Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Sunshine in Litigation Act of 1999, a measure that addresses the growing abuse of secrecy orders issued by our Federal courts. All too often our Federal courts allow vital information that is discovered in litigation--and which directly bears on public health and safety--to be covered up, to be shielded from mothers, fathers and children whose lives are potentially at stake, and from the public officials we have asked to protect our health and safety. All this happens because of the use of so-called ``protective orders''--really gag orders issued by courts--that are designed to keep information discovered in the course of litigation secret and undisclosed. Typically, injured victims agree to a defendant's request to keep lawsuit information secret. They agree because defendants threaten that, without secrecy, they will fight every document requested and will refuse to agree to a settlement. Victims cannot afford to take such chances. And while courts in these situations actually have the legal authority to deny requests for secrecy, typically they do not--because both sides have agreed, and judges have other matters to which they prefer to attend. So judges are regularly and frequently entering these protective orders, using the power of the Federal government to keep people in the dark about the dangers they face. Perhaps the worst offenders are the tobacco companies. They have used protective orders not only to keep incriminating documents away from public view, but also to drive up litigation costs by preventing document sharing, effectively forcing every successive plaintiff to ``reinvent the wheel.'' One tobacco industry official even boasted, ``The aggressive posture we have taken regarding depositions and discovery in general continues to make these cases extremely burdensome and expensive for plaintiffs' lawyers, particularly sole practitioners. To paraphrase General Patton, the way we won these cases was not by spending all of our money, but by making the other S.O.B. spend all his.'' This systematic abuse of secrecy orders is one of the reasons that it took more than four decades of tobacco litigation to achieve a reasonable settlement. In fact, Congress and the public's shift in recent years against Big Tobacco resulted in large part from disclosure of materials that had been concealed under secrecy orders, including materials regarding youth targeting and nicotine manipulation. The problem of excessive secrecy orders in cases involving public health and safety has been apparent for years. The Judiciary Committee first held hearings on this issue in 1990 and again in 1994. In 1990, Arthur Bryant, the executive director of Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, told us, ``The one thing we learned . . . is that this problem is far more egregious than we ever imagined. It goes the length and depth of this country, and the frank truth is that much of civil litigation in this country is taking place in secret.'' Four years later, attorney Gerry Spence told us about 19 cases in which he had been involved where his clients had been required to sign secrecy agreements. They included cases involving defects in a hormonal pregnancy test that caused severe birth defects, a defective braking system on a steamroller, and an improperly manufactured tire rim. But that's not surprising, because individual examples of this problem abound. For over a decade, Miracle Recreation, a U.S. playground equipment company, marketed a merry-go-round that caused serious injury to scores of small children--including severed fingers and feet. Lawsuits brought against the manufacturer were confidentially settled, preventing the public and the Consumer Products Safety Commission from learning about the hazard. It took more than a decade for regulators to discover the danger and for the company to recall the merry-go-round. There are yet more cases like these. In 1973, GM allegedly began marketing vehicles with dangerously placed fuel tanks that tended to rupture, burn, and explode on impact more frequently than regular tanks. Soon after these vehicles hit the American road, tragic accidents began occurring, and lawsuits were filed. More than 150 lawsuits were settled confidentially by GM. For years this secrecy prevented the public from learning of the alleged dangers presented by these vehicles--millions of which are still on the road. It wasn't until a 1993 trail that the public learned about sidesaddle gas tanks and some GM crash test data that demonstrated these dangers. The thrust of our legislation is straightforward. In cases affecting public health and safety, Federal courts would be required to apply a balancing test: they could permit secrecy only if the need for privacy outweighs the public need to know about potential health or safety hazards. Moreover, all courts--both Federal and state--would be prohibited from issuing protective orders that prevent disclosure to regulatory agencies. In this way, our bill will bring crucial information out of the darkness and into the light. Although this law may result in some small additional burden on judges, a little extra work seems a tiny price to pay to protect blameless people from danger. Every day, in the course of litigation, judges make tough calls about how to construe the public interest and interpret other laws that Congress passes. I am confident that the courts will administer this law fairly and sensibly. If this requires extra work, then that work is well worth the effort. After all, no one argues that spoiled meat should be allowed on the market because stricter regulations mean more work for FDA meat inspectors. Having said all this, we must in fairness recognize that there is another side to this problem. Privacy is a cherished possession, and business information is a cherished commodity. For this reason, the courts must, in some cases, keep trade secrets and other business information confidential. But, in my opinion, today's balance of these interests is entirely inadequate. Our legislation will ensure that courts do not carelessly and automatically sanction secrecy when the health and safety of the American public are at stake. At the same time, this bill will allow defendants to obtain secrecy orders when the need for privacy is significant and substantial. Indeed, this proposal would simply codify the practices of the most thoughtful Federal judges. As Justice Breyer has said, ``no court can or should stand silent when they see an immediate, serious risk to . . . health or safety.'' Virtually identical legislation received 49 votes on the floor in 1994 and was passed with bipartisan support out of the Judiciary Committee in 1996. Who knows what other hazards are hidden behind courthouse doors? Do we want to wait four decades for the next ``tobacco'' to be disclosed? We need to take action to prevent the next threat before it's too late. 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 offer the Sunshine in Litigation Act of 1999, a measure that addresses the growing abuse of secrecy orders issued by our Federal courts. All too often our Federal courts allow vital information that is discovered in litigation--and which directly bears on public health and safety--to be covered up, to be shielded from mothers, fathers and children whose lives are potentially at stake, and from the public officials we have asked to protect our health and safety. All this happens because of the use of so-called ``protective orders''--really gag orders issued by courts--that are designed to keep information discovered in the course of litigation secret and undisclosed. Typically, injured victims agree to a defendant's request to keep lawsuit information secret. They agree because defendants threaten that, without secrecy, they will fight every document requested and will refuse to agree to a settlement. Victims cannot afford to take such chances. And while courts in these situations actually have the legal authority to deny requests for secrecy, typically they do not--because both sides have agreed, and judges have other matters to which they prefer to attend. So judges are regularly and frequently entering these protective orders, using the power of the Federal government to keep people in the dark about the dangers they face. Perhaps the worst offenders are the tobacco companies. They have used protective orders not only to keep incriminating documents away from public view, but also to drive up litigation costs by preventing document sharing, effectively forcing every successive plaintiff to ``reinvent the wheel.'' One tobacco industry official even boasted, ``The aggressive posture we have taken regarding depositions and discovery in general continues to make these cases extremely burdensome and expensive for plaintiffs' lawyers, particularly sole practitioners. To paraphrase General Patton, the way we won these cases was not by spending all of our money, but by making the other S.O.B. spend all his.'' This systematic abuse of secrecy orders is one of the reasons that it took more than four decades of tobacco litigation to achieve a reasonable settlement. In fact, Congress and the public's shift in recent years against Big Tobacco resulted in large part from disclosure of materials that had been concealed under secrecy orders, including materials regarding youth targeting and nicotine manipulation. The problem of excessive secrecy orders in cases involving public health and safety has been apparent for years. The Judiciary Committee first held hearings on this issue in 1990 and again in 1994. In 1990, Arthur Bryant, the executive director of Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, told us, ``The one thing we learned . . . is that this problem is far more egregious than we ever imagined. It goes the length and depth of this country, and the frank truth is that much of civil litigation in this country is taking place in secret.'' Four years later, attorney Gerry Spence told us about 19 cases in which he had been involved where his clients had been required to sign secrecy agreements. They included cases involving defects in a hormonal pregnancy test that caused severe birth defects, a defective braking system on a steamroller, and an improperly manufactured tire rim. But that's not surprising, because individual examples of this problem abound. For over a decade, Miracle Recreation, a U.S. playground equipment company, marketed a merry-go-round that caused serious injury to scores of small children--including severed fingers and feet. Lawsuits brought against the manufacturer were confidentially settled, preventing the public and the Consumer Products Safety Commission from learning about the hazard. It took more than a decade for regulators to discover the danger and for the company to recall the merry-go-round. There are yet more cases like these. In 1973, GM allegedly began marketing vehicles with dangerously placed fuel tanks that tended to rupture, burn, and explode on impact more frequently than regular tanks. Soon after these vehicles hit the American road, tragic accidents began occurring, and lawsuits were filed. More than 150 lawsuits were settled confidentially by GM. For years this secrecy prevented the public from learning of the alleged dangers presented by these vehicles--millions of which are still on the road. It wasn't until a 1993 trail that the public learned about sidesaddle gas tanks and some GM crash test data that demonstrated these dangers. The thrust of our legislation is straightforward. In cases affecting public health and safety, Federal courts would be required to apply a balancing test: they could permit secrecy only if the need for privacy outweighs the public need to know about potential health or safety hazards. Moreover, all courts--both Federal and state--would be prohibited from issuing protective orders that prevent disclosure to regulatory agencies. In this way, our bill will bring crucial information out of the darkness and into the light. Although this law may result in some small additional burden on judges, a little extra work seems a tiny price to pay to protect blameless people from danger. Every day, in the course of litigation, judges make tough calls about how to construe the public interest and interpret other laws that Congress passes. I am confident that the courts will administer this law fairly and sensibly. If this requires extra work, then that work is well worth the effort. After all, no one argues that spoiled meat should be allowed on the market because stricter regulations mean more work for FDA meat inspectors. Having said all this, we must in fairness recognize that there is another side to this problem. Privacy is a cherished possession, and business information is a cherished commodity. For this reason, the courts must, in some cases, keep trade secrets and other business information confidential. But, in my opinion, today's balance of these interests is entirely inadequate. Our legislation will ensure that courts do not carelessly and automatically sanction secrecy when the health and safety of the American public are at stake. At the same time, this bill will allow defendants to obtain secrecy orders when the need for privacy is significant and substantial. Indeed, this proposal would simply codify the practices of the most thoughtful Federal judges. As Justice Breyer has said, ``no court can or should stand silent when they see an immediate, serious risk to . . . health or safety.'' Virtually identical legislation received 49 votes on the floor in 1994 and was passed with bipartisan support out of the Judiciary Committee in 1996. Who knows what other hazards are hidden behind courthouse doors? Do we want to wait four decades for the next ``tobacco'' to be disclosed? We need to take action to prevent the next threat before it's too late. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I will be voting to table S.J. Res. 20, which would authorize the President to use all necessary force against Yugoslavia. On March 23, I voted along with 58 of my colleagues to authorize the use of air strikes against Yugoslavia. I deplore the actions of Slobodan Milosevic, a dictator who has caused pain and suffering for all the peace-loving people of the region. The decision to launch airstrikes was made only after the Administration and NATO worked diligently to bring a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Kosovo. There was, and continues to be, an international consensus that Milosevic's actions demand our continued use of air power. I continue to hope that air strikes will pave the way for an end to hostilities in the region, a return of refugees to Kosovo, and an autonomy arrangement that can be supported by all. The possibility of a diplomatic resolution to this conflict is very much alive. Thus, the resolution before us today is premature. The President has not indicated that he intends to expand the use of force here, he has not indicated any immediate plans to use ground troops, nor has he asked us to fund such an expansion of the conflict in Kosovo. Thus, I must vote to table this resolution.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, more than 2,000 reservists were called up Tuesday to participate in NATO Operation Allied Force. These men and women who may serve for as long as nine months are making a great sacrifice, as are their family members and co-workers who are left behind. It is incumbent upon us to find ways to ease the burden of this service for our reservists, their families and their employers. Two weeks ago the Senate passed tax relief for those serving in Operation Allied Force. The legislation we are introducing today addresses the economic impact of taking reservists away from small businesses, whether the reservist is the owner, a manager or a key employee. The Military Reservists Small Business Relief Act allows small businessmen and women to defer loan payments on any direct loan from the Small Business Administration (SBA), including disaster loans. The bill directs SBA to come up with a policy for payment deferrals for the microloan program and loans guaranteed under one of SBA's financial assistance programs. Deferrals on loan payments would extend 180 days after the reservist's release from active duty. The bill also establishes a low interest economic injury loan program to provide interim operating capital to any small business experiencing economic harm because a military reservist has been called to active duty. The bill defines economic harm as being unable to provide goods or services that the business usually provides. SBA will administer the loan program through its disaster loan program. Recognizing the disruptions that may occur as a result of the recent call up, the Military Reservists Small Business Relief Act directs SBA and its private sector partners to mobilize their resources to offer business counseling and training to inexperienced employees or family members who are left behind to run businesses on their own when a reservist is called up. This legislation is modeled on similar legislation adopted during Operation Desert Storm. It is a practical response to the real and often overlooked impact of calling up military reservists. Wisconsin has some marvelous employers who are tremendously supportive of their employees who serve in the reserves. Several years ago, Schneider Truck of Green Bay, WI, was recognized as the Reserves Employer of the year by the Defense Department. Companies like Schneider do all they can to make it easier for reservists and their families to manage while the service member is on active duty. It is my hope that this legislation will help smaller companies and encourage them to provide reservists and their families with this kind of support. The men and women of the reserves are far more than ``weekend warriors,'' they are the backbone of our military. We are grateful for their willingness to serve. We thank the men and women of the reserves, their families, and their employers for their sacrifices and this service.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, more than 2,000 reservists were called up Tuesday to participate in NATO Operation Allied Force. These men and women who may serve for as long as nine months are making a great sacrifice, as are their family members and co-workers who are left behind. It is incumbent upon us to find ways to ease the burden of this service for our reservists, their families and their employers. Two weeks ago the Senate passed tax relief for those serving in Operation Allied Force. The legislation we are introducing today addresses the economic impact of taking reservists away from small businesses, whether the reservist is the owner, a manager or a key employee. The Military Reservists Small Business Relief Act allows small businessmen and women to defer loan payments on any direct loan from the Small Business Administration (SBA), including disaster loans. The bill directs SBA to come up with a policy for payment deferrals for the microloan program and loans guaranteed under one of SBA's financial assistance programs. Deferrals on loan payments would extend 180 days after the reservist's release from active duty. The bill also establishes a low interest economic injury loan program to provide interim operating capital to any small business experiencing economic harm because a military reservist has been called to active duty. The bill defines economic harm as being unable to provide goods or services that the business usually provides. SBA will administer the loan program through its disaster loan program. Recognizing the disruptions that may occur as a result of the recent call up, the Military Reservists Small Business Relief Act directs SBA and its private sector partners to mobilize their resources to offer business counseling and training to inexperienced employees or family members who are left behind to run businesses on their own when a reservist is called up. This legislation is modeled on similar legislation adopted during Operation Desert Storm. It is a practical response to the real and often overlooked impact of calling up military reservists. Wisconsin has some marvelous employers who are tremendously supportive of their employees who serve in the reserves. Several years ago, Schneider Truck of Green Bay, WI, was recognized as the Reserves Employer of the year by the Defense Department. Companies like Schneider do all they can to make it easier for reservists and their families to manage while the service member is on active duty. It is my hope that this legislation will help smaller companies and encourage them to provide reservists and their families with this kind of support. The men and women of the reserves are far more than ``weekend warriors,'' they are the backbone of our military. We are grateful for their willingness to serve. We thank the men and women of the reserves, their families, and their employers for their sacrifices and this service.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Wisconsin's premier educators. Dr. Patricia J. Koll is retiring this May after a distinguished 31-year career with the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh. Born and raised in Wisconsin, Patricia has excelled in the field of Education. Working as a professor of education and assistant vice chancellor, she has authored numerous books and received many accolades for her work. She was honored in both 1991 and 1992 with the Wisconsin Teacher Educator of the Year Award. She has also been a recipient of the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh John McN Rosebush award, the university's highest award for scholarly excellence. Patricia has been an instrumental part of education development in the state. She has served as president of both the Wisconsin Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Northern Wisconsin chapter of the American Society for Training and Development. In addition, she has worked with many school districts providing invaluable leadership experience and expertise. Patricia's dedication and talent have been enormous assets to the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh and the Oshkosh community. Her talents will be sorely missed by her colleagues. However, we wish Patricia all the best for her retirement.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator DeWine to introduce the Violent Offender DNA Identification Act of 1999. This bipartisan measure will put more criminals behind bars by correcting practical and legal shortcomings that leave too much crucial DNA evidence unused and too many violent crimes unsolved. Currently, all 50 states require DNA samples to be obtained from certain convicted offenders, and these samples increasingly can be shared through a national DNA database established by Federal law. This national database--part of the Combined Database Index System (CODIS)-- enables law enforcement officials to link DNA evidence found at a crime scene with any suspect whose DNA is already on file. By identifying repeat offenders, this DNA sharing can and does make a difference. Already the FBI has recorded over 400 matches through DNA databases, helping solve numerous crimes. And in my home state of Wisconsin, experience proves that DNA ``sharing'' pays off. We've already had 19 ``hits'' that have assisted more than 20 criminal investigations. In fact, just a week before the statute of limitations ran out in a multiple rape investigation, DNA matching helped identify a serial rapist responsible for three rapes in Kenosha and a fourth in Racine. As a result, he's currently serving an 80-year sentence. Without DNA databases, suspects like this otherwise might never be discovered--or convicted. As valuable as this system is, it is not as effective as it could--or should--be. The effectiveness of the database is directly related to the number of DNA profiles it contains. For every 1,000 new profiles, we can expect to find at least one match, and with every new profile added, the odds for a match increase. However, there are currently two major obstacles to the effective functioning of the database. Our measure would correct these problems and make the database far more productive. First, hundreds of thousands of DNA samples that have already been collected still must be analyzed before they can be entered into the national database. The FBI estimates that there is a backlog of nearly 400,000 DNA samples from convicted offenders languishing, unanalyzed, in state crime laboratories for simple lack of funding. Our measure will reduce the backlog of unanalyzed samples by providing the funding necessary to analyze them and put them ``on- line.'' It provides $30 million over two years to erase the backlog of the 400,000 unanalyzed samples and the almost-as-pressing backlog of approximately 200,000 more samples that need to be reanalyzed using state-of-the-art methods. For example, in Wisconsin, we have almost 2,000 samples that have not yet been analyzed, and more than 10,000 that need to be reanalyzed so they can be effectually shared through the national database. Indeed, easing this backlog was the lead recommendation of the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence appointed by the Attorney General. As the Commission explained, ``the power of the CODIS program lies in the sheer numbers of convicted offender samples that are processed and entered into the database.'' Second, for some inexplicable reason, we do not collect samples from Federal and D.C. offenders. So while the database can identify a suspect whose DNA is on file in one of the 50 states, it generally won't catch a Federal or D.C. offender. Under current law, that suspect will not be identified; his crime may not be solved; and he could get off scot-free. We thought we already closed this loophole through 1996 legislation which provides that the FBI ``may expand [the database] to include Federal crimes and crimes committed in the District of Columbia,'' but Federal officials claim more express authority is necessary. We are not so sure they're right, but there is no need to wait any longer. Our measure closes once and for all this loophole that allows DNA samples from Federal (including military) and Washington, D.C. offenders to go uncollected. Under our proposal, DNA samples would be obtained from any Federal offender--or any D.C. offender under Federal custody or supervision--convicted of a violent crime or other qualifying offense. And it would require the collection of samples from juveniles found delinquent under Federal law for conduct that would constitute a violent crime if committed by an adult. Our proposal was prepared with the assistance of the FBI, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Parole Commission, agencies within the District of Columbia responsible for supervision of released felons, and the Department of Defense. Mr. President, modern crime-fighting technology like DNA testing and DNA databases make law enforcement much more effective. But in order to take full advantage of these valuable resources, we need this measure to make the database as comprehensive--and as productive--as possible. Violent criminals should not be able to evade arrest simply because a state didn't analyze its DNA samples or because an inexcusable loophole leaves Federal and D.C. offenders out of the DNA database. This measure will ensure that we apprehend violent repeat offenders, regardless of whether they originally violated state, Federal or D.C. law. And, by collecting more DNA evidence and utilizing the best of DNA technology, we also can help exonerate individual suspects whose DNA does not match with particular crime scenes. The Senate has already made clear that issues like these need to be addressed. In this year's Budget, we acknowledged that ``tremendous backlogs * * * prevent swift administration of justice and impede fundamental individual rights, such as the right to a speedy trial and to exculpatory evidence.'' We unanimously concluded that it was the Sense of the Senate that ``Congress should consider legislation that specifically addresses the backlogs in State and local crime laboratories and medical examiner's offices.'' Mr. President, this measure will help police use modern technology to solve crimes and prevent repeat offenders from committing new ones. So we look forward to working with our colleagues and with the Department of Justice to move this measure forward and help law enforcement keep pace with today's criminal.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator DeWine to introduce the Violent Offender DNA Identification Act of 1999. This bipartisan measure will put more criminals behind bars by correcting practical and legal shortcomings that leave too much crucial DNA evidence unused and too many violent crimes unsolved. Currently, all 50 states require DNA samples to be obtained from certain convicted offenders, and these samples increasingly can be shared through a national DNA database established by Federal law. This national database--part of the Combined Database Index System (CODIS)-- enables law enforcement officials to link DNA evidence found at a crime scene with any suspect whose DNA is already on file. By identifying repeat offenders, this DNA sharing can and does make a difference. Already the FBI has recorded over 400 matches through DNA databases, helping solve numerous crimes. And in my home state of Wisconsin, experience proves that DNA ``sharing'' pays off. We've already had 19 ``hits'' that have assisted more than 20 criminal investigations. In fact, just a week before the statute of limitations ran out in a multiple rape investigation, DNA matching helped identify a serial rapist responsible for three rapes in Kenosha and a fourth in Racine. As a result, he's currently serving an 80-year sentence. Without DNA databases, suspects like this otherwise might never be discovered--or convicted. As valuable as this system is, it is not as effective as it could--or should--be. The effectiveness of the database is directly related to the number of DNA profiles it contains. For every 1,000 new profiles, we can expect to find at least one match, and with every new profile added, the odds for a match increase. However, there are currently two major obstacles to the effective functioning of the database. Our measure would correct these problems and make the database far more productive. First, hundreds of thousands of DNA samples that have already been collected still must be analyzed before they can be entered into the national database. The FBI estimates that there is a backlog of nearly 400,000 DNA samples from convicted offenders languishing, unanalyzed, in state crime laboratories for simple lack of funding. Our measure will reduce the backlog of unanalyzed samples by providing the funding necessary to analyze them and put them ``on- line.'' It provides $30 million over two years to erase the backlog of the 400,000 unanalyzed samples and the almost-as-pressing backlog of approximately 200,000 more samples that need to be reanalyzed using state-of-the-art methods. For example, in Wisconsin, we have almost 2,000 samples that have not yet been analyzed, and more than 10,000 that need to be reanalyzed so they can be effectually shared through the national database. Indeed, easing this backlog was the lead recommendation of the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence appointed by the Attorney General. As the Commission explained, ``the power of the CODIS program lies in the sheer numbers of convicted offender samples that are processed and entered into the database.'' Second, for some inexplicable reason, we do not collect samples from Federal and D.C. offenders. So while the database can identify a suspect whose DNA is on file in one of the 50 states, it generally won't catch a Federal or D.C. offender. Under current law, that suspect will not be identified; his crime may not be solved; and he could get off scot-free. We thought we already closed this loophole through 1996 legislation which provides that the FBI ``may expand [the database] to include Federal crimes and crimes committed in the District of Columbia,'' but Federal officials claim more express authority is necessary. We are not so sure they're right, but there is no need to wait any longer. Our measure closes once and for all this loophole that allows DNA samples from Federal (including military) and Washington, D.C. offenders to go uncollected. Under our proposal, DNA samples would be obtained from any Federal offender--or any D.C. offender under Federal custody or supervision--convicted of a violent crime or other qualifying offense. And it would require the collection of samples from juveniles found delinquent under Federal law for conduct that would constitute a violent crime if committed by an adult. Our proposal was prepared with the assistance of the FBI, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Parole Commission, agencies within the District of Columbia responsible for supervision of released felons, and the Department of Defense. Mr. President, modern crime-fighting technology like DNA testing and DNA databases make law enforcement much more effective. But in order to take full advantage of these valuable resources, we need this measure to make the database as comprehensive--and as productive--as possible. Violent criminals should not be able to evade arrest simply because a state didn't analyze its DNA samples or because an inexcusable loophole leaves Federal and D.C. offenders out of the DNA database. This measure will ensure that we apprehend violent repeat offenders, regardless of whether they originally violated state, Federal or D.C. law. And, by collecting more DNA evidence and utilizing the best of DNA technology, we also can help exonerate individual suspects whose DNA does not match with particular crime scenes. The Senate has already made clear that issues like these need to be addressed. In this year's Budget, we acknowledged that ``tremendous backlogs * * * prevent swift administration of justice and impede fundamental individual rights, such as the right to a speedy trial and to exculpatory evidence.'' We unanimously concluded that it was the Sense of the Senate that ``Congress should consider legislation that specifically addresses the backlogs in State and local crime laboratories and medical examiner's offices.'' Mr. President, this measure will help police use modern technology to solve crimes and prevent repeat offenders from committing new ones. So we look forward to working with our colleagues and with the Department of Justice to move this measure forward and help law enforcement keep pace with today's criminal.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the direction of our nation's dairy policy. When Congress passed the 1996 Farm Bill, we passed the most significant reform of our agricultural system since the Great Depression. In that bill, we ordered USDA to update our outdated milk pricing laws--something that had not happened for 60 years. In taking these market oriented actions to drag dairy policy into--if not the 21st century--at least the second half of the 20th century, Congress may have spoken more boldly that we were willing to act. Congress has tried to put the brakes on USDA's milk pricing reform efforts from the moment they began. And now, mere days after USDA announced the reformed system, there are those who are seeking to insulate their home states from it by legislating compacts to set the price of milk artificially high in their regions. These actions cannot stand. Though I understand my colleagues desire to protect the dairy farmers in their regions, I cannot let them do so at the expense of the productive dairy farmers in the upper Midwest--or at the expense of a national milk pricing system that, for the first time in sixty years, is market oriented and fair. Expanding the anti-competitive Northeast dairy compact would regionalize the dairy industry and institutionalize market distorting, artificially high prices in one area of the country--just as the rest of the country is moving toward a simplified and more equitable system. Dairy markets are truly national in nature. My region of the country, the Upper Midwest, has learned this lesson all too well. We have seen our competitive dairy industry decline, damaged by the distortion caused by an outmoded milk marketing order system. That system requires that higher prices be paid to producers the farther they are from Wisconsin. Sixty years ago, when the Upper Midwest was the hub of dairy production and the rest of the country lagged far behind, this regional discrimination had some justification. It encouraged the development of a dairy industry capable of producing a local supply of fluid milk in every region. But today, that goal is largely accomplished, and the continuation of the discriminatory pricing policy serves only to fuel the decline of the dairy industry in the Midwest. The new system proposed by USDA is not all that we in the Upper Midwest would want. But it is an improvement in the current system, and a move toward a national compromise on this divisive issue. It is a step forward. The legislation introduced today to continue the Northeast Dairy compact is just the opposite--a step backwards. It would remove a region from the new national dairy pricing system and move toward a Balkanized dairy policy. It hurts consumers in the affected region-- consumers who will pay artificially high prices for their milk. And it hurts our hopes of achieving long-overdue unity on dairy pricing reforms that are fair and good for all regions of the country. For all of these reasons, I oppose the expansion of regional milk pricing cartels like the Northeast Compact, and I ask my colleagues to do the same. Lets enter the next millennium with a dairy policy that is market-oriented and consumer friendly--not one that ties us to the unjustified protectionism and unnecessary inequities of the past.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to express my support for the Education Flexibility Partnership Act conference report. I commend the conferees for working so hard to remove the provisions of the bill that would have been harmful to our schools, and for keeping the elements that really will provide much-needed flexibility to States and local school boards to try new, innovative approaches to improving public education. I support this conference report for several reasons. First, it removes the provisions in the Senate bill that would have forced school districts to choose between hiring teachers or serving students with special needs. I strongly support putting more money into IDEA. The Federal government is required to pay for up to 40 percent of special education costs; yet, we are currently only contributing about 10 percent. This is unacceptable and I am committed to increasing the Federal contribution to IDEA. But taking the money away from teachers is not the way to do it. We must find the will and the resources to meet all of our educational needs and responsibilities--we should fund teachers, and special education, and technology, and school construction. We should not force school districts to choose between these important priorities, and I am pleased that the conference report no longer does so. Second, I strongly support the provision in the conference report that allows schools to place disabled children who carry or possess a weapon at school in an alternative education setting. Unfortunately, during consideration of the Senate Ed-flex bill, the amendment that contained this important provision also contained other harmful provisions that would have diverted funding away from teacher. Although I voted against the amendment because of the funding piece, I support this provision to appropriately discipline and remove any student who brings a weapon to school. I am pleased that the harmful pieces of that amendment were dropped in conference, and that this provision to keep guns out of our schools was retained. It seems particularly appropriate, yet tragic, that this requirement should be passed on the day after the school shooting that occurred in Littleton, Colorado. Although authorities are still sorting through the facts and details of that horrifying incident, one thing is clear: we must aggressively take every step possible to keep guns out of the hands of children and out of our schools. Enactment of my Gun Free School Zones Act was a good start, and this provision continues to move us in the right direction, but I believe we must go further and make the safety of our school children a national, state and local priority. Finally, the Ed-Flex conference takes a small but important first step in correcting a glitch in last year's Class Size Reduction Act. Current law requires that if a school district receives less money than is necessary to hire a teacher, that district must form a consortium with other districts, pool their money together, and share a teacher. This simply won't work in many places in Wisconsin; the teacher would spend more time traveling between school districts than teaching. Yet, under current law, unless the district formed the consortium, they would not have access to the class size money at all. The Conference report partially fixes this problem by allowing those school districts that have already reduced class size in the early grades to access this money without forming a consortium. They are free to use this money for professional development to improve teacher quality. I am pleased by this change, but this does not address the problem for those districts that have not yet reached the target class size reduction goals. These districts want and need this money, and I will continue to work with my colleagues and with the Department of Education to make sure they get it. Mr. President, the Ed-Flex bill does not solve every problem in public education. We still have many issues to address when we reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. But I support the principle of providing more flexibility to States and local school districts, who have the ultimate responsibility of educating our Nation's children. Although it is a modest step forward, I am pleased to support the Ed-Flex conference report.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Outagamie County Executive James P. Schuette, who is retiring this April after 25 years of service. A lifelong resident of Outagamie county, Mr. Schuette has shown great commitment to serving the region where he was raised. During his years of public service, Mr. Schuette has been an integral part of many committees that have seen Outagamie county become one of the fastest growing regions in Wisconsin. He has been a member of the Property Committee and witnessed the county's first recycling facility and the purchase and acquisition of land for public parks. While on the legislative committee, he saw region become more politically active on the state level as the area grew and became more prosperous. In the final two years of his career, he attained the venerable position of County Executive. Mr. Schuette is also a patriot. For nine years he served as a sergeant and drill instructor with the United States Marine Corps. After leaving the Marines, he continued his commitment to the armed forces with the United States Army Reserves, serving for 19 years and achieving the rank of Sergeant First Class. James Schuette is an exemplary member of the Outagamie County community and a tribute to his country. We must applaud his dedication and devotion to the community where he grew up as we wish James all the best for his retirement and congratulate him on his many years of service in our State.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Mary Maier, the associate director for the Wisconsin Rural Leadership Program. Mary will be retiring this month after an outstanding 26-year career with the University of Wisconsin Extension Service. As a member of the Community Programs Division and then the Wisconsin Rural Leadership Program, Mary has demonstrated an unequaled passion and devotion to her work. Mary has worked as the associate director of the Wisconsin Rural Leadership Program since the program's inception in 1984. During this time she has helped make this one of the premier leadership training programs in the Nation. In 1988 she received the first Classified Staff Award for Excellence given by the University of Wisconsin Extension Service. Mary's exceptional talent as a member of the Wisconsin Rural Leadership Training Program will be sorely missed by her colleagues. However, we all wish her the best in her retirement.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I would like to take a moment to explain my opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from Idaho, Senator Crapo. This amendment would set aside all on-budget surpluses above those estimated in the Republican Budget Resolution. These funds would then be used for either tax cuts or debt reduction. While I agree with his goals of reducing taxes and eliminating the debt, I believe that this is the wrong way to go about it. I am committed to reserving 77 percent of the total, unified, surplus to increase the solvency of Medicare and Social Security. I do not believe that we should bind ourselves to the estimates of surpluses in this bill. If higher than anticipated surpluses come into the Treasury then I believe that we should still put 77 percent of those new, unexpected funds into the Social Security and Medicare programs. The Democratic plan leaves 23 percent of the unified surplus for tax cuts, debt reduction and domestic priorities. This leaves room for a tax cut regardless of future surpluses, and is not dependent on the estimates in this bill. Committing ourselves to reserving 77 percent of the unified surplus for Medicare and Social Security will keep these programs solvent longer than the proposal from the Senator for Idaho, and therefore I cannot support his amendment.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Kennedy-Dodd amendment. This amendment helps right a wrong that was committed during the Senate Ed-Flex debate several weeks ago. During that debate, the Senate adopted an amendment that effectively forces our school districts to choose between hiring teachers and providing services for students with special needs. This was unfair and unnecessary, and I am still hopeful that the amendment will be dropped in conference. However, I believe we need to do more than that--we need to send a strong signal to our school districts that we are committed to fulfilling our obligations to fully fund both IDEA and hiring teachers. The Kennedy-Dodd amendment does just that. School districts in Wisconsin and across the nation are working hard to improve public education for all children. However, we in Congress must also live up to our obligation to assist them. Although the Federal government has the responsibility to fund 40% of the costs of special education, we are currently only funding about 10%. In addition, school districts will need to hire 2 million new teachers over the next decade, and we should continue to provide funding for them to do that. The Kennedy-Dodd amendment provides full funding for the next six years for both IDEA and the hiring of teachers. This amendment sends a strong message--backed up by real dollars--that we will continue to be partners with local communities in improving education. It tells them we will not tie their hands and force them to choose between hiring teachers and serving students with special needs. It is our duty to live up to our obligations and fully fund both. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy-Dodd amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Roth amendment. I recognize, as I know all of my colleagues do, that Medicare is facing very serious financial problems. I agree with the proponents of this amendment that Congress must act carefully and expeditiously, in a bipartisan way, to make the structural reforms necessary to preserve Medicare for both current and future seniors. And I want to commend Senator Breaux and all of the members of the Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, for working so hard in this effort and creating a starting point for reform. However, at this point, that's what the Breaux plan is--a starting point. I do not necessarily agree with every piece of the Breaux plan, but frankly, it is just too early for the Senate to endorse it. The Commission only finished its work last week, and most of us have not had a chance to study the plan in detail. In addition, the Roth amendment dismisses too quickly the President's proposal to devote 15% of the surplus to Medicare. Even with enactment of structural reforms, it is likely that more money will be needed for Medicare, and we shouldn't have to cut other health and education programs to find it. Even more importantly, in order for Medicare reform to be truly successful, it is essential that we all work cooperatively with one another--and with the President. It is unnecessary to pass an amendment that blasts the President's proposal without giving it full consideration. Mr. President, while I believe we must address Medicare reform, the Budget Resolution is not an appropriate nor meaningful place to do it. The Roth amendment would tie the Senate's hands. It would force us to declare right now that the Breaux plan is the best plan, and that we will not put even a fraction of the surplus into Medicare. I think that would be a mistake. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Roth amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a proposal for reducing juvenile crime -- the ``21st Century Safe and Sound Communities Act.'' In the past few years, we have begun to make real advances in fighting youth violence; in fact, in cities across the country, juvenile crime has started to fall. For example, in three ``Weed & Seed'' neighborhoods in Milwaukee, violent felonies dropped 47 percent, gun crimes fell 46 percent, and crime overall was down 21 percent. And after Boston implemented a citywide anti-crime plan, the number of juveniles murdered declined 80 percent, and in more than two years not a single child was killed by a gun. Not one child. Through a program called ``Safe and Sound,'' I have already worked hard with other public officials and business leaders to expand Milwaukee's success citywide. Now we need to build on what works, in order to protect our children and to make as many of our communities across the nation ``safe and sound.'' This measure will be an important step in the right direction. We do not have to reinvent the wheel to reduce juvenile crime. The lesson from Milwaukee, Boston and other cities is clear. There is no single magic solution, but a number of steps, taken together, can and will make a difference: put dangerous criminals behind bars; keep guns out of the hands of juveniles; and create after-school alternatives to gangs and drugs. That's what works, and that's what this proposal is all about. It builds on each of these three basic strategies and expands them to more cities and more rural communities across the nation. Let me explain. First, we can't even begin to stop violent kids unless we have police officers on the street to catch them, and state and local prosecutors to try them. So this proposal makes it easier to lock up dangerous juveniles by extending the highly successful COPS program, which is due to expire after next year, through the year 2004. That will allow us to hire at least 50,000 new community police officers. And it provides $100 million per year for state and local prosecutors to go after juvenile criminals. Of course, we can't keep criminals off the streets unless we have a place to send them. Unfortunately, although we provide states with hundreds of millions of dollars each year to build new prisons, most states use all of these funds for adult prisons only. So this measure requires states to set aside 10 percent of federal prison funding to juvenile prisons or alternative placements of delinquent children. This commitment is consistent with dedicated funding for juvenile facilities in the Senate-passed 1994 crime bill, which set the stage for spending billions of dollars on prisons through 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 72 hours, provided they are separated from adult criminals. 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. Kids and handguns don't mix, and our Federal law needs to make clear that this is a serious crime. And 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 violent juvenile offenders and providing the funding necessary for improved record-keeping. The fact is that law enforcement officials need full disclosure in order 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 18. Second, this proposal will help keep firearms out of the hands of young people. It promotes gun safety by requiring 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. It also helps identify who is supplying kids with guns, so we can put them out of business and behind bars. 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. This measure will expand the program to other cities and, with the increased penalties outlined above, help cut down illegal gun trafficking. In addition, it closes an inexcusable loophole that allows violent young offenders to buy guns legally when they turn 18. Under current law, violent adult offenders can't buy firearms, but violent juveniles can--even the kids convicted of the schoolyard killings in Jonesboro, Arkansas--at least once they are released at age 18. This has to stop. So this measure declares that all violent felons are disqualified from buying firearms, regardless of whether they were 10, 12, 14 or just a day short of their 18th birthday at the time of their offense. And not only will this proposal prohibit all violent criminals from owning firearms, no matter what their age, 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 through increased federal prosecution, public outreach and fewer plea bargains. 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, like Weed & Seed, 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 expands the Weed & Seed program, a Republican program which combines aggressive enforcement and safe havens for at-risk kids. The measure also gives more schools the resources necessary to stay open after school, through expansion of the 21st Century Learning Center program. It promotes innovative prevention initiatives by reauthorizing and expanding the Title V At-Risk Children Challenge Grant program, which I authored, which 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. It 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 20 percent of the new juvenile crime funds--namely the recently-appropriated $500 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, not quantity, matters. And it would be foolish to throw good money after bad. That's why my measure cuts nearly $1 billion in prevention programs authorized by the Crime Act-- so we don't waste money on redundant programs which don't have records of success or bipartisan support. And that's why my measure requires 5 to 10 percent of all prevention funds to be set aside for rigorous evaluations--so we can keep funding the programs that work, and eliminate the programs that don't. We also reward cities that adopt comprehensive anti-juvenile crime strategies, like Milwaukee's and Boston's--so prevention is part of a balanced, coordinated overall plan. Mr. President, the question about how to reduce juvenile crime is no longer a mystery. We have a good idea about what works. The real question is this: Will we act to make our communities safer and sounder places to live and to prevent teen crime before it happens? I have faith that we will, and I believe this measure moves us forward. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this proposal be printed for the Record. There being no objection, the summary was ordered printed in

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a proposal for reducing juvenile crime -- the ``21st Century Safe and Sound Communities Act.'' In the past few years, we have begun to make real advances in fighting youth violence; in fact, in cities across the country, juvenile crime has started to fall. For example, in three ``Weed & Seed'' neighborhoods in Milwaukee, violent felonies dropped 47 percent, gun crimes fell 46 percent, and crime overall was down 21 percent. And after Boston implemented a citywide anti-crime plan, the number of juveniles murdered declined 80 percent, and in more than two years not a single child was killed by a gun. Not one child. Through a program called ``Safe and Sound,'' I have already worked hard with other public officials and business leaders to expand Milwaukee's success citywide. Now we need to build on what works, in order to protect our children and to make as many of our communities across the nation ``safe and sound.'' This measure will be an important step in the right direction. We do not have to reinvent the wheel to reduce juvenile crime. The lesson from Milwaukee, Boston and other cities is clear. There is no single magic solution, but a number of steps, taken together, can and will make a difference: put dangerous criminals behind bars; keep guns out of the hands of juveniles; and create after-school alternatives to gangs and drugs. That's what works, and that's what this proposal is all about. It builds on each of these three basic strategies and expands them to more cities and more rural communities across the nation. Let me explain. First, we can't even begin to stop violent kids unless we have police officers on the street to catch them, and state and local prosecutors to try them. So this proposal makes it easier to lock up dangerous juveniles by extending the highly successful COPS program, which is due to expire after next year, through the year 2004. That will allow us to hire at least 50,000 new community police officers. And it provides $100 million per year for state and local prosecutors to go after juvenile criminals. Of course, we can't keep criminals off the streets unless we have a place to send them. Unfortunately, although we provide states with hundreds of millions of dollars each year to build new prisons, most states use all of these funds for adult prisons only. So this measure requires states to set aside 10 percent of federal prison funding to juvenile prisons or alternative placements of delinquent children. This commitment is consistent with dedicated funding for juvenile facilities in the Senate-passed 1994 crime bill, which set the stage for spending billions of dollars on prisons through 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 72 hours, provided they are separated from adult criminals. 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. Kids and handguns don't mix, and our Federal law needs to make clear that this is a serious crime. And 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 violent juvenile offenders and providing the funding necessary for improved record-keeping. The fact is that law enforcement officials need full disclosure in order 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 18. Second, this proposal will help keep firearms out of the hands of young people. It promotes gun safety by requiring 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. It also helps identify who is supplying kids with guns, so we can put them out of business and behind bars. 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. This measure will expand the program to other cities and, with the increased penalties outlined above, help cut down illegal gun trafficking. In addition, it closes an inexcusable loophole that allows violent young offenders to buy guns legally when they turn 18. Under current law, violent adult offenders can't buy firearms, but violent juveniles can--even the kids convicted of the schoolyard killings in Jonesboro, Arkansas--at least once they are released at age 18. This has to stop. So this measure declares that all violent felons are disqualified from buying firearms, regardless of whether they were 10, 12, 14 or just a day short of their 18th birthday at the time of their offense. And not only will this proposal prohibit all violent criminals from owning firearms, no matter what their age, 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 through increased federal prosecution, public outreach and fewer plea bargains. 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, like Weed & Seed, 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 expands the Weed & Seed program, a Republican program which combines aggressive enforcement and safe havens for at-risk kids. The measure also gives more schools the resources necessary to stay open after school, through expansion of the 21st Century Learning Center program. It promotes innovative prevention initiatives by reauthorizing and expanding the Title V At-Risk Children Challenge Grant program, which I authored, which 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. It 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 20 percent of the new juvenile crime funds--namely the recently-appropriated $500 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, not quantity, matters. And it would be foolish to throw good money after bad. That's why my measure cuts nearly $1 billion in prevention programs authorized by the Crime Act-- so we don't waste money on redundant programs which don't have records of success or bipartisan support. And that's why my measure requires 5 to 10 percent of all prevention funds to be set aside for rigorous evaluations--so we can keep funding the programs that work, and eliminate the programs that don't. We also reward cities that adopt comprehensive anti-juvenile crime strategies, like Milwaukee's and Boston's--so prevention is part of a balanced, coordinated overall plan. Mr. President, the question about how to reduce juvenile crime is no longer a mystery. We have a good idea about what works. The real question is this: Will we act to make our communities safer and sounder places to live and to prevent teen crime before it happens? I have faith that we will, and I believe this measure moves us forward. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this proposal be printed for the Record. There being no objection, the summary was ordered printed in

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Thank you, I say to Senator Lautenberg and Senator Ashcroft. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the budget resolution. This budget is senseless, arrogant, and dishonest. If this were an employee, you would fire him. If this were a house guest, you would boot him. But since this is a budget, our only option is to vote it down--and spend the few hours we have left in this debate hammering out a fiscal plan of which we can be proud. When I call this budget senseless, I mean it literally: The budget does not make sense. The United States is experiencing the longest peacetime economic expansion in our history. We are projected to run budget surpluses totaling almost $5 trillion over the next 15 years. In goods times like these, we ought to have the confidence to be bold, to pay our debts from the past, to solve the problems, like runaway entitlement spending, that will plague us in the future, and indeed, to invest wisely in a strong nation. Instead, this budget makes a series of incomprehensible tradeoffs. It increases funding for elementary and secondary education, while removing 100,000 young students from Head Start, and eliminating child care subsidies for 34,000 low-income children. If we follow this budget, we will be ready to teach children who, because we have neglected them in their first 5 years, are not ready to learn. The budget increases spending for research into new diseases, while cutting spending for the vaccines that protect our children from old diseases. The budget increases military spending beyond what the President wants, and cuts diplomatic spending below what the Secretary of State believes is feasible. We are sending the administration out into a world of shifting borders and allegiances armed with a stick too big to lift and a carrot too small to see. The budget fully funds the Violent Crime Trust Fund and cuts 2,700 FBI agents. Now how do we reduce violent crime while also reducing the number of people specifically charged with fighting it? And in perhaps the cruelest mismatch of all, this budget chooses an enormous tax cut over shoring up the Medicare Trust Fund. The budget trades a long-term policy of health and security, for those who really need it, for a short-term policy of giving cash to those who already have it. These sort of confusing tradeoffs are enough for most of us to reject the budget. But these policy missteps are compounded by the fact that they are continued for many years. The budget includes tax cuts that grow exponentially as far as the eye can see, and huge increases in military hardware purchases in contracts stretched out almost as far. Have we not learned from the past? This is the same combination of defense spending and tax cuts that led to the record budget deficits of the 1980s. Have we no respect for the future? It is the height of arrogance for politicians today to lock future generations into evermore expensive contracts and commitments. And finally, the budget is dishonest. By the admission of several congressional leaders, there is no way the draconian cuts in domestic spending envisioned by this budget will last the year. What that means is, sometime in November, we will all be voting for, and lamenting over, a hastily thrown together omnibus appropriations bill that funds all the needs this budget proposes to ignore. That is a sloppy way to do our business. If these domestic programs are priorities--and I believe they should be--then we ought to discuss them now, plan for them now, budget for them now. It is dishonest to trumpet this budget as responsible spending, while fully expecting to spend irresponsibly and freely at the end of the year. This budget is not evil; it is sloppy. It reflects priorities so misguided and mismatched that no one expects they will be implemented at the end of the day. The budget is not so much a crime as it is a mistake and a missed opportunity. We had a chance to behave responsibly and wisely, using our current surplus and strong economy to underpin a visionary plan for this Nation's fiscal future. We could not have done something for the future, but instead we have a budget that, at best, will get some of us through tonight's 6 o'clock news sound bites. After that, it will be shoved aside for a last minute, unplanned and probably unwise spending spree. So, let's not wait until tomorrow. Let's put this budget out of its misery now. Let's not stumble into the new century with a senseless spending plan. Let's adopt a fiscal framework that makes sense for old and young--that will stand today and in the future. I thank you, Mr. President, and yield the floor. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator for his remarks and would like to engage him and other Senators in a discussion regarding the purpose of the Senator's amendment and the overall policy considerations attached to it. When Congress enacted farm disaster legislation last Fall, we recognized the dire circumstances of farmers from both natural and economic conditions. Not only did that legislation recognize the problems farmers faced in 1998, but it also dealt with problems farmers have had over the past several years. From a policy perspective, it is well recognized that a sound, reliable risk management program, which includes crop insurance, needs to be established to avoid the inherently unfair and unpredictable ad hoc disaster programs of years past. The amendment by the Senator from Alabama recognizes that crop insurance is available to farmers through both federally reinsured policies and policies based solely by private companies. His amendment modifies language included in last year's omnibus appropriations bill regarding the requirement that the Secretary not discriminate or penalize producers who have taken out crop insurance by stating the requirement applies to both federally reinsured policies and those offered solely by private companies. We all recognize the difficult times facing farmers and we want to see all farmers treated fairly and equally. It is equally important that we do not take steps that inadvertently undermine our overall objectives for both long-term farm policy and immediate administration of the pending disaster payments. In accepting the amendment by the Senator from Alabama, we hope to continue a dialogue with him and other Senators as we approach conference to ensure the amendment is in the best interest of farmers.

Mr. KOHL. I agree with the remarks by my friend from Iowa and I would like to further note that farmers in Wisconsin are equally in need of assistance immediately. As we approach conference, I hope to stay in close contact with all interested Senators to ensure that nothing is done to overwhelm the Department's administration of the disaster program by imposing a new series of control and verification requirements. We want to be responsive to all Senators' interests, but we know farmers are looking for a responsive, and timely disaster program. As some have noted, many farmers believe we are past the period of a proper and timely response.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, for the past two years, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' Office of Legislative Affairs has been under the able leadership of Steven J. Pirotte. Special Agent Pirotte has served as the Executive Assistant to the Director of ATF since the beginning of 1997, and in that capacity, has provided conscientious service to many Members of Congress and their staffs, my own included. Steve is moving to a new challenge on April 18, when he reports to his new post of duty as the Division Director and Special Agent in Charge of ATF's Boston Field Division, with oversight over ATF's functions in Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island, Northern New York and New Hampshire. His honest counsel, assistance, and expertise will be missed by all of us who have worked with him. Special Agent Pirotte began his career with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in 1975 in Falls Church, Virginia, later serving posts of duty in Washington, D.C., Winchester, Virginia, and Denver, Colorado. From 1986 to 1989, he served as Group Supervisor for the Mid- Atlantic Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force and coordinated all OCDETF investigations in the two field divisions and 26 offices throughout the Mid-Atlantic states, including Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. He served three years on ATF's National Response Team, served as supervisor with the Metropolitan Area Task Force for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and just prior to his current assignment, served as Assistant Special Agent in Charge of ATF's Charlotte, North Carolina Field Division, overseeing bombing, church arson, firearms trafficking and cigarette diversion investigations. Members of Congress have been well served with Steve at the helm of ATF's Legislative Affairs office, and we wish him well in his new position.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Harkin and Durbin, I introduce an amendment to add $28 million this fiscal year to the Conservation Reserve Program CRP, run by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, NRCS of USDA. The amendment is fully offset and acceptable to Senator Cochran and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. One of the benefits of my job is having an opportunity to travel many of the highways and backroads of the State of Wisconsin. And, I like so many other residents of my State, never tire of the landscape of rolling hills, grazing dairy cows, and handsome farms. In the last few years, dotted among these lovely farms, is a new sight--or, perhaps more accurately, a sight so old that not many of us have had a chance to experience it. There are patches of land where the native trees, grasses and flowers are growing again; where white tail deer and pheasant walk among wood violets and sugar maples the way they did 150 years ago. These pieces of land, restored to their original natural beauty, are living museums--reminders to ourselves and our children of the magnificence of Wisconsin's native landscape. Much of this land restoration is due to the Conservation Reserve Program, a federal program that, in effect, rents land from farmers and restores it to its natural state. Wisconsin farmers have enthusiastically embraced this effort enrolling 72,000 acres of land in the CRP this year along. Altogether, the CRP has restored 600,000 acres of land in Wisconsin. Despite this program's great success--in Wisconsin and rural areas across the country--a provision of the 1996 farm bill has inadvertently put the CRP in jeopardy. Section 11 of the farm bill capped the administrative costs that the USDA can pay out on any program. The provision was an attempt to slow some over-enthusiastic compute purchasing at the USDA. Unfortunately, it also capped the technical assistance allowed under the CRP in a way that will make it illegal for the CRP to identify or enroll new acres after May of this year. Our amendment today, by adding $28 million for these necessary administrative functions, will allow the CRP to continue its work. Our offset today is from the food stamp reserve fund, and I want to say a word about that. Every year, we put aside more money than we anticipate we will need to cover our food stamps obligations. We do so in order to make sure that that very vital anti-hunger program is available even if demand increases because of an unexpected economic downturn. As the year progresses without such a downturn, it is appropriate and responsible budgeting to move some of those funds, which will not be needed, into areas where there is pressing needs. That said, we still must keep a reasonable balance in reserve for food stamps, and in no way should this fund be viewed by others with amendments as a piggy bank. The CRP is an example of an environmental program that successfully marries the interests of farmers, conservationists, and nature lovers. It is voluntary, it is local in direction, it is effective. I am glad we were able to agree to keep such a worthy program alive this year, and I thank my colleagues who have helped clear this amendment.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, none of us who sit here in the Senate today is unaware of the potential dangers that face this country from rogue nations with ballistic missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction. There are many nations around the world that are eagerly pursuing weapons that can reach the United States and deliver devastating damage. I, like many of my colleagues, was stunned when I heard the news that North Korea had launched a three stage rocket with technology that many in the intelligence community had said the North Koreans would not possess for many years. All this evidence leads me to agree with Secretary Cohen when he says that the threat to the United States is ``real and growing.'' Because of the danger we face, and our solemn vow to protect this nation, I will vote to support Senator Cochran's bill, S. 257, to deploy a missile defense as soon as technologically possible. With threats looming on the horizon it would be irresponsible not to pursue the development and deployment of a national missile defense. The Administration has responded to the threat by expanding the program. The President has increased funding by $6 billion over five years. They will make a decision next year whether an effective national missile defense can be deployed by 2005. Negotiations with the Russians have already begun in an effort to reach agreement on amendments to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The President has now reversed his previous opposition to this bill by withdrawing his veto threat. The United States is moving forward on missile defense, and this legislation will add momentum. However, I do have reservations about this bill. A national missile defense system is not a sure thing. Currently there is no technology capable of destroying an ICBM, and we don't know when the technology will be developed. But we do know that developing this technology will be costly. To date we have spent almost sixty-seven billion dollars on developing missile defenses since the early 1980's without anything to show for it. I am concerned that by making a decision to build a system as soon as technologically possible the Congress may commit itself to an expensive project that the General Accounting Office has deemed ``high risk.'' The Pentagon is infamous for underestimating the cost of weapons systems. Right now the Administration plans on spending ten billion dollars over six years on NMD, but I expect that as the project moves forward the cost will rise. We must be careful not to let our commitment to missile defense blind us from our duty to oversee this program and guard against waste and profligate spending so common in the Department of Defense. While I am very concerned about the costs of the program and the impact on our relations with Russia, I believe we should build a national missile defense to protect our nation in this dangerous and uncertain time. The United States should move swiftly, but with prudence, to safeguard our citizens from the threats of rogue nations and the fear of accidental launches. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today, with Senator Sessions, to introduce the bipartisan Bankruptcy Abuse Reform Act of 1999, legislation which addresses a serious problem that threatens Americans' confidence in our bankruptcy laws. The measure would cap at $100,000 the State homestead exemption that an individual filing for personal bankruptcy can claim. It passed the Senate last year when it was included in the Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998 (H.R. 3150), and I hope that we can all support this measure again this year. The goal of our measure is simple but vitally important: to make sure that our Bankruptcy Code is more than just a beachball for crooked millionaires who want to hide their assets. Let me tell you why this legislation is critically needed. In chapter 7 Federal personal bankruptcy proceedings, the debtor is allowed to exempt certain possessions and interests from being used to satisfy his outstanding debts. One of the chief things that a debtor seeks to protect is his home, and I agree with that in principle. Few question that debtors should be able to keep a roof over their heads. But, in practice, this homestead exemption has become a source of great abuse. Under section 522 of the Code, a debtor may opt to exempt his home according to local, State, or Federal bankruptcy provisions. The Federal exemption allows the debtor to shield up to $15,000 of value in his house. The State exemptions vary tremendously: some States do not allow the debtor to exempt any of his home's value, while a handful of states set no ceiling and allow an unlimited exemption. The vast majority of states have exemptions under $40,000. Our proposal would amend Section 522 to cap State exemptions so that no debtor could ever exempt more than $100,000 of the value of his home. Mr. President, in the past few years, the ability of debtors to use State homestead exemptions has led to flagrant abuses of the Bankruptcy Code. Multimillionaire debtors have moved to one of the states with unlimited exemptions--most often Florida or Texas--bought multi- million-dollar houses, and continued to live like kings even after declaring bankruptcy. This shameless manipulation of the Bankruptcy Code cheats honest creditors out of compensation and rewards only those who can ``game'' the system. Oftentimes, the creditor who is robbed is the American taxpayer. In recent years, S&L swindlers, convicted insider trader convicts, and others have managed to protect their ill- gotten gains through this loophole. The owner of a failed Ohio S&L, who was convicted of securities fraud, wrote off most of $300 million in bankruptcy claims, but still held on to the multimillion dollar ranch he bought in Florida. A convicted Wall Street financier filed bankruptcy while owing at least $50 million in debts and fines, but still kept his $5 million Florida mansion with 11 bedrooms and 21 bathrooms. And just last year, movie star Burt Reynolds wrote off over $8 million in debt through bankruptcy, but still held onto his $2.5 million Florida estate. These deadbeats stay wealthy while legitimate creditors--including the U.S. Government--get the short end of the stick. Simply put, the current practice is grossly unfair and contravenes the intent of our laws: People are supposed to get a fresh start, not a head start, under the Bankruptcy Code. Mr. President, the legislation that I have introduced today is simple, effective and straightforward. It caps the homestead exemption at $100,000, which is far more than estimated median home equity of people in bankruptcy. It is endorsed by the National Bankruptcy Review Commission. And it will protect middle class Americans while preventing the abuses that are making the middle class question the integrity of our laws--the abuses the average American taxpayer is paying for out of pocket. Indeed, it is even generous to debtors. Less than ten states have a homestead exemption that exceeds $100,000. More than two-thirds of states cap the exemption at $40,000 or less. My own home state of Wisconsin has a $40,000 exemption and that, in my opinion, is more than sufficient. Mr. President, this proposal is an effort to make our bankruptcy laws more equitable. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my intention to vote for final passage of the Education Flexibility Act. Although this bill is far from perfect, I support the underlying principle of flexibility in education, and believe we should move this bill forward. Despite my support for giving local school districts more flexibility in improving education, I have serious concerns about this bill. Last year, we passed a new initiative to hire 100,000 teachers to reduce class size in the early grades. We approved this program on a bipartisan basis, recognizing that research has shown that smaller classes give teachers more time to spend with individual students and improves student achievement. School districts in Wisconsin are already putting together their budgets and planning to use this Federal money to hire teachers. They are looking to Congress to send them assurances that the teachers they hire today will receive Federal support over the next six years. I am extremely disappointed that the Senate failed to adopt Senator Murray's class size amendment, which would authorized the program for six years and given our school districts that assurance. I am hopeful that we can still address this important issue later this year. In addition to the Senate's failure to authorize the class size initiative, I am also concerned that the bill, as amended, pits students with special needs against other students in fighting for education funding. This is inexcusable--and unnecessary. I agree that the Federal government must live up to its obligation to pay for 40% of the costs of special education. It is a responsibility we have failed to meet for far too long, and I will continue to fight for full funding of special education. However, I believe it is time that we make education of all our children--including those with special needs--our top priority. There is no reason why we cannot fully fund all of our educational needs in this country. We should fully fund special education, and we should fully fund class size, and after- school programs, and school construction. We can do all of these things--and we should not pit any of these vital programs against one another as some have tried to do here today. I am extremely concerned about the amendments that were added to this bill today. Although I recognize that school districts need additional resources for special education, I believe these amendments wrongly force them to choose between special education and hiring teachers-- another essential need they face. We should not force them to make this choice--we should provide enough funding to fill both needs. Although I am deeply troubled about these amendments, I will vote for final passage of the bill because I believe in the original intent of providing more flexibility to States and local school districts. I am voting for it now because I think we need to move this bill forward. However, I strongly believe these amendments should be dropped in conference. If this bill comes back from the Conference Committee with these amendments still included, I will be forced to oppose the bill. Mr. President, I still hold out hope that these problems can be worked out in conference, and that we can move this bill, which was originally a bipartisan bill, forward expeditiously.