Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise as a supporter of this budget and as a sponsor of the Brownback-Kohl enforcement amendment. This budget deserves the support of the Senate for several reasons. It is bipartisan and centrist. It finds 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. In this budget, the Congress and the administration have found a way to do what the American people have long asked us to do: Balance the budget in a balanced manner--grow the economy without growing income inequality--strengthen the country by strengthening the working family. The amendment I offer today with my colleague from Kansas makes this very good budget stronger. It calls on the Budget Committee to report enforcement legislation that will lock in the deficit targets in the agreement. While there are some enforcement provisions in the budget deal, we don't think they go far enough. Our amendment calls for enforceable caps on all parts of the budget--entitlements, discretionary spending, and tax expenditures. It requires windfall savings from a good economy or lower than anticipated spending to be locked in to deficit reduction. And it calls for reform in emergency spending procedures so that Congress cannot use true disasters as an excuse for off-budget spending on favorite programs. Again, said. Out amendment does not change the budget deal. It strengthens it. It guarantees that the balanced budget becomes a reality. And it will assure the American people that we are serious about reaching balance by 2002. It is important that we make that assurance. This budget is open to criticism because it increases the deficit from $67 to $90 billion in 1998 and 1999 before bringing it to 0 in 2002. All of the deficit reduction in this agreement occurs after the turn of the century. We simply are not credible if we promise to cut the deficit a couple of years down the road. People have heard that from Congress for too long. I urge my colleagues to support this budget--and more. I urge them to commit to it by agreeing on strong enforcement procedures that will guarantee the deficit reduction we promise. I urge my colleagues to support the Brownback-Kohl amendment.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I support the Hatch-Kennedy Child Health Insurance bill, but I reluctantly must oppose their budget amendment. I am pleased that the President has secured over $16 billion to address the serious problem of children who lack health insurance coverage in this Nation. I believe that the funding allotted under the budget resolution for child health can and should be applied for the Hatch-Kennedy child health bill. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate centrist budget group, I realize how difficult it can be to work across party lines to craft a budget plan. I was pleased to be a member of the Chafee-Breaux centrist group that crafted a fair and balanced budget plan. The budget plan that the centrists put together again this year is very similar to the bipartisan budget resolution we are considering today. I support this budget resolution and am concerned that the Hatch-Kennedy amendment would put the entire budget plan in doubt. Although I will vote against this amendment, I believe we must enact legislation this Congress that expands health insurance coverage for children. The Hatch-Kennedy Child Health Insurance and Lower Deficit Act is at the forefront of the proposals that Congress should pursue. The growing problem of children who lack health coverage is extremely troubling. A recent study drawn from U.S. Census Bureau data show that during 1995-96, there were 23 million children who did not have health insurance for all or part of the period. Surprisingly, 9 out 10 of these children lived in households where one or both parents worked. Although Wisconsin has the second best rate of insurance for our children, 23 percent, or over 330,000 kids were uninsured for at least 1 month over the 2-year period. This situation is unacceptable. Helping families obtain health insurance coverage for their children is the next logical step to build on the success of the recent Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. It is an effort that is long overdue. The Hatch-Kennedy bill should serve as the model for the plan crafted during the remaining budget process and I will support Senator Hatch and Senator Kennedy in their efforts. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today as a co-author of this important legislation, which Senator Jeffords and I, and many others, introduce today on behalf of all of our nation's farmers. Let me begin by thanking my colleague from Vermont for his help and leadership on this issue. The economic health of our agricultural economy is paramount to both of our regions, and to the country at large. And tax provisions related to agriculture, whether it be the earned income credit [EIC] or other provisions, have repercussions throughout our agricultural economy. In the two regions that Senator Jeffords and I represent, dairy farming is of particular importance. And it is with our dairy farmers in mind that we feel an urgency in introducing this legislation. Because while the tax policy change that we are seeking to undo affects many livestock producers, it is the dairy farmers who are the hardest hit. Mr. President, our legislation will clarify that the sale of livestock should not be treated as capital gain net income for purposes of the EIC. As you may know, in last year's welfare bill, we took steps to tighten eligibility to the EIC, a refundable tax credit available only to lower income, working Americans. We did so to ensure further that, in a time of limited Federal resources, the EIC was benefiting those that it was intended to benefit--the working poor--those who have jobs but who often need extra help to avoid turning to public assistance. For many facing tough financial times and struggling to support their families, the EIC has been the difference between hard work and a hand out, between self-worth and self-doubt. And for many dairy farmers in Wisconsin, the EIC has helped pay seed bills and farm operating expenses and put food on kitchen tables. One of several EIC provisions approved by Congress last year expanded the category of disqualified income to include capital gain net income. As such, under current law, if a taxpayer reports more than $2,200 in capital gain net income, he or she is automatically disqualified from collecting the EIC. On its face, this tax policy adjustment seems reasonable. Most policymakers would agree that an individual who realizes substantial capital gain income from the sale of capital assets in any given year should not be eligible for a tax credit for the working poor. The House Committee report confirms as much. That said, however, we are here today because a subsequent IRS interpretation of that adjustment has restricted EIC eligibility in such a way that we believe goes far beyond congressional intent-- distorting the purpose of last year's reforms and denying the credit to a population of hard working Americans that the EIC was designed to help--small- and mid-sized family farmers. Specifically, the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] has interpreted capital gain income to include income generated by the sale of culled cows for purposes of the EIC. Further, the IRS argues that dairy cows represent the type of assets Congress would expect a taxpayer to sell to cover living expenses in lieu of claiming the credit. Mr. President, though I do not question their good intentions, I believe the IRS is misguided. As you may know, farmers sell cows no longer suited for dairy farming as a matter of course. It is a standard part of a farmer's business. And in times of low prices or economic stress, it can play an even more important role when some farmers are driven to cull cows more quickly than they otherwise would. In addition, the Tax Code defines dairy cattle held by a taxpayer for a certain period of time as property used in a trade or business, specifying that such property is excluded from the definition of capital assets. Since dairy cattle are not capital assets, it follows that sales of cattle should not give rise to capital gain income for EIC purposes. For our Nation's dairy farmers, this unfair policy change has come at a particularly cruel time, when milk prices have declined precipitously, and many have been forced to cull cows to make ends meet. Yet instead of stretching the family budget, they learn that their actions have actually resulted in thousands of dollars in extra taxes, leaving them worse off than before. The consequences for my home State have been devastating. In a sample of cases from a seven-county area in the eastern part of the State, the average loss of Federal and State EIC benefits to farmers has been $2,111 per family. And these are families with between one and seven children. The total loss to the approximately 12,000 Wisconsin dairy farms eligible for the EIC is estimated at $15.5 million. Denying the EIC to family farmers on the basis of culled cows sales is wrong. It is wrong, unfair, and Congress should act swiftly to correct it. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation of national significance and help ensure the EIC continues to benefit those for whom Congress intended.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today as a co-author of this important legislation, which Senator Jeffords and I, and many others, introduce today on behalf of all of our nation's farmers. Let me begin by thanking my colleague from Vermont for his help and leadership on this issue. The economic health of our agricultural economy is paramount to both of our regions, and to the country at large. And tax provisions related to agriculture, whether it be the earned income credit [EIC] or other provisions, have repercussions throughout our agricultural economy. In the two regions that Senator Jeffords and I represent, dairy farming is of particular importance. And it is with our dairy farmers in mind that we feel an urgency in introducing this legislation. Because while the tax policy change that we are seeking to undo affects many livestock producers, it is the dairy farmers who are the hardest hit. Mr. President, our legislation will clarify that the sale of livestock should not be treated as capital gain net income for purposes of the EIC. As you may know, in last year's welfare bill, we took steps to tighten eligibility to the EIC, a refundable tax credit available only to lower income, working Americans. We did so to ensure further that, in a time of limited Federal resources, the EIC was benefiting those that it was intended to benefit--the working poor--those who have jobs but who often need extra help to avoid turning to public assistance. For many facing tough financial times and struggling to support their families, the EIC has been the difference between hard work and a hand out, between self-worth and self-doubt. And for many dairy farmers in Wisconsin, the EIC has helped pay seed bills and farm operating expenses and put food on kitchen tables. One of several EIC provisions approved by Congress last year expanded the category of disqualified income to include capital gain net income. As such, under current law, if a taxpayer reports more than $2,200 in capital gain net income, he or she is automatically disqualified from collecting the EIC. On its face, this tax policy adjustment seems reasonable. Most policymakers would agree that an individual who realizes substantial capital gain income from the sale of capital assets in any given year should not be eligible for a tax credit for the working poor. The House Committee report confirms as much. That said, however, we are here today because a subsequent IRS interpretation of that adjustment has restricted EIC eligibility in such a way that we believe goes far beyond congressional intent-- distorting the purpose of last year's reforms and denying the credit to a population of hard working Americans that the EIC was designed to help--small- and mid-sized family farmers. Specifically, the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] has interpreted capital gain income to include income generated by the sale of culled cows for purposes of the EIC. Further, the IRS argues that dairy cows represent the type of assets Congress would expect a taxpayer to sell to cover living expenses in lieu of claiming the credit. Mr. President, though I do not question their good intentions, I believe the IRS is misguided. As you may know, farmers sell cows no longer suited for dairy farming as a matter of course. It is a standard part of a farmer's business. And in times of low prices or economic stress, it can play an even more important role when some farmers are driven to cull cows more quickly than they otherwise would. In addition, the Tax Code defines dairy cattle held by a taxpayer for a certain period of time as property used in a trade or business, specifying that such property is excluded from the definition of capital assets. Since dairy cattle are not capital assets, it follows that sales of cattle should not give rise to capital gain income for EIC purposes. For our Nation's dairy farmers, this unfair policy change has come at a particularly cruel time, when milk prices have declined precipitously, and many have been forced to cull cows to make ends meet. Yet instead of stretching the family budget, they learn that their actions have actually resulted in thousands of dollars in extra taxes, leaving them worse off than before. The consequences for my home State have been devastating. In a sample of cases from a seven-county area in the eastern part of the State, the average loss of Federal and State EIC benefits to farmers has been $2,111 per family. And these are families with between one and seven children. The total loss to the approximately 12,000 Wisconsin dairy farms eligible for the EIC is estimated at $15.5 million. Denying the EIC to family farmers on the basis of culled cows sales is wrong. It is wrong, unfair, and Congress should act swiftly to correct it. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation of national significance and help ensure the EIC continues to benefit those for whom Congress intended.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, yesterday Mr. Leahy and several of my colleagues spoke about judicial confirmations. Let me make a few additional points. First, we are experiencing a record slowdown in confirming judges. Last year, only 17 Federal judges were confirmed, and not a single judge for a court of appeals. This year, the process has gotten even worse--only two judges have been confirmed, and the year is almost half over. Indeed, at our current pace, with only 5 judges likely to be confirmed a year, and an average of more than 50 retiring, we would have no federal judges at all in 20 years. Literally, an empty bench. Second, we need these judges, both to prosecute and sentence violent criminals and to prevent more backlogs in civil cases. This is about justice--it shouldn't be about politics. Don't take my word on this, ask Chief Justice Rehnquist. He says ``filling judicial vacancies is crucial to the fair and effective administration of justice.'' Chief Justice Rehnquist is right. Or ask Judge George Kazen from the Southern District of Texas. He is the subject of a front page article in today's Washington Post with the headline ``Cases Pile Up as Judgeships Remain Vacant.'' He is hearing a dramatic increase in criminal cases now because we're cracking down on illegal immigration and drug smuggling in his border district. He desperately wants and needs help. But we haven't helped. Instead, the Senate has held up a nominee for his district for almost 2 years. I ask unanimous consent to print this article in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments. The bill before us today serves as a shining example of what Congress and the administration can do when working together in a bipartisan basis to address the concerns of diverse interests. In this case, these interests include parents, teachers, disability advocates, and school administrators. Too often these groups have been pitted against one another and have risked losing sight of a goal they all share-- providing the best education for children with disabilities. This bill helps clear away problems that have obstructed that goal and reaffirms a child's right to a free appropriate education. Since the inception of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975, later changed to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], our education system has undergone significant changes. Prior to this monumental legislation, children with disabilities were often shunned from traditional schools and relegated to State institutions. Today, special needs children are learning in the classroom side by side with their peers. This would not have been possible without IDEA. Advances in technology, teaching methods, and understanding of childhood development have changed the way we approach education in general, and special education in particular. But this progress has not been painless. School districts face enormous challenges in meeting the needs of all children. Given the intense resources often required to help keep special needs children in the classroom, schools and states have struggled with rising costs. Along with the financial burden, schools have been faced with growing societal pressures. I have been troubled by reports from parents, teachers, and administrators in Wisconsin about violence in the classroom. Some of these cases have involved students with disabilities. Although often a reflection of inadequate resources directed to the special needs of the disabled student, disruptions affect the entire classroom. No student should have to learn in a classroom of fear and no teacher should be forced to chose between educating a special needs student and the rest of the class. And Mr. President, no student should be denied an appropriate education. I am also troubled that despite IDEA, some disabled students are not be getting the education they deserve. Procedures and resources may vary tremendously from State to State and even between school districts within States. Clarification is needed to help schools and States conform with the goals of IDEA. This bill provides that clarification. The bill makes numerous improvements to the current provisions of IDEA, while maintaining key principles. To address concerns with litigation, the bill encourages use of mediation and parent training centers, which are effective resources that provide low-cost dispute resolution between parents and schools. Paperwork burdens faced by schools and States are also addressed. Although documentation is a necessity, educators should concentrate on teaching, not paperwork. Important, parents rights are maintained and each child is still guaranteed an appropriate education. I am particularly pleased that this legislation will intensify the focus on early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities. As we know from the growing body of scientific evidence on brain development, the most important time to influence a child's learning capacity is in the zero to 3 age range. This section of IDEA recognizes the need for early intervention and represents one of the very few areas of Federal investment in this critical age group. Finally, Mr. President, this bill helps resolve two very contentious issues involving special education--discipline and due process. This compromise will ensure that disabled children retain access to special education services while giving school districts greater ability to maintain order and safety in the classroom. If students pose a threat to themselves or others, there is new authority to allow removing the child from the class to an alternative educational setting. But the student cannot be shut out of school doors because of behavioral problems relating to the child's disability. In addition, parents will maintain a key role in their child's education and retain legal rights if a child's education is neglected. Although these changes may not please everyone, I believe they represent a fair compromise to a very delicate area of law. Overall, this bill is a balanced attempt to enable infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities to receive a high-quality education and helps schools provide that education. Mr. President, this compromise was a long time coming and will have an impact for a long time to come. I urge my colleagues to support this consensus legislation.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to call for justice for Wei Jingsheng. Mr. Wei is a Chinese citizen who has devoted his life to the cause of democracy and tolerance in the People's Republic of China. In exchange for his selfless effort, Mr. Wei has spent almost 20 years in prison. We must, as a Senate and as a country, call upon Chinese leaders to recognize Mr. Wei's genuine love of his country, to respect his right to dissent, and to set him free to live his life in peace. I have chosen to make this statement today because today we celebrate the publication of Mr. Wei's book, ``The Courage to Stand Alone: Letters from Prison and Other Writings.'' In these unadorned yet powerful reflections, Mr. Wei provides insight into the tortures he has suffered in prisons and labor camps, as well as the passion and commitment which have maintained his fighting spirit. His straightforward missives on the obvious need for democracy remind us all of our fundamental civic values. Wei Jingsheng is a hero. With a background as an electrician, and with the weight of the Communist leadership against him, he became what the New York Times called the strongest voice of China's democracy movement. It is with awe and sadness that I note Mr. Wei's ability to persevere these many years despite his and other Chinese dissidents' virtual invisibility on the international scene. We can not allow Mr. Wei to be invisible. As Americans we have always supported the cause of democracy and tolerance. In our own country we are lucky. Democracy as law and tolerance, though we must always be vigilant for transgressions against it, is an integral part of our social fabric. In other parts of the world, including the People's Republic of China, democracy and tolerance remain elusive. Mr. Wei is a hero because he fights against the tide. The leaders of China will be heroes when they realize that men and women like Wei Jingsheng can strengthen and enrich their country--if only they are set free.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the Chafee-D'Amato amendment regarding SSI benefits to legal immigrants and refugees. I am pleased to support this important first step to correct a significant mistake of last year's welfare bill. As you know, this amendment would extend the eligibility of disabled and elderly legal immigrants to the Supplemental Security Income Program. These people, including approximately 5,000 in my home State of Wisconsin, were scheduled to lose their SSI benefits in August of this year. As my colleagues from California, New York, Rhode Island, and elsewhere have explained, many others would have been similarly affected all across the country. While many legal immigrants will become citizens by the August deadline, without this amendment, State officials estimate that approximately 3,000 elderly and disabled legal immigrants living in various Wisconsin communities would have been cut off from their only source of support. These are people who cannot work and who would not be able to live or take care of their families without outside help. If the Federal Government abandoned them, their most basic needs--shelter, food, medical help--and the accompanying costs, would have fallen on the shoulders of, and quite potentially overwhelmed, State and local resources. Wisconsin has already decided to continue medical assistance to SSI recipients. And the recently hatched budget deal contains even more comprehensive remedies for the next fiscal year--two encouraging bits of news. Nonetheless, the extension of benefits from August to October will provide crucial help until those long-term remedies take effect. Mr. President, I supported the new welfare law. Policy reforms to move people from welfare to work were laudable and long overdue. Yet throughout the welfare debate I also supported numerous attempts, all of which failed, to soften the bill's restrictions on benefits to legal immigrants and refugees. Simply put, the welfare bill went too far. It was too harsh on legal immigrants who come to this country with every intention of working hard and contributing to our economy and cultural melting pot. It also was too harsh on refugees and asylees who come to this country to escape persecution in their native lands. To this latter group, the United States made and continues to make a unique commitment of assistance and guidance to help them rise above adversity and build a new life for themselves and their families. Wisconsin has been enriched by many different ethnic groups throughout its history. That said, I would like to take this occasion to discuss a population that has been hit particularly hard by the welfare changes--the Hmong and other highland peoples--who came to Wisconsin and other parts of the country as refugees from Southeast Asia. Since coming, they have faced the challenges of integrating into American society. Many arrived in this country illiterate because they did not have a written language at home and have had a difficult time fulfilling the educational requirements of the citizenship application. In August, many of the Hmong would have lost the SSI benefits that they have relied upon to cope with these challenges. Like most legal immigrants before and since, the Hmong and their children have strengthened our communities. But some of my colleagues may not know of the Hmong's invaluable contribution to the United States before ever setting foot in Wisconsin or anywhere else on American soil. Mr. President, Americans owe a debt of gratitude to the Hmong. Most of them fled their native country at the end of the Vietnam war, fearing retribution for having fought for the United States alongside American soldiers and helping us through what was a very difficult time in our history. While no disabled or elderly legal immigrants should be left without help, I am particularly pleased to cosponsor the Chafee-D'Amato amendment on behalf of the Hmong. It would be unconscionable to abandon the Hmong in their time of need. They put their lives on the line in defense of all that Americans hold dear--our freedom, our prosperity, and our way of life. Today, Congress has taken a very small step toward repaying their priceless service to all Americans. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Juvenile Jail Improvement Act of 1997. We face a growing and frightening tide of juvenile violence. And that tide is threatening to swamp our rural sheriffs. It is increasingly common for rural sheriffs to face a terrible dilemma every time they arrest a juvenile--they either have to release a potentially violent juvenile on the street to await trial or they have to spend invaluable time and manpower chauffeuring the juvenile around their State to an appropriate detention facility. Either way, the current system makes little sense and needs to be changed. Let me explain how this dilemma works. In most rural communities, the only jail available is built exclusively for adults. There are no special juvenile facilities. But sometimes, the community can create a separate portion of the jail for juveniles. However, under current law, a juvenile picked up for criminal activity can only be held in a separate portion of an adult facility for up to 24 hours. After that, the juvenile must be transported--often across hundreds of miles--to a separate juvenile detention facility, often to be returned to the very same jail 2 or 3 days later for a court date. This system often leaves rural law enforcement criss-crossing the State with a single juvenile-- and results in massive expenses for law enforcement with little benefit for juveniles, who spend endless hours in a squad car. Such a process does not serve anyone's interests. And that is not all that rural sheriffs face. Even qualifying for the 24-hour exception can be a nightmare. That's because juveniles can be kept in adult jails only under a very stringent set of rules. Keeping juveniles in an adult jail is known as collocation. It can only be done if there is strict sight and sound separation between the adults and the juveniles as well as completely separate staff. For many small communities, making these physical and staff changes to their jails is prohibitively expensive. So sheriffs faced with diverting officers to drive around the State in search of a detention facility may choose to let the juvenile go free while awaiting trial. This prospect should frighten anyone who is aware of the growing trend in juvenile violence. Today, I am introducing legislation that is designed to cure this problem. My legislative solution is simple, straightforward and effective. It extends from 24 to 72 hours the time during which rural law enforcement may collocate juvenile offenders in an adult facility, as long as juveniles remain separated from adults. It also relaxes the requirements for acceptable collocation. After taking a hard look at how collocation rules have worked--and in what ways they have failed-- this legislation comes to a reasonable compromise. Mr. President, one of our most important goals in assuring that any changes to these rules do not sacrifice the safety and welfare of arrested juveniles. In addition to the growing fear about juvenile violence, we have witnessed a growing anger and frustration at juveniles. This frustration should not lead us to forget the painful lessons we learned many years ago about abusive and dangerous treatment of delinquent children. Twenty years ago, we learned about kids who were thrown in jail where they were victimized and abused by adult prisoners; or where, without proper supervision, they committed suicide; or, where, guarded by people who only had experience with adult prisoners, they were disciplined savagely. When we give into the temptation to throw juveniles in jail and teach them a tough lesson, we are often ill rewarded. So even as we loosen these collocation requirements, we must bear in mind that the juvenile justice system still has its principle goal rehabilitation not harsh retribution. My conversations with administrators, sheriffs, and juvenile court judges have led me to conclude that we must bring greater flexibility-- and less red-tape--to the Juvenile Justice Act. It is my hope that this legislation--which offers greater flexibility while retaining important protections regarding the separation of juveniles from adults--will meet with strong support from the Senate. Thank you.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Juvenile Jail Improvement Act of 1997. We face a growing and frightening tide of juvenile violence. And that tide is threatening to swamp our rural sheriffs. It is increasingly common for rural sheriffs to face a terrible dilemma every time they arrest a juvenile--they either have to release a potentially violent juvenile on the street to await trial or they have to spend invaluable time and manpower chauffeuring the juvenile around their State to an appropriate detention facility. Either way, the current system makes little sense and needs to be changed. Let me explain how this dilemma works. In most rural communities, the only jail available is built exclusively for adults. There are no special juvenile facilities. But sometimes, the community can create a separate portion of the jail for juveniles. However, under current law, a juvenile picked up for criminal activity can only be held in a separate portion of an adult facility for up to 24 hours. After that, the juvenile must be transported--often across hundreds of miles--to a separate juvenile detention facility, often to be returned to the very same jail 2 or 3 days later for a court date. This system often leaves rural law enforcement criss-crossing the State with a single juvenile-- and results in massive expenses for law enforcement with little benefit for juveniles, who spend endless hours in a squad car. Such a process does not serve anyone's interests. And that is not all that rural sheriffs face. Even qualifying for the 24-hour exception can be a nightmare. That's because juveniles can be kept in adult jails only under a very stringent set of rules. Keeping juveniles in an adult jail is known as collocation. It can only be done if there is strict sight and sound separation between the adults and the juveniles as well as completely separate staff. For many small communities, making these physical and staff changes to their jails is prohibitively expensive. So sheriffs faced with diverting officers to drive around the State in search of a detention facility may choose to let the juvenile go free while awaiting trial. This prospect should frighten anyone who is aware of the growing trend in juvenile violence. Today, I am introducing legislation that is designed to cure this problem. My legislative solution is simple, straightforward and effective. It extends from 24 to 72 hours the time during which rural law enforcement may collocate juvenile offenders in an adult facility, as long as juveniles remain separated from adults. It also relaxes the requirements for acceptable collocation. After taking a hard look at how collocation rules have worked--and in what ways they have failed-- this legislation comes to a reasonable compromise. Mr. President, one of our most important goals in assuring that any changes to these rules do not sacrifice the safety and welfare of arrested juveniles. In addition to the growing fear about juvenile violence, we have witnessed a growing anger and frustration at juveniles. This frustration should not lead us to forget the painful lessons we learned many years ago about abusive and dangerous treatment of delinquent children. Twenty years ago, we learned about kids who were thrown in jail where they were victimized and abused by adult prisoners; or where, without proper supervision, they committed suicide; or, where, guarded by people who only had experience with adult prisoners, they were disciplined savagely. When we give into the temptation to throw juveniles in jail and teach them a tough lesson, we are often ill rewarded. So even as we loosen these collocation requirements, we must bear in mind that the juvenile justice system still has its principle goal rehabilitation not harsh retribution. My conversations with administrators, sheriffs, and juvenile court judges have led me to conclude that we must bring greater flexibility-- and less red-tape--to the Juvenile Justice Act. It is my hope that this legislation--which offers greater flexibility while retaining important protections regarding the separation of juveniles from adults--will meet with strong support from the Senate. Thank you.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senator Wyden that will help Wisconsin and several other States, including Oregon, Texas, Alaska, and California, extend one of our most successful veterans programs to Persian Gulf war participants and others. This bill will amend the eligibility requirements for mortgage revenue bond financing for State veterans housing programs. Wisconsin uses this tax-exempt bond authority to assist veterans in purchasing their first home. Under rules adopted by Congress in 1984, this program excluded from eligibility veterans who served after 1977. This bill would simply remove that restriction. Wisconsin and the other eligible States simply want to maintain a principle that we in the Senate have also strived to uphold--that veterans of the Persian Gulf war should not be treated less generously than those of past wars. This bill will make that possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senator Wyden that will help Wisconsin and several other States, including Oregon, Texas, Alaska, and California, extend one of our most successful veterans programs to Persian Gulf war participants and others. This bill will amend the eligibility requirements for mortgage revenue bond financing for State veterans housing programs. Wisconsin uses this tax-exempt bond authority to assist veterans in purchasing their first home. Under rules adopted by Congress in 1984, this program excluded from eligibility veterans who served after 1977. This bill would simply remove that restriction. Wisconsin and the other eligible States simply want to maintain a principle that we in the Senate have also strived to uphold--that veterans of the Persian Gulf war should not be treated less generously than those of past wars. This bill will make that possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Juvenile Corrections Act of 1997, which I am proud to sponsor with my friend and colleague, Senator Cochran. The act dedicates approximately 10 percent of the 1994 Crime Act's adult prison resources to the construction and operation of State and local juvenile corrections facilities. Juvenile violence, as we all know, is at the heart of the crime problem in America. Every 5 minutes a child is arrested for a violent crime in the United States; every 2 hours a child dies of a gunshot wound. Unfortunately, there is good reason to believe that this problem may get worse before it gets better. Demographics tell us that between now and the year 2000, the number of children between the ages of 14 to 7 will increase by more than 1 million. The likely result: a serious increase in the number of violent juvenile offenders in the coming years--above already unacceptable levels. Despite this state of affairs, the Federal Government has treated juvenile corrections as the poor stepchild of the Federal anticrime effort. The 1994 Crime Act contained billions of dollars for policing and adult prisons at the State and local level, but no significant program to help States alleviate the increasing burdens on their juvenile corrections systems. These burdens are real and substantial, Mr. President. Department of Justice surveys have indicated that many juvenile corrections facilities nationwide are seriously overcrowded and understaffed--in short, bursting at the seams. As a result of the increasing number of 14 to 17 year olds we highlighted above, we will probably see even worse overcrowding in the future. Mr. President, the consequences of overcrowding should trouble us all. In part due to the combination of overcrowding and understaffing, juvenile offenders attacked detention facility staff 8,000 times in 1993. In countless U.S. cities, juvenile offenders who require detention are nonetheless released into the community because of a lack of space. And finally, it is clear that overcrowding breeds violence and ever more violent juvenile offenders who, when eventually released, are much more dangerous to society than when they were first institutionalized. For all these reasons, we introduce today the Juvenile Corrections Act. Our legislation provides crucial assistance--over $790 million in funding over 3 years--to State and local governments for the construction, expansion, and operation of juvenile corrections facilities and programs. And, I should note, the Act has no impact on the deficit, as it draws its funding from the $10 billion adult corrections component of the 1994 Crime Act. Mr. President, we cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the juvenile corrections problem. So I hope my colleagues will join with me and Senator Cochran to enact the Juvenile Corrections Act. In light of the spiraling juvenile violence problem, we believe it makes good sense to dedicate roughly 10 percent of the Crime Act's adult prison resources to State and local juvenile corrections. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Juvenile Corrections Act of 1997, which I am proud to sponsor with my friend and colleague, Senator Cochran. The act dedicates approximately 10 percent of the 1994 Crime Act's adult prison resources to the construction and operation of State and local juvenile corrections facilities. Juvenile violence, as we all know, is at the heart of the crime problem in America. Every 5 minutes a child is arrested for a violent crime in the United States; every 2 hours a child dies of a gunshot wound. Unfortunately, there is good reason to believe that this problem may get worse before it gets better. Demographics tell us that between now and the year 2000, the number of children between the ages of 14 to 7 will increase by more than 1 million. The likely result: a serious increase in the number of violent juvenile offenders in the coming years--above already unacceptable levels. Despite this state of affairs, the Federal Government has treated juvenile corrections as the poor stepchild of the Federal anticrime effort. The 1994 Crime Act contained billions of dollars for policing and adult prisons at the State and local level, but no significant program to help States alleviate the increasing burdens on their juvenile corrections systems. These burdens are real and substantial, Mr. President. Department of Justice surveys have indicated that many juvenile corrections facilities nationwide are seriously overcrowded and understaffed--in short, bursting at the seams. As a result of the increasing number of 14 to 17 year olds we highlighted above, we will probably see even worse overcrowding in the future. Mr. President, the consequences of overcrowding should trouble us all. In part due to the combination of overcrowding and understaffing, juvenile offenders attacked detention facility staff 8,000 times in 1993. In countless U.S. cities, juvenile offenders who require detention are nonetheless released into the community because of a lack of space. And finally, it is clear that overcrowding breeds violence and ever more violent juvenile offenders who, when eventually released, are much more dangerous to society than when they were first institutionalized. For all these reasons, we introduce today the Juvenile Corrections Act. Our legislation provides crucial assistance--over $790 million in funding over 3 years--to State and local governments for the construction, expansion, and operation of juvenile corrections facilities and programs. And, I should note, the Act has no impact on the deficit, as it draws its funding from the $10 billion adult corrections component of the 1994 Crime Act. Mr. President, we cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the juvenile corrections problem. So I hope my colleagues will join with me and Senator Cochran to enact the Juvenile Corrections Act. In light of the spiraling juvenile violence problem, we believe it makes good sense to dedicate roughly 10 percent of the Crime Act's adult prison resources to State and local juvenile corrections. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Today, Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to remember the men and women of the 440th Airlift Wing, based at Mitchell Field in Milwaukee, who died and were injured in the course of their duty on April 1, 1997. At a treacherous airport in Honduras, far from home, three airmen made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. On a routine resupply mission, their C-130 skidded off the end of the runway while attempting to land at Tocontin International Airport in Tegucigalpa. The plane burst into flames killing Senior M. Sgt. Leland Rassmussen, S. Sgt. Vicki Clifton, and Senior Airman Samuel Keene. Also injured in the crash were T. Sgt. Joseph Martynski, Capt. Ian Kincaid, M. Sgt. Steven Hilger, T. Sgt. Danny Formanski, Capt. Michael Butler, S. Sgt. Dean Ackmann, and Capt. Robert Woodard. The 440th flies out of my hometown, Milwaukee, WI and I am proud of their commitment to excellence. Over the years they have been called on many times to serve their country in foreign lands and dangerous circumstances. They are an example of the best the Reserve system has to offer, and I was deeply saddened to hear of their loss. Too often we take for granted the risks members of the military run on a day-to-day basis. We assume that because the United States is at peace soldiers do not face danger. While in fact, everyday men and women in our armed services put their lives on the line. They do it quietly and without fanfare. It seems that only when tragedy strikes do we take a moment to appreciate their courage and sacrifice. I would also like to take a moment to thank those brave Honduran citizens who risked their lives to help victims of the crash. With the wreckage burning only 100 yards from two gas stations, these good Samaritans waded into the fiery crash site to rescue complete strangers. Because of their selfless courage, lives were saved and crippling injuries avoided. Those injured in the accident have my best wishes for a speedy and complete recovery. My heart goes out to the families of Leland, Vicki, and Samuel. Over the years these three airmen have foregone time with their families in order to serve their country, and now the Nation owes them a debt it can never fully repay. All we can offer is our deepest sympathy and highest esteem.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Bankruptcy Abuse Reform Act of 1997, legislation which addresses a serious problem that threatens Americans' confidence in our bankruptcy laws. The measure would cap at $100,000 the State homestead exemption that an individual filing for personal bankruptcy can claim. It passed the Senate last term when it was included into the Bankruptcy Technical Corrections Act (S. 1559), and I hope that we can all support this measure again this year. The goal of our measure is simple but vitally important: to make sure that our Bankruptcy Code is more than just a beachball for crooked millionaires who want to hide their assets. Let me tell you why this legislation is critically needed. In chapter 7 Federal personal bankruptcy proceedings, the debtor is allowed to exempt certain possessions and interests from being used to satisfy his outstanding debts. One of the chief things that a debtor seeks to protect is his home, and I agree with that in principle. Few question that debtors should be able to keep the roofs over their heads. But, in practice, this homestead exemption has become a source of abuse. Under section 522 of the Code, a debtor may opt to exempt his home according to local, State, or Federal bankruptcy provisions. The Federal exemption allows the debtor to shield up to $15,000 of value in his house. The State exemptions vary tremendously: some States do not allow the debtor to exempt any of his home's value, while eight States set no ceiling and allow an unlimited exemption. The vast majority of States have exemptions under $40,000. My amendment under section 522 would cap State exemptions so that no debtor could ever exempt more than $100,000 of the value of his home. Mr. President, in the last few years, the ability of debtors to use State homestead exemptions has led to flagrant abuses of the Bankruptcy Code. Multimillionaire debtors have moved to one of the eight States that have unlimited exemptions--most often Florida or Texas--bought multi-million-dollar houses, and continued to live like kings even after declaring bankruptcy. This shameless manipulation of the Bankruptcy Code cheats creditors out of compensation and rewards only those who can game the system. Oftentimes, the creditor who is robbed is the American taxpayer. In recent years, S&L swindlers, insider trading convicts, and other shady characters have managed to protect their ill-gotten gains through this loophole. One infamous S&L banker with more than $4 billion in claims against him bought a multi-million-dollar horse ranch in Florida. Another man who pled guilty to insider trading abuses lives in a 7,000-square-foot beachfront home worth $3.25 million--all tucked away from the $2.75 billion in suits against him. We read even now about the possibility that O.J. Simpson may seek to avoid the civil suit judgment against him buying a lavish home in Florida, a State with an unlimited exemption, and declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying his multimillion-dollar obligations. These deadbeats get wealthier while legitimate creditors-- including the U.S. Government--get the short end of the stick. Simply put, the current practice is grossly unfair and contravenes the intent of our laws: People are supposed to get a fresh start, not a head start, under the Bankruptcy Code. In addition, these unlimited homestead exemptions have made it increasingly difficult for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Resolution Trust Corporation to go after S&L crooks. With the S&L crisis costing us billions of dollars and with a deficit that still remains unacceptably high, we owe it to the taxpayers to make it as hard as possible for those responsible for fraud to profit from their wrongs. Mr. President, the legislation that I have introduced today is simple, effective, and straightforward. It caps the homestead exemption at $100,000, which is close to the average price of an American house. And it will protect middle class Americans while preventing the abuses that are making the American middle class question the integrity of our laws--the abuses the average American taxpayer is paying for out of pocket. Indeed, it is even generous to debtors. Other than the eight States that have no limit to the homestead exemption, no State has a homestead exemption exceeding $100,000. In fact, 38 States have exemptions of $40,000 or less. My own home State of Wisconsin has a $40,000 exemption and that, in my opinion, is more than sufficient. Mr. President, this proposal is an effort to make our bankruptcy laws more equitable. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure. 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 Bankruptcy Abuse Reform Act of 1997, legislation which addresses a serious problem that threatens Americans' confidence in our bankruptcy laws. The measure would cap at $100,000 the State homestead exemption that an individual filing for personal bankruptcy can claim. It passed the Senate last term when it was included into the Bankruptcy Technical Corrections Act (S. 1559), and I hope that we can all support this measure again this year. The goal of our measure is simple but vitally important: to make sure that our Bankruptcy Code is more than just a beachball for crooked millionaires who want to hide their assets. Let me tell you why this legislation is critically needed. In chapter 7 Federal personal bankruptcy proceedings, the debtor is allowed to exempt certain possessions and interests from being used to satisfy his outstanding debts. One of the chief things that a debtor seeks to protect is his home, and I agree with that in principle. Few question that debtors should be able to keep the roofs over their heads. But, in practice, this homestead exemption has become a source of abuse. Under section 522 of the Code, a debtor may opt to exempt his home according to local, State, or Federal bankruptcy provisions. The Federal exemption allows the debtor to shield up to $15,000 of value in his house. The State exemptions vary tremendously: some States do not allow the debtor to exempt any of his home's value, while eight States set no ceiling and allow an unlimited exemption. The vast majority of States have exemptions under $40,000. My amendment under section 522 would cap State exemptions so that no debtor could ever exempt more than $100,000 of the value of his home. Mr. President, in the last few years, the ability of debtors to use State homestead exemptions has led to flagrant abuses of the Bankruptcy Code. Multimillionaire debtors have moved to one of the eight States that have unlimited exemptions--most often Florida or Texas--bought multi-million-dollar houses, and continued to live like kings even after declaring bankruptcy. This shameless manipulation of the Bankruptcy Code cheats creditors out of compensation and rewards only those who can game the system. Oftentimes, the creditor who is robbed is the American taxpayer. In recent years, S&L swindlers, insider trading convicts, and other shady characters have managed to protect their ill-gotten gains through this loophole. One infamous S&L banker with more than $4 billion in claims against him bought a multi-million-dollar horse ranch in Florida. Another man who pled guilty to insider trading abuses lives in a 7,000-square-foot beachfront home worth $3.25 million--all tucked away from the $2.75 billion in suits against him. We read even now about the possibility that O.J. Simpson may seek to avoid the civil suit judgment against him buying a lavish home in Florida, a State with an unlimited exemption, and declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying his multimillion-dollar obligations. These deadbeats get wealthier while legitimate creditors-- including the U.S. Government--get the short end of the stick. Simply put, the current practice is grossly unfair and contravenes the intent of our laws: People are supposed to get a fresh start, not a head start, under the Bankruptcy Code. In addition, these unlimited homestead exemptions have made it increasingly difficult for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Resolution Trust Corporation to go after S&L crooks. With the S&L crisis costing us billions of dollars and with a deficit that still remains unacceptably high, we owe it to the taxpayers to make it as hard as possible for those responsible for fraud to profit from their wrongs. Mr. President, the legislation that I have introduced today is simple, effective, and straightforward. It caps the homestead exemption at $100,000, which is close to the average price of an American house. And it will protect middle class Americans while preventing the abuses that are making the American middle class question the integrity of our laws--the abuses the average American taxpayer is paying for out of pocket. Indeed, it is even generous to debtors. Other than the eight States that have no limit to the homestead exemption, no State has a homestead exemption exceeding $100,000. In fact, 38 States have exemptions of $40,000 or less. My own home State of Wisconsin has a $40,000 exemption and that, in my opinion, is more than sufficient. Mr. President, this proposal is an effort to make our bankruptcy laws more equitable. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I recognize today an outstanding achievement in Wisconsin collegiate athletics. Over the weekend of March 7-8, 1997, the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, captured the NCAA Division III Men's Indoor Track and Field Championship. A perennial powerhouse in men's track and field, the Eagles amassed 44 points to claim their 7th NCAA Division III men's indoor title and the 6th title under men's head coach, Mark Guthrie. Paced by junior All-American David Whiteis' first place finish in the 400 meter dash, the Eagles demonstrated their team balance in both field and track events by placing finalists in the 1500 and 5000 meter runs; the 4 by 400 meter relay; the pole vault; the triple jump; and the 35-pound weight throw. I have great respect for student-athletes, Mr. President, and in particular those student athletes who compete within the guidelines of the NCAA's Division III status. These student-athletes do not compete with the benefit of a scholarship; their only prize is pride and victory. It is with this spirit of competition that I salute head coach Mark Guthrie and the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, Eagles Men's Track Team for their outstanding effort and dedication. Congratulations on a job well done.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I introduce an important piece of legislation, The Child Safety Lock Act of 1997. Our measure will save thousands of children's lives by curtailing the senseless deaths that occur when improperly stored and unlocked handguns come within the reach of children. Let me tell you about the tragic death of 4 year-old Dylan Pierce of Eaton, WI, which illustrates why we need this law. Last August, Dylan and his 8-year-old brother Cody stumbled upon an unlocked cabinet while their parents were at work. The cabinet contained a .357-magnum handgun and several rifles. Although the boys' parents told them not to play with the guns, the children were naturally curious. The boys loaded the handgun with ammunition that was kept separate from the guns and began playing with the loaded handgun. While Dylan was handling the gun, it fired, shooting him in the head. Dylan was instantly killed by the bullet. Now, the lives of this family are forever changed, forever damaged. Unfortunately, statistics show that the Pierce family's tragedy represents part of an everincreasing trend in the United States. Currently, children in the United States are 12 times as likely to die because of a firearm than children in the other 25 largest industrialized countries. Even more startling, the Centers for Disease Control recently reported that nearly 1.2 million latch-key children alone have access to loaded firearms. These figures become even more disturbing when you account for the tragedies that could have been prevented by safety locks. And while most gun owners properly store their firearms, the sad fact is that a substantial number do not, leaving their guns loaded and within the reach of children. Mr. President, children's natural curiosity should not lead to their unnatural deaths. We need to ensure that young people who stumble upon handguns do not meet the same fate as Dylan Pierce or the many other children who have died or been injured in handgun accidents. This legislation is especially necessary as long as some adults continue to carelessly store their guns, and in places where children may reach them. Preventing these tragic accidents is the sole purpose of the Child Safety Lock Act. Our legislation is simple, effective and straightforward. First, it requires that whenever a handgun is sold, a child safety device--or trigger lock--is also sold. These devices vary in form, but the most common resemble a padlock that wraps around the gun trigger and immobilizes it. Trigger locks are already used by thousands of responsible gun owners to protect their firearms from unauthorized use, and they can be purchased in virtually any gun store for less than ten dollars. Second, the measure requires that a warning be enclosed with the purchase of every firearm. This warning serves as a wake up call to make gun owners aware of the risks associated with improper storage, and it also makes them aware of potential state civil and criminal penalties for failing to use child safety devices. Mr. President, this bill is not a panacea, but it will help prevent the tragic accidents and deaths associated with unauthorized, unlocked firearms. And it will help ensure that American children do not die as a result of adult carelessness. President Clinton challenged us to enact child safety lock legislation in his State of the Union Address: Today we respond to his challenge. Senators Boxer, Durbin, and Chafee join me as cosponsors of this bipartisan bill. We ask our other colleagues to join as well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I introduce an important piece of legislation, The Child Safety Lock Act of 1997. Our measure will save thousands of children's lives by curtailing the senseless deaths that occur when improperly stored and unlocked handguns come within the reach of children. Let me tell you about the tragic death of 4 year-old Dylan Pierce of Eaton, WI, which illustrates why we need this law. Last August, Dylan and his 8-year-old brother Cody stumbled upon an unlocked cabinet while their parents were at work. The cabinet contained a .357-magnum handgun and several rifles. Although the boys' parents told them not to play with the guns, the children were naturally curious. The boys loaded the handgun with ammunition that was kept separate from the guns and began playing with the loaded handgun. While Dylan was handling the gun, it fired, shooting him in the head. Dylan was instantly killed by the bullet. Now, the lives of this family are forever changed, forever damaged. Unfortunately, statistics show that the Pierce family's tragedy represents part of an everincreasing trend in the United States. Currently, children in the United States are 12 times as likely to die because of a firearm than children in the other 25 largest industrialized countries. Even more startling, the Centers for Disease Control recently reported that nearly 1.2 million latch-key children alone have access to loaded firearms. These figures become even more disturbing when you account for the tragedies that could have been prevented by safety locks. And while most gun owners properly store their firearms, the sad fact is that a substantial number do not, leaving their guns loaded and within the reach of children. Mr. President, children's natural curiosity should not lead to their unnatural deaths. We need to ensure that young people who stumble upon handguns do not meet the same fate as Dylan Pierce or the many other children who have died or been injured in handgun accidents. This legislation is especially necessary as long as some adults continue to carelessly store their guns, and in places where children may reach them. Preventing these tragic accidents is the sole purpose of the Child Safety Lock Act. Our legislation is simple, effective and straightforward. First, it requires that whenever a handgun is sold, a child safety device--or trigger lock--is also sold. These devices vary in form, but the most common resemble a padlock that wraps around the gun trigger and immobilizes it. Trigger locks are already used by thousands of responsible gun owners to protect their firearms from unauthorized use, and they can be purchased in virtually any gun store for less than ten dollars. Second, the measure requires that a warning be enclosed with the purchase of every firearm. This warning serves as a wake up call to make gun owners aware of the risks associated with improper storage, and it also makes them aware of potential state civil and criminal penalties for failing to use child safety devices. Mr. President, this bill is not a panacea, but it will help prevent the tragic accidents and deaths associated with unauthorized, unlocked firearms. And it will help ensure that American children do not die as a result of adult carelessness. President Clinton challenged us to enact child safety lock legislation in his State of the Union Address: Today we respond to his challenge. Senators Boxer, Durbin, and Chafee join me as cosponsors of this bipartisan bill. We ask our other colleagues to join as well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today as a strong supporter of the balanced budget amendment and a strong supporter of the Torricelli amendment. I do not believe that the two are inconsistent Those of us who support amending the Constitution to balance the budget have an obligation to make sure that we are supporting the best possible balanced budget amendment. I listened carefully to Senator Byrd earlier this week when he talked about the sanctity of the Constitution. He argued, and I agree, that we ought to amend this most basic and important document of our Government with only our best ideas, principles and language. The balanced budget amendment does, in my opinion, embody a principle simple and vital enough to deserve inclusion in the Constitution. It says that we ought to spend no more than we take in. It says that this generation has no right to finance its own consumption with money borrowed from the next generation. It asks the Federal Government to run its finances in a manner that both provides for a strong America in the present and builds a stronger America in the future. The Torricelli amendment would improve the balanced budget amendment by bringing it closer to this fundamental principle. The Torricelli amendment would exclude investments in physical infrastructure that provide long-term economic benefits from the definition of Federal outlays. In other words, it would put into the balanced budget amendment the requirement that we balance our operating budget but would allow debt financing of long-term public investments. To me this makes eminently good sense. It is how everyone else keeps their books, from State governments, to businesses, to families. You pay now for things that are going to benefit you now, and you pay over time for investments, the value of which accrues over time. A State government issues bonds to finance major highway projects and new construction of public buildings. A business goes to the bank for a loan to upgrade its machinery. A family takes out a mortgage to buy a house. When we say on the Senate floor that the Government ought to balance its books just like an American family has to, we mean that the Government ought to balance its operating budget just like an American family has to. No one is suggesting that a family wait until they save up enough money to pay cash for a home. If we operated that way, there would be very few homes bought in this country. If the Federal Government must balance its budget without separating out its capital expenditures, there will be very few public investments made in this country, and that would be very wrong. Already, the Federal Government woefully underinvests in the capital that will grow our economy--in our roads, in our schools, in our cities. The Torricelli amendment will ensure that in pursuing a balanced budget we do not have a perverse incentive to avoid those public expenditures that would most benefit future generations. State governments understand this. Forty-three of them have balanced budget requirements that separate out the capital budget. In my State of Wisconsin, the constitution requires that taxes cover expenses. But it also states that debt may be incurred ``to acquire, construct, develop, extend, enlarge or improve land, waters, property, highways, railways, buildings, equipment, or facilities for public purposes.'' That is a simple, straightforward and correct approach that we ought to take in the Federal balanced budget amendment, and I hope my fellow supporters of the balanced budget amendment will agree. This debate has always been about stopping the practice of robbing Peter and Paul, Jr. to pay for Peter and Paul, Sr. Supporters of a balanced budget amendment want to look beyond our needs today and toward our hopes for the future. That means not spending more than we take in. And that means making wise, long-term investments in the economy that will sustain future generations. We can do both with a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution if we also pass the Torricelli amendment, and so I urge my colleagues to do so. I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to express my continued opposition to the Northeast Dairy Compact. As I have said many times in the past, it does not make me happy to oppose efforts by dairy farmers in other parts of the country to reap a higher price for their milk. For years, I have worked with many of the proponents of the compact in efforts to help farmers get a better price for their product. But in the past, these efforts have been national. And I believe we should continue with national efforts to bring farmers together, instead of regional efforts that pit farmer against farmer. The Northeast Compact is an effort by six Northeastern States to establish a regional cartel, to guarantee the farmers in that region alone get a higher price for their milk, to the detriment of the consumers in the Northeast, and farmers in other parts of the country, including Wisconsin. In my view, it is the exact opposite of what we should be doing; which is establishing a fair and reasonable national dairy policy that gives farmers in all regions an opportunity to prosper, free of structural impediments from the Federal Government. In my region of the country, the discriminatory nature of the current milk pricing system has contributed to a dangerous erosion of our farm economy. In Wisconsin alone, we have lost 12,000 dairy farms in the last 10 years. And I believe that the Northeast Compact will worsen the regional inequities that exist today, and be detrimental to farmers in regions outside the Northeast. To those outside the upper Midwest, who have not witnessed the destruction caused by the current milk pricing system, it may be difficult to understand how pricing schemes in one region could affect other regions of the country. But we cannot ignore that dairy markets are national, and any effort to artificially boost prices in one region alone will have effects throughout the national system. History has proven that point time and time again, and unfortunately, Wisconsin is the proving ground of that destruction. And even prior to its implementation, the evidence is beginning to build proving that the Northeast Dairy Compact sets a dangerous precedent in U.S. economic policy. Recently, the secretaries of agriculture from 15 southeastern States announced that they would be seeking to establish a Southeastern Dairy Compact, citing the precedent established by the Northeast Compact. So we must ask ourselves, where does it stop? A 6-State dairy cartel in the Northeast, a 15-State dairy cartel in the Southeast. This disintegration of our national economic unity does not come without cost. We may not be able to predict where this new regional cartel movement will stop, but it is clearly dangerous. So I join my colleagues in introducing this legislation that would repeal the section of the 1996 farm bill that gives the Secretary of Agriculture authority to approve the Northeast Compact. Whether it is stopped legislatively, or by the Secretary of Agriculture, to whom it has been returned by a Federal judge for reconsideration, I believe it should be stopped. And I urge my colleagues to join us in opposing this dangerous precedent for U.S. economic policy.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his efforts on this issue. The Cheese Exchange is of great concern to all dairy farmers nationwide, because it is a market that is very thinly traded, completely unregulated, and has a great deal of influence on the prices that farmers are paid for their milk. That's why my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold and I have been working to reduce the influence of the Cheese Exchange. Both Senator Feingold and I introduced legislation on this matter last week. Ultimately, what we need to do is find an alternative price discovery mechanism that is more reflective of market conditions, and less subject to manipulation. And we have two initiatives underway that could form the basis for new price discovery mechanisms. First, we've worked with Secretary Glickman to start a new cheese price survey, to survey cheese plants nationwide, to get a better view of prices paid for cheese. If done right, this could be very useful as a price discovery mechanism. But there's still some issues that need to be ironed out. And second, we've asked other exchanges such as the Coffee, Sugar, Cocoa Exchange to explore the possibility of creating a new cash market for cheese. Again, if this is done right, it could be very useful as a new price discovery mechanism. But in the short term, the Senator from Pennsylvania is right, we need to delink the National Cheese Exchange from the farmers' milk prices, and we need to do that as soon as possible. Two weeks ago, the Secretary of Agriculture announced a 60-day comment period on that exact proposal. The trick will be to find a new equivalent price mechanism, to take it's place. We need to find a new mechanism that is credible, or we'll merely make matters worse. So I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, and I look forward to working with him on this issue, which has been a longstanding concern of mine. As far as I'm concerned, the more Senators become aware of this problem and join our efforts, the better.