Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, every year the United States sends billions of dollars overseas for foreign aid and military operations trying to bring peace and prosperity to troubled regions around the world. Our help often comes too late and seldom alleviates the root of the dilemma. Overcrowding and rapid population growth exacerbates many causes of conflict around the world, like ethnic tensions, economic disparity, and struggle over scarce resources. The population of our planet has ballooned rapidly from 2 billion in 1935 to almost 6 billion today, and will reach 8 billion by 2025. Ninety percent of this growth will occur in the most troubled regions of the Third World, increasing their already difficult tasks of peace and economic development. Stable population growth could help these regions achieve their goals by improving economic conditions, lessening the stress on scarce resources, raising the quality of life, and facilitating economic development. Increasing the awareness of population growth focuses the efforts of our Government, and governments around the world, on finding solutions to this problem. To focus attention on population expansion, the State of Wisconsin has declared October 22-28 World Population Awareness Week. I hope Wisconsin's effort to increase sensitivity on this issue will be joined by other State and local governments. World Population Awareness Week is the first step toward stable population growth and a [[Page S 15260]] better and more peaceful life for everyone on the planet.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment which I will send to the desk after I explain it. The amendment is being offered on behalf of myself and Senator Cohen, and cosponsors also include Senator Biden and Senator Snowe. In last year's crime bill, Mr. President, we authorized $300 million--somewhat in excess of $300 million--for crime prevention. The split, as you recall, was 80 percent for law enforcement and 20 percent for prevention. The reasoning at that time was if we are going to have a balanced crime bill, we have to be willing to spend some modest amount of money on effective crime prevention measures and that an 80-20 split between law enforcement and crime prevention was reasonable, and we passed the crime bill on that basis. Well, what we are attempting to do today is strike virtually all of that crime prevention money. It is an attempt to strike it from this bill so that we will have a bill devoted entirely to spending for law enforcement to the total exclusion of crime prevention. It seems to me that is not what we intended to do and that is not what we should do and not what our country needs. There is no question that spending a modest amount of money in a crime bill on trying to set up programs that have a proven record of success at keeping young people from getting involved in crime in the first place, setting up a modest amount of money in a crime bill to do these kinds of things is a reasonable effort. It should not be sidetracked. We debated it at great length last year before we passed the crime bill and decided on an 80 to 20 split. There are programs like the block grant programs. There are weed and seed programs. There are programs which have been evaluated and demonstrated to work. What I am suggesting is that we put back 25 percent, which is $80 million, out of that over $300 million that was authorized last year for prevention. I and Senator Cohen, Senator Biden, and Senator Snowe are desiring to put back $80 million in proven effective crime prevention programs. Now, that money is being taken from overfunding of the FBI for this year. When I say overfunding, it is $80 million that the FBI did not ask for, that the President did not ask for, that the House did not fund. It is an extra $80 million that has been given to the FBI. [[Page S 14644]] We are taking that $80 million and putting it into a very modest account to fight crime by way of prevention. And that is what this amendment is all about. Before Senator Cohen speaks, I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I will call for a rollcall vote, but I want to answer briefly what the Senator said. The FBI this coming year is funded at a 15-percent increase over last year. There is not a single request the FBI has made for funding that we have not authorized and are prepared to fund, without--without--this $80 million. This $80 million is over and above everything that the FBI has authorized, the President has requested and the House has funded. He talks about midnight basketball league, and that is a synonym for money that we think is wasted on prevention. As Senator Cohen pointed out, this money is block granted to States. They do not have to spend it on midnight basketball. We have decided that much of the money we are spending at the Federal level the States can spend much more effectively. You have made that argument time and time again. Let the Governors, let the local government spend the money, not Washington. That is what these crime prevention programs are aimed at. These crime prevention programs, if the Governors so wish, could be spent on programs like DARE. Everyone in this Chamber understands and recognizes that DARE is a program that works. So midnight basketball is not where these funds are going to be expended. They are going to be given to States and Governors and local governments to spend as they see fit. Again, the argument is that in any crimefighting bill, a certain amount of money, modest as it is, needs to be spent on trying to prevent it from occurring in the first place, and I do not think that there are any Senators, or many Senators in this Chamber who would not agree with this principle. And that is all this amendment intends to do. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Objection.

Mr. KOHL. Objection withdrawn.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, if anyone wonders why people do not trust Congress, an answer lies in what we have done with the crime issue. What Congress is doing, Mr. President, is worse than nothing. Congress is, in fact, breaking a public promise to the American people. One year ago last week, the President signed into law a tough, balanced, bipartisan crime bill after years of political infighting. That bill devoted 80 percent of its resources to punishment and 20 percent to prevention, and it reflected a mainstream consensus. Democrats and Republicans agreed that we need to put more police officers on America's streets. Democrats and Republicans agreed that we need to build more prisons to house violent criminals. Democrats and Republicans agreed on the importance of prevention efforts targeted toward at-risk youth. And Democrats and Republicans agreed that all of this would be financed from a trust fund that dedicated money saved through reductions in Federal personnel. In just 1 year after that public agreement, the COPS Program has funded more than 25,000 police officers who go after crime where it happens--on our streets. More than 200 communities in Wisconsin alone have received funding and the COPS Program has enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support among law enforcement in my home State. But do not take my word for it, Mr. President, ask the police chiefs and sheriff's--mostly Republican--who apply for these grants. My office surveyed these front-line people, and found that 85 percent of Wisconsin law enforcement officers support last year's crime bill. Moreover, almost 80 percent specifically support maintaining the current COPS Program, and oppose turning it into a block grant. This support comes through loud and clear throughout the State. In the words of one Wisconsin police chief: This is the first time in my 17 year career that I have seen the Federal Government put together a program that helped small police agencies that did not bury the department in paper work, and had a reasonable turn around period. We have already hired an officer under this program and the results are very noticeable. Our community is glad to have the increased police services and at a cost they can afford. [[Page S 14694]] And this kind of effectiveness has been amazingly inexpensive--less than 1 percent of all COPS funds are spent on administration. How many other organizations--whether public or private--can say that? And what will happen to this effective and efficient program under the downsized block grant of this appropriations bill? The numbers tell the sad truth: When State and local matching funds are not spent on cops--but on anything any Governor could arguably label a basic law enforcement function--fewer cops will patrol our streets. When $200 million is slashed from Federal funding for police officers, fewer cops will patrol our streets. And when the 14,000 communities that have applied for grants must start over--competing with every imaginable basic law enforcement function--fewer cops will patrol our streets. Fewer cops on the street--that is not what we promised last year, and it is not what most Americans want. That is why more than three- quarters of the mostly Republican law enforcement officials in my State oppose block granting and want us to preserve the COPS Program. Mr. President, Americans have every right to feel cheated if this Congress becomes absorbed in Presidential politics and ignores its commitment to safety for the sake of a soundbite. Giving our citizens fewer cops to fight a growing crime problem is not only bad policy--it is also bad politics. Because ultimately our Government depends on the faith of its citizens for support. Reversing ourselves on our commitment to fulfill one of our most basic obligations--to protect the public from crime--only undermines our credibility with the American people. To preserve that credibility, we should all vote in favor of restoring the COPS Program. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, this is the second time the Senate will vote on the President's striker replacement Executive order and, I hope, the second time the Senate affirms the Executive order. Our Nation's labor laws grant workers the right to strike and ensure that they cannot be fired during the course of a strike. To tell a worker who may have given many years of dedicated and loyal service that he or she has not been fired but permanently replaced is no consolation to that worker or their family. In my many years as a businessman, I negotiated numerous labor contracts. I always understood that the workers were negotiating on behalf of themselves and their families. On some occasions, I stood firm. On other occasions, I gave way. On all occasions, I believe, both sides made concessions. We reached an agreement and went back to business. That was the process. Mr. President, not once during those strikes did it ever occur to me that those workers would lose their jobs for striking. Not once did it occur to me that permanently replacing them was an acceptable practice. And yet today, you can see advertisements for permanent replacement workers even before the expiration of a labor contract. The key to collective bargaining, Mr. President, is balance and good- faith negotiation. The President's Executive order does not deny that labor disputes are going to occur. But it does acknowledge that such disputes should be fairly negotiated. The Executive order is not unprecedented and is justified by helping to improve the quality and efficiency of Government contracts. It does so by encouraging companies that contract with the Federal Government to maintain a fair and stable working environment with their employees. And stable working conditions lead to increased productivity. Contractors that choose to permanently replace lawfully striking employees during a workplace dispute not only risk damaging labor- management relations. They also risk disrupting the quality and progress of their Federal contract. In simple terms, it is just bad business practice to hold the club of permanent replacement over the heads of employees. History shows that strikes involving permanent replacements last up to seven times longer than strikes that do not involve permanent replacements. It is common knowledge that such strikes tend to be much more contentious, often changing a limited dispute into a broader, more antagonistic struggle. Most importantly, it is common sense that permanently replacing strikers means trading experienced, skilled employees for inexperienced ones. Inexperienced replacement workers start at the bottom of the learning curve, a circumstance that can sometimes have grave consequences in productivity and quality. With the President's Executive order, we can avoid such grave consequences under federally funded Government projects. I urge my colleagues to remove the restriction on this legitimate Presidential Executive order.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate voted not to restore funding for the Americorps Program and with great reluctance, I opposed the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Maryland. I did so not because the Corporation for National and Community Service is a bad investment. In fact, I am a strong supporter of the AmeriCorps Program and believe community service can make a big difference in our society. Unfortunately, the amendment restored AmeriCorps funding at the expense of other important Federal programs. Mr. President, I have seen first hand the positive results of the AmeriCorps Program. It has shown great promise in addressing today's urban and rural problems by uniting communities. Program participants in Wisconsin have worked hard to fight hunger, provide child care, combat illiteracy, and build low-income housing. By dedicating service to their communities, participants receive a small stipend and assistance to further their education. Corps participants are also able to leverage private resources in carrying out their activities, which adds to the effectiveness of the Federal investment. I am distressed that the Senate has decided not to fund the national service program and strongly believe the AmeriCorps Program merits continuation. But the amendment relied on alternative funding sources that I could not accept, including raising FHA's loan limits. Mr. President, it is no secret that in the past I have opposed efforts to raise the FHA's loan limits. My position on this issue is clear and I will not take this time to recite all of the reasons that I oppose raising the loan limits. I will, however, say that raising the loan limits will not help the low and moderate-income home buyers who should be the prime beneficiaries of FHA's efforts. For the record, I also note that I would have gladly worked with the authors of the amendment to find other more appropriate offsets, if only I had received sufficient advance notice of the amendment. Community Development Financial Institutions Fund

Mr. KOHL. The Senate has proposed a $14 million cut from fiscal year 1995 for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the House proposed a $7 million cut from fiscal year 1995. The House report on H.R. 2099 specifically calls for continued ATSDR funding for this study on consumption of contaminated fish and the harmful human health effects. Continuing this incomplete study will allow us to develop strategies of prevent harmful human health effects from consumption of contaminated fish. Understanding the consumption trends of Great Lakes fish is only helpful if we can draw conclusions from that information and then develop strategies to prevent harmful human health effects from this significant exposure pathway. Will the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies be willing to work with our colleagues in the House to ensure adequate funding to complete this important, far-sighted research?

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Bingaman.

Mr. KOHL. We have no debate on the amendment. We are prepared to accept it.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, this amendment that I am offering on behalf of Senator Bingaman is intended to reduce the energy costs of the Federal facilities for which funds are made available under this act. This amendment has been attached to nearly all of the other appropriations bills and reemphasizes the energy conservation requirements mandated under the Energy Policy Act of 1992. I understand that there is no objection on the other side of the aisle.

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

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, this amendment is a technical amendment to remove a possible constitutional challenge to the Commission on Consensus Reform in the D.C. public schools. The amendment provides that the President shall appoint two of the commission members from a list provided by the majority leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. There is a constitutional question whether these congressional leaders could directly appoint members of the commission. This amendment cures that potential problem.

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

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished subcommittee chairman, Mr. Jeffords, for his hard work and dedication in bringing this measure to the Senate floor. The fiscal year 1996 District of Columbia appropriations bill is the result of a bipartisan effort. It cleared the Senate Appropriations Committee by a vote of 28 yeas to 0 nays. The bill includes a Federal payment of $660 million, which is the same as the President's budget request and the previous year's level. The bill also provides the overall budget for the District of Columbia. That budget has been developed and presented to the Congress by city officials and the Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority for the District of Columbia, otherwise known as the Control Board. The Control Board was created earlier this year by the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Act of 1995. The bill recommends a balanced budget for the District government. The funding levels recommended in the budget are the same as those recommended by the Control Board. The Board is expected to work with the Mayor and City Council to oversee and make further reforms in the District's budget, finances, and operation. The bill would also establish a seven-member Commission on Consensus Public School Reform. The Commission, which is strongly supported by the subcommittee chairman, will seek to develop reform goals and approve and oversee annual reform implementation plans for the school system. The bill would also establish procedures for public charter schools to open in the District, which would offer innovative educational approaches and opportunities to District students. In addition, the bill calls for city officials and the Control Board to develop options for consolidating and modernizing the public school infrastructure. Mr. President, I again commend the distinguished subcommittee chairman and urge the adoption of the bill. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I must reluctantly object to the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from West Virginia. While I believe this amendment has many fine parts to it, and it certainly is well-intentioned, I believe that it would interfere with the development of a cooperative relationship between the Congress and the District. I have consistently supported the principle of home rule, and I continue to feel that it is a very important objective. I do not intend to debate my distinguished colleague. But I do feel it necessary to lodge my objection. I hope at some point that we will have a rollcall vote.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, we are also prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, this side also accepts the amendment.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I thank my colleague from Nebraska.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I offer a brief comment. We might as well be voting up or down on this amendment. I think it is a mistake to say, ``Let us leave it up to the Secretary of Agriculture.'' If you leave it up to him, he is going to do it. He is going to do it because that is the way things work. He has to live every day with the distinguished head of the subcommittee, Senator Cochran. He has to deal with him on many matters all the time. He is not going to let this interfere. I am not being critical of him or Senator Cochran. It is just the way things work. So this decision to leave it up to him, we might as well say let us vote it because that is the way it will work. So I think we ought not to misunderstand what the nature of this amendment is and the nature of what Senator Cochran is requesting. It is really should we or should we not authorize the payment of $41 million? Because that is exactly the way it will work. Of course, Senator Kerrey and I are suggesting it is an inappropriate thing to do.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join the Senator from Nebraska in offering an amendment to increase funding for critically important rural development programs, offset by the elimination of the ad hoc cotton disaster provision included in this bill. The cuts required in this year's Agriculture appropriations bill are very difficult. Both the chairman and the ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee have done an admirable job with this bill under very difficult budgetary circumstances. However, there is one major provision in this bill to which I must object, and that is the $41 million ad hoc cotton disaster provision. I find this provision inappropriate for two reasons: First, the cotton disaster provision is inappropriate in light of the Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act just passed last year. With great fanfare, Congress passed crop insurance reform legislation to require farmers participating in USDA programs to buy federally subsidized crop insurance, to better prepare for unexpected crop losses. We all hailed the passage of this legislation as being the end to ad hoc crop disaster payments, representing a new era of fiscal responsibility. Despite the near unanimity of our decision to end ad hoc disaster payments, we stand here today debating whether or not to provide ad hoc disaster payments. We made a promise to the U.S. taxpayer last year, and I think we should keep it. The second reason that I find this disaster provision inappropriate is because of the painful cuts required elsewhere in the bill. At a time when core rural development programs are being cut by nearly 30 percent from last year's level, providing $41 million in unauthorized disaster payments becomes even that much harder to accept. Mr. President, the choice we make regarding this amendment goes far beyond any specific crop loss for any specific commodity in any specific year. If we decide to allow this ad hoc disaster provision to remain in the bill, it will set a very bad precedent for crop insurance reform in general in the future. If this provision becomes law, each of us will feel compelled to push for ad hoc disaster assistance payments for crop losses every time our farmers have losses. And our short-lived experiment in fiscal responsibility will have failed. But we can choose the alternate course, and reject this provision and thereby keep the promise that we made to the taxpayers last year to end ad hoc disaster payments for crop losses. So I urge my colleagues to choose the latter course, and support this amendment.