Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I appreciate the Senator's comments, and understanding of these concerns. Will the Senator be willing to support the inclusion of language in the conference report with regard to such research?

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I would like to engage Senator Shelby in a colloquy with respect to an issue of importance to my State of Wisconsin and the entire Midwest Region. As you may know, Wisconsin and eight other Midwestern states, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska and Ohio, working with Amtrak, have undertaken planning studies of a Midwest regional rail system to be hubbed in Chicago. The regional rail system would provide modern service on all existing rail corridors as well as several new corridors within the nine-state region. By connecting major Midwestern metropolitan areas, ridership and revenue projections have revealed that the rail network would operate without subsidy, enhance regional economic development and increase mobility in corridors with congested highway systems. To date, the states and Amtrak have contributed $468,500. The Federal Railroad Administration has also contributed $200,000 to this endeavor. I understand that the Committee grappled with unique constraints this year due to the firewalls created by the Transportation Equity Act, the so-called TEA-21. Implementation planning funds are needed, however, to move this important project forward. For this reason, I do hope that I can count on your assistance if additional resources become available in conference and as this process moves forward.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. It would significantly cut the proposed funding for an effective prevention program, known as Title V. And it would undermine this bill's balanced approach between prevention and enforcement. Let me explain why we should support this program. First, it is truly bipartisan. It was originally drafted in 1992 by Senator Brown and myself. Last year, the full Senate supported increasing its funding level from $20 million to $75 million. And this year, with the support of Senators Campbell, Specter and Reid, its funding level is $70 million. Although on its face it gets $95 million, $25 million is set aside for a separate anti-drinking program. So if we cut $50 million, Title V gets the same $20 million it gets every year-- and there will be no increase. Second, it relies on local communities--who know their needs better than the federal government--to identify solutions tailored to local needs. Let me tell you about some of these programs which get funding in Wisconsin. In Madison, Title V funds an after-school program for junior and high school age at-risk youth living in targeted low income neighborhoods. In Racine, it funds home visits by social workers and prenatal and postnatal education to mothers in low-income neighborhoods. In Jefferson County, it supports a program that works with school bullies--and their victims--to reduce school violence. And these kinds of innovative programs are supported by Title V all over the nation. For example, in Senator Sessions' home state of Alabama, a Title V program in Tuscaloosa, has--according to its organizers--``made a significant impact in the incidence of juvenile violence and crime.'' Under Title V, communities qualify for funds only if they establish local boards to design long-term strategies for combating juvenile crime, and if they match federal funds with a 50 percent local contribution. Local communities know what works, and they don't throw good money after bad. Finally, Title V works. Nearly 400 participating communities--from 49 states--believe in this program so much that, according to the GAO, they've matched federal money almost dollar-for-dollar--far more than the 50 percent match this program requires. And studies confirm that many of these programs have reduced crime in cities across the nation, including cities like Cincinnati, Ohio and Woodbury, Iowa. Mr. President, it's a good idea to get rid of prevention programs that don't work. In fact, I authored legislation that resulted in a very controversial study by the Justice Department, which said that many prevention programs don't work. And with Senator Cohen I introduced legislation to junk bad prevention programs and consolidate many others. But we should keep and expand the programs that do work-- especially ones like Title V that use federal dollars to inspire local action and local contributions. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Yes, I do.

Mr. KOHL. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a couple of brief points. Even though Senator Craig and those of us on the other side differ on this amendment, I have no doubt that Senator Craig is committed to ensuring gun safety. In fact, he was instrumental in passing our 1994 law, the Youth Handgun Safety Act that prohibits kids from having handguns. Second, we have really come a long way in the last few years. Today everybody, from the NRA to the gun manufacturers to police advocates, is advocating for handgun control because all believe that trigger locks, child safety locks, are helpful in preventing gun-related harm. No matter what the outcome is on this vote, I am sure we will continue to work for a consensus. Someday, I believe we will reach one on the issue of kids and guns.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment for two reasons. First, while I have a great deal of respect for Senator Smith--I was in the room when we wrote the Brady Act--along with Senators Dole, Mitchell and Metzenbaum. Certainly no one in that room believed that you couldn't charge fees under Brady. If anything, we expected that fees would be charged for doing checks. Nothing in Brady's legislative history leads me to change my mind. Fees for background checks are nothing new. In fact, when we negotiated Brady, all of us were aware that the FBI charged fees for other background checks. And no one was surprised that, once Brady became law, 39 States authorized fees for State-run Brady checks. No one is questioning these other fees. Second, prohibiting fees--without otherwise providing the funding necessary to support the instant check system--would endanger the Brady Act. The instant check system, which was originally proposed by the NRA itself, is an essential part of Brady that is scheduled to replace the State-run system at the end of this year. Of course, these instant checks will cost money. The FBI believes it will need about $75 million to pay for additional staff and resources. Unless the instant check system gets funded, these checks will not happen. No funding, no checks. And no checks means more criminals with guns and more violence. Now, in my opinion, it doesn't matter whether the funding for instant checks comes from fees or from a separate appropriation, but we need funding from somewhere, and we should not make the FBI choose between cracking down on violent gangs and doing instant checks. But this amendment provides no alternative funding. Mr. President, the real issue before us is this. We can pay for instant checks and build on the Brady Act's record of stopping nearly 150,000 criminals from buying guns, or we can leave Brady's future up in the air and risk putting more guns in the hands of dangerous felons. In my view, the choice is easy. I do not want to see the FBI make a ``profit'' on these fees, but we need to make sure that background checks continue saving lives by defeating this amendment. I thank the Chair. I yield for the Senator from California. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to support this amendment which would require the sale of a child safety lock with every handgun. This amendment is based on the Child Safety Lock Act which we produced last year with bipartisan support from Senators Chafee, Durbin, and Boxer. It is a commonsense measure, obviously, and it is not an extreme measure. It is a measure that will reduce gun-related accidents, suicides, and homicides by young people. It will make children safer and it will make mothers and fathers feel more secure in dropping off their children at their neighbors' homes after school. In brief, all it will do is bring all the industry up to the level of most manufacturers who have already agreed to include safety locks with their guns. Our amendment is simple, effective, and it is straightforward. It requires that whenever a handgun is sold, a child safety device--or a trigger lock--also be sold. These devices vary in form, but the most common resemble a padlock that wraps around the gun trigger and immobilizes it. While we want people to use safety locks, we do not require it. In that sense, we treat safety locks like States used to treat seatbelts: You have to buy them, but you don't have to use them. This amendment is sorely needed. Mr. President, 2,000 young people are killed each year in firearms accidents and suicides. This is not only wrong, it is unacceptable. While our proposal is not a panacea, it will prevent many of these tragedies. Just today, in the Washington Post there is a story about a Prince George's boy of 4 who shot himself while playing with a handgun that was left laying around by his grandfather. Had that handgun been secured by a child-safety-lock device, this needless tragedy just yesterday would not have occurred. Safety locks will also reduce violent crime. Juveniles commit more than 7,000 crimes each year with guns taken from their own homes. That doesn't include incidents like the school shooting in Jonesboro, AR, where the guns were taken from the home of one student's grandfather, again, because most of ``dad's guns were locked up.'' If parents and relatives would use safety locks on these guns, then at least some of these incidents will be prevented. To be sure not all, but some. The fact is that a child with a handgun is an accident or a crime just waiting to happen. Of course, we should commend the gun manufacturers who already have voluntarily agreed to comply with this proposal. But we still need this legislation because too many manufacturers still resist common sense. The voluntary agreement covers about 77 percent of all new handguns manufactured in the U.S. each year, which is an impressive number. But it still leaves at least 350,000 handguns for sale each year without safety locks. This proposal brings hundreds of thousands more handguns up to the industry standard. Mr. President, this amendment deserves our support. I thank you, and I yield my time back. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I thank my colleague for yielding. This program was always intended to aid low- and middle-income home buyers. It was never intended to be of assistance to the high-income home buyer. The high-income home buyer belongs in the private mortgage insurance business. This amendment recognizes that. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the amendment offered by my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles. As my colleagues know, this amendment would strike the increase to the high- end FHA loan limit included in the VA/HUD bill. FHA is intended to fill an important mission--helping low- and middle-income Americans purchase their first homes--helping those who are not served by the private market. For this reason, our amendment leaves the proposed increase to the low-end FHA loan limit in place, ensuring that in the vast majority of States across the country--97 percent of the counties in the United States--the loan limit will be more than sufficient for low- to moderate-income people to purchase homes of their own. But we should all be reminded that any decision to raise the loan limits on the high end should be approached with caution. FHA loans are 100 percent insured by the Federal Government. If a home owner goes into default, it is the taxpayer, not the lender, that bares the risk. And that's no small risk--FHA default rates are three times higher than defaults on conventional mortgages. Last year, foreclosures on FHA homes resulted in over $5 billion in claims. There is no reason to extend that risk on behalf of home buyers who are already well-served by the private market. Raising the high end limit and expanding FHA to cover expensive homes may very well jeopardize the health of the entire program. Higher priced home loans, especially when combined with the relatively low downpayments required by FHA, default more often--and obviously cost more when they default. Raising the high end limit would clearly place the Federal Government in competition with the private sector, needlessly expose taxpayers to more risk, and give upper income home buyers access to mortgage credit they don't need. Changing the high end limit will steer the program away from working families--at a higher cost to taxpayers--with more devastation to the communities that hold abandoned, foreclosed-upon FHA properties. With this amendment, we have the chance to ensure that the program stays focused on borrowers who legitimately need help and also to create a strong, healthy FHA that works for everyone--home buyers, lenders, and the taxpayers. So I urge my colleagues to support the Nickles amendment.

Mr. KOHL. I appreciate the clarification by the Senator from Missouri. There has been considerable concern in our home state of Wisconsin that since EPA has combined its budget request for the 319 and 314 programs, Clean Lakes program grants to states have been reduced in the number of projects and dollars spent. I would ask the Senator from Maryland if she shares Senator from Missouri's understanding?

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, Senator Sessions and I today are introducing a bill that guarantees prosecutors can exercise their full power to keep criminals off our streets. The ``Effective Prosecution and Public Safety Act of 1998'' makes clear that prosecutors can offer plea bargains to accomplices in exchange for their testimony--a long- standing, accepted and necessary practice--without tainting a conviction resulting from such testimony. This measure puts to rest any concerns raised by an overwhelmingly disputed decision issued recently by a panel of three appellate court judges. And it makes it less likely that courts could overturn convictions of dangerous criminals like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. Until a court decision two weeks ago, there was no doubt that prosecutors could build criminal cases by offering leniency to accomplices in exchange for their testimony at trial. But in U.S. versus Singleton, a Tenth Circuit panel held that a federal anti- bribery statute, which had been on the books for over 35 years, barred these kinds of leniency deals. This unprecedented decision has been criticized virtually unanimously. Subsequently, the full Tenth Circuit put the decision on hold, pending a full court rehearing scheduled for November. There is little doubt that the Tenth Circuit's decision is just plain wrong. Nothing in the legislative history suggests that Congress ever intended to take away a prosecutor's ability to make deals for testimony. And it is no surprise that in 35 years no court ever found the anti-bribery statute to apply to this reasonable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. This decision is simply a case of Scalia-ism taken to the extreme, beyond the bounds of common sense and in the face of established practices. I cannot believe that even Justice Scalia, the high priest of literalism, would agree with this result. As wrong as this decision is, it still cannot be taken lightly. Prosecutors make deals with cooperating witnesses all the time. So this decision puts tens of thousands of convictions in jeopardy. For an example, we need look no further than the conviction of Timothy McVeigh, which was based in large part on the testimony of Michael Fortier, who was allowed to plea to lesser charges in exchange for his testimony. And McVeigh's conviction is on appeal in the same Tenth Circuit--could that be the next conviction it will try to overturn? In my view, the risks posed by this decision are too great to leave this issue to the courts--even though I am confident that in the end they would do the right thing. Indeed, until this issue works its way to the Supreme Court, the potential dangers are serious. Prosecutors may feel the need to hold back on cutting deals with potential witnesses, making it tougher to convict dangerous criminals. And criminals behind bars will have a better chance than ever at overturning their convictions. Already, jailhouse lawyers are probably foaming at the mouth anticipating making this argument in courts all over the nation. Congress can act now to put this issue behind us, to guarantee that prosecutors are not hampered in their efforts to put criminals behind bars, and to make sure that is where criminals stay. This bill is simple and effective. It amends the anti-bribery statute to exempt deals for leniency made by prosecutors in exchange for testimony. And it applies to past as well as future deals, so that no criminal-- including the Oklahoma City bomber--can try to use this awful decision as a ``get out of jail card'' at the expense of the safety of the American people. Mr. President, let me make clear what this proposal does and what it does not do. All it does is reinforce what Congress always intended--to allow plea bargains in exchange for testimony. It does not permit prosecutors to ``buy'' testimony with cash payoffs. That is still illegal. It does not allow prosecutors to knowingly elicit false testimony. That is obstruction of justice. And it does not prevent a defense attorney from raising a deal at trial to try to cast doubt on the credibility of a witness. That is what cross-examination is all about. Mr. President, prosecutors will be most effective and the public will be safest if we set the Record straight now and correct the Tenth Circuit's outrageous decision. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill. And I offer for the Record the following two articles--an editorial from the Washington Post criticizing the decision and a piece from Legal Times explaining its impact and recent developments, and ask unanimous consent that these articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, Senator Sessions and I today are introducing a bill that guarantees prosecutors can exercise their full power to keep criminals off our streets. The ``Effective Prosecution and Public Safety Act of 1998'' makes clear that prosecutors can offer plea bargains to accomplices in exchange for their testimony--a long- standing, accepted and necessary practice--without tainting a conviction resulting from such testimony. This measure puts to rest any concerns raised by an overwhelmingly disputed decision issued recently by a panel of three appellate court judges. And it makes it less likely that courts could overturn convictions of dangerous criminals like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. Until a court decision two weeks ago, there was no doubt that prosecutors could build criminal cases by offering leniency to accomplices in exchange for their testimony at trial. But in U.S. versus Singleton, a Tenth Circuit panel held that a federal anti- bribery statute, which had been on the books for over 35 years, barred these kinds of leniency deals. This unprecedented decision has been criticized virtually unanimously. Subsequently, the full Tenth Circuit put the decision on hold, pending a full court rehearing scheduled for November. There is little doubt that the Tenth Circuit's decision is just plain wrong. Nothing in the legislative history suggests that Congress ever intended to take away a prosecutor's ability to make deals for testimony. And it is no surprise that in 35 years no court ever found the anti-bribery statute to apply to this reasonable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. This decision is simply a case of Scalia-ism taken to the extreme, beyond the bounds of common sense and in the face of established practices. I cannot believe that even Justice Scalia, the high priest of literalism, would agree with this result. As wrong as this decision is, it still cannot be taken lightly. Prosecutors make deals with cooperating witnesses all the time. So this decision puts tens of thousands of convictions in jeopardy. For an example, we need look no further than the conviction of Timothy McVeigh, which was based in large part on the testimony of Michael Fortier, who was allowed to plea to lesser charges in exchange for his testimony. And McVeigh's conviction is on appeal in the same Tenth Circuit--could that be the next conviction it will try to overturn? In my view, the risks posed by this decision are too great to leave this issue to the courts--even though I am confident that in the end they would do the right thing. Indeed, until this issue works its way to the Supreme Court, the potential dangers are serious. Prosecutors may feel the need to hold back on cutting deals with potential witnesses, making it tougher to convict dangerous criminals. And criminals behind bars will have a better chance than ever at overturning their convictions. Already, jailhouse lawyers are probably foaming at the mouth anticipating making this argument in courts all over the nation. Congress can act now to put this issue behind us, to guarantee that prosecutors are not hampered in their efforts to put criminals behind bars, and to make sure that is where criminals stay. This bill is simple and effective. It amends the anti-bribery statute to exempt deals for leniency made by prosecutors in exchange for testimony. And it applies to past as well as future deals, so that no criminal-- including the Oklahoma City bomber--can try to use this awful decision as a ``get out of jail card'' at the expense of the safety of the American people. Mr. President, let me make clear what this proposal does and what it does not do. All it does is reinforce what Congress always intended--to allow plea bargains in exchange for testimony. It does not permit prosecutors to ``buy'' testimony with cash payoffs. That is still illegal. It does not allow prosecutors to knowingly elicit false testimony. That is obstruction of justice. And it does not prevent a defense attorney from raising a deal at trial to try to cast doubt on the credibility of a witness. That is what cross-examination is all about. Mr. President, prosecutors will be most effective and the public will be safest if we set the Record straight now and correct the Tenth Circuit's outrageous decision. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill. And I offer for the Record the following two articles--an editorial from the Washington Post criticizing the decision and a piece from Legal Times explaining its impact and recent developments, and ask unanimous consent that these articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I want to make just a brief statement to emphasize my strong support for the IRS Reform bill which passed the Senate earlier today. Many thanks to Senators Roth and Moynihan and the Finance Committee members for their efforts, and especially Senator Bob Kerrey, whose year long effort on the Restructuring Commission made this reform package possible. The IRS Reform bill contains significant measures that will improve the life of every American by improving an agency that touches the lives of every American. The bill will reform IRS management by enhancing private sector input through the creation of the Oversight Board. It will also strengthen internal IRS management by providing increased flexibility to hire the best people, recognize those IRS employees who do their jobs well and fire those who do not. Perhaps most importantly, the IRS Reform Bill is grounded in the principles of consumer protection and accountability. We all agree that the IRS should run more like a business, focusing on management efficiency and high standards of performance. But businesses answer to shareholders and the bottom line. The IRS must answer to the American people. And for too long, the agency has operated as if it answered to no one. We have witnessed this regrettable circumstance in my home state of Wisconsin where for two and a half years we have worked to address allegations of misconduct and discrimination at the Milwaukee-Waukesha IRS Offices. These allegations were so serious that some IRS employees felt the need to sneak into my office in Milwaukee to report on abuses. I am pleased that the debate on IRS reform allowed us to move forward in our attempts to address the Milwaukee situation and am convinced that in approving this historic legislation, we will be taking significant steps to prevent similar incidences from occurring in the future. Mr. President, I do want to mention my regret at the decision to include the tax policy change involving Roth IRA conversion rules. While I support the IRS reform bill, I disagreed with the policy decision to loosen the conversion rules so that it will be easier for wealthy retirees to convert from traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs. This may cover the cost of the IRS bill and generate income for the Treasury in the short term, but it will cost the Treasury and the American taxpayer dearly in the long run. This change, which is really just an accounting gimmick, will benefit those who do not need help and may undermine our efforts to maintain the progress we've made in balancing the budget. In addition, it may jeopardize other pressing long term issues such as making sure that social security is available to needy retirees in years to come. That said, however, I am still pleased to have been part of the creation of a more consumer-friendly, efficient and responsible IRS.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of this amendment to eliminate the Extremely Low Frequency or ELF System, and transfer these funds, some $12 million, to the National Guard. I commend my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, for his persistent efforts to kill this cold war relic. It is amazing to me that no matter how many times the Senate votes in favor of eliminating this little known and obsolete system, it continues to reemerge in conference. In an era of tight budgets, with pressures to fund operations abroad and maintain modernization efforts at home, we need to take a closer took at the ELF System and recognize that we have far more compelling needs even within the defense budget. Project ELF was conceived solely to launch and win a nuclear war. It was designed to protect submerged submarines from Soviet detection. Unfortunately, ELF's capabilities are minimal and, given the end of the cold war, its rationale is dubious. ELF is a communications system for sending one-way pre-formatted messages from shore commands to submarines operating at high speeds and depth without exposing antennae on the ocean surface. ELF's message capability is very limited and very slow--three letters take 15 minutes to transmit--so a submarine must still surface to retrieve communications. This poses serious questions about the protection ELF can provide to our submarine fleet. ELF's transmitting facilities are located in Clam Lake, WI and Republic, MI. The two antennae work together to strengthen the signal. The Clam Lake antenna is 28 miles long with two sets of wires strung on telephone poles. The wires form an X running several miles out in four directions from the center. The existence of this large antenna in Wisconsin has raised health and environmental questions over the years. At best the data on the risks posed by this facility are inconclusive. At worst, more than 40 medical studies point to a link between electromagnetic pollution and cancer. The people of Wisconsin would rather not have this question mark hanging over their heads. Directing ELF's funding to the National Guard would be a much better use of these funds. The National Guard has been under funded in the FY99 budget request and the trend continues in that direction: Unfunded requirements for the Army National Guard could exceed $1.2 billion by 2002 if current trends continue. Our amendment will help address this shortfall. Let me just conclude by noting that people of Wisconsin do not want this system in their borders. For years now, we have been working with the members of Congress in whose districts this system is based to shut it down. We almost succeeded in 1995 when the Senate Appropriations Committee rescinded funding for ELF in the Defense supplemental. At that time, I was told that the Navy wasn't interested in funding ELF anymore. Furthermore, when the Strategic Command was asked about the ELF program, it was lukewarm in its support, indicating that they would like to see ELF funded but they couldn't possibly fund it out of their own budget. Yet, at the last minute in conference, the House announced that there was new and classified information that supposedly revealed that ELF is essential to national security. The Defense Department has since weighed in with a letter saying it would like to keep ELF. Our inability to kill ELF is a perfect example of how we can't seem to shed the Cold War infrastructure that has shaped our defense budgets for so many years. We pay much lip service to ``defense reform'' and making defense spending relevant to threats of the future, but when we have a small opportunity to demonstrate our resolve in this area, we cower at the thought of dismantling even one small system. Mr. President, let's not hesitate this time. Let's eliminate this anachronism once and for all. I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my intention to vote in favor of the conference report to the Coverdell education savings accounts legislation. I do not believe that this alone will save our nation's education system, and I realize that this bill will only provide limited help to a very small percentage of students. But I believe it is one small step we can take to help improve education in this country, and that it will open the door for a discussion of other new approaches. Let me state unequivocally that I strongly support our public school system. I believe we should be doing much more to help States and local school districts address the challenges they face in improving public schools. Over 90% of our nation's children are educated in public schools, and we must not abandon our efforts to help educators, parents and communities provide the best education possible. Unfortunately, it is becoming apparent that despite our best efforts, we are not doing the best we can for our children right now. Too many of our children are falling behind and performing below their potential. Too many schools are in need of repair or modernization. Too many students are bringing guns and drugs to school. Too few classrooms have access to technology, and too few teachers have the training necessary to help students succeed in an increasingly global, technology-based economy. Clearly, it is time that we take a look at some new approaches to improving education. The status quo is unacceptable and we owe it to our children to do better. I initially opposed the Coverdell legislation in part because it included two amendments that I strongly oppose. Both amendments --one that would block grant one-third of Federal education programs, and another that prohibits the development of voluntary national tests--were dropped in conference. I am pleased that the conferees decided to omit these amendments, which I believe would have seriously undermined our commitment to public school students. Now that these two troubling amendments have been dropped, I have decided to support the Coverdell legislation. While this legislation will not solve all of the problems in public schools, it provides limited assistance to families that choose to use their own money to decide what type of education their children receive. I realize that it will only help a small number of families, but limited doses of competition could help encourage all schools to strive to do a better job. In addition, this legislation sunsets after five years. If, at that time, it is clear that this approach has not worked or has harmed public education, Congress can decide not to reauthorize this program. But I believe that there are benefits to trying this new approach now to see if it might contribute to the overall improvement of education in our country. We certainly do not want to abandon public education, and I believe there are better ways to help public schools address the many problems and challenges they face. During the course of this debate, I voted for many alternative education proposals that I felt would do a better job at improving public education. I am still hopeful that the Senate will make other education reform proposals a top priority during the remaining months of this session. But so far, our nation's education system has failed too many of our children--we cannot ignore that fact. It is time to look to new and innovative strategies to improve educational opportunties in America. The Coverdell legislation could be a small part of that effort, but it is certainly not the only step we should take. I will continue to support a strong investment in our nation's public school system, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure that happens.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, disturbing events taking place around the world pose grave challenges to our U.S. strategic interests. In Pakistan and India, nuclear weapons are being developed, assembled and tested, escalating an arms race in the region. In Indonesia, the collapse of the rupiah has caused an economic and political crisis that has reverberated throughout the international financial markets. In China, missile proliferation looms ominously as evidence suggest that China conspired to sell entire missiles to other nations. And, in the former Yugoslavia province of Kosovo, NATO defense ministers have launched air exercises in an effort to convince Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic to halt his crackdown on the separatist ethnic Albanians in what has become Europe's most threatening security crisis since the 1992-95 Bosnian war. These are just some of the more widely known international crises-- requiring U.S. vigilance to protect its strategic interests. But there are lesser known struggles in remote and distant lands that have significant implications for U.S. foreign policy. One of these that deserves our attention is the conflict in the Republic of Georgia and its small break-away region of Abkhazia. In the wake of the recent armed insurrection in Abkahazia, U.S. efforts to ensure Georgia achieves and sustains political independence and economic stability must be enhanced. Of all the newly independent states to emerges from the breakup of the former Soviet Union, Georgia is considered the most pro-western nascent democracy. Since its independence in 1991, Georgia has faced and begun to surmount formidable problems of economic collapse, civil war, separatist conflict, rampant crime, political infighting, and human rights abuses. Much to Russia's chagrin, Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze has exerted strong leadership by moving Georgia away from Russia's sphere of influence. He has pursued an independent foreign policy, ushered in democratic and market reforms, and achieved annual growth rates of 10 percent. Moreover, Georgia is a NATO borderland and at the entry point to the emerging new ``Silk Road'' that traverses Central Europe to China. This commercial route will eventually encompass oil and gas pipelines, roads, railroads, bridges, airports and communications networks. It will completely alter the region's economic and political landscape. Because Georgia is situated at a critical juncture in the corridor, stability in this state, and its neighbors, is essential. There are signs of a Russian strategy to keep the region frozen in instability, thereby discouraging commercial investment, and ultimately forcing nascent democracies and their resources back into Russia's tacit control. The small, breakaway region of Abkhazia has been Russia's best available instrument to diminish Georgia's accomplishments and to imperil its remarkable gains. Numerous and compelling reports, including eye-witness accounts by Georgian refugees, suggest active Russian involvement in arming, training and sustaining Abkhazia's so- called freedom fighters against Georgian nationals. In this context, I am very concerned by indications of Russian activities and covert aggression aimed at eroding public support for President Shevardnadze and his administration. I regard Georgian independence from Russian hegemony as a critical first step toward stability in the region. I strongly encourage the administration to end its neglect of this situation and become actively engaged. The administration should state unequivocally that it stands behind the leadership of Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze; that the stability and survival of an independent, democratic Georgia is in our national interest; and that the U.S. will consider all appropriate measures necessary to help build closer economic and political ties between Georgia and the United States. Finally, the administration should call the Russians to task for engaging in activities that would re-subordinate Georgia to Moscow's rule. Moreover, Congress should move expeditiously to secure enactment of the ``Silk Road Strategy Act of 1997.'' This legislation is designed to promote sovereign and independent democratic governments; assist in the development of infrastructure necessary for communications, transportation, energy and trade on an East-West axis; and promote market-oriented principles and practices among Central Asian and South Caucasus countries. Passage would help curb Russian hegemony in the region and contain the spread northward of anti-western Islamic extremism. The legislation is designed to assist all the nations of the region--Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhastan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Russia is again increasing its grip on the region and working to keep these countries from maintaining their independence. Iran continues to exert influence to foster anti-western attitudes. It is critical that we help these countries look westward to contain extremist forces hostile to U.S. interests--and this is a good place to start.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Children's Development Commission Act. I am pleased to be joined in this by my friend, Senator D'Amato. He brings to this endeavor a deep understanding of the nation's capital markets and a deep concern for the well being of this country's children. In the House of Representatives, Representatives Maloney and Baker have already introduced a companion measure, H.R. 3637. Our legislation is designed to address the credit market's failure to provide sufficient long term financing for the building and renovation of child care centers, after-school care programs, infant care, and family child care homes. Because the profit margin in such centers is very low, and the perceived risk is great, lenders are often unwilling to lend to child care operations. This is true despite the fact that an overwhelming number of studies show a shortage in the supply of quality child care--especially in urban areas, in low income areas, and for certain types of care (infant care, school age care, off-hour care). The Children's Development Commission Act creates a loan guarantee program through HUD to provide insurance to lenders willing to put up money for child care center mortgages, leases, or renovations. The program is modeled closely on the successful Section 232 HUD program that provides mortgage insurance for elder-care facilities. The bill also creates a ``Children's Development Commission'' or ``Kiddie Mac'' which: (1) certifies child care development facilities eligible for guaranteed financing; (2) establishes the standards necessary to make such certification; (3) makes small purpose loans to child care facilities for reconstruction and renovation; (4) develops a plan to offer low cost liability and fire insurance to child care providers; and (5) creates a research foundation to support research into child care supply issues, fund pilot programs for improving child care, and publishes material for those interested in getting mortgage insurance through HUD. Congress will make one $10 million appropriation to fund the Kiddie Mac's incorporation and its micro-loan program; after that, a stock offering will fund Kiddie Mac until its financial activities and fee collection make it self-financing. The need, and the will, to take this sort of step to increase the supply of quality child care is evident. When I ran for Congress in 1988, I talked about the importance of child care. At best, I received a polite smile of interest, and then the discussion would move on to the pressing issues of the day--the environment, the budget deficit, health care. Today, child care is being discussed earnestly at dinner tables across the nation and in Committee rooms all over the Capitol. Almost everyone has a personal story about trying to secure good child care, about trying to help an employee find good child care, about the terrible shortage of quality child care in their town or city. We have always talked about the necessities of life as being food, clothing and shelter. I think it is time we add a fourth--quality child care. It is necessary to give our children the strong start they need. It is necessary if we are going to take advantage of the tremendous ability to learn in the first three years of life. And quality child care is necessary in order for the growing number of families in which both parents work, for the growing number of single parent families to be able to earn a living, and for businesses that want to attract and retain productive, happy employees. Unfortunately, by every measure and in every state, quality child care is in short supply. And in most areas of the country, the sweeping welfare reform we passed last year has exacerbated existing shortages. In my State of Wisconsin, the State's welfare reform plan will generate the need for 8000 new child care slots in Milwaukee Country alone. And in New York City, by the year 2001, there will be 30,000 more children who need child care than there are child care spaces for them. The shortage is not just one of child care slots, but of quality child care slots. One major study showed that seven out of ten child care centers provide mediocre care, while one in eight is so inadequate that the health and safety of the children are threatened. Another survey found that more than half of parents with children in child care worry weekly about whether their children are well-served in their current arrangements. Kiddie Mac will help address these shortfalls in several ways. It will lower the costs of those setting up child care facilities, home child care, or pre-schools. By guaranteeing child care facility mortgages and leases, Kiddie Mac lowers the start-up costs to facilities allowing them to pass the savings on to teachers in the form of higher salaries and parents in the form of lower fees. Kiddie Mac will also provide loan guarantees to facilities that want to upgrade and providing micro-loans for small repairs related to licensing. This will allow existing centers and homes, even very small ones, to bring their facilities up to--and beyond--code. Kiddie Mac is a market-based, small-government approach to moving capital toward a very wise investment in quality child care. Kiddie Mac's services will be available to any organization who can show they will provide quality child care: businesses, non-profits, churches or synagogues, family home providers, or after-school programs. Decisions as to how much and how the care will be provided are left where they belong: with the local providers, with local communities, and with the parents. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Children's Development Act be included in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Children's Development Commission Act. I am pleased to be joined in this by my friend, Senator D'Amato. He brings to this endeavor a deep understanding of the nation's capital markets and a deep concern for the well being of this country's children. In the House of Representatives, Representatives Maloney and Baker have already introduced a companion measure, H.R. 3637. Our legislation is designed to address the credit market's failure to provide sufficient long term financing for the building and renovation of child care centers, after-school care programs, infant care, and family child care homes. Because the profit margin in such centers is very low, and the perceived risk is great, lenders are often unwilling to lend to child care operations. This is true despite the fact that an overwhelming number of studies show a shortage in the supply of quality child care--especially in urban areas, in low income areas, and for certain types of care (infant care, school age care, off-hour care). The Children's Development Commission Act creates a loan guarantee program through HUD to provide insurance to lenders willing to put up money for child care center mortgages, leases, or renovations. The program is modeled closely on the successful Section 232 HUD program that provides mortgage insurance for elder-care facilities. The bill also creates a ``Children's Development Commission'' or ``Kiddie Mac'' which: (1) certifies child care development facilities eligible for guaranteed financing; (2) establishes the standards necessary to make such certification; (3) makes small purpose loans to child care facilities for reconstruction and renovation; (4) develops a plan to offer low cost liability and fire insurance to child care providers; and (5) creates a research foundation to support research into child care supply issues, fund pilot programs for improving child care, and publishes material for those interested in getting mortgage insurance through HUD. Congress will make one $10 million appropriation to fund the Kiddie Mac's incorporation and its micro-loan program; after that, a stock offering will fund Kiddie Mac until its financial activities and fee collection make it self-financing. The need, and the will, to take this sort of step to increase the supply of quality child care is evident. When I ran for Congress in 1988, I talked about the importance of child care. At best, I received a polite smile of interest, and then the discussion would move on to the pressing issues of the day--the environment, the budget deficit, health care. Today, child care is being discussed earnestly at dinner tables across the nation and in Committee rooms all over the Capitol. Almost everyone has a personal story about trying to secure good child care, about trying to help an employee find good child care, about the terrible shortage of quality child care in their town or city. We have always talked about the necessities of life as being food, clothing and shelter. I think it is time we add a fourth--quality child care. It is necessary to give our children the strong start they need. It is necessary if we are going to take advantage of the tremendous ability to learn in the first three years of life. And quality child care is necessary in order for the growing number of families in which both parents work, for the growing number of single parent families to be able to earn a living, and for businesses that want to attract and retain productive, happy employees. Unfortunately, by every measure and in every state, quality child care is in short supply. And in most areas of the country, the sweeping welfare reform we passed last year has exacerbated existing shortages. In my State of Wisconsin, the State's welfare reform plan will generate the need for 8000 new child care slots in Milwaukee Country alone. And in New York City, by the year 2001, there will be 30,000 more children who need child care than there are child care spaces for them. The shortage is not just one of child care slots, but of quality child care slots. One major study showed that seven out of ten child care centers provide mediocre care, while one in eight is so inadequate that the health and safety of the children are threatened. Another survey found that more than half of parents with children in child care worry weekly about whether their children are well-served in their current arrangements. Kiddie Mac will help address these shortfalls in several ways. It will lower the costs of those setting up child care facilities, home child care, or pre-schools. By guaranteeing child care facility mortgages and leases, Kiddie Mac lowers the start-up costs to facilities allowing them to pass the savings on to teachers in the form of higher salaries and parents in the form of lower fees. Kiddie Mac will also provide loan guarantees to facilities that want to upgrade and providing micro-loans for small repairs related to licensing. This will allow existing centers and homes, even very small ones, to bring their facilities up to--and beyond--code. Kiddie Mac is a market-based, small-government approach to moving capital toward a very wise investment in quality child care. Kiddie Mac's services will be available to any organization who can show they will provide quality child care: businesses, non-profits, churches or synagogues, family home providers, or after-school programs. Decisions as to how much and how the care will be provided are left where they belong: with the local providers, with local communities, and with the parents. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Children's Development Act be included in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join 16 of my colleagues in cosponsoring S. 1993, the Medicare Home Health Equity Act. I want to commend my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, for taking the lead on this extremely important issue. This legislation will go a long way toward ensuring that seniors in Wisconsin continue to have access to the quality home health services they need, and that home health providers in low-cost States like Wisconsin receive fair and equitable reimbursement for the valuable services they provide. Mr. President, I have long supported efforts to expand access to home health care. This important long-term care option allows people to stay in their homes longer, where they are often most comfortable, while they receive the skilled medical care they need. Home care empowers people to continue to live independently among their families and friends. It is of added value that in many cases, home care is also more cost-effective than institutional-based care. For those seniors whose medical needs can be met with home-based care in a cost-effective way, we should do everything we can to make sure that they have the choice to continue to stay in their homes and received care through the Medicare home health benefit. I realize that the Medicare changes Congress made last year in the Balanced Budget Act were necessary in order to help prevent Medicare from going bankrupt. Home health is the fastest growing component of Medicare and it was imperative that we bring costs under control. However, I am deeply concerned that the Interim Payment System created in the BBA will inadvertently penalize those States, like Wisconsin, that have historically done a good job in keeping costs low. The IPS established in the BBA is based on a technical formula which pays home health agencies the lowest of three measures: (1) actual costs; (2) a per visit limit of 105% of the national median; or (3) a per beneficiary annual limit, derived from a blend of 75% of an agency's costs and 25% regional costs. Without going into the details of this complicated formula, this in effect means that agencies that have done a good job keeping costs and utilization low will be penalized under the IPS. At the same time, those agencies that provided the most visits and spent the most per patient will be rewarded by continuing to receive higher reimbursement levels that the agencies that were more efficient. Although the IPS would reduce reimbursement for everyone, Wisconsin agencies have already been successful in keeping costs low, and there is no fat to trim from their reimbursement. The proposed IPS would be devastating for home care in Wisconsin and would likely drive many good providers from the Medicare program. Already, I have heard from Wisconsin agencies who have had to let staff go, limit new patients, and who honestly don't know how they will be able to afford to operate under the IPS. This will severely hurt Wisconsin's seniors, many of whom will now have to enter nursing facilities because far fewer home health services will be available for them. Mr. President, this was not my intention when I voted for the Balanced Budget Act last year, and I believe that we must now work to make the IPS more equitable for seniors and providers. The Medicare Home Health Equity Act will accomplish this by changing the formula on which IPS is based. The new formula would be based 75 percent on the national average cost per patient in calendar year 1994 ($3,987) and 25 percent on the regional average cost per patient in calendar year 1995. This change would bring more equity between States and would ensure that low cost States like Wisconsin are not penalized for being efficient. Most importantly, this change will ensure that seniors in Wisconsin continue to have access to the quality home health care services they need and deserve. Mr. President, I understand that several more of my colleagues are also working on legislation that would bring greater equity to the Interim Payment System. I am cosponsoring this legislation not only because it is good for Wisconsin and other low cost States, but also because it is my hope that by bringing attention to this issue, we can all work together to find a fair solution for all States. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue during the remaining months of the 105th Congress.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I come here today to discuss an amendment to the tobacco bill and to highlight how tobacco companies have used court secrecy orders to deceive and endanger the American public. While secrecy orders may be justified to protect personal information or trade secrets, they all too often have been abused--especially by tobacco companies--to undermine health and safety. We need to strike a better balance and make sure this tactic can't be used to cover up future bad conduct. Typically, tobacco companies--like many other defendants--threaten that without ``secrecy,'' they will fight to conceal every document, and they will refuse to settle. They insist on making secrecy--or ``protective''--orders a precondition to turning over documents and to settlement. And overmatched victims have no choice but to accept these demands, even though there is no legal reason why most of the documents should be kept under wraps. While courts actually have the legal authority to deny requests for secrecy, often they do not--because both sides have agreed, and judges don't take the time to independently look into the matter themselves. Over the years, we have raised this concern, citing several examples, including defective heart valves, exploding fuel tanks, and dangerous playground equipment. In case after case, people have been injured or killed by defective products that remained on the market while crucial information was sealed from the public light. This is not only wrong, it is also unacceptable. There is no doubt that the most flagrant abuse of secrecy orders involves Big Tobacco. This tactic has served the industry in two disturbing ways. First, it dramatically drove up the cost of litigation by making every plaintiff ``reinvent the wheel.'' As one tobacco official boasted, rather crudely, ``the way we won these cases was not by spending all of [our] money, but by making that other S.O.B. spend all his.'' And secrecy orders helped them do it. Second, secrecy kept crucial documents away from public view. The tobacco companies have used secrecy orders and attorney-client privilege to conceal all kinds of materials critical to public health and safety, including many relating to teen smoking and nicotine levels. Once these documents were released, public outrage compelled action. But if the public had this information earlier, we could have saved thousands of lives. The underlying tobacco bill--which I strongly support--sets up a depository where tobacco companies are supposed to send current and future documents. But the tobacco companies have made clear that they will not cooperate. They'll just tie up this and other provisions in court, and the promise of a meaningful document library will literally be empty. So the bill leaves a big, big loophole. In the future, tobacco companies could add new ingredients to cigarettes that pose health risks or make tobacco more addictive. And they will still be able to rely on secrecy orders to conceal these hazards from the public. Our proposal will close this loophole. It is simple, effective and limited in scope. It only applies to a small category of cases, like tobacco, which involve public health or safety. Before approving secrecy orders, courts would apply a balancing test--they could permit secrecy solely if the need for privacy outweighs the public's right to know. In addition, the amendment bars any agreement that would prevent disclosure to the federal and state agencies charged with protecting public safety. Mr. President, our proposal does apply to more than just tobacco cases, of course, and it should. We need to prevent others from copying the tobacco industry's tactics. Bipartisan support for this proposal has grown over the years. Last Congress, it passed the Judiciary Committee 11 to 7. So if the tobacco bill moves forward, this proposal should be included. But even if the tobacco bill goes down, we still need to address this problem. Because who knows what other hazards are hidden behind courthouse doors? So if necessary I will offer this amendment to another measure. Today, a debate is raging about whether the President is hiding behind court orders and legal privileges. But when health and safety are at issue, there shouldn't be any debate at all. This is far too important. We need to learn our lessons from tobacco and take action to stop the next threat. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the final passage of our Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act and to commend Senator DeWine, cosponsor of the Senate version which we passed last November, along with Chairman Hyde and Congressman Hoyer for their commitment to promoting the welfare of children and to strengthening our child support laws. In sum, this measure sends a clear message to the deadbeat parents of America: pay up or go to jail. Mr. President, when the original Child Support Recovery Act of 1990 was first enacted, Senator Shelby and I hoped to make a real impact on the non-payment of support orders. And we did make some progress. Over 200 more cases of nonpayment were prosecuted. Over 50 went to jail. Of the 150-some remaining cases, many were dropped when the defendant agreed to pay the support arrears. And some very high profile cases prosecuted under this law have also made some potential deadbeats think twice before not paying. But for some deadbeats the threat of a misdemeanor sentence still isn't enough to keep them paying. Many would rather ``risk it.'' They know that if they get caught for a first offense--no matter how big their debt and no matter how long they went without paying--they aren't facing a felony conviction. Now, Mr. President, we are not trying to throw people into jail. We'd rather they paid their child support on time and in full. And many parents--mothers and fathers--do just that. But some need a little extra incentive to fulfill their responsibilities. The threat of a year in prison and a felony conviction on their records, contained in this bill, provides that much needed incentive. It has been estimated that if delinquent parents fully paid up their child support, approximately 800,000 women and children could be taken off the welfare rolls. In fact, Mr. President, since our original legislation was signed into law in 1992, collections have increased by nearly 50 percent, from $8 billion to $11.8 billion. Moreover, a new national database has helped identify 60,000 delinquent fathers--over half of whom owed money to women on welfare. Although we should be proud of these efforts, they are merely a point of departure, not a final destination, It seems to me that in passing this legislation, we all recognize that we can not simply stop and rest on our laurels. We must continue to work on behalf of children and families. We must give police and prosecutors the tools they need to make a real impact on the non-payment of child support. And today, we have taken that next step, we have done these things, and we have continued this important work. I look forward to the President's signing this bill into law, which will help ensure that deadbeats across the country sign more child support checks.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I will vote against cloture on the motion to proceed to the House version of the nuclear waste bill, but I want to be very clear that my vote does not change my strong support for nuclear waste legislation--and for passing such legislation this year. The federal government must act to fulfill its legal responsibility to store used fuel from more than 100 nuclear power plants across America. Over a decade ago, the federal government promised the ratepayers of Wisconsin that it would take possession of all the spent nuclear waste in the State by 1998 and send it to the desert of Nevada for long-term storage. On the basis of that promise, the ratepayers of Wisconsin have paid over $250 million into a fund to help pay for the construction of the storage site. But we have seen no return on that investment, only delays. This vote today has nothing to do with nuclear waste. The fate of that legislation lies in the House. The vote today is about tobacco-- and whether we will continue to work on the strong tobacco control legislation that we started on two weeks ago. Let me be clear about that because most people watching this debate outside of Washington D.C. may not understand how these two important issues are linked. Very simply, if we invoke cloture right now, the tobacco bill will be bumped off the Senate floor and will not come back until the majority leader, and every Member of this body, agrees to bring it back. Though I think there is tremendous support for tobacco legislation, I do not think there is unanimous support--and that's what we would need to bring the bill up again. So I will oppose cloture today, but I will continue to support the nuclear waste bill; I will vote for it if it comes up again this year; and I will support cloture motions related to it--as long as they are not simply legislative maneuvers to kill other important initiatives.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the outstanding career of Dr. D.H. McDonald, who is retiring after 45 years of dedicated service to the health of the people of Winneconne, Wisconsin. As a young boy growing up during the Great Depression, Dr. McDonald always dreamed of one day being able to take care of others. He took great pride in his father's hard work and accomplishments, and cherished the educational opportunities available to him. His desire to help people, hard work ethic and determination to do his best led Dr. McDonald to serve in the medical corps of the U.S. Army Air Force Command as a hospital administrator during World War II. During his time at Marquette University Medical School, Dr. McDonald took advantage of every opportunity he had, not only to learn about diverse areas of the medical field, but also to volunteer in the community. He worked at St. Mary Hill Psychiatric Hospital in Milwaukee and volunteered in the disadvantaged areas of Chicago where he made home deliveries of babies under the supervision of specialists. In 1952 Dr. McDonald established the McDonald Clinic. In an effort to accommodate the needs of the patients, Dr. McDonald used his clinic as a 24 hour, seven days a week walk-in clinic. Mr. President, Dr. McDonald has remained extremely close to the Winneconne community for over 45 years. Throughout the years, he has contributed to many of the events that have taken place within the community and will always be remembered for his commitment to the health and well-being of the people of Winneconne, Wisconsin. As he retires from the practice of medicine to the community which he has spent most of his life serving, we wish him the best of luck and thank him for his service.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Richard (Dick) Marbes, who is retiring from the full time position of Wisconsin State Adjutant of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV). As Mr. Marbes retires, it seems an appropriate time to acknowledge his distinguished career and extraordinary contributions and service to veterans and the DAV. During the 1950's, Dick served his country proudly in the Air Force. He is a long time active member of DAV chapter 3 in Green Bay and he has served as Wisconsin State Adjutant for over ten years. In 1993- 1994, Dick was elected and served as the National Commander of the DAV where he spearheaded an effort to change some pre-existing policies, helping to reestablish the DAV as one on the strongest and most influential Veterans groups. Dick was recognized as the DAV's National Amputee of the year, and is also a member of the Wisconsin Board of Veterans affairs. Mr. President, I hope all of my colleagues will join me in offering our congratulations to Dick Marbes and his wife Mary Jane and four children, Pam, Susan, Amy, and Tim. Dick has dedicated his time, talents and energy to serving Veterans and we are indeed indebted to him for his efforts. I am proud to salute Dick for a job well done, and I send him my best wishes for the future.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. 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. 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. This foreign piracy is 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 normally sell for about $100. Indeed, the manager was so brazen about it, he even agreed to give 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, which in principle has been incorporated into this measure. And I was one of the original cosponsors of the original proposed WIPO implementing legislation, the preliminary version of this measure. 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 every major concern raised during that process was addressed. For these reasons, it earned the unanimous support of the Judiciary Committee. I am confident that this bill has the best approach for stopping piracy and strengthening one of our biggest export industries. It deserves our support. Thank you.