Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. That is correct.

Mr. KOHL. I would agree.

Mr. KOHL. I would agree.

Mr. KOHL. That is correct.

Mr. KOHL. No. It creates civil liability immunity only for gun owners.

Mr. KOHL. That is correct.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to express my appreciation to the managers of this bill for agreeing to include in the manager's package my amendment to authorize the FAST (Families and Schools Together) program. Over the last few weeks, we have all spent much time mourning lost children--whether they are lost to bullets or to the lure of a violent culture, whether they end their lives holding a gun or facing one. And we have spent much time discussing the many factors that can lead our young people to become lost. We can blame guns, or mindless T.V., or savage movies, or violent video games, or illegal drugs. But we know that a child is most likely to be lost--most likely to fall under the influence of these evils--when he or she is alone, cut off from parents, teachers, and the community. FAST is a successful program that finds troubled youth and reconnects them with their schools and families. FAST brings at-risk children, parents, and educators together to help them learn to succeed at home, in school, and in their communities. FAST 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. Currently, the FAST program--which was created in my home state of Wisconsin--is being implemented in 484 schools in 34 States and five countries. It has received numerous national honors and awards, and is supported by the Department of Education, Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Institute of Mental Health, Head Start, the Harvard/Ford Foundation, and the United Way of America. My amendment is simple and effective. It authorizes $12 million a year for the next five years to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs in the Department of Justice for FAST sites and programs. Of this amount, $10 million will go toward the implementation of local FAST sites and programs and $2 million will be used for research and evaluation of FAST. This amendment will allow more communities across the nation to reap the benefits of FAST--and will go a long way toward preventing youth violence in this country. Mr. President, one of the best ways to prevent youth violence is by building and preserving close, healthy relationships within families. The FAST program is instrumental in achieving this goal, and has been proven to work in reducing behavioral problems among troubled youth. I am pleased that Senators Hatch and Leahy have recognized the importance of this small, yet vitally important program by including the FAST amendment in the manager's package. I thank them for their efforts in working with me on this amendment. I yield the floor. behavioral and social science research on youth violence

Mr. KOHL. No.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate five outstanding High School students from University School at Milwaukee. Working as a team, these five students were recently named national champions of the 1999 Federal Reserve Challenge. Mary Broydrick, Michelle Hill, Day Manoli, Nick Nielsen, all seniors, and Gus Fuldner, a junior, each received a $10,000 scholarship for their presentation on monetary policy. The team was coached by John Stephens, a teacher at University School for 41 years. In addition, the school received a $40,000 grant to develop an economics lab. Their winning presentation included countless hours researching economic and monetary policy. Making recommendations based on their findings, the team was asked a series of grueling questions by Federal Reserve officials. We are all extremely proud of our students from University School. They must be applauded for a job well done. Tribute to Ila Marie Goodey

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, none of us is naive enough to believe today's vote signals a bipartisan consensus on all gun control issues, or even most of them. But after a week of back-and-forth--and forth- and-back--over firearms, it is good to see a consensus developing on at least this commonsense measure to keep handguns away from children. Simply put, the Kohl-Hatch-Chafee amendment will ensure that a child safety device--or trigger lock--is sold with every handgun. This proposal will move us forward today, and it will help save lives. I hope we can all support it.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his question. I am indeed familiar with Saf-T-Hammer and share the Senator's enthusiasm for the promise of handgun safety that this device offers. I commend the intent of the developers of the device to safeguard the lives of innocent children and others who might otherwise be killed or injured by handguns. I can assure the Senator from Arizona that it is indeed the intention of the amendment that devices such as Saf-T-Hammer, an easily removable hammer, are included within the purview of the amendment. I also believe that on its face the definition of a safety device in 18 U.S.C. 921(34) would include a device such as Saf-T-Hammer. Accordingly, when a handgun is manufactured or retrofitted with Saf-T-Hammer, it would be, under the terms of the amendment, exempt from the amendment's prohibitions on transfer. Handguns so equipped with a Saf-T-Hammer may be freely transferred under the amendment. I hope this answers your question and clarifies the legislative intent of the amendment.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, our amendment is a reasonable, bipartisan measure that will help protect children from the countless accidental deaths, suicides and violent crimes that result from improperly stored handguns. Simply put, it would require that every handgun be sold with a child safety device, but leaves the decision about whether to use a safety device to individual gun owners. Here's why we believe you should support it. First, we've added a section that extends limited liability protection to gun owners who lock up their handguns properly. This liability protection is very narrow--it does not extend any immunity to manufacturers, and it does not apply if the gun owner acted negligently. We believe that this provision actually improves the bill by creating incentives to use child safety locks. Second, the American people overwhelmingly support it. According to a recent Newsweek poll, 85 percent of the American public backs legislation requiring the sale of child safety locks with new handguns. Third, despite the pledges of some of the largest manufacturers to sell safety locks with every handgun, most manufacturers are still not including safety locks. In fact, the Los Angeles Times reported, ``only a handful of the arms makers who eventually signed on are complying, according to industry insiders.'' Fourth, and most importantly, child safety locks will help save lives. Each year, nearly 500 children and teenagers are killed in gun- related accidents, thousands are injured, and approximately 1,500 children and teenagers commit suicide with guns. Perhaps as disturbing, nearly 7,000 violent crimes each year are committed by juveniles using guns they found in their own homes. Just last weekend, a 7-year-old Milwaukee boy named Brian Welch killed himself accidentally with a gun he found in his father's drawer. What do we say to Brian's family, if we cannot takes steps as reasonable as this one? You know, Mr. President, in the past few weeks there's been a lot of discussion about Republicans and ``gun control.'' Hardly a talk show goes by without a pundit opining on whether it's a true epiphany or a ``poll-driven ploy.'' Well, cynics can believe whatever they want. But my sense is that, in the wake of Littleton, both sides have grown up a bit: Democrats in acknowledging that culture has something to do with juvenile violence today; and Republicans in endorsing reasonable measures to take handguns out of the hands of kids who shouldn't have them. So I applaud all of those on both sides of the aisle who have ``converted'' on safety locks. I appreciate those who have been with us from the beginning, including our cosponsor Senator Chafee, who has been so resolute in support of reasonable gun control measures. And I credit Chairman Hatch, Senator Leahy, and Senator Craig for their work in making this a better amendment. And one that we all believe will shortly become law.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, we have good news. We seem to have reached a bipartisan consensus on child safety locks, one which will result, we believe, in a lock being sold with every handgun. So I rise now, with my colleague, Senator Hatch, to offer the Safe Handgun Storage and Child Handgun Safety Act of 1999. This measure is closely modeled on the Child Safety Lock Act which I introduced earlier this year, with Senators Chafee, Feinstein, Durbin, and Boxer. Senator Chafee is also a cosponsor of this amendment. Briefly, our amendment will bring the entire industry up to the level of those responsible manufacturers who have already started including child safety locks with their handguns. It is a commonsense idea, not an extreme one, that will reduce gun-related accidents, suicides, and homicides by young people. Don't take my word for it. Ask your own constituents. According to a recent Newsweek poll, 85 percent of the American people support this proposal. Our amendment is simple, effective, and straightforward. While we want people to use child safety locks, our amendment doesn't mandate it. Instead, our measure simply requires that whenever a handgun is sold, a child safety device must also be sold. These devices vary in form, and effective ones are available for less than $10. We have added a new section that gives limited liability to gun owners, but only if they store their handguns properly. This actually creates an incentive for more people to use safety locks. Let me tell you briefly why this amendment is so much needed. Nearly 2,000 young people are killed each year in firearm accidents and suicides. This is not only wrong, it is unacceptable. While our proposal is certainly not a panacea, it will help prevent many of these tragedies. Mr. President, safety locks will also reduce violent crime. Juveniles commit nearly 7,000 crimes each year with guns taken from their own homes. That doesn't include incidents like last year's school shooting in Jonesboro, AR, which involved guns taken from the home of one child's grandfather because most of the father's guns actually were locked up. A few extremists on both sides may not agree, but this is clearly a step forward. It will help make children safer. It will help make mothers and fathers feel more secure leaving their children at a neighbor's home. Senator Craig, who worked with me in 1994 to author the ban on juvenile possession of handguns, deserves much credit today. When passed, this law will be a huge victory for our children and a victory for bipartisanship as well. I hope my colleagues can all support this bill. At this point, Mr. President, I send the Kohl-Hatch-Chafee amendment to the desk.

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KOHL. We want a roll call vote.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, along with my colleagues Senator Dodd of Connecticut and Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia, to provide more resources to America's children and families by encouraging more parents to live up to their child support obligations. My legislation, the Children First Child Support Reform Act, would enhance the options and incentives available to states to allow more child support to be paid directly to the families to whom it is owed and not be counted against public assistance benefits. My legislation will help assure more noncustodial parents that the child support they pay will actually contribute to the wellbeing of their child, rather than the government, and also help reduce administrative burdens on the state. As my colleagues know, since its inception in 1975, our Federal-State Child Support Enforcement Program has been tasked with collecting child support for families receiving public assistance and other families that request help in enforcing child support. Toward this end, the program works to establish paternity and legally binding support orders, while collecting and disbursing funds on behalf of families so that children receive the support they need to grow up in healthy, nurturing surroundings. But on one crucial point, the current program does not truly work on behalf of families and, perhaps more importantly, actually works against families. Under current law, if a family is not on public assistance, support collected by the Child Support Enforcement Program is generally sent directly to the family. However, and this is the crux of the problem, support collected on behalf of families receiving public assistance is kept by the State and Federal Governments as reimbursement for welfare expenditures. Thus, for families on public assistance, the child support program ends up benefiting the financial interests of the government, rather than their children. The research shows that many noncustodial parents are discouraged from paying child support because they realize and resent the fact that their payments go to the government rather than benefiting their children directly. In addition, some custodial parents are skeptical about working with the child support agency to secure payments since the funds are generally not forwarded to them. Obviously, these builtin program obstacles to reliable, timely child support payments serve to undermine the program's intended goals of promoting self-sufficiency and personal responsibility. Mr. President, we know that an estimated 800,000 families would not need public assistance if they could count on the child support owed to them. In addition, we know that 23 million children are owed more than $43 billion in outstanding support. Clearly, the vital importance of child support in keeping families off of assistance remains as true today as when the program began. In a world with TANF time limits, it has never been more important. And with these figures in mind, it is not unthinkable that some policymakers may have or might still consider this program as a means of recovering welfare expenditures. But I am convinced that that thinking must change, if not be cast off entirely, because, simply put, times have changed. The welfare reform law of 1996, which I supported, paved the way for time limits and work requirements that provide clear and compelling incentives for families to enter the workforce and find a way to stay there. Open ended, unconditional public support is no longer a reality, and our goal and responsibility as policymakers, now more than ever before, is to give families the tools and resources they need to prepare for and ultimately survive the day when they are without public assistance. We fundamentally changed welfare, now we fundamentally reexamine the central role of child support in helping families as they struggle to become and remain self-sufficient. To this end, we've made some, but not nearly enough, progress. Under the welfare reform law, states will eventually be required to distribute state-collected child support arrears owed to the family before paying off arrears owed to the state and Federal governments for welfare expenditures. In addition, states were provided with some ability to continue or expand the $50 passthrough that had been required under previous law. But only one state--my homestate of Wisconsin--has opted to let families retain all support paid. As you know, Wisconsin has been a leader and national model in the area of welfare reform. Under Wisconsin's welfare program, child support counts as income in determining financial eligibility for welfare assistance, but once eligibility is established, the child support income is disregarded in calculating program benefits. In other words, families are allowed to keep their own money. Non-custodial parents can be assured that their contribution counts and that their child support payments go to their children. And both parents are presented with a realistic picture of what that support means in the life of their child. I worked with Wisconsin to secure the waivers necessary to pursue this innovative policy and want to provide the other states with additional flexibility and options so that they can follow Wisconsin's example. In addition to helping families, the expanded passthrough and disregard approach also has significant benefits on the administrative side. The current distribution requirements place significant accounting and paperwork burdens on the states. They are also costly. Data from the Federal Office of Child Support demonstrates that nearly 20 percent of program expenditures are spent simply processing payments. States are required to maintain a complicated set of accounts to determine whether support collected should be paid to the family or kept by the government. These complex accounting rules depend on whether the family ever received public assistance, the date a family begins and ends assistance, whether the non-custodial parent is current on payments or owes arrears, the method of collection and other factors. We know that we have already asked much of the states in the realm of automation, systems integration and welfare law child support enforcement adjustments. We hope and believe these improvements will lead to better collection rates. Now we have a chance to simplify and improve distribution of support. What could be simpler than a distribution system in which child support collected would automatically be delivered to the children to whom it is owed? A distribution system in which child support agencies would distribute current support and arrears to both welfare and non-welfare families in exactly the same way? Mr. President, child support financing must be addressed in the near future. First, our current distribution scheme is out of step with the philosophy of current welfare policy. We must move the child support program from cost-recovery to service delivery for all families. Second, the current financing scheme is no longer workable. TANF caseloads are decreasing dramatically, even as overall child support caseloads are increasing. Therefore, while the system needs additional resources, the portion of the caseload that produces those resources is decreasing. We must put the child support program on a sound financial footing that confirms a strong Federal and state commitment to the program and gives states additional flexibility to put more resources into the hands of children and let families keep more of their own money. Let me strongly affirm that by advocating an expanded passthrough and disregard approach, I am absolutely not advocating a disinvestment in our child support system by either the Federal government or the states. Our commitment to this program must remain strong and steadfast. I am working to expand the passthrough for the reasons that I've explained, but I am also committed to paying for it in a responsible way. Not knowing what the proposal will cost today necessarily requires that we keep ourselves open to adjustments as the debate proceeds. That said, it is time for us to envision a child support program that truly serves families and works to advance, not undermine, the TANF policy goals of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility with which it is inextricably combined. Because assistance is now time-limited, we must give families the tools to survive in a world without public help, a world where they must rely on their own resources. In that equation, we all know that child support is fundamental. Letting as many as 5 years go by with child support payments either not being or accuring to the state rather than the family does nothing to advance those goals. Mr. President, it's time to put our children first and envision a child support program that truly serves families. We can do that by passing this legislation to improve the public system, let families keep more of their own money, and make child support truly meaningful in the everyday lives of children on public assistance. 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 introduce legislation, along with my colleagues Senator Dodd of Connecticut and Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia, to provide more resources to America's children and families by encouraging more parents to live up to their child support obligations. My legislation, the Children First Child Support Reform Act, would enhance the options and incentives available to states to allow more child support to be paid directly to the families to whom it is owed and not be counted against public assistance benefits. My legislation will help assure more noncustodial parents that the child support they pay will actually contribute to the wellbeing of their child, rather than the government, and also help reduce administrative burdens on the state. As my colleagues know, since its inception in 1975, our Federal-State Child Support Enforcement Program has been tasked with collecting child support for families receiving public assistance and other families that request help in enforcing child support. Toward this end, the program works to establish paternity and legally binding support orders, while collecting and disbursing funds on behalf of families so that children receive the support they need to grow up in healthy, nurturing surroundings. But on one crucial point, the current program does not truly work on behalf of families and, perhaps more importantly, actually works against families. Under current law, if a family is not on public assistance, support collected by the Child Support Enforcement Program is generally sent directly to the family. However, and this is the crux of the problem, support collected on behalf of families receiving public assistance is kept by the State and Federal Governments as reimbursement for welfare expenditures. Thus, for families on public assistance, the child support program ends up benefiting the financial interests of the government, rather than their children. The research shows that many noncustodial parents are discouraged from paying child support because they realize and resent the fact that their payments go to the government rather than benefiting their children directly. In addition, some custodial parents are skeptical about working with the child support agency to secure payments since the funds are generally not forwarded to them. Obviously, these builtin program obstacles to reliable, timely child support payments serve to undermine the program's intended goals of promoting self-sufficiency and personal responsibility. Mr. President, we know that an estimated 800,000 families would not need public assistance if they could count on the child support owed to them. In addition, we know that 23 million children are owed more than $43 billion in outstanding support. Clearly, the vital importance of child support in keeping families off of assistance remains as true today as when the program began. In a world with TANF time limits, it has never been more important. And with these figures in mind, it is not unthinkable that some policymakers may have or might still consider this program as a means of recovering welfare expenditures. But I am convinced that that thinking must change, if not be cast off entirely, because, simply put, times have changed. The welfare reform law of 1996, which I supported, paved the way for time limits and work requirements that provide clear and compelling incentives for families to enter the workforce and find a way to stay there. Open ended, unconditional public support is no longer a reality, and our goal and responsibility as policymakers, now more than ever before, is to give families the tools and resources they need to prepare for and ultimately survive the day when they are without public assistance. We fundamentally changed welfare, now we fundamentally reexamine the central role of child support in helping families as they struggle to become and remain self-sufficient. To this end, we've made some, but not nearly enough, progress. Under the welfare reform law, states will eventually be required to distribute state-collected child support arrears owed to the family before paying off arrears owed to the state and Federal governments for welfare expenditures. In addition, states were provided with some ability to continue or expand the $50 passthrough that had been required under previous law. But only one state--my homestate of Wisconsin--has opted to let families retain all support paid. As you know, Wisconsin has been a leader and national model in the area of welfare reform. Under Wisconsin's welfare program, child support counts as income in determining financial eligibility for welfare assistance, but once eligibility is established, the child support income is disregarded in calculating program benefits. In other words, families are allowed to keep their own money. Non-custodial parents can be assured that their contribution counts and that their child support payments go to their children. And both parents are presented with a realistic picture of what that support means in the life of their child. I worked with Wisconsin to secure the waivers necessary to pursue this innovative policy and want to provide the other states with additional flexibility and options so that they can follow Wisconsin's example. In addition to helping families, the expanded passthrough and disregard approach also has significant benefits on the administrative side. The current distribution requirements place significant accounting and paperwork burdens on the states. They are also costly. Data from the Federal Office of Child Support demonstrates that nearly 20 percent of program expenditures are spent simply processing payments. States are required to maintain a complicated set of accounts to determine whether support collected should be paid to the family or kept by the government. These complex accounting rules depend on whether the family ever received public assistance, the date a family begins and ends assistance, whether the non-custodial parent is current on payments or owes arrears, the method of collection and other factors. We know that we have already asked much of the states in the realm of automation, systems integration and welfare law child support enforcement adjustments. We hope and believe these improvements will lead to better collection rates. Now we have a chance to simplify and improve distribution of support. What could be simpler than a distribution system in which child support collected would automatically be delivered to the children to whom it is owed? A distribution system in which child support agencies would distribute current support and arrears to both welfare and non-welfare families in exactly the same way? Mr. President, child support financing must be addressed in the near future. First, our current distribution scheme is out of step with the philosophy of current welfare policy. We must move the child support program from cost-recovery to service delivery for all families. Second, the current financing scheme is no longer workable. TANF caseloads are decreasing dramatically, even as overall child support caseloads are increasing. Therefore, while the system needs additional resources, the portion of the caseload that produces those resources is decreasing. We must put the child support program on a sound financial footing that confirms a strong Federal and state commitment to the program and gives states additional flexibility to put more resources into the hands of children and let families keep more of their own money. Let me strongly affirm that by advocating an expanded passthrough and disregard approach, I am absolutely not advocating a disinvestment in our child support system by either the Federal government or the states. Our commitment to this program must remain strong and steadfast. I am working to expand the passthrough for the reasons that I've explained, but I am also committed to paying for it in a responsible way. Not knowing what the proposal will cost today necessarily requires that we keep ourselves open to adjustments as the debate proceeds. That said, it is time for us to envision a child support program that truly serves families and works to advance, not undermine, the TANF policy goals of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility with which it is inextricably combined. Because assistance is now time-limited, we must give families the tools to survive in a world without public help, a world where they must rely on their own resources. In that equation, we all know that child support is fundamental. Letting as many as 5 years go by with child support payments either not being or accuring to the state rather than the family does nothing to advance those goals. Mr. President, it's time to put our children first and envision a child support program that truly serves families. We can do that by passing this legislation to improve the public system, let families keep more of their own money, and make child support truly meaningful in the everyday lives of children on public assistance. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Reserving the right to object----

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I am introducing bipartisan legislation that would give a Congressional ``stamp of approval'' to a settlement for which the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin has long awaited--a settlement that, in my opinion and in the opinion of the Federal Court that approved it last year, is long overdue. Specifically, this bill--the ``Menominee Tribal Fairness Act of 1999''--would enforce a settlement owed to the Menominee Tribe by the Federal government, whose termination of the Tribe's federal trust status resulted in enormous damage to the Menominee from 1954 to 1973. Six years ago, Congress passed a congressional reference that ordered the U.S. Claims Court to report back regarding what damages, if any, were owed the Tribe. Last year, the Court approved a $32 million settlement, and now that we have settled the merits of the case, we simply need congressional approval to conclude this 45-year-old matter once and for all. Let me tell you why this legislation is crucially needed. When Congress passed the Menominee Termination Act of June 13, 1954, it ended the Tribe's federal trust status, effective in 1961. As a result of termination, the Menominee Tribe plunged into years of severe impoverishment and community turmoil. Indeed, according to a 1965 BIA study of conditions on the former reservation, the economic and social effects were disastrous. Unemployment was 26 percent, compared to Wisconsin's 5 percent rate. The school dropout rate was 75 percent, and the per capita income was less than one-third of the state average. The local hospital, which was built with tribal funds, was shut down because it could not meet state standards, effectively eliminating local health care services which in turn increased mortality rates. Twelve years after termination, Congress recognized the economic and social devastation this Act had caused for the Tribe by passing the Menominee Restoration Act of 1973, which reinstated the Tribe's federal trust status. Clearly, though, BIA mismanagement and termination threatened to devastate the Tribe for generations to come, and the Tribe subsequently sought relief for its recuperation. The Menominee Tribe took this matter to the courts, and though it obtained favorable trial court judgments on the merits of its claims, the Tribe encountered a series of technical roadblocks that prevented it from ever really having its case heard. The Tribe then came to Congress for help. But it was not until 1993 that Congress passed my proposal to settle this matter by sending it to the Court of Claims and ordering the court to report back what damages the Tribe was owed. After extensive negotiation, the Federal government and the Menominee Tribe agreed upon a settlement of the Tribe's claims for a sum of $32,052,547. The Claims Court, on August 12, 1998, reported back to Congress, concluding that the Tribe has stated legitimate claims and endorsing this settlement. Now, to compensate the Tribe for damages and implement the decision of the Court of Claims, we must pass this legislation that authorizes the payment of this agreed-to settlement. And the money does not have to be appropriated--it will simply be taken from a Treasury Department ``judgment fund'' account. Mr. President, the congressional reference procedure is designed so that the court may examine claims against the United States based on negligence or fault, or based on less than fair and honorable dealings, regardless of ``technical'' defenses that the United States may otherwise assert, especially the statute of limitations. In other words, it is to be used for precisely the types of circumstances surrounding the Menominee Tribe. The tribe and its members suffered grievous economic loss through legislative termination of its rights and from BIA mismanagement of its resources. Indeed, the Federal governments' actions brought the Menominee Tribe to the brink of economic, social, and cultural disaster. In 1973, the tribe was restored to Federal recognition and tribal status by action of the Congress. But the Tribe has yet to be compensated for the damages it suffered. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to approve the Court's ruling, support this bill, and settle this case once and for all. And don't take my word for it--this measure has been endorsed by the Chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and Representative Mark Green, who represents the district where the Menominee reservation is located. I ask unanimous consent that the full texts of my bill, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Report of the Review Panel, Court Order, and Stipulation for Recommendation of Settlement, along with Chairman Campbell's letter of support for this measure, be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I am introducing bipartisan legislation that would give a Congressional ``stamp of approval'' to a settlement for which the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin has long awaited--a settlement that, in my opinion and in the opinion of the Federal Court that approved it last year, is long overdue. Specifically, this bill--the ``Menominee Tribal Fairness Act of 1999''--would enforce a settlement owed to the Menominee Tribe by the Federal government, whose termination of the Tribe's federal trust status resulted in enormous damage to the Menominee from 1954 to 1973. Six years ago, Congress passed a congressional reference that ordered the U.S. Claims Court to report back regarding what damages, if any, were owed the Tribe. Last year, the Court approved a $32 million settlement, and now that we have settled the merits of the case, we simply need congressional approval to conclude this 45-year-old matter once and for all. Let me tell you why this legislation is crucially needed. When Congress passed the Menominee Termination Act of June 13, 1954, it ended the Tribe's federal trust status, effective in 1961. As a result of termination, the Menominee Tribe plunged into years of severe impoverishment and community turmoil. Indeed, according to a 1965 BIA study of conditions on the former reservation, the economic and social effects were disastrous. Unemployment was 26 percent, compared to Wisconsin's 5 percent rate. The school dropout rate was 75 percent, and the per capita income was less than one-third of the state average. The local hospital, which was built with tribal funds, was shut down because it could not meet state standards, effectively eliminating local health care services which in turn increased mortality rates. Twelve years after termination, Congress recognized the economic and social devastation this Act had caused for the Tribe by passing the Menominee Restoration Act of 1973, which reinstated the Tribe's federal trust status. Clearly, though, BIA mismanagement and termination threatened to devastate the Tribe for generations to come, and the Tribe subsequently sought relief for its recuperation. The Menominee Tribe took this matter to the courts, and though it obtained favorable trial court judgments on the merits of its claims, the Tribe encountered a series of technical roadblocks that prevented it from ever really having its case heard. The Tribe then came to Congress for help. But it was not until 1993 that Congress passed my proposal to settle this matter by sending it to the Court of Claims and ordering the court to report back what damages the Tribe was owed. After extensive negotiation, the Federal government and the Menominee Tribe agreed upon a settlement of the Tribe's claims for a sum of $32,052,547. The Claims Court, on August 12, 1998, reported back to Congress, concluding that the Tribe has stated legitimate claims and endorsing this settlement. Now, to compensate the Tribe for damages and implement the decision of the Court of Claims, we must pass this legislation that authorizes the payment of this agreed-to settlement. And the money does not have to be appropriated--it will simply be taken from a Treasury Department ``judgment fund'' account. Mr. President, the congressional reference procedure is designed so that the court may examine claims against the United States based on negligence or fault, or based on less than fair and honorable dealings, regardless of ``technical'' defenses that the United States may otherwise assert, especially the statute of limitations. In other words, it is to be used for precisely the types of circumstances surrounding the Menominee Tribe. The tribe and its members suffered grievous economic loss through legislative termination of its rights and from BIA mismanagement of its resources. Indeed, the Federal governments' actions brought the Menominee Tribe to the brink of economic, social, and cultural disaster. In 1973, the tribe was restored to Federal recognition and tribal status by action of the Congress. But the Tribe has yet to be compensated for the damages it suffered. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to approve the Court's ruling, support this bill, and settle this case once and for all. And don't take my word for it--this measure has been endorsed by the Chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and Representative Mark Green, who represents the district where the Menominee reservation is located. I ask unanimous consent that the full texts of my bill, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Report of the Review Panel, Court Order, and Stipulation for Recommendation of Settlement, along with Chairman Campbell's letter of support for this measure, be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I rise to cosponsor this measure, which aims to provide us with a better understanding of how violence in our culture is marketed to children and encourage industry to take self-regulatory steps to reduce this violence. Just as important, it will help us determine whether the video game industry is breaking its promise and targeting ultraviolent games to minors. Mr. President, as we look to find meaning--or to develop policy--in the wake of the Littleton tragedy, it is clear that there's no single answer as to how we can prevent such a terrible event from happening again. Indeed, throughout my time in the Senate, I've worked very hard for a comprehensive approach: Prevention programs for at-risk kids, laws that try to restrict minors from getting handguns, strong punishments for folks who use guns to commit a crime and for truly violent juveniles, and reasonable restrictions on providing inappropriate information to children. My sense is that by the time we complete action on this juvenile justice bill, many of these issues will be addressed in productive, bipartisan ways. But one part of this comprehensive approach that I'll focus on today is the marketing of violence to children, especially in ultraviolent video games. Senator Lieberman and I have worked very hard on this issue for quite some time, and we've made some progress since we first held joint hearings on the video game industry back in 1993. Since then, the industry has rated all games, giving parents a far better sense of what they are buying for their kids. Recently, though, we have seen some disturbing signs of ``backsliding,'' especially on enforcement of the ratings system. Let me give you just a few examples. The Interactive Digital Software Association--which represents video game manufacturers--has an Advertising Code of Conduct that says, ``Companies should not specifically target advertising to [underage] consumers.'' But the companies who produce games like ``Duke Nukem'' and ``Resident Evil''-- both rated ``M'' for age seventeen and up--sell action figures from their games at Toys-R-Us to much younger children. That is not only wrong, it is unacceptable. Make no mistake about it: Though these games are for adults, the manufacturers are marketing to our kids. That's why we think an FTC/DOJ study--one that separates out the bad actors from the good ones and gives this disturbing trend the scrutiny it deserves--is not just an appropriate response, it is also a timely one. And while the evidence is much clearer with respect to video games than other forms of entertainment, what harm can there be in a study? It might just prove some folks in the industry are doing a good job. Mr. President, this amendment also includes an antitrust exemption for the entertainment industry so its members can collaborate on a ``code of conduct'' and how best to implement the various ratings systems. It is not entirely clear that the industry actually needs this ``safe harbor,'' but again, there is no harm to reenacting and expanding Senator Simon's measure. Of course, Mr. President, these measures are certainly no panacea--no law can be. But they each represent a small step that we in Congress can take as our national community gains a better understanding of what kind of violent images our children face today and what effect it is having on them. For if we do not take the time to learn more about the root causes of youth violence and, instead, blindly make scapegoats out of games or artists or movies we simply don't like, we might as well know nothing at all. Thank you.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the ``Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999.'' This legislation will stop the practice of giving students free sodas at lunch--sugar and caffeine filled drinks that are replacing the healthy milk and juices these kids should be drinking. A soda may keep a child awake through fifth period physics, but it will do nothing to fuel their growth into a healthy adult. We've been talking quite a bit lately about keeping our children safe during the school day. We must not forget we also have an obligation to keep them healthy, growing, and alert--an obligation met in great part with the national school lunch and breakfast programs. The vast majority of schools in Wisconsin and across the nation are our partners in ensuring that children learn to eat healthy, and they are proud to abide by current laws--and the spirit behind those laws-- prohibiting the sale of foods of minimal nutritional value in our schools. But while there is a ban on the sale of these sorts of foods during the school lunch period, there is no ban on giving them away for free. The Center for Science in the Public Interest recently cited several schools that are giving away donated sodas to students. This defies common sense. Kids should be drinking milk, water, and natural fruit juices--not sodas and other artificial drinks--as part of the school lunch program. Statistics from the Department of Agriculture show that 20 years ago, teens drank twice as much milk as soft drinks; today, that trend has reversed. Teens are drinking 40 percent less milk than they drank 22 years ago. Soft drinks contain a large amount of caffeine and sugar, and the American Medical Association has found that these sweetened drinks squeeze healthier foods out of childrens diets. The Better Nutrition for School Children Act will simply prohibit the donation of competitive foods of minimal nutritional value, including sodas, before the end of the last lunch period of school. Let me be clear: we are not banning sodas in schools. Students will still be able to purchase sodas, or receive free ones, once the school lunch period is over. But this bill assures that at least during mealtimes, school children will have access to healthy foods and drinks, like milk. This bill does not address the exclusive marketing contracts between schools and soft drink companies, but I do have concern over these as well. These contracts specify that a school will sell only a certain brand of sodas, and in return, the soda companies give the schools a share of the proceeds. I realize that school districts' budgets are stretched thin, but there has to be a better way of raising funds. Mr. President, the Better Nutrition for School Children Act will close the current loophole that allows the donation of sodas in our nation's schools. It will ensure that tax dollars invested in the school lunch program are spent wisely on nutritious foods and drinks that children actually consume--rather than throw away to make room for a free soda. I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this simple, yet vitally important legislation.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the ``Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999.'' This legislation will stop the practice of giving students free sodas at lunch--sugar and caffeine filled drinks that are replacing the healthy milk and juices these kids should be drinking. A soda may keep a child awake through fifth period physics, but it will do nothing to fuel their growth into a healthy adult. We've been talking quite a bit lately about keeping our children safe during the school day. We must not forget we also have an obligation to keep them healthy, growing, and alert--an obligation met in great part with the national school lunch and breakfast programs. The vast majority of schools in Wisconsin and across the nation are our partners in ensuring that children learn to eat healthy, and they are proud to abide by current laws--and the spirit behind those laws-- prohibiting the sale of foods of minimal nutritional value in our schools. But while there is a ban on the sale of these sorts of foods during the school lunch period, there is no ban on giving them away for free. The Center for Science in the Public Interest recently cited several schools that are giving away donated sodas to students. This defies common sense. Kids should be drinking milk, water, and natural fruit juices--not sodas and other artificial drinks--as part of the school lunch program. Statistics from the Department of Agriculture show that 20 years ago, teens drank twice as much milk as soft drinks; today, that trend has reversed. Teens are drinking 40 percent less milk than they drank 22 years ago. Soft drinks contain a large amount of caffeine and sugar, and the American Medical Association has found that these sweetened drinks squeeze healthier foods out of childrens diets. The Better Nutrition for School Children Act will simply prohibit the donation of competitive foods of minimal nutritional value, including sodas, before the end of the last lunch period of school. Let me be clear: we are not banning sodas in schools. Students will still be able to purchase sodas, or receive free ones, once the school lunch period is over. But this bill assures that at least during mealtimes, school children will have access to healthy foods and drinks, like milk. This bill does not address the exclusive marketing contracts between schools and soft drink companies, but I do have concern over these as well. These contracts specify that a school will sell only a certain brand of sodas, and in return, the soda companies give the schools a share of the proceeds. I realize that school districts' budgets are stretched thin, but there has to be a better way of raising funds. Mr. President, the Better Nutrition for School Children Act will close the current loophole that allows the donation of sodas in our nation's schools. It will ensure that tax dollars invested in the school lunch program are spent wisely on nutritious foods and drinks that children actually consume--rather than throw away to make room for a free soda. I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this simple, yet vitally important legislation.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Bryan amendment. While my comments today will be brief, my conviction on the issue of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) is strong. CRA came into being in 1977 thanks to my Wisconsin colleague, Senator Bill Proxmire. While there's been talk of CRA as merely an urban concern, in fact, it has enriched and addressed inequities in both urban and rural areas in Wisconsin and across the country. We are all familiar with the numbers--more than $1 trillion in community development, small business and home mortgage loans--to communities that were once deemed unworthy. CRA has been, and remains, vital to our common efforts of ensuring that credit is extended to all Americans without prejudice. But CRA lending has also proven that the ability and willpower of a borrower is often just as important, if not more important, than a loan determination based solely on income or economic history. In other words, new and innovative lending inspired by CRA has promoted fairness, but also made good business sense and delivered profits to lending institutions. And, fortunately, we've made substantial progress at making CRA compliance less burdensome. While impressive, this progress has not reduced the need for an effective CRA. In 1977, Senator Proxmire's legislation was timely and appropriate, but in 1999, it has proven timeless and visionary. We are contemplating an era of more diversified, and potentially bigger, actors in the financial marketplace--one in which vigilance to ensure fair lending is all the more important. Overall, with adequate safety and soundness protections and an effective CRA, this new financial marketplace will yield benefits for consumers--more financial products delivered more conveniently and rapidly and at a better price. I strongly support financial modernization and want to help send a signable, bipartisan and well-balanced piece of legislation to the President's desk. Last year, we secured a compromise bill that passed out of Committee by a vote of 16 to 2 that would have had my support. It is regrettable that this year we find this legislation and the financial industry held hostage to a counterproductive agenda to scale back CRA. Financial modernization is about moving forward, paving the way for marketplace innovation and consumer benefits. But Senator Gramm's bill and his proposed CRA restrictions move us backward. I urge my colleagues to support the Bryan amendment and ensure that CRA will remain strong and viable for all American communities, whether urban or rural, in the new financial era that we hope to create.