Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I add Senator Biden as a cosponsor.

Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment.

Mr. KOHL. I send an amendment to the desk for immediate consideration.

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

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask that the yeas and nays be vitiated.

Mr. KOHL. I would like a rollcall vote, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today's Washington Post tells the story of young children being shot in their own neighborhoods by feuding gangs who are targetting innocent bystanders. It tells us eloquently why we must do all that we can to keep guns out of the hands of children. And the most insidious form of juvenile violence is violence in our schoolyards. We must take this opportunity to do what we can to keep our school zones from becoming war zones. So I would like to offer the Gun Free School Zones Act as an amendment. The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995 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. It modifies the Supreme Court's 1995 Lopez decision to ensure the law's constitutionality. So, let me make a few points. First, we need a Federal law. The Federal Government has a crucial role to play in dealing with the gun traffic that leads right into our classrooms. After all, how can we turn our backs on a national problem that we can help solve? The problem is national is scope. Anyone who thinks that this is a local problem isn't looking at the evidence. Interstate commerce is exactly what is causing the 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 car loads of guns from Chicago to the younger gang members. For example, 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. 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. 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. 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. And this measure has bipartisan support: The underlying bill is cosponsored by Senators Specter, Chafee, Simon, Kennedy, Kerry, Kerrey, and others. Finally, the new act addresses the constitutional concerns of the Supreme Court which struck down the original Gun Free School Zones Act last year. What we have done to ensure this result is simple and sufficient: In every prosecution under the act, the Government will now have to prove that the gun traveled in or affected interstate commerce. This very provision was suggested by language in Chief Justice Rehnquist's majority opinion. And the vast majority of constitutional scholars agree that this new bill complies with the Supreme Court. In conclusion, 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 commonsense, not with alarmist predictions about the fate of Federal-State relations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my extended remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would ask for just a few moments to discuss my amendment, which the Senate unanimously adopted during yesterday's debate. First, let me thank Senators Shelby and Kerrey for their support and hard work in crafting the Treasury-postal appropriations legislation before us. My amendment, which expresses the sense of the Congress, relates to the Internal Revenue Service telephone assistance program, one which the IRS advertises as a first line of assistance to the American taxpayer. I am pleased that it is now included in this bill because when it comes to telephone assistance, the IRS customer service record is abysmal. In fact, it's an embarrassment. In fiscal year 1995, IRS assistors reportedly answered 38 percent of taxpayers' calls. In fiscal year 1996, the figure improved slightly, but still only 46 percent of taxpayers got through to IRS assistance personnel. In other words, currently, less than half of the taxpayers in need of help even get through to an IRS assistor, and that may be after trying once or trying 10 times. In terms of pure accessibility, the statistics are even more startling. During the fiscal year 1996 filing season, a mere 20 percent of taxpayers got through to an IRS assistor on their first try. As many of my colleagues know, before coming to the United States Senate, I ran a business. And if there's one simple bit of wisdom learned from my years in business, and practiced to the best of my ability, it is that the customer always comes first. In adopting my amendment, I am pleased that the Senate has spoken with one voice in sending that same message to the IRS--take whatever steps necessary to put your customers, the taxpayers of this country, first. I would add that I know customer service is of great concern to the distinguished ranking member, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, who cochairs the National Commission to Restructure the Internal Revenue Service. I hope that we can continue to work together on this issue when the Commission reports to Congress next July. Mr. President, each year Americans in all walks of life and from every income bracket encounter questions when filling out tax forms and calculating tax obligations. And since few people dispute the challenges of navigating the current tax code, it comes as no surprise that many Americans seek help in order to fulfill their civic duty responsibly and accurately. The IRS' toll free 1-800 assistance service would seem a logical first step. But the IRS, on the receiving end, if you will, picks up the line less than half the time. Thus, the majority of callers do not even have the opportunity to pose, let alone work out, their questions. This fact is troubling, very troubling, particularly when considered in light of other problems. For example, many constituents in my homestate of Wisconsin who have the good fortune, or should I say the good luck, to get through to IRS assistors, have then been put on hold and subjected to significant waits that have sometimes ended with a random and inexplicable disconnection of the line. Simply put, this level of service is unacceptable. And in the end, it's not unreasonable to speculate that it works against our overall efforts to streamline the government. After all, if taxpayer questions are not being answered, more mistakes are being made and more IRS follow-up and investigation is required. The IRS is aware of the problems. The General Accounting Office has issued reports. The Social Security Administration and private sector interests provide numerous examples of ways to improve telephone assistance. And now Congress has made the first of what may be many calls to the IRS, urging them to establish performance goals, operating standards and management practices--whatever it takes to get the lines answered and put the customer first. ATF ``Disability Relief'' Program

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to announce that this year the 18th annual Frank Mots Memorial Kite Festival will be held on September 14 in Milwaukee, WI. Kite flying is one of the most beautiful and relaxing hobbies around. Many of us can still remember when we were children, building our first kite and watching with excitement as it became airborne. Today children of all ages can experience this thrill again during Kite Society of Wisconsin Week, which will take place the week of September 9-15, 1996. Frank Mots was a kite flying enthusiast, and it was in his memory that the Kite Society of Milwaukee was created in 1976. The festival that bears his name was founded in 1978 and has drawn people from around the country every year. I invite everyone to celebrate this event on September 14 and take some time out to enjoy the simple pleasures of kite flying. The Frank Mots Memorial Kite Festival has something for everyone, and I am proud of the Kite Society's accomplishments.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I yield another 2 minutes to Senator Jeffords.

Mr. KOHL. I thank you. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference report for the fiscal year 1997 District of Columbia appropriations bill. Mr. President, the conference report for the fiscal year 1997 District of Columbia appropriations bill includes $718 million in Federal funds and $5.02 billion in District of Columbia funds. This figure is $1 million more in Federal funds and $29 million less in District of Columbia funds than in the original Senate version of this bill. This conference report has my signature and my vote for final passage. The District's financial situation demands as much. But I do have reservations: in particular, the inclusion of the Hose of Representatives' position on abortions and domestic partners. As you may know the Senate version of the District of Columbia Appropriations bill, which passed unanimously, contained language allowing the city to use non-Federal dollars to fund certain abortion services and domestic partner benefits. Use of Federal moneys to provide these services was prohibited, but the District could use its own money. For its part, the House of Representatives; version of the bill prohibited the use of all funds, including District Funds, in support of these services. We have been here before. This is not a new debate. In fact, the House position represents current law. But as a proponent of a woman's right to choose, I oppose that position both on substantive grounds and because it is too broad an incursion into home rule. On the issue of domestic partners, again we should show some measure of restraint when it comes to an issue on which the local electorate--through its duly elected officials--has spoken. Mr. President, I compliment the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Jeffords, and thank him for his hard work in representing the views of the Senate in conference. The House conferees were tough, but fair, negotiators. They, too, deserve thanks for their cooperation. I urge my Senate colleagues to adopt the conference report on behalf of all those who visit, live, and work in the Nation's Capital.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I request 5 minutes.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. While funding has not been provided specifically for the Sokaogon Chippewa in the Senate version of this year's bill, it is my understanding that there are many other opportunities for securing Federal funding for this project. First and foremost, I would like to request the chairman's strong consideration for this project during conference with the House. In the past 2 fiscal years, the conference committee has included funding for this project, and the same arguments for its inclusion continue this year as well.

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator for his comments, and look forward to continuing to work with him on this matter. west central florida alternative water source project

Mr. KOHL. I would like to engage the chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Missouri, in a colloquy regarding EPA funding for the Sokaogon Chippewa community in Wisconsin to assess the environmental impacts of a proposed sulfide mine. In the fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996 VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Acts, funding has been provided to assist the Sokaogon Chippewa community in Crandon, WI, in their efforts to gather the baseline data needed to adequately assess the effects of a large sulfide mine proposed adjacent to their reservation. As a result of the proposed mine, concerns have been raised about the possible degradation of the ground and surface water in the area, as well as possible negative effects on the wild rice production activities within the reservation. I believe that the efforts undertaken by the Sokaogon Chippewa community are very worthwhile, and have been helpful in allowing the tribe to contribute accurate and up-to-date data to the Federal agencies reviewing the mine proposal. Would the Senator from Missouri agree that this project is very worthwhile?

Mr. KOHL. On July 29, Cray Research filed a formal petition for investigation with the Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission. Under the antidumping law, the Department of Commerce was required to decide whether or not to initiate a formal investigation within 20 days. The ITC has 45 days to reach a preliminary determination.

Mr. KOHL. The committee report, which was filed on July 17, notes that no official determination of dumping, preliminary or otherwise, has been made in this case. Would the Senator agree that this statement is no longer accurate?

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to address a question to the managers of the bill, the chairman and ranking member of the VA/HUD Subcommittee, Senators Bond and Mikulski. Let me begin by commending them for their hard work in crafting this bill under tough budgetary circumstances. We all agree that this bill will provide funds for diverse programs of vital importance to communities all across America. As such, I hope this Senate floor debate will yield a cost-effective and responsible bill that we can all support. In particular, I would like to ask for the managers' input on HUD programs to foster community development. More specifically, funds in this bill are designed to promote economic growth and development that benefits entire communities, and it is my understanding that Congress has taken steps to target some of those funds to urban areas where Americans of the low and middle range live, work and raise their families. As you may know, Marquette University has headed up the Avenues West Neighborhood Crime Intervention Demonstration Program in Milwaukee, WI. This innovative program has brought together a diverse group of public and private entities to focus resources on the causes of crime and its effects on individuals, families, and neighborhoods. The underlying goal of this effort has been to generate comprehensive community-based solutions to complex urban problems. Program participants include the city of Milwaukee, Marquette University, the Milwaukee Police Department, as well as other community organizations. Do the managers agree that the avenues west initiative is the type of comprehensive, community-based program that Congress would want to support through community development grants?

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the growing problem of juvenile crime, and the failure of this Congress to adequately address it. As the former chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice, I am particularly alarmed by the growth of juvenile violence today, and the fact that we are doing little to slow this trend with investments in our young people. At a time when crime is generally falling, a growing number of young people are becoming the perpetrators--and victims--of violence in America. Juvenile offenders are now responsible for 14 percent of all violent crime and 25 percent of all property crime. Criminologists report that 14 to 24-year-old-black males, who represent just 1 percent of the population, comprise 17 percent of all homicide victims and 30 percent of all offenders. Arguments that used to be solved with fists in a school yard are now being settled with Uzi's and Tech 9 semi- automatic weapons. Some schools are starting to resemble prisons, with metal detectors, armed guards, and bars on the windows. This is not the healthy environment that will nurture a new generation. Instead, this is a recipe for disaster--a formula for creating an army of young criminals whose only future is to commit more heinous and vicious crimes with each passing year. And this army is likely to expand: there are now more pre-teenagers in America--39 million under 10 years old--than at any other time in the past generation. There are many ways that society can combat this juvenile crime trend--and I support all of them. First, we can get tough on the most violent juveniles--trying them as adults and locking them up--so that serious crimes receive serious punishment. Second, we can improve our ability to catch all juvenile offenders through more vigilant law enforcement. Accomplishing these goals requires more prisons and more police, and Congress is providing billions to build penitentiaries and fund 100,000 new police officers through the Crime Act of 1994. However, a third part of the Crime Act calls for a different approach. Instead of spending all the money on prisons and police, Congress wanted some of it, about 20 percent, to be spent on preventing crime before it happens. Now, crime prevention used to be a dirty phrase in Washington, something that so-called liberals touted and conservatives criticized as a strategy for coddling criminals. I hope we have moved past those simplistic arguments and are prepared to recognize the value of crime prevention programs. For years we have heard evidence about the value of investing some funds in crime prevention, and the fact that these programs measurably reduce crime. More recently, numerous studies have documented how small investments in a troubled young person's life will not only save that child from a life of crime and misery, but will also save society thousands of dollars in court costs and prison fees. Most important, these investments protect the lives of citizens and prevent tragic crimes before they occur. There are literally hundreds of examples--I'll note only two here. A few years ago Fort Worth, TX, initiated a program called Code Blue. The program offered year round structured social, education and recreational activities for young people. Kids not only engaged in sports, but received homework assistance and help with college and GED preparation. Five community centers were established to help young people get on the right track and make a difference in the local neighborhoods. According to the Fort Worth Police Department, crime dropped by 28 percent within a one mile radius of each center. Gang crimes declined by 30 percent city wide in the first 6 months of 1995. This was achieved at a cost of $10 a year per student--that compares with the $40,000 a year it costs to incarcerate a juvenile offender. The results are the same across the country. A program called Children-At-Risk [CAR] coordinates social service agencies, police, and school officials to target intensive education, counseling, and family services at 11-13 year olds. A National Institute of Justice quasi- experimental study in five cities found that the CAR test group had almost half the number of contacts with police as the non-participant control group, and had less than half the number of contacts with the juvenile court as the control group. We have seen these kinds of case studies proving the value of crime prevention programs for years. But, Mr. President, we are now seeing comprehensive reports demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of crime prevention. Last month the Rand Corp. released a 2-year study comparing the value of investing in crime prevention versus tougher penalties and incarceration. It compared prevention programs such as graduation incentives, delinquent supervision, and parent training to a ``three- strikes-and-you're-out'' law. The study found that crime prevention was three times more cost-effective than increased punishment. The study concluded that a State government could prevent between 157 and 258 crimes a year by investing $1 million in crime prevention, compared with preventing 60 crimes by investing the same amount in incarceration. Law enforcement officers--the troops on the front lines in this battle--are also calling on Congress to fund prevention programs. A recent Northeastern University survey of more than 500 police chiefs and sheriffs found that three-quarters of them believe the best way to reduce crime and violence is to increase investment in prevention programs. This is not surprising: it confirms what we found out last year when we polled Wisconsin police chiefs and sheriffs: almost 90 percent supported the Crime Act's prevention programs. These front line crime fighters know--better than anyone else--that crime prevention works. Mr. President, let me be clear on this point. I am not advocating that we commit all our resources to crime prevention and no money to punishment and incarceration. Like the police chiefs and sheriffs, I support the Crime Act funding formula which allocates 80 percent for punishment, tougher penalties, and more police, as well as 20 percent for crime prevention. Unfortunately, in the last 2 years since that legislation was passed, Congress has not lived up to its promise to adequately fund crime prevention programs and is actually moving toward eliminating the few programs that it has funded. Just this week, two bills were reported out of Committee which either defund or eliminate virtually all effective prevention programs. As a member of both relevant committees, I spoke out against these cuts in committee, and will work to reverse them on the Senate floor. First, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted out the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations funding measure for 1997. Despite mounting evidence of the cost effectiveness of crime prevention, this bill fails to fund more than $500 million in prevention programs authorized under the Crime Act. While I commend the drafters for appropriating $20 million for Boys and Girls Clubs, this is a fraction of the prevention Congress authorized 2 years ago. During the same week, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the new 4-year authorization for the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. The legislation eliminates all crime prevention grants and uses that money for ``research and evaluation.'' Mr. President, I am a strong advocate of research and evaluation, and have introduced a bill with Senator Bill Cohen of Maine that would require federally funded prevention programs to set aside money for rigorous, independent evaluation. But this proposed reauthorization funds research at the expense of all crime prevention programs. That is unacceptable. Mr. President, at a time when juvenile crime is on the rise, when law enforcement officials are asking for more prevention funds, and when case studies and statistical evidence are proving that we can prevent crimes, protect citizens, and save money in the long run--how can this Congress cut funding for crime prevention and eliminate these programs? When I walk the streets with police officers in Wisconsin and I tell them what Congress is considering, they are shocked. These people know what works and they want our help. We should not turn our backs on America's police officers and future generations, and resign ourselves to even more prisons and police. We have other alternatives that we should fund--cost effective measures which can prevent crime before it happens. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to correct the lack of juvenile crime prevention in the proposed versions of the Justice Department's funding bill and the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. This is not a partisan issue--members from both parties recognize the common sense of spending at least a small portion of federal funds on prevention. As these bills come to the floor, I hope more colleagues see the tremendous progress we can make if we just move past the simplistic arguments and recognize the value of a small investment in crime prevention programs.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, today, the Senate will take what is perhaps its most significant action in my years in this body. Today, we will send to the President a bill that abolishes the failed Federal welfare program. We will send to the President a bill that gives hope to more than 12 million mothers and children who have too long been left alone in a culture of despair and poverty. I want to make clear a point that may have been lost in the partisan politics that has surrounded this legislation. This bill is not about punishing welfare recipients. This bill is not about turning our backs on families that have been broken and impoverished for too long. This bill is about hope. It is about giving hope to mothers who want to provide a better life for their children. It is about giving hope to children who do not deserve to be imprisoned in a life of crime, hunger and despair. It is about giving hope to communities that want to see their tax dollars go to build their neighborhoods up and not to tear local families down. As a result of bipartisan input, there are many positive changes in this bill that improve upon previous welfare bills. Child care funding is increased by $4 billion, while health and safety standards for child care facilities are preserved. The School Lunch Program is maintained. The Food Stamp Program remains a guarantee. Programs to prevent child abuse and neglect are continued, and, perhaps most importantly, basic Medicaid health coverage is retained. There are also provisions in this legislation that I cannot support and I will work to change. We will not turn our backs on the people in communities this legislation is meant to help. As the States submit their plans and as the provisions in this bill take effect, we will continue to monitor them. We will make sure that our new welfare system pulls people and communities up, gives them hope, gives them opportunity and makes them strong. Yes, today is the beginning of the end of welfare as we know it, and it is good news for the families who have been trapped too long by hopelessness. Today begins a new commitment to bringing the poorest members of communities a new beginning, a chance to build their families, an opportunity for their children's future. This legislation is not about hate. This legislation is about hope. And so I urge my colleagues to support the conference report. I thank the Chair. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Subcommittee Chairman (Mr. Jeffords), in connection with the Fiscal Year 1997 District of Columbia Appropriations Bill. He has done a good job and I support him in his efforts. The bill before the Senate recommends the $5.1 billion Fiscal Year 1997 District of Columbia budget that was forwarded to Congress. That budget represents a consensus agreed to by the District of Columbia City Council, the Mayor, and the Control Board. The Administration supports the consensus budget. Mr. President, last year the Congress enacted the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act, which was designed to restore fiscal integrity of the District of Columbia. Section 201(c) of that legislation requires that progress for equalizing expenditures and revenues of the District Government must be made with the balance being achieved in 1999. The Subcommittee is keenly aware of this requirement and is working with the Control Board, the City Council, and the Mayor, to achieve the desired result. I want to commend the staff of the Subcommittee. Tim Leeth, on the majority, and Terry Sauvain, on the minority, are two able and experienced staffers. After many years on the Committee staff, Mr. Leeth is leaving the Committee and will continue to be associated with the District of Columbia as a senior staff member of the Control Board. Tim is an excellent person and professional staff member. I have appreciated his wise counsel in matters relating to the District of Columbia. My colleagues and I will miss him here in the Senate. I am pleased that his expertise in District matters and good humor will be available to the members of the Control Board. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I want to say that I believe the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee have done an excellent job in putting together this bill under very difficult budgetary circumstances. They have done an exceptional job of protecting core programs that are of utmost importance to the Nation's farmers, consumers, and communities. There is one provision in this bill that I think is of great importance and deserves special mention, and that is the language with regard to cost containment for the WIC program. I think it's fair to say that every Member of the Senate supports the WIC program. The long-term benefits accruing to society from ensuring adequate pre-natal and neo-natal nutrition have been well documented and uncontested. A large portion of the cost of the WIC program is associated with the purchase of infant formula for WIC recipients. Fortunately, in recent years competition between formula manufacturers bidding for WIC contracts has led to significant savings in the program, with companies offering rebates on infant formula in order to win WIC contracts. Unfortunately, the competition that led to these rebates has been greatly diminished by the recent withdrawal by one of the competitors, Wyeth Laboratories, from the WIC infant formula market. Fortunately, another formula manufacturer, Carnation, has recently entered the WIC formula market, which could help ensure competition and therefore help contain the costs of the program. However, in many States, the price of Carnation formula is significantly cheaper than other brands of infant formula, which makes it difficult for Carnation to offer rebates as high as their competitors. However, Carnation may still be able to offer the lowest bid, if measured on a lowest net price basis. Unfortunately, some States are awarding WIC formula contracts simply on the basis of which company offers the highest rebate, as opposed to the lowest net price bid. The detriments of this simplistic approach are two-fold. First, by focusing on highest rebate instead of lowest net price, States are spending more for infant formula than they should. Second, by biasing the WIC formula bid process toward the companies offering the highest rebate, States are effectively excluding additional competitors, such as Carnation, from the WIC formula market, and thus jeopardizing future cost containment efforts. To address this problem, the Senate Agriculture appropriations bill includes language that requires States to award infant formula contracts to the bidder offering the lowest net price, unless the State can adequately demonstrate that the retail price of different brands of infant formula within the State are essentially the same. I commend the managers of the bill for including this common-sense language, which I believe will help secure the long-term viability of the WIC program. It is my hope that this provision will be maintained in conference.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased that the managers of the bill are willing to accept my amendment to correct a problem that has arisen with regard to special research grants section of the Agriculture appropriations bill. Specifically, when the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee requested information from USDA/CSREES regarding special research grant projects, the Babcock Institute for International Dairy Research and Development at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, was mistakenly listed as one of the several projects slated for completion at the end of fiscal year 1996. Unfortunately, that information was not accurate. However, this error was not noticed until after the committee had acted on the bill, and funding for the Babcock Institute was omitted from the Committee Report entirely. Therefore, my amendment will simply restore funding for the Babcock Institute in the CSREES special grant section of the bill. The funding provided is $312,000, the same as provided in fiscal year 1996. The importance of the research conducted by the Babcock Institute has never been more important than it is today. The domestic market for many U.S. dairy products will grow less rapidly in the future as the population ages and consumption patterns change. Further, the dairy provisions of the 1996 farm bill also signal the need for dairy farmers to look more toward international markets for their livelihoods. International markets for dairy products are changing in ways that crate opportunities for U.S. dairy farmers, as well as dairy exporters. But along with these developments come many research questions, related to how foreign competitors operate, and the risks associated with export markets. Through its research on many of these topics, the Babcock Institute will continue to play an important role for the U.S. dairy industry as it seeks to turn its attention more toward international markets. Again, I thank the managers for their support of this amendment, and look forward to working with them to retain funding for this valuable program in conference.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased that funding is provided through this bill for the ARS Integrated Farming Systems Program, to pursue long-term research on farming systems that integrate livestock and resource enhancing crop rotations--all aimed at answering farmers urgent questions of how to be profitable and farm in environmentally responsible ways. This new initiative, as requested by the President's fiscal year 1997 budget, recognizes expertise in the farming community by building research partnership teams with State researchers, extension agents, farmers, and nongovernmental organizations. In this regard, Wisconsin has a nationally recognized program, the Wisconsin Integrated cropping systems trial, with long-term research trials and an excellent team of farmers, researchers, extension and nongovernmental groups collaborating to address questions that go right to the heart of the future of farming in the Midwest. As specified in the committee report accompanying this bill, $500,000 has been included in this bill to support research through the ARS/IFS Program into integrated low-input crop and livestock production systems, to be carried out at the Wisconsin-Madison Experiment Station. It is my intent and understanding that this funding is to support the Wisconsin Integrated cropping systems trial. I would ask the Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, if he would concur with me on this matter.