Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, I introduced two bills, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1997, and the Sunshine in Litigation Act of 1997. Both address issues that are of enormous importance to our communities and country. First, Senator DeWine and I introduced a measure to toughen the original Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 to ensure that more serious crimes receive more serious punishment. Our new proposal sends a clear message to deadbeat parents: Pay up or go to jail. Current law already makes it a Federal offense to willfully fail to pay child support obligations to a child in another State if the obligation has remained unpaid for longer than a year or is greater than $5,000. However, current law provides for a maximum of just 6 months in prison for a first offense and a maximum of 2 years for a second offense. A first offense, however, no matter how egregious, is not a felony under current law. Police officers and prosecutors have used the current law effectively, but they have found that current misdemeanor penalties do not adequately deal with more serious cases, those cases in which parents move from State to State to intentionally evade child support penalties or fail to pay child support obligations for more than 2 years--serious cases that deserve serious felony punishment. In response to these concerns, President Clinton drafted legislation that would address this problem, and we dropped it in last month. This new effort builds on past successes. In the 4 years since the original deadbeat parents legislation was signed into law by President Bush, collections have increased by nearly 50 percent, from $8 billion to $11.8 billion, and we should be proud of that increase. Moreover, a new national database has helped identify 60,000 delinquent fathers, over half of whom owed money to women on welfare. Nevertheless, there is much more that we can do. It is estimated that if delinquent parents fully paid up their child support, approximately 800,000 women and children could be taken off the welfare rolls. So our new legislation cracks down on the worst violators and makes clear that intentional or long-term evasion of child support responsibilities will not receive a slap on the wrist. In so doing, it will help us continue to fight to ensure that every child receives the parental support they deserve. With this bill, we have a chance to make a difference in the lives of families across our entire country. I look forward to working with my colleagues to give police and prosecutors the tools they need to effectively pursue individuals who seek to avoid their family obligations. The second bill I introduced 2 weeks ago was the Sunshine in Litigation Act of 1997, a measure that addresses the growing abuse of secrecy orders issued by Federal courts. All too often, our Federal courts will allow vital information that is discovered in litigation and which directly bears on public health and safety to be covered up, to be shielded from people whose lives are potentially at stake and from the public officials we have asked to protect our health and safety. All of this happens because of the so-called protective orders, which are really gag orders issued by courts--and designed to keep information discovered in the course of litigation secret and undisclosed. Typically, injured victims agree to a defendant's request to keep lawsuit information secret. They agree because defendants threaten that, without secrecy, they will refuse to pay a settlement. Victims cannot afford to take such chances. And while courts in these situations actually have the legal authority to deny requests for secrecy, typically they do not because both sides have agreed and judges have other matters they prefer to attend to. So judges are regularly and frequently entering these protective orders using the power of the Federal Government to keep people in the dark about the dangers they face. This measure will bring crucial information out of the darkness and into the light. The measure amends rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to require that judges weigh the impact on public health and safety before approving these secrecy orders. It is simple, effective, and straightforward. It essentially codifies what is already the best practices of the best judges. In cases that do not affect the public health and safety, existing practice would continue, and courts can still use protective orders as they do today. But in cases affecting public health and safety, courts would apply a balancing test. They could permit secrecy only if the need for privacy outweighs the public's need to know about potential public health and safety hazards. Moreover, courts could not, under this measure, issue protective orders that would prevent disclosures to regulatory agencies. I do want to mention that identical legislation was reported out of the Judiciary Committee last year by a bipartisan, 11-to-7 majority. I do want to remind people that this issue is not going away: A number of States are currently considering antisecrecy measures; the Justice Department itself has drafted its own antisecrecy proposal--one that in many ways goes further than my own. The grassroots support for antisecrecy legislation will continue and grow, as long as information remains held under lock and key. So, Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to do more to combat deadbeat parents and limit court secrecy. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate voted on the first of several potential amendments to exempt certain programs from the balanced budget constitutional amendment. I greatly appreciate the comments made on the amendment by the Senator from Minnesota regarding the importance of programs that benefit our children. Senator Wellstone spoke passionately and I could not agree more that we must protect our children. However, I disagree with the notion that we should exempt certain categories of programs from the strictures of the balanced budget amendment. I don't see balancing the budget and helping our children as two mutually exclusive goals. In fact, these are two of my highest priorities and they are critically linked. I heard the compelling arguments about the difficult spending cuts that occurred during the last Congress. I agree that more should be done to balance the burden of spending reductions in the future. As a society and as a government, we must maximize our commitment to the well-being of our children or suffer the consequences in the world economy. But what's more important, if we fail our children, we fail as a people. Mr. President, I am committed to the concept of the balanced budget amendment. I am committed to the idea that the financial security of this Nation rests on the ability of the Federal Government to curb the practice of spending beyond its means. And I am deeply committed to the belief that our Nation's future depends on the investment we place in our children. In reviewing the fiscal history of this Nation over the past 25 years, it has become clear to me that the will to exercise the necessary spending restraint does not exist within this body without a strict requirement. I believe that the balanced budget amendment provides such a framework, and that is why I support it. The Wellstone amendment was certainly difficult to vote against. But I strongly believe that the very arguments made by the proponents of the amendment are exactly those that will help preserve critical children's programs from future budget cuts. Our children are already saddled with a tremendous debt burden created by past federal budget excess. It makes no fiscal sense to further hinder their ability to pay off that debt by short-changing their education or health. The very viability of our economy depends upon the opportunity of our children to flourish. We clearly can not afford to ignore the needs of our children. But if we are serious about passing a meaningful balanced budget amendment, then we must reject efforts to dismantle that effort through piecemeal exclusions of programs, however worthy the particular program. I fear that such exemptions will lead to a cascade of further exemptions and ultimately leave little room to create a truly fair and balanced budget. That is exactly the scenario that has caused us to get to a 4 trillion dollar Federal debt. I have sought to protect funding for child care resources, public health and education and will continue to do so in the context of a balanced budget. When it comes to the annual appropriations process, of which I am an active participant as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I will remain front and center fighting to protect children's programs. But as a supporter of the balanced budget amendment, I must object to blanket exclusions. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to take just a few moments to comment on the Prohibition of Incentives for Relocation Act, introduced yesterday by my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold. I strongly support and am an original cosponsor of this legislation, the passage of which is of great importance to workers in Wisconsin and all across the country. For the third consecutive Congress, we have introduced this legislation to amend the Housing and Community Development Act to prohibit the use of Federal funds, directly or indirectly, for business relocation activities that encourage States and communities to steal jobs from one another. My background is in business. I know well that in today's tough economic environment, it is commonplace for businesses to relocate or downsize their operations in order to maintain a competitive edge. In so doing, some choose to leave one location in favor of another location in a different State. However painful, mobility and adaptability have become important business survival tactics. But there's a catch: in some instances, relocation activities have been partially subsidized or underwritten by Federal funds. In other words, while it appeared that Federal moneys were fueling job creation in one community, the flip side of the coin revealed that those moneys were fueling job losses elsewhere. Mr. President, that is just plain wrong; wrong in terms of fairness; wrong because it violates the spirit of the law. And it's public policy without vision: if States start fighting each other for jobs, instead of creating employment opportunities from the ground up, any regional or national economic cooperation will be lost. This issue was first brought to our attention in 1994 when Briggs & Stratton Corporation announced plans to relocate 2,000 jobs from Milwaukee to other locations, including two that had used Federal community development funds to expand their operations. We introduced this legislation then, and in 1995 a version of the bill was adopted as an amendment to an appropriations bill. Although our amendment was dropped in conference, the final bill did include language requesting that the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] report to Congress on the costs and benefits of maintaining an information database on this issue. We are still waiting for HUD's report, but the need to act is no less significant today than it was in 1994. In fact, in December 1996, the Wisconsin State Journal reported that the communications director for the Michigan Jobs Commission had stated, and I quote, ``we will aggressively pursue Wisconsin companies for relocation into Michigan.'' Mr. President, we were disheartened by Michigan's attitude to say the least, and we contacted then-HUD Secretary Cisneros, Assistant Secretary Singerman at the Economic Development Administration [EDA] and Administrator Lader at the Small Business Administration [SBA] to urge all three to be vigilant when distributing Federal funds. We wanted to be sure that their agencies were not inadvertently encouraging Michigan to steal jobs from Wisconsin. I am pleased to report that Assistant Secretary Singerman responded by affirming EDA's sensitivity to the issue and want to add that both EDA and SBA are already governed by antijob piracy provisions. We are simply proposing that these types of provisions govern HUD programs as well. Our attention to this matter is imperative. Community development for all Americans is best achieved by promoting new growth, rather than promoting job raids between hard-pressed communities. I urge my colleagues to take this issue seriously by acting upon this legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation to address a matter of great concern to all dairy farmers in the Nation-- the lack of a credible milk-pricing system. Though there are many aspects of the milk-pricing system in need of reform, the legislation that I am introducing today seeks to address concerns about the potential for manipulation on the National Cheese Exchange [NCE] in Green Bay, WI, and the influence of the NCE on farmers' milk prices. Last year, a 3-year study funded by USDA, and conducted by economists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, highlighted the flaws of the National Cheese Exchange. Specifically, the report showed that although less than 1 percent of the nation's cheese is traded on the exchange, the price resulting from the exchange's weekly trading sessions acts as a reference price for nearly 95 percent of the commercial bulk cheese sales in the country. Further, the NCE price is also used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a factor in calculating the monthly minimum price that farmers receive for their milk. The report raised serious concerns about the appropriateness of allowing a market that is as thinly traded, highly concentrated, unregulated, and subject to manipulation as the NCE to have such extreme influence over farmers' milk checks and national cheese prices. Since the report was released, a great deal of time has been devoted to a discussion of whether certain companies or cooperatives have intentionally manipulated the exchange. I personally asked the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to review the report, to determine if any antitrust laws had been violated. While I am not convinced that either agency gave much attention to the matter, both replied that they saw no sign of illegality in the activities by large traders on the NCE. While these questions of legality and manipulation are valid, they are questions that may never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction. Ultimately what I believe to be the most important exercise is to find a market that will be more reflective of supply and demand, and to eliminate any potential for manipulation in price discovery. Farmers and consumers alike deserve to know that markets are fair and aboveboard. With that goal in mind, my colleagues from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold and Congressman Obey, and I have worked continuously on several initiatives to create and promote alternative price discovery mechanisms, and to urge Federal and State regulatory agencies to exercise any authorities they might have to oversee the operations of the exchange. Need for an Alternative Cash Market for Cheese With regard to the possible establishment of alternative cash markets for cheese, several months ago, Senator Feingold and I asked the Coffee, Sugar, and Cocoa Exchange [CSCE] to explore the possibility of establishing such an alternative. The CSCE, which already trades futures contracts for cheese, is regulated by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and imposes strict self-regulatory guidelines on its traders as well. Further, there is some hope that the establishment of cash market for cheese on the CSCE, and the more direct connection to the existing cheese futures trading business, would lead to an increased volume of trading on both the cash and futures markets for cheese. I have been very pleased to see that the CSCE is seriously considering our proposal, and is actively exploring the possibility of creating a cash market for cheese in the near term. While there is no guarantee that such a market will be successful, it is my hope that the CSCE leadership will opt to establish such a market, and will establish and enforce guidelines to assure that the new market does not merely mimic the flaws of the National Cheese Exchange. However, even if the CSCE decides to establish an alternative market for cheese, it will be some time before the influence of the National Cheese Exchange over farmers' milk prices and national cheese prices is diminished. Therefore, I have tried to deal with that problem directly and immediately. Efforts to Reduce the Influence of the NCE on Farmers' Milk Prices First, since I believe that it is inappropriate for an unregulated and thinly traded market like the NCE to be used in setting farmers' milk prices, I and other members of the Wisconsin congressional delegation have asked Secretary Glickman to delink the NCE from the calculation of the basic formula price [BFP]. Therefore, I was very pleased last week when Secretary Glickman announced a 60-day comment period to solicit comments about whether to delink the NCE from the calculation of the BFP. I am hopeful that this process will free farmers' milk checks from the direct connection to NCE within a few short months. But even if the Secretary decides to eliminate the direct link between the NCE price and the basic formula price, farmers' milk prices will still be indirectly linked to the NCE, as long as industry leaders continue to use the NCE as a reference price for forward contracts for bulk cheese. Since cheese is such a dominant end product for milk, especially in Wisconsin, as long as cheese prices are set off the NCE, the NCE will be remain a major factor in milk prices. That is why, in the long term, I believe the creation of an alternative market for cheese, which could become the new reference price for bulk cheese contracts, will be in the best interest of farmers, consumers, and cheese manufacturers. However, until that happens, we must continue in the efforts to fix some of the flaws of the National Cheese Exchange. And it is with that purpose that I am introducing the National Cheese Exchange Oversight and Improvement Act, to require the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission to oversee the activities of the NCE. Legislation Needed to Require Federal Regulatory Oversight of the NCE In October of 1996, Senator Feingold, Congressman Obey, and I wrote to the CFTC to urge them to oversee the activities of the National Cheese Exchange. This month, we received a response letter explaining that the CFTC, as a futures market regulatory agency, has very limited authority over cash markets. In the letter, CFTC Acting Director Theodore C. Barreaux states, The Commodity Exchange Act does not provide the CFTC with regulatory jurisdiction over the day-to-day operations of cash commodity markets * * * The Commodity Exchange Act does confer on the CFTC the authority to investigate possible manipulation of cash markets and to impose sanctions based on its findings, if appropriate. Historically, given the Commission's principal regulatory responsibility over futures and options markets and its relatively limited resources, the CFTC has focused its investigative attention on cash market activity that involves possible adverse impact on one or more of the numerous futures and option markets which it regulates. However, it seems very likely that the industrywide concern about the lack of viability of the cash market for cheese, is a direct factor in the reluctance of the industry to participate more fully in the trading of futures contracts for cheese on the CSCE. Therefore, I believe that the NCE does have a more direct nexus with the futures market than the CFTC is acknowledging. However, accepting CFTC's claim that it lacks the necessary authority to oversee or regulate the NCE, this legislation is intended to give the Commission the explicit authority to do so, at least until the Commission determines that the NCE is no longer acting as a reference price for commercial sales of bulk cheese of the NCE. While I understand the concern of the Commission that requiring CFTC regulation of cash markets would open a Pandora's box of new work for the Commission, the bill has been written in a very narrow manner, so as only to require regulation of the NCE, or other concentrated cash markets that share the specific flaws of the NCE. I believe there are certain circumstances where a cash market has such great influence over national prices, and is so subject to manipulation, that it needs to be regulated. And the cheese exchange is perhaps the best example of that. When you have a cash market that is very thinly traded, completely unregulated, and used as a reference price for both raw product prices paid to farmers and commercial end product sales, something must be done to bring some credibility to the market. It is my hope that this legislation could be attached as an amendment to the Commodity Exchange Act reauthorization, which is on the Senate Agriculture Committee agenda for early action this year. I look forward to working with Chairman Lugar, Senator Harkin, and the other members of the committee to assure that the necessary Federal oversight of the NCE is put in place. Further, I welcome my colleague Senator Feingold as an original cosponsor of this legislation, and thank Congressman Obey and other members of the Wisconsin House delegation for introducing companion legislation in the House today as well. It is very gratifying that the Wisconsin delegation is working cooperatively and constructively in advancing these necessary dairy pricing reforms. In that regard, I am also pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Milk Price Discovery Improvement Act of 1997, as introduced today by Senator Feingold. This legislation will make the U.S. Department of Agriculture an equal partner in the NCE reform efforts by: First, requiring USDA to delink the NCE opinion price from the USDA basic formula price [BFP], which establishes minimum milk prices paid to farmers; second, requires USDA to take steps to improve price discovery for cheese, in order to reduce the influence of the NCE on farmers' milk prices; and third, requires USDA to prohibit competitive practices on any cash market that may affect milk prices regulated under Federal milk marketing orders. While my legislation requires CFTC oversight of the NCE and its day- to-day rules of operation, Senator Feingold's legislation requires USDA authority to prohibit anticompetitive actions by traders on the NCE. These two roles are entirely compatible and complementary. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill summary, and the full text of the bill, be included in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I introduce the Class Action Fairness Act of 1997. This legislation is necessary to address a troubling and growing problem in class action litigation--unfair and abusive settlements that ignore the best interests of injured plaintiffs while unscrupulous defendants and attorneys reap the rewards. Let me give you an example of this situation. It involves a class action settlement that affected a constituent of mine, Martha Preston of Baraboo, WI. Ms. Preston was a member of a class action lawsuit filed in Alabama State Court against BancBoston Mortgage Corp. The suit alleged that the bank was holding an excess balance of Ms. Preston's money in her mortgage escrow account. As with many class members in this case--and in most class action lawsuits--Ms. Preston did not actually initiate the suit or even have knowledge that her mortgage company was being sued on her behalf. But a group of lawyers who claimed to represent her and all other people in a similar situation filed the suit on behalf of the class and negotiated a settlement of the suit, as they are allowed to under the law. The settlement they negotiated provided that the bank would refund the excess money that it was holding and provide a small amount of compensation to the plaintiffs for lost interest. Pursuant to the settlement, Ms. Preston received a check for $4.38 to compensate her for the interest she would have earned had the excess money been invested. A few months later, a miscellaneous disbursement of $80.94 showed up on her escrow account. That $80 went to pay the class action attorneys their fee for getting her $4.38. So Ms. Preston ended up losing $75 as the result of a lawsuit filed without her knowledge and that purported to be to her advantage. Unfortunately, Ms. Preston's losses did not end there. She was understandably upset at what happened to her. So she found an attorney who was willing to represent her pro bono. She sued the attorneys who had negotiated the agreement that cost her $75. No sooner had she sued them for what they had done, than these attorneys turned around and sued her and her pro bono attorneys in Alabama--a State she has never visited--for abuse of process and malicious prosecution and asked for $25 million in damages against her. Both of these lawsuits are ongoing; indeed the suit that Ms. Preston filed is now the subject of a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. Not only did Ms. Preston lose $75, but now as a result of trying to defend herself from being fleeced she is defending a $25 million lawsuit against her. The Preston case is especially egregious. Unfortunately it is not uncommon. The system of class action law suits has created a climate where this kind of abuse is possible. A class action is a lawsuit in which an attorney not only represents an individual plaintiff but, in addition, seeks relief for all those individuals who have suffered an injury similar to the plaintiff. For example, a suit brought against a pharmaceutical company by a person suffering from the side effects of a drug can, if the court approves it as a class action, be expanded to cover all individuals who used the drug. Often, these suits are settled. The settlement agreements provide money and/or other forms of compensation. The attorneys who brought the class action suit also get paid for their work. All class members are usually notified of the terms of the settlement and frequently--but not always--given the chance to withdraw from the agreement if they do not want to be part of it. A court must ultimately approve a settlement agreement. Many of these suits are brought and settled fairly and in good faith. Unfortunately, we also know that there are a few unscrupulous lawyers who file class actions in search of big attorney fees rather than to get compensation for victims. And the class action system does not adequately protect class members from such predatory acts. The primary problem is that the client in a class action is a diffuse group of thousands of individuals scattered across the country. The group is so diffuse that it is incapable of exercising meaningful control over the litigation. As a result, while in theory the class action lawyers must be responsive to their clients, in practice, the lawyers control all aspects of the litigation. Moreover, when a class action is settled, the amount of the attorneys fee is negotiated between the plaintiffs' lawyers and the defendants. But in most cases the fee is paid by the class members--the only party that does not have a seat at the bargaining table. In addition, class actions are now being used by defendants as a tool to limit their future liabilities. Class actions are being settled that cover all individuals exposed to a particular substance but whose injuries have not yet manifest themselves. As Prof. John Coffee of Columbia Law School has written, ``the class action is providing a means by which unsuspecting future claimants suffer the extinguishment of their claims even before they learn of their injury.'' In light of the incentives that are driving the parties, it is easy to see how the class members can be left out in the cold. Plaintiffs attorneys and corporate defendants can reach agreements that satisfy their respective interests--and even the interests of the name class plaintiffs--but that short sell the interests any class members who are not vigilantly monitoring the litigation. Although members of class actions get notices of settlements, the settlements are often written in incomprehensible legalese. Let me give you an example of a recent notice: ``The Rebate payable to the eligible member [sic] of the Open Class and the Closed Class shall be an amount equal to (i) the Average Surplus, as determined by the above subparagraph, multiplied by (ii) 50% multiplied by (iii) 3% multiplied by (a) 1 if the loan was serviced for at least 1 year but less than . . . .'' Even well trained attorneys are hard pressed to understand these notices. But these long, finely printed and intricate letters are being sent to class members. And on the basis of these notices, people's legal rights are being eliminated and in cases like Ms. Preston's they are being injured. We all know that class action suits can result in significant and important benefits for class members and for our society. Class actions have been used to desegregate racially divided schools, to obtain redress for victims of employment discrimination, and to compensate individuals exposed to toxic chemicals or defective products. Class actions increase access to our civil justice system because they enable people to pursue claims that collectively that would otherwise be too expensive to litigate. The difficulty in any effort to improve a basically good system is in weeding out the abuses without causing undue damage. The legislation I propose attempts to do this. It does not limit anyone's ability to file a class action or to settle a class action. It seeks to address the problem in two ways. First, it requires that State attorneys general be notified about potential class action settlements that would affect residents of their states. With this systematic notification in place, the attorneys general can intervene in cases where they think the settlements are unfair. Second, the legislation requires that class members be notified of a potential settlement in clear, easily understood English--not legal jargon. Let me emphasize the limited scope of this measure: we do not require that State attorney generals do anything with the notice that they receive. No obligations are imposed upon them at all, although we are hopeful that they will act when appropriate. Moreover, we do not give the attorneys general any new or special rights to intervene in the settlements. They must work within current law. The simple goal of this legislation is to provide better information and better consumer protection through greater knowledge. We do not want to close the courthouse door to meritorious cases, but merely assure that people are provided with meaningful information so that they can defend themselves. 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 offer the Sunshine in Litigation Act, a measure that addresses the growing abuse of secrecy orders issued by our Federal courts. All too often our Federal courts allow vital information that is discovered in litigation--and which directly bears on public health and safety--to be covered up, to be shielded from people whose lives are potentially at stake, and from the public officials we have asked to protect our health and safety. All this happens because of the use of so-called protective orders-- really gag orders issued by courts--that are designed to keep information discovered in the course of litigation secret and undisclosed. Typically, injured victims agree to a defendant's request to keep lawsuit information secret. They agree because defendants threaten that, without secrecy, they will refuse to pay a settlement. Victims cannot afford to take such chances. And while courts in these situations actually have the legal authority to deny requests for secrecy, typically they do not--because both sides have agreed, and judges have other matters they prefer to attend to. So judges are regularly and frequently entering these protective orders, using the power of the Federal Government to keep people in the dark about the dangers they face. The measure that I am introducing today will bring crucial information out of the darkness and into the light. The measure amends rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to require that judges weigh the impact on public health and safety before approving these secrecy orders. It is simple, effective, and straightforward. The Judiciary Committee reported out identical legislation last Congress by a bipartisan 11 to 7 majority. Our bill essentially codifies what is already the practice of the best judges. In cases that do not affect public health safety, existing practice would continue, and courts could still issue protective orders as they do today. But in cases affecting public health and safety courts would apply a balancing test: they could permit secrecy only if the need for privacy outweighs the public's need to know about potential health or safety hazards. Moreover, courts could not, under this measure, issue protective orders that would prevent disclosures to regulatory agencies. Although the law may result in some small additional burden on judges, a little extra work from judges seems a tiny price to pay for protecting blameless people from dangers. Every day, in the course of litigation, judges make tough calls about how to construe the public interest and interpret other laws that Congress passes. I am confident that the courts will administer this law fairly and sensibly. If this requires extra work, then the work is well worth it. After all no one argues that spoiled meat should be let out on the market because stricter regulations mean more work for FDA meat inspectors. The problem of excessive secrecy orders in cases involving public health and safety has been apparent for many years. The Judiciary Committee first held hearings on this issue in 1990. ``Court Secrecy,'' Hearings before the Subcommittee. On Courts and Administrative Practice, Committee on the Judiciary, May 17, 1990, 101st Congress, 2d Session. The committee held hearings again in 1994. In 1990, Arthur Bryant, the executive director of Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, told us: ``The one thing we learned * * * is that this problem is far more egregious than we ever imagined. It goes the length and depth of this country, and the frank truth is that much of civil litigation in this country is taking place in secret.'' Four years later, the attorney Gerry Spence told us about 19 cases he had been involved in in which his clients had to sign secrecy agreements. They included cases involving defects in a hormonal pregnancy test that caused severe birth defect, a defective braking system of a steam roller, and an improperly manufactured tire rim. Individual examples of this problem abound. For over a decade, Miracle Recreation, a U.S. playground equipment company, marketed a merry-go-round that caused serious injuries to scores of small children--including severed fingers and feet. Lawsuits brought against the manufacturer were confidentially settled, preventing the public and the Consumer Products Safety Commission from learning about the hazard. It took more than a decade for regulators to discover the hazard and for the company to recall the merry-go-round. There are yet more cases like these. In 1973, GM began marketing vehicles with dangerously-placed fuel tanks that tended to rupture, burn, and explode on impact more frequently than regular tanks. Soon after these vehicles hit the American road, tragic accidents began occurring, and lawsuits were filed. More than 150 lawsuits were settled confidentially by GM. For years, this secrecy prevented the public from learning of the dangers of these vehicles--6 million of which are still on the road. It wasn't until a trial in 1993 that the public began learning of the dangers of GM sidesaddle gas tanks and the GM crash test data which demonstrated these dangers. Another case involves Fred Barbee, a Wisconsin resident whose wife, Carol, died because of a defective heart valve. Mr. Barbee told us that months and years before his wife died, the valve manufacturer had quietly, without public knowledge, settled dozens of lawsuits in which the valve's defects were demonstrated. So when Mrs. Barbee's valve malfunctioned, she rushed to a health clinic in Spooner, WI, thinking, as did her doctors, that she was suffering from a heart attack. Ignorant of the evidence that her valve was defective, Mrs. Barbee was misdiagnosed. Mrs. Barbee was treated incorrectly and died. To this day, Mr. Barbee believes that but for the secret settlement of heart valve lawsuits, he and his wife would have been aware of the valve defect, and his wife would be alive today. At the 1994 Judiciary Committee hearing, we heard from a family which I must call the Does because they are under a secrecy order and were afraid to use their own names when talking to us and to our committee. The Does were the victims of tragic medical malpractice that resulted in serious brain damage to their child. A friend of the Does is using the same doctor, but Mrs. Doe is terrified of saying anything to her friend for fear of violating the secrecy order that governed her lawsuit settlement. Mrs. Doe is afraid that if she talks, the defendant in her case will suspend the ongoing settlement payments that allow her to care for her injured child. What sort of court system prohibits a woman from telling her friend that her child might be in danger? And the more disturbing question is this: What other secrets are currently held under lock and key which could be saving lives if they were made public? Mr. President, having said all this, I must in fairness recognize that there is another side to this problem. Privacy is a cherished possession, and business information is an important commodity. For this reason, the courts must, in some cases, keep trade secrets and other business information confidential. The goal of this measure I have introduced is to ensure that courts do not carelessly and automatically sanction secrecy when the health and safety of the American public is at stake. At the same time, it will still allow defendants to obtain secrecy orders when the need for privacy is significant and substantial. To attack the problem of excessive court secrecy is not to attack the business community. Most of the time, businesses seek protective orders for legitimate reasons. And although a few opponents of product liability reform may dispute that businesses care about public health and safety, we know that they do. Business people want to know about dangerous and defective products, and they want regulatory agencies to have the information necessary to protect the public. The Sunshine in Litigation Act is a simple effort to protect the safety of the American people. Its benefits far outweigh any of the worst imaginable disadvantages. And the longer we wait to enact the legislation, the more people are put at risk. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I introduce the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1997. Along with Senator Shelby and Congressmen Hyde and Schumer, I introduced the original Child Support Recovery Act in 1992, and today Senator DeWine and I are pleased to introduce a measure that will toughen the original law to ensure that more serious crimes receive more serious punishment. In so doing, we can send a clear message to deadbeat dads and moms: ignore the law, ignore your responsibilities, and you will pay a high price. In other words, pay up or go to jail. Current law already makes it a Federal offense to willfully fail to pay child support obligations to a child in another State if the obligation has remained unpaid for longer than a year or is greater than $5,000. However, current law provides for a maximum of just 6 months in prison for a first offense, and a maximum of 2 years for a second offense. A first offense, however--no matter how egregious--is not a felony under current law. Police officers and prosecutors have used the current law effectively, but they have found that current misdemeanor penalties do not adequately deal with more serious cases--those cases in which parents move from State to State to intentionally evade child support penalties, or fail to pay child support obligations for more than 2 years--serious cases that deserve serious, felony punishment. In response to these concerns, President Clinton has drafted legislation that would address this problem, and we are pleased to introduce it today. This new effort builds on past successes achieved through bipartisan work. In the 4 years since the original deadbeat parents legislation was signed into law by President Bush, collections have increased by nearly 50 percent, from $8 to $11.8 billion, and we should be proud of that increase. Moreover, a new national database has helped identify 60,000 delinquent fathers, over half of whom owed money to women on welfare. Nevertheless, there is much more we can do. It has been estimated that if delinquent parents fully paid up their child support, approximately 800,000 women and children could be taken off the welfare rolls. So our new legislation cracks down on the worst violators, and makes clear that intentional or long-term evasion of child support responsibilities will not receive a slap on the wrist. In so doing, it will help us continue the fight to ensure that every child receives the parental support they deserve. Mr. President, with this bill we have a chance to make a difference in the lives of families across the country. So I look forward to working with my colleagues to give police and prosecutors the tools they need to effectively pursue individuals who seek to avoid their family obligations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Sunshine in Litigation Act, a measure that addresses the growing abuse of secrecy orders issued by our Federal courts. All too often our Federal courts allow vital information that is discovered in litigation--and which directly bears on public health and safety--to be covered up, to be shielded from people whose lives are potentially at stake, and from the public officials we have asked to protect our health and safety. All this happens because of the use of so-called protective orders-- really gag orders issued by courts--that are designed to keep information discovered in the course of litigation secret and undisclosed. Typically, injured victims agree to a defendant's request to keep lawsuit information secret. They agree because defendants threaten that, without secrecy, they will refuse to pay a settlement. Victims cannot afford to take such chances. And while courts in these situations actually have the legal authority to deny requests for secrecy, typically they do not--because both sides have agreed, and judges have other matters they prefer to attend to. So judges are regularly and frequently entering these protective orders, using the power of the Federal Government to keep people in the dark about the dangers they face. The measure that I am introducing today will bring crucial information out of the darkness and into the light. The measure amends rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to require that judges weigh the impact on public health and safety before approving these secrecy orders. It is simple, effective, and straightforward. The Judiciary Committee reported out identical legislation last Congress by a bipartisan 11 to 7 majority. Our bill essentially codifies what is already the practice of the best judges. In cases that do not affect public health safety, existing practice would continue, and courts could still issue protective orders as they do today. But in cases affecting public health and safety courts would apply a balancing test: they could permit secrecy only if the need for privacy outweighs the public's need to know about potential health or safety hazards. Moreover, courts could not, under this measure, issue protective orders that would prevent disclosures to regulatory agencies. Although the law may result in some small additional burden on judges, a little extra work from judges seems a tiny price to pay for protecting blameless people from dangers. Every day, in the course of litigation, judges make tough calls about how to construe the public interest and interpret other laws that Congress passes. I am confident that the courts will administer this law fairly and sensibly. If this requires extra work, then the work is well worth it. After all no one argues that spoiled meat should be let out on the market because stricter regulations mean more work for FDA meat inspectors. The problem of excessive secrecy orders in cases involving public health and safety has been apparent for many years. The Judiciary Committee first held hearings on this issue in 1990. ``Court Secrecy,'' Hearings before the Subcommittee. On Courts and Administrative Practice, Committee on the Judiciary, May 17, 1990, 101st Congress, 2d Session. The committee held hearings again in 1994. In 1990, Arthur Bryant, the executive director of Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, told us: ``The one thing we learned * * * is that this problem is far more egregious than we ever imagined. It goes the length and depth of this country, and the frank truth is that much of civil litigation in this country is taking place in secret.'' Four years later, the attorney Gerry Spence told us about 19 cases he had been involved in in which his clients had to sign secrecy agreements. They included cases involving defects in a hormonal pregnancy test that caused severe birth defect, a defective braking system of a steam roller, and an improperly manufactured tire rim. Individual examples of this problem abound. For over a decade, Miracle Recreation, a U.S. playground equipment company, marketed a merry-go-round that caused serious injuries to scores of small children--including severed fingers and feet. Lawsuits brought against the manufacturer were confidentially settled, preventing the public and the Consumer Products Safety Commission from learning about the hazard. It took more than a decade for regulators to discover the hazard and for the company to recall the merry-go-round. There are yet more cases like these. In 1973, GM began marketing vehicles with dangerously-placed fuel tanks that tended to rupture, burn, and explode on impact more frequently than regular tanks. Soon after these vehicles hit the American road, tragic accidents began occurring, and lawsuits were filed. More than 150 lawsuits were settled confidentially by GM. For years, this secrecy prevented the public from learning of the dangers of these vehicles--6 million of which are still on the road. It wasn't until a trial in 1993 that the public began learning of the dangers of GM sidesaddle gas tanks and the GM crash test data which demonstrated these dangers. Another case involves Fred Barbee, a Wisconsin resident whose wife, Carol, died because of a defective heart valve. Mr. Barbee told us that months and years before his wife died, the valve manufacturer had quietly, without public knowledge, settled dozens of lawsuits in which the valve's defects were demonstrated. So when Mrs. Barbee's valve malfunctioned, she rushed to a health clinic in Spooner, WI, thinking, as did her doctors, that she was suffering from a heart attack. Ignorant of the evidence that her valve was defective, Mrs. Barbee was misdiagnosed. Mrs. Barbee was treated incorrectly and died. To this day, Mr. Barbee believes that but for the secret settlement of heart valve lawsuits, he and his wife would have been aware of the valve defect, and his wife would be alive today. At the 1994 Judiciary Committee hearing, we heard from a family which I must call the Does because they are under a secrecy order and were afraid to use their own names when talking to us and to our committee. The Does were the victims of tragic medical malpractice that resulted in serious brain damage to their child. A friend of the Does is using the same doctor, but Mrs. Doe is terrified of saying anything to her friend for fear of violating the secrecy order that governed her lawsuit settlement. Mrs. Doe is afraid that if she talks, the defendant in her case will suspend the ongoing settlement payments that allow her to care for her injured child. What sort of court system prohibits a woman from telling her friend that her child might be in danger? And the more disturbing question is this: What other secrets are currently held under lock and key which could be saving lives if they were made public? Mr. President, having said all this, I must in fairness recognize that there is another side to this problem. Privacy is a cherished possession, and business information is an important commodity. For this reason, the courts must, in some cases, keep trade secrets and other business information confidential. The goal of this measure I have introduced is to ensure that courts do not carelessly and automatically sanction secrecy when the health and safety of the American public is at stake. At the same time, it will still allow defendants to obtain secrecy orders when the need for privacy is significant and substantial. To attack the problem of excessive court secrecy is not to attack the business community. Most of the time, businesses seek protective orders for legitimate reasons. And although a few opponents of product liability reform may dispute that businesses care about public health and safety, we know that they do. Business people want to know about dangerous and defective products, and they want regulatory agencies to have the information necessary to protect the public. The Sunshine in Litigation Act is a simple effort to protect the safety of the American people. Its benefits far outweigh any of the worst imaginable disadvantages. And the longer we wait to enact the legislation, the more people are put at risk. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I introduce the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1997. Along with Senator Shelby and Congressmen Hyde and Schumer, I introduced the original Child Support Recovery Act in 1992, and today Senator DeWine and I are pleased to introduce a measure that will toughen the original law to ensure that more serious crimes receive more serious punishment. In so doing, we can send a clear message to deadbeat dads and moms: ignore the law, ignore your responsibilities, and you will pay a high price. In other words, pay up or go to jail. Current law already makes it a Federal offense to willfully fail to pay child support obligations to a child in another State if the obligation has remained unpaid for longer than a year or is greater than $5,000. However, current law provides for a maximum of just 6 months in prison for a first offense, and a maximum of 2 years for a second offense. A first offense, however--no matter how egregious--is not a felony under current law. Police officers and prosecutors have used the current law effectively, but they have found that current misdemeanor penalties do not adequately deal with more serious cases--those cases in which parents move from State to State to intentionally evade child support penalties, or fail to pay child support obligations for more than 2 years--serious cases that deserve serious, felony punishment. In response to these concerns, President Clinton has drafted legislation that would address this problem, and we are pleased to introduce it today. This new effort builds on past successes achieved through bipartisan work. In the 4 years since the original deadbeat parents legislation was signed into law by President Bush, collections have increased by nearly 50 percent, from $8 to $11.8 billion, and we should be proud of that increase. Moreover, a new national database has helped identify 60,000 delinquent fathers, over half of whom owed money to women on welfare. Nevertheless, there is much more we can do. It has been estimated that if delinquent parents fully paid up their child support, approximately 800,000 women and children could be taken off the welfare rolls. So our new legislation cracks down on the worst violators, and makes clear that intentional or long-term evasion of child support responsibilities will not receive a slap on the wrist. In so doing, it will help us continue the fight to ensure that every child receives the parental support they deserve. Mr. President, with this bill we have a chance to make a difference in the lives of families across the country. So I look forward to working with my colleagues to give police and prosecutors the tools they need to effectively pursue individuals who seek to avoid their family obligations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Child Care Infrastructure Act. This legislation is designed to give incentives to private companies to get involved in the provision of quality child care. I introduced the bill as S. 2088 late last year, and I intend to make its passage this year one of my highest priorities. My bill responds to the challenges presented by the landmark welfare legislation enacted last Congress. And it responds to the fundamental changes in the American economy that have led to parents entering the work force in record numbers. The Child Care Infrastructure Act 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 credit will sunset after 3 years. The credit goes to employers who engage in activities like: Building and subsidizing an entire child care center on the site of a company or near it; participating, along with other businesses, in setting up and running a child care center jointly; contracting with a child care facility to provide a set number of places to employees--this gives existing centers the steady cash flow they need to survive, or it can give a startup center the steady income it needs to get off the ground; contracting with a resource and referral agency to provide services such as placement or the design of a network of local child care providers. This legislation 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 need for quality child care is certainly apparent. As real wages have stagnated over the last decade, many families have adapted by having two wage earners per family. Also, over the same period, the number of children living in mother-only families has increased--in 1950, 6 percent of all children lived in mother-only families; in 1994, that number was 24 percent. In my home State of Wisconsin, 67 percent of women with children under 6 years old are in the work force according to Children's Defense Fund. And in Milwaukee County, about 56 percent of children under the age of 6 have both parents in the work force or their sole parent in the work force. That translates into about 67,600 children under the age of 6 in that county who right now are already in need of or in child care. With the passage of the welfare reform law, and the implementation of W-2, Wisconsin's welfare reform State plan, the need for child care will become even greater. A recent report done for the Community Coordinated Child Care of Milwaukee found that the implementation of W- 2 will lead to the need for over 8,000 new full-time child care slots in Milwaukee County alone. Wisconsin is not unique in facing this overwhelming shortage of child care slots. Across the Nation, States and communities are facing the same issue. Where are our youngest children going to spend the day while their parents are at work? This is not the sort of market shortage we can or should address haphazardly. There is nothing less at stake than the welfare of our children. Study after study has found the enormous importance of early childhood education and care--and by early education, the experts mean the education of 0 to 4 year olds. One University of Chicago researcher has claimed that intelligence appears to develop as much during the years 0 to 4 as it does from the years 4 to 18. If we are simply warehousing kids in these early years, we are going to not only hamper their ability to develop fulfilling and productive lives, but we are hurting ourselves. We are resigning ourselves to trying to solve educational and developmental problems--at great expense--for the rest of these children's lives. As obvious as this point may seem, the desperate need for quality early child care is not a problem that this Nation has addressed. As a Nation--and I mean Federal, State, local, and private resources--over the last 10 years, we have doubled our expenditures on educating 5 to 25 year olds to $500 billion. Contrast that with the mere $4 billion we are spending on Head Start, and 95 percent of that is on children 3, 4, and 5 years old. Only $100 million out of $500 billion is spent on the period when the most significant development takes place--that's one- fifth of one thousandth of what we spend on ages 5 through 25. Obviously, our investment in children has not kept up with what we now know about how children learn and develop in their earliest year. There is another reason to care about the supply of quality child care--especially for businesses to care about quality child care. Employees who are happy with their child care situations are better employees. They are more productive, have less absenteeism, and are more loyal to their company. Clearly, there is a shortage of quality child care, and equally clearly, there is a benefit to the private sector if they are involved in solving that shortage. The approach I take in my legislation is to try to encourage private businesses to undertake activities that would increase the supply of quality child care. The legislation gives flexibility to businesses that want to get involved in providing child care for their employee's dependents. Though the shortage of quality child care is definitely a national problem, it does have uniquely local solutions. What sort of child care infrastructure works best in a community is going to depend on the sort of work that community does--whether there are many part-time or odd hour shifts, whether the local economy has a few very large employers or a lot of small employers, or some mix. My legislation includes a tax incentive that would allow many different kinds of businesses to take advantage of it--and that would allow them to be as creative as possible. The 21st century economy will be one in which more of us are working, and more of us are trying to balance work and family. How well we adjust to that balance will determine how strong we are as an economy and as a Nation of families. My legislation is an attempt to encourage businesses to play an active role in this deeply important transition. In the 1950's, Federal, State, local governments, communities, and businesses banded together to build a highway system that is the most impressive in the world. Those roads allowed our economy to flourish and our people to move safely and quickly to work. In the 1990's, we need the same sort of national, comprehensive effort to build safe and affordable child care for our children. As more and more parents--of all income levels--move into the work force, they need access to quality child care just as much as their parents needed quality highways to drive to work. And if we are successful--and I plan to be successful--in the 21st century excellent child care will be as common as interstate highways. 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. My legislation is a first, essential step toward this end. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, one of the basic tenets upon which this Nation was founded was that there should be no taxation without representation. But the dairy farmers of this nation know all too well that taxation without representation continues today. They live with that reality in their businesses every day. Dairy farmers are required to pay a 15 cent tax, in the form of an assessment, on every hundred pounds of milk that they sell. This tax goes to fund dairy promotion activities, such as those conducted by the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board, commonly known as the National Dairy Board. Yet these same farmers that pay hundreds, or in some cases thousands, of dollars every year for these mandatory promotion activities have no direct say over who represents them on that Board. In the summer of 1993, a national referendum was held giving dairy producers the opportunity to vote on whether or not the National Dairy Board should continue. The referendum was held after 16,000 dairy producers, more than 10 percent of dairy farmers nationwide, signed a petition to the Secretary of Agriculture calling for the referendum. Farmers signed this petition for a number of reasons. Some felt they could no longer afford the promotion assessment that is taken out of their milk checks every month. Others were frustrated with what they perceived to be a lack of clear benefits from the promotion activities. And still others were alarmed by certain promotion activities undertaken by the Board with which they did not agree. But overriding all of these concerns was the fact that dairy farmers have no direct power over the promotion activities which they fund from their own pockets. When the outcome of the referendum on continuing the National Dairy Board was announced, it had passed overwhelmingly. But because nearly 90 percent of all votes cast in favor of continuing the Board were cast by bloc-voting cooperatives, there has been skepticism among dairy farmers about the validity of the vote. While I believe that dairy promotion activities are important for enhancing markets for dairy products, it matters more what dairy farmers believe. After all, they are the ones who pay hundreds or thousands of dollars every year for these promotion activities. And they are the ones who have no direct say over who represents them on that Board. It is for this reason that I rise today to reintroduce the National Dairy Promotion Reform Act of 1997. Some in the dairy industry have argued that this issue is dead, and that to reintroduce such legislation will only reopen old wounds. But I must respectfully disagree. The intent of this legislation is not to rehash the referendum debate, which was a contentious one. Instead, the intent is to look forward. Farmers in my state have traditionally been strong supporters of the cooperative movement, because the cooperative business structure has given them the opportunity to be equal partners in the businesses that market their products and supply their farms. I have been a strong supporter of the cooperative movement for the same reason. But there is a growing dissention among farmers that I believe is dangerous to the long-term viability of agricultural cooperatives. As I talk to farmers around Wisconsin, I hear a growing concern that their voices are not being heard by their cooperatives. They frequently cite the 1993 National Dairy Board referendum as an example. The bill that I am reintroducing today seeks to address one small part of that concern, by giving dairy farmers a more direct role in the selection of their representatives on the National Dairy Board. Whereas current law requires that members of the National Dairy Board be appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture, this legislation would require that the Board be an elected body. Further, although the legislation would continue the right of farmer cooperatives to nominate individual members to be on the ballot, bloc voting by cooperatives would be prohibited for the purposes of the election itself. There are many issues for which the cooperatives can and should represent their members. But on this issue, farmers ought to speak for themselves. It is my hope that this legislation will help restore the confidence of the U.S. dairy farmer in dairy promotion. To achieve that confidence, farmers need to know that they have direct power over their representatives on the Board. This bill gives them that power. I welcome my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, as an original cosponsor of this bill, and I am also pleased to join today as an original cosponsor of two pieces of legislation that he is introducing today, as well. Senator Feingold's two bills would make other needed improvements in the national dairy promotion program. Specifically, one bill would require that imported dairy products be subject to the same dairy promotion assessment as are paid on domestic dairy products today. The other would prohibit the practice of bloc voting by cooperatives for the purpose of any future farmer referenda regarding the National Dairy Board. I thank my colleague Senator Feingold for his efforts on these matters, and I believe that our three bills provide dairy promotion program reforms that are both complementary and necessary. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill and summary be included in the Record.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Family Farm Retirement Equity Act of 1995, a bill to help improve the retirement security of our nation's farmers. As we begin the 105th Congress, we can anticipate legislative action dealing with pension reform and the tax treatment of retirement savings. In his 1996 State of the Union address, President Clinton mentioned his concerns about the retirement security of farmers and ranchers, and many of us in Congress have sought to address this concern, as well. Last year, Congress passed the 1996 farm bill, bringing sweeping changes to the traditional farm support programs, and greatly affecting the income side of the average farmer's financial sheet. But it is equally important that we address the other side of the farmers' financial equation--the cost side. And some of the biggest costs that farmers face are the costs associated with retirement planning. In fact, those costs are sometimes so monumental that farmers reach retirement age without having made the appropriate provisions for their security. In the last Congress, efforts were made to address the financial concerns of retiring farmers and ranchers. In fact, the Senate version of the 1995 Budget Reconciliation Act included the legislation that I am reintroducing today, the Family Farm Retirement Equity Act. Unfortunately, that important provision did not survive the conference negotiations between House and Senate budget leaders. It is my hope that we will be able to revisit this matter this year, and address this growing concern in rural America. Farming is a highly capital-intensive business. To the extent that the average farmer reaps any profits from his or her farming operation, much of that income is directly reinvested into the farm. Rarely are there opportunities for farmers to put money aside in individual retirement accounts. Instead, farmers tend to rely on the sale of their accumulated capital assets, such as real estate, livestock, and machinery, in order to provide the income to sustain them during retirement. All too often, farmers are finding that the lump-sum payments of capital gains taxes levied on those assets leave little for retirement. The legislation that I am reintroducing today would provide retiring farmers the opportunity to rollover the proceeds from the sale of their farms into a tax-deferred retirement account. Instead of paying a large lump-sum capital gains tax at the point of sale, the income from the sale of a farm would be taxed only as it is withdrawn from the retirement account. Such a change in method of taxation would help prevent the financial distress that many farmers now face upon retirement. Another concern that I have about rural America is the diminishing interest of our younger rural citizens in continuing in farming. Because this legislation will facilitate the transition of our older farmers into a successful retirement, the Family Farm Retirement Equity Act will also pave the way for a more graceful transition of our younger farmers toward farm ownership. While low prices and low profits in farming will continue to take their toll on our younger farmers, I believe that this will be one tool we can use to make farming more viable for the next generation. This proposal is supported by farmers and farm organizations throughout the country. It has been endorsed by the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Sheep Industry Association, the American Sugar Beet Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Cattleman's Beef Association, the National Corn Growers Association, National Pork Producers Council, and the Southwestern Peanut Growers Association. Further, I am very pleased that a modified version of this legislation has also been included in the Targeted Investment Incentive and Economic Growth Act of 1997, as introduced today by Minority Leader Daschle and other Senators. I look forward to swift action on that legislation, so that the working families and small businesses targeted for assistance can enjoy tax relief as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill and a summary be included in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh. UW-Oshkosh is celebrating its service to the State of Wisconsin as an institute of higher learning for 125 consecutive years and will be concluding its celebration with a large community event on February 8, 1997. The University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh has a rich tradition of serving the families of our State through dedication and devotion to the principles of higher education. UW-Oshkosh was founded in 1871 with an entering class of 43 students. During that time the university was mainly a teacher-training institution, producing thousands of teachers who contributed immensely to Wisconsin's leadership in education. Today, as part of the distinguished University of Wisconsin System, UW-Oshkosh enrolls more than 10,000 students on its campus in Fox River, WI. The university's four colleges and graduate school offer a range of programs in education and human services, letters and science, business administration, and nursing. With a tradition of strong programs in the arts and sciences and in professional career fields, the university has created an environment that promotes excellence and values diversity. In the past several years faculty and students have created a blueprint for the university's future, including a vision statement and 11 goals. Mr. President, the blueprint has been working because for the third consecutive year UW-Oshkosh ranks in the first tier of Midwestern colleges and universities by U.S. News and World Report. I hope that all of you will join me in congratulating the faculty, students, employees, and graduates of the University of Wisconsin- Oshkosh for all of their accomplishments during their 125 years of existence, and I know you will join me in wishing them well during the next 125 years.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator. We do think differently about this matter, but understand how important it was to you and to Senator Heflin that the Federal Courts Improvement Act pass this year. And I understand that if this provision regarding court secrecy, modeled on my legislation S. 374, The Sunshine in Litigation Act, were still part of S. 1887 it would keep that legislation from moving ahead. Although I believe that the problem of the excessive use of protective orders needs urgently to be addressed, I also will not let it hold up a measure so important to Senators Grassley and Heflin. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that the Judicial Committee has favorably recommended my court secrecy legislation and that this real problem will not vanish. I hope that the Judicial Conference might finally see fit to address this problem, but if it does not, I will continue to press this issue.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today, we pass the Economic Espionage Act, which is based upon legislation drafted by Senator Specter and me and, on the House side, by Representatives McCollum and Schumer. In a Congress marked by so much partisanship, this legislation marks a significant bipartisan accomplishment. With this new law, we penalize the theft of vital economic information. Since the end of the cold war, our old enemies and our traditional allies have been shifting the focus of their spy apparatus. Alarmingly, the new target of foreign espionage is our industrial base. But for too many years, we were complacent and did not heed these warnings. And we left ourselves vulnerable to the ruthless plundering of our country's vital information. We did not address this new form of espionage--a version of spying as dangerous to our national well-being as any form of classic espionage. Today, that complacency ends. Mr. President, this legislation is crucial. Most Americans probably do not realize that anyone with the wherewithal to do it can walk out of a company with a computer disk full of its most important manufacturing information and sell that information to the highest bidder with virtual impunity--and no criminal penalties. This problem is even worse when foreign governments have specifically focussed on American companies in order to steal information from them. American companies are not prepared or equipped to fight off this kind of systematic targeting. The executive vice president of Corning, James Riesbeck, has said that: It is important to understand that State-sponsored industrial espionage is occurring in the international business community. It is very difficult for an individual corporation to counteract this activity. The resources of any corporation are no match for industrial espionage that is sanctioned and supported by foreign governments. A report of the National Counterintelligence Center [NCIC] in 1995 indicated that biotechnology, aerospace, telecommunications, computer software, transportation, advanced materials, energy research, defense, and semiconductor companies are all top targets for foreign economic espionage. These sectors are aggressively targeted according to the report. That report identified 20 different methods used to conduct industrial espionage. The traditional methods include recruiting an agent and then inserting the agent into the target company, or breaking into an office to take equipment and information. According to the report, computer intrusions, telecommunications targeting and intercept, and private-sector encryption weaknesses account for the largest portion of economic and industrial information lost by U.S. corporations. But even as American companies are attempting to respond to foreign espionage, they also have to address theft by insiders. A survey by the American Society for Industrial Security [ASIS] of 325 companies in 1995 found that almost half of them had experienced trade secret theft of some sort during the previous 2 years. They also reported a 323- percent increase in the number of incidents of intellectual property loss. A 1988 National Institute of Justice study of trade secret theft in high-technology industries found that 48 percent of 150 research and development companies surveyed had been the victims of trade secrets theft. Almost half of the time the target was research and development data while 38 percent of the time the target was new technology. Forty percent of the victims found out about the theft from their competitors. Norman Augustine, the president of Lockheed Martin Corp., told us at our February hearings that a recent survey of aerospace companies revealed that 100 percent of them believe that a competitor, either domestic or international, has used intelligence techniques against them. And, Mr. President, make no mistake about it, economic espionage costs our country dearly. In 1992, when a representative of IBM testified at a House hearing on this issue, he told us that economic espionage had cost his company billions of dollars. The NCIC report concluded that industry victims have reported the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars, lost jobs, and lost market share. The ASIS survey concluded that the potential losses could total $63 billion a year. Because of the gap in our laws, Senator Specter and I introduced two companion measures that became the Economic Espionage Act earlier this year. This legislation will be used to go after the foreign intelligence services that take aim at American companies and at the people who walk out of businesses with millions of dollars worth of information. I will only briefly explain what we have done here because the managers' statement and the House and Senate committee reports fully and completely describe this act. This legislation makes it illegal to steal trade secrets from companies. It enhances the penalties when the theft is at the behest of a foreign government. With the help of Senator Hatch and Representatives McCollum and Schumer, we have carefully drafted these measures to ensure that they can only be used in flagrant and egregious cases of information theft. Moreover, trade secrets are carefully defined so that the general knowledge and experience that a person gains from working at a job is not covered. Mr. President, we do not want this law used to stifle the free flow of information or of people from job to job. But we built in a number of safeguards to prevent exactly these problems. They are elaborated on in the managers' statement and our committee reports. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the managers' statement be printed in the Record. It reflects our understanding on this measure.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I introduce the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1996. Along with Senator Shelby and Congressmen Hyde and Schumer, I introduced the original Child Support Recovery Act in 1992, and today I am pleased to introduce a bill that will toughen the original legislation to ensure that more serious crimes receive more serious punishment. In so doing, we can send a clear message to deadbeat dads--and moms: ignore the law, ignore your responsibilities, and you will pay a high price; that is, pay up or go to jail. Current law already makes it a Federal offense to willfully fail to pay child support obligations to a child in another State if the obligation has remained unpaid for longer than a year or is greater than $5,000. However, current law provides for a maximum of just 6 months in prison for a first offense, and a maximum of 2 years for a second offense. Police officers and prosecutors have used the current law effectively, but they have found that these penalties do not adequately deal with more serious cases--those deadbeat parents who deliberately ignore or evade the law. These are cases in which parents move from State to State to intentionally evade child support penalties, or fail to pay child support obligations for more than 2 years--serious cases that deserve serious punishment. In response to these concerns, President Clinton has drafted legislation that would address this problem, and I am pleased to introduce it today. This new effort builds on past successes achieved through bipartisan work. In the 4 years since the original deadbeat parents legislation was signed into law by President Bush, collections have increased by nearly 50 percent, from $8 billion to $11.8 billion, and we should be proud of that increase. Moreover, a new national database has helped identify 60,000 delinquent fathers, over half of whom owed money to women on welfare. Nevertheless, there is much more we can do. It has been estimated that if delinquent parents fully paid up their child support, approximately 800,000 women and children could be taken off the welfare rolls. Our legislation cracks down on the worst violators, and makes clear that intentional or long-term evasion of child support responsibilities will not receive a slap on the wrist. In so doing, it will help us continue the fight to ensure that every child receives the parental support they deserve. Mr. President, we introduce this measure today, at the end of the session, in order to provide an opportunity for review in the coming months. But when we return for the 105th Congress, it will be one of my highest priorities. So I look forward to working with my colleagues to give police and prosecutors the tools they need to effectively pursue individuals who seek to avoid their family obligations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I introduce the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1996. Along with Senator Shelby and Congressmen Hyde and Schumer, I introduced the original Child Support Recovery Act in 1992, and today I am pleased to introduce a bill that will toughen the original legislation to ensure that more serious crimes receive more serious punishment. In so doing, we can send a clear message to deadbeat dads--and moms: ignore the law, ignore your responsibilities, and you will pay a high price; that is, pay up or go to jail. Current law already makes it a Federal offense to willfully fail to pay child support obligations to a child in another State if the obligation has remained unpaid for longer than a year or is greater than $5,000. However, current law provides for a maximum of just 6 months in prison for a first offense, and a maximum of 2 years for a second offense. Police officers and prosecutors have used the current law effectively, but they have found that these penalties do not adequately deal with more serious cases--those deadbeat parents who deliberately ignore or evade the law. These are cases in which parents move from State to State to intentionally evade child support penalties, or fail to pay child support obligations for more than 2 years--serious cases that deserve serious punishment. In response to these concerns, President Clinton has drafted legislation that would address this problem, and I am pleased to introduce it today. This new effort builds on past successes achieved through bipartisan work. In the 4 years since the original deadbeat parents legislation was signed into law by President Bush, collections have increased by nearly 50 percent, from $8 billion to $11.8 billion, and we should be proud of that increase. Moreover, a new national database has helped identify 60,000 delinquent fathers, over half of whom owed money to women on welfare. Nevertheless, there is much more we can do. It has been estimated that if delinquent parents fully paid up their child support, approximately 800,000 women and children could be taken off the welfare rolls. Our legislation cracks down on the worst violators, and makes clear that intentional or long-term evasion of child support responsibilities will not receive a slap on the wrist. In so doing, it will help us continue the fight to ensure that every child receives the parental support they deserve. Mr. President, we introduce this measure today, at the end of the session, in order to provide an opportunity for review in the coming months. But when we return for the 105th Congress, it will be one of my highest priorities. So I look forward to working with my colleagues to give police and prosecutors the tools they need to effectively pursue individuals who seek to avoid their family obligations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today we enact the Gun Free School Zones Act, a measure designed to undo the damage done by Supreme Court's decision in United States versus Lopez. In that 1995 decision, the Supreme Court by a slim 5 to 4 margin struck down an earlier version of this legislation, holding that it exceeded Congress' commerce clause power in the Constitution. Today we address the Supreme Court's concerns. We do not defy them. Yet we do not let their easily addressable concerns stop us from doing what is right--doing everything we can to stop the violence in our schools. The Gun-Free School Zones Act is a commonsense, bipartisan, constitutional approach to combating violence in our schools. It bars bringing a gun within 1,000 feet of a school, with a few commonsense exceptions. We also now require in this new version that in each prosecution the Government prove that the gun ``moved in or * * * otherwise affected interstate commerce.'' This is the only change between the prior law and this new law. We enact this measure under our commerce clause authority. We have held hearings on it, and we have heard from prosecutors, law professors, teachers, and policemen. They all tell us that interstate commerce is what is causing the problem of gun violence in schools. The problem of school violence is a national one that begs for national attention. Anyone who argues that the problem is an exclusively intrastate problem is not looking at the evidence. Interstate commerce is creating this problem. Sometimes these guns get into children's hands through the efforts of nationwide gangs. One 14-year-old Madison, WI gang member told the Wisconsin State Journal that the older leaders of his gang brought carloads of guns from Chicago to the younger gang members. The Boston police recently discovered that all of the handguns being bought by gang members in one neighborhood came from Mississippi. The young man who was running guns up to Boston was arrested and shootings in the neighborhood dropped more than 60 percent, from 91 to 20. And in New York, Federal agents traced 4,000 guns seized there to a single store in Alabama. The unchecked proliferation of guns and their delivery into the hands of school-aged children is national in scope. The raw materials for guns are mined in one State, are turned into guns in another State, and are put into a child's hands in another State. The gangs that arm these children and encourage them to bring guns to school operate across State lines. These guns have infiltrated our school system and created a national crisis. A Lou Harris survey this year found that one in eight youths-- two in five in high-crime neighborhoods--reported having carried a gun for protection. One in nine said they had stayed away from school because of fear of violence. That number jumped to one in three in high crime neighborhoods. The effects of guns in schools stretches across this Nation. Schools and districts with particularly bad gun problems sink deeper and deeper into despair. They have difficulty procuring Federal aid or grants from national foundations. People will not move from out-of-state to that school area because they do not want their children in dangerous schools. Businesses will not relocate or establish themselves in areas with dangerous school zones. Finally, and perhaps most tragically, the children in those schools are prevented from learning their ABC's. All they learn is to live in terror. Children from Maine to Wisconsin to Alabama to Oregon go to school in fear--fear that they may be shot, that their school day will consist of nothing but dodging from one perilously dangerous situation to another. These children cannot learn and the educational system cannot teach. Our national economy is crippled. The Federal Government has a role to play in combating this national problem. We must put the full weight and investigative abilities of the Federal Government behind the drive to keep guns out of school. No State should be forced to stand alone in confronting this problem. Although many States have their own laws, we need a Federal law for two reasons: first, many of these State laws are inadequate; and second, a Federal law will serve as a critical support and backup system for state law enforcement officials. But before dealing with these reasons, I want to point out that the measure we pass today will not hamper, preempt, or harm the enforcement of those laws in any way whatsoever. Although State laws can help address this national problem, not every State has a law. And not every State law is adequately drafted to do the job. Moreover, in many of these States, people do not serve any time for violating the law. In Federal cases, they do. With a Federal law, we can fill in loopholes and put violators behind bars for up to 5 years. In short, the Gun-Free School Zones Act gives prosecutors the flexibility to bring violators to justice under either State or Federal statutes, whichever is appropriate--or tougher. Some States do not have laws which deal with guns in schoolyards. In addition, of the forty-plus States that have laws, almost half of them simply make it a misdemeanor to bring a gun into school. Unfortunately, that has almost no effect on a juvenile who knows that a juvenile misdemeanor record is virtually meaningless. A stiff Federal penalty means a lot more. Some of the States also have weak laws. Take, for example, Alabama. Alabama requires that the person charged have brought the gun to school with intent to do bodily harm. So you can bring a gun to school, disrupt and frighten all of the students but still get off because you did not intend to actually shoot anyone. That is unacceptable. Alabama's statute also only applies to guns on public school grounds. Private schools are uncovered, so anyone can walk into a parochial or private school with a gun and without a fear of prosecution. And there is still another reason why a Federal law is needed. We need Federal and State cooperation to deal with this problem. The States need our help. Sometimes they are overwhelmed and need backup. Other times, they want to use stiffer Federal penalties. This Gun-Free School Zones Act will not preempt a single state law. And after decades of dealing with complimentary Federal-State laws, good State and Federal prosecutors know how to coordinate their efforts--and Federal prosecutors know to step aside when the State has a stiffer law. Just ask Bob Wortham, the former Texas U.S. attorney nominated by Senator Gramm. Mr. Wortham prosecuted more people under the Gun-Free School Zones Act than anyone else. And he did it while getting rave reviews from State police, prosecutors, and teachers. This act is a modest but useful measure that surely cannot threaten our State governments. You will not hear State officials complaining about meddling Federal officials. Instead, State officials welcome Federal assistance in this area. The Gun-Free School Zones Act assures a Federal-State joint venture. Mr. President, our measure is clearly constitutional. The original Gun-Free School Zones Act was struck down in United States versus Lopez. But in drafting this proposal, we consulted with the Justice Department and a variety of legal experts who carefully scrutinized this bill and concluded it would easily pass the Lopez test. In fact, the very provision that has been inserted into the bill to make it constitutional was suggested by a section in the Chief Justice's opinion in Lopez. In a portion of that opinion, the Chief Justice noted that if the law ``contain[ed] * * * [a] jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearm possession in question affects interstate commerce,'' then the law would probably be constitutional. By requiring an explicit connection with or effect on interstate commerce, as our new law will require, Congress will be clearly regulating interstate commerce pursuant to its constitutional commerce clause power. There are many known instances of gangs traveling to other States to equip themselves with guns which they then bring into schools. That is what this bill seeks to regulate: the travel of guns through interstate commerce to our schoolhouse steps. This measure does not, as a few opponents have argued, pave the way to Federal regulation of State education. Education is first and last the business of the State governments, and so it will remain. This law does not get the Federal Government in the business of regulating schools. It simply keeps the Government in the business of controlling the interstate commerce in guns. Since this bill rests on the Federal Government's power to regulate interstate gun commerce, it cannot be used to justify Federal regulation of State education. It does not make much sense to treat a modest and sensible proposal as a major threat to the Federal-State balance. Our Founding Fathers were concerned with common sense, not with alarmist predictions about the fate of Federal-State relations. Mr. President, no one claims that our legislation is a panacea. No one claims that the violence will go away if we pass it, just as the violence did not go away when the original law was passed. But a Federal law can help. The Federal Government can step in and assist State prosecutors when they do not have the resources they need. The Federal Government can take on particularly bad offenders who will receive stiffer penalties in a Federal prosecution. Today, we have lived up to our obligation to help.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference report to H.R. 2202, legislation to combat the problem of illegal immigration. As you know, this measure has been included in the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. The conference report is an important step forward in our Nation's fight against illegal immigration to this country. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a conferee to the negotiations with the House, I am pleased to have been part of the hard work, commitment and bipartisanship that yielded this good, balanced bill, of which we can all be proud. My friends, Ted Kennedy and Alan Simpson, deserve much of the credit. Mr. President, this legislation provides the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] and other law enforcement officials with new resources to prevent aliens from entering or staying in the country illegally: 1,000 new border patrol agents for each of the next 5 years, additional INS investigators to combat alien smugglers and visa overstayers, and enhanced civil penalties for illegal entry, to name just a few. The conference report also gives the INS and businesses tools to keep American jobs and paychecks out of the hands of illegal aliens--tools to prevent illegal aliens from securing employment that rightfully belongs to American citizens or legal immigrants who have played by the rules and respect the law. Specifically, this legislation provides for three pilot programs to move us toward a workable employer verification system and a framework for the creation of more fraud resistant documents. The original Senate approach, which included more privacy and antidiscrimination protections, was preferable to the one adopted by the conference; however, the pilot projects in this bill still deserve a try. We desperately need a more effective verification system, Mr. President. Finally, I am pleased that the conference report includes my amendment on mail-order brides. This amendment launches a study of international matchmaking companies, heretofore unregulated and operating in the shadows. These companies may be exploiting people in desperate situations. The study is not aimed at the men and women who use these businesses for legitimate companionship. Instead, it is a very positive and important step toward gathering the information we need so that we can determine the extent to which these companies contribute to the very troubling problems of domestic violence against immigrant women and immigration marriage fraud. To be sure, there are provisions in this bill which I do not support. The triple fence mandate has Congress micromanaging the INS and unnecessarily waiving important environmental laws. And I regret very much that the Senate positions on summary exclusion and asylum reform did not prevail in the final compromise bill. Lastly, we could have done more to protect the integrity of the workplace, both by enhancing the Department of Labor's ability to enforce employer sanctions and by rejecting the Senate-passed ``intent standard'' which may jeopardize the rights of American citizens and legal immigrants. Despite these flaws, this bipartisan legislation deserves our support. The United States is a product of an immigration tradition marked by generosity, compassion and commitment to hard work. In adopting these important changes, we are protecting that tradition by fighting the deeds of those who wish to exploit it. Thank you. Commerce Department Appropriations

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I welcome the comments of the senior Senator from Alaska. I understand that since we first approached the Defense Subcommittee about this issue that the Defense Department has agreed to meet with a prominent national organization, Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Disorders [CHADD] to discuss these issues further. I am glad that the Department of Defense is drawing on the expertise of organizations and national experts who already have extensive knowledge about ADD and ADHD. I encourage the services to do all they can to address the needs and ensure the success of persons with ADD and ADHD in the services. combating illegal immigration: an opportunity to make a difference

Mr. KOHL. I would like to take a moment to discuss language included in the statement of the managers to the fiscal year 1997 Defense appropriations bill conference report relating to attention deficit disorder. First, I want to thank the managers, the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] and the distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] for their sensitivity in recognizing the importance of this issue. I also want to thank the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] for his work on this issue. Attention Deficit Disorder [ADD] and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder [ADHD], are neurobiological disorders characterized by inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity. In the past it was believed that these were disorders that primarily affected children. More recently, however, experts have concluded that this is not true. As many as 40 percent of children with ADD or ADHD have functionally impairing symptoms which continue into adult life. This is especially true of young males. As the managers noted, in some cases these disorders can make successful service difficult without some accommodations, especially for those who require the moderating influence of certain prescription pharmaceuticals, the use of which is prohibited by military regulations. It is important to note, however, that many individuals with ADD and ADHD serve successfully in the military and it is not our intention to bar or discourage individuals with ADD and ADHD from military service. Mr. GRAMS: I want to second the comments of my colleague, the senior Senator from Wisconsin, and I, too, want to thank the distinguished senior Senators from Alaska and Hawaii for their work in ensuring that the conferees addressed the issue of attention deficit disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in the military before they completed action on the fiscal year 1997 Defense budget. Unfortunately, it came to our attention that the services had no programs in place to educate key personnel about how to recognize and treat ADD/ADHD. We became aware of this deficiency through tragic circumstances. A constituent, Thomas Swenson of Marshfield, WI, had a son who was murdered while serving in the Navy. Aaron Swenson had ADHD. As Senator Kohl noted, in its severest form, this disorder can create a dramatic level of impulsivity, restlessness, and difficulty modulating responses to given situations. Aaron Swenson's parents believe that his ADHD--which he concealed at the time of his recruitment--made it difficult, if not impossible, for him to serve 6 years in the Navy's electronics school at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center. Further, they believe that Aaron's ADHD played a role in putting him in harm's way. There is widespread public awareness of ADD/ADHD. Yet, after his many meetings with Navy officials--some of them very senior officials-- Thomas Swenson concluded that the services have little knowledge of ADD. He subsequently met with both of us and urged us to do something to educate the services about the prevalence of ADD/ADHD among young adults, particularly as these disorders relate to potential recruits. Thus, it is our hope that this language encourages the military services to do all they can to recognize, treat, and humanely deal with recruits and service members with ADD and ADHD.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, as we reach the end of the 104th Congress, we can be proud of the business we have finished, and we should look forward to finishing the business we have just begun. In that spirit, I introduce the Child Care Infrastructure Act of 1996--a tax credit designed to encourage employers to increase the supply of quality child care by providing it to their employees. My bill responds to the challenges presented by the landmark welfare legislation recently enacted. And it responds to the fundamental changes in the American economy that have led to parents entering the workforce in record numbers. Already in my State of Wisconsin, 67 percent of the women with children under 6 are in the workforce, yet there is only 1 accredited child care center for every 2,800 of these kids. Wisconsin has 6,500 children from 4,000 families on waiting lists for child care. What is most amazing is that Wisconsin, even with this sort of supply bottleneck, is considered by many to be one of the best States in which to find quality child care. With the advent of welfare reform, and the movement of more mothers of young children into the workforce, the shortage of good child care will only get worse. Conservative estimates show that at least 8,000 new, full-time child care slots will be needed in Milwaukee County alone to provide for the children of welfare mothers moving into work. Quality child care is the answer on many levels to the challenges of an economy fueled more and more by working parents. Safe child care is the link that makes it possible for welfare mothers to move from dependency to a decent job. Stimulating child care gives our youngest children a leg up on a lifetime of learning. Employer-provided child care gives working parents the peace of mind to perform their jobs well. The Child Care Infrastructure Act of 1996 creates a tax credit for employers who get involved in increasing the supply of quality child care. The credit goes to employers who engage in activities like: building and subsidizing an entire child care center, reserving slots in a child care center for employees, or contracting with a resource and referral agency to provide services such as placement or the design of a family day care network to employees. The credit is designed so that any company --small or large--has an incentive to get involved in the provision of quality child care to its employees. The credit is limited to 50 percent of $150,000 per year. The credit will sunset after 3 years. With this legislation, I want to encourage companies to consider providing child care as an employee benefit. However, I believe, and study after study has shown, that once a company offers this benefit, they will want to continue it even without a tax write-off. That is because companies that provide child care find their workers stay in their jobs longer (cutting training costs), have higher morale, work harder, and take less sick leave. I had the opportunity during the August recess to visit Quad Graphics, a large printing firm in Wisconsin that is known for its provision of quality child care to its employees through on-site child care centers. Quad Graphics is one of Working Mothers magazine's ``100 Best Companies''--primarily because of the quality of its on-site child care centers. Talking to the parents of children at one of those centers--seeing the happy and healthy children greeting their parents on their breaks and at lunch--was all the evidence I needed to convince me that we ought to be encouraging this sort of corporate involvement nationwide. Their 24 hour facility improves the company's bottom line-- Quad Graphics is able to attract and retain dedicated employees who want a job that allows them to be near their children. And that day care center improves the participating families' bottom line as well-- many parents I spoke with told me they would not be able to work, or to work well, if they had to worry each day about whether their children were cared for, safe, and happy. The 21st century economy will be one in which more of us are working, and more of us are trying to balance work and family. How well we adjust to that balance will determine how strong we are as an economy and as a nation of families. My legislation is an attempt to encourage businesses to play an active role in this deeply important transition. In the 1950's, Federal, State, local governments, communities and businesses banded together to build a highway system that is the most impressive in the world. Those roads allowed our economy to flourish and our people to move safely and quickly to work. In the 1990's, we need the same sort of national, comprehensive effort to build safe and affordable child care for our children. As more and more parents--of all income levels--move into the work force, they need access to quality child care just as much as their parents needed quality highways to drive to work. And if we are successful--and I plan to be successful--in the 21st century excellent child care--like the care these kids are getting--will be as common as interstate highways. 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. My legislation is a first, essential step toward this end. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation and a section-by-section summary be placed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, as we reach the end of the 104th Congress, we can be proud of the business we have finished, and we should look forward to finishing the business we have just begun. In that spirit, I introduce the Child Care Infrastructure Act of 1996--a tax credit designed to encourage employers to increase the supply of quality child care by providing it to their employees. My bill responds to the challenges presented by the landmark welfare legislation recently enacted. And it responds to the fundamental changes in the American economy that have led to parents entering the workforce in record numbers. Already in my State of Wisconsin, 67 percent of the women with children under 6 are in the workforce, yet there is only 1 accredited child care center for every 2,800 of these kids. Wisconsin has 6,500 children from 4,000 families on waiting lists for child care. What is most amazing is that Wisconsin, even with this sort of supply bottleneck, is considered by many to be one of the best States in which to find quality child care. With the advent of welfare reform, and the movement of more mothers of young children into the workforce, the shortage of good child care will only get worse. Conservative estimates show that at least 8,000 new, full-time child care slots will be needed in Milwaukee County alone to provide for the children of welfare mothers moving into work. Quality child care is the answer on many levels to the challenges of an economy fueled more and more by working parents. Safe child care is the link that makes it possible for welfare mothers to move from dependency to a decent job. Stimulating child care gives our youngest children a leg up on a lifetime of learning. Employer-provided child care gives working parents the peace of mind to perform their jobs well. The Child Care Infrastructure Act of 1996 creates a tax credit for employers who get involved in increasing the supply of quality child care. The credit goes to employers who engage in activities like: building and subsidizing an entire child care center, reserving slots in a child care center for employees, or contracting with a resource and referral agency to provide services such as placement or the design of a family day care network to employees. The credit is designed so that any company --small or large--has an incentive to get involved in the provision of quality child care to its employees. The credit is limited to 50 percent of $150,000 per year. The credit will sunset after 3 years. With this legislation, I want to encourage companies to consider providing child care as an employee benefit. However, I believe, and study after study has shown, that once a company offers this benefit, they will want to continue it even without a tax write-off. That is because companies that provide child care find their workers stay in their jobs longer (cutting training costs), have higher morale, work harder, and take less sick leave. I had the opportunity during the August recess to visit Quad Graphics, a large printing firm in Wisconsin that is known for its provision of quality child care to its employees through on-site child care centers. Quad Graphics is one of Working Mothers magazine's ``100 Best Companies''--primarily because of the quality of its on-site child care centers. Talking to the parents of children at one of those centers--seeing the happy and healthy children greeting their parents on their breaks and at lunch--was all the evidence I needed to convince me that we ought to be encouraging this sort of corporate involvement nationwide. Their 24 hour facility improves the company's bottom line-- Quad Graphics is able to attract and retain dedicated employees who want a job that allows them to be near their children. And that day care center improves the participating families' bottom line as well-- many parents I spoke with told me they would not be able to work, or to work well, if they had to worry each day about whether their children were cared for, safe, and happy. The 21st century economy will be one in which more of us are working, and more of us are trying to balance work and family. How well we adjust to that balance will determine how strong we are as an economy and as a nation of families. My legislation is an attempt to encourage businesses to play an active role in this deeply important transition. In the 1950's, Federal, State, local governments, communities and businesses banded together to build a highway system that is the most impressive in the world. Those roads allowed our economy to flourish and our people to move safely and quickly to work. In the 1990's, we need the same sort of national, comprehensive effort to build safe and affordable child care for our children. As more and more parents--of all income levels--move into the work force, they need access to quality child care just as much as their parents needed quality highways to drive to work. And if we are successful--and I plan to be successful--in the 21st century excellent child care--like the care these kids are getting--will be as common as interstate highways. 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. My legislation is a first, essential step toward this end. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation and a section-by-section summary be placed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I too listened to your exchange with Senator Leahy, and I am also of the view that section 1343 covers some computer crimes and that no amendment was necessary. Amendment No. 5386 (Purpose: To improve the treatment and security of certain persons found not guilty by reason of insanity in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes)

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate has taken up and passed H.R. 3723. We are sending that bill back to the House with substitute. This language, which I drafted with Senator Specter, is based on our companion measures, S. 1556 (``The Economic Espionage Act'') and S.1557 (``The Economic Security Act''). I would like to take this opportunity to point out several provisions of our legislation and explain their purpose and meaning. This legislation includes a provision penalizing the theft of proprietary economic information and a second provision penalizing that theft when it is done on behalf of or to benefit a foreign government, instrumentality, or agent. The principle purpose of this second (foreign government) provision is not to punish conventional commercial theft and misappropriation of trade secrets (which is covered by the first provision). Thus, to make out an offense under this section, the prosecution must show in each instance that the perpetrator intended to, or had reason to believe that his or her actions would aid a foreign government, instrumentality, or agent. Enforcement agencies should administer this section with its principle purpose in mind and therefore should not apply section 572 to foreign corporations when there is no evidence of foreign government sponsored or coordinated intelligence activity. This particular concern is borne out in our understanding of the definition of ``foreign instrumentality,'' which indicates that a foreign organization must be ``substantially owned, controlled, sponsored, commanded, managed, or dominated by a foreign government or subdivision thereof.'' We do not mean for the test of substantial control to be mechanistic or mathematical. The simple fact that the majority of the stock of a company is owned by a foreign government will not suffice under this definition, nor for that matter will the fact that a foreign government only owns 10 percent of a company exempt it from scrutiny. Rather the pertinent inquiry is whether the activities of the company are, from a practical and substantive standpoint, foreign government directed. To make out a case under these two provisions (sections 1832 and 572), the prosecution would have to show that the accused knew or had reason to know that a trade secret had been stolen or appropriated without authorization. This threshold separates conduct that is criminal from that which is innocent. Thus, for example, these sections would not give rise to prosecution for legitimate economic collection or reporting by personnel of foreign governments or international financial institutions, such as the World Bank, because such legitimate collection or reporting would not include the collection or reporting of trade secrets that had been stolen, misappropriated or converted without authorization. In the section dealing with foreign government sponsored espionage, and derived from S. 1557, the definition of proprietary economic information is different from the definition of proprietary economic information in section 2. In particular, the definition contained in section 1831(2) indicates that ``general knowledge'' is not included in the term, while the definition in section 571(4) does not. We do not intend to imply by this difference that general knowledge can or should be the subject of a prosecution under section 572. Of course, someone can use their general experience and skills and work for a foreign government. They cannot, however, steal a piece of proprietary economic information for an owner and thereby violate section 572 of this provision. Our point is simply that when a person is working on behalf of a foreign government, instrumentality or agency, that person has to be particularly careful to ensure that the information being used is not proprietary economic information. Some people have asked whether a piece of proprietary economic information has to be novel or inventive. Unlike patented material, something does not have to be novel, in the patent law sense, in order to be a piece of proprietary economic information. Of course, often it will be because an owner will have a patented invention that he or she has chosen to maintain the material as a piece of proprietary economic information rather than reveal it through the patent process. Even if the material is not novel in the patent law sense, some form of novelty is probably inevitable since ``that which does not possess novelty is usually known; secrecy, in the context of trade secrets implies at least minimal novelty.'' Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 476 (1974). While we do not strictly impose a novelty or inventiveness requirement in order for material to be considered proprietary economic information, looking at the novelty or uniqueness of a piece of information or knowledge should inform courts in determining whether something is a matter of general knowledge, skill or experience. Although we do not require novelty or inventiveness, the definition of proprietary economic information includes the provision that an owner have taken reasonable measures under the circumstances to keep the information confidential. We do not with this definition impose any requirements on companies or owners. Each owner must assess the value of the material it seeks to protect, the extent of a threat of theft, and the ease of theft in determining how extensive their protective measures should be. We anticipate that what constitutes reasonable measures in one particular field of knowledge or industry may vary significantly from what is reasonable in another field or industry. However, some common sense measures are likely to be common across the board. For example, it is only natural that an owner would restrict access to proprietary economic information to the people who actually need to use the information. It is only natural also that an owner clearly indicate in some form or another that the information is proprietary. However, owners need not take heroic or extreme protective measures in order for their efforts to be reasonable. Some people have asked how this legislation might affect reverse engineering. Reverse engineering is a broad term that encompasses a variety of actions. The important thing is to focus on whether the accused has committed one of the prohibited acts of this statute rather than whether he or she has ``reverse engineered.'' If someone has lawfully gained access to a trade secret or a piece or proprietary economic information, and can replicate it without violating copyright, patent or this law, then that form of ``reverse engineering'' should be fine. For example, if a person can drink Coca-Cola and, because he happens to have highly refined taste buds, can figure out what the formula is, then this legislation cannot be used against him. Likewise, if a person can look at a product and, by using their own general skills and expertise, dissect the necessary attributes of the product, then that person should be free from any threat of prosecution. We have been deeply concerned about the efforts taken by courts to protect the confidentiality of proprietary economic information. It is important that in the early stages of a prosecution the issue whether material is proprietary economic information not be litigated. Rather, courts should, when entering these orders, always assume that the material at issue is in fact proprietary economic information. We are also concerned that victims of economic espionage receive compensation for their losses. This legislation incorporates through reference existing law to provide procedures to be used in the detention, seizure, forfeiture, and ultimate disposition of property forfeited under the section. Under these procedures, the Attorney General is authorized to grant petitions for mitigation or remission of forfeiture and for the restoration of forfeited property to the victims of an offense. The Attorney General may also take any other necessary or proper action to protect the rights of innocent people in the interest of justice. In practice, under the forfeiture laws, victims are afforded priority in the disposition of forfeited property since it is the policy of the Department of Justice to provide restitution to the victims of criminal acts whenever permitted to do so by the law. Procedures for victims to obtain restitution may be found at Section 9 of Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations. In addition to requesting redress from the Attorney General, any person--including a victim--asserting an interest in property ordered forfeited may petition for a judicial hearings to adjudicate the validity of the alleged interest and to revise the order of forfeiture. Additionally, forfeitures are subject to a requirement of proportionality under the Eight Amendment; that is, the value of the property forfeited must not be excessively disproportionate to the crimes in question. Finally, we have required that the Attorney General report back to us on victim restitution two and four years after the enactment of this legislation. We have heard from some companies that they only rarely obtain restitution awards despite their eligibility. We wish to carefully monitor restitution to ensure that the current system is working well and make any changes that may be necessary. Mr. President, we have worked closely in cooperation with the Administration in drafting this legislation. It is a bipartisan measure, broadly supported, and necessary for our country's future industrial vitality.