Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

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

Mr. KOHL

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

Mr. KOHL. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 924

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, as the ranking Democrat on the Antitrust Subcommittee, let me tell you why I support Mr. Klein's nomination, why he is a good choice for the job, and why we ought to confirm him today. First, Joel Klein is an accomplished lawyer with a distinguished career. He graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, and clerked for the U.S. Court of Appeals here in Washington, then for Justice Powell. Just as importantly, he is the President's choice to head the Antitrust Division, and I believe that any President--Democrat or Republican--is entitled to a strong presumption in favor of his executive branch nominees. Second, Joel Klein is a pragmatist, not an idealogue. His answers at his confirmation hearing suggest that he is not antibusiness, as some would claim the Antitrust Division was in the late 1970's, nor anticonsumer, as some argue the Division was during the 1980's. Instead, he will plot a middle course, I believe, that promotes free markets, fair competition, and consumer welfare. The third reason we should confirm Joel Klein is because no one deserves to linger in this type of legislative limbo. Here in Congress, we need the input of a confirmed head of the Antitrust Division to give us the administration's views on a variety of important policy matters-- defense consolidation, electricity deregulation, and telecommunications mergers, among others. We need someone who can speak with authority for the Division without a cloud hanging over his head. More than that, without a confirmed leader, morale at the Antitrust Division is suffering. And given the pace at which the President has nominated and the Senate has confirmed appointees, if we fail to approve Mr. Klein, it will be at least a year before we confirm a replacement--maybe longer, and maybe never. So we need to act now; we can't afford to let the Antitrust Division continue to drift. Finally, Mr. President, I have great respect for the Senator from South Carolina--as well as the Senators from Nebraska and North Dakota. They have been forceful advocates for consumers on telecommunications matters, and I have stood side by side with them in that fight. But we ought to give Mr. Klein our vote today, so he can have the chance to succeed or fail as a confirmed appointee. My hope and expectation is that in a few years--when we look back at Joel Klein's service as head of the Antitrust Division --his accomplishments will surprise his critics, please his supporters, and improve what is already the best free market economy in the world.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few minutes about the importance of this bill and the profound responsibility which we have in determining our Nation's defense budget. I am a cosponsor of a tactical fighter amendment which will be proposed later today by my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin. Senator Feingold's amendment, which calls upon the Department of Defense to focus on strategic needs rather than special interests, represents an intelligent and responsible approach to protecting the security of our Nation. It is only the first step in what should be a revolution in our thinking about defense planning and spending. Mr. President, some people believe that the revolution in military affairs is only a technological revolution: developing cutting-edge technology to preserve our military dominance into the future. In order to be successful, however, a revolution must impact strategy as well as technology. While we, as a country, lead the world in defense technology, we are not making similar progress in our thinking about defense. While our technologies may be sleek, our defense complex is not. As a result, we spend far more than we need to in order to remain the world's superpower. Many people say that we can't cut corners when it comes to national security. I agree. But that doesn't mean that we can't cut costs. In recent weeks we have stood on this floor and cut costs in Medicare and debated all too limited funding for education. Are we saying that we can we afford to cut corners with our children? Our parents? Of course not. We are saying that we have to cut costs--not corners. I think we all want the same thing: to do the best for our country. And that means protecting our children, our parents, and the security of our Nation. It also means making wise financial decisions regarding all of our priorities. Without a sound economy, our children, our parents, and the security of our country are at risk. Mr. President, I think we can be proud of what Congress has done this year in support of a balanced budget. Still, within that balanced budget we are not doing enough to challenge old-style thinking. In particular, I want to draw our attention to the fact that, when every other spending area is up for debate and in most cases adjusting to budget cuts, the defense budget seems to be untouchable. In fact, both the Senate and the House plan to give the Administration $2.6 billion more than it requested for defense spending. Why? Mr. President, it is impossible to have rational debate about defense spending issues because there is a majority in this body that hears the words ``cut defense'' and then does not listen to anything else. Now, I realize that we have a bipartisan budget agreement this year-- an agreement that takes us toward a balanced budget. Out of respect for that hard won compromise, I will not introduce any amendments to cut defense spending at this time. However, I urge us, as a Congress and as a Nation, to set aside our special interests and old-style thinking, and to look at defense spending just as we approach every other issue of importance to our Nation's future. Let's not give the military things they don't need and, in some cases, haven't asked for. And let's be realistic and smart about what it takes to defend our national interests. Do we really need 18 Trident submarines? If we retired just two of the older Tridents, we would still have the most powerful submarine fleet in the world--by far. Similarly, there is an honest debate among experts about the ideal number of aircraft carriers. Many believe that we could hold the fleet down to 10 carriers and have more than enough to defend our global interests. Either of these plans would save billions of dollars over the next few years. Why isn't this debate going on in the Senate? I could tell you that, if we gave up those Tridents or carriers, we could fund education or prevent crime or reduce the deficit. That's true. And all of those initiatives could use more funding. But that is not the only argument I want to make today. Yes, I believe we should spend more on kids. But even if we already had every dollar we needed for education, we still should spend our defense dollars wisely. I do not believe that we are doing that today. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in an honest debate about our defense needs. If we don't start examining the defense budget more closely, it will remain a sacred cow to which we are beholden rather than a tool which we use to further the best interests of our country.

Mr. KOHL

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

Mr. KOHL. I move to waive the Budget Act for my amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. KOHL. Thank you. Mr. President, I also am a supporter of this amendment. What it simply says is that we are going to do what we set out to do, which is to balance the budget, and, if we go over it in any year, then we are going to have to decide how we are going to reduce that spending to be sure we stay on target to get the budget balanced over the next several years. That is all this does. It is not a sequester. Nobody should fear that. But it is simply an enforcement mechanism which is necessary.

Mr. KOHL. This amendment provides a tax incentive for companies that provide quality child care for the children of their employees. The amendment is cosponsored by Senators Hatch, Daschle, DeWine, Boxer, D'Amato, Specter, Snowe, Johnson, Abraham, Moseley-Braun, and Murray. This amendment creates a tax credit limited to 50 percent of $150,000 per company per year for 3 years for those companies that invest in quality child care on or near site. The credit is offset by authorizing the antifraud program that will keep parents who do not have custody of their children from unlawfully claiming child-related tax benefits. We know child care is an investment that is good for children, good for business, good for States and good for our Nation. We need to involve every level of government and private communities and private businesses in building a quality child care system for our youngest that is the best in the world. This amendment is the first essential and deficit-neutral step toward that end. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to discuss today's Brady law decision, in which a deeply divided Supreme Court put judicial activism over public safety. At a time when the United States leads the world in gun carnage, surely the Federal Government is entitled to enlist the aid of States to keep guns out of the hands of felons, illegal immigrants, and the criminally insane. Asking local police to conduct background checks--and nothing more--hardly amounts to a Federal power grab, as the majority has claimed. Instead, the majority's opinion should make us fear what the Supreme Court could do next. Will the Court prohibit Congress from requiring States to report missing children? Will it bar Congress from requiring states to get lead out of school drinking water? Will it stop Congress from requiring States to publicly disclose where hazardous waste is being stored? All of these requirements are now current law, and all of them are now in peril. We will have to consider these troubling issues in the future. But as for today, this decision alone is hardly a fatal blow to the Brady law itself. Since its enactment, Brady background checks have stopped over 186,000 persons from obtaining guns. And these Brady checks will continue for two reasons. First, virtually all of the police officers we have spoken to say they will continue to do the Brady check voluntarily--even if they are not required to do so. The reason why is simple: they know these checks save lives. Second, the provision struck down by the Court only relates to the so-called interim Brady law. By the end of next year, Brady requires that a permanent instant check system be implemented. And that system, operated by Federal officials, will be immune from constitutional challenge. Still, the Supreme Court's misguided decision opens up the possibility that, before the instant check system becomes fully operational, a handful of rogue police officers will refuse to do background checks. As a result of such inaction, at least a few felons will commit violent crimes with guns they never should have been able to obtain. For this reason, we are working with the President to draft legislation that will ensure 100 percent Brady compliance--for example, by allowing gun dealers to obtain background checks from any police chief in their State, not just the chief in the jurisdiction where the buyer resides. Because the vast majority of police will continue to conduct Brady checks voluntarily, this approach will clearly preserve our no check, no sale policy. Mr. President, today's Supreme Court ruling, while unfortunate, does not take away from how effective the Brady law has been or will be. But it is nevertheless a bad decision that will hurt us in our fight against crime. We'll introduce bipartisan legislation to fix it, and I hope my colleagues will support our efforts.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent that this be the first amendment taken up tomorrow morning for a vote after the three amendments laid down tonight.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, tomorrow I will up amendment No. 524 which I believe is at the desk. This amendment creates a tax incentive for companies that provide child care for the dependents of their employees. The amendment is also cosponsored by Senators Daschle, DeWine, Boxer, D'Amato, Moseley-Braun, Snowe, Specter, and Johnson. Our amendment creates a tax credit for employers who get involved in increasing the supply of quality child care. The credit is limited to 50 percent of $150,000 per company per year. The amendment is based on S. 82, the Child Care Infrastructure Act, which has received praise from businesses, parents, and day care workers alike. Working Mother magazine gave the initiative its ``Lollipops'' award in the January issue, and the Children's Defense Fund has endorsed it. S. 82 is also endorsed by the National Center for the Early Childhood Work Force and the National Child Care Association. The amendment responds to a great need, a great challenge, and a great opportunity. The need is to provide a safe and stimulating place for our youngest children to spend their time while their parents are at work. The challenge is to make the American workplace more productive by making it more responsive to the needs of the American family. And the opportunity is to take what we are learning about the importance of early childhood education and use it to help our children become the best educated adults of the 21st century. The credit is offset by authorizing an anti-fraud program that will keep parents who do not have custody of their children from unlawfully claiming child-related tax benefits. Child care is an investment that is good for children, good for business, good for our States, and good for the Nation. We need to involve every level of government--and private communities and private businesses--in building a child care infrastructure that is the best in the world. Our amendment is a first, essential and deficit neutral step toward that end, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Thank you, Mr. President. On rollcall vote 124, I voted ``no.'' It was my intention to vote ``yes.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote. This will in no way change the outcome of the vote.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address the serious problem within our campaign finance system. I have made similar remarks earlier this year, so I will not belabor the problems again. The American public is demanding that Congress reform our campaign finance system, and many doubt whether we are ready or even able to meet that demand. I am support S. 25, introduced by Senators McCain and Feingold. This bipartisan legislation is the best bill moving through the Congress to reform our campaign system. However, there are signs that Congress may not pass this legislation. Therefore, if, and only if S. 25 is not passed, I think the 105th Congress must put in place a process for reforming the campaign finance system. The legislation I introduce today for myself and Mr. Brownback of Kansas would establish an independent, bipartisan commission to reform our campaign finance laws. Earlier this year I introduced similar legislation, also as a fall-back measure if S. 25 is not passed. This measure, like the bill I introduced earlier this year, establishes a commission similar to the Base Closure and Realignment Commission. The Commission would have a limited time to make recommendations, Congress would be forced to vote up or down on their proposals, and would not have the power to amend the legislation. Mr. President, I sincerely hope that Congress does not have to turn over this matter to an independent commission. But, if we do not pass meaningful campaign finance reform this year, I believe it is the next best alternative. And, if we do create a campaign finance reform commission, it must be a real commission, with real powers, and not another advisory committee. Congress has created many panels in the past to make recommendations about reforming campaign finance laws. But, for reform to genuinely take place, we must empower the Commission with the ability to create a package of reforms that Congress cannot change. Like the successful Base Closure and Realignment Commission, Congress should have only the power to vote up or down on the recommendations. Mr. President, we should not allow another Congress to come and go without passing meaningful campaign finance reform. Let this be the year that Congress responds to cry from the grassroots and restore America's faith in our election system.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the retirement of Mrs. Jimmie Johnson. Mrs. Johnson retires after 36 years of dedicated service to Milwaukee Public Schools. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge her hard work and commitment to the students of Milwaukee. Throughout her 36 years as an education professional, she has earned the respect and admiration of her students and colleagues by upholding educational standards, while maintaining a loving and caring relationship with all who encountered her. She is known to her coworkers and students as a counselor, a problem solver, and consummate friend. As socioeconomic and family issues changed over the years for the students within the school system, she maintained the same love for making a difference. Her dedication shines through in her desire to feed, clothe, and counsel her students. Her commitment to education transcended the school system, as she taught Sunday school faithfully for more than 25 years. She also taught vacation Bible school out of her home to the children in her neighborhood. This same commitment is also exemplified by her ability to obtain a masters degree in education, while working fulltime and raising a family. A success not only in the classroom, but in her personal life as well--Mrs. Johnson is a devout Christian who lends her time to the development of other Christians. She is also the faithful wife to Oscar Sr., a world class mother to Oscar Jr. and Derrick, and a loving grandmother to Janae and Dilona. Throughout the process of fulfilling these responsibilities, she has managed to balance her professional career with her family life. Her kind spirit has made her the unofficial adopted mother of countless peers, acquaintances and extended family members. Mrs. Jimmie Ruth Johnson has left a mark on the countless students that she has taught and deserves this recognition. She has played an integral part of the development of excellence through educating the city of Milwaukee's youth with optimism, patience and love.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address the serious problem within our campaign finance system. I have made similar remarks earlier this year, so I will not belabor the problems again. The American public is demanding that Congress reform our campaign finance system, and many doubt whether we are ready or even able to meet that demand. I am support S. 25, introduced by Senators McCain and Feingold. This bipartisan legislation is the best bill moving through the Congress to reform our campaign system. However, there are signs that Congress may not pass this legislation. Therefore, if, and only if S. 25 is not passed, I think the 105th Congress must put in place a process for reforming the campaign finance system. The legislation I introduce today for myself and Mr. Brownback of Kansas would establish an independent, bipartisan commission to reform our campaign finance laws. Earlier this year I introduced similar legislation, also as a fall-back measure if S. 25 is not passed. This measure, like the bill I introduced earlier this year, establishes a commission similar to the Base Closure and Realignment Commission. The Commission would have a limited time to make recommendations, Congress would be forced to vote up or down on their proposals, and would not have the power to amend the legislation. Mr. President, I sincerely hope that Congress does not have to turn over this matter to an independent commission. But, if we do not pass meaningful campaign finance reform this year, I believe it is the next best alternative. And, if we do create a campaign finance reform commission, it must be a real commission, with real powers, and not another advisory committee. Congress has created many panels in the past to make recommendations about reforming campaign finance laws. But, for reform to genuinely take place, we must empower the Commission with the ability to create a package of reforms that Congress cannot change. Like the successful Base Closure and Realignment Commission, Congress should have only the power to vote up or down on the recommendations. Mr. President, we should not allow another Congress to come and go without passing meaningful campaign finance reform. Let this be the year that Congress responds to cry from the grassroots and restore America's faith in our election system.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Reverend Dennis E. Ellisen for his wonderful invocation this morning. Reverend Ellisen is the Pastor of Our Savior's Lutheran Church in Appleton, WI. Reverend Ellisen has led the congregation there, which has now swelled to more than 1,600 people, for the past 21 years. The people of Appleton have been fortunate to have such a compassionate and a strong spiritual leader. During his time there, Reverend Ellisen has made a profound impact on his community and upon his congregation. As a member of the Goodwill Board of Directors, he helps direct efforts to help the neediest in our State. Perhaps his most significant impact has been in starting the first hospice program in the area. As president of the Visiting Nurses Association, Reverend Ellisen created the first hospice program for Appleton. This courageous and humanitarian effort brings care and companionship to the terminally ill. Without Reverend Ellisen's guidance and leadership, that corner of my State would be less special and a lot of people's lives in Appleton would be less bright. I thank the Reverend Ellisen for his prayers and words of encouragement today and congratulate him on his years of achievement for the people of Wisconsin. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty [CTBT]. Along with many of my colleagues, I call upon the Senate to ratify this important treaty which will help to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, improve the environment in which we live, save billions of dollars, and enhance the security of our Nation. The CTBT prohibits all nuclear test explosions worldwide. The treaty establishes an international agency to coordinate nuclear policy and verify test ban compliance through an International Monitoring System, onsite inspections, consultation and clarification, and confidence- building measures. The treaty is quite simple, really, and it is something that Americans have wanted for a long time. ``The conclusion of such a treaty * * * would check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. It would place nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the great hazards which man faces * * * the further spread of nuclear arms. It would increase our security; it would decrease the prospects of war. Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital and responsible safeguards.'' Those words, so appropriate today, were spoken 34 years ago by President John F. Kennedy, in an historic speech at American University. In that speech, the President announced the beginning of high-level discussions among the United States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the United Kingdom regarding ``a comprehensive test ban treaty.'' Even then, long before the demise of the Soviet Union rendered the United States the sole remaining superpower, President Kennedy and many others recognized the dangers inherent in nuclear testing, and the many benefits of a test ban. A test ban will curb the spread of nuclear weapons, helping to keep them out of the hands of rogue states and terrorists. A test ban will mean that children do not have to grow up in areas contaminated by nuclear explosions. A test ban will mean that money spent on maintaining test sites and running tests--hundreds of millions of dollars a year in the United States alone--could be spent on education, health, and other priorities of the American people. In short, a nuclear test ban will enhance the military, political, and economic security of our Nation. That's why President Clinton has signed and 158 countries in the United Nations have endorsed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. That is also why 80 percent of Americans are calling upon us to ratify it. When President Kennedy began test ban negotiations 34 years ago, he was realistic about the challenges in negotiating with the Soviet Union. He said, ``Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history, but with our hopes go the hopes of all mankind.'' Today, Mr. President, history and hope are on our side. Now is the time to conclude the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Now is our chance to fulfill the hopes of all mankind.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, I am one of this body's strongest advocates for deficit reduction. I attribute much of my deep commitment to this goal to my days in business. As a businessman, I learned that you must balance your books and live within your means. I also learned that you must treat people fairly and admit when you have made a mistake. I have come to the floor to acknowledge that a mistake has been made, and must be corrected. In August 1993 we passed the omnibus budget reconciliation bill. I am proud to say that this legislation has helped to produce falling deficits and sustained economic growth. However, in our efforts to get our fiscal house in order we unfairly penalized a group of hard working, middle-class Americans: transportation workers. It is for this reason that I rise today, to reintroduce the business meal deduction fairness bill. This measure would increase the deductibility of business meals, from 50 to 80 percent, for individuals who are required to eat away from home due to the nature of their work. In the 1993 reconciliation bill was a provision which lowered the deductible portion of business meals and entertainment expenses from 80 to 50 percent. The change was aimed at the so-called three martini lunches and extravagant entertainment expenses of Wall Street financiers and Hollywood movie moguls. Unfortunately, the change also hit the average truck driver who eats chicken fried steak, hot roast beef sandwiches, and meatloaf in truck stops. And while those who entertain for business purposes can change their practices based on the tax law change, long-haul transportation workers often have no choice but to eat on the road. For these workers, the 1993 decrease in the meal deduction has translated into an undeserved decrease in take home pay. For example, when the allowable deduction was dropped in 1993, it increased taxes on an average truck driver $700 to $2,000 per year. This is a huge increase for a truck driver who normally earns $27,000 to $35,000 per year. Our legislation would increase the take-home pay of hard working, middle-class Americans who were inadvertently hurt by changes in the tax law in 1993. Workers who, due to regulations limiting travel hours, must eat out. They have no control over the length of their trips, the amount of time they must rest during a delivery, or, in many cases, the places they can stop and eat. This legislation is straight forward. It would simply restore the business meal expense deduction to 80 per cent for individuals subject to the Department of Transportation's hours-of- service limitations. I will be the first to admit that the budget deficit is the No. 1 economic problem facing this country. Since being elected to the Senate, I have fought to eliminate this destructive drain on our ability to grow and compete in the world economy, but I have fought to do so in a fair manner. The 1993 reconciliation bill closed a loophole and unintentionally trapped some very hard working Americans. We need to acknowledge that a mistake was made and take the opportunity of a tax bill moving this year to fix that mistake. Therefore my colleagues, Senators Kerrey, Harkin, Hatch, Hagel, Grassley and I are requesting the support and assistance of this entire body to ensure that the business meal deduction fairness bill becomes law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, I am one of this body's strongest advocates for deficit reduction. I attribute much of my deep commitment to this goal to my days in business. As a businessman, I learned that you must balance your books and live within your means. I also learned that you must treat people fairly and admit when you have made a mistake. I have come to the floor to acknowledge that a mistake has been made, and must be corrected. In August 1993 we passed the omnibus budget reconciliation bill. I am proud to say that this legislation has helped to produce falling deficits and sustained economic growth. However, in our efforts to get our fiscal house in order we unfairly penalized a group of hard working, middle-class Americans: transportation workers. It is for this reason that I rise today, to reintroduce the business meal deduction fairness bill. This measure would increase the deductibility of business meals, from 50 to 80 percent, for individuals who are required to eat away from home due to the nature of their work. In the 1993 reconciliation bill was a provision which lowered the deductible portion of business meals and entertainment expenses from 80 to 50 percent. The change was aimed at the so-called three martini lunches and extravagant entertainment expenses of Wall Street financiers and Hollywood movie moguls. Unfortunately, the change also hit the average truck driver who eats chicken fried steak, hot roast beef sandwiches, and meatloaf in truck stops. And while those who entertain for business purposes can change their practices based on the tax law change, long-haul transportation workers often have no choice but to eat on the road. For these workers, the 1993 decrease in the meal deduction has translated into an undeserved decrease in take home pay. For example, when the allowable deduction was dropped in 1993, it increased taxes on an average truck driver $700 to $2,000 per year. This is a huge increase for a truck driver who normally earns $27,000 to $35,000 per year. Our legislation would increase the take-home pay of hard working, middle-class Americans who were inadvertently hurt by changes in the tax law in 1993. Workers who, due to regulations limiting travel hours, must eat out. They have no control over the length of their trips, the amount of time they must rest during a delivery, or, in many cases, the places they can stop and eat. This legislation is straight forward. It would simply restore the business meal expense deduction to 80 per cent for individuals subject to the Department of Transportation's hours-of- service limitations. I will be the first to admit that the budget deficit is the No. 1 economic problem facing this country. Since being elected to the Senate, I have fought to eliminate this destructive drain on our ability to grow and compete in the world economy, but I have fought to do so in a fair manner. The 1993 reconciliation bill closed a loophole and unintentionally trapped some very hard working Americans. We need to acknowledge that a mistake was made and take the opportunity of a tax bill moving this year to fix that mistake. Therefore my colleagues, Senators Kerrey, Harkin, Hatch, Hagel, Grassley and I are requesting the support and assistance of this entire body to ensure that the business meal deduction fairness bill becomes law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an important issue before the Senate--campaign finance reform. First, let me state that I am a cosponsor of S. 25, Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold's Senate Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1997. I cosponsored S. 25 because I feel it is the best legislation moving through the Congress to reform our campaign finance system. My Wisconsin colleague, Senator Feingold and Senator McCain deserve our gratitude and praise for keeping this issue alive. It's been nearly 20 years since Congress enacted meaningful campaign finance reform, and they have come closer than anyone at passing a bipartisan plan. We are at a crossroads in this debate. America's campaign finance laws have not been significantly altered since the 1970's. Since that time we've seen an explosion in the costs of running campaigns and a growing public perception that special interests are far too influential in the electoral process. The last election cycle saw the problems in our system grow to new proportions, and we are now witnessing two congressional investigations and a Justice Department investigation into alleged illegalities and improprieties. Despite these widely agreed-upon problems, Congress and the President seem incapable of enacting a campaign finance reform bill. We have seen initiatives by Democratic and Republican Presidents. Democratic and Republican Congresses, even widely hailed bipartisan approaches all fail. One can easily conclude that this issue is so mired in partisan politics, trapped in a quagmire of self-interest and special interest, that Congress will not be able to craft a comprehensive reform bill. S. 25 is the best legislation to be proposed in two decades, and yet, when we voted on the measure in the last Congress, we could not get 60 Senators to support it, and the House of Representatives leadership wouldn't even bring it up for a vote. Mr. President, I am very concerned that this important piece of legislation may face the same fate this year. I support S. 25, and will continue to strongly support it until we have a clear vote on the measure this year. However, I do not believe it would be in the country's best interest to let another campaign cycle go by without the Congress taking clear action to reform our campaign finance system. Therefore, I am introducing today the Campaign Finance Reform Commission Act of 1997. Let me be clear from the outset: I would prefer to pass a bill such as S. 25, and I desperately hope that we do. But, in the case that we do not, Congress needs to be ready with legislation that moves us toward a better system. The Campaign Finance Reform Commission is modeled on the successful Base Realignment and Closure Commissions. The legislation would establish a balanced, bipartisan commission, appointed by Senate leaders, House leaders, and the President to propose comprehensive campaign finance reform. Like the BRAC Commissions, the proposals of the Campaign Finance Reform Commission would be subject to congressional approval or disapproval, but no amendments would be permitted. The Commission would have a limited duration--1 year after its creation. And Congress would have a limited time to consider the Commission's proposals. Mr. President, there are many who will object to this plan and argue that, through the creation of a commission, the Congress is conceding that it cannot solve this problem on its own. To the contrary, the creation of a Campaign Finance Reform Commission would be a concrete sign to the American public that Congress is serious about reforming our election laws. We have seen the success of the BRAC Commissions in removing political influences from the decision-making process. This same formula could be used for our campaign finance reform laws. When Congress enacted the first BRAC Commission law, it was argued that a nonpartisan commission was required because the closure of military bases was so politically sensitive, Congress could not be expected to make the tough choices of closing bases. Well, Mr. President, if closing military bases is considered tough, altering the campaign laws that literally determine whether Members could retain their jobs must be just as politically sensitive, if not more so. Again, I wish to praise the efforts of Senators Feingold, McCain, and the broad coalition of grassroots organizations which have kept the campaign finance issue in front of the American public and the Congress. I hope that they succeed in their efforts with their bill and we can present the American public with a new campaign system before the 1998 election. I offer this bill today only as an alternative to be considered, if, and only if, we cannot pass S. 25 this year. Mr. President, like all commonsense ideas, the idea of a Campaign Finance Reform Commission did not spring from a text book but came from a simpler setting. Two years ago President Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich held an historic conversation at a New Hampshire meeting. The first question came from a retiree, Mr. Frank McConnell, Jr. Mr. McConnell had a simple, commonsense idea--form a commission like the one that closed the military bases to reform our election system, so, in Mr. McConnell's words, ``it would be out of the political scene.'' The time for Mr. McConnell's idea has come. I am pleased to put Mr. McConnell's idea into legislative form. If S. 25 fails this year, this Commission could give us the reform we all demand. And, it would give the American public a restored faith that their democratic institutions have responded to their cry for change in our electoral system. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an important issue before the Senate--campaign finance reform. First, let me state that I am a cosponsor of S. 25, Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold's Senate Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1997. I cosponsored S. 25 because I feel it is the best legislation moving through the Congress to reform our campaign finance system. My Wisconsin colleague, Senator Feingold and Senator McCain deserve our gratitude and praise for keeping this issue alive. It's been nearly 20 years since Congress enacted meaningful campaign finance reform, and they have come closer than anyone at passing a bipartisan plan. We are at a crossroads in this debate. America's campaign finance laws have not been significantly altered since the 1970's. Since that time we've seen an explosion in the costs of running campaigns and a growing public perception that special interests are far too influential in the electoral process. The last election cycle saw the problems in our system grow to new proportions, and we are now witnessing two congressional investigations and a Justice Department investigation into alleged illegalities and improprieties. Despite these widely agreed-upon problems, Congress and the President seem incapable of enacting a campaign finance reform bill. We have seen initiatives by Democratic and Republican Presidents. Democratic and Republican Congresses, even widely hailed bipartisan approaches all fail. One can easily conclude that this issue is so mired in partisan politics, trapped in a quagmire of self-interest and special interest, that Congress will not be able to craft a comprehensive reform bill. S. 25 is the best legislation to be proposed in two decades, and yet, when we voted on the measure in the last Congress, we could not get 60 Senators to support it, and the House of Representatives leadership wouldn't even bring it up for a vote. Mr. President, I am very concerned that this important piece of legislation may face the same fate this year. I support S. 25, and will continue to strongly support it until we have a clear vote on the measure this year. However, I do not believe it would be in the country's best interest to let another campaign cycle go by without the Congress taking clear action to reform our campaign finance system. Therefore, I am introducing today the Campaign Finance Reform Commission Act of 1997. Let me be clear from the outset: I would prefer to pass a bill such as S. 25, and I desperately hope that we do. But, in the case that we do not, Congress needs to be ready with legislation that moves us toward a better system. The Campaign Finance Reform Commission is modeled on the successful Base Realignment and Closure Commissions. The legislation would establish a balanced, bipartisan commission, appointed by Senate leaders, House leaders, and the President to propose comprehensive campaign finance reform. Like the BRAC Commissions, the proposals of the Campaign Finance Reform Commission would be subject to congressional approval or disapproval, but no amendments would be permitted. The Commission would have a limited duration--1 year after its creation. And Congress would have a limited time to consider the Commission's proposals. Mr. President, there are many who will object to this plan and argue that, through the creation of a commission, the Congress is conceding that it cannot solve this problem on its own. To the contrary, the creation of a Campaign Finance Reform Commission would be a concrete sign to the American public that Congress is serious about reforming our election laws. We have seen the success of the BRAC Commissions in removing political influences from the decision-making process. This same formula could be used for our campaign finance reform laws. When Congress enacted the first BRAC Commission law, it was argued that a nonpartisan commission was required because the closure of military bases was so politically sensitive, Congress could not be expected to make the tough choices of closing bases. Well, Mr. President, if closing military bases is considered tough, altering the campaign laws that literally determine whether Members could retain their jobs must be just as politically sensitive, if not more so. Again, I wish to praise the efforts of Senators Feingold, McCain, and the broad coalition of grassroots organizations which have kept the campaign finance issue in front of the American public and the Congress. I hope that they succeed in their efforts with their bill and we can present the American public with a new campaign system before the 1998 election. I offer this bill today only as an alternative to be considered, if, and only if, we cannot pass S. 25 this year. Mr. President, like all commonsense ideas, the idea of a Campaign Finance Reform Commission did not spring from a text book but came from a simpler setting. Two years ago President Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich held an historic conversation at a New Hampshire meeting. The first question came from a retiree, Mr. Frank McConnell, Jr. Mr. McConnell had a simple, commonsense idea--form a commission like the one that closed the military bases to reform our election system, so, in Mr. McConnell's words, ``it would be out of the political scene.'' The time for Mr. McConnell's idea has come. I am pleased to put Mr. McConnell's idea into legislative form. If S. 25 fails this year, this Commission could give us the reform we all demand. And, it would give the American public a restored faith that their democratic institutions have responded to their cry for change in our electoral system. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise today as a supporter of this budget and as a cosponsor of the Kerry amendment. This budget deserves the support of the Senate for several reasons. It is bipartisan and it is centrist. It funds priorities like education and child health that transcend party lines. It includes reasonable tax relief targeted toward families and economic growth. It balances the budget by the year 2002 and it produces surpluses to reduce the debt in the years after that. This good deal will be made better by adopting the Kerry amendment which makes clear the Senate's commitment to very young children. A compelling amount of research on the brain has confirmed what scientists have long talked about for years, that the most significant period in a child's development is between the years of zero to 3. Unfortunately, the Federal commitment to early childhood education has not caught up with our understanding of how important the first 3 years of life are. Early education and child care receive fewer resources for teacher training, salary, and even respect than the rest of the education system. According to data compiled by the Rand Corp., while 90 percent of human brain growth occurs by the age of 3, public spending on children in that age range equals only 8 percent of spending on all children. And so, Mr. President, we are clearly missing a unique opportunity. A look at the current Department of Education budget shows the stark funding disparity against early childhood education. Of $29.4 billion in current estimated education expenditures, only $1.5 billion or 5 percent is spent on children from birth to age 5. A new commitment to quality child care is a necessary response to the fact that children between the ages of zero and 3 are spending more time in care away from their homes. Almost 60 percent of women in the work force have children under the age of 3 requiring care. Many of these working families will not be able to find quality child care for their young children. And while Federal, State, and local governments have helped build a strong education system for 5- to 25-year-olds, care and education for zero to 5-year-olds is largely unstructured, undervalued, and scarce. Resolving this inequity will require solutions through the public and private sector. I proposed legislation to encourage the private sector to invest in child care for their employees through a new tax credit. I intend to work with Senator Hatch who is the primary cosponsor of my bill to see to it that this important child care incentive is included in the overall tax provisions of the budget. The amendment before us now would give us the opportunity under this budget to enhance innovative early childhood programs focused on the educational needs of children in the zero to 3 age group. This initiative does not earmark a specific amount of money. It does not create any new bureaucracy and it does not threaten this budget. So, Mr. President, a solid and sensible commitment to early childhood education specifically focused on children from zero to age 3 is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield the floor.