Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I strongly support Alan Greenspan's renomination to Chair the Federal Reserve Board for a fourth term. The United States is currently enjoying the longest period of economic growth in our history, with price stability and record low unemployment. Welfare rolls have been dramatically reduced, and we have more Americans in homes of their own and invested in the burgeoning stock market than ever before. As Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board for the past 12 years, Dr. Greenspan deserves no small amount of the credit for this unprecedented growth and prosperity. Chairman Greenspan has consistently steered American monetary policy on a prudent and responsible course. He has won the respect and confidence of policymakers, the financial services industry and the American people. Indeed, we have witnessed that Alan Greenspan's words alone have the potential to trigger fluctuations on the global markets. Commendably, Chairman Greenspan has also upheld a high standard of evenhanded, apolitical management of our nation's money supply. And last year, Chairman Greenspan played a critical leadership role in the passage of the Financial Services Modernization Law to expand the market powers and competitiveness of our financial institutions, while lowering fees and promoting financial product innovation to the benefit of all Americans. And this strong economy has coincided with fiscal discipline on our part, rather than the deficit spending of the past. The Federal budget is balanced, and, this year, we will hopefully take continued steps to retire more of the $5 trillion national debt. As Chairman Greenspan has advised, retiring the debt is one of the most important steps we can take to promote continued economic growth and plan for the future financial challenges of the aging of the baby boomer generation. There is room for tax cuts. There is room to increase spending on important domestic priorities, but debt reduction should remain a centerpiece of our economic agenda. We can be confident that Alan Greenspan will continue providing vital leadership of monetary policy toward our common goal of keeping the economy robust. Considering his past record and looking to the future, he deserves reappointment, and I urge my colleagues to support his renomination.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my guarded support for the Bankruptcy Reform Act currently before the Senate. The troubling and dramatic rise in the number of bankruptcy filings demands our careful attention, and this legislation--if balanced and fair--will shore up the most significant cracks in our current system, but still grant a ``fresh start'' to those debtors who truly deserve it. One of the ways this bill works to eliminate the most egregious abuses of the bankruptcy code is by finally placing a federal cap on the unlimited homestead exemption. This provision, which I introduced with Senators Sessions and Grassley, would close an inexcusable loophole which currently allows millionaire deadbeats to keep their luxury homes while their legitimate creditors get left out in the cold. A cap is not only the best policy, it sends the best message: that bankruptcy is a tool of last resort, not a tool for financial planning. And don't just take my word for it: ask my colleagues in the Senate. At the end of last session, we passed our $100,000 homestead cap by an overwhelming margin of 76-22. However Mr. President, if this legislation comes out of Conference unbalanced, rest assured that I will be happy to vote against final passage of the bill, as I did last Congress. A major factor in my determination of what constitutes ``balance'' will be the status of the homestead cap. That said, I support this bill today because I believe it will repair and improve our bankruptcy system, and help restore the stigma to bankruptcy. But without the homestead cap, this bill will likely fall short of its goal.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 which is now included as part of this year's Omnibus Appropriations Bill. Simply put, these changes in the law are long overdue. It should come as no surprise that the final version of this legislation is the product of compromise. Certainly, no one received everything they wanted. However, at the end of the day, everyone can walk away and say they got something. That holds true for broadcasters, satellite companies and, most importantly and to the greatest degree, consumers. The single most important thing that this bill will do is ``level the playing field'' so that satellite companies can better compete with cable. It does so by changing the anomaly in the law that prohibits satellite companies from broadcasting local signals to local people, lowering the royalty rates paid by satellite companies and, among other things, removing the unconscionable 90 day waiting period that a consumer must endure before switching from cable to satellite service. We also grant a six month ``grace period'' for ``local-into-local'' retransmission consent agreements. I am not so sure that this is quite the ``Holy Grail'' for consumers that some believe it is; however, I doubt the sky is going to fall down for the networks either. To ensure that all local stations are carried and to keep the playing field as level as possible, this legislation imposes full ``must carry'' obligations by 2002 upon satellite providers, just as current law does on cable. That is, if a satellite company carries one local station in a market, then it must carry all the local stations. Now, reasonable people can disagree about ``must carry''--the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality by a slim 5-4 vote--but it is only fair to apply it evenly to both cable and satellite companies. This Conference Report also lays to rest many of the thorny disputes that have served only to hurt consumers. Both the Senate and the House have agreed to ``grandfather'' those consumers in the Grade B service area who currently receive ``distant network'' signals. To be sure, some satellite companies have been bad actors in this debate and so have some subscribers. Nonetheless, short of deposing each and every consumer, it's best to put these problems behind us and start off on a clean slate. We expect that going forward the letter of the law will be adhered to and respected--heavy penalties await those who would do otherwise, and rightfully so. The matter of ``if and when'' a consumer should receive a waiver from a local broadcaster currently resembles a Sherlock Holmes mystery. So we order the FCC to draft ``consumer-friendly'' regulations to govern the waiver process. Our bill tells local broadcasters that if they fail to act on waiver requests within 30 days, the request will be ``deemed'' approved. We trust the FCC will improve and simplify this process even further. Just as importantly, we ask the FCC to take a hard look at whether the Grade B standard is sufficient to determine what a good picture is in today's world. The truth is that if there's a fairer standard out there, then we should apply it. Rest assured, the Congress will get the last bite at the apple by requiring the FCC to report back to Congress with its findings, rather than allowing the Commission to ``self- execute'' its new study. Let me make one final point regarding one of the most difficult matters in Conference: retransmission consent. The original House language was predicated on the belief that there exists unequal bargaining positions between the broadcasters and the satellite companies. Our Senate bill took precisely the opposite approach. But our law comes out somewhere in the middle: it will prohibit exclusive deals, ensure that parties negotiate in ``good faith'' when making these agreements, and put some teeth into ``good faith'' by adding the ``competitive marketplace considerations'' language. That said, there may be some disagreement as to what exactly this new provision means. At the very least, ``competitive marketplace considerations'' may simply be interpreted as the normal, everyday jostling that takes place in the business world. At the very most, a ``competitive marketplace'' would tolerate differences based upon legitimate cost justifications, but not anti-competitive practices such as illegal tying and bundling. The answer probably lies somewhere between these two interpretations and we trust the sometimes confused FCC, as we often do, to properly divine the real intent of a somewhat confused Congress. Again, this isn't a perfect bill. Far from it. But we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This measure will allow satellite companies to compete more aggressively with cable; it will provide more choice for consumers; with luck, it may even discipline rising cable rates. So I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan, fair, and comprehensive legislation that was the product of a great deal of hard work and negotiation. We owe consumers no less than that. Mr. President, one final note: I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names of the Conference Committee staff to show my appreciation for their hard work. They are to be commended for putting in the long hours it took to get this bill done.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks, I want to express my appreciation for all of the hard work that Senators Stevens and Byrd, Specter and Harkin have put into the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Appropriations bill in the face of enormous budgetary challenges. I also appreciate all they have done to accomodate my priorities during this process. The 20th Century is coming to a close during a time of unprecedented economic growth and budget surpluses. However, as we celebrate our nation's prosperity, we must make sure we don't leave any of our most vulnerable citizens behind. In my opinion, that's what this bill, which funds vital health and education programs in the year 2000, should be about: making a strong commitment to our aging parents and grandparents--who made this country what it is today, as well as to our children--who will determine its future. I am pleased that this bill takes several important steps in that direction. First, this bill continues to make early childhood education and child care a top priority. I am very pleased that the bill includes a $608 million increase to the Head Start program. This program gives young children from lower-income families a real chance to succeed by providing educational, health, and other child care services. Second, I am glad to see that this bill includes a nearly $30 million increase for States to inspect nursing homes and ensure they are safe. As a member of the Senate Aging Committee, I have had the unfortunate opportunity to hear firsthand about cases of abuse and neglect in many of our nation's nursing homes. Our seniors and disabled deserve the best possible care, and this funding will help make sure they get it. In addition, the bill includes a $1 million increase for the Long-term Care Ombudsman program. Ombudsmen serve as advocates for long-term care residents and help them to resolve complaints of neglect and abuse. They are a critical component of ensuring the safety of our seniors in nursing homes and other long-term care settings. I am also extremely pleased that the bill includes another $100 million increase for Community Health Centers. The number of uninsured in our country continues to grow. Health centers provide treatment to large numbers of uninsured and should be commended for the incredible work they do. This increase will help them meet the increased demand for care, and ensure that patients get the quality health care services they need. This bill also fully funds the LIHEAP program. This program is vital to low-income families in Wisconsin who need assistance with heating costs during the cold winter months. I am pleased that this bill continues to make this program a top priority. I am also pleased that in addition to the $2 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health, report language was included in the bill that targets many of the diseases that are devastating families across our nation. The bill includes report language I requested to increase research into epilepsy, particularly intractable epilepsy, which primarily starts in childhood and affects nearly 75,000 of the 3 million individuals with epilepsy. In addition, at my urging, the bill also includes $90 million for the National Institute of Nursing Research within NIH. Nursing research is different from biomedical research but just as necessary. This research focuses on reducing the burden and suffering of illness, improving the quality of life by preventing and delaying the onset of disease, and by looking for better ways to promote health and prevent disease. I am pleased that the bill also includes report language that strongly urges more research into Alzheimer's Disease. This devastating disease affects nearly 4 million people in the United States, including 100,000 in Wisconsin. The total annual cost of Alzheimer care is over $100 billion. Searching for new treatments--and ultimately a cure--must be one of our top priorities in biomedical research, to alleviate both the suffering and the costs associated with this awful disease. I also want to thank Senators Specter and Harkin for their willingness to work with me on some of my other priorities. At my request, language was included in the Senate report to start a demonstration program within HRSA to increase the number of mental health professionals in underserved areas--particularly those suffering from recent farm crises. I am hopeful that HRSA will allocate at least $1 million toward this initiative. Funds have also been provided to CDC to expand their efforts to prevent birth defects through the promotion of folic acid among women of childbearing age. I have sponsored, along with Senators Abraham and Bond, a bill that would authorize $20 million to CDC for this purpose, and I am pleased that this appropriations bill gets this initiative underway. In addition, I am pleased that the Ryan White Comprehensive Care program received an increase of $86 million to expand services for people living with HIV and AIDS. I'd now like to talk a bit about funding for education. While I am concerned about the use of advance funding for many of our education programs, I am pleased that this bill provides necessary increases for education. Title I--which provides assistance to disadvantaged youth, received a $209 million increase, although we must do much better than that in the future in order to serve all Title I-eligible children. I am also pleased that Special Education received a large increase in funding, although we still have a great deal of work to do to live up to our commitment to fund 40% of the costs of the program. We still need to do more in both these areas, but this is a good start. In addition, I strongly support the $253 million increase for 21st Century Community Learning Centers, for a total of $453 million for FY 2000. I have visited several of these afterschool programs in my State and I have seen firsthand how successful and critically important they are. These programs give kids a safe place to go after school, keep them off the streets, and out of trouble. It is supported on a bipartisan basis, by parents, teachers, and police chiefs. Last year, thousands of applications were submitted for only 184 grants. However, I believe it deserves an even stronger investment than this bill provides, which is why I voted for an amendment during consideration of the Senate version to provide $600 million for this worthy program. Although that amendment failed, I will continue to fight for more funding for after-school programs next year. This bill also makes greater strides to give students the tools they need to go to college. First, the bill increases the maximum Pell Grant award to $3,300, and I am hopeful we can further increase this amount next year. It also increases the Federal Work-Study program by $64 million. TRIO programs also received a $45 million increase, and I am pleased that more students will be able to take advantage of TRIO programs that give lower-income students a better chance to go to college. I also strongly support the $80 million increase for the GEAR- UP program. This program gives many middle school students their first real opportunity to strive toward going to college. I am hopeful that we will further increase funding for this program in future years. Finally, I am pleased that the conference report maintains and increases our commitment to hiring 100,000 teachers and reducing class sizes in the early grades. Class size reduction efforts have produced tremendous results in Wisconsin and across the nation. It is essential that we continue to provide the resources States and school districts need to put a qualified teacher in every classroom. Our students deserve nothing less. I am pleased that these important education programs have received increases. However, I also have several significant concerns about the education section of the bill. First, I am deeply concerned that the bill level funds the Child Care & Development Block Grant. The Senate bill included an amendment, which I supported, to increase funding for the CCDBG from $1.2 billion to $2 billion. This amendment had strong bipartisan support because there is now widespread recognition that child care is critical to the success of working families. Unfortunately, this amendment was dropped during negotiations of the conference report. This is a serious mistake, and one that will have serious repercussions for working families. Programs funded by the CCDBG ensure that parents have a safe, educational place to send their children during the workday. Businesses experience less absenteeism and greater productivity when their employees know their children are well taken care of. When families who need quality, affordable child care are able to find it, everybody wins. It's that simple. I strongly believe that we must renew our commitment to expanding access to child care, and I will continue to make child care funding a top priority and fight hard for future increases. Second, and even more importantly, I have serious concerns about the bill's substantial use of advance funding for education. I am not convinced that this practice is completely benign, and I believe we must watch carefully how the delayed release of education funds impacts school budgets. However, I have an even deeper concern about the use of advance funding. The hard truth is this: we would not be forced to use advance funding, nor any budget gimmicks at all, if this bill received the priority it deserved. This bill, which funds our most basic needs-- health care and education--was left for dead last. It was raided repeatedly to fund other programs, leaving it at one point with a more than $15 billion shortfall. We would not be in the budgetary box we find ourselves in today if this bill had been the top priority it should be. I hope that in the future my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will have the will to pass this bill early and send a strong message that education and health care are our top priorities, not our last. Besides education, there are several other areas of the bill that I believe must be improved in future budgets. First, while I am pleased that the bill sets aside $19.1 million in the Child Care & Development Block Grant for Resource and Referral programs, I am concerned this just isn't enough. R&R programs serve as a resource to help parents locate quality, affordable child care in their communities. When parents need child care, they call R&R agencies, who have the tools to direct parents to appropriate child care providers in their area that meet each family's unique needs. With growing numbers of parents entering the workforce, the need for R&R is greater than ever. I would like to continue to work with Senators Specter and Harkin, as well as all of my colleagues, on increasing this set-aside to $50 million to meet the increasing demand for referral services. I am also very concerned about the cut in the Social Services Block Grant. The State of Wisconsin and our counties rely on SSBG to fund a variety of social service programs. These include supportive home care and community living services for the elderly and disabled, drug and alcohol abuse treatment, temporary shelter for homeless families, and child abuse prevention and intervention services. States and counties rely on these funds, and it is wrong to renege on our commitment to SSBG funding. I am also very concerned about programs for senior citizens under the Older Americans Act. I am pleased to see that the bill includes a $35 million increase for home-delivered meals to seniors. However, we must also find a way to make a stronger investment in the Supportive Services and Senior Centers program. This program provides funds to Area Agencies on Aging, which in turn provide a wide range of assistance to frail elderly. In addition, we must also provide assistance to the growing number of Americans who are taking care of elderly and disabled relatives. I am a cosponsor of the Family Caregiver Support Act, which provides $125 million in assistance and respite for caregivers. Unfortunately, this bill does not fund this necessary program, but I hope we can enact it into law quickly next year. The National Senior Service Corps is a program we should all be proud of and support increased funding. These programs utilize the skills and experience of older Americans in our communities. Foster Grandparents, Senior Companions, and RSVP give seniors a chance to work with children, families and other seniors, and we are all the richer for their contributions. I am pleased that the bill includes increases for these programs, and I believe we must provide more in the future lest we waste this priceless resource we have in our seniors. In addition to the Labor, HHS component, this Omnibus Appropriations bill includes some desperately needed relief for our nation's health care providers. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 included many provisions that reduced Medicare payments further than Congress intended. Providers have been forced to reduce benefits or worse--many providers in my State and across the nation have closed altogether. I have strongly supported efforts to alleviate those cuts and have worked with many of my colleagues over the past year to fight for a solution. I am pleased that the Conference Report includes provisions to assist hospitals, home health agencies, skilled nursing facilities and other providers. In the end, Medicare beneficiaries are the ones who truly benefit, and this bill will help ensure that seniors in Wisconsin and throughout the nation continue to receive the health care services they need and deserve. Overall, I believe this is a good bill, and I commend the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Appropriations Committee and the Labor, HHS Subcommittee, as well as the Finance Committee, for their hard work. Unfortunately, because unrelated dairy provisions that I strongly oppose were included in this conference report, I reluctantly must vote against it. However, I want to make clear that I strongly support the vast majority of the increases in this bill--increases that will go a long way toward ensuring that our children and our elderly receive the important services they need. I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee for doing such a great job this year under such difficult budgetary circumstances, and for their willingness to work with me on items of concern to me and my State. I look forward to working with them again next year on this vitally important bill.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will correct an unintended obstacle in current law and expand the number of low-income children in child care centers that receive nutritious meals through the Child and Adult Care Food Program. The current CACFP law provides for subsidies to proprietary child care centers for the nutritious meals they serve children, provided that at least 25% of the participants receive Title XX subsidies. This provision was included to encourage private child care providers to serve more low-income children, by providing funds to reimburse the costs of providing meals. When the law was enacted in 1981, it made sense to tie CACFP funds to Title XX, because Title XX was the primary source of Federal child care assistance at that time. As we all know, however, the Child Care & Development Block Grant has since become the States' primary funding source for child care assistance, while Title XX funds are being used primarily for other social service needs. This means that although many proprietary child care centers have enrollments with over 25% low-income children, those who no longer receive Title XX are no longer eligible for the CACFP meal subsidy. Thirty-eight States are currently using small amounts of their Title XX funds for child care subsidies so that at least some of the otherwise eligible children will receive meals in proprietary centers. In Wisconsin, for example, 65 proprietary centers are currently participating in the CACFP program, serving 3,294 children. However, if all eligible centers were able to participate, those numbers could increase to 149 proprietary centers serving 8,195 children, an increase of 4,901 children. A simple change in the law to reflect the current nature of Federal child care assistance could lead to Wisconsin receiving nearly $2,975,000 each year in Federal food subsidies for low-income children in child care. The bill I introduce today is simple. It would eliminate the outdated requirement that eligible children receive Title XX funds in order to trigger the CACFP meal subsidy. This would allow proprietary centers to participate in CACFP if at least 25% of the children they serve are eligible for a food nutrition subsidy. This change will ensure that proprietary centers will be able to continue to serve low-income children. It reduces pressure on proprietary centers to increase their rates for non-subsidized children to recover the costs of unreimbursed meals for subsidized children. It preserves the right of parents, including low-income parents, to choose the quality child care center that is most appropriate for their children. And most importantly, this change reinforces the original intent of the law: to ensure that eligible low-income children in proprietary child care centers have the benefit of a nutritious meal. I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this legislation and I look forward to working for its swift passage when Congress reconvenes in January.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, 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. The plight of the workers in this business came home to me, and the citizens of Wisconsin, as a result of a particularly tragic crash in March of this year. A van carrying 14 young people overturned due to reckless driving, killing seven and injuring the others, many seriously. The driver had a suspended license and a series of violations. Unfortunately this is not an isolated incident. Since 1992, forty-two sales people have been killed or injured in similar crashes. The company involved in the Wisconsin crash had 92 labor violations and 105 violations for soliciting without a license. Regrettably, there is more to these companies than just bad driving records. In 1987 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 employees. 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 hours 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 twelve years since Senator Roth's investigation, nothing has changed. These abuses continue, and Congress should act. In the Wisconsin case the company's record of disregard for local and state laws was a signal of their disdain for the safety of their workers. This company should not have been allowed to continue to operate with this kind of record. Government needed to step in earlier, before this tragedy occurred, instead of picking up the pieces afterward. 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. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will correct an unintended obstacle in current law and expand the number of low-income children in child care centers that receive nutritious meals through the Child and Adult Care Food Program. The current CACFP law provides for subsidies to proprietary child care centers for the nutritious meals they serve children, provided that at least 25% of the participants receive Title XX subsidies. This provision was included to encourage private child care providers to serve more low-income children, by providing funds to reimburse the costs of providing meals. When the law was enacted in 1981, it made sense to tie CACFP funds to Title XX, because Title XX was the primary source of Federal child care assistance at that time. As we all know, however, the Child Care & Development Block Grant has since become the States' primary funding source for child care assistance, while Title XX funds are being used primarily for other social service needs. This means that although many proprietary child care centers have enrollments with over 25% low-income children, those who no longer receive Title XX are no longer eligible for the CACFP meal subsidy. Thirty-eight States are currently using small amounts of their Title XX funds for child care subsidies so that at least some of the otherwise eligible children will receive meals in proprietary centers. In Wisconsin, for example, 65 proprietary centers are currently participating in the CACFP program, serving 3,294 children. However, if all eligible centers were able to participate, those numbers could increase to 149 proprietary centers serving 8,195 children, an increase of 4,901 children. A simple change in the law to reflect the current nature of Federal child care assistance could lead to Wisconsin receiving nearly $2,975,000 each year in Federal food subsidies for low-income children in child care. The bill I introduce today is simple. It would eliminate the outdated requirement that eligible children receive Title XX funds in order to trigger the CACFP meal subsidy. This would allow proprietary centers to participate in CACFP if at least 25% of the children they serve are eligible for a food nutrition subsidy. This change will ensure that proprietary centers will be able to continue to serve low-income children. It reduces pressure on proprietary centers to increase their rates for non-subsidized children to recover the costs of unreimbursed meals for subsidized children. It preserves the right of parents, including low-income parents, to choose the quality child care center that is most appropriate for their children. And most importantly, this change reinforces the original intent of the law: to ensure that eligible low-income children in proprietary child care centers have the benefit of a nutritious meal. I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this legislation and I look forward to working for its swift passage when Congress reconvenes in January.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, 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. The plight of the workers in this business came home to me, and the citizens of Wisconsin, as a result of a particularly tragic crash in March of this year. A van carrying 14 young people overturned due to reckless driving, killing seven and injuring the others, many seriously. The driver had a suspended license and a series of violations. Unfortunately this is not an isolated incident. Since 1992, forty-two sales people have been killed or injured in similar crashes. The company involved in the Wisconsin crash had 92 labor violations and 105 violations for soliciting without a license. Regrettably, there is more to these companies than just bad driving records. In 1987 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 employees. 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 hours 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 twelve years since Senator Roth's investigation, nothing has changed. These abuses continue, and Congress should act. In the Wisconsin case the company's record of disregard for local and state laws was a signal of their disdain for the safety of their workers. This company should not have been allowed to continue to operate with this kind of record. Government needed to step in earlier, before this tragedy occurred, instead of picking up the pieces afterward. 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. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Work Incentives Conference Report. As my colleagues know, this conference report contains a number of items that have been joined together in order to accommodate the end of session schedule, and I would like to offer brief comments on several of those items. With regard to the tax portion of the conference report, I am in support of the compromise that was reached to extend the expired tax credits. Earlier this year, I supported an ambitious tax relief package which extended the credits and contained my child care tax credit and farmer income averaging relief provisions, as well as targeted tax measures to help Americans pay for education and health care and to expand the low-income housing tax credit. Hardworking American taxpayers created the budget surplus, and a significant portion of that surplus should be returned to them, allowing them to keep more of their own paychecks and helping them plan for their future. It is my hope that when we return in the spring, we will rise above partisan concerns and achieve bipartisan progress towards comprehensive tax relief, as well as the challenge of reforming both Medicare and Social Security And we must do so while continuing our vigilance in protecting the balanced budget gains of recent years. But for today we will content ourselves with the limited extenders package before us. The research and development tax credit promotes innovation and enhances the competitiveness of American business. The work opportunity and welfare-to-work tax credits continue the partnership between the public and private sector to move those in need of a helping hand off of public assistance and into the workforce. I am also pleased that this tax package preserves eligibility to important tax benefits, such as the child tax credit, by protecting against the encroachment of the alternative minimum tax. While I am concerned that the conferees did not offset fully the costs of these provisions and would have preferred a final version along the lines of the bipartisan, and fully offset, Senate bill, this package is modest and urgently needed. It deserves our endorsement. I am extremely pleased that we are finally taking the final step to enact the Work Incentives Improvement Act into law. I cosponsored this legislation because I believe strongly that it will have a tremendous impact on the lives of people with disabilities. Currently, over 9 million people receive disability benefits through the SSDI and SSI programs. Only \1/2\ of 1 percent of SSDI beneficiaries, and only 1 percent of SSI beneficiaries ever return to work. Yet we know that many--in fact, the vast majority--of people with disabilities want to work. In study after study, people with disabilities report that the single biggest obstacle to returning to work is the loss of health care benefits that often comes along with their decision to work. Many do not have access to employer-based health insurance and find policies in the individual insurance market prohibitively expensive. Therefore, disabled beneficiaries who want to work are faced with the choice of returning to work while risking their health benefits or forgoing work to maintain health coverage. This is simply unacceptable. People with disabilities deserve every opportunity to live healthy, productive lives, and we should encourage and support their efforts to work by ensuring that they continue to have access to the health care services they need. I am pleased that the Work Incentives Improvement Act accomplishes that goal. This bill will ensure that millions of people with disabilities have the opportunity to work if they are able--without the fear of losing the health insurance coverage they need in order to live healthier lives and to succeed in their work. I want to commend the bipartisan efforts of Chairman Roth, Senator Moynihan, Chairman Jeffords, and Senator Kennedy, in making this bill a reality. Again, I regret that end-of-year pressure has forced us to combine so many unrelated provisions into a single bill. However, I support the conference report for the reasons I have just stated, and I urge my colleagues to vote for its adoption.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I sincerely thank all of my colleagues who have spoken up this afternoon. It has been remarkable to hear Senators from both sides of the aisle express themselves in such a heartwarming way, and I think in such a fair and clear way with respect to this country of ours and how our economy works and how it is intended to work. It is remarkable to me that all these leaders have made clear that while we are passing dairy legislation this afternoon, it is of necessity, and not because they and we believe in the specifics of that legislation. It is heartwarming for me to know that when we come back next year, we apparently have common agreement on both sides of the aisle that we are going to work together to come up with dairy legislation that more clearly and fairly represents the interests not only of the different parts of our country in terms of our States and regions but more clearly represents the real intentions of our Constitution with respect to how this economy is supposed to work and how the free enterprise system is supposed to work. It has been a long, hard fight for myself, Senator Feingold, Senator Wellstone, Senator Grams, and others. Certainly, what happened here this afternoon, in my opinion, justifies that fight and leaves me feeling very good about my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and feeling very optimistic about the things we can look forward to next year. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues to express my support for the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. This bipartisan measure is a crucial step in the battle against the spread of Methamphetamine, also known as ``Meth.'' It sets forward a comprehensive approach including targeted enforcement through increased resources, training and penalties, expansion of prevention and intervention programs, environmental cleanup, and research. The Meth problem is growing rapidly--not only across the country westward, but also in my home state: our Wisconsin State Crime Laboratory has tripled the number of Meth examinations since 1996, with prosecutions doubling from previous years; thefts of the precursor chemical Anhydrous Ammonia from farmers and retailers are becoming routine; and more Meth producers are emptying out shelves of ``blister packs''--packages of Sudafed and other cold remedies which are legal products used as precursor chemicals and sold in our markets and retail stores. Just last week, law enforcement officers in Fox Valley, Wisconsin reported their first seizure of a Meth lab, evidencing Meth's quick spread across the state. In fact, Wisconsin has become a source of one of the most toxic of Meth recipes--known to its Western producers as the ``Nazi variety''-- which causes the most aggressive behavior. This is largely due to the availability of Anhydrous Ammonia, which accelerates users to a fast and violent high. At the same time, the environmental dangers associated with this chemical pose a serious threat to our law enforcement officers and our communities. I am particularly pleased that the bill includes several provisions from the Rural Methamphetamine Use Response Act of 1999, introduced by Senator Grassley and me earlier this year. In particular, the underlying bill authorizes $6.5 million for additional Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents in rural areas and $5.5 million for DEA training designed to combat ``meth'' production. In addition, it criminalizes the transport and sale of Anhydrous Ammonia. These provisions will be of great assistance to rural states like Wisconsin, adding to the ongoing efforts of state and local law enforcement and building on the $1 million in funding I helped secure through the Appropriations process for a Meth ``Task Force'' in Western Wisconsin. As Meth continues its devastation throughout the Midwest, it is time to confront this raging menace at multiple levels and with cooperative strength. This bipartisan legislation is an important step in that direction.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will go far in helping children start their school day ready to learn. The relationship between a healthy breakfast and both behavior and academic achievement has been documented by a number of studies. Fortunately, participation of schools in the School Breakfast program has increased steadily since the program was made permanent in 1975. According to the School Breakfast Scorecard, a report recently released by the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), a record number of schools--70,000--provided breakfast to school children last year. And nearly half of our states have 80 percent or more of their schools serving both lunch and breakfast under the National School Lunch and School Breakfast programs. That's good news. The bad news is that the gulf between states with the highest rates of school participation in breakfast and those with the lowest is wide. 20 percent of our states have fewer than 55 percent of their schools participating in both breakfast and lunch; that's a full 20 points below the national average. In my home state of Wisconsin, only 30 percent of the schools that serve lunch also serve breakfast. By another measure--participation of low-income children in both school lunch and breakfast--the results from the Scorecard are equally concerning. Nationally, only 42 percent of the kids receiving a free or reduced price lunch are also receiving breakfast; some states have fewer than 25 percent of kids receiving a free or reduced price lunch also receiving school breakfast. The bill I am introducing today would help states provide an additional financial incentive for schools to participate in the school breakfast program. While there are a number of reasons that schools do not offer their children a school breakfast, certainly the barrier most difficult to overcome is the cost of the meals throughout the year. In short, the cost of the school breakfast program may simply be too high for some schools and school districts. My bill authorizes, subject to appropriations, grants from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to allow states to provide schools with an additional five cent per meal reimbursement during the first year in which they provide the school breakfast program. This additional reimbursement may be used to supplement both the existing federal per meal reimbursement and any additional per meal reimbursement provided by the state. To ensure that the grants are as effective as possible they are targeted to those states with poor school breakfast participation rates and that also have a program in place to promote school breakfast participation. State educational agencies will have the discretion to determine, based on participation rates, which schools or school districts will receive the supplemental assistance. Providing a nutritious breakfast is the first step in ensuring that kids are ready to learn when they sit down at their desks each morning. The legislation I am introducing will go far in helping states and schools reach that goal and I encourage my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation and letters of support for my bill from Wisconsin State Superintendent John Benson and Wisconsin School Food Service Association President Renee Slotten-Beauchamp be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Judgeship for Northeastern Wisconsin Act of 1999. This bill would create one additional judgeship in the eastern district of Wisconsin and seat it in Green Bay, at the center of a region in desperate need of a district court. Let me explain how an additional judgeship could 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, Mr. President, the few Wisconsin Federal judges serve a disproportionately large population. Last year, I commissioned a study by the General Accounting Office which revealed that Wisconsin Federal judges have to serve the highest 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, Mr. President, Federal crimes remain unacceptably high in northeastern Wisconsin. These crimes range from bank robbery and kidnaping to Medicare and Medicaid fraud. However, without the appropriate judicial resources, a crackdown on Federal crimes in the upper part of the state will be made enormously more difficult. Additionally, under current law, the Federal Government is required to prosecute all felonies committed by Indians 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. Mr. President, this hurts businesses not only in Wisconsin, but across the Nation. Fifth, the creation of an additional judgeship in the Eastern District of Wisconsin is justified based on caseload. The Judicial Conference, the administrative and statistical arm of the Federal judiciary, makes biannual recommendations to Congress regarding the necessity of additional judgeships using a system of weighted filings-- that is, the total number of cases modified by the average level of case complexity. In the Judicial Conference's most recent recommendations, new positions were justified where a district's workload exceeded 435 weighted filings per judge. Such high caseloads are common in the eastern district of Wisconsin, peaking in 1996 with an overwhelming 453 weighted filings. On this basis, an additional judgeship for the eastern district of Wisconsin is warranted. Mr. President, our legislation is simple, effective and straightforward. It creates an additional judgeship for the eastern district, requires that one judge hold court in Green Bay, and gives the chief judge of the eastern district flexibility to designate which judge holds court there. And this legislation would increase the number of Federal district judges in Wisconsin for the first time since 1978. During that period, nearly 150 new Federal district judgeships have been created nationwide, but not a single one in Wisconsin. And don't take my word for it, Mr. President, ask the people who would be most affected: since 1994, each and every sheriff and district attorney in northeastern Wisconsin has urged me to create a Federal district court in Green Bay. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from these law enforcement officials be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I also ask unanimous consent that a letter from the U.S. Attorney for the eastern district of Wisconsin, Tom Schneider, also be included. This letter expressed the support of the entire Federal law enforcement community in Wisconsin--including the FBI, the DEA and the BATF--for the legislation we are introducing. They needed this additional judicial resource in 1994, and certainly, Mr. President, that need has only increased over the last five years. Perhaps most important, the people of Green Bay also agree on the need for an additional Federal judge, as the endorsement of our proposal by the Green Bay Chamber of Commerce demonstrates. In conclusion, Mr. President, 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. For these sensible reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, either separately or as part of an omnibus judgeship bill that I hope Congress will consider next session. The Judicial Conference has recommended the creation of over 60 new judgeships, yet not one has been created since 1990. Should such a bill be considered, I will be right there to ensure that Northeastern Wisconsin is included. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Judgeship for Northeastern Wisconsin Act of 1999. This bill would create one additional judgeship in the eastern district of Wisconsin and seat it in Green Bay, at the center of a region in desperate need of a district court. Let me explain how an additional judgeship could 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, Mr. President, the few Wisconsin Federal judges serve a disproportionately large population. Last year, I commissioned a study by the General Accounting Office which revealed that Wisconsin Federal judges have to serve the highest 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, Mr. President, Federal crimes remain unacceptably high in northeastern Wisconsin. These crimes range from bank robbery and kidnaping to Medicare and Medicaid fraud. However, without the appropriate judicial resources, a crackdown on Federal crimes in the upper part of the state will be made enormously more difficult. Additionally, under current law, the Federal Government is required to prosecute all felonies committed by Indians 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. Mr. President, this hurts businesses not only in Wisconsin, but across the Nation. Fifth, the creation of an additional judgeship in the Eastern District of Wisconsin is justified based on caseload. The Judicial Conference, the administrative and statistical arm of the Federal judiciary, makes biannual recommendations to Congress regarding the necessity of additional judgeships using a system of weighted filings-- that is, the total number of cases modified by the average level of case complexity. In the Judicial Conference's most recent recommendations, new positions were justified where a district's workload exceeded 435 weighted filings per judge. Such high caseloads are common in the eastern district of Wisconsin, peaking in 1996 with an overwhelming 453 weighted filings. On this basis, an additional judgeship for the eastern district of Wisconsin is warranted. Mr. President, our legislation is simple, effective and straightforward. It creates an additional judgeship for the eastern district, requires that one judge hold court in Green Bay, and gives the chief judge of the eastern district flexibility to designate which judge holds court there. And this legislation would increase the number of Federal district judges in Wisconsin for the first time since 1978. During that period, nearly 150 new Federal district judgeships have been created nationwide, but not a single one in Wisconsin. And don't take my word for it, Mr. President, ask the people who would be most affected: since 1994, each and every sheriff and district attorney in northeastern Wisconsin has urged me to create a Federal district court in Green Bay. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from these law enforcement officials be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I also ask unanimous consent that a letter from the U.S. Attorney for the eastern district of Wisconsin, Tom Schneider, also be included. This letter expressed the support of the entire Federal law enforcement community in Wisconsin--including the FBI, the DEA and the BATF--for the legislation we are introducing. They needed this additional judicial resource in 1994, and certainly, Mr. President, that need has only increased over the last five years. Perhaps most important, the people of Green Bay also agree on the need for an additional Federal judge, as the endorsement of our proposal by the Green Bay Chamber of Commerce demonstrates. In conclusion, Mr. President, 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. For these sensible reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, either separately or as part of an omnibus judgeship bill that I hope Congress will consider next session. The Judicial Conference has recommended the creation of over 60 new judgeships, yet not one has been created since 1990. Should such a bill be considered, I will be right there to ensure that Northeastern Wisconsin is included. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the work of Barb Rabe, who retired after 29 years of service in the Oshkosh School District. She began her career in the Oshkosh School District in 1970 at the Perry Tipler Middle School as a Teachers Assistant, and then transferred to Oakwood Elementary School where she served for the next 27 years. During her years of service, Barb worked for six principals, adapting to each new principal's style, and was always actively involved as the staff grew from 12 to 42 and the student population grew from 200 to 500. She worked hard at creating partnerships with staff, students and families that would foster collaboration, cooperation and allegiance. Barb's strong work ethic, energy and enthusiasm will be missed. While mastering the key elements of organization and flexibility, giving of her time and talent in serving the faculty and students of Oakwood School, and showing love and appreciation for students, she also came up with new ideas to adapt to the changing work environment. She developed the computerized milk and lunch money collection program at the school, which helped the school collect money more efficiently and thoroughly. She also purchased her own computer years before the school purchased them and took her work home to complete it in an organized fashion. When Oakwood School became computerized, she played an instrumental role in the conversion process. The students and staff of Oakwood will miss her professional and positive demeanor, although her husband of 45 years, Gordon, and their three sons and their families, will enjoy spending more time with her. Barb will be sorely missed by the entire Oakwood Elementary School community, however I extend my best wishes for a healthy, enriched and rewarding retirement.

Mr. KOHL

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

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, in the omnibus package that will be brought to the floor sometime this evening, there are two pieces of legislation on dairy that I want to spend a couple of minutes discussing because I think they are unfair and very much not in the spirit of the American economic system. One is the Northeast Dairy Compact. The Northeast Dairy Compact is an arrangement in which the New England States literally fix the price of milk in those seven States and no one can tamper with that price. It is the only price at which milk can be distributed from the farmer to the processor. In effect, it takes all the competition out of that product in that State, in all the New England States. We have never done that before in this country. It is contrary to everything that is represented by the economic system in the United States. The reason why we have such a great country in part is because our economic system provides that anybody with a good idea to develop a product or a service has an unfettered opportunity in all 50 States to market that product. That is what has made America great: competition. That is why we have full employment, the best economy in the world, and an economy that can compete anywhere in the world and succeed. That is because in this country we say: In order to get your share of market, you have to be able to provide the best product at the best price and market it in the best way. There are no restrictions in the 50 States to do that. That has been true since the United States of America was originated. The northeast dairy cartel is in contrast to that. There is nothing about the cartel that is American in terms of how we do business. There is something else about that. They say, and I have heard this from some of the leaders in the northeast: Can't we just have our cartel? After all, it represents only a fraction of the milk market in the country. Why can't we just have our cartel? But, obviously, if they can have their cartel, then everybody can have a cartel. What stops us from having a Southeast cartel or a Southwest cartel? What stops us from having a Southern cotton cartel? What stops us from having a Midwest corn cartel or a Plains States wheat cartel? If a cartel makes sense in any form, then it makes sense not only in the New England States and not only for milk; it makes sense anywhere, conceivably, and for any product. Now I ask the question: Does the Senate want to go on record as favoring this type of economic policy? I think we all know the answer is not yes. Nobody has defended this to me, even though it is coming tonight. Nobody has defended it to me. I talked with the leaders in the Senate. I asked them to explain why we should have this kind of legislation in the omnibus bill. I tell you, not a leader, not a single Senator, has explained to me and defended in any way that makes sense the idea of price-fixing cartels. Yet here it comes. I am told it is coming because promises have been made and arrangements have already occurred, and so on and so forth. On something as important as this, which is price-fixing cartels, it seems to me that saying ``promises have been made,'' and ``it has been passed in the House,'' or ``it is too late,'' or whatever, does not make any sense. May I also say I have been in dialog with the leaders in the Senate for months on this, so this is not a surprise. So here we are with this piece of legislation. Then we also have this milk pricing policy which, as you all know, arbitrates that the farther you are from Wisconsin in this country, the more you get for your milk if you are a dairy farmer. We all know, again, this was set up 50 or 60 years ago when there was no refrigeration to transport milk and they wanted to encourage the development of the dairy industry. So we provided incentives for dairy farmers at points distant from Wisconsin to develop the dairy industry and to circumvent the need for refrigerated transportation. That is no longer true. So what we are trying to do is not to eliminate that price differential because that would be too big a step to take at once. We are trying to reduce the price differential--not eliminate it, reduce it. USDA has come up with a program and 97 percent of the farmers in this country have voted for the change in the present milk pricing program. I am not suggesting we need to eliminate the price differential at this time. But let's accept the reduction of the price differential in view of the fact that the present system is archaic and makes no sense. Again, coming over from the House is legislation that continues to mandate that the old Depression-era pricing system be continued. May I also say the present system, both with respect to the Northeast Dairy Compact and the pricing system, was mandated to conclude on October 1, and we would put in a new system. But before October 1, there was a Federal judge in Vermont who challenged that kind of outcome. So right now it is tied up in the courts and nothing is going to happen. The present system will stay until at least the courts rule on the validity of a new system. So I suggested, and many have suggested, there be no dairy language in the omnibus; just don't say anything and let's let this thing roll because it is tied up in the courts now anyhow, and we can discuss it next year. No, promises have been made. People have been won over in one way or another. Other agendas are on the table. So today it comes in an omnibus bill, with the Northeast Dairy Compact renewed. Price fixing cartels, does any Senator want to vote for that? Price fixing cartels, not just for the Northeast, because if you accept it in the Northeast you accept it elsewhere; not just on milk, because a cartel is not uniquely suited to milk. It can be on any other commodity anywhere. Does the Senate want to go on record as supporting price fixing cartels in this country? Do we want to tear up the American economy in that way? That comes in the omnibus tonight. We are going to vote on that. We are also going to vote on going back to the old milk marketing price system which, again, is totally outmoded. The USDA has come up with a new system. I am very upset, obviously, and I am obviously going to fight that omnibus bill to its conclusion in any way I can, to filibuster it and to require everything be done to demonstrate to us and to the American people that there is a giant bill coming down the pike which has at least an element in it which is not acceptable, in my judgment, to how America is supposed to function. We are also considering a continuing resolution that will be brought to the floor momentarily, I understand. Of course, one of the options we have is to vote against a continuing resolution, which would, in effect, shut down the Government at midnight tonight. I could object to the CR and the Government would shut down. That is something I had considered. But if we do that or if I do that, obviously, it is a huge step, and there are many tens of thousands of people who would be out of a job, with enormous dislocations all across our country. It is a huge step one does not take easily. It is not a step I want to take. It is not a step I am going to take because I do not think it represents responsible action on my part. If some of the other people in this body want to act in a way I consider to be irresponsible and challenge me to be irresponsible--I am not an irresponsible person. Shutting down the Government is a huge, huge decision. One does not take it lightly. I am not going to make that decision over this issue. But I do want to point out to my colleagues that some strong-arm tactics are at work here. Allowing price fixing cartels is a bad thing for this country. I very much hope we can and will find a way to undo the damage of price fixing cartels in an outmoded milk marketing system in the very near future. Having said that, I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will go far in helping children start their school day ready to learn. The relationship between a healthy breakfast and both behavior and academic achievement has been documented by a number of studies. Fortunately, participation of schools in the School Breakfast program has increased steadily since the program was made permanent in 1975. According to the School Breakfast Scorecard, a report recently released by the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), a record number of schools--70,000--provided breakfast to school children last year. And nearly half of our states have 80 percent or more of their schools serving both lunch and breakfast under the National School Lunch and School Breakfast programs. That's good news. The bad news is that the gulf between states with the highest rates of school participation in breakfast and those with the lowest is wide. 20 percent of our states have fewer than 55 percent of their schools participating in both breakfast and lunch; that's a full 20 points below the national average. In my home state of Wisconsin, only 30 percent of the schools that serve lunch also serve breakfast. By another measure--participation of low-income children in both school lunch and breakfast--the results from the Scorecard are equally concerning. Nationally, only 42 percent of the kids receiving a free or reduced price lunch are also receiving breakfast; some states have fewer than 25 percent of kids receiving a free or reduced price lunch also receiving school breakfast. The bill I am introducing today would help states provide an additional financial incentive for schools to participate in the school breakfast program. While there are a number of reasons that schools do not offer their children a school breakfast, certainly the barrier most difficult to overcome is the cost of the meals throughout the year. In short, the cost of the school breakfast program may simply be too high for some schools and school districts. My bill authorizes, subject to appropriations, grants from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to allow states to provide schools with an additional five cent per meal reimbursement during the first year in which they provide the school breakfast program. This additional reimbursement may be used to supplement both the existing federal per meal reimbursement and any additional per meal reimbursement provided by the state. To ensure that the grants are as effective as possible they are targeted to those states with poor school breakfast participation rates and that also have a program in place to promote school breakfast participation. State educational agencies will have the discretion to determine, based on participation rates, which schools or school districts will receive the supplemental assistance. Providing a nutritious breakfast is the first step in ensuring that kids are ready to learn when they sit down at their desks each morning. The legislation I am introducing will go far in helping states and schools reach that goal and I encourage my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation and letters of support for my bill from Wisconsin State Superintendent John Benson and Wisconsin School Food Service Association President Renee Slotten-Beauchamp be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to explain briefly why I have held all legislation--including appropriations bills. It revolves around the issue of dairy pricing policies and dairy compacts. One is a national milk pricing system. I will explain that first and explain my concerns about what is happening. There is a national milk pricing policy which has been in effect for about 60 years. It was set up in a way that said the further away you live from Wisconsin, if you are a dairy farmer, the more you get for your milk. The government set that policy up to encourage the formation of a national dairy industry because transportation--particularly refrigeration--was not available at that time. They said the further you live from Wisconsin, the more you get for your milk. That was 60 years ago. That kind of policy no longer makes any sense. In lieu of and in consideration of that, the Secretary of Agriculture and the USDA have come up with a new pricing system which does not eliminate the differential. It simply reduces it. Ninety-seven percent of the farmers in our country voted for it. It was set to be implemented on October 1st. Now we find out that the Republicans are apparently intending to go back to the old pricing system. That is a disaster for our country. It certainly is a disaster for Midwestern farmers, and it doesn't reflect the reality of our present-day system. Again, farmers in the Midwest and from Wisconsin are not asking for any advantage. They simply want to have the same opportunities for marketing their product in a competitive way as dairy farmers all over the country. It seems to me that is a reasonable request. That is why we are so distressed at the impending outcome of what is going on in the House and will be here before the Senate very shortly. The other one is the Northeast Dairy Compact. The Northeast Dairy Compact seeks to set arbitrarily, without consideration for market activities, a price for their dairy farmers to sell their milk to processors. That price is generally higher than market prices. It makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for anybody else in other parts of the country to market their milk or their milk products in the Northeast Dairy Compact States--the New England States--because when the prices are arbitrarily decided, the processors are then obviously likely to buy their milk from the local farmer rather than to buy it from somebody in another State. In effect, it excludes the opportunity to market your product--in this case milk--in the New England States. That is not only a disaster for us in the Midwest; it clearly is terrible national economic policy. If it is allowed again to be renewed at this time--it expired in October--we would be endorsing a national policy which for the first time in the history of our country excludes products from being sold without interference in all 50 States. We have never done that before. The genius and the success of the American system is based on our ability--no matter where we live in this country--to manufacture and sell products and services anywhere else in this country without restrictions. The Northeast Dairy Compact says, no; we are not going to do that anymore. If we allow the Northeast to do that, then for what reason would we not allow other sections of the country to set up their own milk cartels, and for that matter, cartels on other products? If we allow it for the Northeast Dairy Compact, then I say unequivocally there is no justification for not allowing it elsewhere, not only on milk but on other products. I ask my fellow Senators: Is this the way to run a country economically? Would any of us think we would endorse that kind of policy where States and regions can decide for themselves not to allow other products into those States or regions? It doesn't make any sense. It is not the way we built the country. We should not renew, therefore, the Northeast Dairy Compact at this time. It was born 3 years ago in a back-room deal. There was no vote on the floor of the Senate. It was presented as part of a very large farm package. It was voted on in an affirmative way, but not by itself because it was part of a farm package 3 years ago. It is intended to be renewed again this year as part of a back-room deal without debate on the floor. It was debated twice all by itself. It lost on a straight up-and-down vote 3 or 4 years ago. The Northeast Dairy Compact lost on a cloture vote just several months ago. I am very concerned about both things: The milk marketing pricing system, and the Northeast Dairy Compact. I am concerned enough to have a hold on all other legislation. I hope very much that my fellow Senators can see the wisdom of my decision and support me in this effort not only to do what is right for Middle-Western dairy farmers but to do what is right for the people who live and work all over this country. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment offered by my friend Senator Wellstone. Let me explain both why I support this amendment and why my support is somewhat qualified. On the one hand, I agree that agricultural concentration is a problem which increasingly undermines the viability of family farms and negatively affects the well-being of our agricultural communities. On our Antitrust Subcommittee, we have watched with growing concern the wave of agricultural mergers and joint ventures in agriculture that have reduced the marketing options available to producers, and which may ultimately reduce--or may already have reduced--the prices they receive from the marketplace. While these merging corporations often contend that the mergers will result in better service for farmers and cost-savings for consumers, it's unclear whether that is true. And farmers face continued pressures from giant conglomerates against whom they have little bargaining power. But, on the other hand, I am concerned that a blanket ban against all agricultural mergers would prevent those mergers that are pro- competitive as well as those that are undesirable. In addition, singling out a particular industry for merger moratoria, I fear, will lead to other calls for similar ``carve-outs.'' Perhaps a better way to address the problem of consolidation in the agricultural industry is do what the administration has already promised. The Antitrust Division of the Justice Department has given me a commitment that it will appoint a Special Counsel for agricultural antitrust issues--and it should do so expeditiously. This official will help ensure that agribusiness mergers no longer are a poor stepsister to mergers in the computer, telecom, finance, and media industries. Mr. President, in moving a measure such as this one, we need to take care that we do not harm the very people we are trying to help. But until we see real signs that the administration is prepared to seriously scrutinize concentration in the agricultural industry, this approach is preferable to no action at all.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. KOHL. I will be happy to wait.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I do not think we should be misled by the Hutchison-Brownback amendment that it will save the family farm. No one has done more for family farmers, as we all know, than Senator Grassley and Senator Harkin, and they are supportive and cosponsors of our amendment. Our amendment does have a specific exemption for farmers in each State so that the family farmer, whether they come from Texas, Iowa, or Wisconsin, can be specifically dealt with in that State in the event of a bankruptcy. If we are serious about reform, now is the time to stop the most egregious abuse of our bankruptcy laws--by capping the homestead exemption and supporting the Kohl-Sessions-Grassley amendment. But don't take my word for it. Listen to voices from across the country. For example, the New York Times recently editorialized that: ``Like a bill that passed the House, [the Senate bill] would do nothing to limit the ways that the formerly wealthy have of stiffing creditors, of which the unlimited homestead exemption is only the best known. . . . [If the bill] is to be passed, it should at least be amended to keep Texas and Florida from providing such blatant protection to once-wealthy deadbeats.'' Of course, the New York Times may not be the most unbiased source. So I took a look at my home state paper, the Wisconsin State Journal. That newspaper says the same thing. According to its recent editorial, the House and Senate bankruptcy bills: ``deserve criticism for what they fail to include. Neither bill took a step toward closing the loophole that allows bankrupt' wealthy to shelter assets in an expensive home. Irresponsible but shrewd debtors sneak assets through bankruptcy via a provision permitting them to take advantage of state homestead exemptions.'' It adds that our $100,000 cap is a ``sound'' measure. Finally, even leading papers from Texas and Florida--the two states most invested in this issue--find the case for reigning in the unlimited homestead exemption compelling. In an editorial earlier this year, the Austin American-Statesman praised the recent GAO report for pointing out that the unlimited homestead exemption: ``[p]rimarily . . . is the refuge of a few high-living debtors, not the schoolteachers and small farmers it was intended to protect.'' The Austin newspaper went on to dismiss appeals to states' rights as a false defense for the unlimited exemption, explaining that: ``The U.S. Constitution gives the federal government supremacy over the states in bankruptcy matters, so arguments that the federal government should let states do as they wish on this particular facet of bankruptcy law makes little sense.'' Indeed, even this Texas opinion-maker is supportive of reform, declaring that: ``State officials in Austin and Washington should be at least willing to discuss limiting homestead protection. A few well- heeled and clever bankruptcy filers shouldn't be able to mess over a state law designed to protect average Texans. That mocks the state's much-celebrated populist image.'' And the Tampa Tribune echoed these sentiments, complaining that the Senate bill does not go ``far enough toward closing the loophole that allows debtors unlimited homestead exemptions that protect the wealthiest from having to repay a significant portion of their debt.'' Everyone recognizes that this abuse must be stopped, including leading papers from the two states that traditionally have stood by the unlimited exemption. I ask unanimous consent that these editorials be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, indeed, even Senator Grassley and Senator Harkin, who have cosponsored our $100,000 cap, also recognize that we are in the right, even though their home state of Iowa is one of the few states with an unlimited exemption. Let me make one final point: some opt-out supporters, especially those from Texas, cite history as a justification for their position. But just because something has historical ``significance'' doesn't mean it's right. For example, we don't have debtors' prison anymore. We don't have sweatshops for children anymore. And Texas, as a matter of fact, is no longer part of Mexico. All of these changes altered something of ``historical significance;'' all were for the better. And getting rid of the unlimited homestead exemption in bankruptcy would also be a change--a dramatic change--for the better. Mr. President, you can't support our cap and also support an opt-out: It's one or the other. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Hutchison/ Brownback amendment and to support our bipartisan $100,000 cap instead. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, Aug. 13, 1999] Protecting Rich Bankrupts If you are going to go bankrupt in America, the best places to do it are in Florida and Texas. Both states have unlimited homestead exemptions, meaning that bankrupts can protect their homes from creditors no matter how much they are worth. Now, with the little public debate, Texas is on the verge of making its bankruptcy protections even more generous. Currently a bankrupt person can shelter from creditors a home and no more than one acre of land in an urban area. But a proposed amendment to the Texas Constitution would raise that limit to 10 acres. The limit would remain at 200 acres in rural areas. Even more generously, the amendment, which has passed the Texas legislature and goes to the voters in November, provides that if you operate your business from your home, the business property is also protected. Advocates say that would protect small family businesses, but it is written so broadly that it could allow a Houston property developer to shelter a huge office building, so long as he lived in an apartment in it. In Washington, the Senate is expected to consider a bankruptcy reform bill next month. Like a bill that passed the House, it would do nothing to limit the ways that the formerly wealthy have of stiffing creditors, of which the unlimited homestead exemptions is only the best known. But the bill would be a boon to the credit card companies, which have pushed hard to get it enacted. It would help them by making it much harder for bankrupts to get our from under credit card debt. That would primarily affect middle-income and poor people forced into bankruptcy by a job loss or large medical bills. The bill deserves to be defeated, but if it is to be passed, it should be at least be amended to keep Texas and Florida from providing such blatant protection to once- wealthy deadbeats.

Mr. KOHL. I yield 1 minute to Senator Sessions.