Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, Senator Grassley and I today introduce the Class Action Fairness Act of 1998. This legislation addresses a growing problem in class action litigation--too many class lawyers put their self-interest above the best interests of their clients, often resulting in unfair and abusive settlements that shortchange class members while the class lawyers line their pockets with high fees. Let me share with you just a few disturbing examples. 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 four dollars 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. 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. 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 be worth more than $1 billion, while accusing the state class lawyers of ``hostile representation'' that ``surpassed inadequacy and sank to the level of subversion;'' ``vigorous disparagement'' of the value of the federal claim in order to sell the settlement to the state court; and pursuit of self-interest in ``getting a fee'' that was ``more in line with the interests of [defendants] than those of their clients.'' Class actions are often filed in state courts that are more likely to certify them without adequately considering whether a class action would be fair to all class members. 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 last year alone. Comparably, only an estimated 38 class actions were certified in federal court last 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. Class lawyers often manipulate the pleadings in order to avoid removal of state class actions 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, in order to avoid the $75,000 floor that qualifies for federal diversity jurisdiction. Or they defeat the federal requirement of complete diversity by making sure at least one named class member is from the same state as a defendant, even if every other class member is from a different state. 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 in the past eight years. The defendants failed in their attempt to remove to federal court based on an application of current diversity law. And, unlike federal courts, states are unable of 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 part of the problem are the incentives and realities created by the current system. 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. For example, a suit brought against a pharmaceutical company by a person suffering from the side effects of a drug can be expanded to cover all individuals who used the drug. A class action claim may proceed only if a court certifies the class, and certification is permitted only if the class procedure will be fair to all class members. 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. Often, these suits are settled. The settlement agreements provide money and/or other forms of compensation. The attorneys who brought the class action also get paid for their work. 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. A settlement will generally preclude 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. In light of the incentives that are driving the parties, it is easy to see how class members are left out in the cold. Class attorneys and corporate defendants sometimes reach agreements that satisfy their respective interests--and even the interests of the named class plaintiffs--but that sell short the interests of any class members who are not vigilantly monitoring the litigation. And 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 towards attorney's 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.'' 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 pursue claims that collectively 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 a class action or to 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 and the actual costs of complying with settlement agreements. This will deter class lawyers from using inflated values of coupon settlements to reap big fees, even if the settlement doesn't offer much practical value to victims. Some courts have already embraced this standard, which parallels the recent securities reform law. Fourth, it permits removal to federal court of 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. It reinforces the legitimate role for diversity jurisdiction--to establish the federal courts as the proper forum for lawsuits directly affecting residents from diverse states. Diversity jurisdiction makes little sense if a $76,000 claim by one out-of-state plaintiff qualifies for federal jurisdiction but a multimillion dollar class action bundling thousands of $74,000 claims by out-of-state citizens cannot be brought in federal court, and if remote state courts can make decisions affecting nationwide classes of citizens. 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. We are aware that some are critical of provisions in this bill. For example, there is concern that attorneys' fee provision does not adequately address settlements which offer primarily injunctive relief. For this reason, this bill should be viewed as a point of departure, not a final product. But 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 us 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 1998. This legislation addresses a growing problem in class action litigation--too many class lawyers put their self-interest above the best interests of their clients, often resulting in unfair and abusive settlements that shortchange class members while the class lawyers line their pockets with high fees. Let me share with you just a few disturbing examples. 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 four dollars 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. 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. 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 be worth more than $1 billion, while accusing the state class lawyers of ``hostile representation'' that ``surpassed inadequacy and sank to the level of subversion;'' ``vigorous disparagement'' of the value of the federal claim in order to sell the settlement to the state court; and pursuit of self-interest in ``getting a fee'' that was ``more in line with the interests of [defendants] than those of their clients.'' Class actions are often filed in state courts that are more likely to certify them without adequately considering whether a class action would be fair to all class members. 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 last year alone. Comparably, only an estimated 38 class actions were certified in federal court last 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. Class lawyers often manipulate the pleadings in order to avoid removal of state class actions 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, in order to avoid the $75,000 floor that qualifies for federal diversity jurisdiction. Or they defeat the federal requirement of complete diversity by making sure at least one named class member is from the same state as a defendant, even if every other class member is from a different state. 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 in the past eight years. The defendants failed in their attempt to remove to federal court based on an application of current diversity law. And, unlike federal courts, states are unable of 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 part of the problem are the incentives and realities created by the current system. 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. For example, a suit brought against a pharmaceutical company by a person suffering from the side effects of a drug can be expanded to cover all individuals who used the drug. A class action claim may proceed only if a court certifies the class, and certification is permitted only if the class procedure will be fair to all class members. 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. Often, these suits are settled. The settlement agreements provide money and/or other forms of compensation. The attorneys who brought the class action also get paid for their work. 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. A settlement will generally preclude 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. In light of the incentives that are driving the parties, it is easy to see how class members are left out in the cold. Class attorneys and corporate defendants sometimes reach agreements that satisfy their respective interests--and even the interests of the named class plaintiffs--but that sell short the interests of any class members who are not vigilantly monitoring the litigation. And 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 towards attorney's 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.'' 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 pursue claims that collectively 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 a class action or to 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 and the actual costs of complying with settlement agreements. This will deter class lawyers from using inflated values of coupon settlements to reap big fees, even if the settlement doesn't offer much practical value to victims. Some courts have already embraced this standard, which parallels the recent securities reform law. Fourth, it permits removal to federal court of 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. It reinforces the legitimate role for diversity jurisdiction--to establish the federal courts as the proper forum for lawsuits directly affecting residents from diverse states. Diversity jurisdiction makes little sense if a $76,000 claim by one out-of-state plaintiff qualifies for federal jurisdiction but a multimillion dollar class action bundling thousands of $74,000 claims by out-of-state citizens cannot be brought in federal court, and if remote state courts can make decisions affecting nationwide classes of citizens. 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. We are aware that some are critical of provisions in this bill. For example, there is concern that attorneys' fee provision does not adequately address settlements which offer primarily injunctive relief. For this reason, this bill should be viewed as a point of departure, not a final product. But 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 us 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. Thank you, I say to Senator D'Amato. Change of Vote--Roll Call Vote No. 132

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 132, I voted no. It was my intention to vote aye. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote. This will in no way change the outcome of the vote.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Agriculture Research conference report. A great deal of thanks and appreciation is due to Senators Lugar and Harkin for their hard work and efforts to reform and prioritize USDA's agriculture research, extension and education activities. This conference report is extremely important to the agricultural community. It invests $1.7 billion in agricultural research to develop the new technology that will be used by farms in the next five to ten years, to solve the projected shortfall in crop insurance funding, and to support the Fund for Rural America. The nation's Land-Grant Universities work with the USDA on issues ranging from the international competitiveness of our family farms, to new food borne illness problems, to ground water contamination. We need to support their efforts with a robust research budget in line with other agencies' research budgets. This bill puts us on the track to do that, and I support it. I am also pleased to speak in strong support of the provisions of this bill restoring food stamps to legal immigrants. Mr. President, I supported the 1996 welfare reform law. The time had clearly come for radical change. We rightly concluded that nothing erodes the human spirit more readily than dependence on handouts, and we instituted reforms based upon the principles of personal responsibility and hard work. But in some cases, a helping hand is truly necessary, and sometimes so much help is needed that only the Federal government is capable of providing it. This is clearly the case with respect to certain classes of legal immigrants. The welfare law provisions restricting legal immigrant access to food stamps went too far. Legal immigrants pay taxes and serve in our armed forces. They are not granted all the privileges of U.S. citizenship, but are expected to fulfill most of the responsibilities of citizenship. The ban on food stamps for elderly, disabled and other needy legal immigrants from food stamps was harsh and unfair. While myself and others argued that point during debate on the welfare bill in 1996, the majority of us have learned it since then. In any case, we should all feel confident that we are doing the right thing today by voting for this bill. Mr. President, my support for the food stamps restoration is particularly heart-felt due to my concern for the Hmong and other legal immigrants from Laos and their families. As my colleagues may know, the Hmong fought along side our American men and women in the Vietnam War. They risked their lives on behalf of all that we hold dear in this country--freedom from oppression, democracy and the pursuit of happiness--and fled to the United States following the War out of fear of persecution. To them, we truly owe a debt of gratitude. There are 250,000 Hmong and Lao people living in the United States, approximately 40,000 of whom live in Wisconsin. Of those 40,000, roughly 7000 lost eligibility for food stamps under the welfare law. And 75 percent of those individuals who have lost food stamps in Wisconsin live in households with children. The Hmong and highland people have enriched our country and enriched Wisconsin. They have worked hard to support their families and give back to their communities. Simply put, we are thankful for all they did and thankful for the contributions they continue to make. Last year, we took steps to restore SSI benefits to the Hmong and other worthy immigrants, and today we are right to take this step with respect to food stamps. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.

Mr. KOHL. Yes.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Thank you, Senator Byrd. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the IRS Reform bill. There is no doubt that this bill will count among the most important pieces of legislation that we will pass in the 105th Congress. A great deal of thanks and appreciation is due to Senators Roth and Moynihan for their work sheperding this bill through the Finance Committee, and most especially to my friend from Nebraska, Senator Bob Kerrey, whose efforts on the Restructuring Commission and tireless advocacy brought us here today. We have all been struck by the stories of abuse of taxpayers by overzealous or self-serving IRS employees. And all of us have received calls of concern and outrage from constituents who feel they have been treated unfairly by an agency that wields a tremendous amount of power in the daily lives of Americans. We have also learned of retaliation against honest IRS employees who worked hard and wanted to do the right thing by speaking out against abuses. This legislation will go a long way towards addressing these problems. It will also go a long way toward making the agency more effective in its policy mission and more responsive to budget constraints. We have all witnessed the $4 billion debacle of the IRS computer modernization effort and want to ensure resources are allocated responsibly in the future. As ranking member of the Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee, I have had the opportunity to meet the Commissioner of the IRS, Mr. Rossotti, and am encouraged by his strong background in management and information technology. The legislation before us will provide the Commissioner with tools to put together a high-quality team to run the agency, and award those who do their jobs well. This bill also includes new sources of outside oversight of the agency, such as the Oversight Board and the new Treasury IG's Office for Tax Administration. Coming from the business world, I know the importance of accountability and constant self-examination. Management and employees should always be looking for ways to do their jobs more effectively and be open to constructive criticism. But for too long, the IRS has operated as if it were a class by itself, somehow above the standards of efficiency and customer service that any American business must follow to survive. We have witnessed the effects of this problem in my home state of Wisconsin. For the past two and a half years, we have worked to address allegations of misconduct and discrimination at the Milwaukee-Waukesha IRS Offices. These allegations were discussed at length at the Committee hearings last week, and were so serious that some IRS employees felt the need to sneak into my office in Milwaukee to report on abuses. Employees feared retaliation and alleged again and again that management was allowing, if not promoting, a hostile work environment. Such a deplorable situation of fear and intimidation is unacceptable, must be stopped, and must be prevented from happening in the future. This bill sets up a confidential means through which honest employees can report allegations of abuses. In addition, I am offering an amendment with my colleague, Senator Feingold, to ensure that oversight of the Milwaukee office is a top priority of the new IG. This legislation will prevent abuses in the future, but we must also be vigilant in dealing with serious problems that have yet to be resolved in the present. Mr. President, while taking time to mention only a few of the many important provisions of this bill, I want to urge my colleagues to support this legislation. We have a historic opportunity to right future wrongs and be party to the creation of a more consumer-friendly, efficient and responsible IRS. Let us seize that opportunity with enthusiasm and without further delay.

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. Of course, as with any legislation, some tinkering may still be needed. 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.

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. Of course, as with any legislation, some tinkering may still be needed. 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.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to the bipartisan chorus in support of the Workforce Investment Partnership Act. I commend the sponsors for their excellent work. Senators Jeffords, DeWine, Kennedy, and Wellstone have done an outstanding job of crafting legislation that is long overdue. For too long American workers have had to struggle through a complex system of dozens of different job training and educational programs to get the skills they needed to enter, or reenter the job market. Today, the Senate takes concrete steps to streamline the current system so that getting the help they need will be easier for the workers of America. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act simplifies the search for a job by encouraging communities to establish a ``one stop shopping'' location. Localities will have one location where an individual can go to get help finding a job or search out skill training opportunities. At this location all of the options will be laid out, and the choice will be up to the worker. Inherent in this idea is that there will be no wrong door. No longer will a person be told, ``We can't help you here because you don't qualify for these programs. Maybe they can help you down the hall.'' That sort of bureaucratic run around results in inefficiency and frustrates the very people we are trying to help. This job training reform bill focuses on shifting power back to the states and local communities. Government, business, labor, and community groups will collaborate on strategies that fit the economic situation of the individual state and locality. The Senate version of this bill also takes the important step of allowing states to keep reforms they have made that are working. Wisconsin has made many changes to its job training system on its own initiative that have been ground- breaking and very successful. I am pleased the Committee recognizes that there is no need to replace programs that are already doing the job and meeting the goals set forth in this legislation. I am also pleased we maintain our commitment to helping at risk youth. This bill ensures that providing opportunities for kids on the edge will continue, and that the funds will move quickly to those who need it most. I hope that the Conference Committee can quickly complete its work so that the $250 million set aside in last year's budget for Out-of-School Youth will become available before the July 1 deadline. These kids need our help to become productive citizens and contribute to society. If Congress fails to complete action before July 1, these young people will be forced to wait even longer for our support. In today's global economy, our people are our greatest resource. With the rise in information and technology, the nations that are the most creative, most innovative, and most inventive will have the edge. The United States currently has the lead in these sectors and this bill will help our people maintain their advantage through continuing their education and updating their skills. Our nation's continued prosperity, and the prosperity of our workers, hinges on a well-trained workforce. This bill helps ensure that our current economic growth will continue into the future and be shared by all Americans.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Supplemental Conference report, and I oppose it for the same reasons I opposed the original Senate Supplemental Appropriations bill in the Appropriaitons Committee. While I want to go on record supporting the funding for our operations in Bosnia and Iraq, I am voting against this bill because I believe we should have found a way to offset this defense spending. I understand that some of the funding was unanticipated, but certainly not all of it. If we are truly committed to a balanced budget, as I believe we should be, we need to make the tough choices to reduce spending in other areas of defense spending to pay for this bill. I also want to state that I opposed the House bill which offset defense spending with cuts in domestic programs. Separate defense and domestic spending levels were set in last year's historic balanced budget accord, and I see no reason to revisit those fundamental decisions now. Except for truly unanticipated emergencies, the Department of Defense ought to make the tough decision that allows it to live within its budget. If the non-emergency defense spending in this bill was not important enough to make the Department of Defense's FY 1998 budget, it is not important enough to justify raiding cash- strapped domestic programs. And finally, I am disappointed that this legislation does not include funding for the International Monetary Fund's quota increase and New Arrangements to Borrow. The situation in Asia has clearly demonstrated that while the mission of the IMF is now more important than ever, the current resources of the fund are not adequate to meet the demands of that mission. We have a responsibility to every American, whether they be consumer, business person, job seeker or job holder, to promote policies that help grow the global economy to which the American economy is increasingly and inextricably linked. Simply put, our future depends on the future of our neighbors and trading partners. Many of my colleagues have raised legitimate concerns regarding IMF reform, concerns which should be addressed. But our primary task for today was to provide the IMF with the resources necessary to continue its important mission, and I regret that Congress failed to live up to that responsibility.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today is Israel's Independence Day marking the 50th anniversary of the founding of the modern state of Israel. The last fifty years have fascinated and captivated many of us as we have watched and supported this country in its struggle for survival. Out of the ashes of the Holocaust, Jews from around the world converged on this small but holy land to build a modern state in a place where Jews had maintained a presence for thousands of years. From the first days of statehood in 1948 when its neighbors declared war and attempted to obliterate it from the map, Israel has defied the odds and endured in the most dangerous of neighborhoods. Each decade since 1948 Israel has survived a major war with its neighbors: Suez in 1956, the Six Day War in 1967, the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the war in Lebanon in 1982 and then the deadly Iraqi Scud missiles launched against its people in 1991. Yet in the midst of all these wars, tens of murderous terrorist attacks, and a crippling Arab economic boycott, Israel has built a vibrant democracy and a robust economy. The United States has not been a bystander in this remarkable transformation. We have provided needed assistance, in recognition of our shared democratic values, and we have benefited from a close strategic alliance. There is a special and enduring relationship between the United states and Israel dating back to the days when the United States was the first nation to recognize Israel when it declared its independence. As Israel marks its jubilee year, we celebrate that relationship. Mr. President, I want to salute the people of Israel for all they have achieved in the last fifty years. I join with the Jewish community around the world, which has provided support and received moral and spiritual sustenance from Israel, in wishing them well. May they go from strength to strength.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, for quite some time I have been studying the issue of whether we should expand NATO. There are some who have argued that there has not been sufficient debate about NATO expansion. Yet, we have been considering NATO expansion for several years now, long before this resolution of ratification made it to the Senate floor. By wide margins, the Senate indicated its support for the concept of NATO expansion in 1994 and 1995, and since then, there has been much discussion in the Senate and in the media on the pros and cons of expanding NATO. As the Administration has worked with our allies on the details of NATO expansion, building on the Partnership for Peace which lay the ground work for this move back in 1994, and culminating with the signing of the Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in December 1997, we have reached the point where there is little doubt that the Senate will ratify the resolution before us today. It is interesting to note, that as a bipartisan consensus for NATO expansion has emerged, opponents of NATO expansion have sharpened their arguments. I want to credit these opponents for giving us all much food for thought and for ultimately helping me focus my thinking on this important issue. After careful consideration, I have concluded that expanding NATO is in our national interest and I intend to support the resolution of ratification before us today for a number of reasons. NATO will help to fill a security vacuum in newly democratic Central Europe. It has only been a few short years since Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have embraced democratic institutions and embarked on the path to political and economic reform. We need to send the strongest possible signal to the fledgling democracies of Central and Eastern Europe that they must not falter in this endeavor. It is in our national interest for these nations to succeed, and support from the West allows them to proceed with difficult political and economic reforms. Just as it made sense in the breathless months after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact to invite these countries to join NATO, we cannot back away from them now. Following through on our invitation offers them a sense of security after years of domination by the Soviet Union. And, it is fitting that a military alliance originally conceived to counter the Soviet threat would offer them a safe haven from the threats of the future. Although it may seem that they have little to worry about now, we cannot predict what threats may emerge. After all, few among us could have predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War. We should support NATO expansion because it will help ensure that Russia does not pose a threat to those countries in the future. Russia may not pose a threat now, but the fears of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic that Russia will change its stripes or that some other hegemonic power will threaten them are all too real. We must respond to these fears. It's easy for critics of NATO expansion on this side of the Atlantic to say that these fears are not justified but we must not forget that the reason the nations of Central and Eastern Europe are clamoring for NATO membership in the first place is because of their long history of invasion and subjugation. Who among us could look the Poles, and the Czechs, and the Hungarians in the eyes and say that even without NATO they need not fear an invasion in the future. True, no one can make the case that the Russian military in its current state is in any position to reconstitute the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact. Recent articles in the Washington Post and the New York Times lay out in stark terms the weakened state of the military, and the difficulties Russia is facing in developing strong economic and political alliances with its neighbors. Although some have argued that these are reasons to oppose NATO expansion, for me this underscores the challenges Russia faces today in realizing full political and economic reform, challenges that have little to do with NATO expansion. If Russia does not succeed--and we must do all we can to ensure that it does--I shudder to think of the consequences. NATO expansion will shield Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic from these consequences. I do not intend to respond to all of the arguments made by opponents of NATO expansion, but I want to say a few more words about Russia. I do not believe that NATO expansion will undermine Russian efforts to achieve democratic reform: If Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic want greater integration with Western Europe this should not pose a threat to Russia. However, just as we are responding to the fears of the Central Europeans by inviting them to join NATO, we must recognize Russian fears. We must continue to remind the Russians that NATO is not antagonistic to their interests. And, we must redouble our efforts to help the Russians so that they too can succeed in their economic and political reforms. As the resolution of ratification states: The Senate finds that is in the interest of the United States for NATO to develop a new and constructive relationship with the Russian Federation as the Russian Federation pursues democratization, market reforms, and peaceful relations with its neighbors. I hope that at some future date the Senate will consider specific measures to further this goal. As tensions between the United States and Russia have subsided, the end of the Cold War has brought many long dormant ethnic rivalries to the surface. NATO expansion is a reasonable response to these developments: A broad based military alliance can help keep ethnic tensions from escalating into violence. As we have seen all too vividly with the dissolution of Yugoslavia, ethnic tensions in Europe are still deep rooted. The world was taken by surprise at the atrocities that were unleashed in Bosnia and it took several years for the West to bring enough pressure on the parties to end the violence. We want to do what we can to prevent the dissolution of state militaries into murderous ethnic militias as took place in Bosnia. There are no guarantees, but by bringing the emerging democracies of Central and Eastern Europe into a broad based military alliance we are encouraging military cooperation and understanding and fostering relationships that will make it easier to resolve major conflicts. Although NATO's primary purpose is not as a dispute resolution body, it is my hope that NATO can help prevent many of these disputes from emerging in the first place. NATO's strength is that it is not only a military alliance, but an alliance of nations sharing democratic values. Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have made great strides over the last seven years demonstrating that their commitment to democratic institutions and political reform runs deep. Some have argued that political stability rests on economic stability and that we should press the European Union to admit the countries of Central and Eastern Europe before we engage them in a military alliance. However, free market economies are not the only key to stable democracies. The role of the military can make a difference in the long-term success of democracies. A military alliance that defers to civilian leaders can serve as an example of stable civil-military relations. I am confident that inclusion in NATO will strengthen democratic values in the new democracies of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. The NATO alliance has been a successful alliance. It is in our national interest to build on that success. For fifty years, NATO has united Europe and America in a common purpose, and with its strong emphasis on cooperation and a collective defense, NATO will serve as a building block for the security arrangements of the future. We have established some very important relationships in NATO. These relationships are a source of strength and they should not be abandoned. And, the strong ties we have with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic can be formalized by admitting them to NATO. Earlier in the debate we reaffirmed the strategic purpose of NATO. I believe that as the threats of the future come into sharper focus, the strategic rationale for NATO will evolve. This will not happen overnight. And that is why I supported the Warner amendment. Before we remake an alliance that has served American interests and proceed with further expansion we need to spend more time thinking about the role NATO will play in our changing security arrangements. The Warner amendment also would have allowed us to step back from the process without specifically rejecting any of the nations of Central or Eastern Europe. Regardless of how long we wait before the next group of nations is admitted to NATO, we must closely monitor the integration of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO. Finally, I would like to say a few words about the cost of NATO expansion, an issue of particular concern to me. Although there have been numerous estimates, the most recent Administration estimate is that we will spend $400 million over the coming decade to cover the US share of NATO expansion costs. This is not a small sum. Consider, however, that we have already spent more than $6 billion on US operations in Bosnia in the last two and a half years. If NATO can help prevent the Bosnias of the future, even if NATO expansion costs are double the Administration's current estimate, this will be money well spent. I am disappointed that there is no consensus in the Senate to limit our spending in this area beyond the existing limit on the US contribution to the NATO common budget. I supported the Harkin amendment that would have placed a 25 percent cap on expenses that might be incurred to help NATO's newest members integrate their forces with NATO, and I will continue to watch spending in this area. As the Resolution of Ratification states: ``the United States is under no commitment to subsidize the national expenses necessary for Poland, Hungary or the Czech Republic to meet its NATO commitments.'' Our future is and always has been inextricably tied to Europe, a region that has been beset by war. After two devastating World Wars dominated the first half of this century, we have relied on the NATO alliance to help keep the peace during the second half. I believe that NATO expansion can also help us maintain peace and stability in Europe into the next century and for that reason the resolution of ratification to admit Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic merits our support.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I want to comment on one aspect of the conference report before us today, the provisions relating to the consolidation of USIA into the State Department. Although the President has already signaled his intention to veto this bill should it pass, I would like to highlight a concern I share with others which was addressed to some degree in the conference report: the need to protect the integrity of U.S. public diplomacy. There have been some indications that when the State Department incorporates the functions of USIA into its organization, there are some State Department officials who are interested in using the resources associated with USIA programs to boost the public affairs functions of the State Department. I would like to go on record in opposition to any shifting of resources or even worse merging of these two very distinct functions of public affairs and public diplomacy. To give some background on this issue, since 1948 when U.S. government information programs were first authorized under section 501 of the Smith/Mundt Act, it has been understood that public diplomacy programs were directed to foreign audiences. As Under Secretary of State Philip Habib said in 1986: There is a distinction between public diplomacy and public affairs. The word diplomacy means ``outside'' and has nothing to do with what you are trying to do with the American people, which is altogether different. Gaining the support of the American people for U.S. foreign policy initiatives is entirely different from attempting to pursue the interests of the United States in the foreign arena. Over the years, Congress and the courts have upheld and strengthened the distinction between public diplomacy, which is directed abroad, and public affairs, which is directed toward a U.S. audience. As USIA and its functions are folded into the State Department--and I do not necessarily oppose this and other cost savings moves--we must continue to uphold the distinction between these two functions. I support the need to provide a clear articulation of U.S. foreign policy to Americans, especially as the world and U.S. international interests have become increasingly complex. However, the State Department should not anticipate a windfall in resources for its public affairs function. Public diplomacy, the presentation and advocacy of information about the United States, not just the advocacy of a particular foreign policy position, has been best presented independently and objectively without consideration of how that message would play at home. Educating the rest of the world about American society should not be hindered by the equally important but distinct function of explaining U.S. foreign policy to the American people. Edward R. Murrow said it best almost 40 years ago: What we endeavor to reflect . . . is not only our policy, but our ideals. We not only seek to show people who we are and how we live: we must also engage others in the delicate, difficult art of human persuasion, to explain why we do what we do. Mr. President, as we consider legislation to consolidate USIA into the State Department, whether it be in this session or in future sessions of Congress, I urge my colleagues to keep this important distinction in mind.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the City of Sheboygan, Wisconsin for being selected by the National Sporting Goods Association to launch the Wannabe Cool, Gottabe Active Campaign. The campaign, which targets students in grades 3-8, is designed to inspire confidence in one's abilities and to spur a lifetime dedication to physical and mental wellness. We must recognize the importance of programs like this which give children options that empower them to lead healthy lives. Mr. President, this is especially important when we consider that we are witnessing a decrease in activity among our nation's youth. Today, only 22 percent of our children are physically active for the recommended 30 minutes each day. Physical education classes are on the decline with three out of four students in America not attending daily physical education classes and one out of four not attending any physical education classes in their schools--this represents a drop of almost 20 percent in just four years. These are frightening statistics and we need to reverse this trend. The Wannabe Cool, Gottabe Active Campaign is a good start. There are several things I like about the program. First, the campaign targets the right age group, because we know that a commitment to physical activity is formed between the ages of eight and twelve. I am also impressed that the campaign involves a cooperative effort: parents, students, teachers, and community leaders all working together. Finally, the Wanna be Cool, Gotta be Active Campaign is designed to encourage all youth, not just those who are athletically inclined to participate and develop long-term enjoyment of physical activity. This is a serious issue which demands our attention. Mr. President, I would like to once again extend my congratulations to the wonderful city of Sheboygan, Wisconsin for being selected to kick off the campaign. I'm sure that everyone involved will benefit from this very worthwhile venture.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, my amendment to the Budget Resolution I hope will be only the first step this Congress will take to prevent abuse and mistreatment of elderly and disabled patients in long-term care. Mr. President, it is estimated that more than 43% of Americans over the age of 65 will likely spend time in a nursing home. The number of people needing long-term care service, both in nursing homes and home health care, is sharply increasing, and it will continue to do so as the Baby Boom generation ages. The vast majority of long-term care facilities 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 long-term care workers with criminal backgrounds have been cleared to work in direct patient care, and have subsequently abused patients in their care. Most recently, The Wall Street Journal published a troubling article describing the extent of this problem and the difficulties we face in tracking known abusers. I ask that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL. This article is only the tip of the iceberg. A recent report from the Nation's long-term care Ombudsmen indicates that in 29 states surveyed, 7,043 cases of abuse, gross neglect, or exploitation occurred in nursing homes and board and care facilities. Similar stories have appeared nationwide and abuse is not limited to nursing homes. It is far too easy for a health care worker with a criminal or abusive background to gain employment and prey on the most vulnerable 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 nurse aide registries which include information about abusive workers. But these registries are not comprehensive or complete. First, many facilities do not report abuse complaints and instead, simply fire the worker. Second, these registries usually do not include abuse information about home health or hospice aides. Finally, and most important, there is no national system in place to track abusers, little information sharing between States, and no Federal requirement that a criminal background check be done on potential employees. A known abuser or someone with a violent criminal background in Iowa would have little trouble moving to Wisconsin and continuing to work with patients there. I have introduced and continue to work on legislation that would create a national registry of abusive long-term care workers and require criminal background checks for prospective employees who participate in Medicare and Medicaid. Although this will not prevent all cases of abuse, I believe it will go a long way toward making sure that those who have a history of preying on the vulnerable are not paid to do so by Medicare and Medicaid. This Budget Resolution includes a lot of different priorities and funding recommendations--some of which I agree with, and others that I believe deserve more attention. But as we consider this Budget Resolution, we must not forget to protect our nation's most vulnerable citizens--the elderly and the disabled. This amendment expresses our desire to establish a viable, efficient, and cost-effective national system that will screen out abusive workers and prevent them from working with patients. We should adopt this amendment to devote resources toward developing such a system. We should adopt this amendment to send a clear signal to potential abusers that we will not tolerate the mistreatment of our patients. And we should adopt this amendment to demonstrate our commitment to protecting the elderly and the disabled from known abusers and criminals. When a patient checks into a nursing home facility or receives home health services, they should not have to give up their right to be free of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Exhibit 1 [From the Wall Street Journal] Many Elders Receive Care at Criminals' Hands (By Michael Moss) When Carletos Bell applied to work at the San Antonio Convalescent Center, he didn't try to hide his violent criminal past. He disclosed his record of aggravated assault right on his application for nurse-assistant. He got the job anyway, in June 1996. Six months later, Mr. Bell was charged with sexually assaulting a 71-year-old resident of the nursing home. He pleaded not-guilty and is now in jail awaiting trial. The case illustrates a growing problem for nursing-home patients and owners alike: People with serious rap sheets are landing jobs as care givers for the elderly. On Monday, a local trial judge in Denver gave a green light to the first-ever class-action lawsuit alleging nursing-home negligence. A pivotal claim is that many nurse-assistants had arrest records. A local attorney for the facility's former owner, GranCare Inc., denies the allegation of negligence. Even before that ruling, crime against residents of nursing homes has been a growing concern among patient advocates. Efforts to draw attention to the problem have been stymied partly by the lack of good data. Advocates say there is severe underreporting of crimes--especially of rapes--because residents often fear retribution for leveling complaints. Still, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General took disciplinary actions mostly related to nursing-home abuse in 382 cases in 1997, more than double a year earlier. The office received 1,613 reports of abuse allegations in that year, up 14% over a three-year period. Lesser crimes abound as well. Four percent of nursing-home workers acknowledged they stole money, jewelry and other items from residents, in questionnaires completed as part of a soon-to-be-published study by Diana Harris, a sociologist at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Ten percent of workers said they saw other staff steal. Nursing-home owners, in turn, are finding themselves at greater risk in lawsuits brought by injured residents. In some facilities, plaintiffs' attorneys are discovering that a large portion of the staff has a criminal past. At another San Antonio nursing home, the Crestway Care Center, where in 1995 two female residents said they were raped, half of the 69 male workers had arrest records and nearly one-quarter had felony convictions, according to pretrial fact-finding in a negligence lawsuit the women brought against the nursing home. The facility's owner at the time couldn't be reached. His attorney declined to comment. The suit was settled last year. The plaintiffs' criminologist, Patricia Harris, noted in court papers, ``A setting which contains infirmed females who are unable to defend themselves creates an enhanced opportunity for sexual assaults.'' When trouble strikes, the involvement of a single employee with a felony record can send jury awards soaring. Last year, the owner of the nursing home where Mr. Bell worked, Living Centers of America, quickly settled a lawsuit brought by the resident whom Mr. Bell allegedly assaulted. Since then, investor group Apollo Management LP, headed by financier Leon Black, has acquired control of Living Centers and merged it with GranCare to form Paragon Health Networks Inc., of Atlanta. ``Until there is some public awareness, the problem of nursing homes employing criminal and sexual deviants is going to escalate,'' says the resident's attorney, Marynell Maloney, who also brought the other San Antonio case. Living Centers' local attorney, Charles Deacon, says the job interviewer at the facility made a mistake in hiring Mr. Bell. Given Mr. Bell's record, says Mr. Deacon, ``there is no way the company would ever have wanted him.'' Employees with criminal records pose an industry-wide problem, says Mr. Deacon, who represents other nursing-home owners. ``They end up costing these companies a lot of money.'' A Boston jury last month sent a message to a home health- care provider by awarding $26.5 million to the estate of John Ward, who was beaten and stabbed to death in 1991, along with his grandmother. The perpetrator was a six-time convicted felon who was hired by an agency to care for Mr. Ward, age 32, at their home. Rachel Schneider, acting co-president of the Visiting Nurse Association of Greater Boston, which settled the lawsuit after the jury's verdict, says the killings were ``one of those very unfortunate lessons.'' The agency began checking its workers for criminal records starting in 1994, she said. Nursing-home owners, patient advocates and labor unions agree that an important step in combating nursing-home crime is to keep criminals from getting the jobs. Bills introduced in both houses of Congress would require Federal Bureau of Investigation background checks of would-be nurses' aides and other care givers. A group of nursing-home owners, the American Health Care Association, says it supports the concept and favors imposing background-checks on care givers at hospitals and other providers, too. Patient advocates say there's no reason to limit the checks to nurses' aides. ``We think everybody-- doctors, nurses, everyone--should be checked,'' says Elma Holder, founding director of the National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home Reform. A growing number of states already have legislation mandating background checks, with mixed results. Illinois's two-year-old program for screening nurses' aides has turned up disqualifying criminal backgrounds on about 5% of the people who were checked. Their crimes ranged from theft to homicide. But nearly 90% of those who asked that the law be waived were permitted to take or keep jobs anyway. ``The law is a farce,'' says Violette King of Nursing Home Monitors, a local patient-advocacy group based in Godfrey, Ill. The state Department of Public Health responds by saying it weighs each waiver request carefully. Spokesman Thomas Schafer cites the case of a man who murdered his girlfriend 24 years ago. He had been working in a nursing home without problems for 15 years when the new background-check program turned up his record. The state decided he wouldn't be a risk to the residents. One thorny question is whether mere arrests should carry as much weight as convictions. In Colorado, it has become a point of contention in the Denver class-action suit. Of the 176 aides hired by Cedars Health Care Center in 1995 and 1996, 74 of them, or 42%, had arrest records, the plaintiffs' attorney has alleged. ``Most of these records reflect serious, and sometimes habitual, criminal behavior,'' alleges the complaint filed by Denver attorney Lynn Feiger, an employment-law specialist, on behalf of five current and former Cedars residents. More than 200 can join the suit, thanks to this week's ruling. The nursing-home owner's attorney, Jerome Reinan, who is weighing an appeal of the class-action decision, argues that the threshold should be convictions. ``We're not aware at this point of any convictions that would made an employee ineligible for hiring,'' says Mr. Reinan. State officials in Colorado say they are considering a number of ways to strengthen rules for screening nursing-home employees, including extending checks to probation reports and arrest records. ``An arrest record is certainly indicative of a pattern,'' says state Department of Public Health spokeswoman Jackie Starr-Bocian. ``We have had a concern here in Colorado for many years about issues of employment in nursing homes. Now it's a very grave concern because our unemployment rates are so low it's hard to find qualified applicants.'' amendment no. 2240

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, earlier today I supported an amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller. Senator Rockefeller's amendment to the Budget Resolution would have restored $10.5 billion to the Veterans' Affairs Subommittee, offsetting that restoration by reducing funds allocated to the Transportation Subcommittee. As we all know, the Senate ISTEA bill, now awaiting conference deliberations with the House, authorized approximately $217 billion for transportation over 6 years--about $171 billion for highways, about $41 billion for transit and about $2 billion for safety. These levels represent a 38 percent increase for transportation over the previous ISTEA bill. Under the Budget Resolution considered today, a significant portion of this increase is financed by a $10.5 billion reduction in funds set aside to pay for smoking related illnesses among veterans. Mr. President, I believe we need to do more for infrastructure development--our investment in roads, bridges and transit must increase if we hope to maintain our quality of life while keeping up with the demands of the economy and the changing nature of our cities and towns. That said, veterans should not have to pay for that investment. It's not right, and perhaps more importantly, it's not necessary. The ISTEA bill vastly increased transportation funds and took some big steps to improve the longstanding equity problem between those states that contribute more in gas tax revenues than they receive and those states that receive more than they contribute. However, while improving the donor state problem to some extent, the bill also provided generous increases in funding to many donee states. I would argue that we were too generous to those states. It was unacceptable to me that despite a 38 percent increase in the amount of funds made available for transportation, the ISTEA bill continued to have donor states give significantly more than they get back, and donee states get significantly more than they give. We could've done better. And if we had provided less of an increase to donee states, we could have avoided the need for controversial offsets, such as the reduction in veterans benefits that Senator Rockefeller sought to restore. We all know that sometimes fairness is painful to swallow, and it seemed to me that in the highway bill, we simply gave everyone more in order not to inflict pain on some. Today we voted on whether veterans should feel that pain. But why should we limit programs for our veterans in order to be even more generous to those who are already in an advantageous position under transportation formulas? Simply put, we should not. A more responsible course of action would have been to distribute highway dollars more fairly, limiting the increase overall by limiting the increase to states that were already getting more than their fair share.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Budget Resolution. And while I will not vote for the final product, I want to compliment both sides of the aisle this year's unique debate over our budget blueprint. For the first time since I arrived in the Senate, the issue of balancing the budget was not an issue. The President started the debate this year by proposing a budget that balances this fiscal year--a full two years before the proposed Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment would have demanded it. The Republican members of the Budget Committee countered with the balanced budget before us today, and Democrats offered up their substitute, also in balance. This year, partisan attempts to play ``pin the blame for the deficit'' were replaced by a serious discussion of the government's priorities. Hot air gave way to an honest airing of our policy differences. We debated the questions that must be answered in the budget that will guide our legislative actions for the rest of the year--questions about how government should spend its time and energy in the coming fiscal year. And it is because of the budget answers those questions that I must oppose this budget. Though the numbers add up, the policies do not. In short, on too many issues of importance to the families of America, this budget is more than silent--it stifles discussion. For example, the budget forbids consideration of a comprehensive child care program for the United States--a plan like that proposed by the President, by Senator Dodd, or by Senator Chafee. Senator Dodd offered an amendment to fix this, and it was defeated. How can we support a budget that does not at least allow Congress to consider the child care needs of our youngest children and our hardest working families? At a time when 60 percent of our preschool age children are regularly cared for by someone other than their parents, can we accept a budget that will not allow us to debate any proposals to increase the accessibility of decent child care? At a time when we are learning more each day about the importance of brain development in the earliest years of life, can we accept a budget that will not allow us to discuss creating more quality early education opportunities? At a time when the business world is waking up to the link between good child care and employee productivity, can we accept a budget that will not let Congress also explore how to help working parents work well? This budget also precludes consideration of any of the various proposals to implement the tobacco settlement. Under the budget, the Hatch plan, the emerging McCain bill, the Chafee-Harkin bipartisan plan, the Conrad bill, or even the initial tobacco settlement between the State Attorneys General and the tobacco companies would be out of order on the Senate floor. This budget silences Congress on two of the most pressing issues that face our nation today: How can we give our youngest children the best start to their educations and their lives? And how can we free our children from the deadly pressure to start smoking? Despite these serious objections, I would like to thank the managers of the bill, and the whole Senate, for unanimously accepting my amendment to the Resolution expressing the Senate's intention to protect our nation's elderly and disabled patients from abuse, neglect and mistreatment in long-term care facilities. And I would like to compliment the drafters of this budget for one section. The $30 billion tax cut envisioned in this budget does include $9 billion for child care tax credits. As many of you know, I have worked hard to establish a tax credit to provide an incentive to private sector businesses willing to take actions that increase the supply of quality child care. My credit will give incentives to large companies--like Wisconsin's Johnson Wax or Quad Graphics--that set up state of the art child care centers on-site. And it will provide an incentive for smaller companies--like the 80 companies in the New Berlin, Wisconsin Industrial Park that joined together to build a child care center open to the children of all of their employees. In addition, my credit is not just for the costs of construction--but also for the other substantial costs of providing suitable quality child care: the costs of accrediting a center, of setting up a merit- based pay system for the woefully underpaid child care workers, for reserving slots in an existing child care facility, or for hiring a resource and referral firm to design the best child care option for a given company. This proposal has the support of the President, child care advocates, the business community, and the 72 Senators who voted for it as part of last year's tax package. I am glad to see that the budget before us also would support it. However, as much as I would like to see us move forward on my child care tax credit this year, it is only one part of the solution to the shortage of quality, educational child care in this country. For years, the Federal budget stole from the future to fund programs and pork in the present. The enormous deficits of those years were a national shame. Today, the budget is in balance and moving toward surplus. We have reason to be relieved, but not reason yet to be proud. We have stopped stealing from our grandchildren, true. But this budget does not let us even consider in a comprehensive way their earliest, and most important, educational needs. We have an obligation to at least discuss how best to nurture our youngest children--and I cannot support a budget that will not allow that. I urge my colleagues to vote down this budget.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, my vote in opposition to the motion to proceed to H.R. 2646 was unrelated to the merits of this education IRA proposal. I voted with Senator Durbin on this procedural issue to protest the lack of floor action on two noncontroversial judicial nominees from Illinois. While the Senate should consider how to make quality education more affordable, it also should not neglect its duty to fill judicial vacancies. The Senate's failure to act on these nominees is particularly egregious--one of these positions has been vacant for five years, and the other has been vacant for almost three and a half years. There are currently 82 judicial vacancies, and continued inaction and delay in the Senate is likely to compromise the quality of justice available to crime victims and other injured persons throughout the U.S.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Senate reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the so-called ``ISTEA II'' bill that we've been debating for the past couple of weeks and that was approved yesterday. I thank the managers of the bill and their staff for the hard work and long hours they put in, as well as their attempts to face the very difficult task of balancing the transportation needs of the fifty states. First, let me say that we all agree that maintaining, developing and improving our roads, bridges and transit systems is vital to our economy and our way of life. Transportation development has and will play a crucial role in the growth of this country. And the Senate reaffirmed that importance by approving significantly increased funding levels. That part of the equation, I strongly support. From the beginning, I believed we needed to do more and the Senate bill does do more, including an increase of approximately $130 million for Wisconsin highways and significant increases for transit systems as well. That said, the other part of the equation, and the reason for which I ultimately opposed the legislation, is the issue of percentage share of total program dollars. My state of Wisconsin is one of the 20 or so donor states whose taxpayers pay more in gas tax revenues than they receive in Federal transportation funds. And one of the top issues that Wisconsinites from all across the state and from all walks of life stressed to me was the need to improve Wisconsin's share. That was certainly not the only issue, nonetheless, it is a very basic issue of fairness that we have faced every time we have sat down to write a highway bill. And this year, perhaps more than any other, we had an historic chance to correct the donor state problem since the bill includes significant new resources. However, while this bill improves many states' shares, it actually decreases Wisconsin's share. Under the original ISTEA, my state realized an average return of 92 percent on our gas tax contributions over the life of bill. Under the Senate bill, Wisconsin would only be guaranteed a 91 percent return. Because this bill is more generous overall, Wisconsin's overall funding will go up, but on the share side, we are worse off under this bill than when we started. Mr. President, I am pleased that additional transportation resources will be available to my state. I am also pleased that this bill maintains the principle of a strong Federal partnership, balances resources between the many different modes of transportation and continues important environmental programs. However, in the end, I felt that a vote in favor of this bill was a vote to continue an unfair system for another six years. The taxpayers of Wisconsin deserve better.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, to some people, Wisconsin means cheese. To that I say, yes, and we're proud of it. The great state of Wisconsin has a dairy industry that has thrived for 150 years despite our country's discriminatory milk pricing policies. To some people, Wisconsin means beer. To that I say, yes, and we're proud of it. Brewing was among the first industries to help propel Wisconsin's economy forward, creating thousands of jobs and incomes that supported many families. They were not amused with Prohibition. But Wisconsin means much more. As we celebrate 150 years of Wisconsin statehood this year we are reminded of the state's rich history, its natural beauty and its determined people. In 1848, as a wave of immigrants flooded into America, many of the brightest among them chose to settle in Wisconsin. The state still displays the influence of its earliest settlers, from Poland, Russia, Ireland, Germany and Scandinavia. Wisconsin continues to draw newcomers because of its strong economy, its first-rate education system and the appealing mix of villages and cities that exist side by side. And we have the Green Bay Packers. Wisconsin's natural beauty is unsurpassed. We are fortunate to have as our borders two Great Lakes and the Mississippi River. Wisconsin is called a `sporting paradise' because of its lakes, rivers and forests. We boast fishing, hunting, skiing and world-class golf. Our national forests are breathtaking. People in Wisconsin know the value of our environment and have worked hard to protect it. Wisconsin's spas and resorts and restaurants have earned the attention of glossy travel magazines, who have discovered the charm of vacationing in Wisconsin. We don't mind visitors because we realize that not everyone is lucky enough to be born here. Wisconsin residents can relax in a small, picturesque lakeside town or explore a vibrant and sophisticated city without traveling far from home. Over the years we have built a thriving arts community that includes the theater, symphony and ballet. For those of us who have an interest in sports, we have exciting teams to follow. For over 150 years, our state has been home, home to Olympic athletes, respected scholars, famous celebrities and great artists. Frank Lloyd Wright left us the gift of Taliesen. Wisconsin has an independent streak that runs through our economy and our politics, and a work ethic that is the envy of employers nationwide. Wisconsin has some of the best minds in the country working in some of the best research facilities on behalf of all Americans. And we make Harley Davidson motorcycles. But the best thing about Wisconsin in 1998 is the same as in 1848: the people. Their dedication to family, friends, neighbors and community is not a quaint notion from the past, but alive today. Wisconsin is a place where families gather for Sunday dinner. Where lost wallets are returned with all the cash. Where a neighbor offers a ride to work when the car is in the shop. Where friends come to the doorstep with a casserole to welcome a new baby or to console the loss of a grandparent. That's what we celebrate most about Wisconsin and that's why I have tremendous respect for the people I represent. Much of what we value about Wisconsin has, in the best sense, remained unchanged from its start, 150 years ago. I am fortunate to have lived in Wisconsin all of my life and grateful for the opportunities my family had. Wisconsin is a great place to be a kid, to raise a family and to grow old. It is a reminder of all this country had to offer 150 years ago, and an example of the best it can put forward in the next century.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Thank you, Mr. President. Along with my colleagues, Senators Hatch and Leahy, I rise in support of the Copyright Compulsory License Improvement Act of 1997. This proposal, although clearly not a final product, is an important step forward in creating true competition between satellite and cable television. And that is an important step forward for consumers. Mr. President, this bill generally takes the right approach. It gives satellite carriers the ability to provide the one thing that consumers want most: local television broadcast signals. In return, the satellite carriers must comply with FCC regulations governing syndicated exclusivity, sports blackout protection, and network nonduplication. The measure also creates a retransmission consent process, and establishes certain ``must carry'' obligations on satellite carriers that rebroadcast local signals. As a general premise, it seems only fair that the benefits of carrying local signals should be balanced with reasonable regulatory burdens that are consistent with cable's obligations. But we should also look at reducing at least some of the ``must carry'' burdens--for example, why should any provider be required to carry the Home Shopping Network, which is predominantly commercial? So what does all this mean for businesses and consumers? Hopefully, it will create more availability and affordability in television programs. And it will help to preserve local television stations, who provide all of us with vital information like news, weather, and special events--especially sports. We ought to get moving on this sooner, rather than later. It would be a mistake to wait until just before the license expires in 1999. This measure replaces the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels with a Copyright Royalty Adjudication Board. In addition to its clever new acronym (``CRAB''), the Board in the future will hopefully find a better way to create parity in the fees that cable and satellite providers pay in copyright royalties. This time around, however, it would be wise to lower legislatively the recently proposed 27 cent rate. In any event, we should view the Copyright Compulsory License Improvement Act as a point of departure rather than a final product. I am hopeful we can work with the Commerce Committee, which clearly has an important role to play in many of these matters. This measure is a significant step in promoting competition, and Senators Hatch and Leahy deserve enormous credit for creating a constructive approach, which can only benefit consumers nationwide. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Thank you, Mr. President. Along with my colleagues, Senators Hatch and Leahy, I rise in support of the Copyright Compulsory License Improvement Act of 1997. This proposal, although clearly not a final product, is an important step forward in creating true competition between satellite and cable television. And that is an important step forward for consumers. Mr. President, this bill generally takes the right approach. It gives satellite carriers the ability to provide the one thing that consumers want most: local television broadcast signals. In return, the satellite carriers must comply with FCC regulations governing syndicated exclusivity, sports blackout protection, and network nonduplication. The measure also creates a retransmission consent process, and establishes certain ``must carry'' obligations on satellite carriers that rebroadcast local signals. As a general premise, it seems only fair that the benefits of carrying local signals should be balanced with reasonable regulatory burdens that are consistent with cable's obligations. But we should also look at reducing at least some of the ``must carry'' burdens--for example, why should any provider be required to carry the Home Shopping Network, which is predominantly commercial? So what does all this mean for businesses and consumers? Hopefully, it will create more availability and affordability in television programs. And it will help to preserve local television stations, who provide all of us with vital information like news, weather, and special events--especially sports. We ought to get moving on this sooner, rather than later. It would be a mistake to wait until just before the license expires in 1999. This measure replaces the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels with a Copyright Royalty Adjudication Board. In addition to its clever new acronym (``CRAB''), the Board in the future will hopefully find a better way to create parity in the fees that cable and satellite providers pay in copyright royalties. This time around, however, it would be wise to lower legislatively the recently proposed 27 cent rate. In any event, we should view the Copyright Compulsory License Improvement Act as a point of departure rather than a final product. I am hopeful we can work with the Commerce Committee, which clearly has an important role to play in many of these matters. This measure is a significant step in promoting competition, and Senators Hatch and Leahy deserve enormous credit for creating a constructive approach, which can only benefit consumers nationwide. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in favor of the Snowe amendment. First, I wish to commend the Senator from Maine for her efforts to craft a compromise on this issue. If everyone entered this debate with her spirit of negotiation and patience, I think we would surely be able to come to a final resolution of this matter. I favor the Snowe amendment at this time because I feel it is the best compromise available to possibly pass the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. As an original cosponsor of that legislation, I favor S.25 as presented yesterday by Senator McCain. I believe the section related to independent expenditures is well-crafted, would go a long way in improving our electoral system, and meets the difficult constitutional standards for this issue. However, it is clear that the McCain-Feingold bill does not have the necessary votes to end the filibuster. By altering the section of the bill dealing with independent expenditures, we would have a compromise which has the potential of passing the Senate. I would prefer the language as crafted by Senators McCain and Feingold, but it is clear we cannot pass the bill in that form. Therefore, adding the Snowe amendment at least offers hope that campaign finance reform can be passed in this session. I also wish to add that my support for this amendment is conditional on its inclusion in a broader package of campaign finance reform. Any reform proposal must be designed to be fair and balanced. Taken separately, or added to other legislation that does not address other important campaign finance issues, the Snowe amendment would not have the desired impact on the electoral process. If we pass the Snowe amendment, and the underlying McCain-Feingold bill, we will have made a great stride toward reforming our campaign finance laws, and offer the American public some hope that Congress is taking their concerns on this matter very seriously.