Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, there is no excuse for the Congress to have delayed the fiscal 1996 budget this long. But thankfully, the high stakes game of political chicken is finally over. After closing the Government on two occasions, passing 13 separate stop-gap funding bills, and waiting a full 7 months beyond the start of the budget year, Congress will finally pass the 1996 spending bill. This $160 billion measure funds the programs from five separate appropriations bills throughout the rest of this fiscal year. I will vote for the bill because it demonstrates that, when we work as a bipartisan majority, we can do what America has been asking us to do for a long time: cut the budget while protecting priorities like education, health care, and the environment. With this plan, overall Federal spending will be cut by $23 billion. However, $5 billion for health, education, environment, and job training programs has been restored under this measure. Because some were intent on trying to score political points this year rather than finishing our budget in a timely fashion, important programs for education, public health and job training and safety had been left in precarious funding situations since October 1, the beginning of the fiscal year. State labor departments were hampered in their ability to help those affected by plant closings. Head Start administrators wondered if they would have to close doors in the middle of their program year, negating recent gains from this early intervention program. And it looked like Americorps would be killed before the benefits from this promising community service program were ever realized. But no cuts would have had a more detrimental and long-term effect than the proposed cuts in education. I say this as a strong advocate of balancing the budget. To get to that goal, I know we have to consider cuts in programs we support. And I am willing to do so in every area-- except education. The drastic cuts in education initially proposed would have set our Nation back in the attempt to build a work force needed to lead our economy into the 21st Century. During negotiations with the House, the Senate and the administration insisted on basing overall education funding on the levels contained in the Senate bill--that is, funding at least at last year's level. As a Member of the Appropriations Committee, I have fought for the Senate education levels. With the diligent leadership of Senators Hatfield, Byrd, Specter, and Harkin, the Senate position on education prevailed. The title I education program, our largest contribution to schools across the country to help teach disadvantaged kids, has been funded at $7.2 billion. This is a full restoration to last year's level. Safe and drug free schools, a program granting schools the resources they need to curb drugs and violence and create a productive learning environment, is funded at last year's amount of $466 million. GOALS 2000 will be funded at $350 million, $22 million less than 1995, but enough to allow States and school districts to continue in their efforts to pursue effective education benchmarks. I am very pleased to say that the School to Work Program, which helps kids obtain technical skills critically needed in today's work force, received a $105 million increase. Although these levels may not seem like a huge victory, just take a look at what could have been, and what would have been, had the Senate and the President caved to extremist policies. The House proposed cutting title I education by almost $1 billion; Goals 2000 was completely eliminated as was the State student incentive grant program; $266 million was slashed from the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program; vocational education was cut $83 million; and, school to work cut $55 million. These levels would have had dire consequences for Wisconsin's education system. Wisconsin was originally slated to lose $28 million in education resources--including over $1 million in cuts to Goals 2000, almost $2 million in cuts to safe and drug free schools, over $4 million in vocational education cuts, and an unsustainable $20 million cut in title I, the money that goes to our most disadvantaged young students. This bill today prevents these short-sighted education cuts. Other programs important to the future of Wisconsin received needed investments under this bill. The Ryan White AIDS programs received a $105 million increase from last year. This total includes $52 million directed to the AIDS drug reimbursement program so that States may better meet demands for breakthrough drugs. Healthy start, which funds a promising demonstration program in Milwaukee aimed at preventing infant mortality, was restored to $93 million, or $43 million above the House cut. Funding was added back to the mental health block grant, which provides resources to help adults and children with severe mental illness and emotional disturbance. Dislocated worker assistance and the Summer Youth Employment Program were also restored under the bill. Mr. President, this bill is much more than a day late, but at least it's not billions of dollars short on education. Although I am disappointed with some provisions of the bill, I am pleased that our efforts to restore the investment in education prevailed. I am also pleased that the most egregious antienvironmental riders have been either eliminated or modified in this bill. Further, I am pleased that a significant portion of the funding for environmental programs has been restored. While overall fiscal constraints will undoubtedly become more severe in the coming years as we take the steps necessary to move toward a balanced budget, I think we should take a closer look at our priorities for discretionary spending. In my view, spending on the environment, as an investment in our future, should be a priority. There are some aspects of this bill with which I am much less happy. I am very disappointed that this budget fails to fund an adequate amount of crime prevention--programs that can reach young people before they are lost to a life of crime. Last fall, a bipartisan Senate agreed to shift $80 million into crime prevention programs like Weed & Seed, the Boys and Girls Clubs, and DARE--only about one-quarter of what was authorized by the 1994 Crime Act for prevention in 1996. As we started on a new version of the budget this spring, a separate bipartisan vote of the full Appropriations Committee again set aside $80 million for a broad range of local crime prevention--less than 5 percent out of the $1.9 billion local law enforcement block grant. Despite these votes, and continuing bipartisan support on the Senate side, our $80 million in crime prevention funding was quietly stripped out of this legislation, leaving only a small increase for Weed & Seed and the Boys and Girls Clubs, and entirely neglecting those areas that do not have one of these programs. After all these months, we are shut out--and so are all of the young people who are looking for a little help in their efforts to get off the streets and stay out of prison. The 1994 Crime Act authorized a reasonable 80 percent to 20 percent split between law enforcement and prevention. But this budget wipes out almost all prevention funding. As any professional in the juvenile justice system will tell you, that is a big mistake. I am also disappointed with the conferees' action on agricultural credit. The fiscal year 1996 agriculture appropriations bill was completed by Congress and signed by the President in a timely manner last year, and therefore we have not needed to include regular agriculture funding in any of the continuing resolutions. However, there is an agricultural credit provision in this bill, which seeks to rectify a credit provision of the recently passed farm bill that I believe is very unfair. The farm bill provision in question essentially prohibits farmers from receiving USDA loans or loan guarantees if they ever had their debts restructured. During the 1980s, the Federal Government actively encouraged farmers to restructure and write down their debts. Now the new farm bill tells farmers that they are barred from getting more loans if they took that advice, even if they are creditworthy today. In my mind, that's close to a breach of contract. A number of us in this body have cosponsored a bill S. 1690, introduced by Senators Conrad and Grassley, that would provide some short-term relief for farmers that have been caught by this mid-stream change of policy by delaying implementation of these unfortunate credit eligibility provisions for 90 days. Further, as a member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, I have also been working with others to try to craft language to be included in this continuing resolution to resolve this matter. While there is a provision included in the bill to try to provide some relief, I believe that it is far too narrow because it doesn't address the plight of farmers with farm ownership loans that have been approved, but not yet obligated. Even under the credit provision included in this bill, those farmers will be denied those loans that they had previously been promised. To address this problem, 11 Senators recently signed a letter asking for the necessary revisions to the provision. I am discouraged that these efforts were rejected. All in all, I think this bill is a victory for fiscal sanity and a victory for education, health care, and the environment. Unfortunately, the battle went on too long and extracted too high a price--the uncertainty for Federal fund recipients, the Government shutdowns, the partisan budget negotiations, and the divisive parliamentary maneuvering around the 13 continuing resolutions. We should strive for a similar end next year. But lets hope that our means of getting there is more sensible, more bipartisan, and more productive. national commission on restructuring the irs

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I would like to honor Ronald Van De Hey for his outstanding service to Outagamie County and the entire Fox Valley area as he resigns from his position as county executive. Ron started his career in public service as a school board member in 1972. In 1982 he was elected mayor of Kaukauna, where he served for 9 years. His experience as mayor made him an excellent choice for the position of Outagamie County executive, where he has served with distinction since 1991. Ronald Van De Hey has always had a strong commitment to the people of his community. He was active not only in his elected positions but as a member of charitable and professional organizations as well. Foremost in Ron's mind was always the desire to improve the lives of his fellow citizens. His colleagues will remember his diplomatic manner. His ability to work with people on all sides of an issue and achieve a compromise everyone can feel good about will be sorely missed. While Ron was flexible, he also knew when to stick to his guns and rely on the strength of his convictions. In the role of the executive he was willing to make the tough decisions, even when it was not the popular thing to do. Ronald Van De Hey is an excellent illustration of the quality people who serve in local government. He has set an example of public service, not only for other county officials, but for everyone who holds elected office at the local, State or Federal level. I wish him all the best in his future endeavors. I am sure he will continue to be a valuable asset to the Fox Valley area.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise as an enthusiastic cosponsor of the Health Insurance Reform Act of 1995 and call on my colleagues to keep this straight-forward measure clear of legislative land mines. Passing this bill will help address a problem all too common in our health care system--the fact that people can lose their insurance coverage when they get sick even if they have paid their premiums. Mr. President, there are a number of bipartisan initiatives that can and should be passed before we adjourn this fall. Chief among these proposals is this Health Insurance Reform Act. Under the strong bipartisan leadership of Chairman Kassebaum and Senator Kennedy, the bill unanimously passed the Labor and Human Resources Committee 8 months ago. It has since languished in the confounding waste zone between full Committee endorsement and Senate floor action because some are opposed to even narrow health reform. Last Congress the American people called for comprehensive health reform. Unfortunately, consensus could not be reached on a single plan. Instead, the country watched in disappointment as a golden opportunity for health reform fizzled out. Partisan fights and interest group influence won the day. It will serve no good purpose to rehash the health reform battles of the past. We now have the opportunity to move beyond party squabbling. Congress can clearly demonstrate the will to enact a bipartisan health reform bill. Or we can choose to remain gridlocked and at the mercy of special interests. I believe that choice is an easy one. Fortunately, there still is a broad consensus in this country in favor of health insurance reform. Americans want to know that they won't lose coverage if they or someone in their family gets sick. Individuals and businesses want the ability to pool resources to get the best insurance coverage possible at an affordable price. The Health Insurance Reform Act does not seek to change our Nation's health care structure drastically. Instead, it takes a careful approach to remedy widely acknowledged problems in the health insurance market. For the first time, preexisting condition exclusions would be limited, health coverage availability and renewability would be guaranteed, and small business group purchasing would be easier. At the same time, State flexibility would be maintained. Many States have taken the initiative and made notable progress by enacting market-related reforms. But States are unable to achieve the most effective reforms because some businesses have federally protected self-insured health plans. This bill provides continuity by applying the same standards to all employment-based plans. The bill is also notable for what it does not do. It won't require employer mandates, limit provider choice, set up new bureaucratic health structures, or create a global health spending budget. Many strongly believe that health care reform should go farther than this bill. In fact, many Senators, including myself, worked hard last Congress on comprehensive measures to control health costs and expand health coverage. But those efforts turned out too complex to retain broad support. We now have a more narrow consensus measure that can pass. Yet some Senators may offer a whole host of amendments to address special concerns. A few of these are popular, others problemmatic. The sponsors of this bill have taken careful steps to ensure that the bill is narrow and bipartisan. It should remain that way. For that reason, I too will oppose controversial, special interest amendments. As we learned from previous attempts at reform, a consensus bill may be the only way we can pass health reform this year. I urge my colleagues to refrain from condemning this bill under a weight of controversial additions. Nonetheless, we should not hold out on improvements if they are bipartisan and avoid endangering final passage. As a long-time supporter of health care fraud and abuse legislation, I believe it is imperative that we act to tackle rampant abuse. If strong anti-fraud provisions, such as those included in Senator Cohen's anti-fraud bill, can be added without stalling the bill, they most certainly should. Similarly, provisions helping the self-employed afford insurance and incentives for long-term care may be possible. However, there are other compelling issues that, if attached to the Health Insurance Reform Act, may kill this bill. We should not ingore those issues. They can and should be taken up at a later date. Mr. President, if we keep this bill clean, we will take a huge step toward addressing compelling insurance problems facing the Nation. In the process, Congress will prove that it can act in a bipartisan fashion to help hard working Americans. There are over 40 million people without health insurance in our country. I am proud to say that Wisconsin has one of the lowest numbers of uninsured people. However, there are still too many Wisconsinites without health coverage and still too many who fear losing their coverage. The Health Insurance Reform Act will not solve all of the problems plaguing our health care system, but it does fill a huge gap by solving job lock. Workers will no longer have to live with the fear that if they change their jobs, they may lose their health coverage. No doubt, there is special interest opposition to this bill. It is a rare legislative initiative that doesn't have critics. But this bill is a positive first step. The Health Insurance Reform Act does not provide a handout to the public. No one gets a free ride at the expense of insurance companies. People must maintain their payments for a full year-and-a-half before qualifying for coverage guarantees. They also must be ineligible for another group policy and exhaust their COBRA benefits. Finally, people will still have to pay the rates charged by insurance companies. These requirements were added to minimize affects on insurance premiums. However, it is important to note that States would not be prevented from going further on insurance reform. Mr. President, you cannot satisfy everyone, but this bill comes close. While there are opponents and critics on both sides, a large majority of Americans support passage. If Senators need more impetus to allow this bill to go forward, the General Accounting Office estimates that passing the Health Insurance Reform Act will help 25 million Americans each year obtain or retain health coverage. That evidence alone is a compelling reason to pass a clean bill. Mr. President, Americans have had little proof this session that Congress can act to help solve problems plaguing their families. Let's give them one good reason to have greater confidence in their elected officials and this institution. We should get the job done and pass the Health Insurance Reform Act now.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, earlier today I noted the serious problem this Congress faced in 1994 when it tried to take on too many health care-related issues under one bill. We learned that painful lesson during debate on the President's health care reform proposal. For that reason, I mentioned that some amendments that would come up today, no matter how meritorious, should be considered on future measures and not impede passage of the Health insurance Reform Act. Several amendments required votes today that, in another context, I would have strongly supported. The issue of life-time caps, and treatment of mental health coverage were passionately debated and deserve the attention of this Congress. My votes on these issues were not intended to approve or disapprove of their merits. My overriding concern was that they could complicate this narrowly crafted proposal and jeopardize any chance at health reform this year. The sooner we pass this bill to address insurance problems of pre-existing condition exclusions, portability and renewability, the sooner we can address other pressing problems that affect the quality of health care in this Nation. In the interest of time, I believe we should pass a clean health reform bill. I also believe that Congress should carefully consider several of the measures that failed today as soon as possible.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I thank my friend from Delaware. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of this motion to recommit, and I also want to speak generally about the terrorism measure before us. In sum, we should approve this legislation because it is the best we are likely to get and the best we can do for the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing. But I believe the record should be clear that we should have done better. For many years, we have watched with growing concern as terrorist violence has escalated and reached closer to our homes. We can no longer ignore the fact that post-cold war violence knows no borders, and respects no distinction between soldiers and innocents. For that reason, Senators Biden and Specter and myself introduced legislation to fight international terrorism last February. We broadened our legislation to reach domestic terrorism after Oklahoma City. And building on this, the Senate overwhelmingly supported a strong, bipartisan proposal. That is not the proposal we are debating, however, today. We are now considering a version of that bill which is far more watered down. Still, if we cannot enact a strong and decisive antiterrorism bill, this measure will do at least some good. For example, it will still provide law enforcement with new weapons to choke off terrorist fundraising, new powers to deport suspected terrorists, and the ability to ``tag'' plastic explosives. All of these provisions will help reduce the threat of terrorism, all are constitutional, and in their entirety they make this measure worth saving. Unfortunately, other parts of the conference report are more problematic. The conferees deleted Senate provisions that would prevent new technology from undermining our wiretap laws. The conferees prohibited the military from using its resources to help fight chemical and biological weapons. And the conference also added some troubling items. For example, our subcommittee held 14 days of hearings on Ruby Ridge and issued a report that was praised across the political spectrum--by Janet Reno and by militia leaders. So why do we need to have a so-called Commission reopen this matter? Similarly, why does a study of cop-killer bullets suddenly appear in this bill? Is this really necessary? Is it really an important part of our fight against terrorism? I believe the answer is no. The best arguments against the motions to recommit seem to be this: Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the expedient. Or we have to accept the bad in this bill to finally enact some of the good. Well, in a certain sense that is true. But America should clearly understand that this is not what we here in the Senate agreed to. America should know that this legislation has been used to forward a political agenda that does not advance the cause of preventing terrorist acts. America should understand that while this bill does something for the memories of the Oklahoma City victims, it could have done much more. So I will support this conference report--on balance it is better than no bill at all--and I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont. Mr. President, we have heard many good things about this farm bill and the promises of market orientation and positive reform that it brings to farm policy, but I believe a more critical examination of this bill demonstrates something entirely different, and so I want to refute some of the assertions that have been put forth during this debate. I think every Member of the Senate would agree that agricultural policy needs reform. The realities of production, markets and budgets change rapidly, and therefore what is demanded is a periodic revamping of agricultural policy. I agree that we need greater market orientation in farm policy, and I agree that we need less Government intervention into the production decisions of farmers. However, we also need a farm policy that is defensible to all citizens of our country, and I believe that this bill will ultimately fall short in this very important regard. The structure of current farm programs is basically to provide a safety net, making supplemental payments to farmers only when prices are low, and freeing farmers to make their money from the market when prices are sufficiently high, as they are currently. In contrast, this bill offers farmers a so-called guaranteed payment every year for the next 7 years, based entirely on their past production, regardless of market prices. If market prices are high, as they are today, farmers will receive the same payments as they would in times of low prices. In fact, farmers will not even be required to plant a crop in order to get the Government payment. I have a very hard time defending this as a wise expenditure of Federal dollars. Another assertion about this bill that I challenge is the idea that the goal of simplification and flexibility in farm programs requires guaranteed payments to farmers, even if they do not plant a crop. We all agree that farmers should have greater planting flexibility and that the Federal Government should get out of the business of dictating planting decisions to farmers. But again, farm programs must be defensible to all citizens of our country, not just those few in a position to reap short-term windfall profits from the Government. Another assumption that the casual observer of this farm bill debate might be tempted to make after listening to the debate is that this bill cuts the cost of farm programs. Yet, a quick analysis of the cost projections for this bill indicates that in the first 2 years of this bill the taxpayer will be required to pay an additional estimated $4 billion for farm programs over what they would pay under the current program. Why? Because the taxpayer will be required to make large cash payments to farmers in times of expected high market prices, as opposed to making payments to farmers only in those years when prices are low. While these are a few of my concerns about the overall structure of the bill, as a Senator from Wisconsin, my overriding concerns are with the dairy provisions of this bill. And in that regard I believe that this bill offers a very mixed and a dangerous message. On the one hand, I am hopeful that the milk marketing order reform provisions of the final farm bill will give the USDA the tools that are necessary to bring about greater regional equity in milk pricing policies and to make the milk marketing order system more reflective of today's markets. The bill instructs the Secretary of Agriculture to consolidate and reform orders within 3 years, and essentially instructs him to do so without consideration to the existing price system established by the 1985 farm bill. I think this is a positive change, and I am very hopeful it will bring about a marketing system that is more defensible in today's economy and more equitable to all the dairy farmers of our country. However, I am stunned by the inclusion of another provision of this bill, which I believe goes in the complete opposite direction of market orientation, and that is the northeast interstate dairy compact. While the bill does not approve the compact, it does explicitly give the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to do so on a temporary basis if the Secretary determines that there is a compelling public interest in the area. My colleagues will recall that during the Senate consideration of the farm bill, we voted to strike the northeast dairy compact from the bill. In doing so, the majority of the Senate demonstrated their disagreement with efforts to establish what amounts to regional dairy cartels, and on the House side the northeast dairy compact never was included. So it is very hard for me to understand how a dangerous provision like this can appear in a conference report when it has been clearly rejected by both Houses of Congress. In my mind, Mr. President, that is back-room dealing at its worst. It is true that some provisions have been added to the compact to try to blunt its negative effects. Other safeguards that had been agreed to in previous debates were deleted. But my overriding concern about the northeast dairy compact is now and always has been one of dangerous precedent. Since my first day in the Senate, I have fought to make Federal dairy policy more equitable to the dairy farmers of the Upper Midwest. Most agricultural economists, and now even the Secretary of Agriculture, agree that the current milk pricing policies have had a disproportionately negative effect on the farmers of my region, and I am hopeful that the milk market order reform provisions of this bill will help reverse that injustice. But I fear that even the most equitable milk market order reforms will be meaningless in the long run if we start allowing regions to segregate themselves from the rest of the country economically through efforts like the Northeast Dairy Compact. Our country and its Constitution are built on the concept of a unitary market without barriers. While I appreciate the efforts that have been made to water down the ill effects of the compact, I strongly believe that the long-term ramifications of this compact on a State like Wisconsin, which depends so heavily on national markets, are ominous. A New York Times editorial this past weekend stated the following about the Northeast Dairy Compact: A House-Senate conference committee has managed to tarnish the most important farm bill in years by inserting a last- minute provision for a New England milk cartel that would gouge consumers and violate the free market concept that has made the 1996 farm bill worthwhile. The regional milk monopoly is the very opposite of the kind of reform this bill was meant to provide. It will now be up to those who support true market-oriented dairy pricing reform to make that case to the Secretary of Agriculture and to assure this regional compact does not come into effect. Lastly, while this farm bill eliminates the 10 cent per hundredweight budget assessment that all dairy farmers hate, its net effect on dairy farm income will be negative. In fact, I know of no other farmers that are asked to give up their price safety net as dairy farmers are through the elimination of the Milk Price Support Program without providing some sort of direct transition payment to soften the blow. While I question the wisdom of the overall structure of this bill, it would seem only logical to apply that structure equitably across commodities, and this bill does not do that with respect to the dairy farmer. So I will cast my vote against this farm bill. I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment to raise the minimum wage. This amendment presents the Senate with a unique opportunity to address one of the most pressing anxieties for America's lower and middle-class workers--stagnant wages. By passing this amendment, Congress can take a small step to help reverse the shrinking purchasing power and suppressed living standards of America's lowest paid workers. The amendment before us 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 year's will not solve the economic problems of the working class nor will it break the bank; but it will help working families. Mr. President, over 12 million workers would directly benefit from an increase in the minimum wage--over 210,000 of those workers live in Wisconsin. Contrary to assertions of minimum wage opponents, this amendment would not wreak havoc on job availability. In fact, a large group of prominent economists, including three Nobel prize winners, recently endorsed a minimum wage increase. These economists assert that the moderate Federal minimum wage increase will not significantly jeopardize employment opportunities. The Kennedy amendment represents such a moderate increase. Mr. President, the plight of the American worker has received more attention in speeches during recent political primaries than through the policy decisions of the 104th Congress. During the first session of the 104th Congress, we have seen proposals to cut education, job training, and workplace safety programs. Perhaps most inexcusable are the severe cuts proposed in the earned income tax credit for low paid working Americans. These are the same workers who are held down by the artificially low minimum wage. Mr. President, the economy appears healthy, unemployment is down and millions of jobs have been created over the past 3 years. Yet the average American worker remains uneasy. Real wages have become stagnant and many Americans have discovered that their standard of living has decreased over the years. It has been almost 5 years since the minimum wage has been increased. Studies indicate that after the minimum wage was increased in 1991, the real value of the wage has fallen by nearly 50 cents. Furthermore, the real value of the minimum wage is 29 percent lower than it was in 1979. If this trend continues, the value of the minimum wage will plummet to a 40-year low by 1997. The importance of increasing the minimum wage looms even larger today as Congress attempts to balance the budget and cut spending for welfare, worker education and training, the earned income tax credit, child care and other resources that families use to stay afloat economically. 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, 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. It is time for Congress to remove this issue from Presidential politics and take real legislative action to address the economic problems facing the American worker. Raising the minimum wage will not solve all of the problems of low- wage workers, but it will go far in demonstrating that Congress can act to help those on the lowest rung of the economic ladder. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and pass the minimum wage increase.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss one of the most difficult issues facing our democracy--campaign finance reform. First, we must recognize that our democratic system has come a long way in the last 30 years. Information on who finances campaigns and how that money is spent is now available to any citizen. With the advance of the Internet, most of this information can be found through your home computer. But, while disclosures laws passed in the 1970's have worked largely as intended, other reforms instituted at that time have created a new set of problems. In order to more clearly identify who was contributing to campaigns, Congress created a new mechanism for democratic involvement--Political Action Committees. Twenty years ago, PAC's were seen as positive vehicles to channel special interest dollars through public organizations. Unfortunately, the proliferation of PAC's and special interest contributions in our election system has overtaken most other forms of democratic involvement. Because of the high costs of running campaigns, especially the cost of purchasing television ads, American political campaign funding is dominated by special interest contributions. It should not surprise us that the American public has become increasingly cynical as this trend has become worse. This public disillusionment contributes to pessimism about the future of our Government and has led to a disturbing lack of faith in our democratic institutions. Despite the good efforts of many grassroots citizen organizations and elected officials, every attempt in Congress to reform the campaign finance system since 1979 has failed. This lack of progress is not the fault of one political party or one branch of government. Democrats and Republicans have tried to push through meaningful reform for the last two decades, and reasonable people can disagree about the best course for the future. But, this gridlock must not be allowed to stand any longer. The American public is demanding a fundamental change in the way campaigns are financed and we must act this year to implement that change. These are the reasons that I am cosponsoring S. 1219, the Senate Campaign Finance Reform Act. This legislation, sponsored by Senator McCain and my Wisconsin colleague Russ Feingold, is the first meaningful bipartisan campaign finance bill to be seriously considered in two decades. The fact that the House of Representatives has a similar bipartisan bill only adds credibility to this proposal. S. 1219 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 twenty years. And 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 renew America's faith in our elections and curtail the influence of special interest contributions. I am pleased to add my name as a cosponsor of this bill, and urge my colleagues to join us in this important effort.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the sense-of-the- senate resolution on the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP]. This resolution calls on the President to release additional LIHEAP funds this year, and recognizes that forward funding for next year is critical to the LIHEAP program. Mr. President, according to the calender, Spring has almost arrived, but freezing weather is still expected for the Upper Midwest. There is still a very real need for LIHEAP assistance. Mr. President, we came perilously close to disaster earlier this winter because of cuts to LIHEAP and the failure of the Congress to finalize spending for the year. Thankfully, President Clinton was able to release emergency funding when extended and severe cold weather spells threatened to result in a crisis situation for thousands of people in my State of Wisconsin and throughout the Nation. LIHEAP has traditionally received forward funding by the Appropriations Committee so that States will know what to expect and may plan for the next heating season. Forward funding this year also served to prevent partisan budget fighting from holding up emergency help. Even though many important programs were held hostage during the Government shut-downs, forward funding allowed the President to release critical heating assistance when it was needed the most. Despite the President's action, the LIHEAP program was still hit with $400 million in cuts from previous levels, which represented a 25- percent loss this winter. LIHEAP has continued to receive severe cuts even though home heating represents a disproportionate cost for low income households. Recent reductions in the program has led to steep shortfalls for States and prevented many families from qualifying for assistance. In Wisconsin, over 126,000 families depend upon the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. This year, Wisconsin families have been forced to confront an annual reduction of $100 due to LIHEAP cuts. Given the funding shortfall this winter and the real prospect that severe weather conditions will likely drag on over the next month, it is important that remaining Federal assistance be allocated to the States. This resolution would call on the President to use his authority to do just that. Low income families and elderly people struggle year in and year out with bitter cold weather and ever rising heating costs. For these families, the LIHEAP program has provided life-saving help when heating bills or needed furnace repairs become impossible. We must preserve LIHEAP and allow those who still need help this year to receive emergency assistance. We should also affirm the Senate position and make sure that LIHEAP is prepared to meet energy assistance needs in the future through forward funding. I urge my colleagues to support this sense-of-the-Senate resolution.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Go right ahead.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I come here as an original cosponsor of the Daschle-Harkin education amendment. With this amendment, we have the opportunity to answer a daunting question for school administrators, teachers and parents across the country: How much does this Congress value education? With this amendment, we can make the right choice. By passing it, we can prove to our children and their teachers that Congress will back up its words extolling the virtues of a good education with actions that will provide a good education. This amendment does not represent empty promises. It brings education funding back to last year's level and is paid for with real spending cuts, not with the fund contingent on some uncertain future event. Last week, the Appropriations Subcommittee for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education heard from the Secretaries of these agencies. As a member of that subcommittee, I was stunned by the extent that education and job training programs have been hampered by the sharp cuts in the current continuing resolution and by disruptive Government shutdowns. Despite these warnings, the Appropriations Committee reported a new continuing resolution containing over $3 billion in cuts to education and job training resources. My own State of Wisconsin will be hit with a $20 million cut in education, including almost $1.5 million less for Goals 2000, $2 million in vocational education cuts, $4.5 million in cuts to the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, and a debilitating $12 million cut in title I, which is the money that goes to our most disadvantaged young students. Supporters of this continuing resolution will argue that there is over $3 billion in education money provided, contingent upon Congress passing entitlement reform. Mr. President, school administrators cannot bank on some unknown budget breakthrough that may happen in 2 or 3 weeks or perhaps not even at all. I hope we do get a breakthrough on a budget deal, but these school officials need to make budget decisions for the coming school year right now. Let us present our school officials, our parents and their children with real solutions and not illusions. Our amendment takes the education priorities identified under the contingency account and pays for them right now. Real offsets are provided for real restorations in the title I program, school to work, drug-free schools, Goals 2000, higher education and Head Start. Mr. President, no one believes that balancing the budget is easy, but people do question the priorities of the 104th Congress. People do question why the Pentagon was given $7 billion in spending it did not even ask for or need when, in fact, education is slated for huge cuts. People do question why we would shortchange education when noncontroversial offsets exist to pay for continuing funding at last year's level. I am a strong advocate of balancing the budget. To get to that goal, I know we have to consider cuts in programs that we all support, and I am willing to do so in every area, except in core education programs. Reducing our spending on education is perhaps the most unbalanced and unfair act that this Congress can take. We have already saddled our children with Government debt topping $5 trillion. It is unconscionable at the same time to take away the tools that will allow them to earn money to pay off that debt. When I ran my own business, Mr. President, the people I hired were the best people with the best education. What was true for our chain of stores at that time is true in the national and international marketplaces as well. Study after study has shown that the wages and quality of life of workers are directly related to their educational achievement. In the international economic arena, the country with the best educated work force will inevitably get the high-paying, high- technology jobs in the future. To leave the next generation with huge debts is disgraceful. To leave them with an education deficit as well, I believe, is criminal. Skimping on education funding runs counter to almost every stated goal of this Congress. How can we reach a sustained balanced budget without giving the next generation the tools that they need to grow the economy? How can we reform welfare into a work program without giving our young people the skills they need to get and hold good jobs? How can we address the income disparity in our country if we deny students the quality education that will allow them to improve their standard of living? I believe that our choice today is stark. We want to give our children the education they need to keep this country's economy healthy and to keep their standard of living decent. I hope that the Senate will make the right choice--to choose the future and pass the Harkin education amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL. Yes. It is my understanding that the offsets for the education amendment are not controversial and they were agreed upon during previous budget negotiations and have been scored by the CBO. What I have is $1,359,000,000 from the privatization of the uranium enrichment offset, $1,320,000,000 from extending the NRC commission fees, and $292 million from the sale of the strategic petroleum reserve. So those are the offsets that have been agreed upon and have been scored. So I am satisfied and comfortable that we are not only adding back, as you point out, over $3 billion in education funding, but we are also providing an equivalent amount of cuts.

Mr. KOHL. I thank my colleague.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KOHL. I did offer, as I say, something like $3 billion, very close to $3 billion, in cuts that have been debated and agreed upon. This Uranium Enrichment Corporation cut from extending the Nuclear Regulatory Commission fees, and the $292 billion from the sale of the strategic petroleum reserve, this totals up to $3 billion, very close to the $3.1 billion we are talking about in terms of education.

Mr. KOHL. Well, I think that we are debating whether or not the offsets that I have offered are legitimate. I think for the most part they are. They are legitimate, I think, to the extent that we are missing, perhaps, just a relatively small portion to get to $3.1 billion. I think we need to work a little harder to get there, because it is a question of priorities. If we do not feel the priority, then we will not find it. You never do. You have to feel the priority, or those of us who feel strongly about it feel strongly enough so that we feel we have to fund those offsets so that we can in fact make this priority one of educational needs a reality and not find a way to not accomplish it.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I introduce the Juvenile Jail Improvement Act of 1996. We face a growing and frightening tide of juvenile violence. And that tide is threatening to swamp our rural sheriffs. It is increasingly common for rural sheriffs to face a terrible dilemma every time they arrest a juvenile--they either have to release a potentially violent juvenile on the street to await trial or they have to spend invaluable time and manpower chauffeuring the juvenile around their State to an appropriate detention facility. Either way, the current system makes little sense and needs to be changed. Let me explain how this dilemma works. In most rural communities, the only jail available is built exclusively for adults. There are no special juvenile facilities. But sometimes, the community can create a separate portion of the jail for juveniles. However, under current law, a juvenile picked up for criminal activity can only be held in a separate portion of an adult facility for up to 24 hours. After that, the juvenile must be transported--often across hundreds of miles--to a separate juvenile detention facility, often to be returned to the very same jail 2 or 3 days later for a court date. This system often leaves rural law enforcement criss-crossing the State with a single juvenile-- and results in massive expenses for law enforcement with little benefit for juveniles, who spend endless hours in a squad car. Such a process does not serve anyone's interests. And that is not all that rural sheriffs face. Even qualifying for the 24-hour exception can be a nightmare. That's because juveniles can be kept in adult jails only under a very stringent set of rules. Keeping juveniles in an adult jail is known as collocation. It can only be done if there is strict sight and sound separation between the adults and the juveniles as well as completely separate staff. For many small communities, making these physical and staff changes to their jails is prohibitively expensive. So sheriffs faced with diverting officers to drive around the State in search of a detention facility may chose to let the juvenile free while awaiting trial. This prospect should frighten anyone who is aware of the growing trend in juvenile violence. Today, I am introducing legislation that is designed to cure this problem. My legislative solution is simple, straightforward and effective. It extends from 24 to 72 hours the time during which rural law enforcement may collocate juvenile offenders in an adult facility, as long as juveniles remain separated from adults. It also relaxes the requirements for acceptable collocation. After taking a hard look at how the collocation rules have worked--and in what ways they have failed--this legislation comes to a reasonable compromise, and, as a result, it has the support of the Badger Sheriffs Association. Mr. President, one of our most important goals is assuring that any changes to these rules does not sacrifice the safety and welfare of arrested juveniles. In addition to the growing fear about juvenile violence, we have witnessed a growing anger and frustration at juveniles. That frustration should not lead us to forget the painful lessons we learned many years ago about abusive and dangerous treatment of delinquent children. Twenty years ago, we learned about kids who were thrown in jail where they were victimized and abused by adult prisoners; or where, without proper supervision, they committed suicide; or, where, guarded by people who only had experience with adult prisoners, they were disciplined savagely. When we give in to the temptation to just throw juveniles in jail and teach them a tough lesson, we are often ill rewarded. So even as we loosen these collocation requirements, we must bear in mind that the juvenile justice system still has as its principle goal rehabilitation, not harsh retribution. My conversations with administrators, sheriffs, and juvenile court judges have led me to conclude that we must bring greater flexibility--and less redtape--to the Juvenile Justice Act. It is my hope that this legislation--which offers greater flexibility while retaining important protections regarding the separation of juveniles from adults--will meet with strong support from the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I introduce the Juvenile Jail Improvement Act of 1996. We face a growing and frightening tide of juvenile violence. And that tide is threatening to swamp our rural sheriffs. It is increasingly common for rural sheriffs to face a terrible dilemma every time they arrest a juvenile--they either have to release a potentially violent juvenile on the street to await trial or they have to spend invaluable time and manpower chauffeuring the juvenile around their State to an appropriate detention facility. Either way, the current system makes little sense and needs to be changed. Let me explain how this dilemma works. In most rural communities, the only jail available is built exclusively for adults. There are no special juvenile facilities. But sometimes, the community can create a separate portion of the jail for juveniles. However, under current law, a juvenile picked up for criminal activity can only be held in a separate portion of an adult facility for up to 24 hours. After that, the juvenile must be transported--often across hundreds of miles--to a separate juvenile detention facility, often to be returned to the very same jail 2 or 3 days later for a court date. This system often leaves rural law enforcement criss-crossing the State with a single juvenile-- and results in massive expenses for law enforcement with little benefit for juveniles, who spend endless hours in a squad car. Such a process does not serve anyone's interests. And that is not all that rural sheriffs face. Even qualifying for the 24-hour exception can be a nightmare. That's because juveniles can be kept in adult jails only under a very stringent set of rules. Keeping juveniles in an adult jail is known as collocation. It can only be done if there is strict sight and sound separation between the adults and the juveniles as well as completely separate staff. For many small communities, making these physical and staff changes to their jails is prohibitively expensive. So sheriffs faced with diverting officers to drive around the State in search of a detention facility may chose to let the juvenile free while awaiting trial. This prospect should frighten anyone who is aware of the growing trend in juvenile violence. Today, I am introducing legislation that is designed to cure this problem. My legislative solution is simple, straightforward and effective. It extends from 24 to 72 hours the time during which rural law enforcement may collocate juvenile offenders in an adult facility, as long as juveniles remain separated from adults. It also relaxes the requirements for acceptable collocation. After taking a hard look at how the collocation rules have worked--and in what ways they have failed--this legislation comes to a reasonable compromise, and, as a result, it has the support of the Badger Sheriffs Association. Mr. President, one of our most important goals is assuring that any changes to these rules does not sacrifice the safety and welfare of arrested juveniles. In addition to the growing fear about juvenile violence, we have witnessed a growing anger and frustration at juveniles. That frustration should not lead us to forget the painful lessons we learned many years ago about abusive and dangerous treatment of delinquent children. Twenty years ago, we learned about kids who were thrown in jail where they were victimized and abused by adult prisoners; or where, without proper supervision, they committed suicide; or, where, guarded by people who only had experience with adult prisoners, they were disciplined savagely. When we give in to the temptation to just throw juveniles in jail and teach them a tough lesson, we are often ill rewarded. So even as we loosen these collocation requirements, we must bear in mind that the juvenile justice system still has as its principle goal rehabilitation, not harsh retribution. My conversations with administrators, sheriffs, and juvenile court judges have led me to conclude that we must bring greater flexibility--and less redtape--to the Juvenile Justice Act. It is my hope that this legislation--which offers greater flexibility while retaining important protections regarding the separation of juveniles from adults--will meet with strong support from the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, my remarks will be very brief. This afternoon--after the vote on the Cuba resolution--the Senate is scheduled to vote on a third motion to invoke cloture on the D.C. appropriations bill. The first motion was rejected by a vote of 54 to 44. Last Thursday, the Senate rejected a second cloture motion by a vote of 52 to 42. Today, I urge my colleagues to reject this motion as well. The time has arrived for the Senate to move beyond single issue politics to address the urgent needs of our Nation's Capital. It is clear that there is a significant--and unresolvable--difference of opinion on the scholarship program proposed in the conference report. Repeated attempts to move this report have failed, and I am certain that the question of vouchers will not be settled on this particular legislative vehicle. I believe it is time now to move forward with the many other reforms that will begin to put the District on a sound fiscal and operational footing. As Chairman Jeffords and others have indicated, the District is about to experience a serious cash shortage. If the remainder of the Federal payment is not released within the next 2 weeks, the city will be unable to pay its bills or to provide essential services. The debate over the scholarship program has been a robust and informative one but it is time to move on. So I urge my colleagues to vote against the cloture motion.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, just 2 days ago, on Tuesday of this week, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the conference report H.R. 2546, the District of Columbia appropriations bill. The vote was 54 to 44. For the benefit of Members who may have turned their attention to other matters, let me inform the Senate that we are about to repeat Tuesday's vote. However, and unless Chairman Jeffords otherwise indicates, I am unaware of any developments affecting the issues that led the Senate to reject the first cloture motion. My position therefore remains the same, and I urge Members to vote against the motion to invoke cloture. Although I am urging Members to oppose the motion at hand, I do so with great reluctance. As Chairman Jeffords and I have already indicated, the District is in dire financial straits. The Chairman of the Control Board, the Mayor, and other officials agree that the city will run out of cash if the balance of the Federal payment--some $212 million--is not released within the next several weeks. We need to act, not to debate. With respect to the voucher program set forth in the conference report, the Senate has spoken. We need to respect the decision of this body and move forward to develop a legislation that will allow the city to pay its bills and operate in an orderly fashion. Mr. President, the Senators who voted against cloture on the conference report are not satisfied with the status quo in the D.C. public school system. In my opinion, it is a national disgrace that children in our Nation's Capital do not have access to schools that prepare them to succeed in an increasingly competitive global economy. I believe that all of us agree that District schools need to change, and that they will be changed. The conference report includes a broad array of reforms that received bipartisan support. These reforms address many of the shortcomings in the District's schools and I urge my fellow conferees to work with congressional leadership to find a way to enact them. Mr. President, I know other Senators would like to address the Senate so I will yield the balance of my time to Senator Kennedy. Thank you and I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator from Vermont about a provision in the conference report that concerns me. That is section 2353(c), which requires that $1.5 million of funds available to the board of education be used to develop new management and data systems. I am informed that the amount required to be used for such purpose exceeds the amount of the board's budget, which, as I understand it, would effectively shut down the District's board of education. Although minority conferees were not permitted to participate in the drafting of much of the conference agreement, I can only speculate that this was not the intent of the majority conferees. I would therefore ask the manager to explain this apparent discrepancy?

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, let me begin by commending Senator Jeffords for his leadership on this important piece of legislation. I greatly admire his enthusiasm and his skill in putting together this difficult bill--especially as it regards education. Senator Jeffords is a long- time advocate of quality education for all our Nation's children, and in the Senate-passed D.C. appropriations bill, he brought some of his best ideas to the children of the Nation's Capital. For example, the chairman has created a consensus commission that will remove obstacles to much needed reform of the District's public school system. The agreement also includes funds for the expansion of Even Start programs for District schools, authorizes establishment of charter schools, and encourages partnerships with business, to facilitate technology assessment and job training initiatives. Unfortunately, the House conferees were adamant in their opposition to the inclusion of any education provisions in the conference agreement--and, for that matter, adamantly opposed to any conference agreement at all--unless a House-sponsored provision related to education vouchers was included in the bill. I did not support this action in conference, and I cannot now support an agreement that includes vouchers. As former chairman of the D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee, I take this step with great regret. Senator Jeffords is an able, effective and dedicated chairman. Under difficult circumstances, he has labored long and hard to craft a measure that will put the District on the road to recovery. I believe that by removing the voucher provision--and by amending the provisions regarding reproductive health and Davis-Bacon-- this report could be adopted by unanimous consent. In my opinion the concept of public funding for private schools is fundamentally flawed. Private schools have selective admissions policies, in some cases enrolling only those students of a particular religion or gender. Public schools do not discriminate: they are charged with educating all children. Our first priority must be to help public schools meet their goal. Unfortunately, this bill does not reflect that priority, and therefore, I will vote against cloture and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I have a longer statement detailing my objections to the voucher provision that I will include in the Record. Mr. President, I hope that we can act quickly to resolve this matter and produce a report which will be acceptable to all Members of the Senate. The District is in dire financial straits and the situation is deteriorating rapidly. It is my understanding that the District will run out of cash within the next several weeks, if this matter is not resolved. Unless Congress releases the balance of the Federal payment, the city will be unable to meet payrolls, pay bills or provide basic services. I therefore urge my colleagues on the other side to stop holding the Nation's Capital hostage in order to debate a subject that would be better resolved on an education bill. Mr. President, it is my understanding that pursuant to the unanimous- consent agreement governing this matter, time for debate has been equally divided between the majority and the minority. For purposes of addressing the issue of vouchers, I have agreed to yield to Senator Kennedy such time as he may consume. I yield the floor. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator and yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like, in closing, to remind Senators that if we allow this kind of a price-fixing scheme to make its way through the Congress, then there will be no way to prevent in a logical way any other group of States setting up similar price-fixing mechanisms under the same justification, not only in dairy but in any other industry. That is not what we intend to do in this country. We need a national market for our products in this country. So every Senator is affected by what will occur if we allow the Northeast Dairy Compact to make its way through Congress. It is for that reason--and the other reasons that we have discussed--that I urge my colleagues to reject the Northeast Dairy Compact. I thank you.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I yield up to 5 minutes of our time to Senator Feingold.