Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in objection to the amendment and suggest we vote on it tomorrow.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be laid aside in keeping with the prior unanimous consent.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I am truly sorry we have to address it every year. The bill we passed out of the Senate Appropriations Committee treats federal employees just as private employees with health insurance coverage are treated: they are permitted to join a health care plan that covers a full range of reproductive health services, including abortion. The bill returns us to the policy that was in place before November of 1995. Currently, two-thirds of private fee-for-service health plans and 70% of HMOs provide abortion coverage. Like so many of my colleagues, I support a woman's right to choose, and I support policies that will keep abortions legal, safe, and rare. I also support anyone's right not to participate in a health plan that covers abortion, and federal employees can choose such plans under the bill as we passed it out of Committee. Adding this amendment, and continuing the unfair policy of the past few years, will impose real consequences, and real pain for government workers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two letters that tell what these consequences were for two families of federal workers.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President. I want to take a moment to explain my support for the Daschle amendment on marriage tax relief. As you know, earlier today I opposed the Ashcroft-Brownback amendment on the same subject. My concerns related to the wisdom of attaching such a substantial tax policy change to an appropriations bill. Also, the Brownback amendment was not offset--it would have thrown the budget off balance by approximately $125 billion. The marriage tax debate belongs within the context of a balanced budget and a comprehensive tax bill. And let me again state my hope that we will approve such a tax bill later this year. However, it's clear that today's debate is primarily about political messages and maneuvering. And, in that case, the record should demonstrate that my voice and vote definitely stands with those calling for the elimination of the marriage penalty. Our tax code should be family friendly. Couples who want to get married should not be discouraged from doing so based on how much they will owe in taxes. And tax policy changes should be fully offset and respect the principles of a balanced budget. For these reasons, I intend to support the Daschle marriage penalty amendment. Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise in strong support of this amendment. It would require Federal Employees Health Benefit (FEHB) plans that cover prescription drugs to also cover FDA approved prescription contraceptives. This same amendment was included in the House version of our bill by a vote of 239-183. The issue of family planning should be one that brings together both sides of the abortion debate. Close to half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and tragically, those unintended pregnancies often lead 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. I thank Senators Reid and Snowe for their leadership on this issue, and I hope the Senate follows the House's lead and gives this amendment our overwhelming support.

Mr. KOHL. We accept the amendment.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, these are very good amendments. I support the amendments fully.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I support this amendment.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, before I get started, I express my deep sympathy to the families of Officers John Gibson and Jacob Chestnut. I also want to express my thanks to these brave heroes and to all the other law enforcement officers here in the Capitol and all over our great country who put their lives on the line every day to keep the rest of us safe. The two fallen officers are true heroes. They died protecting the Nation's most precious symbol of democracy and protecting the people who work here and who visit here. I hope their families take some comfort in the deep respect, gratitude, and pride all of us here feel for their acts of bravery. Mr. President, I thank Senator Campbell for his dedication to resolving many issues, large and small, on this Treasury and General Government appropriations bill. Throughout this process, he has forged a cooperative relationship not only with me, but with all of the subcommittee members. Throughout his cooperative approach, we were able to work out a reasonable balance among the many programs and activities under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. In addition, I want to acknowledge the very fine work of the chairman's staff, including Pat Raymond, Tammy Perrin, and Lula Edwards. As Senator Campbell mentioned, the Treasury and General Government appropriations bill continues and expands many investments in our future. Just for example, the Internal Revenue Service funding level is of critical importance. By passing the IRS restructuring legislation, Congress sent a clear message to the public and to the IRS that it is time for the IRS to provide American taxpayers with the kind of service they have a right to expect. In response, IRS is undertaking its most profound restructuring in more than 40 years. From business practices to organizational structure, the IRS of the future will act differently than the agency we know today. This appropriations bill provides the IRS over $7.8 billion to continue basic operations while initiating these changes. These funds will launch the new customer service initiatives, the submission and processing of investments, and the compliance research systems requested by the administration. The funding level will let the IRS revamp its business practices so IRS staff can focus on understanding, solving, and preventing taxpayer problems. To effectively update the Federal Government's computer system for the century date change, the committee added $3.2 billion to the Treasury and General Government appropriations bill. This work must be completed in the next 12 months, so money must reach all Federal agencies quickly. By including this emergency funding, the committee provides the Federal Government with the tools it needs to ensure that critical Government functions continue smoothly. Law enforcement activities are another important part of this bill, and the committee has provided over $3 billion to continue and expand these programs. Included in this funding level is full funding for the GREAT Program, which provides local police departments the resources necessary to help children avoid the temptation of gangs or drugs; the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, which traces illegal guns and establishes State and local links necessary to end gun trafficking and youth and gang-related violence; and the Customs' Child Pornography and Cyber Smuggling Program, which prevents illegal trafficking and distribution of child pornography both into and throughout the United States. The Office of National Drug Control Policy's media campaign receives continued funding of $175 million in this bill. This is the second year of a 5-year program aimed at changing attitudes towards drugs. The committee hopes to see dramatic results from this investment--an investment that is four times greater than the funding provided for GREAT, Youth Gun Crime, and Child Pornography Prevention Programs combined. Finally, I want to talk about the Federal Election Commission. This bill provides the FEC with $33.7 million. This is $2.8 million less than the funding provided by the House, and I hope we will bring the funding level up to the House figure. The need for this funding is clear. In congressional testimony earlier this year, FEC officials said they were forced to drop more than 100 cases because they did not have enough people to handle the caseload. As you all know, Congress has not been able to agree on campaign finance reforms. But we all agree that the current law must be enforced. And that cannot happen without a fully funded FEC. In an era of explosive spending on campaigns through innumerable avenues, both legal and illegal, we owe it to the American people to fully fund the only campaign watchdog we have. Finally, we have tried to accommodate numerous requests for funds while remaining within the funding restrictions imposed by the subcommittee allocation. Although we are required to make substantial reductions in the President's request level, I believe that programmatic funding levels included in this bill are fiscally responsible and very reasonable. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I agree with the comments of Senator Campbell.

Mr. KOHL. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendments Nos. 3341 through 3346, En Bloc

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, we support this amendment fully. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. KOHL. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to continue protecting our airports and our government buildings from terrorist threats. Our proposal would extend the already existing ban on undetectable firearms--guns that don't set off metal detectors--for five more years. In 1988, we passed the Undetectable Firearms Act to bar the manufacture, sale, and possession of any firearm that is not detectable by metal detectors or the type of x-ray machines commonly used at airports. It passed unanimously in the Senate. It was endorsed by the NRA, and the NRA has no objection to this amendment being offered today. At the time we passed this law, ``plastic'' or undetectable guns were not yet developed. But Congress was concerned that technology might make ``plastic'' guns possible. Ten years later, plastic guns are still not a problem. This law deserves some for that. In fact, on a few occasions, ATF has refused to approve guns intended for commercial distribution because the guns didn't have enough metal in them. The Act, however, is scheduled to ``sunset'' this December. The sunset provision exists because in 1988 it was predicted that new technology would soon be able to detect non-metallic firearms. Unfortunately, technology has not developed so rapidly, so extension of this law appears to be warranted. While the Department of Treasury has requested a permanent extension, we propose a five year extension. A five year extension allows us to study whether a permanent law is necessary, and whether non-detectable guns are really a possibility. But an extension is appropriate, especially in light of recent events. Indeed, several years ago, it was reported that the columnist Jack Anderson sneaked a ``plastic gun'' past security into the Capitol. More recently, the New York Times reported that tiny guns made to look like ``key chains'' could get around metal detectors in Europe. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration. I ask for unanimous consent that it be accepted.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I request that we defer action on this issue until Senator Harkin, who has taken the lead on this issue, returns. He is away today in Minnesota at a funeral of his father-in-law. I understand he will be back tonight, but I cannot be certain of that. It seems to me, until he is back to respond to Senator Thompson's concerns, it would not be fair to take up this amendment. So I request that this amendment be laid aside at this time.

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KOHL. That is acceptable.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to speak in opposition to the Brownback amendment. Sunsetting the Tax Code may sound catchy and attractive, but in truth it is simply wishful thinking until we have some concrete idea about its replacement. Now, we all agree that the current code is too complex and too burdensome for the average taxpayer, and everyone agrees that we need a simpler and a fairer system. But we also know that some sort of tax structure is necessary to maintain the vital functions of our Government. The current Tax Code, however imperfect, allows us to sustain our national defense, provide aid to struggling farmers, make sure that those Social Security checks are delivered on time, and much, much more. Down the road, we may envision and hope for a more direct route to providing those resources than the current tax system, but until we find that alternate route, this debate should remain just that, a debate, an open dialog as to what system would best serve the American people. In addition, simply sunsetting the code would be a disaster for American business. We hear so much about the need for American corporations to make long-range business plans, and indeed that is true, they must. But how will that be possible if they don't know what Tax Code they will face after the current one sunsets? How many resources would companies waste trying to plan for all the possible new tax codes that we might enact 4 years from now? Finally, sunsetting the Tax Code without any notion of how we might pay for it makes a mockery of the progress we have made in balancing the Federal books. We are all encouraged by the budget surplus and the strong economic forecasts, but we should not get ahead of ourselves and think that the good news warrants a swift departure from the tough decisions and fiscal discipline that brought us to this point. So for these reasons I will support, when it is raised, a Budget Act point of order against the Brownback amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. KOHL. I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 202(b) of House Concurrent Resolution 67, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996. Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I would like to thank the Senator from New Hampshire, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations, for his work on this bill. In particular, I appreciate his efforts to maintain funding for the Sea Grant College Program, which facilitates so much valuable research in the Great Lakes and other coastal areas of this country. As this process moves forward, it is my hope that the conferees working on this bill will ultimately support and reiterate the language included in the House Committee report related to pathogen research and the Sea Grant College Program. Specifically, this language encourages the agency ``to conduct research related to the public health risks posed by pathogens released in ballast water discharges in ports around the country.'' While we know that pathogens from other regions of the world are sometimes present in the ballast tanks of ships that enter our ports, we have very little information about the public health risks posed by those pathogens. It is important that we improve our state of knowledge in this regard. The Sea Grant College Program and its network of about 300 universities are appropriately positioned to undertake this research. They are in this position due to their ongoing research on aquatic nuisance species and ballast water, as well as their affiliation with human health experts at their network universities. Would the Senator from New Hampshire agree that this research on public health risks posed by pathogens in ballast water is important, and efforts should be made through the Sea Grant College Program to undertake such human health risk studies?

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my gratitude to the managers for including an amendment offered by myself and Senator Harry Reid. The managers have worked hard to reach consensus on this legislation, and I commend them for their efforts. I believe that this amendment will take another important step toward protecting our nation's elderly and disabled patients from abuse and neglect. The vast majority of employees in nursing homes and home health agencies work hard under stressful conditions to provide the highest quality care. However, there has been too many instances where people with criminal backgrounds and abuse histories have gained employment in long-term care facilities and subsequently abused patients in their care. This is inexcusable; Congress should take every step necessary to make sure that these facilities have the tools they need to screen potential employees. During consideration of the Senate Budget Resolution, the Senate unanimously adopted my Sense of the Senate amendment, which expressed strong support for the establishment of a national background check system to weed out known abusers and people with violent criminal backgrounds. The amendment that is included in the manager's package today takes this one step further. This amendment authorizes nursing facilities and home health care agencies to utilize the FBI fingerprint background check system to screen potential employees. It is important to note that this amendment does not mandate that these facilities conduct the checks. It simply allows them to access the FBI system if they choose to do so. Many States, nursing facilities and home care agencies have already taken steps to better screen their long-term care employees. This amendment will give them another tool to use in their efforts to screen out known abusers. However, our job does not end here. I still believe that Congress must act to establish a national registry that will coordinate abuse information between States, and require that all long- term care facilities utilize both the registry and the FBI system. I have been working for passage of such legislation, and I am pleased that the President has recently endorsed my idea as well. I look forward to working with the President and all of my colleagues in the future on this important effort. It is vital that we continue to take steps to protect our most vulnerable citizens from abuse, neglect and mistreatment, especially at the hands of those who are charged with their care. I believe that this amendment is another step in that direction. Again, I thank the managers for working with me in this effort. I yield the floor. amendment no. 3296 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for foreign travel or foreign communications by officers and employees of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice) On page 51, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following: Sec. 121. None of the funds made available to the Department of Justice under this Act may be used for any expense relating to, or as reimbursement for any expense incurred in connection with, any foreign travel by an officer or employee of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, if that foreign travel is for the purpose, in whole or in part, of soliciting or otherwise encouraging any antitrust action by a foreign country against a United States company that is a defendant in any antitrust action pending in the United States in which the United States is a plaintiff. Provided, however, That this section shall not: (1) limit the ability of the Department to investigate potential violations of United States antitrust laws; or (2) prohibit assistance authorized pursuant to 15 U.S.C. sections 6201-6212, or pursuant to a ratified treaty between the United States and a foreign government, or other international agreement to which the United States is a party.