Herb Kohl

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 join Senator Feingold to introduce the ``Dairy Promotion Fairness Act.'' This measure will further our nation's dairy marketing board's efforts to promote the consumption of healthy dairy products produced by family dairy farms and to fund research critical to the development of new dairy products. This effort is needed as a matter of fairness to our nation's dairy farmers. When enacted, our legislation will require that all dairy producers whose products are sold in the United States contribute to the promotional effort. Currently, domestic producers of dairy products like cheese, butter, and yogurt, all pay a promotional fee to help promote the dairy products produced in this country. Importers do not pay this fee. I was extremely surprised to find out that dairy producers can import these goods into the United States and not contribute to the promotional sales efforts sponsored by our domestic industry. This change will require those selling incoming products to contribute the same assessment as the domestic dairy farmers do. This bill supports the dairy marketing board's efforts to educate consumers on the nutritional value of dairy products. It also treats our farmers fairly--by asking them not to bear the entire financial burden for a promotional program that benefits importers and domestic producers alike. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the ``Antitrust Merger Review Act'' (S. 467), a bill that I introduced with Senator DeWine, my colleague on the Antitrust Subcommittee. This measure sets a deadline on the Federal Communications Commission when it reviews mergers. In other words, our bill says to the FCC: approve a merger, reject it, or apply conditions. But don't sit on it. All too often, telecommunication companies, their customers, and their employees are left to mercy of a time-consuming merger review process--a process in which the two lead agencies, the Department of Justice and the FCC, act in sequence rather than in tandem. Like the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission, who have deadlines under the Hart-Scott-Rodino laws, there is no compelling reason to let the FCC ``hang back'' and wait until the end. Our bill is simple, effective and straightforward, and sets reasonable time limits for the FCC to follow. When a license transfer application is filed, the FCC will have 30 days to decide whether or not a ``second request'' for further information is needed from the merging companies. If this second request phase is needed, the FCC will then have six months after receiving the additional material--so-called ``substantial compliance''--to make a determination. For those familiar with antitrust laws, these time limits are nothing new or shocking. If anything, they make common sense by creating a framework for a timely decision. And this measure is entirely consistent with the thrust of the 1996 Telecom Act, which strengthened the hand of the antitrust laws in addressing telecom mergers. See, e.g., Public Law 104-104 Sec. 601(b). But Mr. President, let me also tell you what this bill is not. First, while our measure sets time limits on the FCC's merger review process, it does not change the FCC's substantive role in approving or rejecting these deals. Others have suggested doing this, but many of us believe that the FCC through application of its ``public interest test'' can obtain market-opening concessions from merging companies that the DOJ, under antitrust laws, simply cannot. Second, though some in Congress may want to revisit other aspects of the Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust laws, this bill is not a vehicle for substantive changes--they are best left for other measures at another time. This is not a perfect piece of legislation to be sure, but it is a step in the right direction. Still, it is a work in progress, so we plan to work together with our colleagues, Senator Hollings and Senator McCain, and to get input from all the affected parties. After that, we will ask for our colleagues' support for this bipartisan proposal, which will help companies get on with their businesses, and employees and consumers get on with their lives. Finally, Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The text of the bill follows:

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, during the impeachment trial, it was the duty of the Senate to look at the facts, look at the law, look at the Constitution, and make a judgment. We did our duty. But now we need to go one step further because neither acquittal nor conviction is an entirely adequate conclusion to this sordid matter. We must speak our contempt and disappointment for the low behavior of our highest elected official. We need to speak for the spirit behind our laws, behind this institution, behind the country. We need to say that the President's actions and lies were wrong--``shameful, reckless and indefensible.'' We need to acknowledge that his conduct, unacceptable for any American, is especially so for the President of the United States because it ``creates disrespect for the laws of the land.'' I am proud that all 100 Senators worked together through this ordeal to do our duty. I am proud that so many of us from both sides of the aisle worked together to craft this tough censure resolution. But I am sorry that a small minority will keep us from also doing what is honorable and what is right. We need to officially express our collective disdain for the President's conduct. It's the only truly appropriate, bipartisan way to bring closure to this melancholy moment in American history. When Senator Feinstein and I started talking about a censure resolution, as early as last December, I had no certainty that we would come so far and bring so many along. Her perseverance, hard work and legislative craftsmanship deserve our praise, but our efforts deserve a clean ``up or down'' vote.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. Chief Justice, throughout this process my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have conducted themselves with decency and dignity, exactly the qualities President Clinton's conduct lacked. But we risk opening the floodgates to more party-line impeachments if we oust a President from office for behavior that--while truly deplorable--isn't truly removable. Lowering the standard would do as great a disservice to the Constitution as the President's behavior has done to the Oval Office. So I am voting to acquit on both articles. I state these conclusions with a certainty I do not feel. We have heard many say these votes are the most difficult they will ever cast, and I agree. This case is made up of many small questions, matters of opinion and fact: Did the President lie? Did he commit perjury? Did he obstruct justice? Did he weaken the judicial system? Did he undermine the Constitution? Are these ``high'' crimes? Is this what the Founders envisioned when they talked about removal of a President? Most of us have answers for each of these questions. Most of us will lay them out in well-worded, well-argued statements. But the sum of the answers is not the sum of this case. The sum of our opinions, our findings of fact, and our legal briefs cannot sum up the deep disquiet I feel about the failings, lies, and weakness displayed by the President. Under the cold body of evidence before us runs the bad blood of bad character, and that deeply disturbs me. The evidence does not prove high crimes, but it does prove low character in our highest office--and that matters, it is relevant, it is material. This nation is not defined merely by demographics, boundaries, geological features, and government regulations; it is also about families and individuals who struggle to be larger, braver, and stronger than their circumstances. It is a nation that has a history of putting lives, faith, and hope in causes bigger than any one person: justice, democracy, freedom. Similarly, the office of the Presidency is not just a set of protocols, formalities, and policies. It is the human face we put on our country, and that face ought to be as honest, just, strong and brave as we all aspire to be--and as our history demands that we be. That's why character matters. I cannot find a way to fit my concern for that spirit into these very formal, legal proceedings, but I also cannot, in good conscience, let go of my deep concern for the harm and the loss this President has caused. I will not vote for either article of impeachment, but I also will not let go of my firm belief that this President has done real damage to the Office of the Presidency. And I will not let go of a commitment to do everything I can to restore and protect the idea that good character is essential in those who ask to serve and represent this country. Let me explain in more detail why I am voting against both articles. First, removing a President is a drastic measure, called for in only the most extraordinary circumstances. And our Founding Fathers clearly wanted it to be used sparingly: that's why they limited impeachment to only ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' involving abuse of power, incapacity to hold office, or a serious threat to our Constitution or system of government. But the President's conduct, however reprehensible, related to purely personal matters. He lied to the American people. He lied to his family, his friends and his staff. He lied under oath and evidence suggests that he may have obstructed justice. Simply put, his conduct was disgraceful and, possibly, illegal. However, his actions did not relate to abuse of power. They had nothing to do with his official acts or his capacity to hold office. They did not threaten our Constitution or system of government. Though serious offenses to our American values and decency, they do not rise to the level of constitutional ``high" crimes. Some of my colleagues have a different view, and I respect their position. But even the House prosecutors respect mine. In response to one of my questions, House Manager Graham acknowledged that ``reasonable people can disagree'' about whether the President should be removed. In fact, he went on to say: ``[I]f I was sitting where you're at, I would probably get down on my knees before I made that decision, because the impact on society is going to be real either way. And if you find the President guilty in your mind from the facts, that's he a perjurer and he obstructed justice, you've got to somehow reconcile continued service in light of that event. And I think it's important for this body not to have a disposition plan that doesn't take in consideration the good of this nation. . . . [Y]ou've got to consider what's best for this nation.'' Representative Graham deserves credit for putting candor above partisanship, and inviting us to decide ``what's best for this nation.'' To do that, it makes sense to consider the views of the American people. Most of them know what this case is about and most of them oppose this impeachment. Nothing we've heard clearly justifies rejecting the overwhelming weight of their opinion and removing a twice-elected President. Indeed, if ``reasonable people can disagree,'' as the House prosecutors concede, have we really met the high threshold established for removal? To ask that question is to answer it. It is true, of course, that we have removed judges for lying under oath; for example, ten years ago the Senate removed Judge Nixon on that basis. But impeaching the President, our highest elected official, is far different. Judge Nixon was appointed. He held office during ``good Behaviour.'' At the time of his Senate trial, he was already convicted and sitting in jail. He lied about bribery, not sex. And most importantly, the only way a judge can be removed is by impeachment. A President, on the other hand, can be removed every four years through an election, and is automatically removed after eight years by the 22nd Amendment. Second, in addition to the constitutional problems, the prosecution has not proved its allegations by clear and convincing evidence. This is especially true on the ``obstruction of justice'' charge, which is by far the more serious allegation. The House Managers argue that more witnesses would have made a difference in bolstering their case, and they may be right. But why then did the House choose not to call witnesses in its own proceedings, even though it had called ``fact'' witnesses in nearly every other impeachment? Third, as many of us told the House in the Judge Nixon impeachment trial, lumping together a series of charges in each article--at least four perjury charges and seven obstruction of justice charges here-- isn't fair or responsible. Alarmingly, the President could be found guilty without a two-thirds majority believing any single charge. For example, in theory, even if each obstruction charge were rejected by a 90 to 10 margin, the President could be convicted--because ten different Senators convicting on each of seven separate charges adds up to 70--more than a two-thirds majority. Mr. Chief Justice, this kind of ``one from column A and two from column B'' approach may work for a Chinese restaurant, but not for removing a President--or a judge. And this lack of specificity shortchanges the American people, who may never understand which charges were believed and which ones weren't. Still, President Clinton is not ``above the law.'' His conduct should not be excused, nor will it. The President can be criminally prosecuted, especially once he leaves office. In other words, his acts may not be ``removable'' wrongs, but they could be ``convictable'' crimes. Moreover, the House vote of impeachment--and the President's misconduct with Monica Lewinsky--will forever scar this President's legacy. Finally, the Senate can and should censure the President, and we ought make our condemnation of his conduct as strong as possible. In sum, Mr. Chief Justice, President Clinton's conduct was wrong, reckless and indefensible. Under the Constitution it does not justify removal. But for those who love this country, it demands outrage and disappointment. It demands a commitment from this President and future Presidents, this Congress and future Congresses--not now, and not ever again, to let personal weakness and personal failing stain or shake our democracy. Thank you. facts

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, Senator Grassley and I today introduce the Class Action Fairness Act of 1999. This legislation addresses growing problems in class action litigation, particularly unfair and abusive settlements that shortchange class members while class lawyers line their pockets with high fees. Let me share with you just a few disturbing examples. First, one of my constituents, Martha Preston of Baraboo, Wisconsin, was an unnamed member of a class action lawsuit against her mortgage company that ended in a settlement. While at first she got $4 and change in compensation, a few months later her lawyers surreptitiously took $80--twenty times her compensation--from her escrow account to pay their fees. In total, her lawyers managed to pocket over $8 million in fees, but never explained that the class--not the defendant--would pay the attorneys' fees. Naturally outraged, she and others sued the class lawyers. Her lawyers turned around and sued her in Alabama--a state she had never visited--and demanded an unbelievable $25 million. So not only did she lose $75, she was forced to defend herself from a $25 million lawsuit. Second, class lawyers and defendants often engineer settlements that leave plaintiffs with small discounts or coupons unlikely ever to be used. Meanwhile, class lawyers reap big fees based on unduly optimistic valuations. For example, in a settlement of a class action against major airlines, most plaintiffs received less than $80 in coupons while class attorneys received $14 million in fees based on a projection that the discounts were worth hundreds of millions. In a suit over faulty computer monitors, class members got $13 coupons, while class lawyers pocketed $6 million. And in a class action against Nintendo, plaintiffs received $5 coupons, while attorneys took almost $2 million in fees. Third, competing federal and state class actions engage in a race to settlement, where the best interests of the class lose out. For example, in one state class action the class lawyers negotiated a small settlement precluding all other suits, and even agreed to settle federal claims that were not at issue in state court. Meanwhile, a federal court found that the federal claims could have been worth more than $1 billion, while accusing the state class lawyers of ``hostile representation'' that ``surpassed inadequacy and sank to the level of subversion'' and pursuit of self-interest in ``getting a fee'' that was ``more in line with the interests of [defendants] than those of their clients.'' Fourth, class actions are often filed in state courts that are more likely to give inadequate consideration to class certification and class settlements. On several occasions, a state court has certified a class action although federal courts rejected certification of the same case. And in several Alabama state courts, 38 out of 43 classes certified in a three-year period were certified on an ex parte basis, without notice and hearing. One Alabama judge acting ex parte certified 11 class actions in 1997 alone. Comparably, only an estimated 38 class actions were certified in federal court that year (excluding suits against the U.S. and suits brought under federal law). This lack of close scrutiny appears to create a big incentive to file in state court, especially given the recent findings of a Rand study that class actions are increasingly concentrated in state courts. Fifth, in nationwide class actions filed in state court, class lawyers often manipulate the pleadings to avoid removal to federal court, even by minimizing the potential claims of class members. For example, state class actions often seek just over $74,000 in damages per plaintiff, and forsake punitive damage claims, to avoid the $75,000 floor that qualifies for federal diversity jurisdiction. Or they defeat the federal requirement of complete diversity by naming one class member who is from the same state as a defendant, even if all other class members are from different states. Finally, out-of-state defendants are often hauled into state court to address nationwide class claims, although federal courts are a more appropriate and more efficient forum. For example, an Alabama court is now considering a class action--and could establish a national policy-- in a suit brought against the big three automakers on behalf of every American who bought a dual-equipped air bags over an eight-year period. The defendants failed in their attempt to remove to federal court based on an application of current diversity laws. And, unlike federal courts, states are unable to consolidate multiple class actions that involve the same underlying facts. These examples show that abuse of the class action system is not only possible, but real. And the incentives and realities of the current system are a big part of the problem. A class action is a lawsuit in which an attorney not only represents an individual plaintiff, but, in addition, seeks relief for all those individuals who suffered a similar injury. Prospective class members are usually sent notice about the class action, and are presumed to join it, unless they specifically ask to be left out. When these suits are settled, all class members are notified of the terms of the settlement and given the chance to object if they don't think the settlement is fair. A court must ultimately approve a settlement agreement. The vast majority of these suits are brought and settled fairly and in good faith. Unfortunately, the class action system does not adequately protect class members from the few unscrupulous lawyers who are more interested in big attorneys' fees than compensation for their clients, the victims. The primary problem is that the client in a class action is a diffuse group of thousands of individuals scattered across the country, which is incapable of exercising meaningful control over the litigation. As a result, while in theory the class lawyers must be responsive to their clients, the lawyers control all aspects of the litigation. Moreover, during a class action settlement, the amount of the attorney fee is negotiated between plaintiffs' lawyers and the defendants, just like other terms of the settlement. But in most cases the fees come at the expense of class members--the only party that does not have a seat at the bargaining table. In addition, defendants may use class action settlements to advance their own interests. Paying a small settlement generally precludes all future claims by class members. So defendants have ample motivation to give class lawyers the fees they want as the price for settling all future liabilities. As a result, it is easy to see how class members are left out in the cold. Although the judge is supposed to determine whether the settlement is fair before approving it, class lawyers and defendants ``may even put one over on the court, a staged performance. The lawyers support the settlement to get fees; the defendants support it to evade liability; the court can't vindicate the class's rights because the friendly presentation means that it lacks essential information,'' Kamilewicz v. Bank of Boston Corp., 100 F.3d 1348, 1352 (Easterbrook, J., dissenting) (7th Cir. 1996). Although class members get settlement notices and have the opportunity to object, they rarely do so, especially if they have little at stake. Not only is it expensive to get representation, but also it can be extremely difficult to actually understand what the settlement really does. Settlements are often written in long, finely printed letters with incomprehensible legalese, which even well-trained attorneys are hard pressed to understand. And settlements often omit basic information like how much money will go toward attorneys' fees and where that money will come from. In Martha Preston's case, one prominent federal judge found that ``the notice not only didn't alert the absent class members to the pending loss but also pulled the wool over the state judge's eyes,'' id. We all know that class actions can result in significant and important benefits for class members and society, and that most class lawyers and most state courts are acting responsibly. Class actions have been used to desegregate racially divided schools, to obtain redress for victims of employment discrimination, and to compensate individuals exposed to toxic chemicals or defective products. Class actions increase access to our civil justice system because they enable people to pursuant claims collectively that would otherwise be too expensive to litigate. The difficulty in any effort to improve a basically good system is weeding out the abuses without causing undue damage. The legislation we propose attempts to do this. It does not limit anyone's ability to file or settle a class action. It seeks to address the problem in several ways. First, it requires that State attorneys general be notified about proposed class action settlements that would affect residents of their states. With notice, the attorneys general can intervene in cases where they think the settlements are unfair. Second, the legislation requires that class members be notified of a potential settlement in clear, easily understood English--not legal jargon. Third, it limits class attorneys' fees to a reasonable percentage of the actual damages received by plaintiffs or to reasonable hourly fees. This will deter class lawyers from using inflated values of coupon settlements to reap big fees. Some courts have already embraced this standard, which parallels the recent securities reform law. Fourth, it permits removal to federal court of certain class actions involving citizens of multiple states, at the request of unnamed class members or defendants. This provision eliminates gaming by class lawyers to keep cases in state court and, through consolidation of related cases in federal court, helps prevent a race to settlement between competing class actions. Finally, it amends Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures to require the imposition of sanctions for filing frivolous lawsuits, although the nature and extent of sanctions remains discretionary. This provision will deter the filing of frivolous class actions. Let me emphasize the limited scope of this legislation. We do not close the courthouse door to any class action. We do not require that State attorneys general do anything with the notice they receive. We do not deny reasonable fees for class lawyers. And we do not mandate that every class action be brought in federal court. Instead, we simply promote closer and fairer scrutiny of class actions and class settlements. These proposals have earned a broad range of support. Even Judge Paul Niemeyer, the Chair of the Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, who has studied class actions closely and testified before Congress on this issue, expressed his support for this ``modest'' measure, noting in particular that increasing federal jurisdiction over class actions will be a positive ``meaningful step.'' Last year, our bill passed the Judiciary Administrative Oversight and the Courts Subcommittee. Mr. President, right now, people across the country can be dragged into lawsuits unaware of their rights and unarmed on the legal battlefield. What our bill does is give regular people back their rights and representation. This measure may not stop all abuses, but it moves use forward. It will help ensure that good people like Martha Preston don't get ripped off. Mr. President, Senator Grassley and I believe this is a moderate approach to correct the worst abuses, while preserving the benefits of class actions. It is both pro-consumer and pro-defendant. We believe it will make a difference.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, Senator Grassley and I today introduce the Class Action Fairness Act of 1999. This legislation addresses growing problems in class action litigation, particularly unfair and abusive settlements that shortchange class members while class lawyers line their pockets with high fees. Let me share with you just a few disturbing examples. First, one of my constituents, Martha Preston of Baraboo, Wisconsin, was an unnamed member of a class action lawsuit against her mortgage company that ended in a settlement. While at first she got $4 and change in compensation, a few months later her lawyers surreptitiously took $80--twenty times her compensation--from her escrow account to pay their fees. In total, her lawyers managed to pocket over $8 million in fees, but never explained that the class--not the defendant--would pay the attorneys' fees. Naturally outraged, she and others sued the class lawyers. Her lawyers turned around and sued her in Alabama--a state she had never visited--and demanded an unbelievable $25 million. So not only did she lose $75, she was forced to defend herself from a $25 million lawsuit. Second, class lawyers and defendants often engineer settlements that leave plaintiffs with small discounts or coupons unlikely ever to be used. Meanwhile, class lawyers reap big fees based on unduly optimistic valuations. For example, in a settlement of a class action against major airlines, most plaintiffs received less than $80 in coupons while class attorneys received $14 million in fees based on a projection that the discounts were worth hundreds of millions. In a suit over faulty computer monitors, class members got $13 coupons, while class lawyers pocketed $6 million. And in a class action against Nintendo, plaintiffs received $5 coupons, while attorneys took almost $2 million in fees. Third, competing federal and state class actions engage in a race to settlement, where the best interests of the class lose out. For example, in one state class action the class lawyers negotiated a small settlement precluding all other suits, and even agreed to settle federal claims that were not at issue in state court. Meanwhile, a federal court found that the federal claims could have been worth more than $1 billion, while accusing the state class lawyers of ``hostile representation'' that ``surpassed inadequacy and sank to the level of subversion'' and pursuit of self-interest in ``getting a fee'' that was ``more in line with the interests of [defendants] than those of their clients.'' Fourth, class actions are often filed in state courts that are more likely to give inadequate consideration to class certification and class settlements. On several occasions, a state court has certified a class action although federal courts rejected certification of the same case. And in several Alabama state courts, 38 out of 43 classes certified in a three-year period were certified on an ex parte basis, without notice and hearing. One Alabama judge acting ex parte certified 11 class actions in 1997 alone. Comparably, only an estimated 38 class actions were certified in federal court that year (excluding suits against the U.S. and suits brought under federal law). This lack of close scrutiny appears to create a big incentive to file in state court, especially given the recent findings of a Rand study that class actions are increasingly concentrated in state courts. Fifth, in nationwide class actions filed in state court, class lawyers often manipulate the pleadings to avoid removal to federal court, even by minimizing the potential claims of class members. For example, state class actions often seek just over $74,000 in damages per plaintiff, and forsake punitive damage claims, to avoid the $75,000 floor that qualifies for federal diversity jurisdiction. Or they defeat the federal requirement of complete diversity by naming one class member who is from the same state as a defendant, even if all other class members are from different states. Finally, out-of-state defendants are often hauled into state court to address nationwide class claims, although federal courts are a more appropriate and more efficient forum. For example, an Alabama court is now considering a class action--and could establish a national policy-- in a suit brought against the big three automakers on behalf of every American who bought a dual-equipped air bags over an eight-year period. The defendants failed in their attempt to remove to federal court based on an application of current diversity laws. And, unlike federal courts, states are unable to consolidate multiple class actions that involve the same underlying facts. These examples show that abuse of the class action system is not only possible, but real. And the incentives and realities of the current system are a big part of the problem. A class action is a lawsuit in which an attorney not only represents an individual plaintiff, but, in addition, seeks relief for all those individuals who suffered a similar injury. Prospective class members are usually sent notice about the class action, and are presumed to join it, unless they specifically ask to be left out. When these suits are settled, all class members are notified of the terms of the settlement and given the chance to object if they don't think the settlement is fair. A court must ultimately approve a settlement agreement. The vast majority of these suits are brought and settled fairly and in good faith. Unfortunately, the class action system does not adequately protect class members from the few unscrupulous lawyers who are more interested in big attorneys' fees than compensation for their clients, the victims. The primary problem is that the client in a class action is a diffuse group of thousands of individuals scattered across the country, which is incapable of exercising meaningful control over the litigation. As a result, while in theory the class lawyers must be responsive to their clients, the lawyers control all aspects of the litigation. Moreover, during a class action settlement, the amount of the attorney fee is negotiated between plaintiffs' lawyers and the defendants, just like other terms of the settlement. But in most cases the fees come at the expense of class members--the only party that does not have a seat at the bargaining table. In addition, defendants may use class action settlements to advance their own interests. Paying a small settlement generally precludes all future claims by class members. So defendants have ample motivation to give class lawyers the fees they want as the price for settling all future liabilities. As a result, it is easy to see how class members are left out in the cold. Although the judge is supposed to determine whether the settlement is fair before approving it, class lawyers and defendants ``may even put one over on the court, a staged performance. The lawyers support the settlement to get fees; the defendants support it to evade liability; the court can't vindicate the class's rights because the friendly presentation means that it lacks essential information,'' Kamilewicz v. Bank of Boston Corp., 100 F.3d 1348, 1352 (Easterbrook, J., dissenting) (7th Cir. 1996). Although class members get settlement notices and have the opportunity to object, they rarely do so, especially if they have little at stake. Not only is it expensive to get representation, but also it can be extremely difficult to actually understand what the settlement really does. Settlements are often written in long, finely printed letters with incomprehensible legalese, which even well-trained attorneys are hard pressed to understand. And settlements often omit basic information like how much money will go toward attorneys' fees and where that money will come from. In Martha Preston's case, one prominent federal judge found that ``the notice not only didn't alert the absent class members to the pending loss but also pulled the wool over the state judge's eyes,'' id. We all know that class actions can result in significant and important benefits for class members and society, and that most class lawyers and most state courts are acting responsibly. Class actions have been used to desegregate racially divided schools, to obtain redress for victims of employment discrimination, and to compensate individuals exposed to toxic chemicals or defective products. Class actions increase access to our civil justice system because they enable people to pursuant claims collectively that would otherwise be too expensive to litigate. The difficulty in any effort to improve a basically good system is weeding out the abuses without causing undue damage. The legislation we propose attempts to do this. It does not limit anyone's ability to file or settle a class action. It seeks to address the problem in several ways. First, it requires that State attorneys general be notified about proposed class action settlements that would affect residents of their states. With notice, the attorneys general can intervene in cases where they think the settlements are unfair. Second, the legislation requires that class members be notified of a potential settlement in clear, easily understood English--not legal jargon. Third, it limits class attorneys' fees to a reasonable percentage of the actual damages received by plaintiffs or to reasonable hourly fees. This will deter class lawyers from using inflated values of coupon settlements to reap big fees. Some courts have already embraced this standard, which parallels the recent securities reform law. Fourth, it permits removal to federal court of certain class actions involving citizens of multiple states, at the request of unnamed class members or defendants. This provision eliminates gaming by class lawyers to keep cases in state court and, through consolidation of related cases in federal court, helps prevent a race to settlement between competing class actions. Finally, it amends Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures to require the imposition of sanctions for filing frivolous lawsuits, although the nature and extent of sanctions remains discretionary. This provision will deter the filing of frivolous class actions. Let me emphasize the limited scope of this legislation. We do not close the courthouse door to any class action. We do not require that State attorneys general do anything with the notice they receive. We do not deny reasonable fees for class lawyers. And we do not mandate that every class action be brought in federal court. Instead, we simply promote closer and fairer scrutiny of class actions and class settlements. These proposals have earned a broad range of support. Even Judge Paul Niemeyer, the Chair of the Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, who has studied class actions closely and testified before Congress on this issue, expressed his support for this ``modest'' measure, noting in particular that increasing federal jurisdiction over class actions will be a positive ``meaningful step.'' Last year, our bill passed the Judiciary Administrative Oversight and the Courts Subcommittee. Mr. President, right now, people across the country can be dragged into lawsuits unaware of their rights and unarmed on the legal battlefield. What our bill does is give regular people back their rights and representation. This measure may not stop all abuses, but it moves use forward. It will help ensure that good people like Martha Preston don't get ripped off. Mr. President, Senator Grassley and I believe this is a moderate approach to correct the worst abuses, while preserving the benefits of class actions. It is both pro-consumer and pro-defendant. We believe it will make a difference.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Grassley as a cosponsor of ``Safeguarding America's Farms Entering the Year 2000.'' This measure would make permanent the bankruptcy code provisions that protect family farmers in hard times by giving them the ability to hold on to their farms while they reorganize their finances. Without prompt action by Congress, the bankruptcy laws for family farmers, known as Chapter 12, will expire on April 1, 1999. When Congress first enacted Chapter 12 in 1986 for seven years, we intended to make Chapter 12 permanent if it proved successful. Already, Chapter 12 has been extended twice, in 1993 and again last year. Family farmers need this permanent protection because Chapter 12 works. It takes into consideration the unique circumstances faced by family farmers. It recognizes our special interest in keeping family farms in the family, where possible. And in practice it pays off-- according to the National Bankruptcy Review Commission, farmers in Chapter 12 are more likely to successfully reorganize than individuals filing under parallel chapters. The continued success of the tens of thousands of family farmers in Wisconsin--and millions nationwide--is important to our national interest. But their well-being is too often jeopardized by elements out of their control. For example, many Wisconsin farmers now are facing distress due to unusually low prices for hogs, corn and soy beans. The opportunity to reorganize their business under Chapter 12 may be an important option in these difficult times. They deserve to know that this protection will always be available. Thank you.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Grassley as a cosponsor of ``Safeguarding America's Farms Entering the Year 2000.'' This measure would make permanent the bankruptcy code provisions that protect family farmers in hard times by giving them the ability to hold on to their farms while they reorganize their finances. Without prompt action by Congress, the bankruptcy laws for family farmers, known as Chapter 12, will expire on April 1, 1999. When Congress first enacted Chapter 12 in 1986 for seven years, we intended to make Chapter 12 permanent if it proved successful. Already, Chapter 12 has been extended twice, in 1993 and again last year. Family farmers need this permanent protection because Chapter 12 works. It takes into consideration the unique circumstances faced by family farmers. It recognizes our special interest in keeping family farms in the family, where possible. And in practice it pays off-- according to the National Bankruptcy Review Commission, farmers in Chapter 12 are more likely to successfully reorganize than individuals filing under parallel chapters. The continued success of the tens of thousands of family farmers in Wisconsin--and millions nationwide--is important to our national interest. But their well-being is too often jeopardized by elements out of their control. For example, many Wisconsin farmers now are facing distress due to unusually low prices for hogs, corn and soy beans. The opportunity to reorganize their business under Chapter 12 may be an important option in these difficult times. They deserve to know that this protection will always be available. Thank you.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Family Farm Retirement Equity Act, a bill to help improve the retirement security of our nation's farmers. As we begin the 106th Congress, we can anticipate legislative action to strengthen retirement security and to boost individual savings on behalf of all Americans. With good reason, these issues have risen to the top of the nation's agenda. Americans are living longer and changing jobs more often. Medical costs are rising and demogarphic trends are undermining the long-term viability of our social security system. Comprehensive planning for the many years Americans are often able to enjoy in retirement is now more important than ever. We took some steps to address retirement security in the 105th Congress, but the job is far from accomplished. We must be vigilant in acting to reform social security on behalf of all Americans and in addressing the unique retirement needs of individual groups of Americans. The legislation I introduce today attempts to act on behalf of one such group, a group at the heart of our American traditions, the family farmer. As many of my colleagues know, farming is a highly capital-intensive business. To the extent that the average farmer reaps any profits from his or her farming operation, much of that income is directly reinvested into the farm. Rarely are there opportunities for farmers to put money aside in individual retirement accounts. In addition, as self-employed business people, farmers do not have access to the pension or retirement funds that many Americans enjoy. When the time comes, farmers tend to rely on the sale of their accumulated capital assets, such as real estate, livestock, and machinery, in order to provide the income to sustain them during retirement. However, all too often, farmers are finding that the lump-sum payments of capital gains taxes levied on those assets leave little for retirement. To alleviate this predicament, my legislation would provide retiring farmers the opportunity to rollover the proceeds from the sale of their farms into a tax-deferred retirement account. Instead of paying a large lump-sum capital gains tax at the point of sale, the income from the sale of a farm would be taxed only as it is withdrawn from the retirement account. Such a change in method of taxation would help prevent the financial distress that many farmers now face upon retirement. Second, my legislation would address the diminishing interest of our younger rural citizens in continuing in farming. Because this legislation will facilitate the transition of our older farmers into a successful retirement, the Family Farm Retirement Equity Act will also pave the way for a more graceful transition of our younger farmers toward farm ownership. While low prices and low profits in farming will continue to take their toll on our younger farmers, I believe that my proposal will be one tool we can use to make farming more viable for the next generation. In past Congresses, this proposal has enjoyed the support of farmers and farm organizations throughout the country and the endorsement of the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Sheep Industry Association, the American Sugar Beet Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Cattleman's Beef Association, the National Corn Growers Association, National Pork Producers Council, and the Southwester Peanut Growers Association. In addition, a modified version of this legislation was included in the Targeted Investment Incentive and Economic Growth Act of 1997, as introduced by Minority Leader Daschle and other Senators. I look forward to working with these groups and my colleagues again this Congress to act on this important legislation as swiftly as possible. In addition, I am introducing the Child Care Infrastructure Act, a bill to provide a tax credit for businesses that create child care opportunities for their employees. While I will have much more to say about this important legislation at a later date, I did want to put it in the hopper today. Providing quality child care is and should be at the center of our agenda for the 106th Congress. My proposal is a low- cost approach to address this issue by involving the private sector and has received praise from businesses, parents, and day care workers alike. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of these bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Child Safety Lock Act of 1999, along with Senators Chafee, Feinstein, Boxer and Durbin. Our bipartisan measure will save children's lives by reducing the senseless tragedies that result when improperly stored and unlocked handguns come within the reach of children. Each year, nearly 500 children and teenagers are killed in firearms accidents, and every year 1,500 more children use firearms to commit suicide. Additionally, about 7,000 violent juvenile crimes are committed annually with guns which children take from their own homes. Safety locks can be effective in preventing at least some of these incidents. The sad truth is that we are inviting disaster because guns too often are not being properly stored away from children. Nearly 100 million privately-owned firearms are stored unlocked, with 22 million of these guns left unlocked and loaded; twenty-four percent of children between the ages of 10 and 17 say that they can gain access to a gun in their home; and the Centers for Disease Control estimate that almost 1.2 million elementary school-aged children return from school to a home where there is no adult supervision, but at least one firearm. That is not only wrong, it is unacceptable. Our legislation will help address this problem. It is simple, effective and straightforward. It requires that a child safety device-- or trigger lock--be sold with every handgun. These devices vary in form, but the most common resemble a padlock that wraps around the gun trigger and immobilizes it. Trigger locks are already used by tens of thousands of responsible gun owners to protect their firearms from unauthorized use, and they can be purchased in virtually any gun store for less than 10 dollars. This measure gained momentum last Congress, falling short by just one vote in the Judiciary Committee. Moreover, in part as a result of our proposal, a majority of the largest handgun manufacturers in the United States agreed to voluntarily include safety locks with each handgun they manufacture. Despite this unprecedented voluntary step, though, our legislation is still needed. Here's why: because some manufacturers appear to be dragging their feet--an October 1998 study indicated that eighty percent of the handgun makers who signed onto the voluntary agreement were not yet providing safety locks. And even if they do comply, many handguns would likely still not be covered because too many other manufacturers have refused to sign onto our agreement. Mr. President, this legislation is necessary to ensure that safety locks are provided with all handguns, and to keep the pressure on handgun manufacturers to put safety first. We already protect children by requiring that seat belts be installed in all automobiles and that childproof safety caps be provided on medicine bottles. We should be no less vigilant when it comes to gun safety. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act before us. This was not an easy decision because there are many parts of this legislation I support. But, on balance, I cannot support a bill that is in essence sloppy--both in the process by which it was constructed and in its content. We are asked today to vote--up or down--on a bill that contains eight of thirteen appropriations bills that fund the government and almost $500 billion in government spending, nearly 30 percent of our budget. We have one vote, little debate, and no chance of amendment on what has been described as the largest piece of spending legislation in recent history. And beyond the spending sections of the bill, it also includes various pieces of authorizing legislation--seven different drug bills, home health care reform, and Internet tax moratorium, a tax cut that will cost $9.2 billion over the next nine years among other items. This is a huge measure--a measure that the esteemed Senator Byrd has called a ``monstrosity,'' and he is right. It is a measure that, in its entirety, few have seen and no one understands. Yet today, we are asked to say ``yes'' or ``no'' to it. How can we say ``yes'' to a budget that we have not read, have not participated in its drafting, have not even seen? To do so would be irresponsible and undemocratic. In saying this, I mean no disrespect to those of my colleagues who have worked very hard to try to make this process fair. The negotiators were caught in a bind that all of Congress has a responsibility for creating: We let partisanship and politics get in the way of passing a thoughtful budget this year, and so now we are stuck slapping a budget together at the last minute. I commend the negotiators for doing the best they could. All parties were as responsive as this terrible situation allowed. The Democratic leadership in the Senate and Representative Obey were vigilant in trying to protect the interests of Wisconsin during negotiations, and they were successful in doing some good for our State and in avoiding a great deal of bad. I also do not mean to suggest that there are no items in this legislation that I support. There are many good policies, provisions and priorities established here. For the most part, I am pleased with the final form of the Treasury- General Government appropriations bill which I worked on as the Subcommittee's Ranking Member. Controversial language tampering with the Federal Election Commission's staff was dropped. Important language guaranteeing adequate contraceptive coverage to federal employees was retained. And many important law enforcement and financial agencies were funded at adequate levels. In addition, that bill allocated money for fighting the war on drugs in my State--an additional $1.5 million to expand the Milwaukee High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) and additional funds for expanding the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Imitative operating now in Milwaukee. The Omnibus bill also makes a strong investment in the education of our children, starting from early childhood education and continuing through higher education. The bill increases funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant to over $1.18 billion, an increase of $182 million. This includes a continuation of the $19.1 million set-aside for resource and referral programs, which help parents locate quality, affordable child care in their communities. In addition, we increased funding for Head Start by over $300 million, increased funding for Disadvantaged Students (Title I) by over $300 million, increased Special Education funding by over $500 million, and provided $1.1 billion to local school districts to help reduce class size in the early grades. We also provided over $300 million more for Student Aid, including an increase in the maximum Pell Grant to $3,125. In addition to investing in our children, the bill also ensures that we take care of our nation's elderly. Despite the fact that the House eliminated funding for LIHEAP, we were able to restore that funding to its full amount of $1.1 billion, ensuring that the elderly will not have to choose between food and heat during the cold winter months. We also increased funding for the Administration on Aging, including a $3 million increase for the Ombudsman program, which serves as an advocate for the elderly in long-term care facilities. This appropriations measure also includes vital funding for highways and transit at the historic levels approved by Congress as part of the Transportation Equity Act earlier this year and a strong level of investment in airport improvement. In addition, the transportation piece of the omnibus bill funds a number of Wisconsin specific items, including Wisconsin statewide bus programs that play a crucial role in our welfare to work efforts, the renovation of the Milwaukee Train Station, crash and congestion prevention technology funding for the State, commuter rail planning and grade crossing mitigation funds for Southeastern Wisconsin and funding for the Coast Guard's Great Lakes' icebreaker and Seagoing Buoy Tender replacement programs. The transportation piece of the omnibus package includes an important authorization provision affecting Milwaukee, Wisconsin's East West Corridor project. In the ISTEA reauthorization debate, the future of this project fell victim to politics and backroom dealing. Specifically, a provision was attached to the reauthorization legislation, the Transportation Equity Act or so-called TEA-21 law, which sought to undermine the framework of local decision making created by the original ISTEA in 1991. Worse still, this TEA-21 provision had not been debated as part of either the House or Senate reauthorization bills, but was added to the final bill at the eleventh hour despite the objections of those Members of Congress most impacted. As a member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I attempted to mitigate the damage done by the TEA-21 provision by attaching an amendment to the Senate Transportation Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 1999. My amendment reaffirms the right of local officials to decide what transportation projects best fit the needs of their community. It simply makes sure that all parties who deserve to be at the decision making table have an equal seat at that table. I am pleased that a compromise version of my amendment is included in the omnibus package. It is my sincere hope that State and local officials will now work together to move ahead expeditiously with the East West Corridor improvements. Fairness has won the day, now consensus and cooperation must yield progress on a project of vital importance to the economy and quality of life in Southeastern Wisconsin. I also am pleased several provisions I worked for throughout the year have made it into the portion of the bill covering Commerce-Justice- State appropriations. Most importantly, the legislation includes more than a threefold increase in crime prevention spending through Title V, a juvenile crime prevention program I authored six years ago. The funding level was increased from $20 million to $70 million. This should provide WI with around $1 million in prevention spending next year, a big boost from the approximately $340,000 it received last year out of the lower funding level. The bill also extends a limited number of important tax provisions in a fiscally responsible manner--meaning these provisions are paid for, but not at the expense of the social security surplus. In particular, I strongly support the acceleration of the increase in the deduction for health insurance of the self-employed and the permanent extension of income averaging. Both these measures will go a long way to ease the tax burdens of Wisconsin's farmers and small business people. When we return in the spring, it is my hope that we will approve the reforms necessary to preserve the long term viability of social security, as well as enact more additional targeted, fiscally sound tax relief measures, such as my Child Care Tax Credit. Finally, I applaud the Administration for recognizing the financial crisis that is sweeping the agricultural sector of the Midwest this summer. The legislation also wisely adds more money for market losses and drought in the southern U.S. In addition, this bill does more than recognize the current problems in rural America. Although modest, the bill provides more financial help to maintain the viability of Wisconsin agriculture by appropriating $17 million more for agricultural research than last year, allowing the University of Wisconsin to develop the new technologies that will soon be the new production practices used by farmers. Soil and Water Conservation programs spending will increase by $8 million, enhancing programs like the Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP). An additional $23 million was added for the Administration's Food Safety Initiative which includes money to increase the surveillance, research and education relating to food- borne illnesses. And finally, Congress agreed to pay dairy farmers for the transitioning of the industry to a more market oriented system as ordered by the last farm bill. Dairy producers will receive an estimated $200 million for agreeing to end the price support system in 1999. However, I still have significant concerns that Congress decided to postpone the consolidation of the milk marketing orders required by the 1996 Farm Bill and to extend the Northeast Dairy Compact. Our outdated, unfair pricing system must come to an end. It was wrong to use this bill to extend its life--and the life of a controversial regional price fixing scheme--both policies that hurt competitive Wisconsin family farmers. Another major problem with this bill is the use of the budget surplus to fund over $20 billion ``emergency'' spending. Certainly, some of these funds will go to meet truly unanticipated and urgent needs--like military deployments, natural disaster recovery efforts, and a response to the farm crisis sweeping the center of the nation. These are one- time, compassionate and necessary expenditures that must be made regardless of budget rules. Unfortunately, a significant portion of the so-called ``emergency'' money is not for true emergencies. For example, $1.3 billion is for military readiness--a worthy goal, but one that we ought to budget for as part of our annual budget process. I certainly hope it is not news to anyone that we expect our military to be ready to defend us. In addition, $50 million of that money is for ``morale, welfare, and recreation.'' Again, I agree with the goal of keeping our troops fit and content--but doing so should be a priority in every year's budget, not an off-budget item described as an ``unanticipated need.'' Many of us have argued that we ought not to use the budget surplus as an excuse to abandon fiscal discipline. We still need to save--for the Social Security obligations and health care needs of an aging population, for the rainy day that world economic instability may bring about, for the trust of the American taxpayer who expect us to use their tax dollars wisely. We succeeded in balancing the budget; it makes no sense to celebrate by unbalancing it again. I am also concerned about the pork that is the inevitable result of the haphazard and closed process that produced this legislation. I do not know what it is now, but I do know it will show up as we--and the public and the press--pore over the 8000 pages of this legislation over the next few weeks. In the end, as with any vote, the final decision has to be a result of weighing the good and the bad. No bill is perfect; most are the result of compromise. But in this bill, the balance of good and bad is tipped by the undemocratic and irresponsible manner in which it was written. I will vote no this morning, and I urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to call World Population Awareness Week 1998 to the attention of my colleagues. October 24-31st marks the 13th annual celebration of World Population Awareness Week. More than 300 family planning, environmental, educational, community and service organizations in 61 countries are co-sponsoring the week in an effort to raise awareness of the need for universal voluntary family planning. I call Governor Tommy G. Thompson's proclamation to the attention of my colleagues. I am pleased to note that Jeannette Bell, Mayor of West Allis has agreed to proclaim World Population Awareness Week as well. I ask that the proclamation be printed in the Record. The proclamation follows: world population awareness week proclamation--1998 Whereas world population stands today at more than 5.9 billion and increases by more than 80 million per year, with virtually all of this growth in the least developed countries; Whereas the consequences of rapid population growth are not limited to the developing world but extend to all nations and to all people, including every citizen of the State of Wisconsin concerned for human dignity, freedom and democracy, as well as for the impact on the global economy. Whereas 1.3 billion people--more than the combined population of Europe and North Africa--live in absolute poverty on the equivalent of one U.S. dollar or less a day; Whereas 1.5 billion people--nearly one-quarter of the world population--lack an adequate supply of clean drinking water or sanitation; Whereas more than 840 million people--one fifth of the entire population of the developing world--are hungry or malnourished; Whereas demographic studies and surveys indicate that at least 120 million married women in the developing world--and a large but undefined number of unmarried women--want more control over their fertility but lack access to family planning; Whereas this unmet demand for family planning is projected to result in 1.2 billion unintended births; Whereas the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development determined that political commitment and appropriate programs aimed at providing universal access to voluntary family planning information, education and services can ensure world population stabilization at 8 billion or less rather than 12 billion or more. Now, therefore, I Tommy G. Thompson, Governor of the State of Wisconsin, do hereby proclaim the week of October 25-31, 1998 as World Population Awareness Week, and urge citizens of the State to take cognizance of this event and to participate appropriately in its observance.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I agree with much of what my colleague, Senator Campbell, has said about this bill. It is a good bill. It provides sufficient appropriations for the Department of the Treasury and the independent agencies. But, since this bill left the Senate floor, it changed in ways that made it impossible for me to sign the conference report. First, the good news. The conference report before us is silent on the issue of staffing the Federal Election Commission. I am very pleased we have decided to avoid a partisan battle on this issue. Unfortunately, several other changes to the bill were made after the conference--and these make the bill much worse. First, the Senate bill contained a provision that would have provided for the adjustment of the status of Haitians. This provision, which had bipartisan Senate support, would allow 40,000 Haitian refugees who have been in this country since 1995, to stay permanently. Last year Congress provided this same type of correction for 150,000 Nicaraguans and 5,000 Cubans. The conference report before us drops that provision--despite the fact that it was agreed to by all conferees. Second, the Senate bill contained a provision that would address the requirements of providing quality child care in Federal facilities. This measure, proposed by Senator Jeffords, would simply make sure that Federal child care facilities operate under reasonable quality standards. In addition, it would bring under Federal regulation the child care centers run by Congress--child care centers that operate now completely unregulated by local, state, or Federal law. The conference report before us drops this provision--which until now was uncontroversial. I find it unacceptable that Congress would use the last minute legislative rush to exempt itself from basic health and safety standards for the children in its care. And, third, this conference report drops language--adopted by a bipartisan majority in both Houses--that would provide Federal employees with health insurance coverage for contraception. Again it is unacceptable that an extreme minority should be able to prevail on this. Close to half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and tragically, those unintended pregnancies often led to abortion. By providing federal workers with the most appropriate and safe means of contraception, we can reduce the number of abortions performed and increase the number of children who are born wanted, planned for, and loved. We in the Senate made good decisions when we passed the Treasury- General Government appropriations bill. It is disappointing that so many of those decisions have been overturned in last minute, partisan negotiations. The White House has promised that they will work with us to get the Haitian fairness, child care and contraception provisions included in the omnibus funding bill. Based on that assurance, and knowing of the many other strong provisions retained in the conference report, I will vote for passage. But I do so with great disappointment at how this bill has been altered in the last few days and great hope that the democratic decisions overturned will be restored in the final omnibus appropriations measure. One last note, I want to thank the staff members who have worked so tirelessly to bring this bill to the floor. Pat Raymond and Tammy Perrin of Senator Campbell's staff have always been helpful and professional in their dealings with us--their demeanor has allowed us to put this bill together in a truly bipartisan way. Paul Bock, my chief of staff, approached this bill as he does everything: with intelligence and a healthy sense of humor. And my deepest gratitude is for my clerk, Barbara Retzlaff, who has boundless energy, complete mastery of the programs she monitors, and incredible patience--with me and with this year's torturous negotiations. Thank you all. public access to government research data

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong concern about the conference report on bankruptcy reform. We do need to stop abuse of the bankruptcy system, and there is some good in this measure. But regrettably this is not an adequate solution. I do want to ``proceed,'' but to a better bankruptcy bill. Two weeks ago, the Senate overwhelmingly passed a reform bill which I was proud to support. It targeted the worst abuses by debtors and creditors, without overburdening the vast majority of debtors who truly need--and deserve--relief. Senator Grassley and Senator Durbin deserve much of the credit for putting together such a balanced and effective measure. But this bill is not that bill. Let me tell you why. Mr. President, we can't truly ``reform'' the bankruptcy system unless we eliminate the most egregious abuse. That is, debtors who shield their assets in luxury homes in states like Florida and Texas, while their legitimate creditors--children, ex-spouses owed alimony, governments, retailers and banks--get left out in the cold. If we really want to restore the stigma to bankruptcy, all of us know this is the best place to start. By capping the homestead exemption at $100,000, the Senate bill would have stopped this abuse. But the Conference Report won't put an end to this practice. Indeed, it only addresses part of the problem--by making it harder to move to Florida or Texas solely to take advantage of their liberal homestead laws. Now that is a step forward. But it is just a small step; it does nothing to stop debtors who already own lavish homes--or second homes-- in those states from continuing to live like kings. That's an injustice to legitimate creditors and an outrage to anyone who believes--like I do--that deadbeats who go into bankruptcy shouldn't be able to shield their assets in luxurious homes. Just take a look at what Burt Reynolds did earlier this week. The measure wouldn't apply to him, because he lives in Florida and that state has no homestead cap. As part of his bankruptcy settlement, he managed to hold onto his $2.5 million estate called ``Valhalla.'' Now, I like Burt Reynolds' movies. I liked ``Deliverance,'' ``Daisy Miller,'' and ``The Longest Yard''--though I didn't see ``Boogie Nights.'' Burt Reynolds is a fine actor. But it seems like he's making out much like his title role in ``Smokey and the Bandit.'' While he lives in luxury, his legitimate creditors lose millions. The Conference Report allows this to happen; the Senate bill would have put an end to this travesty. Of course, the dramatic rise in bankruptcies is very troubling, regardless of whether the blame lies with credit card companies, a culture that disparages personal responsibility, the bankruptcy code or, most probably, with all of the above. While none of us wants to return to the era of ``debtors' prison,'' we need to do something to reverse this trend, reduce the number of bankruptcy filings and make sure bankruptcy remains a tool of last resort. This bill does some of that. For example, it discourages repeat filings and it encourages debtors who can repay some of their debts to do so. But Mr. President, ultimately this Conference Report falls short. Instead of proceeding to this measure, we should proceed to a better bill. And hopefully next Congress we will. Thank you.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to express my continued strong interest in meaningful class action reform--and to announce that, although we do not have the time necessary to move legislation any further this year, class action reform remains one of my highest priorities. Although many class action lawsuits do result in significant and important benefits for class members and society, too many class lawyers put their self-interest above the best interests of their clients--resulting in unfair and abusive settlements that shortchange class members while their lawyers line their pockets with high fees. To address this growing problem, Senator Grassley and I introduced the Class Action Fairness Act of 1998 (S. 2083). The bill is a moderate approach to weed out the worst abuses, while preserving the benefits of class actions. It encourages closer scrutiny of class actions through several provisions. It requires that proposed class action settlements be in plain, easily understandable English and be sent to state attorneys general, so they have an opportunity to weigh in with any objections. It requires courts to determine what damages will actually be paid to class members before awarding attorneys' fees, rather than calculating fees based on overvalued estimates of meaningless coupon settlements. And it moves more class actions to federal courts, which generally give closer scrutiny than state courts and can promote efficiency and avoid a collusive ``race to settlement'' by consolidating overlapping cases. These proposals have earned a broad range of support. Even Judge Paul Niemeyer, the Chair of the Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, who has studied class actions closely and testified before Congress on this issue, expressed his support for this ``modest'' measure, noting in particular that increasing federal jurisdiction over class actions will be a positive ``meaningful step.'' This year, our bipartisan measure was reported favorably by the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. Unfortunately, as the term has winded down, we have been too busy with other pressing issues to give this proposal the full consideration it deserves. Still, we already have made several revisions to improve the bill and address concerns that have been raised, and in my view any remaining concerns can be worked out. So next year, class action reform will be one of my highest priorities. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that we eliminate those abuses that too often give class actions a bad name.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the Conference Report on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (H.R. 2281). In my view, we need this measure to stop an epidemic of illegal copying of protected works--such as movies, books, musical recordings, and software--and to limit, in a balanced and thoughtful way, the infringement liability of online service providers. The copyright industry is one of our most thriving businesses. But we still lose more than $15 billion each year due to foreign copyright piracy, according to some estimates. And foreign piracy is just out of control. For example, one of my staffers investigating video piracy on a trip to China walked into a Hong Kong arcade and bought three bootlegged computer games--including ``Toy Story'' and ``NBA '97''--for just $10. These games, combined, normally sell for about $100. Indeed, the manager was so brazen about it, he even agreed to give out a receipt. Illegal copying has been a longstanding concern to me. I introduced one of the precursors to this bill, the Motion Picture Anti-Piracy Act (in the 101st Congress), which in principle has been incorporated into this measure. And I was one of the cosponsors of the original proposed WIPO implementing legislation, the preliminary version of this proposal. In my opinion, this bill achieves a fair balance by taking steps to effectively deter piracy, while still allowing fair use of protected materials. It is the product of intensive negotiations between all of the interested parties--including the copyright industry, telephone companies, libraries, universities and device manufacturers. And virtually every major concern raised during that process was addressed. Unfortunately, however, the Conference dropped what I believe were crucial protections for databases. It is my understanding, though, that the Committee will be ``fast tracking'' consideration of database protection next Congress. I look forward to working with Chairman Hatch to move forward on this matter early next year. In sum, Mr. President, I am confident that this bill will reduce piracy and strengthen one of our biggest export industries. It deserves our support and the President's signature.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to put America's children first by putting more resources into the hands of families and encouraging more parents to live up to their child support obligations. My legislation, the Children First Child Support Reform Act, would direct that all child support collected through the Federal- State Child Support Enforcement Program be passed through, or paid, directly to the children and families to whom it is owed and disregarded in the calculation of public assistance benefits. My legislation will assure non-custodial parents that the child support they pay will actually contribute to the well-being of their child, rather than the government, and will also reduce administrative burdens on the state. As my colleagues know, since its inception in 1975, our Federal-State Child Support Enforcement Program has been tasked with collecting child support for families receiving public assistance and other families that request help in enforcing child support. Towards this end, the program works to establish paternity and legally-binding support orders, while collecting and disbursing funds on behalf of families so that children receive the support they need to grow up in healthy, nurturing surroundings. But on one crucial point, the current program does not truly work on behalf of families and, perhaps more importantly, may actually work against families by discouraging non-custodial parents from meeting their child support obligations. If the family was never on public assistance, the support is collected by the Child Support Enforcement Program and sent directly to the family. However, under current law, most child support collected on behalf of families receiving public assistance is retained by the state and Federal governments as reimbursement for welfare expenditures. In addition to this cost recoupment function, collections made on behalf of welfare families are used to fund the child support program in many states. Thus, under current law, we have a system where the vast majority of children on public assistance never actually receive the child support that is paid on their behalf. The government keeps the money. The research shows that many non-custodial parents who pay support do not believe that their payment actually benefits their children. They realize and resent that they are paying the government. Worse yet, some non-custodial parents may decide not to pay support because it does not go to their children. Some custodial parents also are skeptical about working with the child support agency to secure payments since the funds are generally not forwarded to them. Mr. President, we know that an estimated 800,000 families would not need public assistance if they could count on the child support owed to them. In addition, we know that 23 million children are owed more than $40 billion in outstanding support. Clearly, the vital importance of child support in keeping families off of assistance remains as true today as when the program began. In a world with TANF time limits, it has never been more important. And with these figures in mind, it is not unthinkable that some policymakers may have or might still consider this program as a means of recovering welfare expenditures. But I am convinced that that thinking must change, if not cast off entirely, because, simply put, times have changed. The welfare reform law of 1996, which I supported, paved the way for time limits and work requirements that provide clear and compelling incentives for families to enter the workforce and find a way to stay there. Open ended, unconditional public support is no longer a reality, and our goal and responsibility as policymakers, now more than ever before, is to give families the tools and resources they need to prepare for and ultimately survive the day when they are without public assistance. We fundamentally changed welfare, now we must fundamentally reexamine the central role of child support in helping families as they struggle to become and remain self-sufficient. And I say we go down the road of putting children first, a path on which we have already made some progress. Under the welfare reform law, states will eventually be required to distribute state-collected child support arrears owed to the family before paying off arrears owed to the state and Federal governments for welfare expenditures. In addition, states were given the option of continuing to passthrough directly the first $50 of child support to the family. One state, my state of Wisconsin, has opted to pass through all child support collected on behalf of participating families to those families. As you know, Wisconsin has been a leader and national model in the area of welfare reform. Under Wisconsin's welfare program, child support counts as income in determining financial eligibility for welfare assistance, but once eligibility is established, the child support income is disregarded in calculating program benefits. In other words, families are allowed to keep their own money. Non-custodial parents can be assured that their contribution counts and that their child support payments go to their children. And both parents are presented with a realistic picture of what that support means in the life of their child. I believe we, as a nation, should follow Wisconsin's example. The full passthrough and disregard approach also has significant benefits on the administrative side. The current distribution requirements place significant computer, accounting and paperwork burdens on the states. They are also costly. Data from the Federal Office of Child Support demonstrates that nearly 20 percent of program expenditures are spent simply processing payments. States are required to maintain a complicated set of accounts to determine whether support collected should be paid to the family or kept by the government. These complex accounting rules depend on whether the family ever received public assistance, the date a family begins and ends assistance, whether the non-custodial parent is current on payments or owes arrears, the method of collection and other factors. We know that we have already asked much of the states in the realm of automation, systems integration and welfare law child support enforcement adjustments. We hope and believe these improvements will lead to better collection rates. Now we have a chance to simplify and improve distribution of support. What could be simpler than a distribution system in which all child support collected would be delivered to the children to whom it is owed? A distribution system in which child support agencies would distribute current support and arrears to both welfare and non-welfare families in exactly the same way? Mr. President, I am raising these points and introducing this legislation today, in the final week of the 105th Congress, as a marker, as a starting point to this discussion. Child support financing must be addressed. First, our current distribution scheme is out of step with the philosophy of current welfare policy. We must move the child support program from cost-recovery to service delivery for all families. Second, the current financing scheme is no longer workable. TANF caseloads are decreasing dramatically, even as overall child support caseloads are increasing. Therefore, while the system needs additional resources, the portion of the caseload that produces those resources is decreasing. We must put the child support program on a sound financial footing that confirms a strong Federal and state commitment to the program. So, I believe it is time to begin a discussion on the issue of child support financing and the vital role of the child support program in helping families help themselves. The Administration has already begun to meet with policymakers, state administrators, and children's advocates to discuss the future of child support financing. I want to begin today, and ultimately end the debate, by pushing for a financing system that puts more resources into the hands of children, that lets our nation's families keep more of their own money. But let me strongly affirm that adopting a children first policy is only one of my goals. At this time, my proposal addresses only one half of the financing issue. Yes, we should put children first, but let me stress that I have every intention of continuing to refine this proposal so that it addresses the second point as well--finding alternative financing mechanisms so that states can maintain and strengthen their child support programs. Without adequate funding, state child support programs cannot deliver effective child support services to the families that so desperately need them. I want to continue working with my colleagues, Wisconsin and the other states, advocates and families to sort out the rest of the financing question. By advocating a full passthrough and disregard approach, I am absolutely not advocating a disinvestment in our child support system by either the Federal government or the states. Our commitment to this program must remain strong and steadfast. But it is time for us to create a system that truly serves families by giving them the tools to survive in a world without public support. It is time for a child support financing system that truly puts families, and not the government, first. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to put America's children first by putting more resources into the hands of families and encouraging more parents to live up to their child support obligations. My legislation, the Children First Child Support Reform Act, would direct that all child support collected through the Federal- State Child Support Enforcement Program be passed through, or paid, directly to the children and families to whom it is owed and disregarded in the calculation of public assistance benefits. My legislation will assure non-custodial parents that the child support they pay will actually contribute to the well-being of their child, rather than the government, and will also reduce administrative burdens on the state. As my colleagues know, since its inception in 1975, our Federal-State Child Support Enforcement Program has been tasked with collecting child support for families receiving public assistance and other families that request help in enforcing child support. Towards this end, the program works to establish paternity and legally-binding support orders, while collecting and disbursing funds on behalf of families so that children receive the support they need to grow up in healthy, nurturing surroundings. But on one crucial point, the current program does not truly work on behalf of families and, perhaps more importantly, may actually work against families by discouraging non-custodial parents from meeting their child support obligations. If the family was never on public assistance, the support is collected by the Child Support Enforcement Program and sent directly to the family. However, under current law, most child support collected on behalf of families receiving public assistance is retained by the state and Federal governments as reimbursement for welfare expenditures. In addition to this cost recoupment function, collections made on behalf of welfare families are used to fund the child support program in many states. Thus, under current law, we have a system where the vast majority of children on public assistance never actually receive the child support that is paid on their behalf. The government keeps the money. The research shows that many non-custodial parents who pay support do not believe that their payment actually benefits their children. They realize and resent that they are paying the government. Worse yet, some non-custodial parents may decide not to pay support because it does not go to their children. Some custodial parents also are skeptical about working with the child support agency to secure payments since the funds are generally not forwarded to them. Mr. President, we know that an estimated 800,000 families would not need public assistance if they could count on the child support owed to them. In addition, we know that 23 million children are owed more than $40 billion in outstanding support. Clearly, the vital importance of child support in keeping families off of assistance remains as true today as when the program began. In a world with TANF time limits, it has never been more important. And with these figures in mind, it is not unthinkable that some policymakers may have or might still consider this program as a means of recovering welfare expenditures. But I am convinced that that thinking must change, if not cast off entirely, because, simply put, times have changed. The welfare reform law of 1996, which I supported, paved the way for time limits and work requirements that provide clear and compelling incentives for families to enter the workforce and find a way to stay there. Open ended, unconditional public support is no longer a reality, and our goal and responsibility as policymakers, now more than ever before, is to give families the tools and resources they need to prepare for and ultimately survive the day when they are without public assistance. We fundamentally changed welfare, now we must fundamentally reexamine the central role of child support in helping families as they struggle to become and remain self-sufficient. And I say we go down the road of putting children first, a path on which we have already made some progress. Under the welfare reform law, states will eventually be required to distribute state-collected child support arrears owed to the family before paying off arrears owed to the state and Federal governments for welfare expenditures. In addition, states were given the option of continuing to passthrough directly the first $50 of child support to the family. One state, my state of Wisconsin, has opted to pass through all child support collected on behalf of participating families to those families. As you know, Wisconsin has been a leader and national model in the area of welfare reform. Under Wisconsin's welfare program, child support counts as income in determining financial eligibility for welfare assistance, but once eligibility is established, the child support income is disregarded in calculating program benefits. In other words, families are allowed to keep their own money. Non-custodial parents can be assured that their contribution counts and that their child support payments go to their children. And both parents are presented with a realistic picture of what that support means in the life of their child. I believe we, as a nation, should follow Wisconsin's example. The full passthrough and disregard approach also has significant benefits on the administrative side. The current distribution requirements place significant computer, accounting and paperwork burdens on the states. They are also costly. Data from the Federal Office of Child Support demonstrates that nearly 20 percent of program expenditures are spent simply processing payments. States are required to maintain a complicated set of accounts to determine whether support collected should be paid to the family or kept by the government. These complex accounting rules depend on whether the family ever received public assistance, the date a family begins and ends assistance, whether the non-custodial parent is current on payments or owes arrears, the method of collection and other factors. We know that we have already asked much of the states in the realm of automation, systems integration and welfare law child support enforcement adjustments. We hope and believe these improvements will lead to better collection rates. Now we have a chance to simplify and improve distribution of support. What could be simpler than a distribution system in which all child support collected would be delivered to the children to whom it is owed? A distribution system in which child support agencies would distribute current support and arrears to both welfare and non-welfare families in exactly the same way? Mr. President, I am raising these points and introducing this legislation today, in the final week of the 105th Congress, as a marker, as a starting point to this discussion. Child support financing must be addressed. First, our current distribution scheme is out of step with the philosophy of current welfare policy. We must move the child support program from cost-recovery to service delivery for all families. Second, the current financing scheme is no longer workable. TANF caseloads are decreasing dramatically, even as overall child support caseloads are increasing. Therefore, while the system needs additional resources, the portion of the caseload that produces those resources is decreasing. We must put the child support program on a sound financial footing that confirms a strong Federal and state commitment to the program. So, I believe it is time to begin a discussion on the issue of child support financing and the vital role of the child support program in helping families help themselves. The Administration has already begun to meet with policymakers, state administrators, and children's advocates to discuss the future of child support financing. I want to begin today, and ultimately end the debate, by pushing for a financing system that puts more resources into the hands of children, that lets our nation's families keep more of their own money. But let me strongly affirm that adopting a children first policy is only one of my goals. At this time, my proposal addresses only one half of the financing issue. Yes, we should put children first, but let me stress that I have every intention of continuing to refine this proposal so that it addresses the second point as well--finding alternative financing mechanisms so that states can maintain and strengthen their child support programs. Without adequate funding, state child support programs cannot deliver effective child support services to the families that so desperately need them. I want to continue working with my colleagues, Wisconsin and the other states, advocates and families to sort out the rest of the financing question. By advocating a full passthrough and disregard approach, I am absolutely not advocating a disinvestment in our child support system by either the Federal government or the states. Our commitment to this program must remain strong and steadfast. But it is time for us to create a system that truly serves families by giving them the tools to survive in a world without public support. It is time for a child support financing system that truly puts families, and not the government, first. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to outline my proposal for reducing juvenile crime--the ``Safe and Sound Communities Act,'' which I will make available as a discussion draft today. In the past few years, we have begun to make real advances in fighting juvenile crime. And in cities across the country, juvenile crime has started to fall. For example, after Boston implemented a city-wide 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. And in three ``Weed & Seed'' neighborhoods in Milwaukee, violent felonies dropped 46 percent, gun crimes fell 46 percent, and crime overall was down 21 percent. Now we need to build on what works, in order to protect our children and to make our communities ``safe and sound.'' This measure will be an important step in the right direction. Indeed, we do not have to reinvent the wheel to reduce juvenile crime. The lesson from Boston, Milwaukee and other cities is clear. There is no one 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 give children after-school alternatives to gangs and drugs. That's what works in Boston and Milwaukee and the rest of America. 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. Put Dangerous Criminals Behind Bars First, this proposal makes it easier to lock up dangerous juveniles. 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 measure extends the highly successful COPS program, which is due to expire in two years, through the year 2003. 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 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 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. And this measure will help lock up violent 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 law needs to make clear that this is a serious crime. Keep Guns Out of the Hands of Children 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, it will help cut down illegal gun trafficking. In addition, this measure closes a 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 14 or 24, or a day short of their 18th or 28th birthday, at the time of their offense. Crime Prevention and After-School Alternatives to Gangs and Drugs Third, a balanced approach also requires a significant investment in crime prevention, so we can stop crime before it's too late. Even law enforcement officials agree that we need a bigger investment in prevention. For example, more than 400 police chiefs, sheriffs and prosecutors nationwide have endorsed a call for after-school programs for all children. And in my home state of Wisconsin, 90 percent of police chiefs and sheriffs 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 programs 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 locally-tailored prevention initiatives by reauthorizing and expanding the Title V At-Risk Children Challenge Grant program, which I authored. It builds on our support for the valuable work of Boys & Girls Clubs, by extending that program and expanding it to support other successful organizations like the YMCA. And it requires that at least 20 percent of the new juvenile crime funds--namely the recently-initiated $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. That's why my measure cuts $1.6 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 five to ten 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 Boston's and Milwaukee's--so prevention is part of a balanced, coordinated overall plan. This combination of tough enforcement, reducing youth access to guns, and effective prevention will help stem juvenile crime. In addition, several other necessary reforms in this proposal will make a difference. It strongly encourages states to share the records of violent juvenile offenders, and provides the funding necessary for improved record-keeping. The fact is that law enforcement officials need full disclosure in order to make informed judgments about how to treat--and whether to incarcerate--a child. The measure also addresses the dangerous problem of school violence. It increases school security by encouraging states to use COPS funding to place police officers on school grounds. It encourages the development of initiatives to prevent school violence. And because understanding the problem is essential to any comprehensive solution, it requires better reporting of firearms-related incidents in public schools. Unfortunately, many states do not report guns seized on school grounds. 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: When will we act? As the chances for a juvenile crime bill this year look increasingly slim, I recommend this framework as a good starting point for next year. Let's build on what works so we can make our communities safer and sounder places to live. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this proposal be printed in the Record. The summary follows: Summary of Sen. Herb Kohl's Safe and Sound Communities Act Title I: Increased Placement of Juveniles in Appropriate Correctional Facilities States must dedicate 10 percent of all prison funding from the 1994 Crime Act to juvenile facilities or alternative placements for delinquent juveniles. Expands ability to detain juveniles temporarily in rural adult jails by permitting detention for up to 72 hours and ending requirement of separate staff to oversee juveniles and adults. Title II: Reducing Youth Access to Firearms Limits access of juveniles and juvenile offenders to firearms. Requires the sale of child safety locks with all handguns. Expands Department of the Treasury's youth crime gun tracing program to identify more illegal gun traffickers who are supplying guns to children. Increases jail time for individuals who transfer handguns to juveniles and for juveniles who illegally possess handguns. Prohibits the sale of firearms to violent juvenile offenders after they become eighteen years old. Title III: Consolidation of Prevention Programs Repeals over $1.6 billion in authorized prevention programs from the 1994 Crime Act. Expands Weed & Seed to $200 million per year (from $33.5 million in 1998), the Title V At-Risk Children Challenge Grants to $200 million per year (from $20 million), and the 21st Century Learning Centers to $200 million per year (from $40 million), and extends Boys & Girls Club funding for five more years, increasing funding to $75 million per year (from $20 million) and expanding the program to support other successful community organizations like the YMCA. Consolidates several gang prevention programs into one $25 million program. Rewards cities that adopt a comprehensive anti-juvenile crime strategy based on the Boston model. Sets aside five to ten percent of prevention funding for evaluation, implementing the proposal of the DOJ- sponsored University of Maryland report. Title IV: Juvenile Crime Control and Accountability Block Grant Promotes funding for prosecutors, improved-record keeping, juvenile prisons, and prevention through $500 million block grant. Qualifying states must trace all firearms recovered from individuals under age 21 to identify illegal firearm traffickers, and must share criminal records of all juvenile violent offenders with other jurisdictions. $100 million of this grant program must be dedicated to both prevention and to hiring more prosecutors. Title V--School Violence Prevention Expands role of police officers on school campuses through COPS program. Encourages better reporting of incidents of firearms violence in schools, including gun tracing to identify suppliers of firearms recovered on school property. Complements expansion of school violence prevention programs in Title IV block grant. Title VI--Extension of COPS and Juvenile Justice programs Extends program to hire new community police officers. Reauthorizes Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Title VII--Extension of Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund Extends trust fund established by 1994 Crime Act to pay for anti-crime programs with savings from reduction of federal workforce.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Long-Term Care Patient Protection Act of 1998, along with Senators Reid and Feinstein. I am pleased to introduce this legislation on behalf of the Administration. Recently, the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General issued a report describing how easy it is for people with abusive and criminal backgrounds to find work in nursing homes. On September 14th, the Senate Aging Committee held hearings on this disturbing problem, where we heard horrifying stories of elderly patients being abused by the very people who are charged with their care. While the vast majority of nursing home workers are dedicated and professional, even one instance of abuse is inexcusable. This should not be happening in a single nursing home in America. Senator Reid and I have already introduced legislation, the Patient Abuse Prevention Act, to require background checks for health care workers. Those with prior abusive and criminal backgrounds would be prohibited from working in patient care. I am pleased that the Administration has also recognized the importance of addressing this problem, and I have been glad to work with them in this effort. While the bill we introduce today on the Administration's behalf is not perfect, I believe it is another important step in our efforts to pass strong patient protections. Mr. President, it is estimated that more than 43 percent of Americans over the age of 65 will likely spend time in a nursing home. The number of people needing long-term care services will continue to increase as the Baby Boom generation ages. The vast majority of nursing homes do an excellent job in caring for their patients, but it only takes a few abusive staff to cast a dark shadow over what should be a healing environment. A disturbing number of cases have been reported where workers with criminal backgrounds have been cleared to work in direct patient care, and have subsequently abused patients in their care. Just last year, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ran a series of articles describing this problem. This past March, The Wall Street Journal published an article describing the difficulties we face in tracking known abusers. These news stories are only the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately, it is just far too easy for a worker with a history of abuse to find employment and prey on the most vulnerable patients. The OIG report found that 5 percent of nursing home employees in Maryland and Illinois had prior criminal records. And it also found that between 15-20 percent of those convicted of patient abuse had prior criminal records. It is just too easy for known abusers to find work in health care and continue to prey on patients. Why is this the case? Because current state and national safeguards are inadequate to screen out abusive workers. All States are required to maintain registries of abusive nurse aides. But nurse aides are not the only workers involved in abuse, and other workers are not tracked at all. Even worse, there is no system to coordinate information about abusive nurse aides between States. A known abuser in Iowa would have little trouble moving to Wisconsin and continuing to work with patients there. In addition, there is no Federal requirement that nursing homes conduct a criminal background check on prospective employees. People with violent criminal backgrounds--people who have already been found guilty of murder, rape, and assault--could easily get a job in a nursing home or other health care setting without their past ever being discovered. The Administration's bill that we introduce today builds upon the extensive work that Senator Reid and I have done to address this issue, and incorporates some new ideas as well. First, this legislation will create a National Registry of abusive nursing home employees. States will be required to submit information from their current State registries to the National Registry. Nursing homes will be required to check the National Registry before hiring a prospective worker. Any worker with a substantiated finding of abuse will be prohibited from working in nursing homes. Second, the bill provides a second line of defense to prevent people with criminal backgrounds from working in nursing homes. If the National Registry does not include information about the prospective worker, the nursing home is then required to contact the state to initiate an FBI background check. Any conviction for patient abuse or a relevant violent crime would bar that applicant from working in nursing homes. Let me be clear: I realize that this legislation is not perfect. I have significant concerns about several unresolved issues that I believe must be addressed. We must continue to work on minimizing costs and determine a fair and reasonable way to distribute those costs. We must ensure that the system is efficient and effective, with a quick turnaround time and accurate information for providers. And I believe that we must apply these requirements to other health care settings besides nursing homes. It would do little good to ban these people from working in nursing homes, and still permit them to work in home health care. Senator Reid and I have worked for a long time with patient advocates, the nursing home and home health industries, and law enforcement officials to address these issues. I have been very heartened by their enthusiasm and willingness to work with us in this effort. It is in all of our best interests to pass legislation that is strong, workable, and enforceable. Despite the unresolved issues I have mentioned, I am introducing the Administration's legislation today because I believe it will provide a strong incentive for everyone to stay at the table and resolve these issues. All of us--the President, Congress, health care professionals and consumer advocates--we all share the common goal of protecting patients from abuse, neglect and maltreatment. We must keep working together to create a viable national system that will prevent abusive workers from working with patients. Although the remaining days of this Congress are few, we all need to come together once again to reach consensus on the remaining issues and prepare to move this process forward. This legislation gives us an opportunity to act now. I look forward to continuing our work on this issue, and I welcome comments and suggestions for improving the bill. Mr. President, I want to repeat that I strongly believe that most nursing homes and their staff provide the highest quality care. However, it is imperative that Congress act immediately to get rid of the few that don't. When a patient checks into a nursing home, they should not have to give up their right to be free from abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. They should not have to worry about dying from malnutrition and dehydration. Our nation's seniors made our country what it is today. Before we cross that bridge to the next century that we have all heard so much about, we must make sure we treat the people that brought us this far with the dignity, care, and respect they deserve. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration in this effort to protect patients. Our Nation's seniors and disabled deserve nothing less than our full attention to this matter. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. [The bill was not available for printing. It will appear in a future issue of the Record.]

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Long-Term Care Patient Protection Act of 1998, along with Senators Reid and Feinstein. I am pleased to introduce this legislation on behalf of the Administration. Recently, the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General issued a report describing how easy it is for people with abusive and criminal backgrounds to find work in nursing homes. On September 14th, the Senate Aging Committee held hearings on this disturbing problem, where we heard horrifying stories of elderly patients being abused by the very people who are charged with their care. While the vast majority of nursing home workers are dedicated and professional, even one instance of abuse is inexcusable. This should not be happening in a single nursing home in America. Senator Reid and I have already introduced legislation, the Patient Abuse Prevention Act, to require background checks for health care workers. Those with prior abusive and criminal backgrounds would be prohibited from working in patient care. I am pleased that the Administration has also recognized the importance of addressing this problem, and I have been glad to work with them in this effort. While the bill we introduce today on the Administration's behalf is not perfect, I believe it is another important step in our efforts to pass strong patient protections. Mr. President, it is estimated that more than 43 percent of Americans over the age of 65 will likely spend time in a nursing home. The number of people needing long-term care services will continue to increase as the Baby Boom generation ages. The vast majority of nursing homes do an excellent job in caring for their patients, but it only takes a few abusive staff to cast a dark shadow over what should be a healing environment. A disturbing number of cases have been reported where workers with criminal backgrounds have been cleared to work in direct patient care, and have subsequently abused patients in their care. Just last year, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ran a series of articles describing this problem. This past March, The Wall Street Journal published an article describing the difficulties we face in tracking known abusers. These news stories are only the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately, it is just far too easy for a worker with a history of abuse to find employment and prey on the most vulnerable patients. The OIG report found that 5 percent of nursing home employees in Maryland and Illinois had prior criminal records. And it also found that between 15-20 percent of those convicted of patient abuse had prior criminal records. It is just too easy for known abusers to find work in health care and continue to prey on patients. Why is this the case? Because current state and national safeguards are inadequate to screen out abusive workers. All States are required to maintain registries of abusive nurse aides. But nurse aides are not the only workers involved in abuse, and other workers are not tracked at all. Even worse, there is no system to coordinate information about abusive nurse aides between States. A known abuser in Iowa would have little trouble moving to Wisconsin and continuing to work with patients there. In addition, there is no Federal requirement that nursing homes conduct a criminal background check on prospective employees. People with violent criminal backgrounds--people who have already been found guilty of murder, rape, and assault--could easily get a job in a nursing home or other health care setting without their past ever being discovered. The Administration's bill that we introduce today builds upon the extensive work that Senator Reid and I have done to address this issue, and incorporates some new ideas as well. First, this legislation will create a National Registry of abusive nursing home employees. States will be required to submit information from their current State registries to the National Registry. Nursing homes will be required to check the National Registry before hiring a prospective worker. Any worker with a substantiated finding of abuse will be prohibited from working in nursing homes. Second, the bill provides a second line of defense to prevent people with criminal backgrounds from working in nursing homes. If the National Registry does not include information about the prospective worker, the nursing home is then required to contact the state to initiate an FBI background check. Any conviction for patient abuse or a relevant violent crime would bar that applicant from working in nursing homes. Let me be clear: I realize that this legislation is not perfect. I have significant concerns about several unresolved issues that I believe must be addressed. We must continue to work on minimizing costs and determine a fair and reasonable way to distribute those costs. We must ensure that the system is efficient and effective, with a quick turnaround time and accurate information for providers. And I believe that we must apply these requirements to other health care settings besides nursing homes. It would do little good to ban these people from working in nursing homes, and still permit them to work in home health care. Senator Reid and I have worked for a long time with patient advocates, the nursing home and home health industries, and law enforcement officials to address these issues. I have been very heartened by their enthusiasm and willingness to work with us in this effort. It is in all of our best interests to pass legislation that is strong, workable, and enforceable. Despite the unresolved issues I have mentioned, I am introducing the Administration's legislation today because I believe it will provide a strong incentive for everyone to stay at the table and resolve these issues. All of us--the President, Congress, health care professionals and consumer advocates--we all share the common goal of protecting patients from abuse, neglect and maltreatment. We must keep working together to create a viable national system that will prevent abusive workers from working with patients. Although the remaining days of this Congress are few, we all need to come together once again to reach consensus on the remaining issues and prepare to move this process forward. This legislation gives us an opportunity to act now. I look forward to continuing our work on this issue, and I welcome comments and suggestions for improving the bill. Mr. President, I want to repeat that I strongly believe that most nursing homes and their staff provide the highest quality care. However, it is imperative that Congress act immediately to get rid of the few that don't. When a patient checks into a nursing home, they should not have to give up their right to be free from abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. They should not have to worry about dying from malnutrition and dehydration. Our nation's seniors made our country what it is today. Before we cross that bridge to the next century that we have all heard so much about, we must make sure we treat the people that brought us this far with the dignity, care, and respect they deserve. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration in this effort to protect patients. Our Nation's seniors and disabled deserve nothing less than our full attention to this matter. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. [The bill was not available for printing. It will appear in a future issue of the Record.]

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the fiscal year 1999 Agricultural appropriations conference report. This bill would delay reform of the current milk pricing system and extend the life of the controversial Northeast Dairy Compact. Both policies would cost consumers and hurt dairy farmers in the Midwest. Most of the debate on this bill has rightly been about how we can help farmers devastated by drought and low crop yields. But just as we must act to help them, we should not act to harm the dairy farmers of Wisconsin and other Midwestern states. It is not as if there is support for the damaging dairy policies in this bill. Twenty-five Senators have signed a letter opposing extension of the current milk pricing system and the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. The Judiciary Committee has requested that no action be taken to renew the Compact without their review. And it is by no means certain that the Compact could survive scrutiny. The higher prices ordered by the Compact are leading to higher consumer prices and a continued decline in fluid milk consumption. Worse yet, these higher prices are primarily benefiting large dairy farms. In Vermont the largest 7 percent of farms receive 30 percent of the Compact revenues. As for extending the USDA's time to review the milk pricing system, that is unnecessary. By delaying reform, this legislation does exactly what the authors of the 1996 Farm Bill were trying to prevent. Congress deliberately gave the job of reform to the Secretary of Agriculture so it could be done in a more analytical and less political environment. Our actions today put the antiquated dairy pricing system back into the political arena that created it in the first place. To many of you, this may seem to be an arcane debate with little real impact. But in Wisconsin, and through the Midwest region, the current inequitable pricing system is destroying family farms--not because they are uncompetitive, but because of a system that closes off regional markets and prices milk based on where it is made, not on its quality or its cost. Our actions today punish a traditional and successful industry. We are making the Midwest dairy farmers the victims of regional infighting and inside-the beltway politics. That is wrong. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. long park dam

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a woman who has been honored as one of only seven Americans to receive the National Crime Prevention Council's Ameritech Award of excellence in Crime Prevention. Bette Wahl is an enthusiastic youth advocate and a strong voice in the Eau Claire community for crime prevention. While her words are powerful and persuasive, her actions prove her dedication to the youth of Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Mrs. Wahl is the Project Coordinator for the Eau Claire Coalition for Youth. The Coalition is a collaboration of 28 agencies which address the recreational, educational, and social needs of youth and family. Under Mrs. Wahl's guidance, creativity, and energy, the Coalition has grown and become a true asset to the community. Bette Wahl has created innovative youth crime prevention programs, enlisting the support of senior citizens in her community. In 1994, Seniors Partnering with Youth brought young and old together to work on service projects that benefit the community. This program provides an alternative activity to crime and delinquency, helps youth serve the community, and develops the values of compassion, respect, and responsibility. Bette also created two pilot youth employment programs which serve as gang and delinquency diversion programs. Through one of the programs, Youth Works, young people build self-esteem, pride, and responsibility. Bette has displayed her extraordinary passion and skill while developing effective crime prevention programs in the Eau Claire community. Eau Claire's chief of police, David Malone, called Bette ``phenomenal'' saying that ``she seems to have a unique talent for bringing out the best in people and getting them to reach a solution.'' She succeeds where others fail by influencing and inspiring others with her energy and creativity, thereby achieving a positive and permanent change in the crime prevention field. Bette recognizes that greater communication and integration of services enables a community to achieve tangible benefits in crime prevention. Sixty percent of juveniles in her truancy reduction program experienced an increase in school attendance; she has provided community service opportunities for 369 youth in another program, and she organizes two youth job fairs each year to match youth with area businesses for entry level jobs. Mrs. Wahl's hard work in crime prevention encourages youth, adults, businesses, government agencies, community organizations, and schools to participate in a community-wide partnership to help Eau Claire's youth realize their full potential. On behalf of all those affected by her work and in honor of her recent award, congratulations, Bette Wahl.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to continue our efforts toward promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy technology. The Administration has placed a high priority on energy efficiency for the coming year and we must follow their lead. The problems of air and water pollution as well as the dangers of climate change only reinforce the need for an increased effort. Improved energy efficiency can buy us the time needed to develop an improved national energy policy based on renewable energy which will be the foundation of the 21st century. Human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels has increased atmospheric CO2, methane and nitrous oxide, all of which contribute to global warming. In fact, U.S. fossil energy currently produces about one-fourth of the world's CO2 emissions. The U.S. accounts for 25% of world oil use, two-thirds of which is consumed by the transportation sector. Economically, U.S. oil imports accounts for 50% of national oil use, which amounts to $60 billion, or 36% of our trade deficit. Mr. President not only is this dangerous for our environment, but it also poses a great threat to our economic security. From FY1948-FY1997 total energy R & D spending reached $108 billion. Of this figure $66 billion or 61% has been spent on nuclear technology, $26 billion or 24% for fossil fuels, while only $11 billion or 10% has been spent on renewables and $7 billion or 7% for energy efficiency. In contrast, the DOE's 1995 Energy Conservation Trends report found that energy conservation activities from 1973 to 1991 curbed energy use by about 27%. In 1992 this savings equaled $283 billion or about half of the nation's $538 billion annual energy spending. These figures show the benefits energy efficiency can bring to the U.S. if managed properly. We must work to reverse this discrepancy and increase funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. One program which I believe shows great promise for the future is Federal use of Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC's). Administered under DOE's Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), ESPC's are a technique which reduces energy costs and consumption by the Federal government without increasing budgetary outlays. ESPC's are awarded to private firms who then install and maintain energy efficiency improvements in Federal facilities while guaranteeing savings. However, the FEMP program has repeatedly gone under funded. It is for this reason I introduced the Federal Energy Bank Act of 1997 (S. 1375) which sought an alternative means of providing the critical needed funding for Federal energy management. I'd like to take this time now to thank my colleagues, Senators Feingold, Bumpers, Johnson, Bingaman, Jeffords and Campbell in supporting my bill and efforts. Mr. President, President Clinton has recently directed all Federal agencies to maximize their use of ESPC's before the authority to use ESPC's expires in the year 2000. I call on all my colleagues to support a reauthorization and expansion of the ESPC authority before this valuable program expires. We should continue to work with DOE and the Administration to see this important partnership between the private and public sectors is extended well into the future. Mr. President, if anyone is skeptical as to the benefits of the program I'd like to give two examples of successful ESPC's involving a Wisconsin company, Johnson Controls. Under one of the largest ESPC's in the country Johnson Controls has agreed to replace the outdated 50- year-old steam system at DOE's Hanford complex in Washington. The Hanford complex, which includes research labs, fuel fabrication facilities, industrial sites as well as numerous administrative buildings are undergoing a transition from a nuclear weapons production site to an energy research and development facility. This 25-year contract will save the taxpayers a guaranteed $108 million while reducing harmful emissions. Johnson also has recently signed onto another ESPC with the U.S. Department of Transportation to make improvements to the Volpe National Transportation Center in Massachusetts. Johnson will make and maintain improvements to lighting, heating, ventilation, air conditioning as well as other energy management systems. This 10-year contract will reduce energy expenses by $200,000 each year for the life of the contract, and limit carbon dioxide emissions. Mr. President, this is an important partnership which benefits many parts of society. It's good for the government, the private sector as well as the environment and should be continued. Again, I'd like to thank my colleagues for their past support. I encourage them to support reauthorizing this program for the future and support additional funding for energy efficient and renewable energy technology. Thank you Mr. President.