Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Roth tax bill and to express disappointment that Senator Moynihan's alternative did not pass the Senate. The Moynihan amendment would have provided real tax relief to those Americans who need it most, maintained the balanced budget that we fought so hard to achieve, and strengthened the Social Security and Medicare programs for generations to come. Senator Moynihan's amendment would have reduced the unprecedented $800 billion, ten year tax cut to a more reasonable $295 billion. The Moynihan proposal pays a fair dividend, fairly distributed, to the working families that have fueled the current economic recovery. The Roth proposal breaks the bank with tax breaks for those who don't need them, and benefit cuts to those who have already suffered them. The Moynihan proposal takes a conservative, cautious estimate of the American economic pie and divides it evenly. The Roth proposal uses ``pie in the sky'' surplus estimates to justify huge tax breaks for a very small segment of society. The proponents of $800 billion worth of tax relief would have us believe that a $1 trillion surplus is as reliable and inevitable as the sun coming up in the morning. But as my colleagues know, this projection is based on the most optimistic and unrealistic assumptions--assumptions about the precise direction of the economy, which is notoriously hard to predict, and assumptions about the willingness of Congress to make large and drastic spending cuts, which is notoriously nonexistent. Over the next 5 years, the smallest changes in the economy could lead the $1 trillion surplus estimate to be off by as much as $250 billion. And, who among us believes that Congress and the President have the ability, or the desire, to cut programs like education, agriculture, and biomedical research by the approximately 50% required? In fact, already this year we have increased spending by $35 billion with more added every day. Furthermore, members of Congress from both sides of the aisle admit there is no way we will finish our annual appropriations bill without yet another, end-of-the-year cash infusion. The surplus is not a sure thing, and basing an $800 billion tax cut on it is a long-shot gamble. It was wrong, during the years of deficit spending, to take money from future generations and spend it on ourselves. It is equally wrong today to bet the money of future generations on shaky economic projections and the surreal expectation that Congress will suddenly--for the first time--decide to make tough cuts in government spending. None of this is to suggest that our budget is as bad as it was ten years ago--it is just not as good as the Roth proposal assumes. Our nation is currently enjoying record unemployment, falling welfare rolls, and increased prosperity for more Americans than at any time in history. We can and should use this opportunity to fix oversights and inequities in our tax code. Working Americans have driven this economy, and they deserve to share in it--they deserve a tax code that helps them send their children to college, that eases the burden of paying for long-term care, that encourages marriage, saving and high quality child care. Simply put, in times of economic prosperity, we have the chance--and the obligation--to expand the pool of winners in our economy. And there are definitely some provisions in the Roth proposal that do just that. Both Senator Roth's bill and the Moynihan amendment contain a version of my Child Care Tax Credit to encourage employers to get involved in increasing the supply of quality child care. Both bills also contain my Farmer Tax Fairness Act to allow farmers to realize the benefits of income averaging. And both bills provide for education tax relief, marriage penalty relief, full health insurance deduction for the self-employed, tax relief to cover the costs of long-term care, and the extension of tax credits that are vital to our economic health. But despite any common elements, on almost every point, the Moynihan alternative not only does a better job of containing the overall cost of tax relief, it also focuses that relief on those taxpayers most in need of help. It is a conservative package that leaves plenty of room to preserve Social Security and Medicare, preserve the fiscal balance we have worked so hard to achieve, and pay down the national debt. Mr. President, for all these reasons, I hope, when we finally get serious about writing a tax bill later this year, we will seriously consider the Moynihan alternative. It is balanced, responsible and fiscally prudent. It will help us expand opportunities and make life better and easier for more Americans and their families. And we should reject the Roth proposal. It turns the clock back to the failed budget policies of the past, while providing too much benefit for too few Americans at too great a cost.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Patient Abuse Prevention Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Reid, who has worked tirelessly with me on this important legislation. This bill is the product of collaboration and input from the administration, the health care industry, patient and employee advocates--who all have the same goal I do: protecting patients in long-term care from abuse, neglect, and mistreatment. Last fall, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General issued a report describing how easy it is for people with abusive and criminal backgrounds to find work in nursing homes. On September 14 of last year, the Senate Aging Committee held hearings on this disturbing problem, where we heard horrifying stories of elderly patients being abused by the very people who are charged with their care. While the vast majority of nursing home workers are dedicated and professional, even one instance of abuse is inexcusable. This should not be happening in a single nursing home in America. Mr. President, it is estimated that more than 43 percent of Americans over the age of 65 will likely spend time in a nursing home. The number of people needing long-term care services will continue to increase as the Baby Boom generation ages. The vast majority of nursing homes, home health agencies and hospices do an excellent job in caring for their patients. But it only takes a few abusive staff to cast a dark shadow over what should be a healing environment. A disturbing number of cases have been reported where workers with criminal backgrounds have been cleared to work in direct patient care, and have subsequently abused patients in their care. In 1997, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ran a series of articles describing this problem, which led my home State of Wisconsin to pass a criminal background check law for health care workers. The legislation I introduce today follows their example and builds on their efforts. Why is it necessary to act? Because it is just far too easy for a worker with a history of abuse to find employment and prey on the most vulnerable patients. The OIG report found that 5 percent of nursing home employees in two States had prior criminal records. The OIG also found that between 15-20 percent of those convicted of patient abuse had prior criminal records. It is just too easy for known abusers to find work in health care and continue to prey on patients. Current state and national safeguards are inadequate to screen out abusive workers. All States are required to maintain registries of abusive nurse aides. But nurse aids are not the only workers involved in abuse, and other workers are not tracked at all. Even worse, there is no system to coordinate information about abusive nurse aides between States. A known abuser in Iowa would have little trouble moving to Wisconsin and continuing to work with patients there. In addition, there is no Federal requirement that long-term care facilities conduct criminal background checks on prospective employees. People with violent criminal backgrounds--people who have already been convicted of murder, rape, and assault--could easily get a job in a nursing home or other health care setting without their past ever being discovered. Our legislative will go a long way toward solving this problem. First, it will create a National Registry of abusive long-term care employees. States will be required to submit information from their current State registries to the National Registry. Facilities will be required to check the National Registry before hiring a prospective worker. Any worker with a substantiated finding of patient abuse will be prohibited from working in long-term care. Second, the bill provides a second line of defense to protect patients from violent criminals. If the National Registry does not contain information about a prospective worker, the facility is then required to initiate an FBI background check. Any conviction for patient abuse or a relevant violent crime would bar that applicant from working with patients. I realize that this legislation will not solve all instances of abuse. We still need to do more to stop abuse from occurring in the first place. But this bill will ensure that those who have already abused an elderly or disabled patient, and those who have committed violent crimes against people in the past, are kept away from vulnerable patients. Mr. President, I want to repeat that I strongly believe that most long-term care providers and their staff work hard to deliver the highest quality care. However, it is imperative that Congress act immediately to get rid of those that don't. When a patient checks into a nursing home or hospice, or receives home health care, they should not have to give up their right to be free from abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Our nation's seniors made our country what it is today. It is our obligation to make sure we treat them with the dignity, care, and respect they deserve. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues, the administration, and the health care industry in this effort to protect patients. Our nation's seniors and disabled deserve nothing less than our full attention. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that a letter of support for this legislation from the National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home Reform be included in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Patient Abuse Prevention Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Reid, who has worked tirelessly with me on this important legislation. This bill is the product of collaboration and input from the administration, the health care industry, patient and employee advocates--who all have the same goal I do: protecting patients in long-term care from abuse, neglect, and mistreatment. Last fall, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General issued a report describing how easy it is for people with abusive and criminal backgrounds to find work in nursing homes. On September 14 of last year, the Senate Aging Committee held hearings on this disturbing problem, where we heard horrifying stories of elderly patients being abused by the very people who are charged with their care. While the vast majority of nursing home workers are dedicated and professional, even one instance of abuse is inexcusable. This should not be happening in a single nursing home in America. Mr. President, it is estimated that more than 43 percent of Americans over the age of 65 will likely spend time in a nursing home. The number of people needing long-term care services will continue to increase as the Baby Boom generation ages. The vast majority of nursing homes, home health agencies and hospices do an excellent job in caring for their patients. But it only takes a few abusive staff to cast a dark shadow over what should be a healing environment. A disturbing number of cases have been reported where workers with criminal backgrounds have been cleared to work in direct patient care, and have subsequently abused patients in their care. In 1997, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ran a series of articles describing this problem, which led my home State of Wisconsin to pass a criminal background check law for health care workers. The legislation I introduce today follows their example and builds on their efforts. Why is it necessary to act? Because it is just far too easy for a worker with a history of abuse to find employment and prey on the most vulnerable patients. The OIG report found that 5 percent of nursing home employees in two States had prior criminal records. The OIG also found that between 15-20 percent of those convicted of patient abuse had prior criminal records. It is just too easy for known abusers to find work in health care and continue to prey on patients. Current state and national safeguards are inadequate to screen out abusive workers. All States are required to maintain registries of abusive nurse aides. But nurse aids are not the only workers involved in abuse, and other workers are not tracked at all. Even worse, there is no system to coordinate information about abusive nurse aides between States. A known abuser in Iowa would have little trouble moving to Wisconsin and continuing to work with patients there. In addition, there is no Federal requirement that long-term care facilities conduct criminal background checks on prospective employees. People with violent criminal backgrounds--people who have already been convicted of murder, rape, and assault--could easily get a job in a nursing home or other health care setting without their past ever being discovered. Our legislative will go a long way toward solving this problem. First, it will create a National Registry of abusive long-term care employees. States will be required to submit information from their current State registries to the National Registry. Facilities will be required to check the National Registry before hiring a prospective worker. Any worker with a substantiated finding of patient abuse will be prohibited from working in long-term care. Second, the bill provides a second line of defense to protect patients from violent criminals. If the National Registry does not contain information about a prospective worker, the facility is then required to initiate an FBI background check. Any conviction for patient abuse or a relevant violent crime would bar that applicant from working with patients. I realize that this legislation will not solve all instances of abuse. We still need to do more to stop abuse from occurring in the first place. But this bill will ensure that those who have already abused an elderly or disabled patient, and those who have committed violent crimes against people in the past, are kept away from vulnerable patients. Mr. President, I want to repeat that I strongly believe that most long-term care providers and their staff work hard to deliver the highest quality care. However, it is imperative that Congress act immediately to get rid of those that don't. When a patient checks into a nursing home or hospice, or receives home health care, they should not have to give up their right to be free from abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Our nation's seniors made our country what it is today. It is our obligation to make sure we treat them with the dignity, care, and respect they deserve. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues, the administration, and the health care industry in this effort to protect patients. Our nation's seniors and disabled deserve nothing less than our full attention. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that a letter of support for this legislation from the National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home Reform be included in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina for his questions, his acknowledgment of the severity of the Meth problem faced by rural communities and cities in the Midwest and throughout our country, and his active support for increased funding to combat Meth. In my own State of Wisconsin, criminal justice officials recognized early on that we had to develop a strategy and consolidate our enforcement and prevention efforts to limit the spread of the Meth epidemic that has been invading our Western Wisconsin borders from Minnesota and Iowa since the mid 1990's. Today, the number of Meth- related incidents is increasing. The Wisconsin State Laboratory reported increases of Meth analysis from 42 examinations in 1996 to 112 examinations in 1998. In 1998 alone, the Wisconsin Department of Narcotics Enforcement opened 90 investigations regarding Meth and prosecuted 40 individuals. In Wisconsin, Meth users generally range from 18 to 25, and recently there was even a disturbing report of Meth trafficking in a rural high school. With the escalation of Meth trafficking, in February 1997 Wisconsin law enforcement officials organized a coordinated enforcement and prevention initiative among local, state, and federal law enforcement partners to target Meth traffickers. This major effort also addressed the need for training to prevent the potential health threat from toxic and flammable chemicals in clandestine Meth labs. Funding for this continuing intiative has been raised from a variety of sources, including the Wisconsin Office of Justice Assistance and the State Attorney General. Recently, representatives from Wisconsin agricultural associations have reached out to their members and communities to educate the public about the dangers of Anhydrous ammonia, a precursor used in the crude production of Meth. These associations are now working with law enforcement as well. And this May, the State Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin sponsored three Meth symposiums to educate and train members of the criminal justice system. The $1 million appropriated for the Western Wisconsin Methamphetamine Initiative will help build on these efforts and promote more coordination of anti-Meth activities. It will be used jointly by the Office of Attorney General (through the Division of Narcotics Enforcement) and the Office of Justice Assistance (under the direction of the Governor) to support a plan developed in coordination with each other to continue combatting Meth production, distribution and use and for policing initiatives in ``hot spots'' of Meth trafficking activity. Part of this funding will also be used for community and school-based Meth education and prevention awareness programs. Again, I thank the distinguished Senator from South Carolina--and our Chairman, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg-- for their commitment to addressing the Meth problem.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for S. 6, the Patients Bill of Rights. After 2 years of partisan struggles, I am pleased that we finally have the opportunity to consider this important bill, which could benefit all 161 million Americans in managed health care plans. For many years, managed care has helped to rein in the rapidly growing costs of health care. That benefits all patients across the nation and helps to keep health care costs in check. However, there is a real difference between making quality health care affordable and cutting corners on patient care. In Wisconsin, we are lucky that most health plans do a good job in keeping costs low and providing quality care. But too often across this nation, HMOs put too many obstacles between doctors and patients. In the name of saving a few bucks, too many patients must hurdle bureaucratic obstacles to get basic care. Even worse, too many patients are being denied essential treatment based on the bottom line rather than on what is best for them. The Patients' Bill of Rights will ensure that patients come first-- not HMO profits or health plan bureaucrats. It makes sure that doctors, in consultation with patients, are the ones who decide which treatments are medically necessary. It gives patients access to information about all available treatments and not just the cheapest. Whether to seek emergency care, pursue treatment by a specialist, or try an innovative new treatment--these are hard questions that should be answered by caring physicians and concerned families--not by a calculator. S. 6 puts these decisions back in human hands where they belong. This legislation will also make sure that health plans are held accountable for the decisions they make. First, all health plans must have an external appeals process in place, so that patients who challenge HMO decisions may take their case to an independent panel of medical experts. And second, if a health plan's decision to deny or delay care results in death or injury to the patient, this bill ensures that the health plan can be held accountable for its actions. Most importantly, this bill gives all of these protections to all Americans in managed health care plans, not just a few. All 161 million Americans in managed health plans deserve the same protections--no matter what State they live in. I am shocked by the refusal of some of my colleagues to endorse this commonsense legislation. If you or a member of your family got sick, who would you trust to make decisions about their care? Who would you trust to decide what kind of specialist was necessary? Who would you trust to tell you about all available treatments and not just the cheapest? Wouldn't you insist on having access to the best possible medical care? Most of us would. Why should the 161 million Americans in managed health care deserve less than what we would insist upon? The answer is, simply, that all Americans deserve access to the best quality health care available. As someone who comes from a business background, I understand the concerns of employers. Some of my colleagues on the other side have claimed that our bill will increase health care costs by as much as $72 billion, making it impossible for employers and families to afford coverage. But the Congressional Budget Office reported that the patient protections in our bill will only increase premiums by 4.8 percent over 5 years. This translates into only $2 per month for the average employee. An independent Coopers & Lybrand study found that our provision to hold health plans accountable--the provision the other side opposes the most--would only cost 3 to 13 cents per person per month. This is a small price to pay to make sure that health plans cover the health care services we all deserve. I am willing to look at possible improvements to the bill. But there is no reason whatsoever to continue to allow health plans to skimp on quality in the name of saving profits. Patients have been in the waiting room long enough. It is time for the Senate to act and make sure they receive the health care they need, deserve, and pay for.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Consumers Dairy Relief Act, a bill that will save American consumers $500 million a year on their milk, cheese and dairy purchases. This legislation terminates the Federal Milk Marketing Orders by the year 2001. Consumers are paying far more than necessary for their dairy purchases because our current system encourages milk production in high cost areas. Our nation's milk pricing laws, which were designed in the 1930's, are seriously outdated and long overdue to be reformed. Dairy farmers in Wisconsin have suffered under the present system for too long. Wisconsin loses, 1,500 dairy farmers a year, not because they are inefficient, but because a federal law discriminates against them by preventing them from competing on a level playing field. Opponents of this legislation will tell you that we need to keep the present system in order to maintain a fresh milk supply in their states. While that may have been true in the 1930's, when we lacked the refrigeration technology necessary to store and transport milk, it is certainly not true today. We can now easily and safely transport perishable milk and cheese products between regions of the United States. In fact, the industry has actually perfected the system to such a degree that we now export cheese to countries around the world. Mr. President, as the United States expands its role in the export dairy market and enters into more trade agreements, our domestic agricultural policy is coming under intense scrutiny. Another reason to eliminate our antiquated milk pricing system is that it will give us another negotiating tool to use during the next round of WTO discussions scheduled to take place in Seattle this fall. Our trading partners are growing increasingly concerned about the intervention of the federal government in the pricing of milk. Earlier this month, The Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries said they want to put the issue of USDA's Federal Milk Marketing Orders and dairy compacts on the table for discussion at the next round of Agricultural discussions in Seattle this fall. By passing this legislation and reforming our milk pricing laws, we can eliminate another hurdle currently in the way of negotiating agricultural trade agreements that would open up new markets for our farmers. Mr. President, if the Senate decides to discuss reforming our milk pricing system, we must give serious consideration to eliminating the present system. Today I have touched on a few of the reasons we need to scrap our current milk pricing system. There are many others, but I will save those for another time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Consumers Dairy Relief Act, a bill that will save American consumers $500 million a year on their milk, cheese and dairy purchases. This legislation terminates the Federal Milk Marketing Orders by the year 2001. Consumers are paying far more than necessary for their dairy purchases because our current system encourages milk production in high cost areas. Our nation's milk pricing laws, which were designed in the 1930's, are seriously outdated and long overdue to be reformed. Dairy farmers in Wisconsin have suffered under the present system for too long. Wisconsin loses, 1,500 dairy farmers a year, not because they are inefficient, but because a federal law discriminates against them by preventing them from competing on a level playing field. Opponents of this legislation will tell you that we need to keep the present system in order to maintain a fresh milk supply in their states. While that may have been true in the 1930's, when we lacked the refrigeration technology necessary to store and transport milk, it is certainly not true today. We can now easily and safely transport perishable milk and cheese products between regions of the United States. In fact, the industry has actually perfected the system to such a degree that we now export cheese to countries around the world. Mr. President, as the United States expands its role in the export dairy market and enters into more trade agreements, our domestic agricultural policy is coming under intense scrutiny. Another reason to eliminate our antiquated milk pricing system is that it will give us another negotiating tool to use during the next round of WTO discussions scheduled to take place in Seattle this fall. Our trading partners are growing increasingly concerned about the intervention of the federal government in the pricing of milk. Earlier this month, The Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries said they want to put the issue of USDA's Federal Milk Marketing Orders and dairy compacts on the table for discussion at the next round of Agricultural discussions in Seattle this fall. By passing this legislation and reforming our milk pricing laws, we can eliminate another hurdle currently in the way of negotiating agricultural trade agreements that would open up new markets for our farmers. Mr. President, if the Senate decides to discuss reforming our milk pricing system, we must give serious consideration to eliminating the present system. Today I have touched on a few of the reasons we need to scrap our current milk pricing system. There are many others, but I will save those for another time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to you today to pay tribute to one of Wisconsin's finest educators, Forrest ``Woody'' Weber. Woody recently retired after a distinguished career spanning 36 years. Focusing his talents in elementary schools, Woody proved instrumental in developing the young lives of his students. Woody served children and their families as a guidance counselor for 21 consistent years, during which time he specialized in classroom and small group counseling. One of his most substantial accomplishments during this time was addressing the needs of students with cerebral palsy. Since many of these students use ``bliss boards'' to communicate, Woody developed a unit to be used by other students so they could understand this communication device. This act of kindness earned Woody many public accolades, leading up to his 1993 nomination for ``Educator of the Year.'' Woody's service and volunteerism permeated every aspect of his long career. Between organizing an annual slide show for graduating sixth- graders, serving on both the Menasha school board as well as the City Council, sitting on numerous other community boards, coaching local athletics, and volunteering for the Salvation Army, he served his community well. Woody's wife, Dale, worries that his new retirement will keep him away from home even more because it will allow him more time to volunteer. Though his daily presence as an educator will be missed, we wish Woody all the best in his retirement.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the communications from the Office of Management and Budget and the Secretary of Agriculture make the case for the need to provide additional resources for this bill. I am also aware that funding constraints have prevented the bill from including levels of spending for programs important to Senators. In support of, and in addition to, the comments provided by OMB and USDA, I would like to offer the following observations. While this bill provides a substantial increase for the President's Food Safety Initiative, it does not meet the fully recommended level submitted by the President. Perhaps the greatest single responsibility of this subcommittee is to protect public health. That responsibility is carried out primarily through oversight of the blood supply, the approval of medical drugs and devices and, most certainly, the food supply. Many of the procedures for protecting our food supply are now in transition, moving toward a HACCP system that provides a new set of checks and balances in the production, processing, manufacturing, and distribution of food. In addition, we are learning through research new techniques to help enhance the safety of the food we eat. It is unfortunate we are unable to find the resources within our ``budgetary constraints'' to provide the fully requested increase. We should, at least, provide the fully recommended level for inspections of meat and poultry provided for the Food Safety Inspection Service. One of the most popular programs funded in this bill is the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program. Again, this bill provides a significant increase for this program and I am very happy to report that the level appropriated, more than $4.038 billion, is determined to be adequate to support an average program participation level of 4.7 million people, which is likely to be an increase above the FY 1999 participation average. However, we know that this program is not only popular, it works. It works in protecting people who are nutritionally at risk, and it works to protect the American taxpayer by lowering future health care costs. The President's budget would have allowed for the program to grow to the fully targeted participation level of 7.5 million women, infants, and children and this Congress should be providing the resources to make that happen. In addition, this bill should be providing higher levels for WIC Farmers Market Program, the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program, the Nutrition, Education and Training Program, for the Commodity Assistance and Food Donation Programs and for the Secretary's Food Recovery and Gleaning initiative. Also, this bill should restore full levels for the studies and evaluations activities of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). It is curious that while Food Stamp rolls are dropping, we are seeing increased demand for food assistance at shelters, through charitable organizations, and through the various food donation programs. We need to understand this phenomena better and to do so, the agency in charge of these programs should be given the tools to research and evaluate what is happening. At the very least, a reasonable level of funds should be provided to FNS to conduction studies and evaluations of activities directly related to nutrition. Agriculture has always been, and continues to be, the backbone of the American economy and society. The history of this nation is firmly grounded in the development of agriculture beginning with the earliest settlers who learned farming techniques, such as fertilization, from Native Americans. The first Thanksgiving was, among other things, a celebration of agriculture. As the growth of America continued, agriculture was a driving force economically, socially, and politically. Thomas Jefferson, whose philosophy in so many ways personifies the national spirit, centered much of his political and governmental engineering around the role of the farmer. In time, farming in this nation followed the lines of westward expansion and filled the vast spaces of our interior with continuing advances in production and further development of democratic principles. When the United States entered the stage of world power, especially during our two world wars and since, the American farmer continued to provide the basic necessities to keep our armed forces fed and our populations safe. In so many ways, food security is an integral part of national security. We all are aware of the hard times now facing farmers and the rural economy. Yet, without agriculture, and the economy that supports it, food shortages and disruptions would lead to urban panic and riots. No region of the nation would be safe and our entire national security would be at risk. In spite of these facts, we struggle to find the resources to protect agriculture. Can any Senator imagine how absurd it would sound to stand here on the floor of the Senate and announce that we simply can't afford national security? To a degree, that is what we are saying when we announce that we can't afford to help our farmers. Does this bill fully fund the request for agricultural research, no it does not. Neither does it provide funding for initiatives to help farmers overcome today's economic troubles through outreach to socially disadvantaged farmers, small farmers, or to help USDA agencies protect against unwarranted market concentration. This bill does not provide additional levels to help establish and hold on to foreign markets through export programs such as PL 480 which combines humanitarian assistance with overseas market development. I am also disappointed that our allocation has prevented us from making the gains we should in the area of conservation and environmental protection. In order to achieve savings, this bill has had to impose limitations on the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and the Conservation Farm Option program. It also fails to fully fund many of the other conservation initiatives recommended by the President. In addition, if resources were available, we could provide additional funds to help the environment, and the farmer, through the development of better methods for overcoming pesticide related problems. In the near future, the fumigant methyl bromide is going to be removed from the market and unless a viable alternative is developed, production of various commodities will fall sharply, much to the dismay of farmers and consumers who have come to take the availability of these food items for granted. Also, this bill does not provide adequate levels for Integrated Pest Management and for program increases requested for implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act. Mr. President, there are many other items I could describe and I do not, in any way, want to detract from the fine work of my colleague, Senator Cochran. As I stated earlier, my friend from Mississippi has done an outstanding job in crafting this bill with the resources he was given, and I support him and this bill. I simply feel it is my responsibility to remind my colleagues that everything is not necessarily fine simply because things are not getting a whole lot worse. I don't know if this subcommittee will receive any additional resources between now and when this bill goes to conference with the House. We can't count on that happening and we must realize that what we approve here may be all that is finally included in the appropriations for these programs in fiscal year 2000. As we proceed with this bill on the floor, it is important that we all work together for what is best for all farmers and for all areas of rural America, and for all Americans. Privilege Of The Floor

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am very glad to join my friend from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, in bringing to the floor S. 1233, the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies. I am grateful to Senator Cochran, the Chairman of the subcommittee, for his gracious approach to crafting this bill and for the fair and reasonable manner in which the interests of all Senators have been given consideration. Senator Cochran has outlined the general spending levels for items included in this bill. I would like to emphasize to all Senators the importance of the programs funded by this bill, and the need to ensure its passage. This bill provides funding for programs vital for our nation's continued leadership in agricultural production through research, implementation of farming practices, and marketing. This bill also includes funding to protect the environment, to restore economic prosperity to rural America, and to improve the standard of living there. This bill provides funds to help feed the most vulnerable of our populations at home and abroad, and this bill helps American farmers maintain a strong presence in foreign markets while, at the same time, combating the destructive consequences of unfair foreign trade. Also, this bill provides funds important to protect the public health of this nation in the areas of food safety, medical drugs and devices, and oversight of our blood supply. There will likely be some Senators who will question whether the levels of spending in this bill are adequate. When our subcommittee received its initial allocation for discretionary spending, I had grave concerns that we would not be able to craft a bill that I could support. I was prepared to vote against the allocations at that time, but Chairman Stevens persuaded me that we needed to move forward in order for the full Senate to see what effect the discretionary caps will have on ongoing programs in fiscal year 2000. Fortunately, since then our subcommittee did receive an increase in the allocation, and I supported reporting this bill at both the subcommittee and full committee levels. I have received a communication from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget regarding this bill. While that letter describes certain programs for which the Administration would like to see increased funding, there is nothing in the letter to indicate that the President would not approve this bill if sent to the White House in its present form. Likewise, I have letters from Secretary Glickman that makes appeals for increased funding in some areas, and at the appropriate time, I will ask unanimous consent that these letters be entered into the Record. The Senate Report to accompany this bill begins with the following statement, ``Given the budgetary constraints that the Committee faces, the bill as reported provides the proper amount of emphasis on agricultural and rural development programs, and on other programs and activities funded by the bill.'' I believe this statement to be true. Senator Cochran has done an outstanding job in crafting a bill that is fair, and goes far in meeting the expectations of all Senators, and in view of the foregoing statement, I join Senator Cochran in supporting this bill. Still, we should all give pause to consider the first four words of the statement I quoted above, ``Given the budgetary constraints'' and the implication of those words for the work that this Congress must complete before September 30th. In terms of the bill before us today, each Senator will have to consider for his or her self whether the ``budgetary constraints'' have weakened the programs in this bill beyond the point they can allow. Over the past several years, we have seen programs at USDA, FDA, and the other agencies funded by this bill, suffer a slow strangulation that is affecting programs and services to the American people and the ability of the agencies to carry them out. I do support my chairman, Senator Cochran, in urging the passage of this bill, but I seriously hope that we have all come to the realization that continued reductions in these programs must come to a halt. It is for the full Senate to decide whether we have already gone too far. Mr. President, during committee debate on this bill, an amendment was discussed, though never offered, that involved dairy pricing issues. That amendment would have extended the life of the Northeast dairy compact and created new compacts in other regions. In committee, I was willing to delay the agriculture spending bill indefinitely to avoid inclusion of such an amendment. It concerns complex issues in the jurisdiction of the Agriculture and Judiciary Committees--issues that have no place on a funding bill. Also, if passed, the amendment would do unacceptable damage to the dairy industry in the State of Wisconsin and all around the Upper Midwest. And finally, it would put in place permanently and nationally an unprecedented policy of regional protectionism. For these reasons, I, and many of my colleagues, oppose such an amendment adamantly and will do everything within our rights to keep it off of this bill. To that end, I regret to inform my colleagues, I will not be able to clear any amendments, no matter how uncontroversial, or agree to any manager's package, until it is clear no destructive dairy amendment will be offered or included in this bill. Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and letters from the Secretary of Agriculture regarding this bill.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am aware that an amendment or amendments relating to dairy policy may be offered during full committee mark-up on the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development and Related agencies. I serve as ranking member for the Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies Subcommittee and I am proud of the work I have done with Senator Cochran, Chairman of the Subcommittee, in preparing the bill for fiscal year 2000 and having it approved unanimously by the entire Subcommittee. I am, therefore, very distressed to learn of possible amendments that are authorizing in nature, and that would result in setting dairy policy with disastrous consequences for my State and region. Due to my very strong commitment to keep the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill clean of amendments of the nature suggested, I am prepared to take whatever steps possible to prevent inclusion of these amendments during consideration of the bill by the Senate Appropriations Committee. I strongly believe that the issues surrounding these amendments are of such an important nature that deliberation by the full Senate is imperative. If proponents of these amendments wish to bring them to the floor to offer and debate them, I welcome the opportunity for the discussion. However, I will do all I can to ensure that these matters are not decided by the smaller number of Senators that comprise the Appropriations Committee. In the event an amendment or amendments relating to dairy policy, such as one establishing or extending interstate compacts, are offered for adoption by the full Appropriations Committee, I am prepared to offer, and will offer, a number of second degree amendments to eliminate the harmful policy that amendment proponents apparently seek to impose on farmers and consumers. Also, in an attempt to keep this sort of anti-consumer, anti-farmer amendment from ending up on the bill, I am prepared to offer, either as first or second degree amendments, a number of other amendments--some related to the bill and some not. If the committee chooses to enter into controversial debates that belong in authorizing committees, I too have several non- Appropriations issues that I would like considered. I do not relish holding up the work of my Committee, and I will not if these sort of dairy amendments are not offered. But I feel it is only fair to my fellow Committee members and to the Senate to let them know how very seriously I take attempts to harm the dairy industry in the State of Wisconsin. The amendments I may offer that are relevant to the Agriculture Appropriations bill, include, but are not limited to: An amendment to provide additional funds for the President's Food Safety Initiative. An amendment to provide additional funds for the WIC program. An amendment to provide additional funds for the President's Human Nutrition Initiative. An amendment to provide additional funds for the Wetlands Reserve Program. An amendment to provide additional funds for the Conservation Farm Option Program. An amendment to provide additional funds for the TEFAP program. An amendment to provide additional funds relating to the Food Quality Protection Act. An amendment to provide additional funds for the National Research Initiative. An amendment to provide additional funds for the NET program. An amendment to provide additional funds for the Food and Drug Administration. An amendment to provide additional funds for the EQIP program. An amendment to provide additional funds for the Fund for Rural America. An amendment to express the sense of the Senate on the history of dairy policy. An amendment to express the sense of the Senate on diary compacts and their harmful effects on consumers. An amendment to express the sense of the Senate on dairy compacts and their fundamental conflict with the principles of free trade. An amendment to express the sense of the Senate on dairy compacts and their harmful effect on the Midwestern dairy industry. An amendment to express a sense of the Senate on the economic policy problems with dairy compacts. In addition to these, I have at least 40 other amendments funding changes to the bill that will require votes by the full Committee. I also have many amendments not relevant to the bill and more in the nature of authorizing legislation. However, as I said before, if the Committee is going to consider dairy legislation of an authorizing nature--legislation with a very real impact on my State--I would insist on also considering other authorizing issues of importance to my constituents. These would include: The Patient Abuse Prevention Act: This amendment is based on my bill that establishes a national registry of abusive long-term care workers, and requires nursing homes, home health agencies and hospices to check the registry and do criminal background checks on potential employees before hiring them. Folic Acid Promotion and Birth Defects Prevention Act: This amendment is based on a bill I will be introducing with Bond and Abraham next week. It would authorize $20 million per year to provide education and training to health care providers and the public on the need for women to take folic acid to reduce birth defects. Sense of the Senate on the nursing home bill: This amendment is based on an amendment that passed two years ago on the Budget Resolution. It is a Sense of the Senate that Congress should create a national registry system so long-term care facilities may conduct background checks on potential employees. Organ distribution amendment: This amendment would nullify the HHS proposed rule that changes the way organs are distributed across the nation. Class size fix: This would amend the Class Size Reduction program to ensure that smaller school districts have access to their class size funds without having to form a consortium with other districts. National Family Caregiver Support program: This would provide support services, including respite services, to persons caring for a disabled or elderly relative. Sodas in Schools: This is based on a bill introduced by Leahy, Jeffords, Kohl, and Feingold last month) This would prohibit the giveaways of free sodas during the school lunch program. The Child Care Infrastructure Act: This amendment would establish a tax credit for employers who provided child care benefit to their employees. Child Support Pass Through: This amendment would reform the child support collection system to provide more income support for low-income families. Income Averaging for Farmers: This, and another amendment creating Farmer IRAs would establish more fairness for farmers. Several foreign policy Sense of the Senates including: A sense of the Senate resolution calling for a United States effort to end restrictions on the freedoms and human rights of the enclaved people in the occupied area of Cyprus; a sense of the Senate resolution condemning Palestinian efforts to revive the original Palestine partition plan of November 29, 1947, and condemning the United Nations Commission on Human Rights for its April 27, 1999, resolution endorsing Palestinian self-determination on the basis of the original Palestine partition plan; a sense of the Senate regarding a peaceful process of self-determination in East Timor, and for other purposes. Apostle Islands: An amendment to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study whether the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore should be protected as a wilderness area. Zachary Baumel: An amendment to locate and secure the return of Zachary Baumel, a citizen of the United States, and other Israeli soldiers missing in action. Women's Business center: A bill to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the women's business center program. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: A bill to designate a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness. Military Reservists: An amendment to authorize the Small Business Administration to provide financial and business development assistance to military reservists' small business, and for other purposes. Menominee: An amendment to provide for the settlement of claims of the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, we should act both to deter frivolous litigation over Y2K defects and to encourage Y2K fixes, but this bill will create as many problems as it solves. Instead of merely establishing incentives to address Y2K defects, several provisions in this bill could, perversely, discourage companies from acting responsibly and reward those who silently --and inexcusably--wait for defects to happen rather than cure them before disaster strikes. In short, I will oppose this measure because it fails to strike the right balance. To be sure, the bill has improved from earlier versions, and some sections--like class action reform to curtail frivolous lawsuits and a 90-day waiting period to promote remediation instead of litigation--are steps in the right direction. Still, provisions like limits on punitive damages and a one-sided duty on consumers to anticipate all Y2K defects give businesses an excuse to continue doing nothing because even the bad actors end up with a lower risk for liability. And provisions like the elimination of ``joint and several'' liability, which I have supported in other contexts, seem out of place here where remediation is the heart of the matter. In other words, if a company isn't fixing a defect when it could be 100 percent liable, why should limiting its liability to a fraction of that be anything but a disincentive to take corrective steps? While this issue has become a political football here in Washington, it doesn't play the same way in Wisconsin, where we know how to play football. Our home State businesses are concerned about the potential for wasteful litigation, and they want to see fixes rather than breakdowns. Like me, they do want Y2K liability reform. That is why I supported the Kerry/Robb substitute. But the Wisconsin businesses who've contacted me don't have very strong feelings about any of the provisions unique to the McCain/Wyden bill. And it is not surprising because, unlike as with product liability reform, here they are more likely to be plaintiffs than defendants, making them weary of measures that discourage remedial action. I continue to believe that we should generally reform litigation. But if we are going to start doing it piecemeal, the place to start is probably in the product liability context, where 90-year-old products, still in use, are being judged by today's standards. The place not to start with sweeping reform is here--especially when it would benefit a software manufacturer who produces a product in 1998 that becomes dysfunctional just two years later and did nothing at all to try to prevent the defect from happening. That said, there are moderate steps we have taken, and can take, to help address the Y2K issue. For example, last year I cosponsored and Congress passed the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Act. This law encourages the disclosure and exchange of information about computer processing problems by raising the standard regarding when companies can be liable for releasing false information. I also cosponsored the Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act, which was signed into law earlier this year. It expands the Small Business Administration's lending program to provide companies with assistance as they work to become Y2K compliant. The Kerry/Robb substitute is a reasonable measure that can make a difference and, indeed, that the President can sign. When all is said and done, I suspect we will enact a law this year and before the Year 2000, and that it will look a lot more like the Kerry/Robb substitute than the unbalanced bill before the Senate today. That would be fair to the high tech world and it would be in the best interests of consumers and small businesses in Wisconsin.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Farmer Tax Fairness Act, along with my farm state colleagues, Senators Burns and Hagel. This legislation is a targeted provision that will help ensure that farmers have access to tax benefits rightfully owed to them. As you know, farmers' income often fluctuates from year to year based on unforeseen weather or market conditions. Income averaging allows farmers to ride out these unpredictable circumstances by spreading out their income over a period of years. Last year, we acted in a bipartisan manner to make income averaging a permanent provision of the tax code. Unfortunately, since that time, we have learned that, due to interaction with another tax code provision, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), many of our nation's farmers have been unfairly denied the benefits of this important accounting tool. As you know, the AMT was originally designed to ensure that all taxpayers, particularly those eligible for certain tax preferences, paid a minimum level of taxes. Due to inflation and the enactment of other tax provisions, more and more Americans are now subject to the AMT. While other reforms are required to keep the AMT focused on its original mission, our legislation addresses the specific concern of farmers relying on income averaging. Under our legislation, if a farmer's AMT liability is greater than taxes due under the income averaging calculation, that farmer would disregard the AMT and pay taxes according to the averaging calculation. In this way, farmers would still pay tax, but would also have access to tools designed to alleviate the inevitable ups and downs of the agricultural economy. This provision is a modest and reasonable measure designed to ensure farmers are treated fairly when it comes time to file their taxes. I urge my colleague to lend their support. Thank you. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to request a boycott by all Senators to the ``Alternative Ice Cream Party'' being sponsored by Senators from the Northeastern United States. The ``Party'' is designed to rally support for the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. The dairy compact that was eliminated by the recently revised milk marketing orders has cost consumers in the Northeast over $60 million and cost child and nutrition programs an additional $9 million. If proposals to expand dairy compacts to 27 states this year are adopted, it will force 60% of the consumers in the nation to pay an additional $2 billion, that's correct, $2 billion a year in higher milk prices. And while the Northeast's consumers are purchasing overpriced milk, Wisconsin is losing dairy farmers by the day--over 7,000 in the past few years. Mr. President, rather than ice cream, the Northeast Senators should give away cow manure instead: At least then the freebies would have some relation to the legislation they are pushing. There are many other areas of concern I have in regard to this issue, particularly why the hard-working cows in the Northeast are not seeing the money from the extra profits that the large processors are making. I am surprised that animal rights and labor activists have not raised issue with the long hours worked and extra milk that cows in the Northeast are forced to produce. I am doubly surprised that my good friends from the Northeast can sit in Washington eating free ice cream while poor children in New England end up paying more for their school lunch milk because of the dairy compact. If we as the United States can no longer expect to give a fair (milk) shake to dairy farmers and consumers across the country, then maybe it is time for the Northeast to secede from the Union. Maybe Canada would be willing to accept them. But then, of course, the North American Free Trade Agreement would require them to practice free trade and eliminate the dairy compact.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Farmer Tax Fairness Act, along with my farm state colleagues, Senators Burns and Hagel. This legislation is a targeted provision that will help ensure that farmers have access to tax benefits rightfully owed to them. As you know, farmers' income often fluctuates from year to year based on unforeseen weather or market conditions. Income averaging allows farmers to ride out these unpredictable circumstances by spreading out their income over a period of years. Last year, we acted in a bipartisan manner to make income averaging a permanent provision of the tax code. Unfortunately, since that time, we have learned that, due to interaction with another tax code provision, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), many of our nation's farmers have been unfairly denied the benefits of this important accounting tool. As you know, the AMT was originally designed to ensure that all taxpayers, particularly those eligible for certain tax preferences, paid a minimum level of taxes. Due to inflation and the enactment of other tax provisions, more and more Americans are now subject to the AMT. While other reforms are required to keep the AMT focused on its original mission, our legislation addresses the specific concern of farmers relying on income averaging. Under our legislation, if a farmer's AMT liability is greater than taxes due under the income averaging calculation, that farmer would disregard the AMT and pay taxes according to the averaging calculation. In this way, farmers would still pay tax, but would also have access to tools designed to alleviate the inevitable ups and downs of the agricultural economy. This provision is a modest and reasonable measure designed to ensure farmers are treated fairly when it comes time to file their taxes. I urge my colleague to lend their support. Thank you. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to recommend an article that appeared this week on National Journal's website. It is ``More New Budget Math'' by Stan Collender and discusses in a very readable way why gross federal debt continues to rise even when the government is running a surplus. The concepts of deficit, surplus, debt, and trust funds lie at the heart of many of our fiercest budget battles, and everyone has an opinion, or a one-liner, about all of them. But these concepts are as technical and difficult to understand as they are controversial, and I always appreciate it when they are explained in a clear manner, as they are in this article. Mr. President, I ask that the article ``More New Budget Math'' be printed in the Record. The article follows. [From the National Journal's Cloakroom, June 8, 1999] Budget Battles--More New Budget Math (By Stan Collender) This column pointed out a year ago (June 2, 1998) that, in light of the surplus, the old mathematics of the federal budget were no longer adequate to explain what was happening. A variety of new calculations would have to become as commonplace as the old measures to move the debate along. Now we have yet another example. One of the questions I get most these days is, how is it possible for total federal debt to be increasing if there is a surplus? That inevitably leads to someone insisting that there really isn't a surplus at all, and that all the talk about it coming from Washington is just an accounting trick or an X-Files-style government conspiracy. Here, however, is the new math to explain things: A federal surplus or deficit is the amount of revenues the government collects compared to the amount it spends during a fiscal year. Whenever spending exceeds revenues the government runs a deficit, and has to find a way to make up the difference. It can sell assets (like gold from Fort Knox, timber from national forests or an aircraft carrier) or borrow from financial markets to raise the cash it needs to cover a shortfall. But the revenues vs. spending calculation is not as straightforward as it seems. Because of rules enacted in 1990 as part of the Budget Enforcement Act, the federal budget does not show the actual amount of cash the government uses to make loans (i.e., to students or to farmers). Instead, the budget shows only the amount needed to cover the net costs to the government of lending that money. But because the government lends real money rather than this calculation, its actual cash needs are greater than what is in the budget. This is not an insignificant amount. OMB is projecting that the fiscal 1999 net cash requirements for all federal direct loans will be $25 billion, which must be financed either by reducing the surplus or, when there is a deficit, by additional federal borrowing. As a result, the actual surplus is a bit lower, and the amount available to reduce debt is lower than is immediately apparent. Then there are the loans made to the government. When ever it borrows to finance a deficit, the government incurs debt. Conversely, whenever it runs a surplus, debt is reduced. As might be expected given the surpluses that are projected over the next 10 years, this debt, formally known as ``debt held by the public,'' was projected in January by the Congressional Budget Office to fall from its current level of about $3.6 trillion to $1.2 trillion by the end of fiscal 2009. However, financing the deficit is not the only reason the federal government borrows. Whenever any federal trust fund takes in more than it spends in a particular year, that surplus must be invested in federal government securities. In effect, a trust fund's surplus is lent to the government, so federal debt increases. CBO's January forecast showed this separate category of debt--``debt held by the government''--increasing from almost $2.0 trillion in fiscal 1999 to $4.4 trillion by the end of 2009. The combination of debt held by the public and debt held by the government--``gross federal debt''--is increasing, according to CBO, from $5.57 trillion in 1999 to $5.67 trillion in 2000 and $5.84 trillion in 2005. The bottom line, therefore, is that the measurement of what the government borrows to finance its debt is projected to decline because of the surplus. However, overall federal debt will be increasing because of the growing surpluses in the Social Security and other federal trust funds. This shows that the situation is neither the budget sophistry nor government conspiracy that some talk show hosts and conservative columnists often make it out to be. It is also hardly unique. Try to imagine the following situation: Your personal budget is not just in balance, but you are actually running a small surplus each month. Because of that, you are also slowly paying down your credit cards. The next month, you buy a bigger and more expensive home. Because of lower interest rates and other financing options, your monthly payments actually go down from their current levels so your surplus goes up. As a result, you increase the payments you make each month on your credit cards, so that portion or your debt decreases faster. However, the bigger and more expensive house you just bought increases the overall amount you have borrowed by, say, $200,000. Your budget is still in surplus, and some of your debt is decreasing, but your overall debt is actually growing substantially. This is roughly the same situation now facing the federal government, given the new budget math of the surplus. One more thought: The debt ceiling was raised in the 1997 budget deal to accommodate the deficits that had been projected to require additional federal borrowing through fiscal 2002. But if the limit had not been raised that high in 1997, this new budget math could have meant that Congress would be in the anomalous, ironic, and certainly frustrating situation of having to pass an increase in the debt ceiling at the same time the budget was in surplus. Try to imagine explaining that to constituents. Budget Battles Fiscal Y2K Countdown; As of today there are 54 days potential legislative days left before the start of fiscal 2000. If Mondays and Fridays, when Congress does not typically conduct legislative business are excluded, there are only 33 legislative days left before the start of the fiscal year. The House and Senate have not yet passed even their own versions of any of the regular fiscal 2000 appropriations bills, much less sent legislation on to the president. Question Of The Week; Last Week's Question. The statutory deadline for reconciliation is established by Section 300 of the Congressional Budget Act, which shows that Congress is required to complete action by June 15 each year. This year's congressional budget resolution conference report established the deadline as July 16 for the House Ways and Means Committee and July 23 for the Senate Finance Committee to report their proposed changes to their respective houses. But, as a concurrent resolution, the budget resolution did not amend the Congressional Budget Act so the dates are not statutory requirements. Congratulations and an ``I Won A Budget Battle'' T-shirt to Stephanie Giesecke, director for budget and appropriations of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, who was selected at random from the many correct answers. This Week's Question. A T-shirt also goes to Amy Abraham of the Democratic staff of the Senate Budget Committee, who suggested this week's question as a follow-up to last week's. If June 15 is the statutory date for Congress to complete reconciliation, what is the official sanction for failing to comply with that deadline? Send your response to scollender@njdc.com and you might win an ``I Won A Budget Battle'' T-shirt to wear while watching the July 4th fireworks.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to inform the Senate of recent engineering breakthroughs in the area of naval propulsion. In the past few years, industry has been working hard to develop electric drive technology that could be used in a naval vessel. Electric drive would replace the traditional mechanical drive system, that turns the ship's propellers through a system of reduction gears, with a system that uses electricity directly to turn the engines and power the rest of the ship's systems. Electric drive offers major benefits over mechanical drive. It is more efficient in terms of reduced fuel consumption and requires fewer crew to maintain. It can also generate more power than mechanical systems. Electric drive is also quieter, making it an attractive option for submarines, or any vessel concerned with stealth. Industry analysts believe electric drive could save the Navy $4.3 billion over the life of the new destroyer program, the DD-21, alone. Last year the appropriations committee included a provision in the Department of Defense Appropriations bill asking the Navy to produce a report on the potential for electric drive. The Secretary of the Navy released the study in March, a study that was a powerful endorsement of the electric drive technology. This report points to electric drive as a technology that will no doubt have major implications for the future of naval ship design and engineering. I hope the Navy will continue its research efforts, and make every effort to include this technology in the next generation of destroyers, the DD-21. I also hope the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee will maintain its interest in the program and continue its support.

Mr. KOHL. I thank both Senators for their support of continuing research and evaluation of electric drive. Senators Stevens and Inouye have long been known for their clear vision when it comes to supporting cutting edge military technology, and that reputation is well deserved.

Mr. KOHL. As I am sure the chairman and ranking member are aware, much of the research into this technology has been privately funded. General Dynamics and Eaton Corporation, among others, have been leaders in the field of electric drive and their efforts have been crucial to moving the development along. Their investment has presented the Navy and Congress with an excellent opportunity to take advantage of developments financed in the private sector. As the Navy continues to evaluate electric drive and the DD-21 program I hope the committee will be ready to capitalize on that investment.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to draw the Senate's attention to the CBO cost estimate on the Defense Authorization bill. In the Budget Resolution Congress agreed that the national defense account would have $288 billion in Budget authority and $276 in outlays for fiscal year 2000. The CBO estimates that the Defense Authorization bill as it currently stands in the Senate, would exceed the outlay level by almost $7 billion. The Budget Committees of the House and Senate have told CBO to reduce their score of the outlays by $10 billion in order that the bill fit under the caps. While this changes the scoring number, it does not change the fact that the bill still authorizes the Department of Defense to spend $284 billion next year, $7 billion over the caps. Whether someone agrees with the Budget Resolution or not, these sorts of end runs are destructive to the process by undermining popular confidence in the institution. If there is not enough money for Defense in the Budget Resolution, then members should not have supported it back in March. If there was enough in March, nothing has changed, and it should be enough now. The Congress recently passed a Supplemental Appropriations bill that include $11 billion for funding for the Kosovo operation, almost $5 billion over the President's request, so there should be plenty of money for our operation in Europe. Now, if members grudgingly supported the Resolution because of the assurances of the Budget Committee Chairman that he would ``fix the outlay problem'' I ask them to show me the fix. It looks as thought the Budget Committee did nothing but allow Defense spending to exceed the budget caps without letting any other program do the same. Congress should own up to the fact that the Budget caps are being exceeded. They are being quietly raised by hiding the increase in a scoring gimmick. Members should take notice that the way to get more money for your appropriations priorities is to petition the Budget Committee for an ``outlay fix''. There is going to be a train wreck at the end of this year, and we all know it. There is going to be a train wreck, and it will happen because no one is driving the train, we are all just nervously looking out the window admiring the scenery and trying not to think of our impending doom. I have faith that the American people will eventually figure out how much we are going to spend next year. The increases in Defense spending will no doubt be joined by a tremendous amount of last minute spending at the end of the year. The American people will look at what Congress told them we would spend at the beginning of the year, and what we will eventually agree to at the close of the year and they will be very surprised at the difference. I hope they hold us accountable. It is worth noting that we do not have to be in this situation. Congress could take action to cut unnecessary spending in the defense account. This would reduce the pressure on the discretionary budget, and free up resources for other needs around the country. Another two rounds of base closures for example, while increasing outlays in the short run, would yield savings of $4 billion over ten years according to the Congressional Budget Office. I co-sponsored Senator McCain's legislation on this matter, and I co-sponsored the McCain-Levin amendment, which would only authorize one additional round. I was disappointed the Senate refused to support this worthy alternative. The military has come to the Senate time and again pleading with us to give them the authority to close bases through the Commission process in a manner isolated from political pressures. Had we supported base closure rounds when they were initially requested we might not now be pushing so tightly against the budget caps, while straining under draconian cuts in the non-defense accounts. Senator Kerrey has also offered an amendment that could help reduce the need to rely on budget gimmickry without reducing our capacity overseas. He would simply allow the Department of Defense to reduce our nuclear forces below the START I levels of 6,500 warheads. According to CBO, if we reduce our warheads to the START II level of 3,500 the Department of Defense could save $12.7 billion by 2009. All that savings would come without reducing our conventional capability one iota. While nuclear deterrence is still important, it can be accomplished with many fewer missiles, and at less cost. My point, Mr. President, is defense spending does not have to be this high. It is only this high because Congress and the Department of Defense are unwilling to make the tough choices to bring the cost of defending our nation and international interests down to a sustainable level. When our troops are deployed overseas, and in harms way, it is hard to critically look at the defense budget for unnecessary or unwise spending. Our instinct is to give our brave men and women whatever they need and then some to get the job done. I would argue, however, that it is even more important now than ever to closely examine our spending priorities. We need to stretch every defense dollar as far as it can go, and to do that we need to look for efficiencies and cut wasteful projects and items that contribute little to our defense. Careful spending is the way to reduce outlays, not budget gimmicks. Congress needs to be more critical, not more clever.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the conference report before us. It uses funds for undeniably urgent needs--our operations in Kosovo, our rescue of struggling family farmers, our efforts to dig out from the hurricanes of last year and the tornados of this month--to mask spending on unnecessary and unbudgeted urges. That is more than dishonest; it is disgraceful. It is like agreeing to let your neighbors use your car to take their sick child to the hospital--if they also agree to pick up and pay for your groceries, your dry cleaning, a set of new tires for the car, and a pizza. It is no surprise that people are cynical about talk that comes out of Washington. By adopting this conference report, we prove our work means very little. We prove that the budget we endorsed just two months ago was not a promise--it was posturing. We prove that we are more interested in sound bites than sound accounting. Mr. President, I understand that there are genuine emergencies that require us to spend beyond what we had anticipated for a given fiscal year. I will vote to fund such emergencies immediately and work out the budget details later. I also understand that there are supplemental spending requirements that can come up during the year. And I will also support passing supplemental appropriations bills and paying for them within the budget limits we have set for ourselves. What I find unconscionable is what we are doing here today: attempting to get around the draconian budget resolution we passed in March by stuffing as much supplemental spending as possible in this bill and then treating it as an emergency. Given my strong feelings on this, I would like to clarify my vote to waive the Gramm point of order. Senator Gramm, rightly I believe, raised many of the same issues that concern me. His point of order, however, did a surgeon's job with a hatchet. His point of order would have brought down spending that was truly emergency, and therefore was not offset--spending for humanitarian aid for the Kosovar refugees, for infusions of cash into the struggling farm credit system, for helping areas hit by natural disaster. The point or order would also have brought down domestic spending that was not an emergency, but that the Appropriations Committee went to great pains to offset. There are over $2 billion in offsets in this bill, and the great majority come from cuts in nondefense programs. So, while I understand Senator Gramm's desire to make this bill fiscally honest and responsible, I cannot support his methods. Instead, we should defeat this bill and start again--passing only what the Department of Defense says they need to continue their operations in Kosovo, only what is truly a domestic emergency, only what is non- emergency and offset. I have voted in support of the use of air power in Kosovo, a decision I made solemnly, and I am willing to vote to support funding the mission. This conference report, however, contains money the Pentagon never asked for and that will never have an impact on the situation in Kosovo. Almost five billion dollars in non-emergency defense spending has been attached to the President's request without even allowing the Senate an opportunity to vote or debate these additions. Calling some of these new military construction projects an ``emergency'' is shameful. Those projects cannot compare with the urgency in hurricane ravaged Central America, the economic hardship faced by our family farms, or the plight of refugees on the desolate hillsides of Albania. Obviously a great deal of munitions, fuel, and material have been expended in our mission over Yugoslavia. The need to fund these operations, however, should not be an excuse to fund other special- interest projects that were never high enough priorities to be placed in the tight military budget. Suddenly these projects are so important they are given emergency designation, when a few months ago they hardly deserved mentioning, and were certainly not worth including in the budget resolution Congress adopted in March. It is wrong for those who want a much larger defense budget to hold hostage the emergency funds needed for the Kosovo operation, Central America, and the devastated rural America--and it is wrong to go to the American taxpayers to pay their ransom. Thus, it is with some regret that I must vote against this conference report. Regret, because there are a number of very good things in this bill, including funding that I worked hard to ensure would be there to help respond to the desperate situation of our family farmer. This bill provides $43 million for Farm Service Agency personnel and $110 million and for the farm credit program requested by the Administration in response to the tremendous credit crunch facing our Nation's farmers. The Farm Service Agency funds are needed to provide the support staff so USDA can deliver disaster assistance promised to farmers last fall. The additional $110 million for USDA's farm credit program will provide essential loan guarantees to farmers as they struggle through historically low prices. The conference report also includes $63 million for FY 1999 and FY 2000 to allow the USDA to provide technical assistance to landowners as they enroll in USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service environmental programs. Because of funding shortfalls, Wisconsin's NRCS has already stopped providing technical assistance. That means thousands of acres of land, ready to be returned to their pristine state through the joint efforts of farmers and the USDA, are lying fallow. Finally, I want to highlight another provision I worked on in this conference report: food assistance to the Kosovar refugees. We have all seen the news accounts, the pictures, and have heard the terrible stories of tragedy that the people in the Balkans are facing daily. Reports from that region include hunger as another major problem that is hitting hardest among the children, the elderly, and the most vulnerable. Humanitarian food assistance, or PL-480 funds, have been diverted to Kosovo from other regions of the world where serious needs exist. Funding for Kosovo food assistance was not included in initial versions of this bill, but without it, people in Africa, Bangladesh, and other troubled regions will continue to suffer from hunger and deprivation. It is never good policy or sense to rob Peter to pay Paul, but it is disgraceful when Peter and Paul are innocent, starving children on opposite sides of the world. However, even with all these good things, this conference report is the harbinger of terrible things to come. By trying to slip so much non-emergency spending into this bill, the conference committee has acknowledged that we cannot meet the genuine needs of our citizens within the budget that was laid out in March. Mr. President, the American people deserve an honest budget, and they deserve to know that we will meet their emergencies in a forthright manner. I regret that we could not do that today. If we pass this conference report, we will further and deservedly lose the trust of those who send us their hard earned tax dollars. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator for her comments and I understand her concern about the need to provide debris removal assistance following the violent storms in her state and other states. The amendment of the Senator, to which she refers, would have expanded the statutory authority of NRCS to exercise debris removal activities on lands not covered by current law. This would not only have included the lands of which the Senator speaks, but could be interpreted to cover a wide array of other lands. It is our understanding that statutory authority does exist for the debris removal activities about which the Senator speaks, making bill language unnecessary. However, certain administrative actions by the Department will be necessary before these activities can be carried out. From time to time, we are asked to provide emergency funds in response to natural disasters. Too often, there is a human cost to these disasters that we have no power to compensate. In other instances, the level of our assistance is appropriate and necessary for the task. There are times, however, when the sums required could have been reduced had a little prevention been in place before the crisis struck. Obviously, the force of a tornado is such that mankind may never be able to control or overcome. The devastation we all have witnessed this Spring in several states including Arkansas, and more recently Oklahoma and Kansas, was of such a magnitude in economic and human costs that calls for our assistance must not go unheard. Now, however, we are faced with choices about actions that might, at this point, prevent future damage and future costs. The debris of which the Senator describes is not only that which currently is obstructing stream flows or causing flooding or erosion, but it also includes debris located in the immediate vicinity of those streams and waterways. It takes little imagination to envision another, far less intensive storm in the region that would cause that debris to be removed directly into the steambed with substantial damage and cost as a result, costs for which we and the American taxpayers might very well be asked to compensate in the near future. in this case, a little prevention today may save substantial sums tomorrow. That is why the Senator is precisely correct and why we must ensure these needs are met. The conference report now before the Senate does not include the bill language the Senator offered earlier due to the fact that, as mentioned above, the statutory authority for those activities of concern to her and to others currently exists. The Statement of Managers makes that point. However, the purpose of her amendment is well taken in bringing to the attention of the Department that necessary administrative actions must be taken immediately to address the emergency situation that remains. We do not here suggest that the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations authorities be broadened to include ``any'' lands. Instead, it is important for us all to recognize that reasonable steps by the Department should be taken to remove the debris in question before it becomes the cause of more substantial losses in the future.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am voting in favor of the juvenile crime bill, S. 254, because on balance it comes close enough to promoting the kind of approach that we need to reduce juvenile violence--the type of plan that is already working to reduce crime in cities like Milwaukee and Boston, and the type of strategy that will help us prevent future tragedies like the recent school shootings in Jonesboro, AR, Peducah, KY, Springfield, OR, Conyers, GA and Littleton, CO. There are many causes of juvenile crime--poverty, a deterioration of American families and family values, increased youth access to firearms, and the explosion of violent images in our culture, just to name a few--and it would be naive to presume there is a simple solution. Indeed, we need a comprehensive crime-fighting strategy to address all of these root causes and the entire range of juvenile offenders and potential offenders, from violent predators to children at-risk of becoming delinquent. That is the approach this bill takes, more or less. Let me explain the four keys to this balanced, proven strategy: keeping guns out of the hands of kids and of criminals; punishment; prevention; and reducing kids' exposure to violence in our culture. First, this bill will help keep firearms out of the hands of young people. It promotes gun safety with the Kohl/Hatch/Chafee amendment to require the sale of child safety locks with every new handgun. Child safety locks can help save many of the 500 children and teenagers killed each year in firearms accidents, and the 1,500 kids each year who use guns to commit suicide. Just as importantly, they can help prevent some of the 7,000 violent juvenile crimes committed every year with guns children took from their own homes. This measure passed with an overwhelming 78 votes, twice the number of votes a virtually identical proposal received last year. The bill also helps identify who is supplying kids with guns, so we can put them out of business and behind bars. Through the ``Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative,'' the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has been working closely with cities like Milwaukee and Boston to trace guns used by young people back to the source. Using ATF's national database, police and prosecutors can target illegal suppliers of firearms and help stop the flow of firearms into our communities. While I served as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee for Treasury Appropriations, we provided funding to expand this initiative to 27 cities. This measure will expand the program to up to 200 other cities and, with the increased penalties outlined above, help stanch illegal gun trafficking. And not only will this bill prohibit all violent criminals from owning firearms, no matter what their age, through ``Project CUFF'' it also encourages aggressive enforcement of this federal law by dedicating federal prosecutors and investigators to this task. This builds on a successful program, supported by the NRA, that has helped reduce gun violence in Richmond, Va., and Boston through increased federal prosecution, close coordination with state officials, public outreach and fewer plea bargains. Still, to be truly effective, this measure needs to be improved, so that we don't force it on uncooperating cities where it's unlikely to succeed. Unfortunately, the bill fails in its stated intent to close an inexcusable loophole that allows violent young offenders to buy guns legally when they turn eighteen. Under current law, violent adult offenders can't buy firearms, but violent juveniles can--for example, even the kids convicted of the schoolyard killings in Jonesboro, Arkansas--once they are released at age eighteen. Simply put, this has to stop, and the bill tries to do this--sort of. A provision declares that all violent felons are disqualified from buying firearms, regardless of whether they were 10, 12, or just a day short of their 18th birthday at the time of their offense. However, although the bill technically closes this loophole, because it only applies to violent crimes committed once juvenile records become ``routinely available'' on-line, its indefinite effective date merely opens another loophole in its place. This provision may never take effect. When juvenile records are all ``on-line'' is a long way away, and in the meantime many young criminals will continue to have the ability to get a gun at 18 once they get out of jail. Each of these provisions was addressed in my juvenile crime bill, the 21st Century Safe and Sound Communities Act. In addition, after much back-and-forth--and forth-and-back--we finally agreed to close the gun show loophole once and for all. I am pleased to see a bipartisan consensus start to emerge over taking these steps to keep guns out of young hands. Second, we need to lock up the worst offenders, including dangerous violent juveniles. Naturally, we can't even begin to stop violent kids unless we have police officers on the street to catch them, and the state and local prosecutors, defense attorneys and courts we need to try them. To that end, this bill provides $100 million per year for state and local prosecutors, defense attorneys and courts for juveniles. Unfortunately, we missed an opportunity to extend the highly successful COPS program--which is due to expire after next year--in this bill. Extending the COPS program will make it easier to lock up dangerous juveniles, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to make that happen. Of course, we can't keep criminals off the streets unless we have a place to send them. So this measure dedicates funding for juvenile prisons or alternative placements of delinquent children--a long-needed measure for which I have advocated since before the 1994 Crime Act. This proposal also helps rural communities keep dangerous kids behind bars. Now, although the closest juvenile facility may be hundreds of miles away, federal law prohibits rural police from locking up violent juveniles in adult jails for more than 24 hours. This means that state law enforcement officials either have to waste the time and resources to criss-cross the state even for initial court appearances, or simply let dangerous teens go free. In my view, that's a no-win situation. This measure gives rural police the flexibility they need by letting them detain juveniles in adult jails for up to 48 hours, or longer with parental consent, provided they are separated from adult criminals. Working with Wisconsin's rural sheriffs, I first proposed a similar extension three years ago. Moreover, this measure will help lock up gun-toting kids--and the people who illegally supply them with weapons. It builds on my 1994 Youth Handgun Safety Act by turning illegal possession of a handgun by a minor into a felony. And the same goes for anyone who illegally sells handguns to kids. Both of these provisions were in my juvenile crime bill. Kids and handguns don't mix, and our Federal law needs to make clear that this is a serious crime. In addition, this measure makes it easier to identify the violent juveniles who need to be dealt with more severely--by strongly encouraging states to share the records of juvenile offenders and providing the funding necessary for improved record-keeping. The fact is that law enforcement officials need full disclosure to make informed judgments about who should be incarcerated, but current law allows too many records to be concealed or to vanish without a trace when a teen felon turns eighteen. Finally, this measure includes my proposal, cosponsored by Senator DeWine: the Violent Offender DNA Identification Act of 1999, which will promote the use of modern DNA technology to resolve unsolved crimes committed by both juveniles and adults. Our measure will reduce the backlog of hundreds of thousands of unanalyzed DNA samples from convicted offenders by providing the funding necessary to analyze them and put them ``on-line,'' so they can be shared between states and matched with crime scene DNA evidence. And, while all 50 states authorize collection of DNA samples, it closes the loophole that allows DNA samples from Federal and Washington, D.C. offenders to go uncollected. The Department of Justice estimates that upgrading our DNA databases alone could solve a minimum of 600 crimes tomorrow. Third, a balanced approach also requires a significant investment in crime prevention, so we can stop crime before it's too late. In fact, no one is more adamant in support of this approach than our nation's law enforcement officials. For example, last year more than 400 police chiefs, sheriffs and prosecutors nationwide endorsed a call for after- school programs for all children. And in my home state of Wisconsin, 90 percent of police chiefs and sheriffs I surveyed agreed that we need to increase federal prevention spending. This proposal promotes prevention by concentrating funding in programs that already have a record of success and those that rely on proven strategies, like the ones that give children a safe place to go in the after-school hours between 3 and 8 p.m., when juvenile crime peaks. For example, it includes my amendment to expand the Families and Schools Together (FAST) program, a successful program that finds troubled youth and reconnects them with their schools and families. FAST, which was created in my home state of Wisconsin and is already being implemented in 484 schools in 34 States and five countries, helps ensure that youth violence does not proliferate to our schools and communities by empowering parents, helping to improve children's behavior and performance in school, preventing substance abuse, and providing support and networking for families by linking them to community resources and services. The bill also promotes innovative prevention initiatives by reauthorizing and expanding the Prevention Challenge Grant program (formerly known as Title V), which former Senator Hank Brown and I authored in 1992. This program encourages investment, collaboration, and long-range prevention planning by local communities, who must establish locally tailored prevention programs and contribute at least 50 cents for every federal dollar. And, in response to concerns I raised about the risk of watering down this program with non-prevention uses, 80 percent of its funding is reserved for prevention--that is, programs addressing at-risk kids before they ever enter the juvenile justice system. It also builds on our support for the valuable work of Boys & Girls Clubs by continuing to dedicate funding to the Clubs and expanding funding to other successful organizations like the YMCA. And it requires that at least 25 percent of $450 million juvenile accountability block grant be dedicated to prevention. Of course, we shouldn't blindly invest in prevention programs, just because they sound good. Quality matters. And it would foolish to throw good money after bad. That's why this measure requires at least 5 percent of all Prevention Challenge Grant funds--and more than 15 percent of FAST funds--be set aside for rigorous evaluations, so we can keep funding the programs that work, and zero out programs that don't. Finally, this bill also aims to provide us with a better understanding of how violence in our culture is marketed to children, and it encourages industry to take self-regulatory steps to reduce this violence. For example, the Brownback amendment, which I consponsored, orders a joint FTC/DOJ study of the marketing practices of the video game, motion picture, and television industries to determine whether or not the industries are peddling violence to kids. In particular, it will help us determine whether or not the industries are peddling violence to kids. In particular, it will help us determine whether the video game industry is marketing the same ultraviolent games to children that are rated ``adults only.'' Mr. President, while explaining what causes a tragedy like Littleton remains a mystery, the question about how to reduce juvenile crime no longer is. We have a good idea about what works. And this bill overall is a step in the right direction. Like any piece of legislation, of course, it isn't perfect. For example, we need to really close the loophole that allows violent juvenile offenders to buy guns. We need to extend the COPS program so that we have enough police officers on the streets to catch and lock up dangerous juveniles and criminals. We should restore the so-called ``mandate'' requiring states to make efforts to reduce disproportionate minority confinement. This requirement, which I helped write in 1992, at most simply encourages states to address prevention efforts at minority communities. And it may be most important for its symbolic recognition of continuing racial divisions that dominate our society and our justice system, whether or not the justice system is actually discriminatory. Still, it makes no sense to cast away this provision without any hearings, any organized opposition, or any constitutional challenges to it over its seven-year history. I am hopeful that the House, which has always been supportive of this provision, will insist on restoring it in Conference. And while the bill is a step forward for prevention, we can still do better. Although some suggest that as much as 55 percent of the $1 billion in spending at the heart of the bill goes toward prevention, in reality less than 30 percent is dedicated to prevention ($160 million through the 80 percent set-aside of the Prevention Challenge Grant, $112.5 million through the 25 percent earmark from the Accountability Block Grant, and $15 million for mentoring). To effectively reduce juvenile crime, the ratio of prevention spending to enforcement spending has to be a lot higher. Finally, Mr. President, I express my appreciation to Senators Hatch and Leahy, and their staffs--Beryl Howell, Manus Cooney, Rhett DeHart, Mike Kennedy, Bruce Cohen, Ed Pagano, Craig Wolf, and, of course, Brian Lee, Jessica Catlin, Kahau Morrison and Jon Leibowitz of my staff--for their hard work in putting together this balanced bill, which is significant improvement from where we were headed last Congress. I look forward to continuing to work with them when we move to conference.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of this legislation because it will increase competition between satellite and cable. Senators McCain, Hatch, Leahy, Hollings, DeWine and others deserve credit for moving this measure so quickly this term, especially when we came so close last year. Mr. President, when the Judiciary and Commerce bills are combined as one, it creates a good, comprehensive measure. Satellite companies will finally be allowed to legally broadcast local stations to local viewers--so-called ``local into local.'' The strange anomaly that restricted satellite from providing local signals will be a thing of the past. And to be balanced, satellite companies will also be subject to ``must-carry'' obligations, just like cable. This bill will also reduce the royalty fees for those local signals to a level closer to that paid by cable companies. All of this moves us towards parity between satellite and cable, and it is a huge step forward for consumers. Let me tell you why. Increased competition will discipline the cable marketplace which, in turn, will create lower prices, increased choice, and wider availability of television programming for all Americans, no matter how remote. And we do this in the best way possible, by promoting competition, not increasing regulation. Moreover, it won't be at the expense of our local television stations, which provide a valuable community benefit in the form of local news, weather, sports and various forms of public service. One of the hardest questions to address, of course, is which viewers should be entitled to receive ``distant network'' signals, especially in rural states like mine. Authorizing ``local into local'' is a crucial first step and, eventually, when technology advances and more satellites are launched, we will see ``local into local'' almost everywhere. So, this bill goes a long way to ensure that every viewer will receive one signal of each of the major television networks--this is a marked improvement over the current situation. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan measure which will permit satellite companies to compete on a more level playing field with cable. We have our work cut out for us at conference because the House version is quite different from ours. But there is no excuse for not enacting this pro-competition, pro-consumer legislation this year. Let's get to conference and get this bill done.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, on the rollcall vote on the McConnell amendment No. 365 to S. 254, I voted no. I ask unanimous consent that I be recorded as voting in favor of the McConnell amendment. Changing my vote will not affect the final outcome of that vote.