Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in strong support, and as an original cosponsor, of the amendment by the Senator from Connecticut. I agree with much of what is in the welfare legislation before us today and I plan to vote on it. We owe it to the low-income families of this country to end a welfare system that keeps them down rather than helps them up. We owe it to the taxpayers to spend their money in a way that strengthens their communities. We owe it to ourselves to be honest when we have failed--as we have with our current welfare system. And we owe it to this country to develop a welfare system that respects and encourages this Nation's longstanding values of work and family. I think this bill, on the whole, does that, and that is why I support it. But before we send this bill out of the Senate, there is room for improvement. One of my chief concerns with this bill is the unwise elimination of the bipartisan, minimal Federal standards that govern the quality of child care. We ought to be doing exactly the opposite. Not only does the repeal of safety standards jeopardize quality of care for children from welfare families, it threatens child care safety for all children. Children of families from all income levels benefit from the current health and safety standards. We need to return welfare to the States because the Federal program has proven itself a disaster. But turning the program over does not mean turning our backs on the people and communities welfare is meant to help. We still have a responsibility at the Federal level to make sure that State-run welfare systems are able to succeed where the Federal system so dismally failed. And that means doing everything we can to keep the national economy healty--so there are jobs for welfare recipients to move into. And that means strengthening our child care infrastructure--so there are safe and stimulating places for the children of welfare recipients to spend their days as their parents go back to work. As States begin to move mothers off the welfare rolls and into jobs, the demand for child care is going to soar. Preliminary estimates done for the city of Milwaukee have shown that welfare reform will create the demand for 8,000 new child care slots--child care that does not exist today. Already in the State of Wisconsin, there are almost 6,500 children from 4,000 families on waiting lists for child care. At the Federal level, there is much we can do to start putting a broader child care infrastructure in place. But one thing I know we cannot do is move backward and eliminate the minimal Federal standards that now regulate the quality of child care. At the very heart of the welfare debate is the Government's responsibility to the impoverished children of this county. We failed them with our current welfare system, and today we rightly admit that failure and ask the States to try and do better. As we turn welfare over to the States, we cannot fail those children again by ignoring the real need they have for protection and education while their parents work. We can--and should--turn over welfare. But we cannot turn away from the children who need and deserve quality day care. I ask my colleagues to support the Dodd amendment.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, Charles Clevert has accomplished a number of ``firsts'' in his life. He was the first member of his family to go to college. He was the first African-American assistant U.S. Attorney in Wisconsin. When he was appointed in 1977, he was the youngest bankruptcy judge in the country. Today, as he is confirmed by the Senate, he becomes the first African-American Federal district court judge in Wisconsin history. In my opinion, it is critical that our Federal judiciary try to reflect the diversity that is America. But while we are gratified that Judge Clevert will add diversity to our Federal bench, he was nominated for one simple reason: he was the most qualified. Let me tell you why President Clinton could not have made a better choice to fill the vacancy created when Terry Evans--himself an outstanding judge--was elevated to the Seventh Circuit. First, Charles Clevert is a jurist of extraordinary intelligence and unquestioned skill. Practicing lawyers consistently rank him among the finest judges in Wisconsin. Attorneys who appear before Judge Clevert repeatedly praise him for his integrity, fairness and demeanor. He received similar high marks from members of the nonpartisan nominating commission--which Senator Feingold and I established with the State bar--who made Judge Clevert one of the finalists for the Eastern District vacancy. The ABA gave him a ``well-qualified'' rating, the highest grade possible for any nominee. And don't take my word for it, ask the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel: it called Judge Clevert's selection a ``wise choice'' and a ``milestone.'' Second, Judge Clevert is a person of extraordinary achievement and generosity. He grew up working class in Richmond, where he attended a segregated high school. He went to a small college in West Virginia, and then graduated from Georgetown Law School. He has spent more than 20 years in Wisconsin as a prosecutor and a bankruptcy judge--he is now the Chief Bankruptcy Judge of the Eastern District. Judge Clevert's reputation is exceptional even among his colleagues: several years ago they honored him by appointing him President of the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges. Let me also mention that Judge Clevert and his wife Leslie have two lovely children, Chip and Melanie, both of whom are in high school. What little free time Judge Clevert has away from his job and his family he spends working with his church and with charities. For example, he sits on the board of the Anvil Housing Corporation, which provides subsidized housing for senior and handicapped citizens. And he is involved with a group called Men of Tomorrow, an organization that mentors young men between the ages of 11 and 18. Mr. President, no one can read the story of Judge Clevert's life and not be impressed. It is eloquent testimony to our country's ability to create opportunity for all from a social compact some claim was written for a few. From any perspective--prosecutor or defense lawyer, corporate litigator or consumer advocate, debtor or creditor--Charles N. Clevert is already a terrific bankruptcy court judge. He is someone who will faithfully apply Supreme Court precedent. He is a pragmatist, not an ideologue. And his career demonstrates a proven record of fairness and toughness. I congratulate the Senate on a wise decision today, and I am sure that Judge Clevert will be as distinguished on the district court as he has been on the bankruptcy bench.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Given the urgent need for remediation, Senator Feingold and I had requested that the Committee authorize the Corps of Engineers to help in the clean up of the Fox River, thereby becoming a partner in the effort to remediate the contamination using a consensus-based process. Specifically, we requested that the Lower Fox River sediment remediation project be authorized under Section 312(b) of the 1990 Water Resources Development Act (P.L. 101-640), which authorizes funds for environmental dredging projects within and adjacent to ongoing Army Corps navigation projects. The Fox River is currently an authorized corps project. Long-range Army Corps plans include a continued corps involvement in the ongoing operation and maintenance of the water regulation portion of the project. However, the Army Corps does not maintain the waterway for navigation purposes and has recommended an end to its role in the navigation portion of the project. The corps is currently in negotiations with the State of Wisconsin to effect deauthorization of navigation. In response to my and Senator Feingold's request to authorize the Army Corps to clean up the contaminated sediments along the Fox River, Chairman Chafee and other members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works expressed strong reservations. I wonder if the chairman would discuss briefly his concern with our proposal.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is well aware of the concerns that Senator Feingold and I have raised about the concentration of contaminated sediments in the Lower Fox River of Wisconsin. As a result of a high concentration of PCB's and other toxic pollutants in the sediment of the Lower Fox River, the area has been designated by the International Joint Commission as 1 of 43 toxic hotspots in the Great Lakes. Most of these 43 hotspot areas are characterized by contamination which cannot be cleaned up through existing routine programs. Because the contaminated sediments at these sites oftentimes disperse throughout the Great Lakes ecosystem, it is believed that remediation is critical for environmental restoration of the Great Lakes. The Fox River is known to be the biggest source of PCB loadings into Green Bay, a fact which has been documented by the Green Bay mass balance study conducted by EPA between 1988 and 1992. Further, it is believed that the Fox River may also be the biggest source of PCB contamination to Lake Michigan. Specifically, the Green Bay mass balance study, conducted by EPA, estimated the volume of contaminated sediment with high concentrations of PCB's to be 7 to 9 million cubic meters. It is clear that the potential for continued dispersion of the sediments throughout the Great Lakes ecosystem is great. To address the problem, a partnership has been formed in Wisconsin where the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, local governments, POTW's and area businesses are working together to analyze and characterize the contamination, and to plan for the remediation of the sites. Given the urgency of the clean up, the group is seeking to proceed with remediation using a consensus-based process, in order to avoid any delays that may be associated with litigation.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, this water resources bill includes many provisions of great importance. Perhaps none of the provisions is more important to the State of Wisconsin than the transfer of land in the Kickapoo River Valley from the Corps of Engineers to the State of Wisconsin, for the purpose of creating the Kickapoo Valley Reserve. We in the Senate spend a great deal of time arguing about the appropriate role of the Federal Government. I know that my colleagues of all ideological stripes can list specific instances in which Federal intervention has caused undue pain and suffering to individuals or communities. Today with this bill, and the Kickapoo Valley, WI, provision included therein, we have begun the process of rectifying a wrong that was done the people of Southwestern Wisconsin 3 decades ago. In the mid 1960s, Congress authorized the Corps of Engineers to build a flood control dam on the Kickapoo River at LaFarge in Vernon County, WI. In order to proceed with the project, the Corp of Engineers condemned 140 farms covering an area of about 8,500 acres. To LaFarge, a community of only 840 people, the loss of these farms dealt a significant economic and emotional blow. With the loss of economic activity, the community eagerly awaited the completion of the dam, and the creation of a lake that promised to provide some economic benefits in the form of recreational and tourism activities. But because of budgetary and environmental concerns, the project never happened. And the people of LaFarge were left holding the bag. But the passage of this bill today represents a milestone in the cooperative effort of the citizens of the Kickapoo River Valley, the State of Wisconsin, the Ho Chunk Nation, and local environmental leaders to turn this bad situation into an outstanding success for the community, the State, and the Federal taxpayers. The Kickapoo Valley, WI, provision of this water resources bill would modify the original LaFarge Dam authorization, returning the federally condemned property to the State of Wisconsin. Anticipating this action, the State legislature and Governor Thompson have already acted to authorize the use of this 8,500 property as a State recreational and environmental management area. Further, in recognition of the cultural and religious significance of this area to the Ho Chunk People, agreement has been reached with the Ho Chunk Nation to transfer up to 1,200 acres of that area to the Secretary of Interior in trust for the Ho Chunk Nation. While this legislation does not include all of the things that my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, and I have wanted in terms of funding for infrastructure improvements in the area, it does address the most crucial aspect of this matter, which is the land transfer. This measure is long overdue, and it is my sincere pleasure to be able to return this remarkable piece of property back to local control. columbia river channel

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment to raise the minimum wage and against the Bond amendment, which would retain the status quo and deny an increase for millions of low wage workers. Mr. President, we have just returned from the Independence Day recess. I always value the time spent in Wisconsin during breaks in the Senate schedule. Not only does it mean going home, it means spending time with people who work hard and work together by compromising in their daily lives. Hard-working families struggling to make it to the next pay-check do not have the luxury to shirk responsibility or skip their work. They must go to work every day and get the job done. That's why it shouldn't be a surprise when the people of this country grow more and more pessimistic, even angry, because Congress has yet to get the job done and pass meaningful legislation. In the attempt to score political points and out-maneuver the other party, legislation that is critical to working families has languished or been killed. Instead of increasing investments in education and job training to provide the foundation for a stronger economy, these programs have been cut. The earned income tax credit, which helps working poor families stay afloat, has been targeted for huge reductions. A bipartisan health care reform bill that passed the Senate by a 100-0 vote has become stalled and may die because some want to poison the modest reforms with controversial provisions. Bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation has been killed. And balanced budget legislation, which everyone agrees is needed to end deficit spending and shore up the economy for our children's future, is now also on a partisan track to failure. Despite the odds that partisan politics may win the day, I remain hopeful that moderate proposals can still be enacted during this Congress. One of the most important bipartisan and moderate intitiatives is the minimum wage amendment offered by Senator Kennedy. This amendment closely resembles the wage increase passed by the House of Representatives and excludes controversial provisions rejected by a majority of House Members. The Kennedy amendment would allow some of the hardest working American's to make a better life for themselves and their families. It would increase the minimum wage from the current level of $4.25 to $5.15 over 2 years. Granting a 90-cent wage increase over 2 years will help these families keep up with inflation and stay at or above the poverty level. Over 200,000 workers and their families in my State of Wisconsin would benefit from the increase. This amendment would be coupled with a series of tax breaks for small businesses to help offset the potential effects of the wage increase. I remain concerned about the challenges facing small businesses even though many prominent economists argue that the modest increase proposed would not significantly jeopardize employment or business opportunities. So I am pleased that these tax breaks will help ensure that any impact is minimal. The Bond amendment is a stark contrast to this reasonable minimum wage proposal. Instead of starting the 2-year increase this year, the Bond amendment would delay for 6 months the much needed raise. Further, the Bond amendment holds down millions of American workers who are employed at small businesses or who work in the restaurant industry by carving out huge exclusions to the increase. Anyone who has been on the job for less than 6 months would get no increase. At least 4 million workers would be affected by this permanent submimimum wage. Under Senator Bond's proposal, another 2 million workers would be denied any increase because they work for tips. The complete exemption provided for companies that earn less than $500,000 annually would result in workers at two-thirds of all small businesses being left behind. Supporters of these exclusions claim that the minimum wage increase would devast small businesses. Even though it is arguable that significant negative effects would result from a modest minimum wage increase, the proposal before us would provide 34 specific tax breaks for small businesses. History also argues against this claim. Since the last minimum wage increase, far from being devasted, small businesses have helped spur economic growth and bring our Nation out of recession. Under the Bond amendment, scores of small businesses would be rewarded with generous tax breaks even though they would be exempted from raising the wages of their lowest paid workers. Opponents of the minimum wage have also been quick to assert that minimum wage earners are mainly teenagers from middle class families. Again, the facts tell a different story. Two-thirds of those paid the minimum wage are adults and a third of those are the sole household wage earners for their families. If granted the minimum wage increase without exclusions, over 2.3 million children from poor and near poor families would benefit. Mr. President, recent reports on the economy continue to show healthy growth and provide optimistic prospects for business. But although unemployment is down and millions of jobs have been created over the past 3 years, the average American worker remains uneasy. With the strong economic growth, corporate CEO's have been rewarded with sky-high salaries and impressive benefits. In contrast, real wages have become stagnant for many Americans and their standard of living has decreased over the years. Perhaps more disturbing, working families have seen their health benefits eroded and opportunities for child care diminished. The Congress cannot create complete equity in the work force and resolve all of the challenges of working families. That is not realistic and ignores the fundamentals of our economy. But there are actions Congress can take that will make a real difference. We can help ensure health security by reforming the health insurance market; we can provide child care and education opportunities by balancing Federal investments in these programs; and I still believe we can balance the Federal budget in a fair manner. Today we can and must help the lowest wage workers by passing a long-over due minimum wage increase. The House of Represenatives has already done so, it is now time for the Senate to act. Mr. President, 5 years have elapsed since the minimum wage was increased and the real value of the wage has fallen by nearly 50 cents over that period. Furthermore, the real value of the minimum wage is 29 percent lower than it was in 1979. Without action, the value of the minimum wage will plummet to a 40-year low by 1997. Do people really believe that working at $4.25 an hour, which amounts to $8,500 a year, is a fair and livable wage? To deny America's lowest paid workers a sustaining wage during a time of substantial budget cuts simply represents misguided priorities. This is precisely the time when we need to reward the people who work. If we are going to cut funding for education and training and reform welfare, we must provide individuals with the economic tools necessary to get ahead. The last minimum wage increase under President Bush enjoyed broad bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to undertake a similar bipartisan effort today and demonstrate their commitment to working families by restoring the fair value of the minimum wage. The Senate is faced with a critical choice that will determine whether or not the minimum wage increase becomes a reality this year. One amendment would provide a modest minimum wage increase to the working poor; the other would grant an increase to some workers, but leave millions of Americans with stagnant wages and result in a certain presidential veto. Let us do the right thing by passing the Kennedy amendment and rejecting the Bond amendment.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Nebraska in offering this amendment to eliminate $4.0 billion in defense spending for items that are not included in any of the next 5 year's defense budgets. The Pentagon does not want or need these additional funds. There is no reasonable rationale for Congress to provide them. I have listened to the arguments that we need to be spending more on defense because of a shortfall in procurement funding, and I have heard the justifications for the $13 billion increase in budget authority contained in this bill, on the grounds that we are only accelerating projects the service chiefs have said they want and need. I say to my colleagues who embrace these concerns--even though I have to say that I am skepical--listen carefully to the details of this amendment. This amendment targets the special interest projects and wasteful spending in this bill which were not requested by the service chiefs. There are more than 4 billion dollar's worth of projects in the bill before us which were not requested by the service chiefs. There are more than 4 billion dollar's worth of projects in the bill before us that appear no where in the Pentagon's future years defense plan. They are not priorities, and we cannot afford to be spending scarce taxpayer dollars on programs that at best are marginal. After our amendment is adopted, and I am hopeful it will be, the defense authorization bill will still be $9 billion more than the administration has requested. I am weary of hearing how this defense budget compares to defense budgets in previous years in real terms. Why do we not look at other budget functions in real terms? The reason is that if we did, we would realize that all domestic accounts are being cut in real terms. Many of them deeply. Yet, the defense authorization bill before us would increase defense spending $4.2 billion above last year's defense budget. Only in Washington is an increase in defense spending a cut. When we freeze education spending, we hear denials that we are actually cutting education funding. It is just a freeze they say, the same as last year. Well, in real terms we are cutting hundreds of domestic programs that contribute to the well being of our society. We are holding no one harmless in our effort to balance the budget. Except defense. How can we make a credible case to the American people that we are serious about reducing the deficit when we continue to increase defense spending? No one has made an effective case as to why we must be spending more on weapons systems that have not been identified by the service chiefs and are not in any of the next 5 year's defense plans. And we certainly gave the services the opportunity to ask for this funding. Why is it that we cannot approach defense spending in the same way that we approach any other spending? The services have been more than forthcoming in telling us their requirements and identifying their needs. Now it is our responsibility to determine how best to meet these needs against all other competing requirements. This is how we fulfill our responsibility to oversee the budget and set spending. For some reason, however, we are reluctant to do so with defense. We must ask ourselves over and over again: Is our defense spending relevant to the threats of the future? Are the projects included in the $4 billion we would cut in our amendment so crucial to our response to these future threats? This amendment was carefully crafted to identify those programs that do not meet even the most conservative requirements. This amendment cuts $4 billion in programs we cannot afford and should not buy. Above all, let's remember that we are facing no major threats today. When the American people talk today about insecurity, they are talking about job security, personal security, and perhaps moral security. Even the threats to our national security posed by episodes of regional instability and conflict are less likely to be resolved with military force, and more likely to be resolved through political or diplomatic intervention. To be sure, we need a strong defense. We need to develop a strategy and maintain a force structure to protect and advance our interests in a constantly changing global environment. If we could start over again and create a new force structure from scratch to meet the challenges of this era, I am confident that we would have a leaner, more mobile and more efficient force at far less cost. I am puzzled by arguments that we must front load defense spending in the early years of a 7-year plan because spending in the outyears cannot be relied upon. Madam President, the spending we vote for today--much of it devoted to new procurement and new research and development projects--lays the groundwork for increased spending down the road. The spending proposed today ensures the reductions proposed for the outyears will not occur. However, if we adopt this amendment and cut $4 billion in spending in this year's budget, then we will be eliminating $25 billion in unnecessary spending in future years. Last year, we passed a defense budget that was $7 billion more than what the Pentagon wanted. I came to the floor during last year's defense authorization bill and offered a bipartisan amendment to cut out that extra $7 billion, and we almost succeeded. That amendment was endorsed by a variety of groups focused on deficit reduction and included in the annual scores generated by the Council for a Livable World and the Concord Coalition. And now, here we are, a year later, considering a defense bill that adds $12.9 billion more than what the Pentagon wants. Is it any surprise that in the budget resolution we passed last week we increase the deficit during the first 2 years of the plan? No one has explained how we can afford to increase defense spending above even the highest levels identified by the services and yet reduce the deficit. We cannot continue to spare the Defense Department from the deep regimen of cuts that we are asking the rest of our society to absorb. The $4 billion that we propose to cut in this amendment is a modest cut. If we are committed to reducing the deficit and balancing our budget, then we must make the hard votes. And I know for some this will be a hard vote. However, I urge my colleagues to vote for this very responsible approach to defense spending. I yield the floor. Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I will wait for the Senator from Nebraska to deliver his opening remarks.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the church arson prevention measure. Since the beginning of this year, a series of fires have swept our country. More than 30 predominantly African American churches in the Southeast have been burned. Some of these fires were set by people with obvious race hatred. Two people with ties to the Ku Klux Klan were arrested for fires in South Carolina. But in other cases, the fires were set by teenagers who had no obvious racist motive but who were so infected by an undertow of racism that they thought black churches would make a worthy target for their vandalism. In some ways, this disorganized brand of racism is more frightening than any organized conspiracy. When hate groups spread their message we know how to answer them. But attacking the subtle racism that has infected so many children is a much more daunting task. Today, this Senate must come together and speak with one voice against racism of any kind--the vicious and organized racism of hate groups, and the silent racism that lurks beneath the surface. This legislation, sponsored by more than 30 of our colleagues and drafted by Senators as ideologically diverse as Ted Kennedy and Lauch Faircloth, shows that we can sometimes put aside our partisan differences to do what is clearly right. Mr. President, no State or Senator is immune from the effects of these fires in the South. A fire in Tennessee has been felt in Wisconsin. My friend Reggie White's church in Knoxville, TN was burned. That fire impacted and saddened all of us in my home State. And the people of Wisconsin have responded. Children from Wisconsin emptied their piggy banks to rebuild the church of their Green Bay Packer hero. Mr. President, for too long in our history, we did not do enough to defend and protect the two great pillars of our Constitution: Religious liberty and equal rights. But that is no longer the case. Today, with this piece of legislation, we will assure that the Federal Government can prosecute church burners to the fullest extent of the law. Our legislation is simple. The current law requires that prosecutors prove a series of connections between a church burning and interstate commerce. Proving all of those connections is not constitutionally mandated, so with this legislation we eliminate them. In addition, we eliminate the requirement that damage be in excess of $10,000. Once this measure becomes law, it will be easier to prosecute the people who have set these fires. Mr. President, let us pass this legislation quickly.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to continue the debate on the issue which we have voted on today--campaign finance reform. Today the Senate voted on S. 1219, the Senate Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1996. While a majority of the Senate voiced its support for this meaningful legislation, sadly, we did not get the required 60 votes to end the filibuster against the bill. Mr. President, I supported and cosponsored S. 1219 because I felt it was the best legislation moving through the Congress to reform our campaign finance system. My Wisconsin colleague, Senator Feingold and Senator John McCain deserve our gratitude and praise for keeping this issue alive. It's been nearly 20 years since Congress enacted meaningful campaign finance reform, and they have come closer than anyone at passing a bipartisan plan. We are, however, at a crossroads in this debate. America's campaign finance laws have not been significantly altered since the 1970's. Since that time we have seen an explosion in the costs of running campaigns and a growing public perception that special interests are far too influential in the electoral process. Despite these widely agreed-upon problems, Congress and the President seem incapable of enacting a campaign finance reform bill. We have seen initiatives by Democratic and Republican Presidents, Democratic and Republican Congresses, even widely-hailed bipartisan approaches all fail. One can only conclude that this issue is so mired in partisan politics, trapped in a quagmire of self-interest and special interest, that Congress will not be able craft a comprehensive reform bill. S. 1219 was the best legislation to be proposed in two decades, and yet we can not get 60 Senators to support it, and the House of Representatives will not even guarantee the House counterpart legislation will get an up-or-down vote. Mr. President, after two decades it is time to try a new approach-- time for us to embrace a new method for addressing this vital issue. Therefore, I am introducing today the Campaign Finance Reform Commission Act of 1996. Let me be clear from the outset: I would prefer to pass a bill such as S. 1219. But after today's vote, we must be honest with ourselves and the American public--that is not going to happen. The Campaign Finance Reform Commission is modeled on the successful Base Realignment and Closure Commissions. The legislation would establish a balanced, bipartisan commission, appointed by Senate leaders, House leaders and the President to propose comprehensive campaign finance reform. Like the BRAC Commissions, the proposals of the Campaign Finance Reform Commission would be subject to congressional approval or disapproval, but no amendments would be permitted. The Commission would have a limited duration--1 year after its creation. And Congress would have a limited time to consider the Commission's proposals. Mr. President, there are many who will object to this plan and argue that, through the creation of a commission, the Congress is conceding that it cannot solve this problem on its own. To the contrary, the creation of a Campaign Finance Reform Commission would be a concrete sign to the American public that Congress is serious about reforming our election laws. We have seen the success of the BRAC Commissions in removing political influences from the decision-making process. This same formula could be used for our campaign finance reform laws. When Congress enacted the first BRAC Commission law, it was argued that a non-partisan commission was required because the closure of military bases was so politically sensitive, Congress could not be expected to make the tough choices of closing bases. Well, Mr. President, if closing military bases is considered tough, altering the campaign laws that literally determine whether Members could retain their jobs must be just as politically sensitive, if not more so. Again, I wish to praise the efforts of Senators Feingold, McCain, and the broad coalition of grassroots organizations which have kept the campaign finance issue in front of the American public and the Congress. We have come so close to enacting real campaign finance reform. The creation of a pure bipartisan commission, modeled on the Base Closure Commission, is final act to achieve the reform we all desire. Mr. President, like all common sense ideas, this one did not spring from a text book but came from a simpler setting. A year ago President Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich held an historic conversation at a New Hampshire meeting. The first question came from a retiree, Mr. Frank McConnell Jr. Mr. McConnell had a simple, common sense idea--form a commission like the one that closed the military bases to reform our election system, so, in Mr. McConnell's words, ``it would be out of the political scene.'' The time for Mr. McConnell's idea has come. I am pleased to put Mr. McConnell's idea into legislative form and urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. This commission could give us the reform we all demand. And, it would give the American public a restored faith that their democratic institutions have responded to their cry for change in our electoral system. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to continue the debate on the issue which we have voted on today--campaign finance reform. Today the Senate voted on S. 1219, the Senate Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1996. While a majority of the Senate voiced its support for this meaningful legislation, sadly, we did not get the required 60 votes to end the filibuster against the bill. Mr. President, I supported and cosponsored S. 1219 because I felt it was the best legislation moving through the Congress to reform our campaign finance system. My Wisconsin colleague, Senator Feingold and Senator John McCain deserve our gratitude and praise for keeping this issue alive. It's been nearly 20 years since Congress enacted meaningful campaign finance reform, and they have come closer than anyone at passing a bipartisan plan. We are, however, at a crossroads in this debate. America's campaign finance laws have not been significantly altered since the 1970's. Since that time we have seen an explosion in the costs of running campaigns and a growing public perception that special interests are far too influential in the electoral process. Despite these widely agreed-upon problems, Congress and the President seem incapable of enacting a campaign finance reform bill. We have seen initiatives by Democratic and Republican Presidents, Democratic and Republican Congresses, even widely-hailed bipartisan approaches all fail. One can only conclude that this issue is so mired in partisan politics, trapped in a quagmire of self-interest and special interest, that Congress will not be able craft a comprehensive reform bill. S. 1219 was the best legislation to be proposed in two decades, and yet we can not get 60 Senators to support it, and the House of Representatives will not even guarantee the House counterpart legislation will get an up-or-down vote. Mr. President, after two decades it is time to try a new approach-- time for us to embrace a new method for addressing this vital issue. Therefore, I am introducing today the Campaign Finance Reform Commission Act of 1996. Let me be clear from the outset: I would prefer to pass a bill such as S. 1219. But after today's vote, we must be honest with ourselves and the American public--that is not going to happen. The Campaign Finance Reform Commission is modeled on the successful Base Realignment and Closure Commissions. The legislation would establish a balanced, bipartisan commission, appointed by Senate leaders, House leaders and the President to propose comprehensive campaign finance reform. Like the BRAC Commissions, the proposals of the Campaign Finance Reform Commission would be subject to congressional approval or disapproval, but no amendments would be permitted. The Commission would have a limited duration--1 year after its creation. And Congress would have a limited time to consider the Commission's proposals. Mr. President, there are many who will object to this plan and argue that, through the creation of a commission, the Congress is conceding that it cannot solve this problem on its own. To the contrary, the creation of a Campaign Finance Reform Commission would be a concrete sign to the American public that Congress is serious about reforming our election laws. We have seen the success of the BRAC Commissions in removing political influences from the decision-making process. This same formula could be used for our campaign finance reform laws. When Congress enacted the first BRAC Commission law, it was argued that a non-partisan commission was required because the closure of military bases was so politically sensitive, Congress could not be expected to make the tough choices of closing bases. Well, Mr. President, if closing military bases is considered tough, altering the campaign laws that literally determine whether Members could retain their jobs must be just as politically sensitive, if not more so. Again, I wish to praise the efforts of Senators Feingold, McCain, and the broad coalition of grassroots organizations which have kept the campaign finance issue in front of the American public and the Congress. We have come so close to enacting real campaign finance reform. The creation of a pure bipartisan commission, modeled on the Base Closure Commission, is final act to achieve the reform we all desire. Mr. President, like all common sense ideas, this one did not spring from a text book but came from a simpler setting. A year ago President Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich held an historic conversation at a New Hampshire meeting. The first question came from a retiree, Mr. Frank McConnell Jr. Mr. McConnell had a simple, common sense idea--form a commission like the one that closed the military bases to reform our election system, so, in Mr. McConnell's words, ``it would be out of the political scene.'' The time for Mr. McConnell's idea has come. I am pleased to put Mr. McConnell's idea into legislative form and urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. This commission could give us the reform we all demand. And, it would give the American public a restored faith that their democratic institutions have responded to their cry for change in our electoral system. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I supported Alan Greenspan's renomination to Chair the Federal Reserve Board for a third term. Any decision of such importance to the American people deserves careful consideration. But now that we have had a constructive debate, I am pleased that the Senate moved forward with this long-delayed process. As some of you know, Dr. Greenspan's impressive career includes three decades of work with a private sector economic consulting firm, during which time he held the positions of both chairman and president of the company. Other distinguished achievements include chairmanship of President Ford's Council of Economic Advisers, membership on President Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board and consulting work for the Congressional Budget Office. And as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board for the past 8 years, Dr. Greenspan has won the respect and confidence of Republican and Democrats alike and consistently steered American monetary policy on a prudent and responsible course. Mr. President, the economy is strong and growing. Inflation is under control, and mortgage rates have averaged 7.8 percent, the lowest since Lyndon Johnson was in the White House. Much of this success is due to the constancy and apolitical management of our country's monetary policy. And while I will support reforms of Fed management to ensure that taxpayer funds are used responsibly, I will not support efforts to subject the Federal Reserve to political influence. Considering his past record and looking to the future, Alan Greenspan deserves reappointment. He is the best candidate for the job, and I am confident that he will continue providing vital leadership toward our common goal of keeping the economy robust. I supported his renomination and am pleased that the majority of my colleagues opted to do the same.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues in supporting S. 1219, the Senate Campaign Finance Reform Act. First, I wish to commend my colleague, Senator Russ Feingold, for his tireless work in bringing this issue to the floor. Senator Feingold has done a tremendous job in keeping this issue before the Senate and ensuring that we have a full debate on this bill. I also wish to commend Senator John McCain, another stalwart advocate of campaign finance reform. Without his bipartisan leadership, we would not be debating this bill today. Mr. President, we all know our campaign finance system is broken. We all know that the American public is losing trust in our government institutions and electoral system more and more each year. It seems that all members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, agree that reform is absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, that is where the agreement ends. For a variety of reasons, it seems impossible for Congress to pass and for the President to sign meaningful campaign finance reform. This issue is consistently mired in partisan politics, tinged with the self interest of some individuals and groups who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. That is why today's proposal is so unique. The Senate Campaign Finance Reform Act is the first, real bipartisan reform plan to reach the Senate floor in decades. In the House of Representatives, there is a companion measure which also has garnered bipartisan support. These two bills have widespread grassroots backing through the United States, from groups as diverse as United We Stand to the Gray Panthers to the Children's Defense Fund. This legislation strikes at the heart at much of what is wrong with our campaign finance system: it eliminates PAC contributions; caps the amounts that can be spent in campaigns; curtails the practice of bundling contributions; and closes the loopholes allowing so-called soft money contributions. The legislation establishes many of these limits through a voluntary system, thereby conforming with Supreme Court rulings governing campaign financing. Like many Senators, if I had drafted my own bill, I would have omitted some provisions of this legislation and included others. But any meaningful bipartisan reform must be a compromise between competing proposals. And campaign finance reform must be done in a bipartisan fashion--legislation crafted by one party and rammed through the Congress will not and should not get the support of the American people. Mr. President, I recognize there are deep divisions among Members of Congress over the how to reform our campaign finance system. These divisions have led to stalemate after stalemate over 20 years. Without serious reform, the American public will continue to mistrust not only the way we elect candidates, but the very fundamental precipes of our government. This must not go on. S. 1219 is the best option currently moving through the Congress to begin renewing America's faith in our elections and curtail the influence of special interest contributions. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill, and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of cloture.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to cosponsor the Church Arson Protection Act of 1996 introduced today by Senators Kennedy and Faircloth. Since the beginning of this year, a series of fires have swept our country. More than 30 predominantly African-American churches in the southeast have been burned. Not all of the fires have been set by people filled with racial hatred. But many have. And even one is too much. Passing this measure is the least we can do to address this problem. With this new law, we send a clear message to every person who is thinking of setting fire to a place of worship: we will catch you. If you think that any church is small and remote, think again. No church is too small or remote for us not to care about it. If you think that you can burn all of the evidence, think again. We will find the evidence. If you think that no one cares if you burn a church used by African Americans, think again. This Nation condemns your actions. In the last few months, the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and State and local law enforcement have vigorously investigated the fires in our churches. They have made numerous arrests and have leads on many other cases. Despite this progress, the news of these fires is genuinely disturbing and perplexing. How could anyone do such a heinous thing? How could anyone burn a church and feel proud of their actions? No one who is truly committed to the principles of our country could do this. This Nation was founded on tolerance and respect for religious worship. And the greatest battle of our country's short life has been fought for the principle of racial tolerance. Many people may say that these fires are a blow aimed at racial and religious equality. And they are. But they are feeble and small swats. We will rebuild the burned churches; we will condemn the bigots who started the fires; and with this law, we will help assure that punishment is swift, sure, and severe. These fires cannot undo the progress in race relations that we have made as a nation. So today, I rise to cosponsor this legislation. And I urge my fellow Senators to pass it rapidly an unanimously.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to cosponsor the Church Arson Protection Act of 1996 introduced today by Senators Kennedy and Faircloth. Since the beginning of this year, a series of fires have swept our country. More than 30 predominantly African-American churches in the southeast have been burned. Not all of the fires have been set by people filled with racial hatred. But many have. And even one is too much. Passing this measure is the least we can do to address this problem. With this new law, we send a clear message to every person who is thinking of setting fire to a place of worship: we will catch you. If you think that any church is small and remote, think again. No church is too small or remote for us not to care about it. If you think that you can burn all of the evidence, think again. We will find the evidence. If you think that no one cares if you burn a church used by African Americans, think again. This Nation condemns your actions. In the last few months, the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and State and local law enforcement have vigorously investigated the fires in our churches. They have made numerous arrests and have leads on many other cases. Despite this progress, the news of these fires is genuinely disturbing and perplexing. How could anyone do such a heinous thing? How could anyone burn a church and feel proud of their actions? No one who is truly committed to the principles of our country could do this. This Nation was founded on tolerance and respect for religious worship. And the greatest battle of our country's short life has been fought for the principle of racial tolerance. Many people may say that these fires are a blow aimed at racial and religious equality. And they are. But they are feeble and small swats. We will rebuild the burned churches; we will condemn the bigots who started the fires; and with this law, we will help assure that punishment is swift, sure, and severe. These fires cannot undo the progress in race relations that we have made as a nation. So today, I rise to cosponsor this legislation. And I urge my fellow Senators to pass it rapidly an unanimously.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Edgerton, WI, resident, Steve Stricker, on winning the 1996 Kemper Open. Known to many on the Professional Golfers Association (PGA) tour as the best player not to have won on tour, Stricker shed that distinction with his commanding 3-stroke victory at the Tournament Players Club (TPC) at Avenel in nearby Potomac, MD. Stricker demonstrated the skill and confidence of a champion throughout the 72-hole tournament. Whether it was a 5-foot par putt to maintain his lead, or the decision to attack the par 5 sixth hole rather than hold back, Steve's long hours of practice and overall commitment to excellence paid off, literally. Steve Stricker was not alone on the damp and drizzly 7,005 yard, par 71 course, however. Stricker's caddie, Nicki, who also happens to be his wife, was there every step of the way, encouraging him to be aggressive, yet acting as a steadying presence over any anxious moments during the tournament. A competitive golfer in her own right, Nicki's wise counsel and experience added to the victory, making it truly a team effort. Those of us who have followed his short career know that this is just the tip of the iceberg for Steve Stricker. With his exceptional work ethic and dedication to making himself the best, Steve's successes have only just begun. With this in mind, I congratulate Steve Stricker on his 1996 Kemper Open victory and look forward to more of the same.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague Senator Wellstone. As I understand the Wellstone amendment, it requires any tax revenues raised in excess of the amount needed to pay for a per-child tax credit be allocated toward a $10,000 annual deduction for higher education tuition and student loan interest costs or for deficit reduction. After careful consideration, and notwithstanding my support for the respective goals of deficit reduction and education assistance, I have concluded that I am unable to support the Wellstone amendment. Let me tell you why. Mr. President, although I share Senator Wellstone's commitment to increasing educational opportunities and easing the burdens associated with the costs of higher education, I do not share his all-or-nothing approach to determining our Federal budget priorities. Our Nation faces a number of difficult and complicated challenges arising out of our failure to reduce the Federal budget deficit, to achieve sustained economic growth, and to increase the global competitiveness of the Nation's labor force. I believe that the only way to meet these challenges is to adopt a comprehensive plan of action that moves the Nation forward on every front. Recognizing the need for such action, the members of the Centrist coalition offered a budget that called for deficit reduction, economic growth, and education incentives. Moreover, all of our proposals were paid for by spending reductions and elimination of loopholes benefiting special interests and foreign corporations. Finally, Mr. President, the members of the centrist group concluded that these investments and reforms would yield the maximum possible benefit if they were enacted as part of a comprehensive package. With respect to the education incentives, our group proposed a two- part package. The first component called for the enactment of an above- the-line deduction for interest expenses paid on education loans. The second component was an additional above-the-line deduction for qualified education expenses paid for the education or training of the taxpayer, his or her spouse, or the taxpayer's dependents. As the centrist proposal demonstrated, it is possible to craft a budget that fairly and equitably addresses our needs in critical areas such as education without excluding other important national priorities. Unfortunately, the Wellstone amendment leaves no room for many of the economic reforms--such as capital gains and estate tax reform and small business incentives--that are also critical to providing economic security for all of our citizens. It is this shortcoming that, in my opinion, creates a fatal flaw in my colleague's proposal. Mr. President, although I am unable to support Senator Wellstone in this particular instance, I do look forward to working with him, and others, to find bipartisan solutions to the challenges that lie ahead. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, with this week's debate on the budget resolution, I believe the Senate has moved a giant step closer to implementing a balanced budget. We are no longer debating whether we should balance the budget. We are actually choosing between three separate, complete balanced budget proposals: the Republicans' budget resolution, the President's balanced budget submission, and the centrist coalition's bipartisan budget plan now pending as an amendment. The President's plan has already been defeated in a party line vote-- not a surprising result in an election year. We now have to decide whether to adopt the Republicans' budget or the only bipartisan balanced budget plan presented in the Senate. If we are serious about setting the course for a balanced budget this year, I think we must choose the centrist plan. The Republicans' budget, as Yogi Berra said, is ``deja vu all over again.'' It is virtually identical to last year's vetoed budget bill. The Republican budget puts forth the same plan that was rejected last year by the public and the President. This is the plan that guided us through a year of vetoes, gridlock, Government shutdowns, and stopgap spending measures. Mr. President, we have a chance to redeem ourselves in the eyes of the American public. They have seen 2 years of partisanship, bickering, and gridlock. In one vote we can send a message that we can work together in the spirit of bipartisanship, that we can bridge our differences and pass a budget that is honest, balanced, and fair. That plan is the centrist budget now before us as an amendment. First, and most important, this is the only plan on the table that is bipartisan. It has been developed over the last half year by 11 Democratic Senators and 11 Republican Senators. We have worked in a way that I believe the American people want us to work. We have put aside our own political needs and party positions. We have compromised. Our primary goal was a balanced budget--not a partisan victory. And the result is an equitable budget plan that can win the support of a majority of the American people. The budget the centrists present today contains $679 billion in proposed savings over 7 years. Those savings are spread across almost every group in society and almost every Government program. Our plan has lower Medicare cuts than either the Republican or Democratic plans but enough cuts to guarantee the longrun solvency of the program. Our plan contains a modest tax cut--$130 billion--that will allow us to do some targeted tax credits for children and give businesses some capital gains relief. Our plan caps the out-of-control growth of entitlements through an adjustment in the CPI. And, most importantly, our plan achieves real and sustainable deficit elimination. Mr. President, the centrists have put together a solid, bipartisan balanced budget plan. I believe it is the best--and perhaps the only-- choice for those Members who want to see a balanced budget enacted this year. Mr. President, we know partisanship does not work. If we go down that road again with a budget that only gets Republican votes, then we may see some interesting campaign ads, but we will not see a balanced budget. We have a clear choice before us today. Vote for the centrist amendment, and vote for bipartisanship, honest budgeting, shared and fair sacrifice, and the last, best hope for a balanced budget in this Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the education amendment offered by Senators Murray and Kerry. This amendment would restore the overall funding level for critical education and training programs jeopardized under this budget proposal. The amendment is fully paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes. Students, parents, and teachers taught us a valuable lesson this past year. The budget we are considering today seems to have missed the main tenet of that lesson--this Nation can not afford large education cuts. Mr. President, over the next 6 years, funding for education programs under this budget would be reduced by 17 percent in real dollars, a cut of $7.4 billion. Such a weak commitment to education ignores profound challenges facing students, schools, and families. School violence is more and more prevalent; yet this budget jeopardizes the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. The cost of obtaining a college education is going through the roof; yet this budget restricts opportunities for college aid. Math and reading scores of children are stagnant; yet Title I funding to help the most disadvantaged children build basic skills is weakened. And technology is racing past the classroom door; yet this budget leaves education technology programs behind. How can we make such assumptions? Because those programs were targeted for devastating cuts under the partisan budget plan last year--the same cuts which were so soundly rejected by the American people. It is true that the bulk of education funding comes from States and localities, but school administrators are the first to admit that the Federal contribution is critical. Cutting our investment in education is foolhardy. In the struggle to meet the challenges of educating today's students, schools and communities need more help, not less. We clearly must to be willing to make difficult decisions to reign in government spending. But it makes no sense to cut corners on education. There is a simple reason for this. In the next century, the world's strongest Nation will be the one which has the best educated people. If we abandon schools and students today, we will not be prepared for the economic challenges tomorrow. Reducing our investment in education will have painful results. Students with special needs will not get the individual attention they must have to succeed in school. Drugs and violence will threaten the safety of even more students and teachers. Students will not have the skills to make the connection to jobs after graduation. And ambitious, intelligent students will not go to college, because they will not be able to afford the tuition. Mr. President, according to the College Board, college tuition costs last year increased at a rate of 6 percent nationally, which is more than twice the rate of inflation. Only a decade ago, student debt levels were $9 billion. This year student loans may reach $29 billion, which is up from $27 billion last year and $24 billion in 1994. Facing the realities of skyrocketing tuition costs, parents are finding it harder than ever to help their children reach a higher standard of living. Families are falling deeper and deeper in debt trying to send their kids to college today. Are we prepared to turn our backs on those seeking to succeed through a good education? I should hope not. We confronted these same concerns last year, and we came to the right conclusion then. This year we are forced down the same road, and the answer must be the same now. I urge my colleagues to support education and vote for the Kerry- Murray amendment.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, this amendment puts the Senate on record in support of funding for programs that help young people stay off drugs and avoid crime and violence. It also commits the Senate to evaluating all crime prevention and eliminating duplication of services among these programs. In short, this is a clear, concise statement that we support doing what works in preventing crime and we oppose bureaucratic duplication. This is a sensible approach to prevention that we think all Senators can support. While we work toward a balanced budget this week--a goal that I strongly support--we must not neglect our obligations to protect our citizens from crime. And as any law enforcement official will tell you, part of that fight must include efforts to help at-risk youth avoid a life of crime. It makes sense to support prisons and police because we must protect our communities. But we have clear evidence that many prevention efforts can and do turn young people around, reduce juvenile crime and delinquency, and stop crime in the first place. We should be supporting those efforts, too. While we should fund these effective measures, we should also gather more information on what works, so this amendment commits the Senate to supporting rigorous evaluation of existing prevention programs. And finally, we must do a better job of coordinating prevention programs, eliminating duplication, and streamlining the Federal bureaucracy. A bipartisan Senate has repeatedly supported crime prevention funding, yet funding has then been cut during House-Senate conferences. As we begin our efforts for fiscal year 1997, I am hopeful that the full Senate will once again speak out on behalf of America's at-risk youth, and commit to giving them the help they need to steer clear of crime and delinquency. Finally, I would like to thank Senator Campbell for his leadership and hard work on behalf of America's young people and in support of crime prevention--not only on this amendment, but throughout his tenure in the Senate. I look forward to working with him to see that the Senate follows through on the commitments contained in this amendment.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, no one has explained to me how we can maintain these high levels of defense spending and reduce the deficit. We cannot continue to spare the Defense Department from the deep regimen of cuts we are asking the rest of our society to absorb. If we are committed to reducing the deficit and balancing our budget, we must make the hard votes. I know for some this will be a hard vote. However, I urge my colleagues to vote for this responsible approach to defense spending. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, April 18, 1996. Hon. Pete V. Domenici, Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to express our strong concern about the Defense Department proposal to spend some $30.5 billion dollars in ``inflation savings'' realized because of lower inflation estimates over the next five years. We urge you to raise this issue during your hearings on the FY 97 budget and to direct these funds toward deficit reduction. Inflation estimates used by the Defense Department over the years have been grossly inaccurate. In the 1980's, overestimates of inflation resulted in a $50 billion windfall. That money disappeared. Then two years ago, the Defense Department told Congress that it had underestimated inflation and needed another $20 billion to execute future defense programs. Now, just two years later, the Defense Department is telling us that it has once again overestimated inflation--this time to the tune of $45.7 billion. This history undermines the credibility of the Defense Department's financial estimates. In its FY 97 budget submission, the Defense Department is proposing to use $30.5 billion of these inflation savings to buy more weapons systems. We are troubled by the notion that any agency should be able to keep such a large windfall and increase its total spending because inflation estimates were inaccurate. Responsible budgeting demands that these funds be returned to the Treasury and that the Defense Department not be rewarded for changes in economic conditions. Furthermore, purchasing more programs with inflation windfalls creates tremendous instability in program management. If we truly intend to reduce the deficit, no area of the budget should be exempt from cuts. Cuts must be shared by all segments of our society. The Defense Department is no exception as long as threats to our national security continue to decline. In fact, given that the defense budget constitutes as much as 18 percent of the federal budget, we cannot afford to make the Defense Department an exception. And, we certainly cannot afford to give the Defense Department an unexpected $30.5 billion. We urge you to direct these funds toward deficit reduction before the Budget Committee finalizes its FY 1997 budget. Sincerely, Herb Kohl, Bill Bradley, Charles E. Grassley. Exhibit 2 Taxpayers for Common Sense, May 15, 1996. Taxpayers Say Support Grassley-Kohl Amendment on Defense Spending Dear Senators Grassley and Kohl: Taxpayers for Common Sense is pleased to support your amendment to the FY97 Budget Resolution to ``put the brakes'' on the Pentagon's budget. In particular, we support your amendment that would fence the Budget Committee's $11.3 billion increase to the Administration's request. We understand that the fence would apply to the FY 1997 request only. We understand that your amendment provides that the funds would be released only if the President certified that the additional amount was necessary for national security. If that certification is not made, the funds would go to help reduce the national deficit. According to a recent GAO report, there have been no savings in the DoD infrastructure despite several base closures and significant cuts in force structure. At this crucial time, with our nation struggling to balance its budget all government agencies must share the burden of cost cutting. We would urge the Senate to approve your amendment. Sincerely, Jill Lancelot, Legislative Director.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I join today with Senator Grassley to urge my colleagues to support this very simple amendment to put some restraint in our defense budget. In effect, our amendment accepts the higher defense spending levels for fiscal year 1997 currently in the budget resolution. However, it places a fence around $8.3 billion in budget authority and $2.3 billion in outlays. If the President certifies that, in fact, these additional funds, are required for our national security, the funds will be released. If the President does not make this certification, the funds will go toward deficit reduction. This is a reasonable amendment. It gives the President every opportunity to use these funds for defense should there truly be a need to do so. Last year, when the Senate passed its version of the fiscal year 1996 budget resolution, the Senate endorsed the administration's defense spending level for fiscal year 1997. When proponents of more defense spending tried to increase defense spending over the next 5 years, the Senate rebuffed that effort. The vote last year gives me confidence that our amendment will succeed today, for there is bipartisan support for maintaining defense spending at reasonable levels. On May 23, 1995, in a strong bipartisan vote, the Senate defeated an amendment to last year's budget resolution which would have increased defense spending above the level requested by the administration. Sixty Senators voted against that amendment to increase defense spending not only for fiscal year 1996 but for fiscal year 1997 too. Unless they have changed their minds, the same 60 Senators should support this amendment. It offers another chance for the Senate to support reasonable defense spending levels. Let us review some of the numbers for a minute, in case anyone is concerned that the proposed level of defense spending in our amendment is anything less than robust. Our amendment does not reject the $266.4 billion in budget authority and $264.6 billion in outlays as called for in the budget resolution reported out by the Budget Committee. Should the President determine that the money we fence is not needed for defense then, eventually, $8.3 billion in budget authority and $2.3 billion in outlays will be returned to the Treasury, a mere 1-percent reduction in the spending level endorsed by the Budget Committee. Let me say a few words about inflation adjustments. Senators should realize that thanks to adjustments in the cost of doing business for the Pentagon we are really talking about an increase that surpasses the $11.3 billion added by the Budget Committee in terms of buying power. Earlier this year, Secretary Perry announced that the Defense Department had discovered $45.7 billion in inflation savings after reestimating the defense budget for FY1997-2001 using lower inflation rates from the Bureau of Economic Analyses. The administration gave the Defense Department the green light to plow $30.5 billion of these funds back into the defense budget even though the additional buying power provided by these funds was not anticipated by the Defense Department nor was it requested. $4.3 billion of these inflation savings are built into the administration's fiscal year 1997 defense budget. I am concerned that in the rush to increase defense spending, we have ignored the fact that in terms of buying power, the administration has already proposed significant increases which we are now building into our own numbers without any acknowledgment or discussion. Senator Grassley, Senator Bradley, and I raised this issue with the Budget Committee earlier this year and I ask unanimous consent that a letter on this subject be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. KOHL. If we are serious about reducing the deficit and achieving a balanced budget, we cannot increase spending when favorable economic conditions bring down the costs of Federal programs. We must use these savings to help pay off our burgeoning debt. Yet, here we are turning around and giving the Defense Department even more. And with all due respect to my colleagues, there never seems to be a specific goal here: It is always just more defense spending. Two years ago, we had a readiness crisis, now we have a so-called modernization crisis. Unfortunately, the only crisis we have here is a crisis of hemorrhaging tax dollars. No one has made an effective case as to why we must be spending even more on defense. After more than four decades of building up a defense infrastructure to respond to the menace of the Soviet Union and its Eastern bloc allies, we are now pumping even more money into this same infrastructure without any real effort to reassess the basic assumptions underlying our national security posture. Is our defense spending relevant to the threats of the future? We cannot possible answer that question for the real conundrum is that we have no idea what these threats are. And, we are having a hard enough time articulating what we need to face the current threats. Frankly, we are facing no major threats today. When the American people talk today about insecurity, they are talking about job security, personal security, and perhaps moral security. Even the threats to our national security posed by episodes of regional instability and conflict are less likely to be resolved with military force and more likely to be resolved through political or diplomatic intervention. To be sure, we need a strong defense. We need to develop a strategy and maintain a force structure to protect and advance our interests in the new global environment. If we could start over again and create a new force structure from scratch to meet the new challenges of this era, I am confident that we would have a leaner, more mobile and more efficient force at far less cost. I must confess, I am perplexed by arguments made that we must provide additional funds to the military because the service chiefs have said they want these funds. Of course they do. Are there any Federal agencies, when asked if they want additional funds, that would say no? I am certain that if we asked each Cabinet Secretary to lay out his or her unmet requirements we would have equally impressive shopping lists to compete with those sent over by the services. I am also puzzled by arguments that we must front load defense spending in the early years of a 7-year plan because spending in the out years cannot be relied upon. Mr. President, the spending we vote for today--much of it devoted to new procurement and new research and development projects--lays the groundwork for increased spending down the road. Frankly, the spending proposed today ensures that reductions proposed for the out years will not occur. If we allow this tremendous increase in defense spending to stand, we are reinforcing a disturbing trend. Last year, for the first time in 14 years, Congress ultimately increased defense spending well above the level identified by the Defense Department as necessary for our natonal security. During consideration of last year's Defense authorization bill, Senator Grassley and I attempted to bring defense spending back to the level in the Senate's budget resolution by cutting $7 billion. Our amendment was endorsed by a variety of groups focussed on deficit reduction and included in the annual scores generated by the Council for a Livable World and the Concord Coalition. Although the amendment received bipartisan support, it was narrowly defeated. I should note that this year the National Taxpayers Union and Taxpayers for Common Sense have already endorsed our efforts. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Taxpayers for Common Sense be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of our efforts to address the problem of illegal immigration. It is shameful and, frankly, embarrassing that the strongest nation in the world has had such difficulty controlling its own borders. This bill will help us make progress in this crucial area. The administration has already begun to make headway. Commissioner Meissner and the INS have strengthened the Border Patrol and targeted agents and equipment to the areas with the highest number of illegal entries. They've improved the asylum process, reducing asylum claims by 57 percent and clearly restoring integrity to the system. And they deported a record number of criminal and noncriminal illegal aliens in 1995. But with almost 4 million illegal aliens residing in this country, we obviously need to do more. Mr. President, this legislation is a good start. With broad bipartisan support, S. 1664 was voted out of the Judiciary Committee. This bill is not perfect and the proposed reforms not foolproof, but the American public has sent a clear message. They want us to act against those who break our laws to come here, who take jobs at the expense of hardworking Americans, and who surreptitiously benefit from the generous safety net provided by our tax dollars. We approved a number of good amendments during the Judiciary Committee markup, as we have done these past weeks during floor debate. We have worked together in a bipartisan manner and moved forward, recognizing that this issue is too important, and this problem too serious, for us to have let progress be indefinitely delayed by peripheral debates. Mr. President, let me address a number of the contentious issues that arose during our debate on this bill. First and foremost, I am pleased that we kept separate the illegal and legal immigration measures. Simply put, illegal and legal immigration are fundamentally different issues. And Congress must not let our common frustration with illegal immigrants unfairly color the circumstances of legal immigrants: The risk of injustice is too great. Mr. President, we put our minds to it and effectively debated the provisions of S. 1664, and we can do the same with regard to the legal immigration bill. If the majority of the Senate agrees that problems exist in both areas, then combining legal and illegal reform packages would only have impeded fair and deliberative treatment of either issue. Second, we should be pleased that we maintained the guts of this bill: The proposed verification pilot projects. Those who oppose the pilot projects have legitimate concerns about the accuracy of data, the uses to which that data is put, and whether it will really decrease employment discrimination and the employment of illegal aliens. But the response to these concerns should not be to throw out the idea altogether. I am pleased that the Senate voted to uphold the reasonable compromise adopted by the committee. That is, conduct extensive demonstration projects, see if they work and then ask Congress to take a look at the results and decide whether a national verification system is a good idea. If the verification system is ineffective or, worse, civil liberties are compromised, we can junk the system. And we should. But if pilot projects could move us down the road toward a workable approach, one which stops illegal aliens from getting jobs, then at the very least it deserves a try. Third, with regard to the summary exclusion provisions, we all agree that the United States must uphold its obligation to provide refuge for people legitimately fleeing persecution. And obviously the challenge lies in balancing our desire to provide a safe haven with the need to protect our borders and avoid fraud. As mentioned earlier, INS has begun to move us toward achieving this balance. And the Judiciary Committee added its help by adopting a 1- year post-entry time limit for filing defensive asylum claims. However, S. 1664's provisions establishing new grounds for the exclusion of immigrants who arrive at our borders without proper documentation and claim asylum were troubling. Senator Simpson's bill would have essentially left the determination of whether that claim is credible to a Border Patrol agent. These changes would have placed the United States at serious risk of sending legitimate asylees back to their persecutors. Indeed, the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees had told us as much, all in the name of solving a problem that does not exist. Fortunately, Senator Leahy's amendment to remove the summary exclusion provisions succeeded. Fourth, the issue of deeming and the related obligations of an immigrant sponsor are extremely complex. Persuasive arguments can be made on both sides but, overall, this bill's provisions strengthening an immigrant sponsor's obligations are fair and prudent. It is reasonable to ask that the sponsor's affidavit of support be legally enforceable and that deeming extend to more public assistance programs. When legal immigrants come to this country they take a vow not to become a public charge. And it is the sponsor, not the taxpayer, who should foot the bill when a legal immigrant needs help. However, I must express regret that the Senate voted down the Chafee amendment. At a minimum, the Senate should have ensured that illegal aliens are not afforded more privileges than legal immigrants and approved this provision in the interest of public health. Finally, I am pleased that S. 1664 includes my amendment on the international matchmaking business. 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. Mr. President, my own parents were immigrants. There is no doubt that our Nation has benefited immensely from the hard work and ambitions of the generations of legal immigrants that have chosen to start new lives in America. This bill, by cracking down on illegal immigration, will continue this rich tradition. I commend the hard work and commitment of the managers of the bill, Senators Simpson and Kennedy. Our current immigration policies, though not perfect, stand as strong evidence that the United States is fundamentally a generous and compassionate nation. Though we sometimes differ over the best way to continue that strong tradition, we all share a common desire to stem the tide of illegal immigration to this country. With our minds on the common goal, let us approve this legislation on behalf of the American public.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank Senator Breaux. The balanced budget we are presenting today is balanced not only on the bottom line, but it is balanced in its political support, balanced in the sacrifices it asks from all of us, and balanced in the benefits it bestows. Balance and fairness has not been the hallmark of previous budget plans presented to this Senate. Let me put this on a more personal level. I could not ask the people of Wisconsin to support a budget that cut their benefits while it was giving me a big tax break, and I could not ask them to support a budget designed to improve my party's chances in the 1996 Presidential election rather than their children's chances in the world economy of the 21st century. But I can ask them to support the plan we are releasing today because it is fair, it is smart, and it is bipartisan. The budget we present today contains almost $600 billion in proposed savings over 5 years, and that is without calculating the savings in interest costs from reduced debt. Those savings are spread across almost every group in society and almost every Government program. Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, Federal retirement programs, and even Social Security are slated for spending reductions. Corporate welfare is cut. Payments to chronic individual welfare recipients are eliminated. Defense and domestic spending are brought below a freeze. Savings proposals from both Democratic and Republican balanced budget offers, affecting areas from banking to veterans, commerce to communications, are incorporated in our plan. If our plan was to be enacted, most of us would contribute an amount so small that we would not even notice, but our small contributions will add up to a big chunk of deficit reduction. Aside from the CPI adjustment, the spending cuts laid out in our plan are approximately 60 percent from entitlement programs and 40 percent from discretionary programs which we pay for through our annual appropriations bills. According to the President's budget, our actual spending in 1996 was 60 percent for entitlement programs and 40 percent for discretionary programs. So our plan distributes the cuts in exact proportion to the size of these programs in the budget. It favors no group, no special type of program, and no political sacred cow. Again, the cuts are evenhanded, unbiased, nonpartisan--in other words, fair. We believe that the fairness evident throughout our plan is necessary in a balanced budget if it is going to win popular and political support. We need to seek the balance in our fiscal policy that I am afraid is too often missing in our economy. It is now a generally accepted fact that our economy is growing more unequal. What that means for the average family is that they are working harder, longer hours, and tougher jobs just to maintain the standard of living that their parents enjoyed. Between 1973 and 1993, the productivity of the American worker grew by 25 percent, and over the same period, the hourly compensation of the average American worker was flat. That is not the story of an American opportunity that I, or any of my colleagues, grew up with. We know an American economy that values a fair day's work with a fair day's pay, and we know an America that comes together to solve big problems by sharing our burdens. We know an America where each generation has the opportunity to leave to their children a better standard of living. Mr. President, our budget is true to that vision of America. It calls for fair and equal sacrifice. It provides for a small amount of fairly distributed benefits and, most important, it brings our deficit down to zero and stops the accumulation of debt that has buried the economic opportunities of the next generation. So I ask all my colleagues to take a good look at this plan. Let us take this last, best chance to put aside politics and adopt a balanced budget that is real, bipartisan and fair. I yield the floor.