Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator. The first vote is on the Northeast area compact. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Carl Levin be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Feingold, Senator Wellstone, Senator Grams, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Hatch, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this motion to strike the Northeast Dairy Compact. I would also like to point out the 65- to 35-vote that Senator Jeffords and Senator Leahy referred to was a vote on a much broader reconciliation amendment that had other things in it beside the Northeast Dairy Compact, so that was not a clean vote. What we are going to have today on the Northeast Dairy Compact is a clean vote without any other considerations. I hope that will elicit a different and a more correct response than the vote that occurred heretofore. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to add that Senator Pressler is cosponsor of this amendment. He was an original sponsor.

Mr. KOHL. This is a very, very bad amendment. The amendment should not go through. It is anticonstitutional. It only can be authorized by Congress. It should not be authorized by Congress. It would allow six States to set the price of milk in their States and nobody else would be allowed, no other State would be allowed to compete in that market unless they were prepared to meet that price. If you can imagine, this is not the way we conduct the American economy. No State would like to be the subject of that kind of a restriction. It would allow other States at other times to come to Congress and ask for permission to set prices. We do not set prices in this country. We allow commerce to proceed in a competitive way. The Northeast area compact is specifically an action to prevent that. The proponents will say that we voted 65 to 35 for this. We have not voted 65 to 35 for this before. The previous vote was on several different provisions on a much broader agricultural amendment. It was not an up-or-down vote on the Northeast area compact. It is bad policy for this Congress, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to strike the amendment.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to call up our amendment.

Mr. KOHL. I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. President, today, I and others rise in opposition to the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. While we have only a short time to discuss this matter, I think that it is important to fully understand its ramifications--for farmers of other regions, for consumers in the Northeast, and for the principle of free trade within our country. As I have said before, it is difficult for me to stand here and oppose my friends from the Northeast in their efforts to help the dairy farmers of their region. But I feel that this is a very important issue, and that it is the wrong thing to do. The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact is a regional compact unlike any we have seen before. It is an effort by six Northeastern States to wall themselves off from the rest of the Nation economically. The compact would bring about artificially increased milk prices in the Northeast, for the benefit of the farmers in those States, at the expense of that region's consumers, without regard to market forces. And it would do so by imposing a prohibitive compensatory payment scheme to prevent more reasonably priced milk from coming in from other regions. It is at its heart anticompetitive. I will be the first to say that dairy issues are regionally divisive, and the first to agree that we should get beyond our divisions and find common ground. And I believe that compromise and consensus are possible, even in dairy policy. But the Northeast Dairy Compact ignores all efforts at compromise, and instead is an effort by one region to remove itself from the national system and establish a regional dairy policy. It takes an already outmoded milk pricing system, and twists it even further. While the context for this compact is dairy, I believe its ramifications are far more broad. Make no mistake about it. This compact is unprecedented in the history of the Nation. It is true that the Constitution allows States to enter into a compact with other States, as long as those compacts are approved by Congress. This authority has been used many times, without controversy, by States that seek to address multistate environmental or transportation concerns. But I know of no instance where it has been used to allow States to engage in price-fixing activities, or as a way to circumvent the commerce clause of the Constitution. Congressional approval of this compact is an invitation for all sorts of economic balkanization. The Framers of the Constitution had the foresight to see the dangers of allowing States and regions to erect economic barriers against other States in the Union. Two years ago, when the Northeast Dairy Compact was considered in the Senate Judiciary Committee, many of my colleagues raised valid constitutional concerns with the compact. If we set the precedent today by granting consent to one region of the Nation to wall itself off economically from the rest, we must ask ourselves, where will it stop? If we deny free trade within our own borders, we are whittling away at the economic unity that is one of the core principles of this country. And I will not stand for it. So I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to strike the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact from this bill. I yield to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams].

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, we have a problem in America today: The systematic pilfering of our country's economic secrets by our trading partners which undermines our economic security. It would not be unfair to say that America has become a full-service shopping mall for foreign governments and companies who want to jump start their businesses with stolen trade secrets. Sadly, we are under-unequipped to fight this new war. Our laws have glaring gaps, allowing people to steal our economic information with vitual impunity. So I introduce the Industrial Espionage Act of 1996 with Senator Specter. I am also pleased to cosponsor with Senator Specter the Economic Security Act of 1996. Together these laws will enable Federal law enforcement agencies to catch and vigorously prosecute anyone who tries to steal proprietary information from American companies. Our two measures should be read together as a unified approach to the problem. They are not panaceas, but they are an effort to deal with this problem systematically and comprehensively. The Department of Justice and the FBI have also been extremely helpful in drafting these pieces of legislation, and we look forward to working with them as we move these measures forward. Mr. President, businesses spend huge amounts of money, time, and thought developing proprietary economic information--their customer lists, pricing schedules, business agreements, manufacturing processes. This information is literally a business's lifeblood. And stealing it is the equivalent of shooting a company in the head. But these thefts have a far broader impact than on the American company that falls victim to an economic spy. The economic strength, competitiveness, and security of our country relies upon the ability of industry to compete without unfair interference from foreign governments and from their own domestic competitors. Without freedom from economic sabotage, our companies loose their hard-earned advantages and their competitive edge. The problem is not new. But with expanding technology and a growing global economy, economic espionage is entering its boom years. American companies have estimated that in 1992, they lost $1.8 billion from the theft of their trade secrets. A 1993 study by the American Society for Industrial Security found a 260-percent increase in the theft of proprietary information since 1985. And the theft of these secrets is not random and disorganized. The press has reported that one government study of 173 nations discovered that 57 of them were trying to get advanced technologies from American companies. The French intelligence service has even admitted to forming a special unit devoted to obtaining confidential information from American companies. Let me give you a few examples. Just last year, a former employee of two major computer companies admitted to stealing vital information on the manufacture of microchips and selling it to China, Cuba, and Iran. For almost a decade, he copied manufacturing specifications-- information worth millions of dollars. And armed with it, the Chinese, Cubans, and Iranians have been able to close the gap on our technology leads. Late last year, the FBI arrested this man and charged him with the interstate transportation of stolen property and mail fraud. It appears that the charges may be a bit of a stretch because he did not actually steal tangible property. He only stole ideas. Not all of the theft is sponsored by foreign governments. Domestic theft is as reprehensible and as threatening as theft by foreign governments. For example, in Arizona, an engineer for an automobile air bag manufacturer was arrested in 1993 for selling manufacturing designs, strategies, and plans. He asked the company's competition for more than half a million dollars--to be paid in small bills. And he sent potential buyers a laundry list of information they could buy: $500 for the company's capital budget plan; $1,000 for a piece of equipment; $6,000 for planning and product documents. Sadly, current civil remedies are inadequate to deal with these problems. Although many companies can privately sue those who have stolen from them, these private remedies are too little, too late. A private suit against a foreign company or government often just goes nowhere, and the company continues to use the stolen information without pause. Similarly, our current criminal laws are not specifically targeted at protection of proprietary economic information. Most of our Federal theft statutes deal with tangible property and not intellectual property. Federal prosecutors have done a valiant job finding laws they can use against these people, but they need something stronger and more coherent than what they have gerry-rigged. Mr. President, the Industrial Espionage Act and the Economic Security Act provide the solution we need. These measures are simple, straightforward, and effective. They carefully define proprietary economic information--the data that corporations privately develop and need to maintain in secrecy. People who steal that information in order to harm the business that rightfully owns and developed it are subject to criminal penalties. They can serve up to 15 years in jail. And if the theft is sponsored by a foreign government, the penalties are even harsher. Moreover, the bills include forfeiture provisions, so that people will not benefit from their illegal acts. They authorize the President to impose sanctions on countries that engage in these activities. And they assure companies that their proprietary information will not seep out during a criminal persecution. We need to take steps to stem the flow of information out of our country. We need a new law that definitively and harshly punishes anyone who steals information from American companies. Over the coming months, these measures will provide a framework for our discussions about the best way to solve this problem, and we plan to hold hearings on them in both the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, we have a problem in America today: The systematic pilfering of our country's economic secrets by our trading partners which undermines our economic security. It would not be unfair to say that America has become a full-service shopping mall for foreign governments and companies who want to jump start their businesses with stolen trade secrets. Sadly, we are under-unequipped to fight this new war. Our laws have glaring gaps, allowing people to steal our economic information with vitual impunity. So I introduce the Industrial Espionage Act of 1996 with Senator Specter. I am also pleased to cosponsor with Senator Specter the Economic Security Act of 1996. Together these laws will enable Federal law enforcement agencies to catch and vigorously prosecute anyone who tries to steal proprietary information from American companies. Our two measures should be read together as a unified approach to the problem. They are not panaceas, but they are an effort to deal with this problem systematically and comprehensively. The Department of Justice and the FBI have also been extremely helpful in drafting these pieces of legislation, and we look forward to working with them as we move these measures forward. Mr. President, businesses spend huge amounts of money, time, and thought developing proprietary economic information--their customer lists, pricing schedules, business agreements, manufacturing processes. This information is literally a business's lifeblood. And stealing it is the equivalent of shooting a company in the head. But these thefts have a far broader impact than on the American company that falls victim to an economic spy. The economic strength, competitiveness, and security of our country relies upon the ability of industry to compete without unfair interference from foreign governments and from their own domestic competitors. Without freedom from economic sabotage, our companies loose their hard-earned advantages and their competitive edge. The problem is not new. But with expanding technology and a growing global economy, economic espionage is entering its boom years. American companies have estimated that in 1992, they lost $1.8 billion from the theft of their trade secrets. A 1993 study by the American Society for Industrial Security found a 260-percent increase in the theft of proprietary information since 1985. And the theft of these secrets is not random and disorganized. The press has reported that one government study of 173 nations discovered that 57 of them were trying to get advanced technologies from American companies. The French intelligence service has even admitted to forming a special unit devoted to obtaining confidential information from American companies. Let me give you a few examples. Just last year, a former employee of two major computer companies admitted to stealing vital information on the manufacture of microchips and selling it to China, Cuba, and Iran. For almost a decade, he copied manufacturing specifications-- information worth millions of dollars. And armed with it, the Chinese, Cubans, and Iranians have been able to close the gap on our technology leads. Late last year, the FBI arrested this man and charged him with the interstate transportation of stolen property and mail fraud. It appears that the charges may be a bit of a stretch because he did not actually steal tangible property. He only stole ideas. Not all of the theft is sponsored by foreign governments. Domestic theft is as reprehensible and as threatening as theft by foreign governments. For example, in Arizona, an engineer for an automobile air bag manufacturer was arrested in 1993 for selling manufacturing designs, strategies, and plans. He asked the company's competition for more than half a million dollars--to be paid in small bills. And he sent potential buyers a laundry list of information they could buy: $500 for the company's capital budget plan; $1,000 for a piece of equipment; $6,000 for planning and product documents. Sadly, current civil remedies are inadequate to deal with these problems. Although many companies can privately sue those who have stolen from them, these private remedies are too little, too late. A private suit against a foreign company or government often just goes nowhere, and the company continues to use the stolen information without pause. Similarly, our current criminal laws are not specifically targeted at protection of proprietary economic information. Most of our Federal theft statutes deal with tangible property and not intellectual property. Federal prosecutors have done a valiant job finding laws they can use against these people, but they need something stronger and more coherent than what they have gerry-rigged. Mr. President, the Industrial Espionage Act and the Economic Security Act provide the solution we need. These measures are simple, straightforward, and effective. They carefully define proprietary economic information--the data that corporations privately develop and need to maintain in secrecy. People who steal that information in order to harm the business that rightfully owns and developed it are subject to criminal penalties. They can serve up to 15 years in jail. And if the theft is sponsored by a foreign government, the penalties are even harsher. Moreover, the bills include forfeiture provisions, so that people will not benefit from their illegal acts. They authorize the President to impose sanctions on countries that engage in these activities. And they assure companies that their proprietary information will not seep out during a criminal persecution. We need to take steps to stem the flow of information out of our country. We need a new law that definitively and harshly punishes anyone who steals information from American companies. Over the coming months, these measures will provide a framework for our discussions about the best way to solve this problem, and we plan to hold hearings on them in both the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senator Kennedy. This amendment would go a long way toward easing fears of educators and parents alike by locking in education at a strong level under this funding measure. Holding education funding hostage during the ongoing budget struggle is wrong. In the process of reaching a budget agreement we should not leave education programs underfunded and adrift in uncertainty. Absent a miraculous and quick resolution to those issues holding up the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill, we should approve funding for education consistent with last year's levels. The Kennedy amendment would do just that. Mr. President, shutting down the Government as a budget bargaining ploy was the height of fiscal irresponsibility. The piece-meal, short term budget measures are not much better. Although necessary to end or prevent further Government shutdowns, the temporary spending bills have meant severe reductions in education resources. Many critical education programs have been cut by 25 percent under the short term spending bills. As a result, school administrators and parents are left wondering whether the Congress really is committed to education. The American people know that improving our elementary and secondary schools, and increasing access to higher education are sound investments. Like money spent on our Nation's defense or a safe environment, resources directed toward educating young people is essential to our competitiveness and quality of life in the next century. We all profess to support our students and communities, but now is the time for action and not just words. As we demand that students stay in school, study harder, and act responsibly, we must fulfill our own responsibilities to children and their schools by passing a strong education budget. Communities in each of our States are waiting for us to pass annual legislation so that they can make decisions on what to fund and what must be sacrificed. Superintendents and school boards are trying to act responsibly and balance their own budgets for next year, yet their hands are tied until the Congress takes decisive action. This amendment would assure educators, parents and students that Congress is commited to improving education. Such an assurance is long overdue. I am pleased to support the Kennedy amendment and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Russ Feingold, Thad Cochran, and Trent Lott, to congratulate Green Bay Packers' quarterback, and Kiln, MS, native Brett Favre for winning the 1995 National Football League Most Valuable Player Award. After leading the Green Bay Packers to their first National Football Conference [NFC] Central Division title since 1972, Brett Favre ran away with the National Football League Most Valuable Player voting, capturing 69 votes from a nationwide panel of 88 sports writers and broadcasters. Favre's numbers speak for themselves, as he threw an NFC record 38 touchdown passes for over 4,400 yards passing. This would be considered an amazing accomplishment for any quarterback; however, couple it with nagging injuries over a 17-week season, and you've described the iron-willed ``Leader of the Pack,'' Brett Favre. Brett Favre has emerged as a true star in the National Football League. His Most Valuable Player Award is the first for any Green Bay Packer since 1966, when then Packer quarterback and MVP Bart Starr led the Green and Gold to its first of two Super Bowl championships. The Packers and all their loyal fans hope history repeats itself this year. On behalf of Wisconsinites and Green Bay Packers' fans everywhere, I congratulate you, Brett Favre, on your MVP season and a job well done.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I thank my colleague from Minnesota. We are from the same geographical part of the United States so we have the same problem, and my outlook on this problem that we are facing is very similar to Senator Wellstone's. We have 130,000 low-income families in Wisconsin who desperately depend on this energy assistance. They are, all of them, families who live at or beneath the poverty level, and they are understandably and without question in need of this assistance. For whatever reason, the face of Government this week is on display to our country. We are going to demonstrate whether or not we understand here in Washington what it is to be poor and to be living in bitter cold and whether or not we are prepared to respond to that desperate need that these low-income families have for energy assistance to heat themselves and their families on their meager resources. For reasons that are not understandable, we here in Washington have decided to fund this energy assistance, not when it is needed as we have been doing heretofore in the program, which is to say, get the money out during the winter months, but we have decided not only to cut LIHEAP but also to fund it in 12 equal annual installments. Anybody listening to this debate this morning knows that that does not make any sense. The money needs to be gotten out during the winter months, this month and next month, and sending out that money to these low-income families in June and July and August does not make any sense when they need the money in December and January and February. If we are not able to respond to that need, as Senator Wellstone has said, now, this week, by tomorrow, we will have demonstrated that we do not have the compassion to understand what is going on in our country and what the purpose of Government is, if it is not to help those who are in genuine desperate need. So we have a crisis, and we have an ability to respond to that crisis. We are talking about, as Senator Wellstone has said, a total amount of money of less than $1 billion, which is a cut from what it had been last year. LIHEAP last year was funded at $1.3 billion. We decided to cut it to $1 billion. As Senator Wellstone pointed out, the House wants to zero out the program entirely. That debate between the House and the Senate has not yet been resolved. But, in the meantime, we have a continuing resolution which does fund LIHEAP at a billion dollars, and we have to see to it that that money gets out to those people in desperate need of now. The next day or two will demonstrate what the face of our Government is and what it is we are interested in depicting to the people of the United States, whom we represent. So I urge my colleagues, along with Senator Wellstone and many others--53 Senators have signed a letter urging the negotiators to act quickly, with dispatch and without delay, on this urgent need. I urge my colleagues to see to it that our negotiators here in Congress, and in the administration, act in a way which is sensible and compassionate for those in our country who need our help so urgently at this specific time.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, the question of sending American men and women on a dangerous mission, whether it be to fight a war or, as in this case, to strengthen a fragile peace is always a difficult one. A healthy debate has been carried on across the Nation, and it is clear that Americans are reluctant to send U.S. forces in harm's way. While I share that reluctance, my reluctance does not stem from a sense of isolationism; but rather, I am reluctant to commit our troops when the situation on the ground is so tenuous. I understand that the combatants themselves have asked us to help them implement the Dayton accords; however, I remain skeptical about their commitment to peace. I question whether the presence of a large NATO force will be enough to overcome the daunting challenge of national reconstruction facing all the Bosnian people. And, given the deep hatreds that exist there, I wonder how realistic it is for us to think that once United States troops leave Bosnia the peace will hold. At the same time, what are our alternatives? I agree that the situation on the ground may have been different if the President had heeded Congress and lifted the arms embargo. However, as one of our colleagues pointed out to me recently, even if the administration had agreed to lift the arms embargo and the Bosnian Moslems had been better armed, there still would have been the need for a peace accord, and we would still be facing the difficult question of whether to send in United States ground forces to guarantee the peace. After 4 years of anguish over the atrocities in Bosnia, I believe we have a responsibility to try to end this war. We cannot turn our backs on the innocent men, women, and children who have lived through the unspeakable atrocities committed by all sides. We cannot turn down a request that is probably the last and best opportunity to end this harrowing civil war. At the same time, we cannot allow emotion to sway our decisionmaking about sending United States ground troops into what until now has been a war zone. We would all like to see an end to the bloodshed in Bosnia, and an end, for that matter, to bloodshed everywhere. But, it is disingenous to say that we are sending ground troops to Bosnia out of a sense of moral responsibility that we must police the entire world. We have already determined that neither do we have the desire nor the means to be the world's policeman. Recognizing we are not the world's policeman does not mean that there are no circumstances under which we should send U.S. troops abroad. If we are to take advantage of winning the cold war and retaining our capacity to shape events in this changing era, then we must demonstrate leadership and be willing to take risks for peace. The difficult question is, when should we take these risks? I have always held that any determination to commit U.S. troops abroad should meet four criteria: One, there must be a clear and compelling issue of national interest. Two, the benefits must outweigh the cost of endangering American soldiers. Three, there must be an established plan of action--including plans for troop withdrawal. And, four, there must be support and involvement of the international community. Unfortunately, without the stark black and white of the cold war to guide our foreign policy, it is less clear when our vital national interests are at stake. The world has become a far more complicated place, and there is much disagreement over whether there is a vital national interest at stake in Bosnia. Some say this is a European problem and we should leave it to the Europeans to solve. Indeed, the Europeans realize that they have more at stake here than we do. That is why they are supplying the majority of the forces and why they are providing most of the funding and technical support for the crucial task of rebuilding Bosnia. Then, why could not this be a European-led mission with American support? Frankly, the Europeans have been indecisive and unable to do this on their own. Yet, if this civil war rages on, it poses a serious threat to European stability. Just as that possibility poses a threat to our European allies, it also threatens us. That is why America must assume the mantle of leadership. The future stability of Europe is, and always will be, in our national interest. We have fought two major wars in Europe, and in the 50 years since the end of World War II we have committed U.S. troops and resources to the defense of Europe and to the leadership of the NATO alliance. Because of our ties to Europe--historically and economically--it is in our interest for NATO to be strong and it is in our interest to continue to lead NATO. That said, do the potential benefits of this mission outweigh the costs? There are many ambitious--I might say overly ambitious--goals laid out in the Dayton accords: The return of refugees, the negotiation of arms control agreements, the prosecution of war criminals, and the reconstruction of civil institutions. I am pessimistic about the prospects for realizing many of these nation building goals in the short term. Nonetheless, I believe there is still a potential benefit to participate in a strong peacekeeping force. The ominous warnings of many opponents of this mission belie the fact that the NATO Implementation Force is not embarking on a combat mission, nor is it a mission to impose a peace. This is not Somalia. Furthermore, our troops will not be leading the nation building efforts. This is not Haiti. This mission is in response to a direct request by the combatants to help them implement a peace agreement that they negotiated. The greatest and most achievable goals of this mission are strictly military goals: Separating the forces and creating an environment for the continued cessation of hostilities. And 1 year may not be enough time to rebuild Bosnia, but we cannot underestimate the potential of a 1-year breathing period to lay the groundwork for a more stable peace down the road. How do these benefits measure up against the potential costs? There has been a strong consensus in the United States that sending ground troops at an earlier date would have been too risky and not worth the cost. Are we now risking the same entanglement we so assiduously avoided by sending in ground forces to implement this shaky peace? As peacekeepers, will our troops be a lightening rod for some of the more controversial provisions of the peace agreement many in Bosnia are not sure they want? Over the past few weeks, I have explored these and other issues related to the risks. I have met with the National Security Advisor, and yesterday with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Vice President, and with the President himself to express my concerns directly, and to listen to their responses. I have come to believe that it is most unlikely we will become entangled in a full-scale war. We are participating in a NATO operation to implement a peace agreement painstakingly negotiated over several weeks. The Dayton accords set forth clear military goals for the implementation force. Our troops have a limited mission--limited in the specific tasks designed to strengthen the peace and limited in its duration. We have made no commitment to stay on should the peace fail. And, should all out war break out before the year is up, then we surely will leave. Contrary to the views of some of my colleagues, I believe that Secretary Perry and General Shalikashvili have established a clear plan to action and a clear exit strategy. In the unlikely event that our troops become targets, we have learned from earlier mistakes: Our troops will be well armed, will be sent to Bosnia in sufficient numbers, and will be operating under the right rules of engagement, allowing them to defend themselves fully. To be sure, we can never eliminate all the risks. Even under the best of circumstances, Bosnia is a dangerous place. On balance, however, I believe that this mission is worthwhile. Can we state with certainty that our efforts will pay off, and that the war is over? Unfortunately, it is too early to tell whether the conditions in Bosnia are really ripe for peace. But, that does not mean we should not proceed. If this diplomatic effort fails it will be a failure of the Croatians, the Moslems and the Serbs to take advantage of the international commitment to help them implement the peace. Only time will allow us to test their commitment to the peace accord. In the meantime, we cannot afford to turn our backs on the most serious diplomatic agreement to date. Mr. President, I am disappointed that the majority leader has been compelled by members of his party to have three separate votes on Bosnia. Either we support this policy or we do not. It is too easy to say that the President has made his decision, that he has committed U.S. forces, and then take no responsibility for the mission but still vote to support the troops. In this case, I believe that the President has demonstrated leadership. He has acted in our national interest, and he has done so cognizant of the risks the men and women of our Armed Forces will face. Now that the Bosnian people have taken a step toward peace, we have the chance to do something concrete, specific and finite to help bring this bloodshed to an end. And so I say, let us do it. Mr. President, I will be voting against the Hutchison resolution and in favor of the Dole resolution. I yield the floor. Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL. I yield to Senator Biden.

Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent, if I yield to Senator Biden, that I may speak after Senator Chafee.

Mr. KOHL. I yield my position to Senator Biden, and I will speak after Senator Inhofe, if that pleases the Chair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, we all agree that flag burning is reprehensible. After all, hundreds of thousands of Americans have given their lives to protect the principles that our flag represents, and burning the flag offends the memory of those who made that ultimate sacrifice. Acting on this belief, I voted for legislation to protect the flag. Unfortunately, however, our statute was struck down by the Supreme Court. Although we should protect the flag, we must also approach amendments to the Constitution with great caution. Throughout our 200-year history we have never amended the Bill of Rights--the guardian of the principles and freedoms that our flag represents. During all this time--through a bloody Civil War, two world wars, a Depression, and urban riots--the first amendment has needed no repair. Mr. President, I have great faith that the American flag is strong enough to withstand the foolish actions of a handful of extremists. The Bill of Rights, however, is much more fragile. If we pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit this behavior--deplorable as it is--sooner or later the Government may prohibit other more legitimate types of expression and protest. So to my mind, protecting our revered symbol means ensuring that we do not infringe upon the freedoms that it represents. One of the most persuasive arguments against this amendment came from Keith Kruel of Fennimore, WI. A former national commander of the American Legion, he wrote that ``when the flag is not accorded proper consideration under the present flag code, it upsets patriotic Americans. Rightly so. [but] no one ever has, nor can, legislate a patriot.'' I agree. And do not take my word for it, ask the editorial writers of Wisconsin. Across my home State, from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel to the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram to the Appleton Post-Crescent to the LaCrosse Tribune, these newspapers firmly believe that a flag desecration amendment is a bad idea. I ask that these editorials be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement. In closing, Mr. President, we should all be clear on our opposition to flag burning. But we should also resist this well-intentioned but unwise effort to tinker with the Bill of Rights. The editorials follow: [From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, June 12, 1995] Flag Amendment Ill-Advised Probably nine-tenths of the knuckleheads who get their jollies from burning the American flag or desecrating it in other ways have no idea what freedoms that flag symbolizes. Because these people are stupid as well as ungrateful, they never think about the precious gift they have been given. The irony is that the American flag stands for, along other things, the freedom to express yourself in dumb and even insulting ways, like burning the flag. This is a freedom literally not conferred on hundreds of millions of people. A few years ago, several states passed laws that made it illegal to desecrate the flag, but in 1989 the Supreme Court ruled that such statutes violated the Bill of Rights. Congress is now moving to amend the Constitution itself, so that flag desecration laws can be enacted. That movement is as ill-considered as it is understandable. The Constitution should be amended only reluctantly and rarely, when a genuine threat to our nation emerges and when there is no other way to guard against it. That is why the founding fathers made it so difficult to revise the Constitution, and why, as a Justice Department spokesman pointed out the other day, the Bill of Rights has not been amended since it was ratified in 1792. The unpatriotic mischief of adolescent punks is infuriating. But it is not a serious enough act to warrant revision of the nation's charter. The Bill of Rights exists to protect people whose behavior, however repugnant, injures nothing but people's feelings. The American flag protects even people who burn it; it prevails over both them and their abuse. That is one of the reasons the flag and the nation it stands for are so strong.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I thank the managers for this clarification and for working with me on this important matter.

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, as all the managers of this bill are acutely aware, an emergency outbreak of the parasite cryptosporidium in Milwaukee in 1993 resulted in the deaths of over 100 citizens and caused nearly 400,000 others to become severely ill. I believe that many provisions included in this legislation will be helpful in protecting future generations from the threat of cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants, and I thank the managers for that. Certainly the Milwaukee outbreak has demonstrated the need for strong source water protection programs. In fact, the State of Wisconsin has one of the most respected sources water protection programs in the Nation. However, even with that program, the Milwaukee cryptosporidium outbreak occurred. Although the Wisconsin Priority Watershed Program is primarily a voluntary program, working in a cooperative manner with landowners in targeted watersheds, the program does have the authority to enforce against the small minority of landowners in a targeted watershed who refuse to cooperate with the commonsense conservation efforts of their neighbors. While I know that it is the intention of the managers to create a new, Source Water Quality Protection Partnership Program which is voluntary in nature, I want to be able to assure the citizens of my State that the Wisconsin Priority Watershed Program will not be discriminated against in S. 1316, as a result of having an enforcement authority.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering with Senator Dole will restore the business meal deduction to 80 percent for truckers, long-haul bus drivers, and others subject to Department of Transportation hours of service regulations. My amendment would cost $673 million over 7 years and would be offset by repealing the special transition rule to financial institution exception to interest allocation rules. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL. This amendment will allow family farmers--not farmers who are not farming the land, family farmers--who farm the land for generations, when they sell their farm to roll over up to $500,000 of the proceeds into an IRA account. It only applies to hard-working family farmers. We offset it by requiring those individuals from foreign lands or corporations, foreign lands who own U.S. stocks who are not now subject to tax, when they sell that stock, they will in the future be required to pay a U.S. tax on the sale of that U.S. corporation stock that they own. I think the offset is an outstanding offset and I think the purpose of the IRA is to reward hard-working family farmers. I think it is a really good amendment.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, it is difficult for me to oppose my friends from the Northeast in their efforts to help the dairy farmers of that region. But it is on behalf of the dairy farmers of my State that I feel that I must. Not only because I believe his compact will have a negative effect on the dairy farmers of regions outside the northeast, but also because I believe it to be a inappropriate method of addressing the problems of the dairy industry, which are national in nature. This measure is a regional compact. It is an effort by six Northeastern States to require artificially increased milk prices for the farmers in those States exclusively. It is at its heart anticompetitive, and I believe that it is market distorting. The sponsors of this measure claim that the Northeast is an island unto itself, and that this compact will not affect any other region. I believe that that statement ignores the complexities of dairy markets, which are national in nature. To predict the exact effects of the compact on other regions is nearly impossible. But to assume that there will be none is to turn a blind eye to the history of agricultural policy. My region of the country, the upper Midwest, has learned this lesson all too well. We, in this region, have seen our dairy industry become the victim of unforeseen market distortions caused by the milk marketing order system. This system, which was instituted in the 1930's requires that higher minimum prices be paid to producers the farther they are from Wisconsin. Since the upper Midwest was the traditional hub of dairy production, the purpose of this regional discrimination was to help dairy industries outside the upper Midwest develop, so that every region could have a locally produced supply of fluid milk. But that goal has been largely accomplished, and the policy that was intended to give other regions an artificial ``leg up'' over the upper Midwest, is now contributing to the decline of dairy farming in the upper Midwest. But make no mistake about it. This debate is not only about the upper Midwest. And it is not only about dairy policy. This debate is about the future direction of all agricultural policies. I and many of my colleagues from farm States have been willing to promote farm programs that we believe will provide a safety net to farm prices, to help provide some security for the family farmers of this Nation. But the Northeast Dairy Compact goes beyond anything ever done in a farm bill. And it goes far beyond any other regional compact presented to the Congress for approval. It is the product of one region's frustration with national policies, and an effort by that region to remove themselves from that national system and establish a regional dairy policy. So why is this compact before the Senate? The answer is that the Northeast needs Congress' approval in order to interfere with interstate commerce. The commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution makes it clear that States cannot infringe on interstate commerce. Court case after court case has turned down efforts be individual States to do so. Most recently, in the 1994 West Lynn Creamery, Inc versus Healy decision, the Supreme Court turned down a Massachusetts milk pricing policy that would have artificially increased the price of milk sold in Massachusetts in order to bolster the dairy farmers of that State alone. The Supreme Court turned down that effort as being a clear violation of the commerce clause of the Constitution. At that time, even the State of Vermont argued in opposition to the Massachusetts effort, claiming that it was ``economic protectionism that burdens interstate commerce by interfering with competition.'' But now all six Northeastern States have banded together to do something very similar to what Massachusetts tried to do on its own, and that it to artificially increase milk prices in that region for the benefit of the farmers in that region, and to protect their higher milk price by placing a protectionist tariff on all milk coming into the region for outside. Clearly this too would be considered a violation of the commerce clause if subject to the scrutiny of the courts. However understanding the threat that this constitutionality question poses to their efforts, the Northeast have been very cleaver in getting around that question by packaging the pricing scheme as a compact. The Constitution allows States to enter into a compact with other States, as long as those compacts are approved by Congress. This authority has been used many times, without controversy, by States that seek to address multistate environmental or transportation concerns. But it has never been used to allow States to engage in price-fixing activities. And it has never been used as a way to circumvent the commerce clause of the Constitution. Make no mistake about it. This compact is unprecedented in the history of the Nation. While the context of this compact may be milk pricing, its ramifications are far more significant. Congressional approval of this compact is an invitation for all sorts of economic balkanization. Our forefathers had the foresight to see the dangers of allowing States and regions to erect economic barriers against other States in the Union. They asked the question ``What are we, as a nation, if we do not have a unified economic market?'' Last year, when the Northeast Dairy Compact was considered in the Senate Judiciary Committee, many of my colleagues raised constitutional concerns with the compact. Senator Hatch commented on this matter. He stated: I am afraid that this is the kind of precedent-setting compact that will lead other States to seek the same type of protection, to the economic detriment of all their bordering States. More importantly, I would expect that other industries will line up seeking compacts as a means of protecting their particular States' interests, and we just can't go down that route. On the same matter, Senator Thurmond stated: I believe that Congressional approval of this compact would set a bad precedent. Approval would encourage other regions of our country to form compacts to assist regional producers in a variety of industries at the expense of those outside the region. A breakdown of our nation into regional cartels and economic infighting would be very harmful and should be opposed. At that same mark up in the Judiciary Committee last year, Senator Grassley stated: Historically, these compacts have dealt with border issues, environmental cooperation, and other subjects limited to the member States not having an impact on the rest of the country. . . . Without Congressional approval, I believe that the compact would be unconstitutional. Clearly, if one of the States in the compact enacted State legislation along these lines, the Commerce Clause would be violated. Protection of in-state industry against out-of-State industry is prohibited. I think that we should be very hesitant to allow a group of States to do what a single State could not do under our Constitution. And lastly, my good friend from Illinois, Senator Simon added: I tend to agree with Senator Grassley that this [Compact] is probably constitutional. . . . But what it constitutional is not necessarily wise. Mr. President, the Senate Agriculture Committee has already started the debate on the reauthorization of national farm programs through the 1995 farm bill. It is my sincere hope that as we begin that debate, we can craft dairy policy changes that are beneficial to all the dairy farmers of this country, not just those of one region. I too want to help the farmers of this Nation. But I firmly believe that the Northeast Dairy Compact is the wrong approach. Another provision of this amendment authorizes a class IV price for milk. The rationale for this provision is that since the Senate Agriculture Committee eliminated the price support for milk powder and butter, the prices for those products will fall to world prices. However, the problem is that the class IV price would merely create a tax on all dairy farmers nationwide, to be transferred to the farmers in those few States that have excess milk production, and put that excess milk into butter and powder. In short, this imposes a butter/ powder tax on the dairy farmers of all States, to be transferred to the dairy farmers of those States producing those products. [[Page S 16003]] I urge my colleagues to join me in strong opposition to this compact and the class IV pricing provisions. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I rise today as a strong supporter and original cosponsor of Senator Bradley's motion. It presents a straightforward tradeoff to the Senate. It says restore the tax credit for lower income working families in exchange for cutting some of the tax breaks available to healthy corporations. Before I get into the arguments for this motion, I want to say a brief word on this budget, in general. Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I cannot agree with the priorities established in the budget bill before us today. But what I find more disturbing than the bill itself is the partisan and destructive direction the debate over this budget has taken. We have polarized in extreme political positions firing slogans and half-truths at each other. The two parties agree on many basic principles that could underpin a balanced budget plan. There are billions of dollars and miles of middle ground between the Democratic and Republican budget battle stations. Yet we have chosen to stay locked in our traditional partisan positions. I want to use the few minutes I have today to talk about the ample room for compromise in the current budget debate. I want to remind my colleagues about the principles that bring us together as public servants--rather than those that drive us apart into our partisan political camps. First, we believe in balancing the budget. This is a year in which a majority of the Senators voted for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and a vast majority voted for a 7-year balanced budget plan. Whether we talk about 7 or 10 years, most of us agree it is time to stop adding to our national debt. Whether we cut defense or domestic programs, most of us agree that Government should spend less. Second, we believe that the growth of spending on Medicare and Medicaid must be restrained and doing so will involve difficult cuts. I have heard no one deny that the aging of our population and out-of- control health care costs have put into jeopardy these two basic health care programs. I do not think anyone is seriously suggesting that we can continue to let them grow at their current rates. How much we cut this year, how much we put back into Medicare and Medicaid, how we make those cuts are all legitimate items for debate. Whether cuts need to occur at all is not debatable. Third, we believe that our economy needs to grow and grow in a manner that rewards families who choose work over welfare. A huge majority of this Senate just voted for a welfare bill--a bill included in the budget before us--that radically changes welfare into a flexible program that moves people into jobs. A majority of those who have served in this and past Congresses have support the earned income tax credit, a tax incentive for families that work. Encouraging work-- rewarding work--supporting working families. These ideas are not Democratic or Republican. They are American. On these three points of agreement alone, we could build a credible balanced budget plan. And if we did that, this Congress would be praised for its responsibility, its leadership, and its service. Furthermore, producing a bipartisan budget plan--without partisan bickering, without vetoes, without shutting the government, without press conference--would respond to what people outside the beltway are demanding I strongly believe that Americans want to see us debate the budget, not use it to divide our country. Americans are sickened by the hostile rhetoric, the blind partisanship, the misleading use of figures and facts. They are demanding some honesty, some comity, and some real attempts to craft a balanced budget that a huge majority of them and us can support. That said, Mr. President, the budget before us is not the place to start a fruitful debate on balancing the budget. It has been written without the input of our party, the President, or any outside witnesses brought in for public hearings. It contains too many tradeoffs that I believe are unfair and unbalanced--and that I believe most Americans would believe are unfair and unbalanced. Mr. President a report recently released by the Census Bureau showed the gap between our wealthiest families and low-income families growing to the widest point recorded since the Bureau began taking such measurements in 1967. That income disparity is a cancer that is eating away at economic productivity and the standard of living in this country. Any responsible balanced budget plan would take it into account and would certainly not make it worse. The budget before us makes it worse. The bottom 51 percent of tax filers--those with incomes of less than $30,000--would be worse off under the Senate package than under current law, according to Joint Tax Committee data. Further, wealthy taxpayers--those with incomes above $200,000--would gain an average of $5,088 per taxpayer in the year 2000. How can I justify asking a sacrifice from so many while I myself would get a big tax break under this bill? Mr. President, this basic unfairness--this basic unbalance--is the primary reason I will vote against this budget, and why I do not believe it can form the basis for the compromise we so sorely need. I can and will ask and stand for sacrifices for the common good as long as they are shared sacrifices. But I will not support a bill that imposes real pain on many to provide gain for a few. Mr. President, I am afraid that we are missing an historic opportunity because of our focus on short-term political benefit. If we gave up our infatuation with sound bites and brinkmanship, we have the chance to pass a balanced budget, to undo the economic damage of the last decade. As this debate proceeds, I urge my colleagues on both sides to move toward the position most Americans have already taken: Stop tearing each other down and start building a future for this country with a bipartisan and fair balanced budget. Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I cannot agree with the priorities established in the budget bill before us today. But what I find more disturbing than the bill itself is the partisan and destructive direction the debate over this budget has taken. We have polarized in extreme political positions, firing slogans, and half- truths at each other. Americans are sick of the blind partisanship and misleading use of figures and facts. They are demanding some honesty, some cooperation, and some real attempts to craft a balanced budget that a huge majority of them and us can support. That said, Mr. President, the budget before us is not the place to start a fruitful debate on balancing the budget. It has been written without the input of both parties, the President, or any outside witnesses brought in for public hearings. It contains too many tradeoffs that I believe are unfair and unabalanced--and that I believe most Americans would believe are unfair and unbalanced. Mr. President, this basic unfairness--this basic unabalance--is the primary reason I will vote against this budget, and why I do not believe it can form the basis for the compromise we so sorely need. I can and will ask for sacrifices for the common good as long as they are shared sacrifices. But I will not support a bill that imposes real pain on many to provide gain for a few. I cannot justify asking for a sacrifice from so many when I, myself, would get a big tax break under this bill. Our time is limited, so let me offer three brief arguments for the amendment on the earned income credit before us. First, the amendment would make the balanced budget plan more fair. According to Joint Tax Committee data, the budget before us makes most taxpayers with incomes of $30,000 or less worse off than they are under current law. Compare that with the top 1 percent of taxpayers--those with incomes above $200,000--who would receive a tax break of an average of $5,088 under this budget plan. The primary reason for this imbalance is the cut in the earned income tax credit [EIC]--the only tax break targeted to low-income working families. No one here would claim that balancing the budget is easy or can be done without sacrifices by many people. However, how can we ask a majority of the taxpayers to accept a balanced budget plan in which they lose and a small, wealthy minority wins? That is not balanced, and, once it is fully understood, I do not believe it will be supported by most Americans. Second, the amendment before us keeps a bipartisan promise we made to working families. The EIC was enacted during the Ford administration and supported by every President since then. The EIC represents a bipartisan commitment to keeping low-income working families with children above the poverty line. In short, the EIC makes work pays better than welfare. I have heard almost every Member of this body talk about the importance of moving people from welfare to work. And we need to do that in a manner that is not bureaucratic and not burdensome to business. The EIC does this. If we cannot agree in this body to keep our promise to working families by preserving the EIC, I am afraid there is going to be very little we can agree on. Finally, the amendment before us cuts fat without cutting muscle. Some have characterized the EIC as a program plagued by uncontrolled growth and fraud. If that were the case, we should certainly cut it back dramatically. But that is not the case. Only 5 percent of the cuts in the EIC proposed by the budget are related to fraud--and our amendment keeps those cuts intact. The rest of the cuts re reductions in taxes that go directly to working families. The average annual Federal tax hike proposed in this budget for the 262,000 Wisconsin families who get the EIC would be $457. No one, I hope, is claiming those families--many of whom make around $12,000 a year--are defrauding the Government. No one, I hope, is suggesting that their one tax credit ought to be first on the budget chopping block. Mr. President, we are all agreed that we have to balance the budget, and to do that, we have to reduce entitlement spending. But we have to do so in a way that makes sense and is fair. Cutting an established bipartisan tax credit that encourages work over welfare does not make sense. Cutting it while increasing tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy is not fair. I urge my colleagues to support the Bradley motion.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in reluctant support of the amendment from the Senator from Arizona to cut spending from 12 programs. I am supporting the amendment because, at a time when we are debating a budget bill to cut programs and assistance for the most needy in our society, I find it hard to pass up an opportunity to cut billions of dollars from programs like the B-2 bomber, and oil and gas subsidies. However, while I will support this amendment, I am extremely unhappy with the decision by the proponents of this amendment to cut loan programs for rural electric cooperatives, who depend on those funds to keep utility rates reasonable for rural residents. I am equally unhappy with the choice of the proponents of this amendment to eliminate the Market Promotion Program, on the heels of the successful effort to eliminate the corporate subsidies from that program, and target it toward small businesses and cooperatives. So while I must reluctantly vote in support of this amendment to cut billions of dollars, if it does prevail, I will work to have the Rural Utility Service loans and the Market Promotion Program restored in conference.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise today as a cosponsor of this resolution to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. I strongly believe that Jerusalem is, and will always be, the undivided capital of the state of Israel. The United States Embassy should have been moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem long ago, and I have supported many past efforts to that end. Earlier this year, I joined 91 other Senators in a letter to Secretary of State Christopher urging that our Embassy be moved as soon as possible. Beyond the protocol concerns of maintaining an embassy outside a state's declared capital city, the U.S. Government is ignoring the centrality of Jerusalem to the Jewish people by keeping its embassy in Tel Aviv. Jerusalem is more than just a capital for the people of Israel. Israelis cherish Jerusalem for its historical and religious significance and hold it in great affection. As a result, this continued reluctance to move the Embassy to Israel's precious capital and most important city is perceived as the ultimate diplomatic snub. It is only appropriate that we correct this slight. Jerusalem has emotional resonance that reaches far beyond the Middle East as the religious capital for all Jews and as an important religious site for many other faiths. The Israeli Government has earned our praise in its valiant efforts to ensure that people of all faiths have unhindered access to their holy sites. Unfortunately, Jerusalem has not always been so accessible, as Senator Lautenberg detailed for the Senate yesterday. Mr. President, I have been somewhat skeptical as to whether we can pass legislation that will really move our Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The administration has expressed reasonable concerns that this measure is ill-timed and that in its original form could have had an adverse effect on the peace process. I am pleased that Senators Feinstein and Lautenberg were able to work with the original sponsors of this measure to achieve a compromise to address the administration's concerns. With or without this legislation, I continue to urge the administration to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem as soon as possible. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to send that message to the administration.