on the Internet. We simply want to make sure that businesses that are tackling the market with 21st century technology are not bled to death by the Byzantine local tax system. All companies--regardless of whether they now sell over the Internet or not--benefit from the economic boom and consumer convenience provided by computer commerce. If you don't sell over the Internet now; you probably buy there. If you don't work for a company whose economic fortune is tied to Internet sales or information, your spouse, child, or neighbor probably does. If you haven't invested in one of these successful Internet businesses, they have probably invested in you: in the charities in your community, in the jobs that are growing our economy everywhere; in the State programs financed by the taxes these companies rightly pay to the States in which they have a physical presence. Our bill provides a clear set of standards for businesses operating across state lines through mail-order sales or the Internet. And--very significantly--it also protects the rights of state and local officials to determine tax policy within their own jurisdictions. Some have called for a complete ban on sales taxes on Internet goods. Still others have claimed that companies should collect sales taxes on all of their products without regard to the point of sale or the state or residence of the consumer. We strike a balance between these two extremes. Just as my Wisconsin constituents should not have to pay local sales taxes for schools and sewers in Texas, Nebraska, or New York; it also makes sense that a Wisconsin business should not be forced to collect taxes to support fire and police protection in the other states. Businesses should collect the sales taxes that support the government services they receive. But the main reason I am here today is to protect against a Federal red tape nightmare that would prevent the very growth that we all wish to promote. There are over 7,000 tax jurisdictions in this country, all with their own tax rates, exemptions, audit requirements and appeals procedures. Requiring compliance with all those jurisdictions would mean learning and complying with 46 sets of rules. Under this scenario, companies would have to file more than 425 tax returns every month. That amounts to approximately 5100 tax returns every year. Internet and mail order companies, as well as traditional main street stores who are developing or using Internet services, serve consumers who like the convenience of phone or Internet shopping or who are unable to leave their homes to shop. They offer greater convenience and greater choice. And they offer small specialty businesses the chance to grow into successful big businesses. Our bill will allow these vital markets to continue to flourish--free from a tangle of tax red tape. It will also allow state and local officials to continue to collect taxes as they see fit within their own jurisdictions. We believe it strikes the proper balance, and we look forward to convincing our colleagues that it is worthy of their support.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise to recognize the contribution of the North East Wisconsin Fair Housing Council, which provides fair housing enforcement services in the Fox Valley in Northeastern Wisconsin. I applaud the North East Wisconsin Fair Housing Council's fight to end housing discrimination. It is not only wrong, intolerable and unjust, it's illegal. While we would like to think that housing discrimination is a thing of the past, it still happens. And while we would like to think that in this day and age, equal housing opportunities are available to everyone, too many people are still shut out of the right to live in a home of their choosing. The more frequently citizens are reminded of their rights, the more likely they are to seek justice. The North East Wisconsin Fair Housing Council's greatest accomplishment has been an ongoing enforcement program. As of March 1, there have been 906 fair housing complaints filed with the North East Wisconsin Fair Housing Council. Every year since 1992 there has been a major pattern and practice study conducted by the North East Wisconsin Fair Housing Council. Through national competition, the North East Wisconsin Fair Housing Council has been the primary contractor on three Fair Housing Initiative Program grants. The North East Wisconsin Fair Housing Council has been at the forefront of innovative ways to combat illegal housing discrimination. In 1997 the North East Wisconsin Fair Housing Council received a Fair Housing Initiative Program Grant which provided the financial resources to increase attention to complaints from four targeted populations: Hmong, Native Americans, Hispanics and persons with disabilities. The North East Wisconsin Fair Housing Council developed an Enforcement Network Program with eight advocacy agencies representing those groups. The goals were to develop better communication with the agencies so they would understand how fair housing issues impacted their agencies and clients. Relationships with the agencies were enhanced and more efficient services were provided to the clients. Fair Housing is a right for all Americans, and I commend the North East Wisconsin Fair Housing Council for their efforts.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2941, which is filed at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that Senators Leahy, Lieberman, Robb, Graham, Bryan, Kerrey, Levin, and Feingold be added as cosponsors.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, this is a simple amendment. The budget before us allots to tax cuts any extra surplus forecast by CBO this summer. Our amendment strikes that section and saves the extra surplus for debt reduction. That is good for the economy and good for the solvency of Social Security. There are $150 billion for tax cuts and $19 billion for debt reduction in this budget. Our amendment does not change that. It just says that--if we end up with extra money this summer--it ought to go to the debt reduction side of the equation. Some have argued that the extra surplus go to tax cuts because otherwise Congress will spend it. That argument is a straw man. Under the budget as it stands, there is a point of order against spending the extra surplus on anything except tax cuts. Under the budget as we would amend it, there is a point of order against spending the extra surplus on anything. It has to be saved for debt relief. The Concord Coalition and Taxpayers for Common Sense have endorsed the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that their statements of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL. I yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 2097, the Launching Our Communities Access to Local Television Act of 2000. Enacting this legislation will complete our work on the Satellite Home Viewer Improvements Act that we voted into law last fall. Simply put, the LOCAL TV bill is the last piece of the puzzle that will encourage competition to cable in all markets, not just the top 20 or 30 largest urban areas. At the SHVIA Conference just this past year, we tried to tackle how to encourage ``local-into-local'' service into all areas, not just the biggest and most lucrative TV markets. But we only had mixed success. So it made sense to postpone the debate until this year. At the time, I was not entirely comfortable with the precursor of this measure. But I did then and I do now strongly support its goals. Today's package develops an approach that combines incentives and loan guarantees, which will pave the way for ``local-into-local'' service to reach into our rural areas. I am encouraged by the revisions that addressed the concerns of Chairman Gramm and others. For example, a loan guarantee must be approved by a board comprised of the Treasury Secretary, Federal Reserve Chairman, and the Agriculture Secretary. Such a board is unlikely to sign off on an overly risky proposition. Their review will help ensure fiscal discipline and prevent the taxpayer from being left on the hook for a bad deal. Furthermore, the government will not underwrite the entire amount of the loan. Holding lenders to 20 percent of the amount financed will make them scrutinize a loan application long and hard before they extend credit under this program. Moreover, we still allow market forces to make this program work. The LOCAL TV bill does not favor any particular technology. It is technologically neutral. Therefore, whether it is satellite, cable or an emerging technology, anyone with the entrepreneurial spirit to take on the task of delivering local television signals to remote areas is eligible for the program. By creating this incentive for all to participate, we permit the market to determine who will win a loan guarantee under this law. Hopefully, and most importantly, this bill will help local-into-local get rolled out more ubiquitously to rural markets in Wisconsin around Green Bay, Madison, Eau Claire, and Wausau and to other areas across the country. This is a good thing for consumers and, very simply, that's why I support passage of this measure. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Feinstein to introduce ``BLAST''--the Ballistics, Law Assistance, and Safety Technology Act. The bill offers two complementary approaches to combating gun violence. The first supplies our Nation's police with a new technology to assist them in solving crimes. The second expands ``Project Exile'' to 50 cities, giving federal prosecutors the resources they need to put more felons behind bars. Let me explain how our measure is crucial to the fight against crime. Reducing crime requires a multifaceted approach. While we need tougher controls to keep guns away from kids in this country--including mandating that child safety locks be sold with every new handgun--all of us also recognize that the battle against senseless violence includes prosecuting all criminals to the letter of the law. Mr. President, just as every person has a unique fingerprint, each gun leaves unique markings on discharged bullets and shell casings. Over the past decade, new technology has allowed for the comparison of those ``gun prints'' with bullets found at crime scenes. By keeping a computerized image of each new gun's fingerprint, police can compare the microscopic differences in markings left by each gun until they find a match. Once a match is found, law enforcement can begin tracing that weapon from its original sale to the person who used it to commit the crime. Indeed, ballistics technology, though nascent, is already helping to solve crimes. For example, in June 1997, an Oakland man was shot and killed as he used a public telephone on a street corner. Without any leads or physical evidence other than a bullet casing left by the discharged weapon, police were initially stymied in their search for the killer. A year passed without any progress in the investigation until police made an ordinary arrest of two men for the unlawful possession of a firearm. When the officers test-fired the confiscated gun and ran the image through their ballistics database, they found a match within seconds. The seized gun was the same gun that fired the deadly bullet in the unsolved case the previous year. Police confronted the two men with this evidence, and quickly received a confession to the murder. In another case, police only found 9 millimeter cartridge casings at the scene of a brutal homicide in Milwaukee--there were no other clues. But four months later, when a teenage male was arrested on an unrelated charge, he was found to be in possession of that firearm. Ballistics linked the two cases. Prosecutors successfully prosecuted three adult suspects for the homicide and convicted the teen in juvenile court. Mr. President, since the early 1990's, more than 250 crime labs and law enforcement agencies in over 40 states have been operating independent ballistics systems maintained by either the ATF or the FBI. Together, ATF's Integrated Ballistics Identification System (``IBIS'') and the FBI's DRUGFIRE system have been responsible for linking 5,700 guns to two or more crimes where corroborating evidence was otherwise lacking. My own state of Wisconsin employs the DRUGFIRE system for ballistics testing and has already used it to solve crime and provide authenticating evidence for ongoing criminal investigations. In 1998, the Milwaukee police department alone analyzed almost 600 firearms and over 3200 fired cartridges. Even though Wisconsin's DRUGFIRE has a limited number of guns in its database, ballistics testing helped solve seven homicides, 100 cases where the reckless use of a weapon endangered public safety, and numerous other gun crimes. These statistics are heartening, but they also illustrate the untapped potential of ballistics as a law enforcement weapon. Simply put, ballistics testing is only as good as the number of images in the database. Unfortunately, not enough guns are test fired before they are sold, not enough communities have access to ballistics databases, and not enough information is shared between law enforcement agencies of different jurisdictions. Ironically, even the two primary agencies responsible for investigating gun crimes--the ATF and the FBI--have created ballistics systems that cannot read each others data. Sadly, this significant law enforcement tool is severely underutilized. But that need not be the case. Title I of BLAST makes ballistics a centerpiece of our anti-crime strategy by requiring federal firearms manufacturers and importers to test fire all new firearms and make the ballistics images available to federal law enforcement; requiring federal law enforcement officials to test fire all firearms in their custody; and providing financial support to communities that include ballistics testing as a critical part of their comprehensive anti-crime strategy, building on the model used by ATF in the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative. The burden on manufacturers is minimal--we authorize funds to underwrite the cost of testing--and the assistance to law enforcement is considerable. And don't take my word for it, ask the gun manufacturers and the police. Listen to what Paul Januzzo, the vice- president of the gun manufacturer Glock, said last month in reference to ballistics testing, ``our mantra has been that the issue is crime control, not gun control . . . it would be two-faced of us not to want this.'' In their agreement with HUD, Smith & Wesson agreed to perform ballistics testing on all new handguns. And Ben Wilson, the chief of the firearms section at ATF, emphasized the importance of ballistics testing as a investigative device, ``This [ballistics] allows you literally to find a needle in a haystack.'' Our approach is bipartisan as well. The Republican governor of New York, George Pataki, prominently included a similar ballistics measure in his recently introduced anti-crime package. He clearly recognizes, as we do, that the more we can empower law enforcement, the more effectively we can put hard core criminals where they belong--behind bars. To be sure, we are sensitive to the notion that law abiding hunters and sportsmen need to be protected from any misuse of the ballistics database by government. The BLAST bill explicitly prohibits ballistics information from being used for any purpose unless it is necessary for the investigation of a gun crime. Of course, to successfully combat crime, you also need to enhance the arsenal of law enforcement. That is why Title II of BLAST expands the successful ``Project Exile'' program. By authorizing $20 million over four years, BLAST would fund gun prosecutors in 50 cities--prosecutors, who will work in conjunction with state and local authorities, devoted solely to the aggressive enforcement of the federal gun laws. This program already enjoys widespread support--from the industry to leaders on both sides of the political aisle to the National Rifle Association, which has pointed to Project Exile as a model for fighting gun crime. Our hope is to expand the success of EXILE across the country and provide the resources to every city interested in aggressively pursuing gun crimes. Felons will know that if they commit a crime with a gun they will pay the price. Mr. President, the BLAST bill will enhance a revolutionary new technology that helps solve crime while, at the same time, recognizing that new crime solving instruments are worthless unless prosecutors are in place to punish violent offenders to the fullest extent of the law. BLAST is a worthwhile piece of crime control legislation. I hope that the Senate will quickly move to pass it. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Feinstein to introduce ``BLAST''--the Ballistics, Law Assistance, and Safety Technology Act. The bill offers two complementary approaches to combating gun violence. The first supplies our Nation's police with a new technology to assist them in solving crimes. The second expands ``Project Exile'' to 50 cities, giving federal prosecutors the resources they need to put more felons behind bars. Let me explain how our measure is crucial to the fight against crime. Reducing crime requires a multifaceted approach. While we need tougher controls to keep guns away from kids in this country--including mandating that child safety locks be sold with every new handgun--all of us also recognize that the battle against senseless violence includes prosecuting all criminals to the letter of the law. Mr. President, just as every person has a unique fingerprint, each gun leaves unique markings on discharged bullets and shell casings. Over the past decade, new technology has allowed for the comparison of those ``gun prints'' with bullets found at crime scenes. By keeping a computerized image of each new gun's fingerprint, police can compare the microscopic differences in markings left by each gun until they find a match. Once a match is found, law enforcement can begin tracing that weapon from its original sale to the person who used it to commit the crime. Indeed, ballistics technology, though nascent, is already helping to solve crimes. For example, in June 1997, an Oakland man was shot and killed as he used a public telephone on a street corner. Without any leads or physical evidence other than a bullet casing left by the discharged weapon, police were initially stymied in their search for the killer. A year passed without any progress in the investigation until police made an ordinary arrest of two men for the unlawful possession of a firearm. When the officers test-fired the confiscated gun and ran the image through their ballistics database, they found a match within seconds. The seized gun was the same gun that fired the deadly bullet in the unsolved case the previous year. Police confronted the two men with this evidence, and quickly received a confession to the murder. In another case, police only found 9 millimeter cartridge casings at the scene of a brutal homicide in Milwaukee--there were no other clues. But four months later, when a teenage male was arrested on an unrelated charge, he was found to be in possession of that firearm. Ballistics linked the two cases. Prosecutors successfully prosecuted three adult suspects for the homicide and convicted the teen in juvenile court. Mr. President, since the early 1990's, more than 250 crime labs and law enforcement agencies in over 40 states have been operating independent ballistics systems maintained by either the ATF or the FBI. Together, ATF's Integrated Ballistics Identification System (``IBIS'') and the FBI's DRUGFIRE system have been responsible for linking 5,700 guns to two or more crimes where corroborating evidence was otherwise lacking. My own state of Wisconsin employs the DRUGFIRE system for ballistics testing and has already used it to solve crime and provide authenticating evidence for ongoing criminal investigations. In 1998, the Milwaukee police department alone analyzed almost 600 firearms and over 3200 fired cartridges. Even though Wisconsin's DRUGFIRE has a limited number of guns in its database, ballistics testing helped solve seven homicides, 100 cases where the reckless use of a weapon endangered public safety, and numerous other gun crimes. These statistics are heartening, but they also illustrate the untapped potential of ballistics as a law enforcement weapon. Simply put, ballistics testing is only as good as the number of images in the database. Unfortunately, not enough guns are test fired before they are sold, not enough communities have access to ballistics databases, and not enough information is shared between law enforcement agencies of different jurisdictions. Ironically, even the two primary agencies responsible for investigating gun crimes--the ATF and the FBI--have created ballistics systems that cannot read each others data. Sadly, this significant law enforcement tool is severely underutilized. But that need not be the case. Title I of BLAST makes ballistics a centerpiece of our anti-crime strategy by requiring federal firearms manufacturers and importers to test fire all new firearms and make the ballistics images available to federal law enforcement; requiring federal law enforcement officials to test fire all firearms in their custody; and providing financial support to communities that include ballistics testing as a critical part of their comprehensive anti-crime strategy, building on the model used by ATF in the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative. The burden on manufacturers is minimal--we authorize funds to underwrite the cost of testing--and the assistance to law enforcement is considerable. And don't take my word for it, ask the gun manufacturers and the police. Listen to what Paul Januzzo, the vice- president of the gun manufacturer Glock, said last month in reference to ballistics testing, ``our mantra has been that the issue is crime control, not gun control . . . it would be two-faced of us not to want this.'' In their agreement with HUD, Smith & Wesson agreed to perform ballistics testing on all new handguns. And Ben Wilson, the chief of the firearms section at ATF, emphasized the importance of ballistics testing as a investigative device, ``This [ballistics] allows you literally to find a needle in a haystack.'' Our approach is bipartisan as well. The Republican governor of New York, George Pataki, prominently included a similar ballistics measure in his recently introduced anti-crime package. He clearly recognizes, as we do, that the more we can empower law enforcement, the more effectively we can put hard core criminals where they belong--behind bars. To be sure, we are sensitive to the notion that law abiding hunters and sportsmen need to be protected from any misuse of the ballistics database by government. The BLAST bill explicitly prohibits ballistics information from being used for any purpose unless it is necessary for the investigation of a gun crime. Of course, to successfully combat crime, you also need to enhance the arsenal of law enforcement. That is why Title II of BLAST expands the successful ``Project Exile'' program. By authorizing $20 million over four years, BLAST would fund gun prosecutors in 50 cities--prosecutors, who will work in conjunction with state and local authorities, devoted solely to the aggressive enforcement of the federal gun laws. This program already enjoys widespread support--from the industry to leaders on both sides of the political aisle to the National Rifle Association, which has pointed to Project Exile as a model for fighting gun crime. Our hope is to expand the success of EXILE across the country and provide the resources to every city interested in aggressively pursuing gun crimes. Felons will know that if they commit a crime with a gun they will pay the price. Mr. President, the BLAST bill will enhance a revolutionary new technology that helps solve crime while, at the same time, recognizing that new crime solving instruments are worthless unless prosecutors are in place to punish violent offenders to the fullest extent of the law. BLAST is a worthwhile piece of crime control legislation. I hope that the Senate will quickly move to pass it. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, when the Social Security system was established, a retirement test, also referred to as an earnings test, was made part of the criteria for determining an individual's benefits. This criterion was established because Social Security benefits are intended to replace, in part, earnings lost by an individual or family because of retirement, disability, or death. Therefore, benefits are withheld from individuals who show by their substantial earnings from work that they are not in fact ``retired''. What this means today is that recipients aged 62-65 could earn up to $10,080 annually without having their benefits affected, and those between 65-69 could earn up to $17,000 a year. For earnings above these limits, recipients aged 62-65 lose $1 in benefits for each $2 of earnings while those between 65 and 69 lose $1 in benefits for each $3 in earnings. The earnings test does not apply to recipients age 70 and over, and the exempt limits increase each year at the same rate as average wages in the economy. Currently, it is estimated that there are approximately 600,000 recipients age 65-69 affected by the earnings limit test. Today we are repealing the earnings limit for people between the full retirement age and age 69, giving them the opportunity for increased financial security, and providing an increase in skilled workers during this tight labor market. Removing the earnings limit will provide seniors with greater independence and financial security. Today, too many Americans struggle through their retirement years trying to make ends meet. The steps we take today will allow seniors to work longer, and depend on their savings less, giving them more security into their later years. In our modern workplace it makes no sense to penalize workers for staying in the workforce longer. Congress works hard to encourage people to plan their retirement years thoughtfully, and removing the earnings limit will give working families one more tool for planning their financial future. This move is especially timely in our tight labor market and booming economy. Removing the earnings limit will allow experienced workers to be able to stay in the workforce. I have heard from several business owners in Wisconsin who are desperate for skilled workers in a number of industries. While the long term answer to the skilled worker shortage is increased worker training and education, encouraging older workers to remain in the workforce will certainly help meet the current demand. Proven, experienced, mature workers will help our economy maintain its momentum. We should not feel too jubilant, however, about today's accomplishment. Comprehensive Social Security Reform is still necessary. Today's changes will do nothing to hold off the coming crisis that will begin when we start drawing down the Social Security Trust fund in 2014. Congress needs to deal with this soon, otherwise we are shirking our duty to the American people.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased that my amendment to include dairy in this $6 billion crop insurance bill has been accepted by the bill managers and I thank them for their cooperation. In particular, I want to thank Senators Lugar, Kerrey, Roberts, and Daschle for their assistance. I look forward to working with them prior to and during conference to ensure my amendment is part of the final bill reported by the conference committee. Dairy farmers have for too long been without any risk management tools to help them manage the risk of milk price volatility. The Dairy Options Pilot Program, authorized by the 1996 farm bill, was set to expire in 2002 and would have reached its 100 county cap at the end this year. If we had allowed that to happen, we would have taken from dairy farmers this important educational risk management program at a time when milk prices have hit their lowest levels in more than two decades. The DOPP program helps farmers pay for the out-of-pocket costs of buying ``put'' options on the commodity exchanges while the pilot is in effect in their county. Equally important, the program requires that farmers participate in an education and training program on the use of the futures market for risk management purposes. My amendment extends the Dairy Options Pilot Program until 2004 and raises the number of counties that can participate to 300. Moreover, the amendment raises the number of counties in each state that can participate from six to 25. This is important to Wisconsin since, at the end of this year, Wisconsin would have hit its county cap as well. The DOPP, on top of forward contracting through their cooperatives or other milk buyers, provides dairy farmers with an additional risk management tool. It is a tool that will be available, under my amendment, to dairy farmers throughout the nation. It is a national program, not a regional program. And I hope my colleagues from other regions will join me in looking for every possible national tool we have to help dairy farmers across the United States. This is, Mr. President--and I cannot stress this enough--only one of the many things we need to do to help dairy farmers struggle through increased dairy market volatility. Dairy farmers in my state are hurting right now. The DOPP, while important, is not the answer to the unacceptably low milk prices. We must do more--much, much more. DOPP, even with my amendment, will still be available to farmers in only 300 counties. That is why I am also seeking $500 million in additional dairy market loss payments to put more money in the pockets of dairy farmers. Farmers nationwide need that help right now and I hope to work to provide that assistance through my role as ranking Democrat on the Agricultural Appropriations subcommittee. I also want to work with my colleagues to craft a national dairy policy that will provide dairy farmers with a meaningful safety net that does not distort markets or provide unfair regional advantages. But I am pleased that S. 2251 bill will make this one tool--the DOPP--available to more farmers. It is, Mr. President, the very least we can do. And I thank the managers for working with me to include this amendment in the bill.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud 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 Senator Lieberman and our other cosponsors, on this important piece of legislation. I believe that this bill represents a realistic, effective approach to improving public education--where 90 percent of students are educated. We have made great strides in the past six years toward improving public education. 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. Fourth-graders and eighth-graders are showing continued improvement on State tests in nearly every subject, particularly in science and math. Third-graders are scoring higher on reading tests. Test results show some improvement across all groups, including African American, disabled, and economically disadvantaged groups. Unfortunately, despite all of our best efforts, we still face huge challenges in improving public schools. The most recent TIMSS study of students from 41 different countries found that many American students score far behind those in other countries. In Wisconsin, scores in math, science and writing are getting better but still need improvement. And test scores of students from low-income families, while showing some improvement, are still too low. Mr. President, I strongly support the notion that the Federal government must continue to be a partner with States and local educators as we strive to improve public schools. As a nation, it is in all of our best interests to ensure that our children receive the best education possible. It is vital to their future success, and the success of our country. However, addressing problems in education is going to take more than cosmetic reform. We are going to have to take a fresh look at the structure of Federal education programs. We need to let go of the tired partisan fighting over more spending versus block grants and take a middle ground approach that will truly help our States, school districts--and most importantly, our students. Our ``Three R's'' bill does just that. It makes 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 continue to make a stronger investment in education, and that Federal dollars must be targeted to the neediest students. A recent GAO study found that Federal education dollars are significantly more targeted to poor districts than money spent by States. Although Federal funds make up only 6-7 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. They should be given more flexibility to determine 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 also be accountability for results. These principles are a pyramid, with accountability being the base that supports the federal government's grant of flexibility and funds. 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 assistance and support to schools that are struggling to do a better job. And we need to stop subsidizing failure. Our highest priority must be educating children--not perpetuating broken systems. Mr. President, I believe the ``Three R's'' bill is a strong starting point for taking a fresh look at public education. We need to build upon all the progress we've made, and work to address the problems we still face. 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--a chance to live a successful productive life. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as education groups in my State, as Congress debates ESEA in the coming months.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud 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 Senator Lieberman and our other cosponsors, on this important piece of legislation. I believe that this bill represents a realistic, effective approach to improving public education--where 90 percent of students are educated. We have made great strides in the past six years toward improving public education. 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. Fourth-graders and eighth-graders are showing continued improvement on State tests in nearly every subject, particularly in science and math. Third-graders are scoring higher on reading tests. Test results show some improvement across all groups, including African American, disabled, and economically disadvantaged groups. Unfortunately, despite all of our best efforts, we still face huge challenges in improving public schools. The most recent TIMSS study of students from 41 different countries found that many American students score far behind those in other countries. In Wisconsin, scores in math, science and writing are getting better but still need improvement. And test scores of students from low-income families, while showing some improvement, are still too low. Mr. President, I strongly support the notion that the Federal government must continue to be a partner with States and local educators as we strive to improve public schools. As a nation, it is in all of our best interests to ensure that our children receive the best education possible. It is vital to their future success, and the success of our country. However, addressing problems in education is going to take more than cosmetic reform. We are going to have to take a fresh look at the structure of Federal education programs. We need to let go of the tired partisan fighting over more spending versus block grants and take a middle ground approach that will truly help our States, school districts--and most importantly, our students. Our ``Three R's'' bill does just that. It makes 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 continue to make a stronger investment in education, and that Federal dollars must be targeted to the neediest students. A recent GAO study found that Federal education dollars are significantly more targeted to poor districts than money spent by States. Although Federal funds make up only 6-7 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. They should be given more flexibility to determine 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 also be accountability for results. These principles are a pyramid, with accountability being the base that supports the federal government's grant of flexibility and funds. 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 assistance and support to schools that are struggling to do a better job. And we need to stop subsidizing failure. Our highest priority must be educating children--not perpetuating broken systems. Mr. President, I believe the ``Three R's'' bill is a strong starting point for taking a fresh look at public education. We need to build upon all the progress we've made, and work to address the problems we still face. 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--a chance to live a successful productive life. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as education groups in my State, as Congress debates ESEA in the coming months.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud 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 Senator Lieberman and our other cosponsors, on this important piece of legislation. I believe that this bill represents a realistic, effective approach to improving public education--where 90% of students are educated. We have made great strides in the past six years toward improving public education. 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. Fourth-graders and eighth-graders are showing continued improvement on State tests in nearly every subject, particularly in science and math. Third-graders are scoring higher on reading tests. Test results show some improvement across all groups, including African American, disabled, and economically disadvantaged groups. Unfortunately, despite all of our best efforts, we still face huge challenges in improving public schools. The most recent TIMSS study of students from 41 different countries found that many American students score far behind those in other countries. In Wisconsin, scores in math, science and writing are getting better but still need improvement. And test scores of students from low-income families, while showing some improvement, are still too low. I strongly support the notion that the Federal government must continue to be a partner with States and local educators as we strive to improve public schools. As a nation, it is in all of our best interests to ensure that our children receive the best education possible. It is vital to their future success, and the success of our country. However, addressing problems in education is going to take more than cosmetic reform. We are going to have to take a fresh look at the structure of Federal education programs. We need to let go of the tired partisan fighting over more spending versus block grants and take a middle ground approach that will truly help our States, school districts--and most importantly, our students. Our ``Three R's'' bill does just that. It makes 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 continue to make a stronger investment in education, and that Federal dollars must be targeted to the neediest students. A recent GAO study found that Federal education dollars are significantly more targeted to poor districts than money spent by States. Although Federal funds make up only 6-7% 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. They should be given more flexibility to determine 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 also be accountability for results. These principles are a pyramid, with accountability being the base that supports the federal government's grant of flexibility and funds. 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 assistance and support to schools that are struggling to do a better job. And we need to stop subsidizing failure. Our highest priority must be educating children--not perpetuating broken systems. I believe the ``Three R's bill is a strong starting point for taking a fresh look at public education. We need to build upon all the progress we've made, and work to address the problems we still face. 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--a chance to live a successful productive life. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as education groups in my State, as Congress debates ESEA in the coming months.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to help relieve the financial crisis in the dairy industry. Last fall, milk prices took their steepest dive in history and fell to their lowest level in more than two decades. This is particularly devastating for farmers in Wisconsin who milk on average only about 55 cows. These farmers have particularly tight margins and are less able to withstand low milk prices that USDA forecasts will continue through the year. Dairy farmers continue to call my office in despair. Some farmers can't meet their feed bills, even though feed prices remain relatively low. Meanwhile, other input costs, like fuel and interest rates, are rising. Auctions in the countryside return little to farmers who have made the difficult decision to quit dairying; their neighbors can't afford even the insanely discounted prices for equipment. Are the trials facing farmers markedly different than the difficult conditions that other producers have faced over the last several years? No. But what is different is the level of assistance that dairy farmers have received from the federal government relative to other commodities. The dairy price support program costs only about $150 million per year. That stands in contrast to the more than $14 billion spent in AMTA payments and Loan Deficiency Payments provided to other producers last year. Anticipating a price decline in dairy, Congress provided $325 million for dairy market loss payments. Compare that to the $15 billion provided to crop producers over the last two years. While milk producers are happy for the extra help, most have told me that it simply is not enough given. Milk prices fell far lower than anticipated. And now we must do more. On top of this injustice, Midwest dairy farmers, where much of the nation's milk supply is produced, also suffer from lower income resulting from the discriminatory pricing under the Federal Milk Marketing Order system. Last year, Secretary Glickman attempted to restore some fairness to that system by making some modest reforms. But this Congress unjustly overturned those reforms while simultaneously extending the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact--a milk price cartel which protects producers in the Northeast at the expense of consumers and producers outside the cartel. I am going to work to repeal the Northeast Dairy Compact and to restore some common sense to federal milk pricing. I also will work with my colleagues to develop a meaningful and lasting safety net for dairy producers. But, Mr. President, that will take time. And right now, dairy farmers in Wisconsin don't have time. They need relief. So, today I am introducing a bill to provide $500 million in direct income relief payments to dairy farmers throughout the nation. The money is targeted to small scale farms--those least able to withstand these wild price fluctuations. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Feingold, Specter, Grams, Santorum, and Schumer on this legislation. Mr. President, I hope to include this funding in the upcoming supplemental appropriations bill. This will put money in the pockets of dairy farmers now, when they most need it. Not a year from now when many of them will have already sold their cows. Let me emphasize that this is a national solution to a national problem. It is not a regional fix. It does not exclude any dairy farmer from participation. And it does not help some at the expense of others. It helps all dairy farmers. But it is, like last year's funding, merely a bandage to stop the bleeding. Dairy farmers everywhere need a meaningful safety net, not regional milk cartels. I urge my colleagues who have sought regional solutions to depressed dairy farm income to join me in my efforts to fight for a new, national dairy policy that will provide both an adequate safety net and hope to dairy farmers across the nation.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to help relieve the financial crisis in the dairy industry. Last fall, milk prices took their steepest dive in history and fell to their lowest level in more than two decades. This is particularly devastating for farmers in Wisconsin who milk on average only about 55 cows. These farmers have particularly tight margins and are less able to withstand low milk prices that USDA forecasts will continue through the year. Dairy farmers continue to call my office in despair. Some farmers can't meet their feed bills, even though feed prices remain relatively low. Meanwhile, other input costs, like fuel and interest rates, are rising. Auctions in the countryside return little to farmers who have made the difficult decision to quit dairying; their neighbors can't afford even the insanely discounted prices for equipment. Are the trials facing farmers markedly different than the difficult conditions that other producers have faced over the last several years? No. But what is different is the level of assistance that dairy farmers have received from the federal government relative to other commodities. The dairy price support program costs only about $150 million per year. That stands in contrast to the more than $14 billion spent in AMTA payments and Loan Deficiency Payments provided to other producers last year. Anticipating a price decline in dairy, Congress provided $325 million for dairy market loss payments. Compare that to the $15 billion provided to crop producers over the last two years. While milk producers are happy for the extra help, most have told me that it simply is not enough given. Milk prices fell far lower than anticipated. And now we must do more. On top of this injustice, Midwest dairy farmers, where much of the nation's milk supply is produced, also suffer from lower income resulting from the discriminatory pricing under the Federal Milk Marketing Order system. Last year, Secretary Glickman attempted to restore some fairness to that system by making some modest reforms. But this Congress unjustly overturned those reforms while simultaneously extending the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact--a milk price cartel which protects producers in the Northeast at the expense of consumers and producers outside the cartel. I am going to work to repeal the Northeast Dairy Compact and to restore some common sense to federal milk pricing. I also will work with my colleagues to develop a meaningful and lasting safety net for dairy producers. But, Mr. President, that will take time. And right now, dairy farmers in Wisconsin don't have time. They need relief. So, today I am introducing a bill to provide $500 million in direct income relief payments to dairy farmers throughout the nation. The money is targeted to small scale farms--those least able to withstand these wild price fluctuations. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Feingold, Specter, Grams, Santorum, and Schumer on this legislation. Mr. President, I hope to include this funding in the upcoming supplemental appropriations bill. This will put money in the pockets of dairy farmers now, when they most need it. Not a year from now when many of them will have already sold their cows. Let me emphasize that this is a national solution to a national problem. It is not a regional fix. It does not exclude any dairy farmer from participation. And it does not help some at the expense of others. It helps all dairy farmers. But it is, like last year's funding, merely a bandage to stop the bleeding. Dairy farmers everywhere need a meaningful safety net, not regional milk cartels. I urge my colleagues who have sought regional solutions to depressed dairy farm income to join me in my efforts to fight for a new, national dairy policy that will provide both an adequate safety net and hope to dairy farmers across the nation.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to applaud this morning's bipartisan ``firearm summit'' at the White House. A commitment to find an agreeable compromise on the Juvenile Justice Bill could not be more timely. A week ago today, Mr. President, a six-year old living in a drug- infested flophouse in Mount Morris Township, Michigan found a gun under a quilt. The six-year old who found that gun wanted to settle a playground quarrel he had the previous day with his classmate, Kayla Rolland. He was able to grab the gun from under the quilt because blankets are not trigger locks; they are not a sufficient deterrent to curious children who find guns lying around unlocked. He took the gun and hid it in his pants and brought it to school the next day. No one and nothing prevented him from doing so. When he arrived at Buell Elementary School, the boy announced to Kayla that she was not his friend. He waited for an opportunity to get back at her. He later said he wanted to scare her. As his classmates were filing out and heading toward the school library, he had his chance. He did not call her names; he did not pull her hair; he did not hit her. Instead, he pulled the gun from his pants and waved it at two other classmates. He then accurately set his sights on Kayla, pulled the trigger, and killed her. She was all of six years old. He shot her dead in their first grade classroom. He had access to the gun because it was not safely stored, and he was able to fire it because the gun did not have a safety lock. Either would have saved Kayla's life. I have heard skeptics say that our child safety lock proposal, which 78 Senators supported last year, would not have mattered in this case because this gun was stolen. That is only half-true. Had the legal owner of this gun safely locked it with one of the devices mandated under our bill, then the thief might not have stolen it. Had the legal owner of this gun safely locked it with one of the devices mandated under our bill, the child's uncle might not have been able to leave it loaded within the boy's reach. Had the legal owner of this gun safely locked it with one of the devices mandated under our bill, the first grader could not have picked it up and used it with deadly accuracy. How do we respond to this tragedy? How do we respond to others like it? There is no simple answer. But without a doubt, enacting our modest legislation to mandate that a child safety lock be sold with every handgun would be a good first step. The distinguished Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Henry Hyde, said over the weekend about the stalled gun provisions of the Juvenile Justice bill, ``If you can't get dinner, at least get a sandwich.'' I agree. Chairman Hyde, who has always been committed to reasonable firearms control, would prefer dinner. And I would too: we ought to pass the whole Juvenile Justice bill. We ought to do it soon. Time is of the essence because while the Congressional attention span is short, children die even when Congress isn't watching. We need to do more to protect children from guns and we need to do it now. It is a regrettable truth that progress in the Juvenile Justice debate lurches forward only in reaction to unspeakable tragedy. A year ago next month, the massacre at Columbine and the shooting in Conyers, Georgia shocked this Senate into passing common sense proposals to get tough on thugs and violent juveniles. Some of those very same measures, including child safety locks, failed to pass the Senate by wide margins just the previous year. But the overwhelming approval of the child safety lock proposal demonstrates that the Senate ``gets it:'' kids and guns do not mix. The House needs to ``get it'' too. The Center for Disease Control estimates that nearly 1.2 million ``latch-key'' children have access to loaded and unlocked firearms. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that children and teenagers cause over 10,000 unintentional shootings each year in which at least 800 people die. In addition, over 1,900 children and teenagers attempt suicide with a firearm each year. Tragically, over three-fourths of them are successful. If preventable suicides and accidents are not enough to convince you that guns must be kept out of the hands of children, consider the following: within the next five years, firearms will overtake motor vehicle accidents as the leading cause of death among American children. The rate of firearm death of children under 15 years old is 16 times higher in the U.S. than in the 25 other industrialized nations combined. And the firearm injury ``epidemic,'' due largely to handgun injuries, is ten times larger than the polio epidemic of the first half of the 20th century. The very same day that young Kayla Rolland was tragically killed in Michigan, a 12 year old middle school student in the Milwaukee area carried a loaded gun to school. A disagreement the previous day led him to seek revenge by scaring his classmates. Thankfully, he never used the gun and school officials safely confiscated it. This scenario is replicated across the country every day. Requiring child safety locks will drive the number of juvenile gun deaths down--something everyone approves of. Mr. President, we have the opportunity to reduce what will soon be the number one cause of death among American children. How can we sit idly by when preventing it is so attainable? We cannot. So we ought to pass the Kohl-Chafee-Hatch Child Safety Lock Act. Alone or, better yet, as part of a package, it will help prevent the tragic accidents associated with unauthorized, unlocked, unattended firearms. I am pleased that the President called today's summit to try to move on these urgent matters. I am distressed that it seems, at least today, unproductive. And I pledge to work with the President and the bipartisan Leadership to act now so that we do not have to mourn more preventable innocent deaths.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of both the pending amendment and the underlying Education Savings Account bill. Education Savings Accounts will clearly help some families save money for their children's education, but they are only part of the solution to improving education in our country. The amendment proposed by the Senator from Louisiana is another part. It represents the work of several Senators who are trying to take a realistic, effective approach to improving public education. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a serious look at our bill, the Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention, and Responsibility Act--better known as ``Three R's''. We have made great strides in the past six years toward improving public education. 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. But there are still significant improvements to be made. A recent study of students from 41 different countries found that American students still score far behind those in other countries. Addressing this sort of fundamental failure is going to take more than cosmetic reform. We are going to have to take a fresh look at the structure of Federal education programs. We need to let go of the tired partisan fighting over more spending versus block grants and take a middle ground approach that will truly help our States, school districts--and most importantly, our students. Our ``Three R's'' bill does just that. It makes 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 continue to invest in education, and invest wisely, targeting 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. They should be given more flexibility to determine how they will use Federal dollars to meet those needs. And third, and most importantly, in exchange for increased flexibility, public schools must be accountable for results. These principles are a pyramid, with accountability being the base that supports the federal government's grant of flexibility and funds. For too long, we have seen a steady stream of Federal dollars flow to States and school districts--regardless of how well they educate their students. This has to stop. We need to reward schools that do a good job. We need to provide assistance and support to schools that are struggling to do a better job. And we need to stop subsidizing failure. The amendment before us now is the Teacher Quality and Professional Development section of the ``Three R's'' bill. It would increase funding for teacher quality and professional development to $2 billion, and target those funds to the neediest school districts. It gives States and school districts more flexibility to design teacher recruitment, mentoring, and professional development programs. And it requires States and school districts to ensure that every student will be taught by a fully qualified teacher--and holds them accountable for making sure that happens. Mr. President, the amendment before us today is just one part of the ``Three R's'' bill. It focuses on one of the most important parts of improving education--improving teaching. It is an example of how, by using the concepts of increased funding, targeting, flexibility--and most importantly, accountability--we can work with our State and local partners to make sure every child is taught by a qualified teacher. I look forward to continuing to work on these issues when the Senate considers ESEA.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the work of John C. Schnabel, who retired after fourteen years of service from the Wisconsin Association of County Veteran's Service Officers. He began his career with the Wisconsin Association of County Veteran's Service Officers in 1989 as the Secretary of the organization. During that time he used his personal laptop computer to electronically record Association records. This included researching and organizing a history of all CVSOs and Assistant CVSOs. He also developed and printed the first handbook for Association Officers so that policies, procedures and other information were easily transferred from one secretary to the next. John Schnabel was effective in his career as Secretary of CVSO and went on to become Second Vice President in 1994, First Vice President in 1995 and President in 1996. Schnabel has been the Langlade County Veteran's Services Officer for the last 14 years and is the first service officer from the county to be elected president of the organization. During his time as president he became instrumental in the establishment of the Advocacy Award as well as the state representative to coordinate access to VA OnLine, initiating sites for CVSOs and WDVA. He has worked on many Ad Hoc committees regarding computer operations and program development. He most recently acted as a member of an Ad Hoc committee to establish long term goals and training for the CVSO association. During his tenure, Schnabel was also named a recipient of the Citation for Meritorious Service, awarded by the American Legion's National Veteran's Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission in Washington, D.C. The staff and veteran clients of the Langlade County Veteran's Service Office and the Wisconsin Association of County Veterans Service Officers will miss John's wonderful advocacy work greatly. However, Nancy, his wife of 36 years will enjoy spending more time with him.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, in many ways, the life of Carter Woodson represents the history of his race in America. As a young man in the late 1800s, he worked in the fields and in a coal mine. He took a break from the grueling work to educate himself, enroll in high school and graduate after only two years of instruction. He went back to the coal mines to support himself, attending school when he could, and eventually earned a doctorate in history from Harvard University. Mr. Woodson went on to become a passionate student and teacher of Black History, establishing an annual reflection on his culture's accomplishments and resilience: Black History Month. In celebration of this month, I would like to recognize another leader who has worked hard to chronicle the history of people of African heritage: Dr. James Cameron, founder of America's Black Holocaust Museum, located in Milwaukee. This museum is dedicated to documenting the injustices that African Americans have suffered, and to remind us at how far we've come as a society from the racism of the past. Dr. Cameron, the only known living survivor of a lynch mob attack in the country, founded America's Black Holocaust Museum in 1988 after an inspirational visit to the Yad Vashem Jewish Holocaust Memorial in Israel--just as this museum was constructed to remind us of the atrocities committed against Jewish people during World War II, Dr. Cameron wanted to ensure that Americans would not forget what kind of inhumanity African Americans have endured. Today, as I discovered on my own visit to the museum, it has grown to become a major educational and cultural center for the nation which thousands of people of many different backgrounds visit each year. It regularly hosts prominent exhibitions such as historical artifacts collected from a wrecked slave ship and a Smithsonian exhibit on the civil rights movement. America's Black History Museum also prepares educational material for teachers and worked with UW-Milwaukee to offer an on-site, for-credit course to undergraduate and graduate students. The work of Dr. Cameron, and this month established by the hard work of Mr. Woodson, remind us that the protection of civil rights and civil liberties for all should continue to be a top priority. I strongly believe in equality of opportunity for everyone, regardless of race, creed, or gender. Everyone should have the same equal chance to get an education or a job, or to own a home or live in the neighborhood of their choice. In other words, we all deserve a place at the starting line so that we can then use our own abilities, hard work and dedication to succeed in life. Of course, our country has yet to fully live up to the promise of equal opportunity for all. While Congress tries to find ways to address the crisis of discrimination, it is very important that everyone remember that we also have to respond on a personal level. No matter what answers Congress comes up with here in Washington, people need to try to be role models and lead by example. By teaching us about the racial injustices of the past, celebrating the resilience of African Americans and educating us about how to move forward from the prejudice and bias that plagues much of Black History, America's Black Holocaust Museum is one such example. This month, let's all take a moment to reflect on the history African Americans and the many lessons that it teaches us about equality, dignity and harmony. The dedication of Carter Woodson and James Cameron to helping us remember deserves nothing less.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to bring my colleagues' attention to the celebration of National TRIO Day. National TRIO Day was designated by concurrent resolution on February 24, 1986, by the 99th Congress and is celebrated on the last Saturday of February each year as a day of recognition for the Federal TRIO Program. The Federal TRIO Program--consisting of the Talent Search, Upward Bound, Upward Bound Math/Science, Veterans Upward Bound, Student Support Services, Ronald E. McNair Post-baccalaureate Achievement Program, and Educational Achievement Centers--was established over 30 years ago to assist low-income students overcome class, social, and cultural barriers to higher education. Currently, 2,000 colleges, universities, and community agencies sponsor TRIO Programs, and over 780,000 low-income students between the ages of 11 and 27 benefit from the services of the TRIO Programs. Most come from families in which neither parent graduated from college. These students, motivated by their hopes and aspirations, are living symbols of the American dream. Helping to lift them out of poverty benefits not only benefits the students themselves, but our entire nation. There are 62 TRIO Programs in Wisconsin and I have seen these programs work at the local level. One inspirational story involves Dr. Lo from La Crosse, Wisconsin. As a child, Dr. Lo fled a refugee camp in war-torn Laos with his family and came to live in Wisconsin. Dr. Lo, with hard work and the benefit of two TRIO programs, graduated from UW- La Crosse with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Biology and went on to earn a Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine degree from Bastyr University in Seattle, Washington. He returned to Wisconsin to contribute to the La Crosse community through private practice at the La Crosse Natural Health Center, Habitat for Humanity Family Selection Committee, and as a member of the Equal Opportunity Commission for the city of La Crosse. There is no limit to what TRIO participants can accomplish. Program graduates have become successful in all spheres of society and have gone on to enjoy careers as doctors, lawyers, astronauts, television reporters, actors, state politicians and Members of Congress, to list a few. Indeed, two of our colleagues in the House of Representatives, Representative Henry Bonilla and Representative Albert R. Wynn are graduates of the TRIO Programs. I have long supported TRIO and will continue to push for increased funding for these important programs. I am proud to celebrate National TRIO Day and call much deserved attention to these vital programs. I also encourage my colleagues to visit the TRIO Programs in their states and learn for themselves how successful these programs are for our Nation's students.