Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. This debate is one of the most important that the Senate will conduct in this session of Congress, and I desperately hope it will result in passage of meaningful campaign finance reform. We are beginning another mid-term election year, and the American public is again bracing for the barrage of money, special interest TV ads, and rhetorical hyperbole that accompany modern campaigns. There is near universal belief in this nation that Congress should do something about our campaign finance laws. We hold weeks of hearings on abuses in recent elections; we document loophole after loophole in the fabric of our laws whereby special interest influence campaigns to the detriment of our national interests; and we see meaningful, genuine reform proposals twisted and maligned by those same groups who are terrified at their potential loss of power. This is an old-fashioned debate in Washington, because it's about who has the power and how that power will be used. The McCain-Feingold bill seeks to diffuse that power; to level the playing field a little bit in federal campaigns and reduce the amount of special interest money in elections. Senators McCain and Feingold have developed a genuine compromise plan. It is not exactly as I would have drafted--or any of us, if we had that chance. It is, however, the best chance we have to repair the broken campaign finance system. The modified version of the bill addresses one of the fundamental problems in the system--soft money contributions. By banning these huge sums from federal campaigns, we correct many of the problems which were exposed last year in hearings before the Senate Government Affairs Committee. The bill also tries to deal with the growing and disturbing impact of independent expenditures. I believe the sponsors of the bill have achieved a delicate balance in this area--curtailing the use of this practice, while still conforming to constitutional boundaries. Mr. President, there is an extraordinary need for reform of our election laws. Despite the apparent problems--problems that have gotten worse with every election--Congress has not passed reform. Our failure to act has contributed to a loss of confidence, not only in our electoral system, but in our democracy. The American public has lost faith in government and its institutions. Americans feel they don't control government because they believe they don't control elections. If you ask people who runs Washington, most will say ``special interests.'' People watch state officials, Members of Congress, and presidential candidates chase money, and believe that's the only way to get your voice heard in Washington. They see televised campaign finance hearings, allegations of trading contributions for access, and they think, ``how could my voice be heard over all that cash.'' Certainly, Congress is not alone to blame for the current system. Voters themselves share some responsibility. People routinely decry the use of negative political ads, yet continually respond to the content of those ads. The media, especially television stations and networks, have failed to adequately inform the public of important policy questions. Instead of covering significant issues, broadcasters often fall back on covering the ``horserace'' aspect of the campaign, or ``sideshow'' disagreements among candidates. But the ultimate responsibility rests in this chamber, with Congress. For more than 30 years the growing crisis has been ignored. Year after year, speeches are given, bills are introduced, but no action is taken. We now have a rare opportunity, with public attention focused on this debate and this bill, to pass real campaign finance reform. Mr. President, we have never had a time in our nation's history when such a pervasive problem went unanswered by the Congress. America has met challenges such as this before, and adopted policies which strengthened our democracy. We have that opportunity with the bill before us. The McCain-Feingold bill will help restore the American public's faith in this institution and in all the institutions of government. As some of my colleagues know, Senator Brownback and I have introduced legislation to establish an independent commission to reform our campaign finance laws. This commission would be similar to the Base Closure Commission, which proposed a series of recommendations to Congress for an up-or-down vote of approval. But I do not believe that we should take such an approach at this time. It would be much better if Congress acted on its own, without the help of an outside body, to reform our election laws. It would demonstrate to the American public that Congress is serious about changing the way our democracy functions. Mr. President, before I conclude, I just want to take a moment to once again commend my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold. Last year, when we debated this bill, I said that Senator Feingold truly follows in the tradition of the great progressive movement in Wisconsin. That's more even true today than it was last year. I'm proud to serve with him, and I urge my colleagues to support our efforts to pass this vital legislation.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, let me take a moment to explain the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1997, which I introduced with Senator DeWine and which I drafted with the help of the administration. This measure toughens the criminal penalties we created in the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 and creates new gradations of offenders to target and punish the most egregious child support evaders. It ensures that more serious crimes receive the more serious punishments they clearly deserve. And, Mr. President, this measure sends a clear message to deadbeat dads and moms: ignore the law, ignore your responsibilities, and you will pay a high price. In other words, pay up or go to jail. When Senator Shelby and I introduced the original Child Support Recovery Act, we knew that Federal prosecutors had a role to play to keep these parents from shirking their legal, and I would argue moral, responsibilities. It has been estimated that if delinquent parents fully paid up their child support, approximately 800,000 women and children could be taken off the welfare rolls. In fact, Mr. President, since that legislation was signed into law in 1992, over 386 cases have been filed, resulting in at least 165 convictions to date. And not only has that law brought about punishment, but it has also brought about payment. Collections have increased by nearly 50 percent, from $8 billion to $11.8 billion, and a new national database has helped identify 60,000 delinquent fathers--over half of whom owed money to women on welfare. Although we should be proud of that increase, we can not merely rest on our laurels. More can be done--and today the Senate's passage of the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act is a step in the right direction. Mr. President, as you know, current law already makes it a Federal offense to willfully fail to pay child support obligations to a child in another State if the obligation has remained unpaid for longer than a year or is greater than $5,000. However, the current law, by providing for a maximum punishment of just 6 months in prison for a first offense, makes violations only a misdemeanor. A first offense--no matter how egregious--is not a felony under current law. Police officers and prosecutors have used the current law effectively, but they have found that current misdemeanor penalties do not have the teeth to adequately deal with more serious cases--those cases in which parents move from State to State, or internationally, to intentionally evade child support penalties. Those are serious cases that deserve serious felony punishment and, under this new measure, that serious punishment will be available. Mr. President, I believe that making the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act law will make a difference in the lives of families across the country. I thank my friend from Ohio, and this bill's original cosponsor, Senator DeWine for his efforts on behalf of children and families, and I commend my colleagues in the Senate for passing this important message. I look forward to this measure quickly passing the House and being signed into law by the President. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, let me take this opportunity to tell you why Lynn Adelman, the President's nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, is such a fine choice to fill the vacancy created when Judge Curran took senior status. First, Lynn Adelman has a record of unquestioned skill and unequaled experience in his 30 years of practice. His dedication, hard work and intelligence has been displayed in both civil and criminal cases, before the Wisconsin Supreme Court and before the Supreme Court of the United States. Second, Lynn Adelman has spent a life devoted to public service. He has dedicated a great deal of his professional time to disadvantaged clients. And, rather than pursue his private practice full-time, he has simultaneously served in public office. As a State senator for 20 years, much of the time serving as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he has championed the causes of families, crime victims and government accountability. Based on this outstanding record, Lynn Adelman received high marks from the nonpartisan commission that Senator Feingold and I established with the State Bar. And his nomination has bipartisan support, including the endorsement of Wisconsin's Republican Governor, Tommy Thompson. Although they have not always seen eye to eye, Governor Thompson wrote that Lynn is ``thoughtful, fair and open-minded'' as well as someone who ``is sensitive to and has respect for the principle of the separation of powers.'' Finally, let me conclude on a personal note. My family has known the Adelman family for over 30 years, and I have known Lynn personally for more than 20. I know that he has the compassion, integrity and skill that will make him a valuable addition to the bench.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, my thanks to the chairman and ranking member for their hard work on the District of Columbia appropriations bill and for working with me on an amendment of vital importance to the children and families of the District. I am very pleased that they have agreed to accept my amendment which would allow the District to increase the number of monitors and inspectors responsible for upholding safety and quality standards in day-care centers and home-care operations across the city. Mr. President, in early October we all had the occasion to read an extremely troubling article on the front page of the Washington Post. As part of a series on welfare reform implementation, the Post discussed the deplorable and unsafe conditions at many District day- care facilities. Many of the problems could be traced to the fact that the people and resources dedicated to overseeing child care centers in the District are woefully inadequate. We learned that of the approximately 350 public day-care centers in the District of Columbia, more than half are operating without proper licenses. The primary inspection agency has been without a supervisor for almost a year and a half. There are only five inspectors charged with issuing and enforcing licenses to District child care centers, and only three people in charge of certifying which centers should be eligible for public funds. Those who are clearly suffering as a result are the children, far too many of whom are spending their days in an environment where they are unstimulated, uncared for, and even in mortal danger. The availability and regulation of quality day-care centers and home- care operations in the District and across the country is a crucial component of successful welfare reform. Simply put, welfare reforms will not succeed unless moms and dads across the country have a safe place to leave their children while they are out earning paychecks. Not only that, welfare reform has and will continue to increase greatly the demand for day-care slots. In the District alone, it is predicted that 4,000 additional slots will be needed to accommodate the schedules of working parents. That number mirrors the situation in the city of Milwaukee in my home State of Wisconsin. As more, new child care centers spring up to meet this new demand, tough, consistent licensing standards, applied and enforced by an adequate number of inspectors, are essential to avoiding more tragedies like we are witnessing in the District. I am a supporter of welfare reform because I believe the family is strengthened by work. But that premise is destroyed--and the success of true reform, jeopardized--if we force parents to choose between work and the basic safety of their children. As a society, we have a responsibility to help American families become independent, unified, and strong by moving them off welfare and into the workplace. As a people, we have a moral duty to ensure that children of those families are safe and nurtured while their parents work. We will have crippled more than just welfare reform if, because of inadequate attention to the quality of child care in this country, we force parents to turn their children over to dangerous, deplorable child care situations. I am very pleased that the Senate has agreed to incorporate my amendment into the spending legislation for the District of Columbia. Obviously, this is a crisis situation which the additional staff will help address. That said, much more needs to be done. This problem goes way beyond a question of mere staffing numbers. As such, in addition to this amendment, the chairman and I will be writing a letter to the Control Board to ensure that oversight and proper licensing and enforcement of safety and quality regulations by District agencies is an integral part of the comprehensive management reform plans scheduled to be unveiled in December. Specifically, we will press the Control Board on procedures for day- care center and home day-care licensing, rates of inspection, the effectiveness of safety and quality standards at day-care centers and home day-cares, the effectiveness of public subsidy and case referral services in the District day-care system, the effectiveness of the current system of public oversight of day-care center and home day-care operations as conducted by the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs and the Department of Human Services, and appropriate staffing levels at these agencies. Again, I am pleased that the Senate has agreed to my amendment. I consider it to be one of many steps we need to take on this very important issue. I look forward to working with the District on finding solutions to this and other pressing problems relating to the quality of life in our Nation's Capital. Thank you.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a disturbing trend in our democracy--the decline of voter turnout in our elections. During the past 2 years we have debated at length our campaign finance system. We have seen in ample detail the corrupting influences invading our elections, and the effect these stories are having on the American public. Voters are increasingly distrustful of their system of government. They have lost confidence in America's institutions, its leaders, and its electoral process. The Senate is taking steps to reform the campaign finance system, and I am hopeful that before the spring we will have a campaign finance reform bill to present to the American public. But there are other reforms which we can undertake to restore citizens' faith in our democracy and increase participation in elections. For decades we've seen a gradual decline in voter turnout. In 1952, about 63 percent of eligible voters came out to vote--that number dropped to about 49 percent in the 1996 election. Non-Presidential year voter turnout is even more abysmal. Analysts point to a variety of reasons for this dropoff. Certainly, common sense suggests that the general decline in voter confidence in government institutions is one logical reason. However, I'd like to point out, one survey of voters and nonvoters suggested that both groups are equally disgruntled with government. We must explore ways to make our electoral process more user friendly. We must adjust our institutions to the needs of the American public of the 21st century. Our democracy has always had the amazing capacity to adapt to the challenges thrown before it, and we must continue to do so if our country is to grow and thrive. I propose that we consider innovative ways to increase voter turnout and enhance our citizens' impression of the process. One way to do this would be change the hours that polls are open. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Weekend Voting Act of 1997, which would change the day for congressional and presidential elections from the first Tuesday in November to the first weekend in November. Mr. President, I come from the business world, where you had a perfect gauge of what the public thought of you and your products. If you turned a profit, you knew the public liked your product--if you didn't, you knew you needed to make changes. If customers weren't showing up when your store was open, you knew you had to change your store hours. In essence, it's time for the American democracy to change its store hours. Since the mid-19th century, election day has been on the first Tuesday of November. Ironically, this date was selected because it was convenient for voters. Tuesdays were traditionally court day, and land- owning voters were often coming to town anyway. Just as the original selection of our national voting day was done for voter convenience, we must adapt to the changes in our society to make voting easier for the regular family. Two in every three households have both parents working. Since most polls in the U.S. are open only 12 hours, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., voters often have only 1 or 2 hours to vote. If they have children, and are dropping them off at day care, voters often must take time off work to vote. We can do better by offering more flexible voting hours for all Americans, especially working families. Under this bill, polls would be open nationwide for a uniform period of time from Saturday, 6 p.m. eastern time to Sunday, 6 p.m. eastern time. Polls in other time zones would also open and close at this time. Some Western States have complained that early return information broadcast over television networks has decreased voter turnout. By establishing uniform nationwide voting schedules, this problem would be solved. I should note, while I've been an advocate of weekend voting for some time, it was NBC Anchor Tom Brokaw who suggested the uniform voting schedule, and I thank him for his contribution to this proposal. Mr. President, of 27 democracies, 17 of them allow their citizens to vote on holidays or the weekends. And in nearly every one of these nations, voter turnout surpasses our country's poor performance. We can do better. Like most innovative plans, States already are experimenting with novel ways to increase voter turnout and satisfaction. Texas has implemented an early voting plan, California has relaxed restrictions on absentee voting, and Oregon's special election for Senator in 1996 was done entirely by mail. While results are still inconclusive whether these new models increase voter turnout, there is no doubt that voters are much more pleased with the additional convenience and ease with voting. Under the Weekend Voting Act, States would be permitted to close the polls during the overnight hours if they determine it would be inefficient to keep them open. Because the polls are open from Saturday to Sunday, they would not interfere with religious observances. I know that partisans in both parties will decry this plan as detrimental to their candidates. Republican consultants will worry that union households that traditionally vote Democratic will have more time to go and vote. Democrat consultants will worry that the combination of church and voting on Sundays will hurt their party's chances at the poll. I hope both are right, and that the end result is more people affiliated with both parties coming out to vote. That should be the goal of a democracy. Mr. President, I recognize a change of this magnitude will take some time. But, how much more should voting turnout decline before we realize we need a change. How much lower should our citizens' confidence plummet before we adapt and create a more ``consumer- friendly'' polling system. The Weekend Voting Act will not solve all of this democracy's problems, but it is a commonsense approach for adapting this grand democratic experiment of the 18th century to the American family's lifestyle of the 21st century.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a disturbing trend in our democracy--the decline of voter turnout in our elections. During the past 2 years we have debated at length our campaign finance system. We have seen in ample detail the corrupting influences invading our elections, and the effect these stories are having on the American public. Voters are increasingly distrustful of their system of government. They have lost confidence in America's institutions, its leaders, and its electoral process. The Senate is taking steps to reform the campaign finance system, and I am hopeful that before the spring we will have a campaign finance reform bill to present to the American public. But there are other reforms which we can undertake to restore citizens' faith in our democracy and increase participation in elections. For decades we've seen a gradual decline in voter turnout. In 1952, about 63 percent of eligible voters came out to vote--that number dropped to about 49 percent in the 1996 election. Non-Presidential year voter turnout is even more abysmal. Analysts point to a variety of reasons for this dropoff. Certainly, common sense suggests that the general decline in voter confidence in government institutions is one logical reason. However, I'd like to point out, one survey of voters and nonvoters suggested that both groups are equally disgruntled with government. We must explore ways to make our electoral process more user friendly. We must adjust our institutions to the needs of the American public of the 21st century. Our democracy has always had the amazing capacity to adapt to the challenges thrown before it, and we must continue to do so if our country is to grow and thrive. I propose that we consider innovative ways to increase voter turnout and enhance our citizens' impression of the process. One way to do this would be change the hours that polls are open. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Weekend Voting Act of 1997, which would change the day for congressional and presidential elections from the first Tuesday in November to the first weekend in November. Mr. President, I come from the business world, where you had a perfect gauge of what the public thought of you and your products. If you turned a profit, you knew the public liked your product--if you didn't, you knew you needed to make changes. If customers weren't showing up when your store was open, you knew you had to change your store hours. In essence, it's time for the American democracy to change its store hours. Since the mid-19th century, election day has been on the first Tuesday of November. Ironically, this date was selected because it was convenient for voters. Tuesdays were traditionally court day, and land- owning voters were often coming to town anyway. Just as the original selection of our national voting day was done for voter convenience, we must adapt to the changes in our society to make voting easier for the regular family. Two in every three households have both parents working. Since most polls in the U.S. are open only 12 hours, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., voters often have only 1 or 2 hours to vote. If they have children, and are dropping them off at day care, voters often must take time off work to vote. We can do better by offering more flexible voting hours for all Americans, especially working families. Under this bill, polls would be open nationwide for a uniform period of time from Saturday, 6 p.m. eastern time to Sunday, 6 p.m. eastern time. Polls in other time zones would also open and close at this time. Some Western States have complained that early return information broadcast over television networks has decreased voter turnout. By establishing uniform nationwide voting schedules, this problem would be solved. I should note, while I've been an advocate of weekend voting for some time, it was NBC Anchor Tom Brokaw who suggested the uniform voting schedule, and I thank him for his contribution to this proposal. Mr. President, of 27 democracies, 17 of them allow their citizens to vote on holidays or the weekends. And in nearly every one of these nations, voter turnout surpasses our country's poor performance. We can do better. Like most innovative plans, States already are experimenting with novel ways to increase voter turnout and satisfaction. Texas has implemented an early voting plan, California has relaxed restrictions on absentee voting, and Oregon's special election for Senator in 1996 was done entirely by mail. While results are still inconclusive whether these new models increase voter turnout, there is no doubt that voters are much more pleased with the additional convenience and ease with voting. Under the Weekend Voting Act, States would be permitted to close the polls during the overnight hours if they determine it would be inefficient to keep them open. Because the polls are open from Saturday to Sunday, they would not interfere with religious observances. I know that partisans in both parties will decry this plan as detrimental to their candidates. Republican consultants will worry that union households that traditionally vote Democratic will have more time to go and vote. Democrat consultants will worry that the combination of church and voting on Sundays will hurt their party's chances at the poll. I hope both are right, and that the end result is more people affiliated with both parties coming out to vote. That should be the goal of a democracy. Mr. President, I recognize a change of this magnitude will take some time. But, how much more should voting turnout decline before we realize we need a change. How much lower should our citizens' confidence plummet before we adapt and create a more ``consumer- friendly'' polling system. The Weekend Voting Act will not solve all of this democracy's problems, but it is a commonsense approach for adapting this grand democratic experiment of the 18th century to the American family's lifestyle of the 21st century.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation entitled ``the Federal Energy Bank Act.'' The purpose of this legislation is to provide a stable long-term source of funding for energy efficiency projects throughout the Federal Government. If we are to start the Nation on the road toward increased energy conservation we must begin with the Federal Government. This bill will help provide the necessary investments to make this first step toward long-term energy conservation possible. I have long believed that our Nation must implement a sensible national energy policy which emphasizes greater energy conservation and efficiency, as well as the development of renewable resources. This bill is just one step of many that need to be taken to reduce our energy consumption problems. The events in the Middle East, coupled with the environmental problems associated with the use of fossil fuels, have only increased the need for improved energy conservation. Simply put, we cannot continue to rely on imported oil to meet such a large part of our Nation's energy needs. This dependence places our economic security at great risk. At present, petroleum imports account for fully one-half of our trade deficit. In addition, the use of oil and other fossil fuels contributes to global climate change, air pollution, and acid rain. Mr. President our attempts to remedy this situation are nothing new. In fact, the laws requiring significant energy use reductions are already in place. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 mandated that Federal agencies use cost-effective measures, with less than a 10-year payback, to reduce energy consumption in their facilities by 20 percent by the year 2000 compared to 1985 levels. President Clinton, with Executive Order 12902, extended the mandate by requiring Federal agencies to reduce energy consumption by 30 percent by the year 2005 compared to 1985 energy uses. If accomplished, this would save the American taxpayer millions in annual energy costs and in turn put us on the road to future energy savings. This would also improve our environment, our balance of trade, and our national security. But the road toward energy efficiency or even self-sufficiency is not an easy one and requires capital investment. The administration and Congress must back their policies with real dollars for investment in energy efficiency projects. According to the recent Federal energy efficiency and water conservation study, drafted by the Department of Energy, an investment of $5.7 billion is required through 1996 to 2005 to meet National Energy Policy and Conservation Act and Executive order goals. The best estimate of the total funding available has resulted in a shortfall of $2 billion. Without significant funding the goals as set forth by the President will not be met. Laws and mandates alone will not solve our energy problems. It requires long-term capital investment. Mr. President, my business background has taught me that most large paybacks come from positive long-term investments. Unfortunately, the Federal Government does not traditionally take this approach. More often that not, it seeks short-term savings and cuts which do not address the problem of energy consumption or encourage future energy conservation. Mr. President, my bill will help address this funding shortfall. The bill creates a bank to fund the purchase of energy efficiency projects by Federal agencies and in the long run will reduce the overall amount of money spent on energy consumption by the Federal Government. For each of the fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, each Federal agency will contribute an amount equal to 5 percent of its previous year's utility costs into a fund or bank managed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary of Energy will authorize loans from the bank to any Federal agency for use toward investment in energy efficiency projects. The agency will then repay the loan, making the bank self-supporting after a few years. The Secretary of Energy will also establish selection criteria for each energy efficiency project, determining the project is cost-effective and produces a payback in 3 years or less. Agencies will be required to report the progress of each project with a cost of more than $1 million to the Secretary 1 year after installation. The Secretary will then report to Congress each year on all the operations of the bank. Mr. President, this bill will provide the real dollars required to make the Executive order goals a reality. The Congressional Budget Office has projected a 5-year savings for the bill at $3 million. Our energy savings will be even greater over the long term. Mr. President, in closing I would like to thank Johnson Controls, the largest public company in Wisconsin, for their continued leadership and input on this bill. As a maker of energy conservation systems, Johnson has provided me with the real world insights that have helped me draft a bill that attempts to address our energy conservation needs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the full text of the bill be printed in full in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and will push for its early enactment.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act. I want to thank Senator DeWine and commend him for taking the lead on this important issue. This bill demonstrates America's commitment to the same historical honesty that we are demanding of Switzerland and other countries only now facing their role in the atrocities of World War II. It is not enough for us to talk about disclosure by others. We need to practice it too. If there are secrets relating to the presence of Nazi war criminals in the United States, or if there is information that will be helpful in identifying assets of Holocaust victims, or even evidence of other governments collaborating with the Nazis, let's open these files and reveal these secrets before an entire generation of survivors is gone. This bill creates a presumption in favor of the public interest in learning all there is to learn about Nazi war crimes and requires a proactive searching of Government files for relevant documents. We have an obligation to find this information and to disseminate it. Although the Holocaust happened more than 50 years ago, we are now seeing countries and individuals caught up in the maelstrom of World War II grappling with this difficult past. Much of the debate on these issues has been triggered by recently released information from Government and other archives. For survivors, there is no legislation that can erase the suffering they endured at the hands of the Nazis. As we go about our day-to-day business, it is easy to forget the horrific details of what happened in Europe: the gruesome torture and deaths, the systematic extermination of people. However, for those of us who were directly touched by the Holocaust, history is very real. I grew up in the shadow of this tragedy. When I was a child, my family worried daily about family members left behind in Europe during the war. We constantly discussed what was or wasn't happening, and when the truth finally emerged, and all Americans realized the extent of the tragedy, it touched us even more. It is only natural for American survivors and their families to expect the American Government to be as forthcoming as possible. Although many survivors have gone on to live productive lives here in the United States, and around the world, they can never forget. Nor should we. Many emerging democracies are now facing their pasts--through truth commissions and the like. It is tempting to want to look forward and to forget events of long ago. But for these fragile democracies, reckoning with the past is the key to ensuring a secure future. We too must recognize that the openness prescribed by this legislation only makes our democracy stronger. This legislation maintains protections for individuals from the unwarranted invasion of their personal privacy, and it continues to provide exceptions for the most urgent national security and foreign policy interests. The difference between this bill and existing FOIA protections is that this bill firmly sets into law the public's right to know about Nazi war crimes and the disposition of Nazi assets, and if there is information that agencies insist on keeping secret, the relevant congressional committees must be informed. This will give us the opportunity to determine whether information dating so far back should remain classified. Finally, the bill provides that if an agency head exercises his or her authority to block the release of information, the decision is subject to judicial review. It is difficult to imagine what knowledge would be subject to these protections so many years after the fact. Yes, there may be information which makes us feel uncomfortable. There is already information about the extent to which the U.S. Government knew about what was going on during the war in the Nazi death camps. We must not be afraid of what we may learn. The only ones who need fear are the perpetrators of these vicious acts who have escaped scrutiny until now, for there are still Nazi war criminals at large in this country and abroad. Armed with new information, much like the information which may be available in our own files, courts around the world are compelling them to answer for their despicable acts. This legislation is targeted to information solely related to Nazi war crimes and to transactions involving Nazi victims, yet it sets an important precedent in codifying a more narrow set of privacy and national security exceptions for the release of Government information through the Freedom of Information Act. These exceptions are based on Executive Order 12958 which set the criteria for the release of information more than 25 years old. Unfortunately, we still have a long way to go in ensuring that this more open standard is uniformly applied to the release of Government information. I am pleased that Senator Moynihan is one of the lead sponsors of this bill because he has been such an eloquent spokesman against excessive secrecy. His work with the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy is truly commendable and I am pleased that this legislation is consistent with the findings of the Commission. Beyond shedding light on a difficult chapter in the history of humanity, this legislation can help foster a greater openness in the handling of Government information. If we succeed, we will have left a legacy of which we can all be proud.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act. I want to thank Senator DeWine and commend him for taking the lead on this important issue. This bill demonstrates America's commitment to the same historical honesty that we are demanding of Switzerland and other countries only now facing their role in the atrocities of World War II. It is not enough for us to talk about disclosure by others. We need to practice it too. If there are secrets relating to the presence of Nazi war criminals in the United States, or if there is information that will be helpful in identifying assets of Holocaust victims, or even evidence of other governments collaborating with the Nazis, let's open these files and reveal these secrets before an entire generation of survivors is gone. This bill creates a presumption in favor of the public interest in learning all there is to learn about Nazi war crimes and requires a proactive searching of Government files for relevant documents. We have an obligation to find this information and to disseminate it. Although the Holocaust happened more than 50 years ago, we are now seeing countries and individuals caught up in the maelstrom of World War II grappling with this difficult past. Much of the debate on these issues has been triggered by recently released information from Government and other archives. For survivors, there is no legislation that can erase the suffering they endured at the hands of the Nazis. As we go about our day-to-day business, it is easy to forget the horrific details of what happened in Europe: the gruesome torture and deaths, the systematic extermination of people. However, for those of us who were directly touched by the Holocaust, history is very real. I grew up in the shadow of this tragedy. When I was a child, my family worried daily about family members left behind in Europe during the war. We constantly discussed what was or wasn't happening, and when the truth finally emerged, and all Americans realized the extent of the tragedy, it touched us even more. It is only natural for American survivors and their families to expect the American Government to be as forthcoming as possible. Although many survivors have gone on to live productive lives here in the United States, and around the world, they can never forget. Nor should we. Many emerging democracies are now facing their pasts--through truth commissions and the like. It is tempting to want to look forward and to forget events of long ago. But for these fragile democracies, reckoning with the past is the key to ensuring a secure future. We too must recognize that the openness prescribed by this legislation only makes our democracy stronger. This legislation maintains protections for individuals from the unwarranted invasion of their personal privacy, and it continues to provide exceptions for the most urgent national security and foreign policy interests. The difference between this bill and existing FOIA protections is that this bill firmly sets into law the public's right to know about Nazi war crimes and the disposition of Nazi assets, and if there is information that agencies insist on keeping secret, the relevant congressional committees must be informed. This will give us the opportunity to determine whether information dating so far back should remain classified. Finally, the bill provides that if an agency head exercises his or her authority to block the release of information, the decision is subject to judicial review. It is difficult to imagine what knowledge would be subject to these protections so many years after the fact. Yes, there may be information which makes us feel uncomfortable. There is already information about the extent to which the U.S. Government knew about what was going on during the war in the Nazi death camps. We must not be afraid of what we may learn. The only ones who need fear are the perpetrators of these vicious acts who have escaped scrutiny until now, for there are still Nazi war criminals at large in this country and abroad. Armed with new information, much like the information which may be available in our own files, courts around the world are compelling them to answer for their despicable acts. This legislation is targeted to information solely related to Nazi war crimes and to transactions involving Nazi victims, yet it sets an important precedent in codifying a more narrow set of privacy and national security exceptions for the release of Government information through the Freedom of Information Act. These exceptions are based on Executive Order 12958 which set the criteria for the release of information more than 25 years old. Unfortunately, we still have a long way to go in ensuring that this more open standard is uniformly applied to the release of Government information. I am pleased that Senator Moynihan is one of the lead sponsors of this bill because he has been such an eloquent spokesman against excessive secrecy. His work with the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy is truly commendable and I am pleased that this legislation is consistent with the findings of the Commission. Beyond shedding light on a difficult chapter in the history of humanity, this legislation can help foster a greater openness in the handling of Government information. If we succeed, we will have left a legacy of which we can all be proud.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation entitled ``the Federal Energy Bank Act.'' The purpose of this legislation is to provide a stable long-term source of funding for energy efficiency projects throughout the Federal Government. If we are to start the Nation on the road toward increased energy conservation we must begin with the Federal Government. This bill will help provide the necessary investments to make this first step toward long-term energy conservation possible. I have long believed that our Nation must implement a sensible national energy policy which emphasizes greater energy conservation and efficiency, as well as the development of renewable resources. This bill is just one step of many that need to be taken to reduce our energy consumption problems. The events in the Middle East, coupled with the environmental problems associated with the use of fossil fuels, have only increased the need for improved energy conservation. Simply put, we cannot continue to rely on imported oil to meet such a large part of our Nation's energy needs. This dependence places our economic security at great risk. At present, petroleum imports account for fully one-half of our trade deficit. In addition, the use of oil and other fossil fuels contributes to global climate change, air pollution, and acid rain. Mr. President our attempts to remedy this situation are nothing new. In fact, the laws requiring significant energy use reductions are already in place. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 mandated that Federal agencies use cost-effective measures, with less than a 10-year payback, to reduce energy consumption in their facilities by 20 percent by the year 2000 compared to 1985 levels. President Clinton, with Executive Order 12902, extended the mandate by requiring Federal agencies to reduce energy consumption by 30 percent by the year 2005 compared to 1985 energy uses. If accomplished, this would save the American taxpayer millions in annual energy costs and in turn put us on the road to future energy savings. This would also improve our environment, our balance of trade, and our national security. But the road toward energy efficiency or even self-sufficiency is not an easy one and requires capital investment. The administration and Congress must back their policies with real dollars for investment in energy efficiency projects. According to the recent Federal energy efficiency and water conservation study, drafted by the Department of Energy, an investment of $5.7 billion is required through 1996 to 2005 to meet National Energy Policy and Conservation Act and Executive order goals. The best estimate of the total funding available has resulted in a shortfall of $2 billion. Without significant funding the goals as set forth by the President will not be met. Laws and mandates alone will not solve our energy problems. It requires long-term capital investment. Mr. President, my business background has taught me that most large paybacks come from positive long-term investments. Unfortunately, the Federal Government does not traditionally take this approach. More often that not, it seeks short-term savings and cuts which do not address the problem of energy consumption or encourage future energy conservation. Mr. President, my bill will help address this funding shortfall. The bill creates a bank to fund the purchase of energy efficiency projects by Federal agencies and in the long run will reduce the overall amount of money spent on energy consumption by the Federal Government. For each of the fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, each Federal agency will contribute an amount equal to 5 percent of its previous year's utility costs into a fund or bank managed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary of Energy will authorize loans from the bank to any Federal agency for use toward investment in energy efficiency projects. The agency will then repay the loan, making the bank self-supporting after a few years. The Secretary of Energy will also establish selection criteria for each energy efficiency project, determining the project is cost-effective and produces a payback in 3 years or less. Agencies will be required to report the progress of each project with a cost of more than $1 million to the Secretary 1 year after installation. The Secretary will then report to Congress each year on all the operations of the bank. Mr. President, this bill will provide the real dollars required to make the Executive order goals a reality. The Congressional Budget Office has projected a 5-year savings for the bill at $3 million. Our energy savings will be even greater over the long term. Mr. President, in closing I would like to thank Johnson Controls, the largest public company in Wisconsin, for their continued leadership and input on this bill. As a maker of energy conservation systems, Johnson has provided me with the real world insights that have helped me draft a bill that attempts to address our energy conservation needs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the full text of the bill be printed in full in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and will push for its early enactment.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, to introduce the Wisconsin Federal Judgeship Act of 1997. This bill would create one additional Federal judgeship for the eastern district of Wisconsin and situate it in Green Bay, where a district court is crucially needed. Let me explain how the current system hurts--and how this additional judgeship will help-- businesses, law enforcement agents, witnesses, victims, and individual litigants in northeastern Wisconsin. First, the four full-time district court judges for the eastern district of Wisconsin currently preside in Milwaukee. Yet for most litigants and witnesses in northeastern Wisconsin, Milwaukee is well over 100 miles away. Thus, litigants and witnesses must incur substantial costs in traveling from northern Wisconsin to Milwaukee-- costs in terms of time, money, resources, and effort. Indeed driving from Green Bay to Milwaukee takes nearly two hours each way. Add inclement weather or a departure point north of Green Bay--such as Oconto or Marinette--and the driving time alone often results in witnesses traveling for a far longer period of time than they actually spend testifying. Second, Mr. President, as Attorney General Janet Reno recently noted before the Judiciary Committee, Federal crimes remain unacceptably high in northeastern Wisconsin. These crimes range from bank robbery and kidnaping to Medicare and Medicaid fraud. However, without the appropriate judicial resources, a crackdown on Federal crimes in the upper will be made enormously more difficult. Third, many manufacturing and retail companies are located in northeastern Wisconsin. These companies often require a Federal court to litigate complex price-fixing, contract, and liability disputes with out-of-State businesses. But the sad truth is that many of these cases are never even filed--precisely because the northern part of the State lacks a Federal court. Mr. President, this hurts businesses not only in Wisconsin, but across the Nation. Fourth, prosecuting cases on the Menominee Indian Reservation creates specific problems that alone justify having a Federal judge in Green Bay. Under current law, the Federal Government is required to prosecute all felonies committed by Indians that occur on the Menominee Reservation. The reservation's distance from the Federal prosecutors and courts--more than 150 miles--makes these prosecutions problematic. And because the Justice Department compensates attorneys, investigators, and sometimes witnesses for travel expenses, the existing system costs all of us. In addition, Mr. President, we saw juvenile crime rates on this reservation rise by 279 percent last year alone. Without an additional judge in Green Bay, the administration of justice, as well as the public's pocketbook, will suffer enormously. Fifth, Mr. President, the creation of an additional judgeship in the eastern district of Wisconsin is also clearly justified on the basis of caseload. I have commissioned the General Accounting Office to look at this issue and their report will be released early next year and which we expect will confirm our belief. However, based on standards already established by the Judicial Conference, the administrative and statistical arm of the Federal judiciary, an additional judgeship is clearly needed. In 1994, the Judicial Conference recommended the creation of additional Federal judgeships on the basis of weighted filings; that is, the total number of cases filed per judge modified by the average level of case complexity. In 1994, new positions were justified where a district's workload exceeded 430 weighted filings per judge. On this basis, the eastern district of Wisconsin clearly merits an additional judgeship: it tallied more than 435 weighted filings in 1993 and averaged 434 weighted filings per judge between 1991-93. In fact, though our bill would not add an additional judge in the western district of Wisconsin, we could make a strong case for doing so because the average weighted filings per judge in the western district was almost as high as in the eastern district. Mr. President, our legislation in simple, effective, and straightforward. It creates an additional judgeship for the eastern district, requires that one judge hold court in Green Bay, and gives the chief judge of the eastern district the flexibility to designate which judge holds court there. And this legislation would increase the number of Federal district judges in Wisconsin for the first time since 1978. During that period, more than 252 new Federal district judgeships have been created nationwide, but not a single one in Wisconsin. And don't take my word for it, Mr. President, ask the people who would be most affected: in 1994 each and every sheriff and district attorney in northeastern Wisconsin urged me to create a Federal district court in Green Bay. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from these law enforcement officials be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I also ask unanimous consent that a letter from the U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Wisconsin, Tom Schneider, also be included. This letter expresses the support of the entire Federal law enforcement community in Wisconsin--including the FBI, the DEA, and the BATF--for the legislation we are introducing. They needed this additional judicial resource in 1994, and certainly, Mr. President, that need has only increased over the last 3 years. Perhaps most important, the people of Green Bay also agree on the need for an additional Federal judge, as the endorsement of our proposal by the Green Bay Chamber of Commerce demonstrates. In conclusion, Mr. President, having a Federal judge in Green Bay will reduce costs and inconvenience while increasing judicial efficiency. But most important, it will help ensure that justice is more available and more affordable to the people of northeastern Wisconsin. As the courts are currently arranged, the northern portion of the eastern district is more remote from a Federal court than any other major population center, commercial or industrial, in the United States. For these sensible reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. We hope to enact this measure, either separately or as a part of an omnibus judgeship bill the Judiciary Committee may consider later this Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, to introduce the Wisconsin Federal Judgeship Act of 1997. This bill would create one additional Federal judgeship for the eastern district of Wisconsin and situate it in Green Bay, where a district court is crucially needed. Let me explain how the current system hurts--and how this additional judgeship will help-- businesses, law enforcement agents, witnesses, victims, and individual litigants in northeastern Wisconsin. First, the four full-time district court judges for the eastern district of Wisconsin currently preside in Milwaukee. Yet for most litigants and witnesses in northeastern Wisconsin, Milwaukee is well over 100 miles away. Thus, litigants and witnesses must incur substantial costs in traveling from northern Wisconsin to Milwaukee-- costs in terms of time, money, resources, and effort. Indeed driving from Green Bay to Milwaukee takes nearly two hours each way. Add inclement weather or a departure point north of Green Bay--such as Oconto or Marinette--and the driving time alone often results in witnesses traveling for a far longer period of time than they actually spend testifying. Second, Mr. President, as Attorney General Janet Reno recently noted before the Judiciary Committee, Federal crimes remain unacceptably high in northeastern Wisconsin. These crimes range from bank robbery and kidnaping to Medicare and Medicaid fraud. However, without the appropriate judicial resources, a crackdown on Federal crimes in the upper will be made enormously more difficult. Third, many manufacturing and retail companies are located in northeastern Wisconsin. These companies often require a Federal court to litigate complex price-fixing, contract, and liability disputes with out-of-State businesses. But the sad truth is that many of these cases are never even filed--precisely because the northern part of the State lacks a Federal court. Mr. President, this hurts businesses not only in Wisconsin, but across the Nation. Fourth, prosecuting cases on the Menominee Indian Reservation creates specific problems that alone justify having a Federal judge in Green Bay. Under current law, the Federal Government is required to prosecute all felonies committed by Indians that occur on the Menominee Reservation. The reservation's distance from the Federal prosecutors and courts--more than 150 miles--makes these prosecutions problematic. And because the Justice Department compensates attorneys, investigators, and sometimes witnesses for travel expenses, the existing system costs all of us. In addition, Mr. President, we saw juvenile crime rates on this reservation rise by 279 percent last year alone. Without an additional judge in Green Bay, the administration of justice, as well as the public's pocketbook, will suffer enormously. Fifth, Mr. President, the creation of an additional judgeship in the eastern district of Wisconsin is also clearly justified on the basis of caseload. I have commissioned the General Accounting Office to look at this issue and their report will be released early next year and which we expect will confirm our belief. However, based on standards already established by the Judicial Conference, the administrative and statistical arm of the Federal judiciary, an additional judgeship is clearly needed. In 1994, the Judicial Conference recommended the creation of additional Federal judgeships on the basis of weighted filings; that is, the total number of cases filed per judge modified by the average level of case complexity. In 1994, new positions were justified where a district's workload exceeded 430 weighted filings per judge. On this basis, the eastern district of Wisconsin clearly merits an additional judgeship: it tallied more than 435 weighted filings in 1993 and averaged 434 weighted filings per judge between 1991-93. In fact, though our bill would not add an additional judge in the western district of Wisconsin, we could make a strong case for doing so because the average weighted filings per judge in the western district was almost as high as in the eastern district. Mr. President, our legislation in simple, effective, and straightforward. It creates an additional judgeship for the eastern district, requires that one judge hold court in Green Bay, and gives the chief judge of the eastern district the flexibility to designate which judge holds court there. And this legislation would increase the number of Federal district judges in Wisconsin for the first time since 1978. During that period, more than 252 new Federal district judgeships have been created nationwide, but not a single one in Wisconsin. And don't take my word for it, Mr. President, ask the people who would be most affected: in 1994 each and every sheriff and district attorney in northeastern Wisconsin urged me to create a Federal district court in Green Bay. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from these law enforcement officials be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I also ask unanimous consent that a letter from the U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Wisconsin, Tom Schneider, also be included. This letter expresses the support of the entire Federal law enforcement community in Wisconsin--including the FBI, the DEA, and the BATF--for the legislation we are introducing. They needed this additional judicial resource in 1994, and certainly, Mr. President, that need has only increased over the last 3 years. Perhaps most important, the people of Green Bay also agree on the need for an additional Federal judge, as the endorsement of our proposal by the Green Bay Chamber of Commerce demonstrates. In conclusion, Mr. President, having a Federal judge in Green Bay will reduce costs and inconvenience while increasing judicial efficiency. But most important, it will help ensure that justice is more available and more affordable to the people of northeastern Wisconsin. As the courts are currently arranged, the northern portion of the eastern district is more remote from a Federal court than any other major population center, commercial or industrial, in the United States. For these sensible reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. We hope to enact this measure, either separately or as a part of an omnibus judgeship bill the Judiciary Committee may consider later this Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I want to make a few remarks about the legislation before us. I am a strong supporter of the line-item veto. I believe we must use whatever tools we have at our disposal to restrain Federal spending. That said, I agree with my colleagues that we have a right to expect the President to exercise his line-item veto authority in a manner that is fair. If he says he is going to use a set of criteria, then he should. Unfortunately, some but not all of the project vetoed met the President's own criteria. For example, the President used his line-item veto authority to eliminate funding for an aerial port training facility at the General Mitchell Air Reserve Station in Milwaukee based on erroneous information. The administration has admitted as much. There is no question that this project is 35 percent designed with a site selected and is ready to be constructed in fiscal year 1998. In addition, this project was authorized in the fiscal year 1998 defense authorization bill conference report and is included in the Pentagon's 5-year plan. I should also add that this project makes a significant contribution to the military readiness of a unit which plays an important role in our Nation's defense. The merging of the 34th Aerial Port Squadron, 154 persons, and the 95th Aerial Port Squadron, 102 personnel, has overburdened the current training facility. The 34th Squadron must train its reserve airlift specialists to load and unload military cargo aircraft using one bay of the base warehouse and a leased modular facility. Even with the temporary facility, overcrowding is so severe that the unit cannot train together. Some reservists must train on weekends that are not normal unit training assembly weekends, depriving them of working with the rest of the unit personnel. Using the warehouse bay has also created a shortage in onbase storage. Members of the 34th Aerial Port Squadron have been deployed to support our mission in Bosnia, and they will continue to be called upon to support other active duty and reserve units. Funding for the aerial port training facility is not included in the legislation before us today. It is my hope that the Department of Defense will recognize the importance of this project and will move it up 1 year to include it in the fiscal year 1999 budget, and I am working to that end. Mr. President, it is our job to make difficult choices. I am not willing to support a bill that restores all of the projects which were line-item vetoed. Some of these projects were not 35 percent designed. Some of these projects did not meet the President's criteria. Some of these projects did not need to be built this year. If this legislation included just the project which met the President's criteria that would be a different story, but that is not the bill before us today. Thus, Mr. President, I cannot support this legislation and I urge my colleagues to uphold the President's line- item veto.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of my colleagues', Mr. Feingold and Mr. Grams, efforts to clarify study language included in the Agriculture appropriations bill being discussed today. My friends from the Northeast have worked hard to boost prices above market clearing levels by creating a regional compact for their farmers. Now that the compact is implemented and operating, we need a timely, comprehensive economic analysis by the Office of Management and Budget of the marketing and pricing of milk within the six State compact and surrounding areas. The pricing of milk is an extremely complex issue. Artificially manipulating the marketing and pricing of milk will have major impacts on other regions of the United States, like Wisconsin. Their proposal to raise prices for farmers has worked well and that cost is being passed on to consumers. A recently released study announced that Massachusetts consumers will pay an additional $25 million for their milk over the next 12 months. The print media has reported that consumers are paying $.27 a gallon more per gallon of milk in the compact area. We need to analyze the impact this price increase has not only on government purchases of dairy products for lunch programs, but also the impact on low-income families that spend more of their income on food and dairy products. Although the program only regulates class I milk, other classes will be impacted by the economic signals encouraging Northeast dairy farmers to overproduce. What happens to that excess fluid or manufacturing milk that will be produced in the Northeast and forced to find a new processing plant outside the compact area? Again, the print media has reported that distressed raw milk has moved out of the Northeast to plants in Ohio and as far away as Wisconsin and Minnesota. Ohio plants reportedly were paying $8.00 per cwt. delivered milk filling all manufacturing plants to capacity in that State. That excess supply of milk added to the overproduction that occurred in the United States further exasperating record low price paid to farms this summer. Finally, the study should consider a cost/benefit analysis for each State participating in the compact. For example, Massachusetts has only about 300 dairy farms, roughly 10 percent of New England total, while its consumers pay half of the aggregate total consumer costs. I encourage the Office of Management and Budget to take a serious look at the issue.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a distinguished Wisconsinite, Mrs. Ruth (Nowicki) Becker of Altoona, WI. Mrs. Becker, who just turned 75, attended the dedication of the Memorial to the Women in Service at Arlington National Cemetery on October 18, 1997. Ruth is one of approximately 1.8 million women who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces and we honor her as does the memorial for serving our country proudly. Mrs. Becker enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1944 and served as a WAVE, Women's Auxiliary for Volunteer Emergency Service, during World War II. Ruth's responsibilities took her to New York City and Washington, DC where she worked in naval communications for Pacific theater operations until February 1946. Ruth is a charter member for the women's memorial project which has transformed Arlington National Cemetery's 75-year-old main entrance gate into a shrine honoring the Nation's women veterans. The memorial will house a museum, a 196-seat auditorium, a Hall of Honor, and an education center on military history. Mr. President, Ruth Becker served our country with pride and we honor her, as we also honor all women who have served our country proudly.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today eight of the largest gun manufacturers voluntarily agreed to include safety locks with every handgun they sell. I rise today to commend the President and the gun industry for their historic efforts. This agreement addresses a very serious problem. Every year, many hundreds of children die from accidental shootings and thousands more try to take their own lives with guns. Encouraging parents to use safety locks will not save all of these young lives, to be sure, but it will save many of them. It will make a difference. This deal, however, would not have been possible without the public outcry over these tragedies and the growing momentum for bipartisan child safety lock legislation. Our measure, which lost by a single vote in the Judiciary Committee this summer, requires the sale of a safety lock with every handgun. Mr. President, in my opinion voluntary action is always better than Government regulation. For that reason, when we entered into negotiations with gun manufacturers, we asked them to take this dramatic step on their own initiative. Today we are very pleased that most of the industry has responded so that 80 percent of all handguns manufactured in the United States will now be sold with child safety locks. But we will continue to push until the half million more handguns, including those manufactured abroad, are also covered. We will also continue to encourage voluntary compliance, but until we have the support of the entire industry, we will move to enact our legislation. It should be easier now because most of the industry is already on board. Mr. President, today's announcement is an important step for safety and a victory for families and children everywhere. We should all be grateful. I thank you and yield the floor. Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I yield to Senator Wellstone.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my opposition to a provision within the Treasury, General Government, Civil Service Appropriations Act. I am the ranking member of the subcommittee which crafted this legislation, and there is much to support in the bill. However, I am opposed to the provision in the bill to provide a 2.3-percent cost-of- living-adjustment to Members of Congress. I have heard the arguments on both sides of the issue and I cannot agree that it is appropriate for Congress to receive this pay raise. While we have made progress in balancing the budget, we have not made the kind of progress which justifies this raise. The American public is rightly holding us to a higher standard, and until we meet that standard, congressional pay should remain at its current level. Earlier this week, we had a vote in the House-Senate conference committee on whether to keep the pay raise in the bill. I was prepared to offer a motion to reject the pay raise, and, indeed, voted against the measure. As this body knows, the House voted to insist on its position, and we could not muster a majority in the Senate to similarly insist on this Chamber's position against the pay raise. Mr. President, this bill before us also includes many provisions and important programs. If this were an up-or-down vote on the pay raise, I would again oppose the measure. But, this bill is more than that--it funds the Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, the White House, and dozens of other Federal agencies. In addition, the bill includes many anticrime programs, including those operated by ``Drug Czar,'' the Treasury Department, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. I'm pleased that the legislation includes $3 million for the designation of a high-intensity drug trafficking area for milwaukee, WI. Unfortunately, the drug epidemic often crosses State lines, and it is necessary for Wisconsin law enforcement agencies to coordinate with Federal authorities. If the drug czar concurs with the language in this bill, this money will help my State better combat the growing drug problem. The legislation also includes a $1 million increase in the Youth Gun Crime Interdiction Initiative. Milwaukee is one of a small number of cities selected last year to participate in the program which uses resources from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to trace weapons in an attempt to track the seller. The program saw its first success in April when Milwaukee Police arrested a grocery store security guard and charged him with Federal firearms violations. Lawrence M. Shikes plead guilty to purchasing guns and reselling them to juveniles, gang members, and drug dealers in the Milwaukee area. This is an important program, and one of the reasons that I am voting for the overall bill. Mr. President, while I am voting for this bill, I strongly oppose to the congressional pay raise provision. Because of this conviction, I will not accept any increase in my salary. Since coming to the Senate in 1989, I have not accepted any salary increase, and I will return any future pay increase to the U.S. Treasury to reduce the deficit. Since this is one provision of a larger bill, I will vote in favor of the measure.

Mr. KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. President, I rise in support of this bill which provides funding for the Department of the Treasury, Executive Offices of the President, General Services Administration, and related agency programs. We have tried to be as critical and constructive as we can be. And I believe we have provided a strong funding bill. Throughout this year we have had to grapple with a number of difficult issues, such as: accusations of IRS staff browsing at taxpayer files; IRS modernization efforts going awry; unidentified century date change requirements; and the appropriate funding level of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, media campaign. These are issues we will continue to review and examine in 1998. And I hope we see some real progress occur as a result of the funding that we have provided. In addition, we continue to be concerned with the level of crime through out our country. We realize that the money that is available through illegal drug and gun trafficking is enormous. As long as this kind of profit is available by doing illegal things our job will be more difficult in providing the necessary funding and technology required to deter that. As a result, we have worked vigorously to fund the law enforcement agencies' priorities. And I hope that we can continue to work together to continue to fully fund much needed crime prevention programs such as GREAT, the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, the Drug Free Prison Zone demonstration project and others. I have enjoyed reviewing the diverse and complex issues of the agencies funded through this bill. I look forward to continuing to work with the subcommittee members and these agencies. Only through a constructive dialog, in a bipartisan fashion can we continue to build and maintain the agencies contained in this bill. Finally, I want to say that I have enjoyed working with you, Mr. Chairman, and with your staff. Thank you, Mr. President. I reserve the balance of my time. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I yield my time.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Court Consistency in Communications Act of 1997. The purpose of this bill is to bring consistency to the judicial interpretation of some of the central provisions of the Telecommunications Act, to make sure that an appellate court with broad and deep understanding of these issues can bring its expertise to bear on them, and to resolve related litigation as quickly as possible. In many other areas, such as bankruptcy and labor, strong precedent exists for consolidation of cases to bring about more efficient and informed judgments. This measure is simple, effective and straightforward. It consolidates in the District of Columbia Federal courts all appeals of FCC decisions under title II of the Communications Act of 1934 and State commission decisions under section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Let me tell you why this legislation is crucially needed. The telecommunications industry accounts for about one-sixth of our national economy. And almost 2 years ago we passed legislation designed to unleash competition in the industry. It was signed into law with great fanfare. As President Clinton said, ``Today with the stroke of [my] pen, competition and innovation can move as quick as light.'' But we are still waiting for lower rates, better service, and greater innovation that was promised when the Telecom Act was signed. The sad truth is that the promise of the Telecom Act has gotten bogged down in litigation. Lawyers are arguing about the meaning of its provisions in courts all across the country. Indeed, today a major challenge to the FCC's jurisdiction over long distance service is being filed in the Eighth Circuit. In my opinion, even under current law this case should have been filed in the District of Columbia. We don't, of course, want to take away people's ability to redress grievances through the courts. The right to sue is, for better or worse, almost sacred to American culture. But while some people may choose to wait for a resolution to emerge from the 93 different Federal district courts and 12 distinct Federal circuits, to my mind the better way to bring competition to telecommunications markets is to have some judicial certainty about the rules of the game--and to have it sooner, rather than later. This bill should create the necessary framework for predictability in the courts, so that companies can shift their rivalry from the courtroom to the marketplace. This proposal is not a panacea, but it does move us in the right direction. By streamlining the appellate process, the Court Consistency in Communications Act will speed the arrival of local and long distance telephone competition. It will help consumers--the people who pay the bills, who deserve more choice and who wonder why their rates aren't going down. Mr. President, this judicial reform bill does not alter the substance of the Telecommunications Act in any way--that is clearly in the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. Nor does it affect pending cases. Finally, to those who have expressed concerns about the measure, let me remind them that this is not a final product, but a work in progress; in other words, we want to work with you. I urge my colleagues to support this measure, because all of us have an interest in reducing litigation and encouraging competition. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Court Consistency in Communications Act of 1997. The purpose of this bill is to bring consistency to the judicial interpretation of some of the central provisions of the Telecommunications Act, to make sure that an appellate court with broad and deep understanding of these issues can bring its expertise to bear on them, and to resolve related litigation as quickly as possible. In many other areas, such as bankruptcy and labor, strong precedent exists for consolidation of cases to bring about more efficient and informed judgments. This measure is simple, effective and straightforward. It consolidates in the District of Columbia Federal courts all appeals of FCC decisions under title II of the Communications Act of 1934 and State commission decisions under section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Let me tell you why this legislation is crucially needed. The telecommunications industry accounts for about one-sixth of our national economy. And almost 2 years ago we passed legislation designed to unleash competition in the industry. It was signed into law with great fanfare. As President Clinton said, ``Today with the stroke of [my] pen, competition and innovation can move as quick as light.'' But we are still waiting for lower rates, better service, and greater innovation that was promised when the Telecom Act was signed. The sad truth is that the promise of the Telecom Act has gotten bogged down in litigation. Lawyers are arguing about the meaning of its provisions in courts all across the country. Indeed, today a major challenge to the FCC's jurisdiction over long distance service is being filed in the Eighth Circuit. In my opinion, even under current law this case should have been filed in the District of Columbia. We don't, of course, want to take away people's ability to redress grievances through the courts. The right to sue is, for better or worse, almost sacred to American culture. But while some people may choose to wait for a resolution to emerge from the 93 different Federal district courts and 12 distinct Federal circuits, to my mind the better way to bring competition to telecommunications markets is to have some judicial certainty about the rules of the game--and to have it sooner, rather than later. This bill should create the necessary framework for predictability in the courts, so that companies can shift their rivalry from the courtroom to the marketplace. This proposal is not a panacea, but it does move us in the right direction. By streamlining the appellate process, the Court Consistency in Communications Act will speed the arrival of local and long distance telephone competition. It will help consumers--the people who pay the bills, who deserve more choice and who wonder why their rates aren't going down. Mr. President, this judicial reform bill does not alter the substance of the Telecommunications Act in any way--that is clearly in the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. Nor does it affect pending cases. Finally, to those who have expressed concerns about the measure, let me remind them that this is not a final product, but a work in progress; in other words, we want to work with you. I urge my colleagues to support this measure, because all of us have an interest in reducing litigation and encouraging competition. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, along with my colleagues, Senators Hatch and Leahy, I rise in support in the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaty Implementation Act of 1997. This proposal, while clearly not a final product, is nevertheless an important step forward in our ongoing battle against illegal copying of protected works--such as movies, books, musical recordings, and software. Let me also commend the administration, especially the Commerce Department and the Patent and Trademark Office, for their hard work in pushing for the underlying treaty and assembling a workable proposal to ensure the value of intellectual property. What makes this legislation so important to our economy? Consider that the copyright industries had over $53 billion in foreign sales in 1995, surpassing every other export industry except automobiles and agriculture. Also consider that the copyright industries employ nearly 6 million people in the United States, or about 4.8 percent of our work force. But despite the tremendous contribution these businesses make to our economy, we still lose more than $15 billion each year due to foreign copyright piracy, according to some estimates. That is not only wrong; it is unacceptable. Mr. President, we need to maintain our status as an international leader in the fight against illegal copying because many nations look to us for guidance in setting their own standards for copyright protection. And we need to show strong leadership in this area because, otherwise, some nations with troubling histories of copyright piracy will be even less likely to improve their records. This proposal moves us in the right direction. Some of my colleagues may remember back in 1991 when I introduced similar legislation, the Motion Picture Anti-Piracy Act, to deal with the problem of video bootlegging. Although today's technology is more advanced than in 1991, the problem of unauthorized copying remains. Indeed, it has in some respects grown even worse. The spread of copying technology worldwide, including piracy that takes place with the touch of a button over the Internet, begins to explain the scope of this problem. And because the piracy problem extends across national borders, the best way to address unauthorized copying is through international agreements that go after devices deliberately designed to circumvent technological protection measures. Mr. President, this bill generally takes the right approach. It makes it illegal to circumvent various copyright protection systems, it protects the integrity of copyright management information, and it provides for both civil and criminal penalties to deter potential violators. Some have suggested that it goes too far, while others argue that the bill does not go far enough. In any event, we should view this proposal as a point of departure rather than a final product. And we should make certain, as the measure moves forward, that it doesn't restrict products that have other beneficial uses. Mr. President, let me make one additional point. The bill does not address the issue of online service provider liability. This issue needs to be discussed and resolved, whether as part of this legislation or separately. But it shouldn't slow down the consideration of the bill we have before us. The WIPO Implementation Act is a significant step in curbing illegal copying, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Patient Abuse Prevention Act, a bill to establish greater safeguards in our health care system for vulnerable Americans. I am pleased to be joined in offering this bill by Senate Committee on Aging Chairman Charles Grassley and Senator Harry Reid. One of the most difficult times for any family is when a senior or disabled member enters a long-term care arrangement. That family should not also be faced with the worry that the long-term care facility or its staff may pose a threat. Whatever health care setting a family chooses, whether institutional or community-based, there should be assurances that care will be provided by trained and compassionate professionals. Thankfully, that is the case in most facilities. But in a few cases-- and that is a few cases too many--a long-term care facility hires someone who doesn't have the best interests of the patient in mind. A disturbing number of cases have been reported where health care workers with criminal backgrounds have been cleared to work in a long- term care facility and have abused patients in their care. If only greater attention was given to discovering the background of these applicants, the abuses may have been prevented. 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. According to a random-sample survey of nursing home staff, 10 percent admitted committing at least one act of physical abuse in the preceding year, and 40 percent committed psychological abuse. Thirty-six percent of the sample had seen at least one incident of physical abuse in the preceding year by other staff members. These statistics may only scratch the surface of the problem. It's quite likely that the incidence of abuse is far more prevalent. In fact, the Office of Inspector General at the Department of Health and Human Services has reported that 46 percent of respondents questioned believed abuse is only sometimes or rarely reported. Mr. President, the vast majority of health care facilities and their employees are dedicated and work hard under stressful conditions to provide the best care possible. But it only takes a few abusive staff to cast a dark shadow over what should be a healing environment. Although some facilities run thorough background checks on prospective employees, most do not. And even if they wanted to run more complete checks, facilities are prevented due to a fractured and inefficient system. 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? Because current State and national safeguards are inadequate to screen out abusive workers. All States are required to maintain nurse aide registries, but these registries are not comprehensive or efficiently maintained. Many States limit their registries to nursing home aides, failing to cover home health aides, assisted living workers and hospital aides. Most States don't require criminal background checks of long-term care workers. Further, due to hit and miss investigations, many reports of abuse fall through the cracks. The problem I find most troubling is the lack of information sharing between States about known criminal and abusive workers. There are no Federal requirements or guidelines on information sharing about abusive workers--even those who have been convicted in a court of law. Because no national registry of abusive health care workers exists, people with histories of abuse or serious crimes in one State can simply travel to another State to find work. These workers can also move from a nursing home to home health agencies or to hospitals without ever undergoing a complete background check. Problems also exist with reporting abuse. Rather than going through the trouble of making a report and drawing possible unwanted attention, a facility often will dismiss a worker without a report ever filed. Further, States hesitate to document problem workers due to the fact that a listing means barring a worker from nursing homes for life. Much of the public scrutiny on patient abuse has focused on nursing homes. But this is not the only care setting that should have increased protections. Home health care has been dramatically growing as a preferred long-term care option. Yet, protections for home care recipients are even more lax than those for nursing home residents. While I am pleased to report that some States, including Wisconsin, have begun working to establish criminal background checks and improve their registries, it is clear that effective national protections must be in place to fill the gaps in the system. The legislation I offer today builds on recommendations by State ombudsmen programs who are the watch guards for long-term care residents. This effort is also in response to calls from consumer groups and the long-term care industry for a streamlined, accurate way to screen potential workers for abusive or criminal histories. The Patient Abuse Prevention Act creates a national registry of abusive health care workers and requires criminal background checks for those entrusted to care for vulnerable patients. This would enable States and employers--either by computer or by phone--to check if a potential employee has a criminal record or other problem in their past that should preclude them from caring for the infirm. The national registry would also create a coordinated information network between States so that violators could not simply travel to another state to find work in a nursing home or other setting. By far, the best way to stop abuse is to address the situations that lead to problem behaviors. Most studies that have looked into patient abuse indicate that better training would make a big difference. Therefore, this bill creates a demonstration program to investigate best practices in patient abuse prevention. What we learn from this program can then be disseminated by the Department of Health and Human Services and made available to all health care settings. Mr. President, when a patient moves into a nursing home, or hires a home health care agency, they are entrusting that company with an enormous responsibility. Any instance of patient abuse is intolerable and inadequate background checks of health care workers is inexcusable. I believe that protecting our Nation's elderly and infirm Americans from abuse, neglect, and mistreatment should be a national priority. When senior citizens and disabled Americans check into a nursing home or other care setting, they should not have to check their right to a safe environment at the door. I urge my colleagues to join in this effort so that all Americans can rest more comfortably knowing that their loved ones are receiving the best and safest care possible. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the Patient Abuse Prevention Act, along with a comprehensive summary now appear in the Record.